If high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care had something to say about the vaccine clinical trials, would you be interested or would you much prefer to visit Facebook's COVID-19 Information Centre for vaccine resources? (Fig 1)
If this question would have been posed before the outbreak of COVID_19, most would have answered with, "It's a no-brainer." Today, however, sees a different position. Facebook's flagging of posts seems to convince many of those already jabbed that nobody but their fact-checkers could possibly be right. This is dangerous and no matter how much you try to convince the double-jabbed that there is something not quite right with what we are all being told, the wind grows stronger and blows the piss back in your face (pissin' in the wind)
I'm certain once this blog post is finished and shared on Facebook the standard (Fig 1) will accompany it within seconds. So, how to we tap in to those who take the Facebook flags as Gospel? Personally, I think many are way too far down the government and drug company driven hyperbole. It would take a severe adverse reaction or even death to a loved one to alter their opinion.
The following information is taken from the RxISK website, RxISK is owned and operated by Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd. (DBM), based in Toronto, Canada.
It is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.
The exact same group of people that the majority of the double-jabbed are choosing not to listen to, opting instead to believe and follow the 'science' of Facebook's COVID_19 Information Centre for vaccine information.
I've yet to see Facebook's flags take it's 'clickers' to any information regarding the vaccine clinical trials, moreover, how trials are run (historically)
The latest from the RxISK team, 'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', is educational for those who don't move in the same circles as I. It can either be ignored or can be used to educate - out of the two, I prefer education over ignorance, we all should.
Sure, it rehashes what the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated seem to dismiss on a whim but it drives home the seriousness of what we see unfolding in the world today, it shows how easy it is to hoodwink an apathetic public, despite evidence there is something drastically wrong with the narrative, of which the majority seem to have gobbled up from apparent government "scientists", mainstream media outlets and social media platforms whose spokespersons seem to be the red-sofa types, you know, the Piers Morgan's, Jeremy Vine's and Dr Hilary Jones' of this world.
Morning and daytime TV has a targeted audience. With COVID-19 impacting routines and consumers spending more time at home, daytime television viewing has increased significantly. What better way to spread a message, eh? It doesn't have to be the truth.
The aforementioned will, just like the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated, refuse to even read 'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', It goes against everything they believe in and have told their viewers - to do a U-turn at this stage would mean they'd lose face, something that Messrs Morgan, Vine, and Jones rarely do.
The high-profile medical experts on the RxISK website write:
"Governments are considering mandating, or already have mandated an unproven technology, against a background of vaccine approval and pharmacovigilance processes that leave a lot to be desired even in the case of proven technologies.
"The techniques used to evaluate these novel agents are not new but have been corrupted and no longer meet the norms of science."
If, by some strange twist of fate, a double/triple/quadruple vaccinated person is reading this blog post, it's at this point a switch is flicked in their heads and they choose to not read on, this is pretty much how Fig 1 works.
However, I'll persist.
The patient-centered care team at RxISK continue with:
"Icon is the CRO that co-ordinated the trial of a vaccine that is sometimes now called Comirnaty, and more generally called Pfizer. Icon subcontracted to other companies, at some point engaging Platinum Research Ltd, which includes Ventavia, the CRO with concerning trial practices that was the subject of Paul Thacker’s Nov 2 BMJ paper. Icon boast that the main trial was conducted with unprecedented speed and pitch for further business based on this.
"Icon staff wrote the papers reporting the results of these trials submitted with BioNTech as the sponsor. Of the 29 listed ‘authors’ on the main trial, there are 3 Americans, 4 who run for profit clinical trial centres overseas, and 19 company people of whom 17 are linked to Pfizer and 2 to BioNTech. There are few clinicians on these papers, and likely none have met any of the trial subjects, particularly those who have been harmed."
If this has not whet your appetite to read on then the lengthy post may not be your thing. However, you'll be missing out on something that can educate you, your children and your children's children.
The post from RxISK is split into many parts, I highly recommend reading it, if not all at once, then bookmark it and read it at your own leisure (maybe in-between listening to Dr Hilary Jones harp on about the importance of getting vaccines and booster 1,2,3,4 etc.
Learn about:
- Mandating Unproven Technologies
- Vaccine Efficacy
- Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence
- Vaccine Safety
- Pharmacovigilance
- Mandates
- Choking on the Lie
- Why Young Women?
Remember, and keep repeating to yourself, RxISK is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.
Bob Fiddaman
