https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-most-damaging-paper-of-the-pandemic
Head on over to Peter McCullough’s Substack for the details and please consider subscribing to his Substack. He’s terrific, a great friend, a great scientist, and a man of great courage.
This is a pre-print so not yet peer-reviewed.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137
I’m sure they will try to get this paper killed. It is amazing that The Lancet is a teller of truth in this case.
The paper shows 74% of deaths post-vax could be attributed to the vaccine being a cause of death.
The results are strongly consistent with the Schwab paper where 71% of the deaths appeared to be consistent with a vaccine death:
They basically were looking for the “cleanest” proof of death, but it’s likely that all 71% of the cases (25 out of 35) died from the vaccine, it’s just harder to “prove” that.
The question we all should be asking is why are we first hearing about this now? How could all of the CDC’s analyses show no relation to the vaccine? And why aren’t we allowed to see them?
I doubt this gets published in the Lancet/makes it past pre-print. Why? Because so many of the co-authors all work for The Wellness Company in Sarasota, FL. Normally you see people from different institutions co-authoring papers that make it into the journal.
There’s also the fact Dr. Paul Alexander’s Wiki was clearly written by someone oozing salt.
"Peer Review" is more of a political idea than a scientific one. That is what they use to limit the number of non-narrative papers being published. You can see it at work in the Climate Change sphere. A small clique of scientists has it in its power to control what is published.
They tell you that peer review is essential to achieve good science but never forget that, arguablty the most famous scientists ever, Einstein and Newton, never had their papers peer reviewed.
You're right on target!
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
Yes, I know.
They should have just done the classic publish tactic of writing an abstract that comes to the approved conclusion, while the underlying data doesn't support it.
It's astonishing how much science is buried under political abstracts once you dig into these things..