Mar 29, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton

After Toby Rogers here on substack recommended it, I read Official Stories by Liam Scheff. He discussed Pasteur and his anthrax vaccines. It turns out that the 15 days window goes all the way back to some of the first vaccines! Scheff cites “These Cults” by Annie Riley Hale:

“The National Anti-Vivisection Society of England collected from the official returns of Paster Institutes a list of 1,220 deaths after treatment between 1885 and 1901. Concerning these figures, Dr. George Wilson says: ‘Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths occurred during and immediately after treatment, by ruling that all deaths which occurred either during treatment or within 15 days of the last injection - should be excluded from the statistical returns. Because of this extraordinary ruling, the death rates in all Pasteur Institutes were kept at a low figure.’”

The most effective vaccine then was one in which it immediately induced the disease and killed the animal during the exclusionary window!! So the trick goes way back. I think it is fair to question whether any vaccine is justified given that their history is rife with fraud and misrepresentations like changing the definition of polio paralysis to be far, far more strict as the vaccines get mass distributed or taking credit for declines in disease mortality at the same time as diseases with no vaccine saw similar declines in mortality.

Perhaps the whole theory of vaccines is deeply flawed.

Expand full comment

I find it very unfortunate that as I respond to this post that there are only 26 likes. There should be hundreds.

Expand full comment

You guys will be vindicated, eventually. History's rudder is big and heavy and slow turning.

Expand full comment

Isn't this precisely what the gatekeeping function of the "peer review" system is made for - to control the narrative? Its been a while since I was directly involved in peer review, but I think it is unlikely that a reviewer could even insist that an author had to quote or consider non-peer reviewed or submitted articles. So yes, a paper doesn't exist unless it has passed the gatekeeping.

However, I see a larger problem, Which is that nothing sticks. Things are coming out so fast and the media spotlight, including the alternative media attention, changes and moves on so fast that nothing makes any impact. The telegraphs few days on the Hancock files came and went in the flash of the pan, and the spotlight has moved on. No-one is talking about it a week later. No consequences for Hancock. Even for this Doshi paper, we will talk about it a couple of days, and then we will be onto the next thing. I don't think you have to worry that they are stealing your thunder, because these things are like flashes of lightning. We need another stratergy, where some how we keep the sum total of what has unfolded in the spotlight.

Expand full comment

Even worse, Dr. Fenton, you mention missing the elephant in the room about being infected in the first two weeks after vaccination. Maybe that’s the point of the bias study, which is to purposely ignore that. A typical political strategy is to set up a strawman argument, with some basic truths and minor concerns. It makes everybody feel better that these things are really being looked at. It diffuses attention without addressing the primary concerns.

Keep talking about the big things!

Expand full comment

Hilarious they actually think the unvaccinated are more likely to be tested? This makes zero logical sense. All unvaccinated I know.... never tested. My fee vaccinated family members tested all the time.

Expand full comment

I'm guessing you have to be an editor at the BMJ, like Peter Doshi, before your work will be accepted.

Remember that 'in science it's not what you know, it's who you know'.

Expand full comment

First off, everyone bringing up personal aecdotes about voluntary home testing, you are missing the point that OP is making and seriously muddying the waters of this discussion. The point is that of involuntary, recorded test statts, the unvaxxed were the vast majority.

More importantly, the reason why nothing sticks and scandal/ criminal history is blinked out every 2 days is because we are not keeping score.

That is the reason. The covid totals that used to be on every news channel were their way of keeping score.

We need an easy way to reference the hits and misses of the various public health and medical freedom figures and organizations in order to make anything stick.

It also needs to list out what the topics were and how they were shown to be correct or incorrect.

It has to be like baseball stats. A publicly available pandemic report card. I'm starting to work on this, but it will take a lot more effort and expertise than i can possibly pull off.

Here's the pitch-


Expand full comment

You two have been a lifeline. Just think how many people you have thrown a life raft to, who thought they were isolated in an insane world. Thank you from the bottom of my heart

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2023·edited Mar 29, 2023

This is a start, but why doesn't ANYONE talk about the overall mortality results from the two mRNA vaccine randomized clinical trials (the only truly unbiased studies)? 4 more non-COVID deaths for every 3 less COVID deaths, or in blunt terms, 4 killed for every 3 saved, was the overall mortality impact in the 2 RCTs. The separate Pfizer and Moderna RCTs BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.

Pfizer: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf – Table S4

Moderna: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf – Table S26

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2023·edited Mar 29, 2023

Equally frustrated by how oblivious epidemiologists are to confounding. Shouldn't epidemiologists actually do epidemiology? My running lists of covid confounders is like 45 items long. It's my hope someday to put together a working group and we can get a behemoth review on confounding in covid research published. Regarding another commenters concerns about research sticking, I think that's the way to make things stick. Publish once in giant fashion, several years after the fact.

Expand full comment

The issue with recognising the bias in COVID jab studies is that vaccine studies have been incredibly corrupt and biased for decades! It probably started in the 1950s with reporting on the polio vaccine and by the 1970s and 1980s, pHarma had complete control of messaging on their own products. So by the time COVID was pushed on us, they had it down pat. This didn't happen in a vacuum. Our complacency and apathy brought us here. Only our activism and finally waking up will get us out of it! Thank you for your excellent analysis.

Expand full comment

I'd be very PO'ed that The Lancet has been so wantonly negligent. Such circumstances should be dealt with by litigation.

Expand full comment

Thank you guys for being a voice of sanity throughout this fiasco!

I have a comment regarding this:

"Even more dangerous is the prospect that if it doesn’t appear in the mainstream academic journals, it doesn’t actually exist as valid evidence, hence creating a closed-loop feedback system."

It reminds me of the high hopes that came with the push for "Evidence-Based Medicine." Like a very fine net that is cast to capture even small pearls, it was always only effective in sifting only that specific material which had went into it.

Alternative therapies, such as chromium picolinate for Type II diabetes, or glucosamine sulfate for osteoarthritis, could be said to not be evidence-based -- but not because the evidence for them was ever directly compared to the evidence for the orthodox treatments.

The only reason they remain obscure to this day is because the lens was never pointed toward them (they never got "their day in court" by practioners of EBM). My comment reveals a problem decades old, rather than something which arose within the last 3 years.

Expand full comment

Treasure trove of valuable data of epidemiologists about long term care home deaths.


Here is some very rare data about all cause mortality during the pandemic in long term care homes (the most vulnerable people) and in people over 65 (the next most vulnerable group). Interestingly no risk could be spotted in these groups in British Columbia Canada in 2020.

Below is the official death rate from all-causes in long term care homes as percent of the roughly 40,000 people in the LTC homes in each of the following years:

2019: 17.37% (pre-pandemic, normal year)

2020: 17.01% (pandemic year before vaccines)

2021: 18.67% (1st year with vaccines) This is a 7% increase in the death rate after 95%+ of the long term care residents were vaccinated.

The numbers in 2020 support BC's Chief Senior's Advocate comments in Vancouver Sun in late 2020 that the death rate was no different in 2020 vs any other year.

Reference: BC Seniors Advocate Website

Monitoring Seniors Services 2022 Report Supplementary DATA TABLES

Data from pages 43 and 51 (i.e. total population, expected and unexpected deaths)

Now for the data for people over age 65 in BC (about 980,000 people)

These numbers are expressed at deaths per 10,000 population base and account for the increases in population:

Average of three pre-pandemics years (2017, 2018, 2019): 334/10,000

Death rate during main pandemic year 2020: 330/10,000

Death rate during 2021 after vaccination: 340/10,000

Note that the death rate during a bad flu year like 2017 is: 346/10,000

There you have, at no point during the worst pandemic in history in BC did the all cause mortality rate exceed a bad flu year.

Expand full comment
Mar 30, 2023·edited Mar 30, 2023

The placebo effect also seems huge, where the vaccinated were told they would be fine if they caught COVID-19, while the unvaxxed were told to expect severe illness or death. How much differential hospitalization is that worth?

Expand full comment