Neutralizing Dirty Tricksters
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 25 Jul 2022
Immunize Yourself to Propaganda
6 Jul 2022 – I stumbled across a new dirty trick (statistical use of neutralizing geometric titers – described later and scroll all the way down for decoding a list of tricks).
One need not be a total expert to detect something unfamiliar and fishy in order to follow one’s intuition, and confirm with a true expert (James Lyons-Weiler – see below).
Familiarity with any phenomenon enables you recognize the language, concepts, landscape, major players and patterns so that your radar can detect when something is off and pursue what is behind it.
Creating a Parallel Universe
Mystification is a plausible misrepresentation of reality, presenting forms of exploitation as forms of benevolence. Fabrication weaves together fragments of truths, half-truths, facts out of context, images, and distortions to create a coherent, internally consistent, compelling, convincing worldview.
A variety of big and little dirty tricks are combined and deployed to support the illusory false narrative. “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” is a principle of Gestalt psychology.
I have been compiling a list of dirty tricks (still mostly in my head) including statistical gimmicks, numbers games, redefinitions, and illusions used to mystify the public. A well-fabricated plausible, alternative reality appears obviously true to an unquestioning public.
Tricks make Covid shots appear necessary, safer and more effective than they are and cover up dangers and negative efficacy.
Pfizer’s Unintentionally Revealing Announcements
The day after the June 28 FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting to authorize reformulated, “Omicron-adapted” Covid Spikeshots, I came across this Pfizer announcement: “Pfizer and BioNTech Announce New Agreement with U.S. Government to Provide Additional Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine”
Excerpts with my bolds of deceptive manipulative language to raise awareness of propaganda literacy.
“Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced a new vaccine supply agreement with the U.S. government to support the continued fight against COVID-19. …
The U.S. government will pay the companies $3.2 billion upon receipt of the first 105 million doses. Under this agreement, the U.S. government also has the option to purchase up to 195 million additional doses, bringing the total number of potential doses to 300 million.
On June 25, 2022, Pfizer and BioNTech reported pivotal data demonstrating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of two Omicron-adapted vaccine candidates..”
Having followed data on safety and efficacy since 2020, I was naturally curious about what they meant by “pivotal data” so I clicked the link and got this article, already suspicious of the title’s claim for a “High Immune Response.” This usually means a deceptive, short-term antibody response.
Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Omicron-Adapted COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Demonstrate High Immune Response Against Omicron 6/25/22
- Omicron-adapted monovalent candidate given as a fourth booster dose elicited a 13.5 and 19.6-fold increase in neutralizing geometric titers against Omicron BA.1 at 30 µg and 60 µg dose levels; bivalent vaccine candidate exhibited a 9.1 and 10.9-fold increase against Omicron
- Geometric mean ratios for Omicron neutralizing antibody response consistent with regulatory requirement of superiority.
- Preliminary laboratory studies demonstrate both Omicron-adapted candidates neutralize Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 though to a lesser extent than they do for BA.1
- Both vaccine candidates demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile similar to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
- Data to be discussed with regulators with goal of rapidly introducing adapted booster to address current and future variants
What the Heck are “Neutralizing Geometric Titers”?
I never heard of “neutralizing geometric titers” before, so I was curious. I was expecting a claim of a strong antibody response, which is deceptive enough as even FDA VRBPAC Committee members claimed that antibodies were not a reliable “correlate of protection” and inquired about T-Cells as a better measure but “difficult to study.”
Btw, I am not a statistician, epidemiologist or virologist. I am psychologist who had a sub specialty in psychoneuroimmunology. I have followed the literature on Covid since March 2020. I took a course in the Biology of Immunology with Dr. James Lyons Weiler at IPAK EDU so that I could better understand the literature. (Check out the wonderful courses at http://ipak-edu.org with the added side effect of being part of a conscious, compassionate, curious learning community.)
Still, “neutralizing geometric titers” never came up in any of the articles I read on a daily basis or in the wonderful class which I highly recommend.
I no longer “Google” so I Duck Duck Goed “neutralizing geometric titers.” I expected it to be a trick. I am catching on to them. Hint: the geometric mean introduces a bias that gives a different impression from using the arithmetic mean which is considered unbiased. (Do not assume that I fully understand these mathematical terms, although I was good at math in high school. I have a fuzzy understanding which is on the right track.
My Duck Duck Go search revealed this thread on https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-do-we-use-geometric-mean-concentration-for-antibody-titer
Why do we use geometric mean concentration for antibody titer?
I come across some papers in Epidemiology field where they use geometric mean concentration for antibody titer. I wonder why do we want to use geometric mean concentration, what is the advantage(s) and disadvantage(s) of using this calculation for antibody titer.
Also if anyone can suggest a good reference to read about it, I would really appreciate.
Here are some excerpts from answers with my bolds.
6th Dec, 2015
The arithmetic mean is usually what is used to estimate mathematical expectation of the population. The advantage of the arithmetic mean is that it gives us an unbiased estimation. When data distribution is heavy-tailed, the arithmetic mean becomes very inefficient (a lot of data is required to get reliable estimates), but, nonetheless, the arithmetic mean remains an unbiased estimator of the population mean. The geometric mean does not give us an unbiased estimator of the population mean and it is used for different purposes.
Indira Gandhi Medical College
But GMTs are notorious to hide low responders to vaccines, be careful when interpreting results.
30th Oct, 2017
Indira Gandhi Medical College
GMTs hide non responders to vaccine suppose 10 people have good vaccine response and three do not have a threshold vaccine response GMTs would hide all non responders and show all have good response. So they are deceptive.
320th Feb, 2018
Indira Gandhi Medical College
In human beings even one non response can be life threatening for him so GMT may be academic but not practical in human trials.
Indira Gandhi Medical College
To conclude group titres are ok but they may be dangerous in case an outlier is not responding to say rabies vaccine which can be life threatening for him/her. So interpretation of results matters if this is a health group or patients.
Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar
Interesting information as GMT will hide non responder in case of antibodies titration and evaluation.
Dr. Jack’s Input
Once I had enough to go on, I called Jack, aka Dr. James Lyons Weiler, my immunology teacher.
I recommend his Substack, https://popularrationalism.substack.com. Here is his latest; A Perpetual Pandemic is On the Way Thanks to Planned New COVID-19 Vaccines and FDA’s Insanity FDA will allow Moderna & Pfizer to update the variants targeted by their mRNA injections and require no new studies. What’s even more insane? Their “updates” will ensure a Perpetual Pandemic
Regarding GMTs – geometric titers – Jack wrote: (bolds are mine)
“It is not clear that the measure GMTs should be used instead of arithmetic means – for a number of important reasons. First, geometric means are known to be upwardly biased. This could dramatically artificially increase statistical power. Statistical testing should have used the anti-logged values anyway, which would have led them back to the original data and the arithmetic mean, and they would have done the t test. More importantly, geometric means are sensitive to outliers. It would be easier to falsify data with a few false large observations than with arithmetic mean analysis mainly because the data are already upwardly skewed with a long tail. This also means that even relatively few people with large antibody responses could make vaccines look more effective than they truly are. And I agree with the epidemiologist Omesh Kumar Bharti in his position that the use of GMT hides non-responders. The unaddressed problem is a violation of the first principle of statistical hypothesis testing: a homogenous population.”
Another Unfamiliar Term – Non-inferiority
Another new term I heard at the June 28 VRBPAC meeting was “non-inferiority.” After Duck Duck Going I learned that “superiority trials” are convincing ways to demonstrate superiority of a treatment over placebo control, an active control (another treatment), or a dose-response relationship.
A “non-inferiority trial” attempts to demonstrate that a new experimental treatment is not unacceptably or significantly worse than a control treatment currently in use, that is, almost as good as a comparator by a small amount.
While searching on my computer for my notes on non-inferiority, Dr. Peter McCullough’s CV came up with this line – “2009 trial stopped early for non-inferiority but futility on superiority outcome.”
The Pfizer announcement claims “Geometric mean ratios for Omicron neutralizing antibody response consistent with regulatory requirement of superiority.”
I don’t fully understand this, but it seems fishy – “consistent with regulatory requirement of superiority” is not the same as claiming superiority. It gives an illusion of superiority.
Like I said, I have a fuzzy understanding of this – which can be correct and worth something.
I then asked Dr. Jack about this and he said, “The point is they bias the results in every way possible via sanctioned p-hacking.” (P-value is probability value, or significance of a result, how likely to occur by chance. P-hacking is “Statistical Bullshit” – playing with statistics – dirty tricks – to make something look more effective than it is). You don’t have to be an expert in statistics to smell statistical BS.
Please write any insights in comments.
De-Hypnosis from Mass Hypnosis
All of these 360-degree, 24/7 wall-to-wall, layered, interconnected, coordinated dirty tricks comprise a mass hypnotic induction. Maybe we are living in an “actual virtual reality™” (oxymoron?) designed to induce the “mass formation” Mattias Desmet has enlightened us about. (see my deep dive on Desmet, The Anatomy and Dynamics of Mass Formation)
Their language is compelling to the general public who are not aware that they are being tricked with professional sounding words. The manipulative redefinition and repetition of the inappropriate word “vaccine,” which by definition must prevent infection and transmission, has lifelong, positive associations with safety and savinghumanity (see my Don’t Use the V word – at all: Our Choice to Frame or Be Framed. The word “vaccine” is familiar, seductive and something most have already done. If we called these experimental genetic toxin generating spike protein factories fewer would rush out to get them.
Wild claims and inferences are based on no data, animal data, minimal data, falsified data.
The answer to 1000 different questions is “Yes, you or your baby must still get the shot.” If you have natural immunity, if you are pregnant, if you are a baby with no risk – get the shot. If you had a reaction to the first shot, get the second. If necessity, safety and efficacy cannot be claimed outright, they are implied and exaggerated. Dangers are denied or minimized.
We Have to Be the Sentinels
Before voting Yes to authorize shots, our alleged “regulators,” FDA VRBPAC Committee members spent an entire day expressing doubts, raising concerns and lacking answers.
- They seemed confused about ingredients (BA1 or BA4/5, monovalent or bivalent) and dosing.
- Some worried about lack of “correlates of protection,” waning efficacy, erosion of immune protection, side effects and failure (or refusal) to study T-cell immunity.
- They didn’t deal with potential dangers from shots that may have double the amount of mRNA which might increase adverse reactions and deaths.
- They never deal with the fact that a 6 month-old gets the same dose as a 4 year old, or a 5 year old as a 12 year old, problems of ignoring weight and maturity, more important than age.
Yet, the vote was 19 Yes and two historic No votes, from Drs. Paul Offit and Hank Bernstein.
At the October 26., 2021 meeting Dr. Eric Rubin infamously admitted that “… we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”
On June 28, Dr. Mark Sawyer made a similar unselfish-conscious comment and said, “We will only know when we roll out vaccines and the safety systems do their review.”
After disparaging the underreported, familiar VAERS safety system we have used for 30 years, Dr. Peter Marks said we would use their new, unheard of by us, Sentinel Best System, to detect myocarditis, etc.
They have given us every reason not to trust them to be our sentinels, guardians, watchdogs, protectors, gatekeepers, etc.
They expect us to be mindless, lazy and ignorant. We need to learn how to detect BS.
For starters, learn as much as you can. Follow CHD TV, Del Bigtree and other regular updates to become informed. Question everything. Develop your radar.
As a rule, note in their claims, “Me thinks they doth bombast too much.” They always overplay benefits and deny harms.
Decoding Some Examples of Manipulative Framing
Here are some examples to prime your consciousness. If you have others, please add in the comments.
Learn the code. Recognize mystification. Develop your intuition.
Over time, they have changed definitions, stopped using phrases that could get them in trouble, and evolved new deceptive language and more dirty tricks. Here are a few of infinitely more.
* Replace definition of vaccine as producing “protection from infection and transmission” with “immune response” which does not protect from infection and transmission and in fact increases them known as negative efficacy. By “immune response” they mean antibody response, which wanes and is unreliable. The shots may provoke an antibody response which has proven not to be a “correlate of protection.” They don’t study more reliable T-Cell immunity because it’s inconvenient.
They use the “antibody myth™ when they want to claim efficacy of shots. They deceptively use waning of antibodies in cases of natural immunity to claim that natural immunity wanes. After natural infection, antibodies wane, but T-Cells are enduring, likely for years or a lifetime. They never tell you that.
* Replace “Natural Immunity” (NI) with “Previously infected” They dare not use the term “natural immunity.” They don’t like anything natural, like vitamin D levels, never mentioned, or the idea of having immunity you acquired all by yourself without their interventions.
Let’s differentiate what I call “pure natural immunity” from those who had Covid shots before NI and after NI. NI is a threat to the multibillion-dollar industry. Pure NI contributes to herd immunity and the obsolescence of these shots. Btw, the Amish achieved herd immunity by May 2020 with no lockdown, no shots, and no TV.
* Cast doubt on “Natural Immunity” – replace with “Hybrid Immunity”– not a thing, dangerous. Fauci tells people with natural immunity that a Covid shot will give them superior “hybrid immunity,” a false, made-up concept. Even worse, people with natural immunity, which is as good as it gets, have a much higher risk of adverse reactions and deaths if they get these shots they don’t need. See studies here and here.
* “Safe and Effective” replaced with “Benefits Outweigh Risks” or “known benefits outweigh known risks.” Although they changed their language, the hypnotized public, and tragically parents eager to jab their babies, still have the “safe and effective” mantra seared into their psyches and believe it as if their child’s life depended on it.
* Replace safety trials for little ones with “Immuno-bridging.” “Immuno-bridging” is a junk science illusion used as a trick to justify voting for shots for little ones without adequate clinical trials. They falsely claim effectiveness for young children, who have efficient, naïve, innate immune systems by comparing the immune responses of a small number of kids receiving a 2-dose series with immune responses older people with matured immune sytems, ages 16 – 25, or 18-25 who received 3 doses of a different amount.
Thanks to my new friend, Jim Roguski for his comprehensive information in PANDEMIC OF THE VAXXINATED, and for his significant contribution to saving us from domination by the WHO and much more, and this outrageous quote from a ModeRNA document,
“The immune marker(s) used for immunobridging do not need to be scientifically established to predict protection”
He states that,” immunobridging is NOT LEGALLY APPROVED.”
- Beware of use of the word “MAY” – The U.S. government is paying companies billions for rigged junk science studies for shots that “may provide protection”- convincing only to noncritical thinkers who don’t know the code.
“As the virus evolves, this new agreement will help ensure people across the country have access to vaccines that may provide protection against current and future variants,” said Albert Bourla, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer.
I believe it was Dr. Archana Chatterjee, who after being asked about “MAY” admitted that she used that word because she didn’t have data indicating that it did indeed provide protection.
When they don’t have a basis for making a claim of protection, they use the word “may” hoping that you aren’t paying attention.
* “Omicron-Adapted Vaccine” – Sounds impressive, scientific and plausible unless you realize that
- It may be combined with the extinct Wuhan strain
- If they use the B4/B5 strains they may be obsolete by the time the shots come out
- The shots may have twice the amount of RNA which could provoke more side effects, but Omicron adapted sounds amazing.
- Probably lost more problems I left out
Context: FDA’s VRBPAC Meeting to Authorize Untested Shots
Pfizer’s aforementioned two unintentionally revealing announcements were made 3 days before (to “Demonstrate High Immune Response”) and one day after (New Agreement with U.S. Government) FDA’s June 28 meeting of their Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to approve reformulated, “Omicron-adapted” Covid Spikeshots.
For the richness and nuances of their manipulative language, presuppositions, and exaggerations, read the announcements in full to test your BS Detector for propaganda literacy.
FDA will promote these ““Omicron-adapted” shots with no requirement for clinical safety trials and no efficacy data (See Toby Rogers, The end of Covid-19 vaccine safety science in America.
Representatives, aka “Sponsors,” from Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax, promoted their products and expressed readiness to manufacture as soon as possible. They said, “So long as we don’t have to provide any clinical data, we’ll have them ready by fall.” (quote form Toby’s article.
Novavax, not yet approved for EUA, made a compelling, even seductive presentation, appealing to members struggling with mRNA problems. Novavax said their shots could be available in July. If they have to change the formula, which will contain Wuhan strain (no longer in existence) and an Omicron variant, probably BA 4/5, which may or may not be in circulation by that time, it may take 3 months.
Note that they have been racing to manufacture these shots before approval, and Biden has ordered shots before approval, and previously mass injection pop up clinics were scheduled in schools before approval for kids in November.
So be aware it is always a done deal and these meetings and votes give an illusion of a legitimate process and vote.
On June 28, Dr. Cody Meisner, one of the more thoughtful members, worried about manufacturers losing money by making shots that we may not use if we change the formula. Dr. Peter Marks, unself-consciously said not to worry. The US government will make them whole. Amazing what they admit in public.
Here are two of the Public Comments
June 19, 22 Sam Dodson to FDA
Dirty tricks abound. Beware. Don’t be a sucker. Call BS. Think for yourself.
You are welcome to send in other dirty tricks in the comments.
Part of my Don’t Be a Sucker Series – Be Curious
Diane Perlman, PhD is a clinical and political psychologist, devoted to applying knowledge from psychology, conflict studies and social sciences to designing strategies and policies to reverse nuclear proliferation, to drastically reduce terrorism, reduce enmity, and to raise consciousness about nonviolent strategies for tension reduction and conflict transformation. She is a visiting scholar at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, is active in Psychologists for Social Responsibility, the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, and on the Global Council of Abolition 2000. Some of her writings can be found on her websites, www.consciouspolitics.org and www.SanityandSurvival.com. Email: email@example.com
Tags: Anti-vax, Big Pharma, COVID-19, Fake Report, Official Lies and Narratives, Propaganda, Vaccines
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
3 Responses to “Neutralizing Dirty Tricksters”
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: