Is the censorship of research questioning the covid vaccines being relaxed?
Our review paper on flawed vaccine studies is now on MedrXiv
We have written many times about the ‘cheap trick’ statistical illusion. This is where people who suffer some bad outcome shortly after a vaccination (such as an adverse event, or infection from the disease they were supposed to be vaccinated against) are misclassified as ‘unvaccinated’. Such misclassification, if applied during the period of intense vaccine roll-out, will create - even for a placebo - an illusion of high efficacy for a few weeks before gradually declining. We have also provided numerous examples of covid vaccine studies whose conclusions are compromised due to such misclassification.
Now we have produced a systematic review of covid vaccine studies claiming high efficacy and/or safety and published the pre-print on ResearchGate:
In its first week the paper has had over 10,000 reads on ResearchGate.
Jonathan Engler has already written a very good summary of the paper here, so there is no need to attempt yet another summary:
Now, while we have never had any problems putting our papers on ResearchGate, ever since we started questioning the ‘official narrative’ about covid any papers we submitted to the main preprint servers MedrXiv and ArXiv were rejected (for a range of frivolous reasons).
Out of routine - and just to be able to catalogue what we assumed would be another spurious reason to censor our work - we submitted the paper to MedrXiv. We got the same initial response we have previously got whereby, unlike almost all submissions that are within scope, they needed to do some further ‘checks’. Then, to our amazement, they published the paper.
It is noticeable that, in recent weeks, there has been an increasing trickle of more mainstream reports highlighting problems with the covid vaccines. So, it seems that the academia and media iron-grip censorship against vaccine-critical work is now being relaxed.
29 March 2024 Update: Excel spreadsheets containing simulations:
24 March 2024 Update: Since the paper was published on ResearchGate and medrXiv we have fixed some minor errors (special thanks to David Paton for pointing out a few). So here is the latest version:
29 March 2024 Update: On 28 March 2024 Norman did this 18-minute interview with TrialSiteNews explaining the paper:
You know, professor Fenton: I still cannot understand how can the medical community not want to know the truth. We, MDs, took the Hippocratic Oath, in which we sworn not to make harm to patients. We must pursue truth. I do. Please, keep going. We must win in the end.
If one were naive, one might see this as part of an awakening of the mistakes that were made, along the lines of "oh well, we had to do something to fight this lethal virus."
If one is realistic, the suppression of discussion, the concealment of data and the authoritarian-like impositions speak not to a "we're trying our best to discover" approach but to something wholly different. Let's not forget that all prior knowledge of the immunology of respiratory infections (treatment, prevention, the lack of any vaccine efficacy etc) was ignored and derided.
Billions (?) of people have now been exposed to a risky and wholly inappropriate mRNA transfection for no benefit to them.
Allowing discourse now, while appreciated, amounts to more than a slap in the face.