Another day, another junk vaccine study hyped by the legacy media. Will the noise ever stop?

Probably not, but at least I can clap back with the truth

There’s science. And there’s The Science.

Never the twain shall meet.

Last week, the Washington Post pretended Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health had hidden a study showing how awesomely awesome mRNA Covid boosters are. In reality, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics and medicine could see the study wasn’t worth the pixels it was printed on.

Now the New York Times is baying the Food and Drug Administration is sitting on studies proving the mRNA Covid jabs are safer than a parachutist jumping from the bottom bunk onto a padded floor, a well-done steak, Dr. Albert Bourla’s pay package at Pfizer, insert your own analogy here…

To wit, the Times just ran this headline: F.D.A. Blocked Publication of Research Finding Covid and Shingles Vaccines Were Safe

To which I offer my own headline: Make It Stop

—

Making it stop, with your help - for 20 percent off!

But only through tomorrow, so sign up now!

—

Here’s the study at the center of the Times article, as described by Times propagandist for public health bureaucrats completely unbiased reporter Christina Jewell:

The study reviewed the records of about 7.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who got the vaccine. The researchers focused on the period of about 21 days after they got the vaccine and compared it to the next 20 days. They were looking to see if there were more health problems in the period right after vaccination.

The study looked at 14 health outcomes potentially caused by the vaccine… [and] found a concern with [only] one outcome, anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction affecting about 1 in a million people, from the Pfizer vaccine.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Wrong.

This type of study is called a “self-controlled case series” design. Under some circumstances, and particularly for longer periods when a facet of the variable one is attempting to measure does not confound the outcome, it can be reasonable.

In this case, though, comparing adverse events in the three weeks immediately after vaccination to the three weeks after that produces a bias hugely in favor of vaccine safety. Why?

Because people are unlikely to get vaccinated if they aren't feeling well. They will wait.

—

(Dr. Albert Bourla, chairman of Pfizer. Yeah, I’m still suing him. More on that soon.)

—

Thus the days immediately following vaccination are likely to see a DROP in serious side effects, whatever the impact of the shots may be. Jabs have to have very serious problems to overcome that inherent bias in their favor and show safety signals in this kind of design.

The people talking to Christina Jewett certainly know that inherent flaw makes the study basically useless. Does she? I don’t know. I’d like to believe she does and is choosing to ignore that inconvenient fact because poking at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is just too much fun.

In reality, she probably has no idea.

—

Which is why I’m here, with your help!

Did I mention the 20 percent off? Maybe once or twice? Only through tomorrow, though!

—

The fact that the legacy media and health bureaucrats inside the federal government are still carrying water for mRNAs Covid jabs, should astonish all of us. There is no reasonable case for anyone, even adults over 75, to continue taking these.

1: They don’t work.

2: Covid is extremely mild at this point.

3: We have no idea what the short- or long-term side effects of annual or biannual mRNA injections might be.

Yet — five years on — the mRNA fanatics still won’t quit. They simply cannot admit the truth, no matter how much damage they do to their credibility.

Credibility loss. Maybe we should add that to the list of mRNA side effects.