18 Comments

Hi doc .. I haven’t read of all of your what must be an exhaustive article ..

Thanks .. I will h go o through all later..!

It’s crazy...

The people that think this is a good idea ???

So many of the things that I are in the medical health institutions /corporations do nothing to improve the health and well being of a population.

In fact you are describing the most devastating collection of weapons of mass destruction that I’ve ever seen!

The silent war ..!

Someone labelled the health system that if I remember correctly!

A friend in Japan has told

me they are rolling out the

“self replicating” one at the moment.

It reminds me of an article by a scientist that worked on the neutrino array in Antarctica.

He said it makes HAARP look like a toy.

The he said that the definition

used to describe it within the government and corporate system was the equivalent of calling a machine gun a bullet storage device !!!

So maybe that’s how they get these evil projects past the dumbass corrupt fools that are suppose to have everyone’s best interest in mind when the demons and sock puppets are busy attempting to destroy everything on this planet including us!

Question: are they stupid corrupt or ignorant ..

Down in Gitmo one can imagine a meme borrowed from a famous war film ..

slightly changed

“ I love the smell of rope early in the morning”!

What’s Clint Eastwood doing these days ?

Expand full comment

Clint, when he leaves this world we would have lost a giant, the best...I so agree with all you have said here. huge hugs for standing in the breach

Expand full comment

Dr Alexander, all of the people pushing this "vaccine" made sure that they were exempt. They haven't died. Their families haven't died, so no, this profit driven "medication" was never needed.

Expand full comment

boom

Expand full comment

One thing that really stands out to me, Dr. Paul, is that although you, Dr. Peter McCullough and others have been mindful of the need for the use of robust and rigorous methodology in the studies of covid, guidelines, safety and efficacy, much of the research is of shit quality and the shit quality research is almost always done by Americans. And if one looks at the names of people who actually give a rat's ass about scientific rigor, and even such basic things as identification and mitigation of confounding variables, they're invariably non-American, e.g.,

A systematic review of methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: Advising resource-constrained settings

" ... Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations .. "

Yot Teerawattananon, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, Chatkamol Pheerapanyawaranun, Siobhan Botwright, Katika Akksil, Natchalaikorn Sirichumroonwit, Nuttakarn Budtarad, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8752025/

COVID-19 vaccine guidelines was numerous in quantity but many lack transparent reporting of methodological practices

" ...Only 28 (26.4%) guidelines reported the methodology they used. Four (3.8%) of guidelines assessed both the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; 42 (39.6%) and 65 (61.3%) guidelines reported their funding sources and conflict of interest, respectively. Most guidelines were published in English (n = 92, 86.8%).

Conclusion

A high number of guidelines on COVID-19 vaccines have been published in the recent months, but most of them lack clear and transparent reporting of methodology, funding, and conflicts of interest. Rigorous methodological and reporting quality evaluation of these guidelines is needed."

Zijun Wang, Hui Liu, Yang Li, Xufei Luo, Nan Yang, Meng Lv, Qi Zhou, Qinyuan Li, Ling Wang, Junxian Zhao, Yunlan Liu, Renfeng Su, Shouyuan Wu, Xiao Liu, Siya Zhao, Qianling Shi, Janne Estill, Xingrong Liu, Wenhong Zhang, Yaolong Chen

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435621004194

Expand full comment

I wrote this and it was published in 2020:

Clinical decision-makers must be informed by the best, most trustworthy, highest-quality, robust evidence. This translates into how much confidence we can have in the research findings and thus be optimally informed for decision-making.

The estimates of effect in clinical research depend on the underlying research methodology.

The overall body of COVID-19 research is very flawed methodologically and underpinned mainly by uncontrolled confounded evidence.

An examination of hydroxychloroquine–azithromycin research findings due to the recent media focus revealed very-low-quality methodology underpins the research. Without a focus on the results, the very serious decisions being made by societies about this drug (and combination) as well as other drugs in COVID-19 research is hampered by the very poor research methodologies.

Vast amounts of time and resources are being allocated to COVID-19 research, and being potentially squandered.

What this adds to what was known?

Flawed methodology and suboptimal reporting of research findings could lead to biased estimates of effect (over-estimates or under-estimates).

This could lead to treatment decisions that are not optimal based on biased estimates which could potentially harm the patient.

This article provides specific suggestions for improving on the COVID-19 research methods and reporting across the breadth of COVID-19 research, with a focus on the issues that researchers must consider in their methodology and reporting if we are to have confidence in the estimates of effect (their findings).

Importantly, a failure to consider harms in research could be detrimental to the patient. A drug may be relatively safe for one medical condition but unsafe for another and as such, must be carefully examined. This article focuses on the potential harms when therapeutic agents such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are being considered.

What is the implication and what should change now?

Research thus far on finding an optimal therapeutic agent(s) for COVID-19 could be hampered by methodologically flawed research.

COVID-19 researchers must immediately and acutely focus on improving their methodology and reporting. Journal editors and the peer-review process must work to safeguard against sub-optimal research being published.

Expand full comment

Well said. You told them straight and unfortunately they just kept churning out Mickelson mouse studies!

Expand full comment

boom, we are brothers for I said same in stack prior...my expertise is in research methods and biostatistics/epidemiology and all of the COVID research is junk, pure garbage. all...scientists and doctors rushed in to make money, get grants.

Expand full comment

Yes and they need you in HHS on Day One!

Expand full comment

"In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19."

Well said Dr.Paul and things don't appear to have improved markedly in the years since you wrote this.

I have to wonder also sometimes how much research is just plucked out of the researchers' asses as I once had the misfortune to know a con artist and psychopath who researched the skin immune system for a high powered medical institute. People were amazed at how efficient he was but it eventually turned out that none of the research ever took place and all of the funding was gambled away at a casino.

Expand full comment

you are so right ANW

Expand full comment

The need was for one thing and one thing only, the eradication of particular drains on society, mainly the elderly, though these monstrous bioweapon and their makers had no way of pinpointing who, what when and where.

They will however! Oh they will. One aspect of this

“Crime Against Humanity” was to understand, study the who, what, when and where. Learning what triggers worked, what variables aided them in their quest to cull the population.

One might ask, why would they do this? Why? One reason is because they can. Another reason is because they believe earth is overpopulated and must be controlled populations.

By eliminating the elderly, the sick, compromised people, they’re on their way to eliminating populations, especially those who drain the resources.

There’s many theories circulating around this. The reality is, there’s absolutely no concern for human life. Start there and virtually anyone can theorize what their plan was and is moving forward.

One huge question I still have is, why children? What’s the plan with our children? This, I believe has something to do with developing immunities, possibly children’s health resilience or simply to learn how humans can be modified genetically by interacting with our DNA?

I have only one answer to this entire deliberate DOD coordinated and executed “Crimes Against Humanity” which is, “experimentation!” Yes the world became their

“Guinea Pig.”

So they essentially gained less population, learned what will / what won’t happen, they’re closer to their goal of a “New World Order” which requires less people and full control over remaining people.

Oh this is straight out of a

real life “Frankenstein” horror experiment, on the living and of the living, where most unsuspecting people, the world, became their personal laboratory!

How much more will humanity take? Can humanity stop this madness and can humanity survive this?

May God Bless America and The Entire World!

AJR

Expand full comment

you are right and if you bring anything, it will take out high risk elderly.

Expand full comment

Excellent overview that paints the picture perfectly.

We are all walking through a minefield and we all need to continue to watch where we step.

May the Good Lord lead our path.

Expand full comment

Thank you John, I appreciate your kind words. And yes John may the good Lord lead our paths!

Thank you.

AJR

Expand full comment

Dr. Paul,

"If a vaccine does not stop transmission, it cannot be mandated as confers no societal benefit."

This implies if it does stop transmission it may be mandated. I say no. I am a Free Speech absolutist and I'm a bodily autonomy absolutist.

No human being has the authority or the right to force another human being to submit to a medical treatment of any kind no matter the safety or efficacy profile of the treatment.

Falling into the "safe and effective" so we can "mandate" it trap is incredibly dangerous as it doesn't account for side effects and individual sensitivities/allergies.

Expand full comment