11 Comments

Thanks PH. Dr. C. One of the very few trustworthy injection information sources around!

Expand full comment

Peter, aside from all of the variables you enumerate, there is one missing, which I have been at great pains to point out recurrently, also supported in the literature.

UNPREDICTABILITY

Everyone ALWAYS fails to point that there is NO GENERALISABILITY

I can point it out but am reluctant to as it gives a head's up to those seeking to erase it. It is one of those wonderful gems highlighted by the authors of the study that are incredibly relevant but not immediately germane to the results of the study.

Expand full comment
author
Jul 6, 2023·edited Jul 6, 2023Author

Yes. An important aspect of quality and compliance - if I understand you correctly.

What rips my nightie is that no-one is talking about the obvious aspect of quality - conformance with the clinical trial doses and administration/monitoring practices in the clinical trials.

There are so many "wrongs" - not least that Pfizer forced contracts that stated they could not be held responsible for harms - short or ling term - and that Pfizer could vary the contents at will. This last one is the essence of experimentation.. Combined with the first, how could such a contract be legal - let alone give rise to informed consent.

Expand full comment
Jul 7, 2023·edited Jul 7, 2023Liked by Peter Halligan

You are exactly correct regarding any pretence of 'standardisation'.

But beyond that, it is clear that individual responses to shots are unknowable, and show wide variation. The authors (Evolution of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody and IgG Avidity

Post Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccinations; Bliden et al.) tucked this handily into their conclusions: "We did observe highly variable immune responses including those with well below average anti-RBD IgG levels and avidity. It is therefore important to monitor immune responses at the individualized and personalized level, identify those who are still at risk even after vaccination, and provide meaningful measures to protect them from infections."

Moreover, once again we see a preoccupation with IgG4 *IgG4-Related Disease

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499825/

Expand full comment
author

Yes. Thanks for helping me with this. I saw this in the context of Florida (more individualized) v California (statewide mandate regardless of allergies etc) a while ago, but needed reminding!

Standardized treatment for a harm that requires treatment to suit individual circumstances is fundamental.

Expand full comment

Brilliant work Peter. Thank you.

Expand full comment
author

Most welcome.

Expand full comment

Meh, sorry but the “good doctor” was gullible enough to stick to the silly “masks works” and “trust the science” for WAYYYY too long. Remember that teddy bear with the mask standing on his desk? If he genuinely was so afraid they’d cancel his YouTube channel, he should have opened a parallel channel on Rumble, Odysee or Telegram.

Expand full comment
Jul 6, 2023Liked by Peter Halligan

It reminds me of the ‘hybrid immunity’ myth. Somehow the biology that I spent years studying has been rewritten. It seems so obvious that if an immune system is senescent (and it happens to us all) that it is not going to mount a response to an injection if it couldn’t react to an infection - even more so if you are causing the body to produce a completely undefined amount of antigen (as in the spike protein). As with everything over the past years we are expected to believe the unbelievable without question.

Expand full comment

Pfizer man said himself that immunocompromised should not have these. Unfortunately, these people were targetted first and several I know have received from 4 to 6!

Expand full comment

It's not simply a non-vaccine, it's a bioweapon. An ongoing experiment, refined, but simply continuing. How anyone could take it now is the height of stupidity.

Yes, that is what you must be, stupid to play these games with your life. They have come for your life, don't give it to them!

Expand full comment