The only question left about residual DNA contamination in recombinant vaccines is not "how much is there?" but "why did the manufacturers not tell us that the immune response relied on that contamination?"

Does anyone actually believe that Tony Fauci had a rational conversation with Joe Biden? If not, were the diary entries just there to create a watered down view of what actually happened? Either way, Fauci knew the vaccine didn't work. Great work from @MaryanneDemasi.

Jeffrey, this is disingenuous for the following reasons and needs to be responded to: 1⃣ Your sample size calculation assumes a tiny fraction of SIDS deaths are due to vaccination - but that is the point being tested. You have therefore committed a circular argument fallacy. For a study of a drop of SIDS rate from 0.1% (US average SUID per CDC) to 0.067% (giving an IRR of 1.5) you only need 240,524 in your study. The 2.5 million comes from your assumption that the risk only accounts for 10% of the possible risk. 2⃣ The risk is not just at the time of dose 2 (in the US this is the first DTAP as babies have already been coerced into vaccination at birth). If vaccination overall increases the all-cause SUID mortality by 1.5x you only need the smaller number in your study, provided the groups are matched. You are assuming that nobody would agree to match 1:1, which would only happen if the assumption that vaccination improved all-cause mortality was true, yet it has never been tested 3⃣ Infant mortality in the US is 0.5%. It is multifactorial but even a tiny 10% overall rise in all-cause mortality would require a sample of 704,356 children - less than 20% of the annual births in the US, of which only half would need to be "unvaccinated" for a few months - including for birth dose HepB (which is a scandal in itself). 4⃣ I don't understand why you would want to quash the idea of a controlled trial. I mean, if infant vaccinations are such proven science to reduce all-cause mortality you would be able to prove the case for them within a year. There is not one RCT that shows that any of the vaccines on the infant schedule improve all-cause infant mortality. It's time to shine and show us just how good injecting a baby in the first 6 months of age with over 100 antigens (with cellular carriage agents) is for overall mortality. And at the same time you would get to prove Zervos wrong because you would have a huge cohort to show the impact on chronic disease. 5⃣ You make the same circular assumptions for a functional mSCCS as you do for the over-exaggerated sample size calculation. That is, you are assuming that the risk window only occurs in a few days post-vaccination. In which case, you don't have anything to worry about because any controlled trial will fail to show a signal. As I have shown, mSCCS can only work under certain assumptions and the sample size problem affects mSCCS just as much as a controlled trial. If you think the issue is 1:50,000 of the population, your mSCCS will only have that much of the population to work with. As we have seen, manipulating bins can hide any signal anyway so we understand why you are pushing this method. 6⃣ Another circular argument "you can't give infants placebo because it's unethical when vaccines reduce all-cause mortality" - that is the subject of the question. It's a disingenuous unscientific tactic and has no place in evidence based medicine. If you want to show first that any specific vaccine improves all-cause mortality show us the RCT that proves it. You can't, because you know damn well that the sample size figures you are crowing about being "unrealistic" equally apply to any pharma randomised trial. And they will never fund a 2 million baby study with a risk that their treatment ends up looking bad and shutting down the vaccine industry overnight. 7⃣ Just show us the data. No trial needed. Unmask every study that analysed SIDS data and concluded that the vaccines were not contributory (after smoking and formula feeding is excluded). Alternatively you wouldn't even need a controlled trial of vaccination vs placebo because you could just run a registry. I guarantee there are enough angry parents that were lied to about the COVID vaccines and mandates that they will never take a vaccine again. Just ask them to agree to release their deidentified anonymised data - with an audit tag so that they can check their data has been recorded correctly. I bet you will get more than 300,000 babies registered. And you wouldn't be able to cheat because the parents could show that their baby's data was manipulated. There is zero chance you will agree to this. 8⃣ The exact same argument that you are hiding behind should have stopped the COVID vaccines being given to children at all. For a halving of death rate from 2 per million for children your trial would need 47 million children. Where did you ever say that the COVID vaccine was unsuitable for children because of the huge numbers needed to show a mortality benefit in this age group? Never. That's when. If you really still disagree (you will) then I strongly recommend that you start advocating for the release of the datasets from such as your magical "Taiwan study" run by people with vested interest in vaccination. You won't, because you know those data sets cannot be verified. Finally, if anybody wants to test these numbers they can go to an online power calculator like this one - no need for a biostatistician gatekeeper. @MaryanneDemasi @DrJulieSladden @RWMaloneMD @delbigtree @AaronSiriSG @JesslovesMJK @DrJBhattacharya @Fynnderella1 @BrokenTruthTV @SabinehazanMD @dragonfishy

ONE BILLION dollars in pharma industry payments to journal peer reviewers - in 3 years and for just 4 journals. The corruption in the US pharma industry is out of control. If you want to know where your "Pharma R&D" money goes - it isn't in developing drugs, it's in bribes