"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Covid-19 > Questions for Fauci; Vax shots while pregnant may help babies; CDC hides troves of data

..

GOP lawmakers demand answers from Fauci


House Republicans want to know why the Covid-19 guru seemingly shut down

any debate about whether the virus came from a Wuhan lab


Dr. Anthony Fauci is shown testifying at a Senate hearing last month in Washington.
© Getty Images / Greg Nash


US Republican lawmakers have sent a letter pressing chief White House medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci for answers about his alleged silencing of concerns that the Covid-19 virus originally came from a Chinese lab.

The letter, sent on Monday by three US House members, cited emails suggesting that Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), tried in early 2020 to quash speculation among scientists that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Instead of alerting national security officials to the pandemic’s potentially unnatural origin, Fauci and Collins sought to shut down the debate, the GOP lawmakers said.

The emails, which were obtained by media outlets under Freedom of Information Act requests, reportedly showed that some virology experts saw reason to believe that the virus was lab-created. Some of the messages made reference to a February 2020 conference call in which many scientists leaned toward the lab-leak theory. For instance, Tulane Medical School professor Robert Garry said he could see no “plausible natural scenario” for some aspects of Covid-19 otherwise.

“However, those same email communications, particularly when viewed in light of other publicly available information, demonstrate an apparent effort by you and Dr. Collins not only to cover up the concerns those virologists raised, but to suppress scientific debate about the origins of Covid-19,” the letter said.

Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington), Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky) and Morgan Griffith (R-Virginia) signed the letter.

They demanded that Fauci provide details on how those conversations with scientists were initiated and who consulted him and Collins on Covid-19’s likely origins. The lawmakers also requested information on any communications by Fauci and Collins with Chinese scientists, as well as documents related to US funding of the research in Wuhan.

Even as scientists were speculating about Covid-19’s potentially manmade origins, Fauci told reporters in April 2020 that the sequencing of the virus was “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” Earlier that same day, Collins sent him a message of concern about the lab leak theory, asking how NIH might “put down this very destructive conspiracy.”


Republican lawmakers have accused Fauci of directing taxpayer funding to gain-of-function research that could potentially make organisms more transmissible or lethal. In Monday’s letter, the House members claimed the efforts to quell the lab-leak theory may have stemmed at least partly from fears of those grants being exposed. “It appears you and Dr. Collins may have done so to protect China and avoid criticism about incredibly risky research that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was funding at the Wuhan lab,” the legislators said.

===========================================================================================



Covid vaccines during pregnancy impact newborns – study


Immunity can be passed from jabbed mothers to babies, according to new research


(FILE PHOTO) © Photo by Fernando Gutierrez-Juarez/picture alliance via Getty Images


Babies born to mothers who took the Covid-19 vaccine during their pregnancy are likely to have some form of immunity against the virus, according to the latest research from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published on Tuesday.

Researchers analyzed data from 379 hospitalized infants – 176 suffered from Covid-19 and 203 were admitted for other reasons. The children were all under six months old between July 2021 and January 2022.

Their study found that hospitalization risks were reduced by 61% in children whose mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy. 

Protection increased to 80% when the mothers got their jabs later in their pregnancy (21 weeks to 14 days before delivery). The effectiveness of the vaccinations dropped as low as 32% for babies whose mother was inoculated earlier during pregnancy.

The authors cautioned people not to read too much into the study, given the small sample size used.

“Right now we want to ensure that we are protecting both the mom and the infant,” CDC's Dana Meaney-Delman told reporters. “So, as soon as a pregnant woman is willing to be vaccinated, she should go ahead and do so.”

The CDC says that pregnant women are at greater risk of developing complications due to Covid-19, including risks to their own health, as well as preterm births and stillbirths. It is recommended that anyone expecting a baby or trying to get pregnant should keep up to date with their Covid shots.

Recommended by CDC - Big Pharma; the people who make money from you getting your shots.

=========================================================================================


Is CDC protecting the government or Big Pharma, or both?


CDC withholds Covid-19 data that could be ‘misinterpreted’ – media


The US agency is declining to release troves of pandemic information it has gathered to date, according to the New York Times


© Getty Images / Elijah Nouvelage


The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has kept reams of its Covid-19 data under wraps for more than a year, the New York Times reports, holding back figures at least partly because it doesn’t trust the public to interpret the information correctly.

The agency’s seemingly selective disclosure came to light in an article by the Times on Sunday. Among the data being withheld is a breakdown of Covid-19 hospitalizations by age, race, and vaccination status. The CDC also chose not to report on such findings as the efficacy of booster shots in 18- to 49-year-olds, even though it collected the information, the article added.

Although it’s the agency leading America’s Covid-19 response, the CDC has published only a “tiny fraction” of the data that it has collected, the Times said. In lieu of US data being made more widely available, experts were forced to look elsewhere for information – such as Israeli figures on booster shots – that would help them make informed recommendations.

CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told the newspaper that the agency’s data priority has been to collect “accurate and actionable” information. Some data has been withheld because “it’s not yet ready for prime time,” she said.

Do the data have to age, like a fine wine, or do they require some massaging before they are ready?

Such omissions have included figures on Covid-19 infections among fully vaccinated Americans. According to the media report, the CDC has been reluctant to publish those figures because “they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.” Nordlund confirmed that concern as one of the reasons.

Epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, part of an independent Covid-19 data-tracking project, told the Times that her group had been begging for such information for two years. “We are at much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats,” she argued.

The CDC has been criticized for a lack of transparency and consistency throughout much of the pandemic. For example, when the agency reversed course on mask-wearing guidance for vaccinated people last summer, it attributed the decision to only “unpublished data.” The New York Time’s revelations about the agency withholding data triggered a fresh round of opprobrium.

“It’s political manipulation of scientific data like this that makes people not ‘trust the science,’” said J. Michael Waller, a senior analyst at the Center for Security Strategy, in a tweet. “It is unscientific to withhold data because people might disagree with your policies.”

Big Pharma's influence is obvious here! Hiding the truth is never for the benefit of the public, or science.

==========================================================================================

Monday, February 7, 2022

Big Pharma > The Fauci Act; Big Pharma withholding data - BMJ; Mark Cuban cut drug prices

..
This might be a hard one to follow...

Republican senator introduces Fauci Act


The White House health advisor was previously caught on a hot mic calling the lawmaker a ‘moron’


©  Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images


Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) plans to introduce a bill dubbed the Fauci Act, aimed at making government officials’ financial information readily available. This is after the senator clashed with Dr. Anthony Fauci at a hearing.

Marshall will introduce a bill called the Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals (FAUCI) Act, a spokesperson revealed on Friday. The measure would require the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to publish the financial records of officials like Fauci on their website, making them available to the public. 

Fauci was questioned about his personal finances by Marshall during a recent hearing in which the health advisor accused Marshall of being “misinformed” as his personal finances were publicly availableHe was also caught on a hot mic referring to the senator as a “moron,” which was just one of Fauci’s numerous testy exchanges with Republican lawmakers. 

Marshall’s argument is that the information on Fauci and others is not readily available enough. A recent report from the Center for Public Integrity found that a reporter had obtained the requested financial records, but it was a two-month process involving a Freedom of Information Act request and the reporter “politely badgering” for the requested documents. 

Marshall had previously requested information on Fauci’s personal finances – he is the highest paid federal employee – and investments during the Covid-19 pandemic in a letter to Fauci following their heated exchange, claiming his office could not find the requested information.

“At a time when multiple federal officials have stepped down due to questionable financial transactions during the pandemic, these questions are both reasonable and relevant,” Marshall wrote. 

=========================================================================================


This should be a requirement for emergency approval of experimental drugs


Withholding vaccine safety data ‘morally indefensible,’

medical journal says


The British Medical Journal criticized Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers for ‘reaping vast profits’ without proper independent scrutiny


The BMJ has criticized Pfizer-BionTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca for withholding trial data
for their Covid-19 vaccines. © Getty Images / NurPhoto


The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has urged public health regulators and pharma majors to immediately release all raw data from Covid-19 vaccine trials for independent scrutiny, arguing that “complete data transparency” was a matter of “public interest.”

Branding Big Pharma as “the least trusted industry,” a recent op-ed by BMJ editors stated that it was “morally indefensible” that this information remains inaccessible to doctors, researchers and the public, despite the global rollout of vaccines and treatments.

In the scathing editorial, the writers – senior BMJ editor Peter Doshi, former editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee and her successor Kamran Abbasi – accuse pharmaceutical companies of “reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims.”

At least three of the many companies making Covid-19 vaccines have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars. One pleaded guilty to fraud. Other companies have no pre-Covid track record.

In particular, the editorial collective calls out Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca for not providing “timely access” to “anonymized individual participant data” from their clinical trials. This granular data is available to regulators like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which told a judge last month to give it 75 years to publish all data relating to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Because it will take that long to edit out the horror stories????

But the BMJ said Pfizer – whose trial was “funded by the company and designed, run, analyzed, and authored by Pfizer employees” – has indicated that it will not entertain data requests until May 2025, a full two years after the primary study is completed.

Pfizer, it appears, has better editors.

This lack of access to data is “consistent across vaccine manufacturers,” the editors write, noting that the industry is not “legally required” to honor requests from independent researchers.

Further, they point out that regulatory bodies like Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency do not even “receive or analyze” trial data, whereas the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency does not “proactively release” such info.

“The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations,” they concluded.

Yeah! Right! But the regulators are all run by Big Pharma, so protecting the health of people falls well behind profit-making.

========================================================================================



Billionaire Mark Cuban Opens Online Pharmacy

To Slash Cost Of Meds

January 24, 2022

It's common knowledge at this point that drug prices in the United States are completely out of control.

Billionaire Mark Cuban has wanted to do something about it for quite some time now, and that desire has finally translated into action, as the Dallas Mavericks owner announced that he's opening his own online pharmacy with affordable drug prices.

How expensive can drugs be?


According to some estimates, prescription drug prices in the United States are more than 250% higher than prices in other countries.

Brand name drugs are even more expensive. This means that for many Americans, getting the prescription they need is impossible.

Enter Mark Cuban.

Wikipedia | Gage Skidmore

Cuban is an entrepreneur who's known for making big splashes. From humble beginnings, he made his fortune in tech in the late '80s, invested in various startups and eventually bought the Dallas Mavericks NBA franchise for $285 million in 2000.

Now, he's founded the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC).

It's a legitimate pharmaceutical wholesaler that buys generic drugs directly from the manufacturers, getting bulk discounts and cutting out the middleman, and then selling to consumers. The only goal, Cuban has bluntly stated, is to charge the lowest price possible.

You can thank Martin Shkreli for the inspiration.

Remember Martin Shkreli? The 'Pharma Bro'? He made headlines for hiking the price of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

Cuban, along with MCCPDC CEO Alex Oshmyansky, saw this, realized drug prices were out of control, and pledged to fix the problem.

It's only a partial fix, however, as drugs under copyright can still charge what they want.

=========================================================================================



Thursday, June 4, 2020

Corruption is Everywhere - But Even Pharmaceutical Analytics?

Influential Lancet hydroxychloroquine study
retracted by 3 authors

Authors 'can no longer vouch for the veracity' of data
Thomson Reuters 

A bottle of hydroxychloroquine tablets in Texas City, Texas. in April. A Lancet study on the potential COVID-19
treatment has been retracted. (David J. Phillip/The Associated Press)

Three of the authors of an influential article that found hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients retracted the study on concerns about the quality of the data.

They said that Surgisphere, the health-care data analytics firm that provided the data, would not transfer the full data set for an independent review and they "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources."

The study, titled "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis," was published in British medical journal the Lancet last month.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he took hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19.

Earlier this week, both Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine published "expressions of concern" about the observational data provided by Surgisphere.


The Lancet✔
@TheLancet
Today, three of the authors have retracted "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis" Read the Retraction notice and statement from The Lancet https://hubs.ly/H0r7gh50 



Last week, nearly 150 doctors signed an open letter to Lancet calling the article's conclusions into question and asking the journal to make public the peer review comments that led to it being published.

Surgisphere was not immediately available for comment.

The Lancet said in a statement "there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study." 

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization resumed the hydroxychloroquine arm of its global Solidarity clinical trial into potential treatments for COVID-19. The pause was to check for any potential safety concerns such as heart problems flagged by the Lancet study results.

Results of a high-quality randomized, placebo-control trial also published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine from U.S. and Canadian researchers showed hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus.

Trial participants were those with risky exposures, such as health-care workers who didn't wear a mask and individuals living with a confirmed case. 

Other clinical trials investigating hydroxychloroquine to both prevent and treat the infection are underway, including in Canada.  

Corruption in the pharmaceutical industry is not news. That it is allowed to continue so flagrantly is shameful on a criminal level. Was Surgisphere in collusion with big pharma to make sure hydroxychloroquine doesn't cut into the fantastic new market for an as yet undiscovered new drug? One thing we know for sure, big pharma doesn't care how many people die from their extreme over-pricing of medications. Does Surgisphere belong in the same boat? If so, it's time to sink it!

=============================================================================================




Saturday, July 13, 2019

Big Tech ‘Indenture Entire Populations into Servitude’ to Corporations & Govts – Snowden

Tech giants such as Google or Facebook store vast amounts of personal data for their own gain but they are also “happy to hand over” this data to governments, making people vulnerable to persecution, Edward Snowden warned.

Any person can pretty much be sure that “everything you've done, everything you've typed into their search box, everything you have clicked on, everything you've liked” is duly recorded and stored in the enormous databanks of the big tech corporations, the NSA whistleblower said addressing the UK Open Rights Group Conference (ORGCON19) in London via a video link from Moscow.

“Your communications, as they happen largely today, don't actually take place between you and the person that you are talking to. They happen between you and Facebook, who then provides a copy of it to the person you are talking to, or you and Gmail, who then gives a copy of it to the person that you are talking to and every time these transactions occur through these service providers, they keep a record of it.”

The corporations do that primarily to advance their own financial and economic interests, yet they seek to not only “better their class” but also to “better their state” and are, thus, more than happy to share the data they obtained with governments, which, in turn, make a use of it in its mass surveillance programs, Snowden warned.

“We see that governments increasingly care less and less about compliance, and care more and more about power,” he said, adding that the governmental security structures, which were supposedly created to protect the people against the threat of terrorism, are in fact used against pretty much anyone from critically-minded journalists and dissidents to immigrants and minorities.

The corporations, which now virtually control the most part of internet communications, have been long abusing their position of power, forcing people into relations one would never “meaningfully consent to” while staying largely unaccountable.

The law simply has not caught up to the fact that a technological corporation now can indenture entire populations into servitude to the corporate good, rather than to individual or public good.

His warnings came soon after Facebook agreed to give French authorities data on hate speech suspects. Earlier, the tech giant’s lawyer openly stated that the social network’s users do not actually have any privacy at all when it comes to their personal data.

Yet, the whistleblower added a portion of optimism to his otherwise grim speech by saying that the people are waking up to this situation and “that things are going to get better” because of the efforts of people who are not indifferent to this issue.

Snowden has been living in a self-imposed exile in Russia ever since he exposed the NSA’s vast surveillance network back in 2013, bringing to light information about the US security agency’s mass surveillance activities targeting millions of Americans as well as foreign leaders. He has been charged with espionage by Washington and faces arrest if he were to return home.



Thursday, May 21, 2015

Researcher Retracts Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Study, Claims Co-author 'Fabricated' Data

Professor Donald P. Green (Courtesy of Donald Green; Reuters)
It was a study that made headlines — partly because it was so hard to believe. Last December, researchers revealed in the journal Science that one brief conversation with a gay rights canvasser could change someone's mind about same-sex marriage.

The highly publicized article stunned political scientists, but has now been retracted on the request of one of the study's co-authors, Columbia University professor Donald Green.

"I have strong reason to believe that the data, particularly the survey data, were fabricated," Green tells As It Happens host Carol Off. "The data were ostensibly from a very-large scale Internet panel survey… the total number of respondents was more than 10,000. But there's no evidence that any respondents were actually interviewed."

When the study "When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality" was published, the results made big news. Stories ran in The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other media outlets, including on the public radio program This American Life. Many researchers believed the methods used by the canvassers could be used to sway public opinion on other contentious issues.

The survey data was provided by Green's co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael J. LaCour. When another research team tried to replicate the study's findings, they couldn't. They published their own independent research paper, titled "Irregularities in LaCour (2014)."

Green continues: "When my colleague and UCLA professor Lynn Vavreck, who is Michael LaCour's dissertation advisor confronted him with the allegations… He was unable to produce any such raw data, nor was he able to render them from his hard drive, nor was the Qualtrics [database] representative able to verify that the data ever existed. So I can only conclude that they did not exist."



LaCour responded to the allegations on his personal website and on Twitter: "I'm gathering evidence and relevant information so I can provide a single comprehensive response. I will do so at my earliest opportunity."

"I asked [LaCour] yesterday whether he was prepared to admit that the data were fabricated and he said no," Green says, adding that the likelihood that LaCour could prove otherwise is "very, very" small.

In "Irregularities in LaCour (2014)," Green told the independent researchers that he confronted LaCour and that he "has confessed to falsely describing at least some of the details of the data collection."

Green says he doesn't know what might have motivated the alleged fabrication.

"I wonder whether if this is one of those instances where someone commits a little fraud and has to commit more fraud to cover up the first fraud and it grows and grows and grows."

He's not sure if it could have been connected to furthering same-sex equality. 

This reminds me of the study published, also in Science, in 1993 which claimed that genetic researcher Dean Hamer, had found markers for a gay gene. The story went as viral as a story could go in 1992, and almost immediately nearly all news agencies and departments began treating homosexuality as something you are born with.

The following year the study was mercilessly trashed by honest genetic researchers. The report was printed in Science, and some news agencies mentioned it, but with nothing near the excitement and energy of the bogus report. Nevertheless, the damage had been done, perhaps quite intentionally, and the media unequivocally became sympathetic with gays and lesbians.

Hamer, himself, will now tell you that there is no single gay gene, but that it probably has to do with a complex combination of genes. The Independent 1 Nov 1995, - "Dr Hamer does not himself believe in a gay gene despite trying more than any other scientist to prove the existence of a genetic - and therefore inherited - component to sexual orientation."

Hamer now says that environmental factors are not related to sexual orientation in spite of Alfred Kinsey's conclusions otherwise, and the Kinsey Institutes reproduction of those findings 30 years later. Environmental factors include relationships (distorted relationships) with one or more parent, or other influential people in the early years of a child.

Personally, I am convinced that there can be a spiritual element to homosexuality as well as environmental factors.

The episode also revealed the willingness (indeed, an enthusiasm) of the media to believe anything that runs counter to conservative Christianity, even respectable scientific journals.

"I've never been really clear if he had that kind of ideological or political agenda," he says. "It has not come through strongly in my conversations… it may be that he was just interested in demonstrating persuasive effect."

Green is expecting the study retraction to have a negative effect on his own reputation as an academic researcher.

"It's certainly going to be with me until I reach my grave," he says. "I think this will always be something that people will say about my research for good or ill. My hope is that something positive can come out of this, mainly that I can use this experience to think about, and perhaps help others think about, ways of preventing this sort of thing from happening again. What kinds of procedures can we put in place to prevent the huge waste of resources that occurred as a result of this fabrication?"

He also thinks that if LaCour is unable to produce data to support his research, that he will face severe career consequences.

"I expect that he will be subject to an academic investigation. He has not yet received his Ph.D; I think that it's unlikely that he will receive it. I think he will probably not, in the end, take the job that he was offered at Princeton. I'm guessing that as the process unfolds, he's likely to have that offer rescinded."