It’s quite telling that we never hear any legitimate scientific responses to these courageous scientists and physicians like Yeadon. They risk being demonized and losing their careers to speak out on our behalf.
We hear only catch-phrases like “medical misinformation” and “anti-vaxxer” even though some of them are vaccinologists (like Robert Malone) who spent their lives studying vaccines — so they’re obviously not anti-vaccine. But they have legitimate concerns that should be listened to and taken into account by people who are concerned about the truth.
The scapegoating is being orchestrated behind the scenes by pharmaceutical corporations and echoed by their stooges, the mainstream media propagandists and so-called “fact checkers.” The social media censorship we’re witnessing is so dishonest.
It’s disingenuous and relies on the intellectual and moral laziness of most people who can’t be bothered to investigate it for themselves and who blindly defer to authority figures because it’s easier to do so – much like the Milgram experiment.
To use the phrase “conspiracy theory” to dismiss concerns is just lazy and dishonest. Science is not a closed book. There can be more than one scientific opinion. There is no consensus on this experimental drug. There cannot be at this point; it’s still relatively new.
I tend to take the word of a scientist like Yeadon who is speaking from a position of moral concern for humanity and a dedication to the truth over a shill who gets paid by Big Pharma or who is going along with the mainstream to advance their careers.
Why would the Frontline Doctors speak up, knowing that to do so is career suicide and ridicule? They obviously got into medicine to help people, not to sell pharmaceutical drugs that harm people.
- posted by Mordechai Sones
- September 30, 2021
- America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Chief Science Officer Dr. Michael Yeadon yesterday said there is “clear evidence of fraud” in the Pfizer study that purports to claim 95% efficacy in their COVID-19 “vaccine”.
Yeadon was commenting on anarticleappearing inThe Lancetand critiquing a documentary that scrutinized a Pfizer efficacy study, calling the distinction raised therein between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction “accurate”.
TheLancetarticle, entitledCOVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, says that although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
The article continues: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk…
View original post 1,052 more words