Last week in Washington a meeting was convened to look at Vaccine Harms – the harms suffered post-vaccine by some pro-vaccine people, some so much pro that they enrolled for vaccine clinical trials. See Mandated Harms.
The meeting heard testimony from ten people, eight of whom I had interviewed, all of whom in my opinion had the injuries they claimed and for each a strong case can be made that the vaccine had caused the problem – in most cases this was the Pfizer vaccine.
Over the last year, the injured have found each other – mostly on Facebook platforms to begin with. There have been several forums with several thousand people supporting each other in efforts to establish what has happened to them and what might be done to put things right.
After Senator Johnson held a press conference in June about these injuries, the Facebook pages were torn apart and closed down.
The same has happened after the recent Washington meeting. But this time the injured were prepared and saved evidence for what has been happening a representative amount of which is now hosted on a non-Facebook site – We Want to be Heard.
Faced with this, the injured knowing their injuries to be real, not misinformation, see themselves as being censored, cancelled, and they all but blame Mark Zuckerberg personally.
They largely miss the role of Albert Bourla rather than Mark in the censorship, even though Bri’s testimony and Stephanie DeGaray’s testimony at the recent meeting points the finger at Albert.
Half the world hates Facebook at the moment for its Misinformation while the other half hates it for Censorship. Because of its reliance on algorithms, Facebook is caught in the middle, unable to act with discretion – as a real newspaper editor or proprietor would.
A real live person can act with discretion and offer ‘a these are my views’ response, if you don’t like them we are argue about it or you can get your news from another source. Facebook can’t do this because it doesn’t have views – it has algorithms.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are algorithmic. Like Rating Scales, however, they are now seen as more objective than individual discretion and the evidence that comes from them supposedly beats the lived experience of both patients and doctors.
If you think there is some problem that happens on these vaccines that was not there to a statistically significant extent – you’re dead right there is one and its in your head. This happens even if the trial was done by the Angel Gabriel rather than Albert Bourla. It is because RCTs are an act of hypnosis that get people to focus on one thing to the point where they can miss things happening more often and right in front of their nose.
Prioritizing RCT algorithms over lived experience and discretion is a descent from the first or second level of Hell we were already in to a Third Level.
When it comes to trials done by that sweet looking Albert, you have extra layers of hiding – see People Count even in Trials – that bring us down to a Fourth Level of Hell.
The recent Thacker article about Pfizer’s vaccine trials and a contract research company in Texas called Ventavia fits into these extra layers of hiding that all doctors and FDA should know about as a lot of these details have been on record now for nearly two decades.
Companies like Ventavia provide services for pharma like making Brianne Dressens disappear so they don’t show up inconveniently in the publication of Astra-Zeneca’s trial in the New England Journal of Medicine by the marvellously named Dr Falsey – see slide.
We have now descended to a Fifth Level of Hell with the emergence of Virtual Trials and companies like Science37 outlined three weeks ago by Johanna Ryan, who as it turns out within a year or so of launching have established links with companies like Ventavia.
Key elements of virtual trials have been happening in Albert’s and other vaccine trials, as Brianne and Stephanie DeGaray’s testimonies at the Mandated Harms meeting brought out – participants in these trials had apps on which to report from the comfort of their home.
This might sound like a luxurious way to participate in a trial but the questions on the apps are pre-populated so you can only tell the company what it wants to hear – that is did you have a sore arm or a fever but not have you had a clot or cardiac event or paralysis of your limbs. See Slide:
This led as a result to another advertisement in the NEJM – it would be a breach of consumer protection regulations to call these scientific articles – this time by a Dr Franck – at least his name sounds like this – what’s with all the Fs – who is a doctor in the same hospital in which Maddie DeGaray spent months, being tube fed and in a wheel chair. The article denied that there were any vaccine related serious adverse events – a serious adverse event is one that leads to a person ending up in hospital.
Just for the record, well over a decade ago the New England Journal of Medicine made it clear that they do not check on the integrity of clinical trial data and their then editor. Jeff Drazen, later branded those of us seeking to check on the integrity of the Study 329 data as Research Parasites.
The tweet symbol at the bottom of the parasite image provides the perfect segue into Sesame Street.
Kim Witczak, a member of RxISK almost from its day of inception, was another key figure behind the recent Washington meeting.
She had the temerity faced with this to tweet
Following which Twitter had a surprise in store for her:
Okay, strictly speaking Rosita was not appearing in a Direct to Consumer Advert – it was a public health measure to help get kids onside.
But it’s getting very difficult now for any of us to distinguish between public health announcements and pharmaceutical company adverts.
This is not a once off – see comments on last week’s post Mandated Harms where Mary Hennessey tried a little experiment with Facebook.
Dave Eggers published a widely read book about the impact of the internet on our lives – The Circle – in 2013. He has now followed it up with The Every, which goes beyond looking at the impact of the web on all our lives and stakes out the idea that pretty soon one company will run Everything.
Dave is betting on Jeff Bezos and as part of his resistance to this will not let hardback copies of his book be sold on Amazon. JB also runs The Washington Post, where a reviewer called Ron Charles has just reviewed The Every. Ron thinks Dave’s book is right on pretty much every detail – but a bit too long and slightly preachy.
Having read none of them, I’m not in a position to comment. In true Facebook style though I’m going to analyze a digital exhaust. Each of us has a digital exhaust, our Personally Identifiable Information – PII. These three publications and others point to an NPII (non-person) or perhaps even SII – Satanically Identifiable Information if you take Satan as the essence of impersonality or absence of good – where the good is linked to personhood.
So will it be Jeff or Mark who is hoping to build an alternate universe we can all escape to – in which we can perhaps live forever? Or will it be Albert?
Albert has the key algorithm – one that is being applied to all domains of life these days from economics to the social sciences in addition to medicine. Now that we have the algorithm, we can regulate economics, education and everything else – only letting evidence-based anything come into being. And of course we now know how to ensure RCTs always come up with the right answer.
Albert also supplies those little objects of desire that control fear and keep us alive – that make the impossible possible. There is no sign of Albert being able to correct any of the damage his drugs or vaccines cause but why would he need to be able to do that when he can use the algorithm to airbrush harms out of existence?
What about Joe in all this or Donald if he makes a comeback? Well their role is already simply one of front of house functionary, covering the outsourcing of actual government to businesses – with governors, like Greg in Texas, recruiting vigilantes to do their business in the case of abortion, and Joe in DC recruiting universities and hospitals and factories to do Albert’s business.
There is every chance that Patricia or Lauren’s books are more incisive than Dave’s and every chance David is wrong to place his bets on Jeff, but Dave has bravely stuck his neck out on one thing – that our problems lie more with the Left than the Right. The Left are more in thrall to technocracy, to the algorithm, to risk management, to controlling the risks that we pose them, than the risk taking Right.
Articles abound on the theme of Capitalism is a Disease. Faced with industry, pollution, poor wages, and unhealthy working conditions in the cause of Wealth creation, Health became a trump card for the Left – and ever since parties on the Left have campaigned on Health.
But now neoliberalism, aka neomedicalism, see The Deep NeoLiberal State, has done an end run around the Left putting Albert in pole position to pip Jeff or Mark in the final strait.
It has also done an end run around Green parties which can spot the hazards of techniques in degrading the wider environment but have a blind spot for the role of techniques in dehumanising us. They drag the Trojan Horse into the city when Albert comes bearing gifts.
We need to move beyond Left and Right and Green.
There is a fundamental opposition between algorithms and healing, between the impersonal and personal.
The development of techniques underpins a material progress. This kind of progress can proceed hand in hand with ever greater barbarism. The medical techniques that so entrance us have steadily impoverished medical care. Until we make progress in other domains that involve co-operation, and we learn how to use techniques to help an Us live the lives we want to live rather than having them nudge Us toward living the life Albert or Mark of Jeff want us to live, we will be increasingly at risk of extinction.
They Used to Call it Medicine is the third in the series of lectures on clinical trials, of which the first and second are linked in above. This tries to lay out what needs to happen. We need to re-embrace discretion without which medicine as we know it is doomed – and whisper it quietly doctors will be out of business.
In the health domain, We have the power to unseat Albert – if We stick together as Athenian women did at the urging of Lysistrata. This is obvious to many of us – particularly women – as Laurie Oakley’s Prescribed Harms post brings out and Mary Hennessey’s comment on Mandated Harms, and Brianne Dressen has shown mobilizing people to grapple with vaccine harms.
Those who have been harmed by drugs or vaccines have been harmed by the same sequestration of clinical trial data and ghostwriting of academic articles that happens with both drugs and vaccines and is getting steadily worse.
There is no ethical, moral, legal or scientific basis for letting this continue.
This image arrived after the post went up:
Facebook’s Community Standards seems to mean that someone complained. The same has happened on DH before when someone complained about an image in a certain context – the image and a similar context (Albert has been effectively lynching people with his drugs) has been repeated since without anyone complaining.
So introducing a rule for the one sensitive member of the public tells a different story about what these algorithms are all about