Thank goodness for The Ethical Skeptic who is doing some high level, rigorous, data crunching. The kind that one would expect from, you know, the agency in charge of high level, rigorous, data crunching. There are two agencies of interest here in the US of A; the CDC and the FDA. I’m focusing on the CDC today.
Before we dive into The Ethical Skeptic’s findings, I took the liberty including some information from the CDC’s website. I didn’t want to be presumptuous, and just assume that the CDC operates “with scientific vision and leadership in promoting quality and integrity of CDC science, and helping to encourage the application of science to solving important public health problems.” I wanted to read it for myself. I thought you might be interested as well.
The Ethical Skeptic sourced the data from the CDC’s MMWR (morbidity and mortality weekly report), often referred to as “the voice of CDC,” according to the CDC. So let’s start there.
This certainly leads one to believe that the CDC is not only monitoring the EFFECTIVENESS of the Covid-19 vaccines, but also their SAFETY. This definitely seems like a really good idea, monitoring the safety…being that this is a new technology being used to deliver a non-sterilizing product, to the world, DURING a pandemic - something that has never been done before.
So it’s kind of weird how many studies concerning the SAFETY of this injection I did NOT see.
I did finally stumble upon a report that could probably fall under the “safety” category titled, Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccine During Pregnancy and Preterm or Small-for-Gestational-Age at Birth — Eight Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 15, 2020–July 22, 2021.
Quick side note - just a reminder that there were ZERO FDA approved vaccines available during this study period. Oh, AND pregnant women were excluded from Pfizer’s clinical trials. So any vaccine that was taken was unapproved and under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
Back to what I was saying…With the CDC’s clear commitment to tracking (first) EFFICACY and (then) SAFETY(kind of), as well as their stringent commitment to quality science (more on this science stuff later), you can imagine my surprise when I read the conflict of interest statement from this paper…don’t worry I’ve included it below.
All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Heather S. Lipkind reports participation on the Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnancy Data Safety Monitoring Board. Kimberly K. Vesco reports institutional support from Pfizer (Independent Grants for Learning and Change) to develop and test a novel menopause curriculum for medical residents, unrelated to the current work; and participation on Data Safety Monitoring Boards for two National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded studies. Candace C. Fuller reports institutional research funding from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Ousseny Zerbo reports receipt of a career grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Oh, is that all? No other conflicts of interest? Just that around a quarter of the authors on this study have a conflict of interest. Like, receiving money from the company they are studying. But you and I both know that money never corrupts anything…so I’m sure it’s all good. Oh yeah, and the LEAD AUTHOR sits on the PFIZER COVID-19 VACCINE DATA SAFETY MONITORING BOARD???? Probably no problem there.
objective
[ uhb-jek-tiv ]
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts;
unbiased or prejudiced; fair; impartial.
unbiased
not prejudiced; fair; impartial.
Ok cool. Just wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page before moving on to Ethical Skeptics findings. The following slides are from the Ethical Skeptic’s latest substack and can be accessed in their entirety HERE, which I highly suggest.
For anyone that isn’t super savvy when it comes to statistical analysis, here’s a quick little catch-up. This is probably HILARIOUS to anyone that knows me because, now this is going to be shocking, but I did NOT have to take statistics for my dance degree.
Sigma
(σ)
The unit of measurement usually given when talking about statistical significance is the standard deviation, expressed with the lowercase Greek letter sigma (σ). The term refers to the amount of variability in a given set of data: whether the data points are all clustered together, or very spread out.
(https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209)
What does standard deviation tell you?
The standard deviation is the average amount of variability in your data set. It tells you, on average, how far each score lies from the mean(μ).
In normal distributions, a high standard deviation means that values are generally far from the mean (μ), while a low standard deviation indicates that values are clustered close to the mean.
Why do we care?a3s
When is a particular data point — or research result — considered significant? The standard deviation provides a yardstick.
In most cases, a five-sigma result is considered the gold standard for significance, corresponding to about a one-in-a-million chance that the findings are just a result of random variations; six sigma translates to one chance in a half-billion that the result is a random fluke. (A popular business-management strategy called “Six Sigma” derives from this term, and is based on instituting rigorous quality-control procedures to reduce waste.)
(https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209)
My apologies if you’ve got this standard deviation stuff on lock, I did not; thank you for indulging my small tutorial…
But now we are all on the same page and can agree that.
σ-event = 11.1 is a BIG DEAL.
FUN FACT: 22,535 records were removed by the CDC from the June 2nd 2022 death data and have either yet to be placed back into the database or were reassigned to non-threatening ICD codes.
Probably nothing. After all, CDC is committed to safety.
Thanks to The Ethical Skeptic for throwing down on the impressive data interpretation. Thank God someone is.
Maybe now’s a good time to bring this whole science thing up that I mentioned earlier..
I took the liberty of pulling up some excerpts from the CDC mission statements, click here to read them in their entirety.
The director and staff within the Office of Science (OS) provide CDC/ATSDR with scientific vision and leadership in promoting quality and integrity of CDC science, and helping to encourage the application of science to solving important public health problems.
(1) Provides consultation, guidance and support to relevant organizations related to scientific quality;
(2) leads development of policies related to science;
(5) provides oversight of knowledge management activities for review, tracking, storage of and access to scientific products, data and protocols;
(6) supports and champions evidence-based decision making to support practice, program, and policy inside and outside of CDC;
(7) promotes the production and communication of high quality science products, including guidelines and recommendations, that address essential questions for practice and policy;
(8) promulgates the use of streamlined processes so that science products are timely and useful for decision making
(9) enhances public access to CDC publications and data.
(1) Protects the rights and welfare of human beings who participate in research
(3) provides leadership in public health ethics and integrates ethical analysis into day-to-day decisions and activities across CDC;
(4) establishes newly required oversight for scientific regulatory activities;
(5) provides independent assessment and resolution of contentious situations/issues;
(6) provides training relevant to enhancing science quality and integrity …
Did y’all just read all of that????
I’m curious, do you think that anyone at the CDC brushed up on their understanding of “quality science” recently?
Does removing 22,535 (likely inconvenient) records of interest qualify as “high quality science”?
I mean, I’m asking. I have a dance degree, so really, I am wildly unqualified to discuss this, which is certainly why I’m confused.
Hit me up.
Enlighten me.
Tell me it’s my cursory understanding of everything science that has brought me to this point. Tell me all about how one of the big Covid tragedies is the distrust of regulatory agencies that it has caused; relegating idiots with irrelevant degrees to, gasp, draw their own conclusions.
Perhaps I am feeling salty because I am incapable of understanding the nuances of elevated complexity in these analyses. Or perhaps I’m salty because I see these data and these conclusions, not just as numbers and curves on a graph, but as people. In my daily experience, I see and hear reports that strongly lend themselves to these data being, at the very least, worth some serious consideration.
Just this week, in my TINY studio:
8 reports of disregulated menses, including an 81 year old client that began menstruating again(WHAT???), 4 reports of colon cancer in under 40yo, 1 report of liver cancer (32yo); one report of stroke (62yo, no prior); one brain bleed, continuing reports from one client that includes unexplained rashes, lymph node swelling, fatigue, sores in mouth, and breast pain.
These events are all one degree of separation from me. In ONE week. Observational. Anecdotal. I know.
This is not normal. The crazy graphs and wild stats are abstract….but this is tangible. I am SEEING the evidence, real time. And….
IT. IS. CONSISTENT. Every single week.
It wasn’t just last week or the week before. It started in 2021 when my best friend’s dad drove himself to the hospital with stomach pain and never left, dying within weeks. His cancer (that he didn’t even know that he had) moved so quickly that they couldn’t even figure out what kind it was before he passed. I had never heard of this before and I started writing these anomalous events down. And now I hear about instances like this weekly. Wildfire cancers, they are called.
This is not normal.
Good thing thing we have the CDC looking after the science and the data.
Good thing they are doing it objectively. Having researchers that are paid by the company experiencing exponential profits from these injections always conveys science of the highest quality.
Thanks Ethical Skeptic, I’m sure the CDC will be sounding the alarm soon, too.
Sarah, maybe better to do anon, and I will delete this comment, but I'd like to do a post on this, and use this anecdote, or if you want to add further context.
Eddie has an anecdote as well, and I want to see if this is a thing now...
Conspiracy Sarah
Writes Conspiracy Sarah
2 hr ago
Liked by Sage Hana
I’m here, live, on normie vacay 2023. And the approach here is DO NOT BRING IT UP. All the kids are sick and on their zillionth round of antibiotics and that’s because of covid. Covid did this. It’s definitely NOT the jabs. And kids just get sick, ok?!?!? This is normal.
Good work, Sarah, however, I think as individuals there is so much testimony from people not far removed from us who have suffered ill-effects including death that we don't need to dig very deep when it comes to safety. If our own experience of death and injury far exceeds what might be expected statistically that is more than sufficient. It amazes me how those who swallow the narrative are so fixated on "peer review", for example, as if that is the only trustworthy information available to us when not only is it not the only information available it most certainly does not guarantee trustworthiness. There is a wealth of perfectly valid information available to us including our own experience which most definitely counts when it far exceeds what could reasonably be expected statistically ... and peer review has been exposed as having very limited value by none other than a former editor of the BMJ, Richard Smith:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/01/richard-smith-peer-reviewers-time-for-mass-rebellion/
True, you're more exposing lack of due diligence/corruption on the part of the authorities/companies rather than safety per se but if we know the jabs are not safe then that automatically implies lack of due diligence and corruption really, doesn't it?
I knew from Day One that this alleged pandemic was a psyop. To mark the 21st anniversary of 9/11 (the first psyop to wake me up and one I have a kind of fondness for) I've written a three-part article that might interest you. Be advised it will probably say things you aren't expecting.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/critical-thinking-the-moon-landings