Aug 10, 2022·edited Aug 10, 2022Liked by Dr Philip McMillan
I just watched your presentation. I'm not a doctor. I'm very much a layman. What I gather from your talk is that the animal trials were done just long enough to show evidence of covid vax benefit, but the animals were prematurely put to death--less than two months after the second dose. They were killed before we could know how they would do in the long run with variants and wild viruses, and other unexpected illness. Is that a fair summation?
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022Liked by Dr Philip McMillan
Is it typical to sacrifice all the animals in a study at 16 days? Could the study have been designed to explicitly ignore effects beyond 16 days - in other words could there be another explanation, such as this was a part of a larger and typical experimental plan that was never completed because human data became available. Can we know the mind of the actors involved based on this information?
Improperly conducted, incomplete, or underpowered trials are all equivalent to no trials, as far as i am concerned. Even when there is no malfeasance, it takes time and open peer review to find problems with complex drug and human system interactions. Regulatory bodies require these animal trials and also the full 10 year period for evaluation of vaccines for humans for good reasons. Painful experience has shown that drug (and other) companies have cheated and lied and taken shortcuts, resulting in widespread injury and great losses to society. As long as we have for-profit companies developing medicine, there *must* be strict adherence to the standards with audting to ensure procedures are followed, and severe penalties when they are not. "Fact-checkers" who are paid by the industry should not be given credence, as they are nothing more than public relations contractors.
I just watched your presentation. I'm not a doctor. I'm very much a layman. What I gather from your talk is that the animal trials were done just long enough to show evidence of covid vax benefit, but the animals were prematurely put to death--less than two months after the second dose. They were killed before we could know how they would do in the long run with variants and wild viruses, and other unexpected illness. Is that a fair summation?
What I'm getting in all this is that I'm finding myself now firmly in the camp that using animals for trials is unethical.
Is it typical to sacrifice all the animals in a study at 16 days? Could the study have been designed to explicitly ignore effects beyond 16 days - in other words could there be another explanation, such as this was a part of a larger and typical experimental plan that was never completed because human data became available. Can we know the mind of the actors involved based on this information?
This vax rollout had nothing to do with our "health".. that's not the purpose if this jab
Useless, dangerous garbage
Improperly conducted, incomplete, or underpowered trials are all equivalent to no trials, as far as i am concerned. Even when there is no malfeasance, it takes time and open peer review to find problems with complex drug and human system interactions. Regulatory bodies require these animal trials and also the full 10 year period for evaluation of vaccines for humans for good reasons. Painful experience has shown that drug (and other) companies have cheated and lied and taken shortcuts, resulting in widespread injury and great losses to society. As long as we have for-profit companies developing medicine, there *must* be strict adherence to the standards with audting to ensure procedures are followed, and severe penalties when they are not. "Fact-checkers" who are paid by the industry should not be given credence, as they are nothing more than public relations contractors.