Joe Ladapo under attack for sample size? YET 8 mice? First, FDA, CDC, NIH, Moderna & Pfizer experts told me secretly while I was Trump's pandemic advisor at HHS, that in 5-6.5 yrs, VAX death to SURGE
by Paul Alexander
8 mice yet hit Ladapo for sample size HA HA HA, yet the untermenshe won't attack Pfizer & Moderna & FDA for small sample size, small events, stopping early for benefit, fraud RRR & not ARR, LIST here
8 EFF in mice they used for the bivalent booster (Wuhan and BA.4 and BA.5 clade), rodent data, no human data and the only human data was based on BA.1 clade and the hell of it weas that the damn mice got infected and sick still, infection in the lungs and nostrils. The nerve of these bastards! Approving vaccines with EUA with negative efficacy all day long, yet hitting Ladapo?
You just wait and see the dark winters ahead.
They expressed their fears and how disturbed they were with the flawed studies they too were involved in at NIH and Moderna and that they fear for their safety and careers so had to meet me in secret. But wanted to share and vent and tell me how they felt.
As you attack Ladapo, deal with my list below. Someone take me on please, argue with me on these failures by the COVID vaccine fraudsters Moderna and Pfizer, challenge me, let us talk methods, sue me too Pfizer and Moderna.
See my list of major methods flaws with all the Pfizer and Moderna clinical studies so ask yourself, why is the media and these stiff necked fools, these so called academics not dissecting that? Why? Because EBM is dead and the leaders of EBMA are a disgrace. They are part of the fraud. They got money, follow the $. Because they are part of the fraud to bring these fake vaccines and huge praise for Ladapo, the balls and leadership to stand up, he is the only health official to have done so, list is here of methods disaster with the COVID vaccine studies that was used to get EUA from FDA, FDA should be shit down for they know it was fraud studies:
Why is can’t we trust the vaccine studies used to get EUA from FDA and why the challenge to Ladapo is a joke, I am rolling on the floor for these same frauds pretend that the vaccine trials were above board and legit when they know, that they used and were:
1) used non-important outcomes & not patient-important outcomes so how could they attack Ladapo?
2)secondary outcomes as primary to declare benefit e.g. remdesivir
3) 'inferior' comparators
4)sub-group estimates that are spurious
5)small sample sizes
6) small event number
8)no external validity
9)unblinded analysis and they deliberately unblind the subjects essentially ending assessment of efficacy or harms e.g. COVID vaccine trials by Pfizer & Moderna were essentially ended when unblinded and placebo got vaccine
10)they stop ‘early for benefit’ which is red-flag high risk of biased estimates of effect, often over-estimate the treatment effect (a ‘random’ high) e.g. the legacy Pfizer trial used for EUA from FDA so again, how could they attack Ladapo when the vaccine trials are essentially fraudulent
11)often heavily pharma industry sponsored (as they were) so conflicts of interest that are not declared or managed
12)used unblinded subjects in the primary analysis
14)incorrect analysis of cross-over (if it was ever done)
15)only publishing of ‘positive’ trials
16) meta-analyses actually show the failure
17) omission in the reporting (of even collection of surveillance data) of adverse and serious adverse events
18) methodology is flawed and sub-optimal e.g. subverted and biased randomization (breached and failure to consider optimal randomization e.g. simple vs blocking vs stratified vs minimization etc.), breached allocation concealment (improper hiding of the generated sequence and being able to anticipate future assignments to treatment or control trial arms), flawed blinding e.g. no blinding of outcome adjudicators, data analysts etc.
19) selective outcome reporting
20) reported relative risk reduction (RRR) and not the needed absolute risk reduction (ARR) or the number needed to treat (NNT)
21) failed to explain and explicitly, the disposition of subjects lots e.g. lost due to attrition, what were the reasons? failing to explain the disposition of missing outcome data is a fatal flaw e.g. Pfizer did not account for 3,000 patients they omitted and when we re-analyzed, we found the RRR (fraud measure as it is) dropped to 20%
22) failure to conduct and report intention to treat analysis (ITT); ‘as treated’ and ‘per protocol’ analyses etc.
23) failed to model ‘best case, worst case’ scenarios
24) failed to properly match e.g. propensity score matching
25) failure to statistically adjust for confounding variables and failure to adjust for the optimal variables
26) failure to document any deviations from baseline
27)failure to properly assess and document baseline imbalances
This list is not exhaustive but I wanted you to keep in mind the issues that plague industry sponsored trials (and clinical research in general) and why you cannot and must not today and a while now, lend any credibility to the study findings. Most research published today is ow low quality, biased, and corrupted by the researchers with flawed very sub-optimal methods, where we cannot have any confidence and certainty in the estimates of effect.
Dr. Ladapo found an 84 percent increase in “the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination.” But the Branch Covidians, the nutballs sick reckless dangerous vaccine fanatics, who are on a booster treadmill and cannot get off, will soon need a booster every day, and they know it is harming them, yet they are trying to argue to themselves that they did not make a catastrophic mistake. Well, hate to break it to you, we warned you, and you did make a devastating mistake for you screwed your prior functional innate and acquired and adaptative immune system. You are now at risk for a host of illnesses and even cancers.
Which one of the fake so called scientists attacking Ladapo can score 17 of 18 like he does with ease, in my list below, which one save Oskoui and McCullough and Risch etc.: