All to be viewed in the context that the C19 mRNA injections are NOT VACCINES . NO-ONE HAS BEEN VACCINATED - THEY HAVE BEEN INJECTED WITH AN EXPERIMENTAL CONCOCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES. The injections do not prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization or death. Facts know even at the time of the Phase 3 Clinical Trials and the post-authorization marketing reports to regulators everywhere.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Thanks PH. Dr. C. One of the very few trustworthy injection information sources around!
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.
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.
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/
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.
Brilliant work Peter. Thank you.
Most welcome.
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.
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.
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!
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!