Does PEIsk stand for Plastic Exotic Idiocy skam?
Be careful, Rossi could copy your dual output feature highly competitive.
Just SKlep backwards.
I have already built it, but it is a messy bit of proof of concept at this time.
The big salt shaker is harder to find than I thought. Plus the worldwide shortage of giant 1 ohm resistors is likely to continue until at least the 3rd quarter of 2022.
Rossi’s E-cat Chat in your Hat
Plus the worldwide shortage of giant 1 ohm resistors is likely to continue until at least the 3rd quarter of 2022
Something like this, perhaps?
Is the UK Office of National Statistics manipulating the data on deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status?
By Sonia Elijah
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
My interview with Prof Norman Fenton was highly revealing you can watch it here. Fenton, who has a PhD in Mathematics, is professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary, University of London. He co-authored a paper along with eight others including: Martin Neil, Jessica Rose, Clare Craig, Jonathan Engler, Joel Smalley, Scott Mclachlan, Joshua Guetzkow and Dan Russell. The paper, entitled, ‘Official mortality data for England suggest systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status and uncertain effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination’ was published early December 2021, as a preprint on ResearchGate. Their paper was an in-depth analysis of the UK ONS report, ‘Deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 24 September 2021.’
“Almost all the data that the government is putting out on vaccines and Covid is misleading.”
Fenton explained that from the summer of 2020, when mass testing of the asymptomatic (no symptoms) began using the PCR Test- this controversial policy could easily lead to data manipulation, to suit a particular narrative, as case numbers, hospitalizations and death numbers are based on people who are not ill with the disease but who simply test positive on a PCR test. He went on to state “we always said that many of the Covid deaths are based on people who died with Covid and not necessarily of Covid but this is only coming out now.”
The fundamental flaws in the way public Covid data is presented
Fenton explained the fundamental flaws in the way the public Covid data is being presented by giving a simple example of “Fred who has no covid symptoms but tests positive using a PCR test at work but 13 days later is critically injured in a car crash and dies 2 weeks after being taken to hospital. Fred is classified as a Covid case; a Covid hospitalization and a Covid death. However, Jane who gets a Covid vaccine and 13 days later tests PCR positive with symptoms, she’s classified as a unvaccinated Covid case. Peter who gets Covid vaccine and dies the next day because of adverse reaction to it, he’s classified as an unvaccinated Covid death because they’re not counting people as being vaccinated until at least 14 days after the first jab and not fully vaccinated until 14 days after the second jab.”
Their paper focused on all-cause mortality
The why the authors focused on all-cause mortality was because it bypassed
all the problems associated with what constitutes a Covid case and therefore a Covid death. Fenton stressed that “if the vaccines are working as expected we’d expect to see combined all-cause mortality rate (including the Covid mortality rate) higher in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated.” This would provide evidence that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.
The red flags in the ONS data (based on a population in the 2011 census)
No age categorised data in original report (however based on conversations with the authors the following ONS report did include age categories, however the 10-59 age group was too large to draw any real conclusions).
Bizarre differences in the non-Covid mortality rates for the unvaccinated, single vaccinated and double vaccinated. The single vaccinated had a massively inflated mortality rate but the double vaccinated had a significantly deflated rate.
All-cause mortality rate for the unvaccinated should be consistent with historical rates but it was not only higher than the vaccinated group- it was also far higher than the historical rate.
For each age group, the all-cause mortality rate of the unvaccinated peaked at a time just when the vaccine rollout programme began for that age cohort. (See graphs below)
The anomaly of the difference in non-Covid mortality rates between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
What stood out as highly irregular was the fact that the % uptake of the first dose peaked at a time when non-covid mortality rate was at its highest for the unvaccinated (see example below for the age group 60-69). Also, the non-covid mortality rate was again significantly higher for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated group which did not make any sense at all. Why were the people who were not vaccinated suddenly dying in every age group?
The anomalies explained
Fenton went on to explain “such anomalies inevitably occur when there are very simple ‘shifts’ in data reporting..for example those who die within one week of being vaccinated are classified as unvaccinated and when you do that it gives exactly the same effect as if there was a one week reporting delay. It’s those who die within one week of being vaccinated who get shifted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated group- this simple error explains the spike that we are seeing in the ONS data.”
“If we assume that the true non-Covid mortality rate for the unvaccinated should be closer to historical life table values in each age group (which is a perfectly reasonable assumption and should be constant throughout when it’s adjusted for seasons) and when we make the necessary classification adjustments to achieve this and adjust for the vaccinated group- we see a peak in the non-Covid mortality rate in the beginning for the vaccinated group before it stabilises. What you’re actually seeing then is a higher non-covid mortality rate in the beginning for the vaccinated.”
Fenton and his co-authors concluded in their paper:
• Systematic miscategorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated.
• Delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations.
• Systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated.
• Incorrect population selection for Covid deaths.
With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination
With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination
This explains why our FUD'er here like the ONS data produced by his buddies and strongly dislikes base data...
We now know since about 16 months that vaccines kill a significant amount of people directly or indirectly e.g. most simply in case of Pfizer crap, that leads to immune suppression and a follow up severe CoV-19 illness. This can be extracted from most raw data we have access too.
Since a few months already it is clear that vaccines at best work for 15..40% net effect. But with Omicron Pfizer clearly leads to excess deaths. Luckily Omicron is mild.
UK data week 5/22 ("vaccine" report. https://assets.publishing.serv…lance_report_-_week_5.pdf
Only a tiny amount of the data still has some use. But now we are at 98.7% S-antibodies what simply means all vaccinated data is useless as now most people > 93.5% (effectively higher as the most vaxx age 65+ is not in the measured set) count as recovered or and "vaccinated", that are much better protected than "vaccinated" only.
So basically this report now is 90% fake information. Nevertheless if you have all the old data you can correct for all the errors...
If you e.g. look at age class 19..29 then you have to correct for at least 80% recovered. So the rates for ' "vaccinated" only' are 5x higher or simply there is no "vaccine" protection at all. This is also confirmed by all other groups trend that show much higher infection rates among vaccinated. E.g. the total number of deaths in the group age 80+ has strongly increased as in Israel too. This absolute number is 100x more telling than smaller rate changes.
So in this group "vaccines" now have a negative effect as you have to correct at least for 70% recovered.Just remember that only 3x damaged people count as vaccinated and all deaths caused by boosters are counted as unvaxx deaths....10% had only 2x vaxx so far but did produce 900 deaths what shows high negative effect of about 2-3x above unvaxx for double vaccinated. So vaccines effectively kill or just did delay death....
Nothing to read for vaccinated. Could damage your mental health:: The finding about spike proteins from vaccines are confirmed::
Here, by using an in vitro cell line,we report that the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity. Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA
repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site. Our findings reveal a potential
molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore
the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccine...
Pro memoria:: Virus origin (German)
Failure of PCR test (German use deepl.com/)
https://afaev-de.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Gutachten-RT-PCR-211230.pdf
The criminal implication of distribution of the Biontec-Pfizer crap:: https://www.parlament.gv.at/Pt…50-4b0d-865e-b4e33e2dd6a9 (German)
sometimes >90% flawed antigen test :: https://afaev-de.b-cdn.net/wp-…en-Antigentest-211230.pdf
All from:: https://insideparadeplatz.ch/2…-etwas-ist-faul-im-staat/
enton and his co-authors concluded in their paper:
• Systematic miscategorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated.
... the unvaccinated mortality rates peak in each age group at the same time as the vaccine rollout peaks for that age group, before falling and approaching that of the vaccinated,,
It looks like the magic Vaccines protect from all diseases ...not just Covid... good old ONS, but only in 2021.
Display More... the unvaccinated mortality rates peak in each age group at the same time as the vaccine rollout peaks for that age group, before falling and approaching that of the vaccinated,,
https://www.researchgate.net/p…s_of_Covid-19_vaccination
It looks like the magic Vaccines protect from all diseases ...not just Covid... good old ONS, but only in 2021.
When you find anomalies like this you can be interested and investigate them, as Mr. Covid Data Science does whom I link here because he has done it thoroughly with this data, and who for the same reason the antivaxxers don't like, or you can think deep dark conspiracy theories.
I don't know which your post is trying to do?
Anyway, I'd recommend investigation over laughing or assumption of worldwide conspiracies any day. It is fascinating and surprising what comes out - and lets face it the WWC stuff is not!
So the omicron variant has become like the common cold and all we are suffering from now is an OVER-Reliance on molecular biology and vaccination which together have delayed the natural herd immunity being acquired in the World population. Covid aka NEO - COVID is now endemic WORLDWIDE. PANDEMIC OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's CELEBRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Sen. Johnson (R-Wis) Seeks Answers from DoD Secretary Lloyd Austin III about Whistleblower Allegations of COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Data
On January 24, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) held a roundtable in the U.S. Senate inviting several physicians and scientists critical of the official COVID-19 narrative to discuss their perspectives on the pandemic—Mary Beth Pfeiffer writing for TrialSite covered that event. What’s the true performance of the COVID-19 vaccines, for example? Are they sufficiently safe and effective in this overall pandemic response? Or are they causing an unacceptable number of underreported serious adverse events? Sen Johnson heard during that day from an attorney present, Thomas Renz, who is representing three whistleblowers from the Department of Defense (DoD). Johnson became privy to data that, if accurate, reveals a disturbing increase in health-related conditions and events related to the mass COVID-19 vaccination program in which DoD–service members have been mandated to get fully COVID-19 vaccinated. Just over a week later, Sen. Johnson sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin, III to express his concerns related to this whistleblower data. In addition to sharing that letter, TrialSite summarizes some of the key findings, while informing of alternative viewpoints, raising more questions.
This purported whistleblower data originates from Thomas Lenz’s representation of three DoD whistleblowers. The data, which TrialSite has accessed, reveals an increase in registered diagnoses from the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED).
This repository includes data contained within the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS), an up-to-date and historical database on diseases and medical events (e.g. hospitalizations, ambulatory visits, reportable diseases, etc.) as well as longitudinal data relevant to service member characteristics and deployment experience for all active and reserve component service members.
TrialSite notes another project reported on herein called SALUS. That data was purportedly derived from a DoD cohort study investigating the impacts of the COVID-19 vaccines on DoD members.
Who are the whistleblowers?
The whistleblowers represented by attorney Thomas Renz include the following:
Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Theresa Long DOMPH— see an OpEd in TrialSite as well as affidavit.
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Chambers DOM Flight Surgeon– see an affidavit. https://thetexan.news/wp-conte…er-Chambers-affadavit.pdf
Dr. Samuel Sigoloff
The first to step forward was Lt. Col. Long who testified under the Military Whistleblower Act. that she ordered the grounding of vaccinated pilots due to serious adverse events including myocarditis out of concern they were in grave danger of heart failure while flying.
Renz, the whistleblower’s attorney, notes that he has received an initial set of data with a declaration as to the authenticity under penalty of perjury. However, an updated spreadsheet has yet to be authenticated via the same means.
What’s the claim?
Sen Johnson’s letter to the Secretary of the DoD summarizes the concerns of the whistleblowers. The data associated with DMED reveals a disturbing increase in a range of diseases and conditions among service members starting in 2021. Johnson writes that this reveals “a significant increase in registered diagnoses on DMED for miscarriages, cancer, and many other medical conditions in 2021 compared to a five-year average from 2016-2020. “ The Republican senator raises examples such as neurological issues in 2021, showing a 10X increase from the five-year average—or 82,000 to 863,000 in 2021. Other purported increases:
Hypertension – 2,181% increase
Diseases of the nervous system – 1,048% increase
Malignant neoplasms of esophagus – 894% increase
Multiple sclerosis – 680% increase
Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs – 624% increase
Guillain-Barre syndrome – 551% increase
Breast cancer – 487% increase · Demyelinating – 487% increase
Malignant neoplasms of thyroid and other endocrine glands – 474% increase
Johnson, the attorney, and the whistleblowers seek to investigate these incredible surges in illness just at the time the mass vaccinations were occurring. If there is in fact a correlation they want to stop the inoculation campaign.
What about myocarditis—that’s a known risk with the COVID vaccines?
Sen Johnson wrote that the attorney, Renz declared that the DMED data associated with the category myocarditis, an important one given the recognized risks, albeit rare associated with the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, was removed from the database after allegations that the DMED data was improperly modified. Consequently, Johnson reminds the Secretary of DoD in the letter that the Senator “wrote to you on January 24 requesting that you preserve all records referring, relating, or reported to DMED. Sec. Austin hasn’t responded to the Senator yet.
What’s a counterclaim?
Interestingly, Fact Checkers were quick to point out that while the source of the DoD data was accurate (DMED), the claimed data showing massive increases in disease is based on errors. For example, Jeff Cercone, a journalist for POLITIFACT got right to business debunking the DMED claims on January 31 just a few days after a “January 28 post suggesting a 300% increase in DMED codes registered for miscarriages in the military in 2021 over the five-year average.”
Mr. Cercone reports that the data Sen Ron Johnson is concerned about has flaws. For example, he shared that “an error in the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database gave the false impression that there was a huge spike in miscarriages, cancer, and other medical issues among military members in 2021.” Moreover, Cercone claims that the previous numbers from 2016-2020 were “underreported” and finally he wrote, “the database has been taken down to identify and correct the problem.”
What’s an additional angle here?
The attorney for the whistleblowers alleges that attempts to change the data evidence culpability. Renz has observed that changes to data have been only to the categories they have publicly disclosed sharing that data associated with disease not publicly disclosed remain essentially the same. Renz suggests attempts to change the data is strong evidence of malfeasance.
Yes, any number of challenges could be associated with this data. Again, the underlying data is ultimately based on DMSS, and as depicted, such data is based on a complex array of interconnected systems. Obtaining accurate health data can be notoriously difficult and government agencies are known to have complex, convoluted electronic systems—essentially the government is known to botch systems and data all the time.
We suggest that given fact finders aren’t disputing the data source, a clear explanation as to what those mistakes were will be promptly published. Moreover, to back Mr. Cercone’s claim of mistakes, an adequate explanation would be required for all the categories that were shown to have been underreported.
What does Sen. Johnson want from the DoD Sec Austin?
First, Johnson wants to protect the whistleblowers, writing “Any retaliatory actions taken against these individuals will not be tolerated and will be investigated immediately.”
Second, the Senator seeks answers as to whether the DoD was aware of the alleged COVID-19 vaccine injury patterns, and made a demand that information about the removed myocarditis data be answered by February 15, 2022
https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Peter-Chambers-affadavit.pdf
Effectiveness of 3 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infections, January–May 2021, Aragon, Spain
Abstract
Reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is a worldwide challenge; widespread vaccination could be one strategy for control. We conducted a prospective, population-based cohort study of 964,258 residents of Aragon, Spain, during December 2020–May 2021. We used the Cox proportional-hazards model with vaccination status as the exposure condition to estimate the effectiveness of 3 coronavirus disease vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pfizer-BioNTech had 20.8% (95% CI 11.6%–29.0%) vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection after 1 dose and 70.0% (95% CI 65.3%–74.1%) after 2 doses, Moderna had 52.8% (95% CI 30.7%–67.8%) VE after 1 dose and 70.3% (95% CI 52.2%–81.5%) after 2 doses, and Oxford-AstraZeneca had 40.3% (95% CI 31.8%–47.7%) VE after 1 dose. All estimates were lower than those from previous studies. Results imply that, although high vaccination coverage remains critical to protect people from disease, it will be difficult to effectively minimize transmission opportunities.
Discussion
In the general population, our findings showed an effectiveness of 3 different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but with lower efficacy estimates than from clinical trials and other VE studies. We found 20.8% VE after 1 dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 70.0% after 2 doses; for the Moderna vaccine, these numbers were 52.8% VE after 1 dose and 70.3% VE after 2 doses, and for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, 40.3% after 1 dose.
For the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, these values were lower than those in other observational studies, which had ranges of 61.9%–80% VE after 1 dose and 90%–96% VE >7 days after 2 doses (8,9,27–29). These differences could possibly be explained by the population-wide design of our study, which included a high percentage of elderly persons in the Pfizer-BioNTech–vaccinated group than in the other studies. In contrast, our results showed a higher VE after 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than the 65% VE found in another study (30), probably because they used a different approach for estimating VE that included only close contacts of positive cases and assigned every person in the cohort the same observation period and as a result vaccinated and unvaccinated participants most likely experienced similar exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
Our findings indicated a higher VE (52.8%) after 1 dose of the Moderna vaccine than after 1 dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines and similar VEs after 2 doses of both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. However, our results did not reach the VE estimates of 83% after 1 dose and 82% after 2 doses of Moderna vaccine found in another study (28). The small sample size in that study, which only included healthcare personnel and other essential workers, might explain these differences in VE. However, as in that study (28), VE after 1 and 2 doses of the Moderna vaccine were also very close.
Safety concerns resulted in the suspension of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine before anyone in our cohort received a second dose, and therefore we estimated VE only after 1 dose (40.3%), similar to the 44% VE after 1 dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in another article (30). In contrast, another study found a VE of 60% against symptomatic disease after a single dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in adults >70 years of age, as expected because of the study’s more severe outcome measures and exclusively elderly population (14).
Cumulative risk curves of SARS-CoV-2 infection show that the cumulative risk of infection in unvaccinated participants rose to 4% at day 154 of follow-up whereas the risk remained <1% during the entire follow-up period (120 days) in fully Pfizer-BioNTech–vaccinated participants, results consistent with those from a nationwide study (8). Risk remained <0.5% in participants vaccinated with 1 dose of the Moderna vaccine during the entire follow-up time (120 days) and <1% during the entire follow-up time (90 days) in fully vaccinated participants. In the participants with 2 doses of the Moderna vaccine, the slight increase in risk from day 30 onwards might be explained by the relatively small number of participants from our cohort who were vaccinated with the second dose and reached long follow-up times (>50 days), which can cause instability of estimates for prolonged follow-up times. For the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the difference in risk between unvaccinated participants and those vaccinated with 1 dose (2.5% vs. 0.9% at day 80 of follow-up) highlights the VE after 1 dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
One limitation of our study was losses to follow-up because of administrative leaves from AHSUR. Participants lost to follow-up were statistically different from the studied cohort. Nevertheless, they represent only 1.2% of the initial population, which limited the magnitude of this bias. Timing of vaccine rollout also varied between priority groups, targeted for earlier vaccination, and the general population. This difference may have affected the results by adding more variability, particularly because Pfizer-BioNTech was mostly used in population ≥75 years of age, who were vaccinated earlier, whereas Oxford-AstraZeneca was mostly used in general population, who were vaccinated at a later time.
Research has documented that the proportion of symptomatic infections in vaccinated persons is lower than in unvaccinated ones, because vaccination prevents symptoms (28). Therefore, studies based on symptomatic persons (1–7,11,13,14) underestimate the total infection rate in vaccinated persons to a greater extent than in unvaccinated ones and consequently overestimate VE. Our study included all confirmed symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, and thus it would be expected that VE would be lower than in studies only including symptomatic disease and our VE estimates more relevant to transmission control, because in real-world conditions, symptomatic and asymptomatic infections coexist and both contribute to transmission.
Similarly, following COVID-19 detection and surveillance guidelines in Spain and Aragon (25,26), tests were administered less frequently to asymptomatic than to symptomatic persons, resulting in underdetection of asymptomatic infections. This bias was reduced because underdetection occurred in both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons but could still lead to overestimating VE. On the other hand, also following the detection program guidelines, tests were administered to close contacts regardless of their vaccination status, which reduced the chance of detection bias in our study. However, routine screenings carried out in nursing and residential homes could have altered our findings if there were more screenings in vaccinated than in unvaccinated participants. The role of dominant variants of concern in the transmission was unknown at the time of our data analyses. The rapid circulation of these variants may have introduced confounding, including weekly variability, but it was minimized, and therefore calculated VE estimates represent a summarized measure against all variants, adjusted by incidence. Practical factors such as hygiene and social distance measures might also have affected the estimates of VE.
Our study shows great strength in statistical power because of the large population cohort and use of a refined methodology. Risk of infection differed between participants according not only to vaccination status but also to the evolution of the epidemic curve. For this reason, we used an approach of weekly repeated measures, adjusted by WCI in each primary care service area.
In conclusion, we found effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection for Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines to be lower than efficacy estimates from clinical trials and other VE studies. Even if high vaccination coverages are reached in the general population (31,32), effectively minimizing transmission opportunities might be limited, because age groups of persons <12 years of age were not being immunized at the time of our data gathering. Even so, reaching high vaccination coverage is important to decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the general population.
Effectiveness of 3 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infections, January–May 2021, Aragon, Spain
Good to see that the Pfizer/Moderna cheating with wrong phase III design is revealed by a better study. But the observation phase happened during a pandemic low and thus is of low value. Also the follow up period - 3 months is way to short as Pfizer protection broadly breaks down after 4 months. Further this was still in alpha, gamma virus times where the vaccine did fit the spike...
So this study is of anecdotal value only except for debunking Pfizer claims...
What Happened to the Objective Media? On a Limited Startup Budget TrialSite Offered an Objective Service While MSM Devolved into Biased Swamp
Today, NBC News ran with a story regarding the shortages of the most efficacious early treatment for Covid-19 that’s currently under EUA, Pfizer’s Paxlovid.
The mainstream news channel did a commendable job of spotlighting a high-risk patient who contracted Covid-19 and took the reader on the journey this patient traveled to secure a course of treatment for the highly constrained therapeutic. Reading the account of what this individual endured to obtain her life-saving treatment makes the reader think about how so many high-risk patients would not have been able to secure their own Paxlovid treatment. Tragically, many who failed progressed to be hospitalized, and some sadly perished. The heartbreaking reality is that there is still an average of 2400 Americans dying every day of Covid-19.
Today is Feb 5th, the day NBC News ran this story prominently. TrialSite published an article on this critically important subject on January 12th. However, in the TrialSite article not only did we identify the only two efficacious outpatient treatments under EUA (Paxlovid and Sotrovimab), but we also informed our readers on how to obtain these extremely constrained therapeutics.
We saw that people were going to struggle to obtain these lifesaving therapeutics leaving some without and winding up in hospitals and some in cemeteries. If TrialSite, with a tiny fraction of the budget of NBC News, can uncover which therapeutics are the most efficacious, find resources to locate these constrained therapeutics, and provide this information to our readers almost a full month ago, why can’t NBC News? Even in their story today, after outlining the dire situation that is facing many high-risk Covid patients having to locate their own drugs, NBC News still failed to provide any guidance for their readers on how they can locate these therapeutics if they find themselves in desperate need.
The American public deserves more from their press. While we are using NBC News in this example, the service the press provides to the public has diminished across the board. Many will blame it on the mainstream media’s political influences. However, while the details and approach are different on the right or to the left, the result is pretty much the same. The American press is no longer serving the public in the role that it fulfilled for over 200 years. High-quality, unbiased investigative reporting is almost extinct in today’s media industry. Instead, the focus has devolved to sensationalizing headlines, fearmongering, and the pursuit of ratings at any cost.
TrialSite was launched to drive more interest and awareness in clinical research, as well as to develop trust and facilitate engagement of researchers and the public. TrialSite launched at the end of 2018, financed solely by the founder in order to maintain an unbiased stance and to create a new disruptive force in the world of biomedical research.
TrialSite emphasizes the trial site organization and its staff, whether a hospital, health system, community clinic, or commercial research center, and the breakthroughs, challenges, best practices, and mishaps, all in a bid to provide more transparency for the broader population as to the nuts and bolts of clinical trials.
Shortly after the emergence of Covid-19, TrialSite adapted to fill a void in bringing science-based, unbiased information to our readers. We’ll continue to strive to provide actionable information through all our platform channels. We might not always be 100% correct, but any errors will be honest mistakes without questionable underlying motives. We hope the need for our voice on Covid-19 inputs is coming to an end, but regardless, we’ll continue to put our readers’ welfare first just like we would for our own friends and family members
The American public deserves more from their press.
Most Americans are well paid slaves that get the "brain" food they deserve for agreeing being a slave...
If these folks do not understand that education and freedom are basic things for independence then let them go on with bad public schools with underpaid teachers and fat goose private school teachers that raise an other kind of fat goose children...
There not much free press left over in the western world as the FM/R/J/B mafia will undermine it ASAP.
What Happened to the Objective Media? On a Limited Startup Budget TrialSite Offered an Objective Service While MSM Devolved into Biased Swamp
That's funny! TrialSite started out being objective, but they have devolved into raving loonies. I certainly don't refer people I know to TrialSite.
news from....
I just found out that in a flu year, we have about 2000-3000 deaths a year here, that's about 5-10 deaths a day in average. It looks like we peak at 30 deaths a day and now things have started to calm down as cases drastically goes down. These numbers do look like the influenza which usually does not call for so much drastic measures. This seam to be recognized by the government here and we will end the extra measures in a week or two. Anyhow people can go back to normal.
I'd recommend investigation
No Huxleyian conspiracy,,,and the moribund ONS excuse does not hold water.
Norman Fenton appears to have predated "recommend investigation" by two months
following the ONS 11-12/2021 data release
READ the investigation here.. 800,000 reads
"Norman Fenton is Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary London University and is also a Director of Agena, a company that specialises in risk management for critical systems. Norman, who is a mathematician by training, works on quantitative risk assessment. This typically involves analysing and predicting the probabilities of unknown events using Bayesian statistical methods including especially causal, probabilistic models (Bayesian networks). This type of reasoning enables improved assessment by taking account of both statistical data and also expert judgment.
"The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured by comparing the all-cause mortality rate.
At first glance the ONS data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
This conclusion is cast into doubt upon closer inspection of the data due to a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data.
Whatever the explanations for these are,
it is clear that the data is both unreliable and misleading. We also find no evidence that socio-demographic or behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated can explain these anomalies."
TrialSite started out being objective, but they have devolved into raving loonies.
What about Pfizer claiming 94% effectivity that is now down scaled to 70% by an independent study?
May be you are more willing to believe in mafia statements...
