Turtles All The Way Down – Part One?

Written by Mathew Aldred on June 27, 2023. Posted in Current News

Like many of my readers, no doubt, I get books with the intention of reading them and then get distracted by other things (like the 1055 articles in my Substack drafts section begging to be finished)

One book that is niggling at me, calling to be read, is Turtles All the Way Down. As I’m experimenting with GPT4, I thought I would see if I could get it to do a summary of the book, and see if that short read might whet my appetite sufficiently to get me started:

Chapter 1: TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN: VACCINE CLINICAL TRIALS

Chapter 1 of the book provides a critical examination of the safety testing procedures for vaccines, particularly focusing on the use of control groups and the concept of placebos in clinical trials. The chapter argues that the current methods of testing vaccines are flawed and do not provide a reliable measure of the safety and adverse effects of vaccines.

The chapter begins by discussing the safety testing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) 5-in-1 and 4-in-1 vaccines, which were tested against the triple vaccine (DTaP). The author points out that the older generation DTP vaccine, against which the DTaP was tested, was never tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a placebo control group.

This leads to a situation where the safety of a vaccine is based on its comparison with another vaccine, whose safety was also not adequately tested. The author likens this to a “turtle standing on the back of a turtle, standing on the back of yet another turtle – all the way down.”

The chapter also discusses the safety testing of Sanofi Pasteur’s DTaP line of vaccines. The author criticizes the trials for their lack of a true control group and for the use of other vaccines as controls. The author argues that this does not provide a reliable measure of the safety and adverse effects of the tested vaccine.

The chapter then moves on to discuss the safety testing of the rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix and RotaTeq. The author criticizes the use of a “vaccine-sans-antigen” as a placebo in the trials, arguing that this compound is not biologically neutral and is likely to have side effects similar to those of the tested vaccine. The author also criticizes the high rates of adverse events reported in the control groups of the trials, arguing that this indicates the bioactivity of the compounds given to the control groups.

The chapter also discusses the safety testing of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines, MMR II and ProQuad. The author criticizes the trials for their lack of a true control group and for the use of other vaccines as controls. The author also criticizes the lack of transparency in the trials, noting that the description of the placebo in the RotaTeq trial was deleted from the licensing document submitted to the FDA.

The chapter concludes by arguing for the need for three-arm trials in the testing of new-generation vaccines. In such trials, subjects would be randomly allocated into three groups: one trial group receiving the new generation vaccine, one control group receiving the current vaccine, and another control group receiving an inert placebo. The author argues that this trial design would provide a more reliable measure of the absolute and relative rates of adverse events caused by the new vaccine.

In summary, Chapter 1 provides a critical examination of the safety testing procedures for vaccines. The author argues that the current methods of testing, which often involve the use of other vaccines as controls, do not provide a reliable measure of the safety and adverse effects of vaccines. The author calls for a more rigorous approach to vaccine safety testing, including the use of three-arm trials and true placebos.

Chapter 2: THE SCIENCE OF VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS: A MISSING LINK AND AN EMPTY TOOLBOX

This chapter discusses the current state of vaccine safety science and its implications on public health. It uses two contrasting stories to illustrate the potential benefits of personalized vaccination schedules and the current limitations in predicting and preventing vaccine injuries.

The first story is about David, a child born with microcephaly. Before receiving his first round of vaccines, David’s pediatrician conducted a series of specialized genetic, immunological, and neurological diagnostic tests. Based on the results, the doctor created a personalized vaccination schedule tailored to David’s specific medical profile. David began receiving vaccinations at 12 months old, and only a handful of vaccines were administered, each one at a time and only if he had been healthy in the preceding three weeks.

This personalized approach was successful, and David received all of his prescribed vaccines without suffering significant side effects. However, the chapter reveals that David’s story is entirely imaginary, representing an ideal scenario that is not currently achievable with the existing state of vaccine safety science.

The chapter then discusses the real-world implications of the current limitations in vaccine safety science. It highlights the medical establishment’s inability to anticipate who will be hurt by vaccines, associate specific side effects with the specific vaccines that caused them, and adjust vaccination parameters to account for individuals’ genetic makeup and specific health conditions. This lack of knowledge and tools can lead to catastrophic vaccine injuries that cannot be prevented.

The chapter also criticizes the current approach to vaccine safety research, which is largely based on statistical methodology with limited practical benefit. It argues that this approach does not contribute biomedical information that could lead to the development of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. The chapter emphasizes the need for more basic scientific research on vaccine side effects, especially as new vaccines are added to the vaccine schedule.

The chapter concludes by discussing the consequences of the lack of knowledge and tools for predicting and preventing vaccine injuries. It points out that doctors cannot test an infant’s sensitivity to most vaccine ingredients, recommend a particular brand of vaccine over another, or suggest a safer vaccination schedule. This lack of tools also contributes to conformity with the recommended vaccine schedule and hinders efforts to improve vaccine safety.

In summary, the chapter calls for more research into the biological mechanisms underlying vaccine adverse events and the development of practical tools for preventing them. It argues that understanding these mechanisms is crucial for devising effective treatments for vaccine injuries and improving the safety of vaccines.

Chapter 3: DEFICIENT BY DESIGN: VACCINE ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING SYSTEMS

Chapter 3 of the book delves into the topic of post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, focusing on the limitations and shortcomings of the current methods. The chapter begins by acknowledging the importance of closely monitoring vaccine safety after new vaccines are released to the market.

It explains that health agencies carry out post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring through two main avenues: collecting reports of adverse events in a specialized database and periodically analyzing the collected data to identify patterns, and performing statistical studies which explore any association between the vaccine and specific adverse health events.

However, the chapter argues that closer examination of the design and operation of vaccine adverse event reporting systems paints a radically different picture. The author criticizes these systems for their lack of reliability and comprehensiveness, arguing that they do not achieve their stated objectives.

The chapter then spotlights a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) study of the safety of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which was published by CDC researchers. The author criticizes the study for its lack of reliability and accuracy. The study analyzed all VAERS reports filed since Gardasil’s mid-2006 approval through the end of 2008, a period of two and a half years.

The researchers found that over two-thirds (68 percent) of reports were submitted by representatives of Merck, the vaccine’s manufacturer. The author points out that manufacturers are required to report any adverse events that come to their attention but have little motivation to do so. As a result, Merck’s Gardasil reports were largely incomplete or inaccurate. About 90 percent of Merck’s reports lacked information essential for conducting medical assessments.

The author also criticizes the unreliability of VAERS rates. As a passive reporting system, VAERS suffers from “underreporting”, and the rate of this underreporting is “unknown”. The author argues that this makes it difficult to accurately assess the safety and adverse effects of vaccines.

The chapter concludes by arguing for the need for more thorough and rigorous research on vaccine side effects. The author criticizes health authorities for their claim that vaccine safety has been thoroughly researched, arguing that vaccine safety research, for the most part, is based on a statistical methodology with limited practical benefit and does not even attempt to contribute biomedical information that could lead to the development of diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

In summary, Chapter 3 provides a critical examination of the post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring procedures. The author argues that the current methods of monitoring, which involve the use of vaccine adverse event reporting systems and statistical studies, do not provide a reliable measure of the safety and adverse effects of vaccines. The author calls for a more rigorous approach to vaccine safety monitoring, including the use of more reliable reporting systems and more thorough research on vaccine side effects.

Chapter 4: EPIDEMIOLOGY 101

The chapter primarily discusses the field of epidemiology, its methodologies, types of studies, and the potential sources of error in these studies.

Epidemiology is a branch of medicine that investigates diseases at the population level using statistical tools. It seeks statistical correlations between different phenomena in an attempt to elucidate relationships between them. However, while epidemiological studies can demonstrate statistical correlations, they cannot provide insight into a physiological mechanism by which one factor causes another (causal link). To prove a causal association in science, physiological (biomedical, mechanistic) studies must be performed.

The chapter explains that in medicine, a causal link between two phenomena is often ambiguous and difficult to identify. A certain condition may be caused by several co-factors operating synergistically, each required for its development, but none causing it on its own. This makes it challenging for modern medicine to explain the origins of many diseases. It is quite common, therefore, for medical bodies to make recommendations without a thorough understanding of the mechanism underlying a specific health condition.

Epidemiological studies come in several varieties. In an interventional study (trial), subjects are asked by researchers to take specific actions (e.g., take a drug), while in an observational study, researchers only gather information about the subjects. A prospective study tracks a group of people for a specific period of time and collects relevant data about them.

A retrospective study analyzes existing data. Interventional studies are more expensive to perform than observational studies, but their results are generally of higher quality. Prospective studies are more expensive and take longer than retrospective studies, but they suffer less from selection and information bias, which makes their results more reliable.

The chapter also discusses the four main categories of observational studies: Cross-section, Ecological, Cohort, and Case-control. Each of these types uses different statistical methods to look for correlations between phenomena in a population.

The chapter then delves into the potential sources of error in epidemiological research, which can impair the quality of the research. These include selection bias, information bias, and confounders. Selection bias occurs when researchers select a group of subjects that does not accurately represent the research population or does not suit the study’s research questions well.

Information bias occurs when researchers fail to gather accurate or complete data on subjects. Confounders are separate variables, not included in the initial analysis, which are associated with the two phenomena examined. These can create an optical illusion of a statistical correlation between two phenomena.

The chapter provides an example of a confounder in a study investigating the connection between alcohol consumption and lung cancer. The study found that the apparent link between the two stems from the fact that heavy drinkers are more likely to smoke, and smoking, rather than alcohol consumption, is the true risk factor for lung cancer. This example demonstrates how statistical techniques in epidemiological research can reveal confounders and highlight their impact.

In conclusion, the chapter emphasizes the importance of understanding the methodologies, potential pitfalls, and sources of error in epidemiological research. It underscores the need for careful data collection, analysis, and interpretation in order to draw valid conclusions from epidemiological studies.

Chapter 5: PURPOSELY BIASED SCIENCE: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND VACCINE SAFETY

This chapter provides a critical examination of several studies related to vaccine safety, with a particular focus on the potential link between vaccines and autoimmune diseases or autism. The author scrutinizes the methodology, execution, and interpretation of these studies, highlighting potential biases and conflicts of interest that may have influenced their outcomes.

The chapter begins with a detailed analysis of a study conducted by Grimaldi 2014, which investigated the potential link between the Gardasil vaccine and the development of autoimmune diseases. The author raises several concerns about the design and execution of this study. One of the main criticisms is the selection of the control group.

The author suggests that the control group may have been chosen due to its high incidence of autoimmune disease, which would make it difficult to establish a clear link between the vaccine and the development of such diseases.

The author also criticizes the lack of information provided about the health profile of the control group. The study does not provide clear information on how many control subjects suffered from autoimmune diseases, which the author argues is essential for interpreting the results. The author suggests that this omission could indicate a bias in the study’s design, as it could make it appear as if the vaccine has no effect on the development of autoimmune diseases.

The chapter then moves on to discuss a study by DeStefano 2013, which aimed to investigate the potential link between the number of vaccine antigens a child is exposed to and the development of autism. The author criticizes this study for its simplistic approach, arguing that it fails to address the real concern of parents: the potential link between the number of vaccines received and the risk of autism.

The author points out that the study did not consider the role of adjuvants, which play a key role in the strength of the immune response to vaccines. This omission, the author argues, makes the study’s findings scientifically worthless. Furthermore, the author notes that even if we ignore the study’s flaws, its findings do not provide clear evidence of a link between the number of vaccine antigens and the risk of autism.

The chapter also discusses a study by McKeever and colleagues, which found a strong correlation between the MMR and DPPT vaccines and the incidence of asthma and eczema. However, the authors of the study dismissed this correlation, suggesting that it was due to bias in the data. The author of the chapter criticizes this dismissal, arguing that it is puzzling and that the correlation should have been taken more seriously.

The author suggests that the authors of the study may have dismissed the correlation because it would have had an adverse impact on public support for vaccination. The author argues that this potential bias could have influenced the interpretation of the study’s results, leading to the dismissal of a potentially significant finding.

The chapter concludes with a broader discussion of the issues with vaccine safety research. The author argues that the way science is currently funded can lead to biased research, as researchers may be dependent on their funding source, whether it be a government or a pharmaceutical company. The author suggests that this dependency can influence the design, execution, and interpretation of studies, leading to potentially biased outcomes.

The author also discusses the issue of conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research. The author argues that researchers may have personal or financial interests that could influence their research, leading to biased outcomes. The author suggests that these conflicts of interest are often not disclosed in published studies, which can make it difficult for readers to evaluate thevalidity of the studies’ findings.

The author also criticizes the scientific community for its acceptance of these flawed studies. The author argues that these studies are often cited without any mention of their flaws or the researchers’ conflicts of interest. This, the author suggests, is a result of the institutional immunity afforded to these studies, which ensures that they conform to the ethical norms of vaccine safety research accepted by the scientific community.

The author argues that this fundamentally flawed research is a direct consequence of the current funding system for science, which ensures researchers’ dependency on their funding source. This, the author suggests, guarantees that vaccine safety science is almost never carried out objectively. The author argues that the public is generally unaware of this mechanism and its inherent flaws, which allows the vaccine establishment to rely on flawed research to support their claims about vaccine safety.

The author encourages readers to exercise caution when reviewing the conclusions of vaccine safety studies. The author suggests that these studies often suffer from serious methodological flaws and are fraught with conflicts of interest, which can make their findings unreliable. The author argues that it is important to critically evaluate these studies and to be aware of the potential influence of funding sources and conflicts of interest.

In conclusion, the chapter provides a critical examination of several studies related to vaccine safety, highlighting potential methodological flaws and biases. The author argues for a more cautious and critical approach to interpreting the findings of such studies, given the potential influence of funding sources and conflicts of interest.

The author suggests that a more objective and independent approach to vaccine safety research is needed to ensure the validity of its findings.

This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.