Great work as always Maryanne!

Expand full comment

Read 'My Day at Yale' by Dr. Naomi Wolf. She connects all the dots in a brave fashion.

Expand full comment

Also, I'm so glad you highlighted this: "The study found the vaccine led to a statistically significant doubling in fetal loss (9.77% mRNA vs 4.09% saline), but Pfizer concluded that the difference between the two groups was “not biologically meaningful.”

This is their own data. The only groups in that study that had a higher rate of fetal loss was the BNT162b2 (pfizer vaccine) group and the BNT162b3 (TMD-RBD prototype). The control group had a 4.1% loss rate and the original RBD candidate (BNT162b1) had a 4.8% loss rate.

The important finding was as you have correctly stated - that 9.8% (vaccine) vs 4.1% (control) was a significant increase. It ABSOLUTELY should have required more testing, but it was dismissed on the basis that the 9.8% was "within the range of historical controls".

Sorry, Pfizer, but you can't do this. Once you have created a study you have specifically designed the controls for that study. Therefore if your group finds a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT difference (which it was, on a Dunnett test as quoted) you have to take action. You can't then compare to some control group that was investigated under a totally different environment or study. Nope.

So whoever wrote that statement lied. They didn't lie about the result but they lied by including the "historical control" caveat. This is also what the CDC and Zausche did when they ignored the high rate of human miscarriages in their own data - discussed here https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/breaking-igor-just-blew-the-lid-off

Another example in human medicine would be to take a new cardiac drug in a randomised trial. The drug is given to two groups. 0.5% of the placebo group die within the year and 1% of the trial group die. At the end of the study the doubling of death rate in the drug group was found to be statistically sigificant "but the death rate of 1% was within the historical range". Most would call that a fraudulent statement.

I have seen blowback about this issue, trying to dismiss this really significant finding in the animal studies, but the people that shout "MUH HISTORICAL CONTROLS" either do not understand clinical and pre-clinical studies or else they are simply arguing the sponsor's case for them. The TGA clearly did this and therefore failed a whole generation of women.

Expand full comment