Junk science and outright Fraud

[Typhoon]

The very important field of Alzheimer's disease research is shocked, shocked to learn that a case of alleged systemic and widespread fraud has come to light.

Science | Picture Imperfect

Scores of papers by Eliezer Masliah, prominent neuroscientist and top NIH official, fall under suspicion

[Doc]

F the goberment. OH sorry I meant to say FUCK THE GOVERNMENT.

J&J Astra Zeneca test subject number 1. My experience was not as bad as hers, but I can certainly relate to what happened to her.



Covid Vaccine Victim EXPOSES the System

[Typhoon]

Nothing out of the ordinary during COVID-19 vaccination was observed in Japan.

The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific | Safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines in Japan

Perhaps the US is exceptional . . .

[Typhoon]

On the other hand, bogus medical studies are becoming a significant problem.

Nature | Giant study finds untrustworthy trials pollute gold-standard medical reviews

[Typhoon]

Nature | Controversial COVID study that promoted unproven treatment retracted after four-year saga

Paper on hydroxychloroquine led by French researcher Didier Raoult is second-most-cited study ever to be withdrawn.

[Doc]

Nature | Controversial COVID study that promoted unproven treatment retracted after four-year saga

Paper on hydroxychloroquine led by French researcher Didier Raoult is second-most-cited study ever to be withdrawn.

OK but what do you call this kind of science?

Ursula von der Leyen’s Pfizer Text Scandal: Delays Spark Concerns Over Transparency and Accountability in the EU
Joana Campos Joana Campos Dic. 20, 2024 2:20 pm 2 min de lectura
6
fotos-pagina-web-gh-24
Listen

The highly anticipated legal case surrounding European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s alleged secret text exchanges with Pfizer during critical COVID-19 vaccine negotiations officially began on Friday, December 6, in the Liège council chamber.

The case has drawn global attention, with critics demanding transparency and accountability over potential backdoor dealings between the EU’s leadership and pharmaceutical giants during one of the most consequential crises in modern history.

However, the proceedings have already been marred by controversy. The EU Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), tasked with overseeing investigations into EU-related fraud and corruption, is facing sharp criticism for apparent negligence and delays.

Observers and legal experts alike are raising concerns that this sluggish pace could be a form of deliberate obstruction—a strategy that conveniently shields those at the highest levels of the European Union from scrutiny.

The case hinges on allegations that von der Leyen conducted informal negotiations with Pfizer through text messages, bypassing official channels of transparency and documentation.

These communications allegedly played a key role in securing multi-billion-dollar vaccine deals, decisions that impacted millions across Europe. The European Commission has thus far failed to produce these messages, fueling suspicions and public distrust.

From a conservative standpoint, this case highlights deeper, systemic issues within EU governance. Critics argue that unaccountable elites, like von der Leyen, wield disproportionate power with little oversight, particularly during emergencies such as the pandemic. The potential mishandling of taxpayer money, paired with secretive negotiations favoring big pharmaceutical corporations, only exacerbates the EU’s crisis of legitimacy.

A Pattern of Obstruction?

The EPPO’s handling of the case adds fuel to the fire. Rather than prioritizing transparency, its slow-moving investigation has drawn accusations of negligence, if not outright collusion. Is this an intentional effort to protect powerful figures like von der Leyen? Some conservative commentators suggest that this behavior reflects a broader trend of elitist arrogance within EU institutions—a sense that rules apply to ordinary citizens, but not to those in power.

Significance of the Outcome

The stakes in this trial are enormous. Should the court uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it could deliver a significant blow to von der Leyen’s credibility and the European Commission’s integrity in managing the pandemic response. Conversely, a lack of transparency or accountability could deepen public cynicism toward EU leadership, further alienating citizens who already view the Commission as detached and unaccountable.

For conservatives, this case serves as a reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked bureaucracies and centralized power. It underscores the need for institutional reform and a return to principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic processes—values that are too often disregarded by the EU’s ruling class.

As the trial unfolds, one question remains: Will the European Union’s leadership be held accountable, or will this scandal be swept under the rug? The eyes of Europe—and the world—are watching.

[Typhoon]

. . .

OK but what do you call this kind of science?

Ursula von der Leyen’s Pfizer Text Scandal: Delays Spark Concerns Over Transparency and Accountability in the EU
Joana Campos Joana Campos Dic. 20, 2024 2:20 pm 2 min de lectura
6
fotos-pagina-web-gh-24
Listen

The highly anticipated legal case surrounding European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s alleged secret text exchanges with Pfizer during critical COVID-19 vaccine negotiations officially began on Friday, December 6, in the Liège council chamber.

The case has drawn global attention, with critics demanding transparency and accountability over potential backdoor dealings between the EU’s leadership and pharmaceutical giants during one of the most consequential crises in modern history.

However, the proceedings have already been marred by controversy. The EU Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), tasked with overseeing investigations into EU-related fraud and corruption, is facing sharp criticism for apparent negligence and delays.

Observers and legal experts alike are raising concerns that this sluggish pace could be a form of deliberate obstruction—a strategy that conveniently shields those at the highest levels of the European Union from scrutiny.

The case hinges on allegations that von der Leyen conducted informal negotiations with Pfizer through text messages, bypassing official channels of transparency and documentation.

These communications allegedly played a key role in securing multi-billion-dollar vaccine deals, decisions that impacted millions across Europe. The European Commission has thus far failed to produce these messages, fueling suspicions and public distrust.

From a conservative standpoint, this case highlights deeper, systemic issues within EU governance. Critics argue that unaccountable elites, like von der Leyen, wield disproportionate power with little oversight, particularly during emergencies such as the pandemic. The potential mishandling of taxpayer money, paired with secretive negotiations favoring big pharmaceutical corporations, only exacerbates the EU’s crisis of legitimacy.

A Pattern of Obstruction?

The EPPO’s handling of the case adds fuel to the fire. Rather than prioritizing transparency, its slow-moving investigation has drawn accusations of negligence, if not outright collusion. Is this an intentional effort to protect powerful figures like von der Leyen? Some conservative commentators suggest that this behavior reflects a broader trend of elitist arrogance within EU institutions—a sense that rules apply to ordinary citizens, but not to those in power.

Significance of the Outcome

The stakes in this trial are enormous. Should the court uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it could deliver a significant blow to von der Leyen’s credibility and the European Commission’s integrity in managing the pandemic response. Conversely, a lack of transparency or accountability could deepen public cynicism toward EU leadership, further alienating citizens who already view the Commission as detached and unaccountable.

For conservatives, this case serves as a reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked bureaucracies and centralized power. It underscores the need for institutional reform and a return to principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic processes—values that are too often disregarded by the EU’s ruling class.

As the trial unfolds, one question remains: Will the European Union’s leadership be held accountable, or will this scandal be swept under the rug? The eyes of Europe—and the world—are watching.

I'd call that a link to the original article would be appreciated.

The science part was the development of the vaccine, the public health part was its deployment.

The rest is the usual self-dealing of the EU nomenklatura, pardon me, the managerial class, notably the EU Politburo, pardon me, the EU Commission, especially the General Secretary of the Central Committee, pardon me, the President of the European Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen has made a career of failing upwards.
However, she is only a symptom of the systemic problems in the structure of the EU.

[Doc]

. . .

OK but what do you call this kind of science?

Ursula von der Leyen’s Pfizer Text Scandal: Delays Spark Concerns Over Transparency and Accountability in the EU
Joana Campos Joana Campos Dic. 20, 2024 2:20 pm 2 min de lectura
6
fotos-pagina-web-gh-24
Listen

The highly anticipated legal case surrounding European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s alleged secret text exchanges with Pfizer during critical COVID-19 vaccine negotiations officially began on Friday, December 6, in the Liège council chamber.

The case has drawn global attention, with critics demanding transparency and accountability over potential backdoor dealings between the EU’s leadership and pharmaceutical giants during one of the most consequential crises in modern history.

However, the proceedings have already been marred by controversy. The EU Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), tasked with overseeing investigations into EU-related fraud and corruption, is facing sharp criticism for apparent negligence and delays.

Observers and legal experts alike are raising concerns that this sluggish pace could be a form of deliberate obstruction—a strategy that conveniently shields those at the highest levels of the European Union from scrutiny.

The case hinges on allegations that von der Leyen conducted informal negotiations with Pfizer through text messages, bypassing official channels of transparency and documentation.

These communications allegedly played a key role in securing multi-billion-dollar vaccine deals, decisions that impacted millions across Europe. The European Commission has thus far failed to produce these messages, fueling suspicions and public distrust.

From a conservative standpoint, this case highlights deeper, systemic issues within EU governance. Critics argue that unaccountable elites, like von der Leyen, wield disproportionate power with little oversight, particularly during emergencies such as the pandemic. The potential mishandling of taxpayer money, paired with secretive negotiations favoring big pharmaceutical corporations, only exacerbates the EU’s crisis of legitimacy.

A Pattern of Obstruction?

The EPPO’s handling of the case adds fuel to the fire. Rather than prioritizing transparency, its slow-moving investigation has drawn accusations of negligence, if not outright collusion. Is this an intentional effort to protect powerful figures like von der Leyen? Some conservative commentators suggest that this behavior reflects a broader trend of elitist arrogance within EU institutions—a sense that rules apply to ordinary citizens, but not to those in power.

Significance of the Outcome

The stakes in this trial are enormous. Should the court uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it could deliver a significant blow to von der Leyen’s credibility and the European Commission’s integrity in managing the pandemic response. Conversely, a lack of transparency or accountability could deepen public cynicism toward EU leadership, further alienating citizens who already view the Commission as detached and unaccountable.

For conservatives, this case serves as a reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked bureaucracies and centralized power. It underscores the need for institutional reform and a return to principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic processes—values that are too often disregarded by the EU’s ruling class.

As the trial unfolds, one question remains: Will the European Union’s leadership be held accountable, or will this scandal be swept under the rug? The eyes of Europe—and the world—are watching.

I'd call that a link to the original article would be appreciated.

Sorry I forgot to add it


The science part was the development of the vaccine, the public health part was its deployment.

The rest is the usual self-dealing of the EU nomenklatura, pardon me, the managerial class, notably the EU Politburo, pardon me, the EU Commission, especially the General Secretary of the Central Committee, pardon me, the President of the European Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen has made a career of failing upwards.
However, she is only a symptom of the systemic problems in the structure of the EU.

[Doc]

. . .

OK but what do you call this kind of science?

Ursula von der Leyen’s Pfizer Text Scandal: Delays Spark Concerns Over Transparency and Accountability in the EU
Joana Campos Joana Campos Dic. 20, 2024 2:20 pm 2 min de lectura
6
fotos-pagina-web-gh-24
Listen

The highly anticipated legal case surrounding European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s alleged secret text exchanges with Pfizer during critical COVID-19 vaccine negotiations officially began on Friday, December 6, in the Liège council chamber.

The case has drawn global attention, with critics demanding transparency and accountability over potential backdoor dealings between the EU’s leadership and pharmaceutical giants during one of the most consequential crises in modern history.

However, the proceedings have already been marred by controversy. The EU Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), tasked with overseeing investigations into EU-related fraud and corruption, is facing sharp criticism for apparent negligence and delays.

Observers and legal experts alike are raising concerns that this sluggish pace could be a form of deliberate obstruction—a strategy that conveniently shields those at the highest levels of the European Union from scrutiny.

The case hinges on allegations that von der Leyen conducted informal negotiations with Pfizer through text messages, bypassing official channels of transparency and documentation.

These communications allegedly played a key role in securing multi-billion-dollar vaccine deals, decisions that impacted millions across Europe. The European Commission has thus far failed to produce these messages, fueling suspicions and public distrust.

From a conservative standpoint, this case highlights deeper, systemic issues within EU governance. Critics argue that unaccountable elites, like von der Leyen, wield disproportionate power with little oversight, particularly during emergencies such as the pandemic. The potential mishandling of taxpayer money, paired with secretive negotiations favoring big pharmaceutical corporations, only exacerbates the EU’s crisis of legitimacy.

A Pattern of Obstruction?

The EPPO’s handling of the case adds fuel to the fire. Rather than prioritizing transparency, its slow-moving investigation has drawn accusations of negligence, if not outright collusion. Is this an intentional effort to protect powerful figures like von der Leyen? Some conservative commentators suggest that this behavior reflects a broader trend of elitist arrogance within EU institutions—a sense that rules apply to ordinary citizens, but not to those in power.

Significance of the Outcome

The stakes in this trial are enormous. Should the court uncover evidence of wrongdoing, it could deliver a significant blow to von der Leyen’s credibility and the European Commission’s integrity in managing the pandemic response. Conversely, a lack of transparency or accountability could deepen public cynicism toward EU leadership, further alienating citizens who already view the Commission as detached and unaccountable.

For conservatives, this case serves as a reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked bureaucracies and centralized power. It underscores the need for institutional reform and a return to principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic processes—values that are too often disregarded by the EU’s ruling class.

As the trial unfolds, one question remains: Will the European Union’s leadership be held accountable, or will this scandal be swept under the rug? The eyes of Europe—and the world—are watching.

I'd call that a link to the original article would be appreciated.

The science part was the development of the vaccine, the public health part was its deployment.

The rest is the usual self-dealing of the EU nomenklatura, pardon me, the managerial class, notably the EU Politburo, pardon me, the EU Commission, especially the General Secretary of the Central Committee, pardon me, the President of the European Commission.

Ursula von der Leyen has made a career of failing upwards.
However, she is only a symptom of the systemic problems in the structure of the EU.

Symptoms of systemic problems can be found nearly everywhere including scientific research. Corruption is corruption where ever it is found.

[Doc]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-pla ... ane-report

27% Of National Science Foundation Grants Went To DEI Projects, Study Finds

'Congress must end the politicization of NSF funding and restore integrity to scientific research,' Sen. Ted Cruz says

By Luke Rosiak

Feb 10, 2025 DailyWire.com

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 27: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a press conference on border security at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 27, 2023 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The National Science Foundation spent more than $2 billion funding “science” projects that were often more about activism and critical race theory than science, the Senate Commerce Committee found.

The committee found that one in 10 grants awarded between January 2021 and April 2024 had to do with oppression, social or environmental justice, gender, or race. The figure was dramatically higher in grants issued more recently, as what counted as “science” transformed dramatically under the Biden administration.

“While only 0.29% of all grants with start-dates in 2021 centered on DEI initiatives, by 2024, more than a quarter (27%) of new grants pushed far-left perspectives,” the Commerce Committee said in a report released Monday.

“Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has been taking a sledgehammer to the radical left’s woke nonsense. DEI initiatives have poisoned research efforts, eroded confidence in the scientific community, and fueled division among Americans,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the committee’s chairman, told The Daily Wire in a statement. “Congress must end the politicization of NSF funding and restore integrity to scientific research.”

Scientists have warned that anticipated cuts under the Trump administration could harm life-saving research. However, few of them complained when, in recent years, soft-science and activist academics began siphoning off money that could have otherwise gone to things like cancer research.

Cruz said that wasn’t the only way DEI activism masquerading as research was harming real scientists, saying it also reduced the public’s confidence in the field as a whole. More than a quarter of the American public has no or not much confidence in scientists, double what it was a few years ago, he said. Low-quality “research,” where academics start with an ideological conclusion and work backwards to justify it, is also dangerous because it could lead to a faulty understanding of the world, he said.

Some papers from left-wing academics have said that the scientific method, the written word, and hard work are all racist, making it all the more surprising that mainstream scientists have failed to condemn it.

The NSF spent half a million dollars on a project called “Reviewer Zero,” which says that peer-reviewing papers — a crucial step in assuring quality — is racist because peer reviewers disproportionately find that minorities’ research is not accurate.

“The accepted values and practices in science can serve as roadblocks and barriers to the inclusion and advancement of minoritized scholars,” its study said. “The overrepresentation of people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies shapes the way research is done.”

In 2022, NSF gave a $4.4 million grant to Columbia University to “decolonize geoscience.” Another million dollars went to a project that says that physics is racist. In exchange for the hefty government funding, two scholars — a “chronically ill and disabled, physics-Ph.D.-holding, thin wealthy white woman” and a black man — watched videos of four science lessons, and spoke to two students and the teacher over Zoom. Their conclusion rested on a single several-minute video of an undergrad group project, in which a Middle Eastern student did most of the work while a white and Hispanic student cracked jokes. It concluded that the Middle Eastern student exemplified “whiteness” by being “centered” (receiving attention since he was the one actually doing the work) while the others were “marginalized.”

Cruz said radical left-wing ideology that deems anything mainstream or successful to be oppressive or colonizing has contributed to unrest on college campuses, including outbreaks of blatant anti-Semitism.

NSF began prioritizing ideological grants in response to a Biden administration executive order that said it DEI should be in every area of government. A Biden task force said “ctivities counter to DEIA values are disruptive to the conduct of science.” Left-wing colleges then took that mandate even further, interpreting it in ways that may have flagrantly violated civil rights laws.

Shirin Vossoughi, an associate professor at Northwestern University, is co-principal investigator for a $1 million NSF grant, awarded in 2023, for “Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM.” Vossoughi cited Karl Marx to justify teaching children anti-Israel concepts after Hamas attacked Israel.

Millions in federal funds were spent politicizing artificial intelligence in ways that could have profound effects on society. NSF awarded more than a million dollars to the University of Pittsburgh’s Angela Stewart, who wrote that artificial intelligence should not be neutral, because that “only serves the capitalist, racist, heteronormative, patriarchal, etc society.”

Cruz’s committee gathered more than 3,000 grants matching DEI keywords, which The Daily Wire has made searchable and browsable below:

[Doc]

https://plague.info/2024-12-02-cebm-stu ... sible.html

Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford says modeling study claiming COVID jabs saved millions of lives “implausible”
12/02/2024 / By Ethan Huff


The widespread claim that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” saved millions of lies is officially debunked.

Carl Heneghan, head of the Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford, along with Tom Jefferson wrote a piece for The Spectator (United Kingdom) that outlines the “implausible” findings of the modeling study that is widely referenced as proof that COVID jabs saved upwards of 12 million people.

It was the BBC that first made the claim that AstraZeneca and Pfizer had together developed “medicines” that saved the lives of millions of people, citing the findings of a “disease forecasting company” called Airfinity. Similar claims were made here in the United States about Operation Warp Speed.

A study out of Imperial College London calculated that COVID jabs saved 20 million lives between December 2020 and December 2021, the assumption – a false one, just to be clear – being that the jabs conferred protection against COVID infection.

Heneghan and Jefferson downloaded and evaluated data from GitHub to examine the country-specific estimates procured in order to assess whether or not they are realistic. They looked at figures for the UK, Italy and the United States.

It turns out that the figures claimed as evidence that COVID jabs worked are bunk.

“Sadly, many journalists don’t check their numbers or facts: many of the assumptions in the model are incorrect, and the estimated number of deaths averted by vaccines is implausible,” Heneghan and Jefferson write.

“This isn’t surprising. As in medicine, models do not fit anywhere in the pathway for establishing effectiveness. Regulators don’t use them for approval, and decision-makers like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence use economic models with reliable estimates of effect and credible costs.”

(Related: Remember when it came out that Oxford’s COVID injection sterilizes upwards of 70 percent of all recipients?)

Trials, not models, should be used to create public health interventions
Heneghan and Jefferson are humble with their findings, calling themselves “two old geezers” who simply decided to take a closer look at the data backing the claims. What they found is all too common in today’s world: wild assumptions based on flawed science.

“Models simply should not be used,” they say. “Large, well-designed, well-reported, and data-accessible trials should be used for global public health interventions. So, why are we using models to justify decisions?”

This is a good question and one that Dr. Aseem Malhotra echoed on X / Twitter in pointing out these latest revelations.

“Classic journalism is dead,” wrote someone on social media about all this. “Activism is the new legacy media.”

Others simply could not fathom how Imperial College London managed to put together a study based on the idea that COVID jabs stop infection and transmission, which they admittedly do not do.

“Yet the media keeps parroting this ‘saved millions of lives’ slogan,” one pointed out about the ridiculousness of all this.

“Even the assumption that vaccines against respiratory viruses work is wrong and has always been,” added another to the conversation. “Sadly, very few doctors know this.”

1/3

Once you understand how natural immunity against airborne viruses is created you will never want an injection again.

Did you know that immunity against airborne viruses is created in your gut? Peyers patches. pic.twitter.com/hlaXJttDBN

— Gaute Adler Nilsen ? Shadow-? ??????? (@GauteNilsen) September 3, 2023


“Can anyone send me the evidence of a single life ever having been saved by a vaccine?” asked another. “Go on, just one. It’s OK, I know you can’t.”

“The truth always comes out in the end,” said someone else about how the truth will also rise to the surface eventually.

The latest COVID news can be found at Plague.info.

[Juno markII]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
Sabine can't keep a secret

[Parodite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
Sabine can't keep a secret

She should team up with DOGE. Or help create a European DOGE.
Good news as she predicts: the tax payers who pay these pseudo scientists are done with waste fraud and any other dog poo dung stuff wrapped in shiny paper.

[Typhoon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
Sabine can't keep a secret

Self-perceived elitism and the accompanying sense of entitlement are rampant in academia.

When the SSC [Superconducting Super Collider] was cancelled due to massive cost overruns, the then director of the project, Roy Schwitters, called it "the revenge of the B students".

The DUNE project is based at Fermilab, Batavia, IL and is also having massive cost overruns.
Also FNAL has recently been embroiled in various other [mis-]management scandals leading to the departure of its director.

We live in an age of competing exponentially growing hyperbole as all areas of life, not just science.

[Typhoon]

Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes

[Nonc Hilaire]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonem ... he-journal

[Typhoon]

https://plague.info/2024-12-02-cebm-stu ... sible.html

Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford says modeling study claiming COVID jabs saved millions of lives “implausible”
12/02/2024 / By Ethan Huff


The widespread claim that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” saved millions of lies is officially debunked.

Carl Heneghan, head of the Center for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford, along with Tom Jefferson wrote a piece for The Spectator (United Kingdom) that outlines the “implausible” findings of the modeling study that is widely referenced as proof that COVID jabs saved upwards of 12 million people.

It was the BBC that first made the claim that AstraZeneca and Pfizer had together developed “medicines” that saved the lives of millions of people, citing the findings of a “disease forecasting company” called Airfinity. Similar claims were made here in the United States about Operation Warp Speed.

A study out of Imperial College London calculated that COVID jabs saved 20 million lives between December 2020 and December 2021, the assumption – a false one, just to be clear – being that the jabs conferred protection against COVID infection.

Heneghan and Jefferson downloaded and evaluated data from GitHub to examine the country-specific estimates procured in order to assess whether or not they are realistic. They looked at figures for the UK, Italy and the United States.

It turns out that the figures claimed as evidence that COVID jabs worked are bunk.

“Sadly, many journalists don’t check their numbers or facts: many of the assumptions in the model are incorrect, and the estimated number of deaths averted by vaccines is implausible,” Heneghan and Jefferson write.

“This isn’t surprising. As in medicine, models do not fit anywhere in the pathway for establishing effectiveness. Regulators don’t use them for approval, and decision-makers like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence use economic models with reliable estimates of effect and credible costs.”

(Related: Remember when it came out that Oxford’s COVID injection sterilizes upwards of 70 percent of all recipients?)

Trials, not models, should be used to create public health interventions
Heneghan and Jefferson are humble with their findings, calling themselves “two old geezers” who simply decided to take a closer look at the data backing the claims. What they found is all too common in today’s world: wild assumptions based on flawed science.

“Models simply should not be used,” they say. “Large, well-designed, well-reported, and data-accessible trials should be used for global public health interventions. So, why are we using models to justify decisions?”

This is a good question and one that Dr. Aseem Malhotra echoed on X / Twitter in pointing out these latest revelations.

“Classic journalism is dead,” wrote someone on social media about all this. “Activism is the new legacy media.”

Others simply could not fathom how Imperial College London managed to put together a study based on the idea that COVID jabs stop infection and transmission, which they admittedly do not do.

“Yet the media keeps parroting this ‘saved millions of lives’ slogan,” one pointed out about the ridiculousness of all this.

“Even the assumption that vaccines against respiratory viruses work is wrong and has always been,” added another to the conversation. “Sadly, very few doctors know this.”

1/3

Once you understand how natural immunity against airborne viruses is created you will never want an injection again.

Did you know that immunity against airborne viruses is created in your gut? Peyers patches. pic.twitter.com/hlaXJttDBN

— Gaute Adler Nilsen ? Shadow-? ??????? (@GauteNilsen) September 3, 2023


“Can anyone send me the evidence of a single life ever having been saved by a vaccine?” asked another. “Go on, just one. It’s OK, I know you can’t.”

“The truth always comes out in the end,” said someone else about how the truth will also rise to the surface eventually.

The latest COVID news can be found at Plague.info.

Actually, no.

The original article:

The Spectator | Did Covid vaccines really save 12 million lives?

All models are wrong, but some are useful

~ George E. P. Box

The valid and important point that the authors make is that statistical epidemiological models of the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are both wrong and not useful.

That's it.

They do have not issues with the COVID-19 vaccines or other vaccines, rather they criticize the use of models to estimate vaccine efficacy.

This isn’t surprising. As in medicine, models do not fit anywhere in the pathway for establishing effectiveness.

Regulators don’t use them for approval, and decision-makers like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence use economic models with reliable estimates of effect and credible costs. They do not appear in the The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence or the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system for grading evidence, as they are irrelevant to answering therapeutic questions.

Clinical trials are the primary study type to determine the effectiveness of medicines or vaccinations; anything else is just a bad guess.

The crackpot site plague.info misunderstands and/or misrepresents this article to go off on unsupported rants about vaccines.

[Typhoon]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonem ... he-journal

The proof will be in the publishing. In other words, will the scientific papers published be science or junk science.

[Nonc Hilaire]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonem ... he-journal

The proof will be in the publishing. In other words, will the scientific papers published be science or junk science.

The point is WHERE will science be published. The gatekeeper publisher is criticizing the open source publisher for not putting up enough economic and political barriers.

It seems obvious that everything will eventually be online with links to video & datasets. Peer review will be after publication in the comments.

[Typhoon]

https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonem ... he-journal

The proof will be in the publishing. In other words, will the scientific papers published be science or junk science.

The point is WHERE will science be published. The gatekeeper publisher is criticizing the open source publisher for not putting up enough economic and political barriers.

Well, I won't defend the Science article.

Scientific publishing has been one of the most profitable legal rackets in recent history.

I belong to several professional scientific societies. If memory serves, societies such as the IEEE and the APS [American Physical Society] also require membership in order to publish in their peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, the bar to membership is set low.

It seems obvious that everything will eventually be online with links to video & datasets. Peer review will be after publication in the comments.

To some degree, this is already the situation. Many scientists first publish their papers to pre-peer-review preprint servers such as ArXiv.org, BioRxiv.org, and MedRxiv.org.

In fast moving field, one often finds the preprints posted to the above sites cited in a paper's reference section.

[Doc]

Biggest Scientific Study Retraction Leaves Everyone Confused About the Results

[Doc]

https://humanevents.com/2025/04/29/swis ... -with-bots

Swiss researchers run secret experiment on Redditors, use AI to manipulate users to demonize Christianity, Elon, pro-lifers—AI 6x more effective than humans
“This experiment deployed AI-generated comments to study how AI could be used to change views.”

by: Human Events Staff 04/29/2025
Swiss researchers run secret experiment on Redditors, use AI to manipulate users to demonize Christianity, Elon, pro-lifers—AI 6x more effective than humans
Researchers from the University of Zurich conducted an unauthorized study on Reddit’s r/changemyview community using AI-generated comments, subreddit moderators confirmed over the weekend. The study, which ran for several months without users' knowledge, aimed to examine how artificial intelligence could influence people’s opinions, according to Engagdet.

According to the moderators, the research violated subreddit rules that prohibit bots and require disclosure when AI is used: "The CMV Mod Team needs to inform the CMV community about an unauthorized experiment conducted by researchers from the University of Zurich on CMV users,” they wrote. “This experiment deployed AI-generated comments to study how AI could be used to change views.”

The r/changemyview subreddit, which has 3.8 million members, is designed for users to post opinions and invite others to challenge them.

The researchers used large language models (LLMs) to write persuasive replies under false identities, including personas such as a sexual assault survivor, a trauma counselor, and a “Black man opposed to Black Lives Matter.” Many of the comments have been removed. Some remain available in an archive published by 404 Media.

A draft of the researchers’ paper states that AI-generated responses were customized using personal details inferred from the original posters' history. “In addition to the post’s content, LLMs were provided with personal attributes of the OP (gender, age, ethnicity, location, and political orientation), as inferred from their posting history using another LLM,” the draft reads.

Reddit’s Chief Legal Officer Ben Lee addressed the situation Monday, calling the study “deeply wrong on both a moral and legal level” and a violation of Reddit’s sitewide rules. “We have banned all accounts associated with the University of Zurich research effort,” Lee wrote. “We are in the process of reaching out to the University of Zurich and this particular research team with formal legal demands.”

Lee added that Reddit continue working with moderators to remove any remaining AI content and improve its systems to detect inauthentic behavior.

The researchers posted a comment defending their actions saying: “We acknowledge the moderators’ position that this study was an unwelcome intrusion in your community, and we understand that some of you may feel uncomfortable that this experiment was conducted without prior consent. We believe the potential benefits of this research substantially outweigh its risks.”

The University of Zurich has confirmed that its ethics committee advised researchers to follow platform rules, but noted that these recommendations are not legally binding. A university spokesperson said new safeguards would be introduced: “The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences intends to adopt a stricter review process in the future and, in particular, to coordinate with the communities on the platforms prior to experimental studies.”

The university added that it is now reviewing the incident and that the researchers have decided not to publish the results of the study.