The virtue of looking at the broad data sets such as rebound cases is that one is able to moot a great many of those particulars.
Batch variability in overall effect and impact is documented, and is probably to some degree an observable phenomenon for all pharmaceutical substances. Even in the best quality control scenario no two producti…
The virtue of looking at the broad data sets such as rebound cases is that one is able to moot a great many of those particulars.
Batch variability in overall effect and impact is documented, and is probably to some degree an observable phenomenon for all pharmaceutical substances. Even in the best quality control scenario no two production runs of anything are going to be 100% exactly the same (as I learned back in my Cost Accounting days when ISO-9000 quality control metrics were all the rage, quality control itself is little more than documenting by how much individual production runs vary).
However, rebound infection rates, like the "breakthrough" infection rates, are observable phenomena across all batches, and that cross-sectional view allows us to set aside for the immediate discussion variables attributable to individual production runs of inoculations and even the different inoculation preparations themselves.
While it might be a worthy discussion at some point to evaluate the degree of rebound among different inoculations, as a means of ascertaining which shots are the most and least toxic, for the initial purpose of establishing overall toxicity, those variables do not enter into this analysis.
There are many variables swirling around the inoculations. For any given aspect of those inoculations, however, most of those variables are not immediately germane to analysis.
All of this, the different dosages, lots, batches, strains, various groups included or not in the studies, well, it is all just that much more evidence that the "experiment" is ongoing.
Either the "experiment" is ongoing, the "research" is just that sloppy and inept, or both.
Disturbingly, those possibilities are not mutually exclusive. The degree of scientific rigor for pharmaceutical studies these days borders on the nonexistent--which is the only reason Pfizer can make the extravagant initial claims they routinely do for their concoctions.
The one great takeaway from the Pandemic Panic Era: if you trust Big Pharma with your physical health you have NOT been paying attention.
It is like I said before, we are not just dealing with megalomaniacs and egomaniacs as well as totalitarians, we are dealing with all of them on drugs!
For much of my work I focus my research on the various posturings and pretensions of the corporate media. My reason for this is that the best way to debunk "official" narratives is to use their own words against them.
Paxlovid has been something of an inflection point for me, because the corporate media is so far behind the curve on this story. The best in-depth explorations of Paxlovid rebound are not being done by corporate media, but right here on Substack, and we should not ignore it. Igor Chudov and Brian Mowrey's "Unglossed" are just a couple of the excellent go-to sources here, as is Modern Discontent. A key subtext of what I write on this topic is to highlight the reality that the best analysis of the phenomenon is not found within the corporate media, and potentially not even within the peer-reviewed journals, but here on Substack.
Alternative media has always had writers with superior analysis and reporting than corporate media, but Paxlovid is one instance where the difference is so wide as to greatly advance the argument that alternative media is the future of journalism--and that future is a lot closer than folks realize.
The virtue of looking at the broad data sets such as rebound cases is that one is able to moot a great many of those particulars.
Batch variability in overall effect and impact is documented, and is probably to some degree an observable phenomenon for all pharmaceutical substances. Even in the best quality control scenario no two production runs of anything are going to be 100% exactly the same (as I learned back in my Cost Accounting days when ISO-9000 quality control metrics were all the rage, quality control itself is little more than documenting by how much individual production runs vary).
However, rebound infection rates, like the "breakthrough" infection rates, are observable phenomena across all batches, and that cross-sectional view allows us to set aside for the immediate discussion variables attributable to individual production runs of inoculations and even the different inoculation preparations themselves.
While it might be a worthy discussion at some point to evaluate the degree of rebound among different inoculations, as a means of ascertaining which shots are the most and least toxic, for the initial purpose of establishing overall toxicity, those variables do not enter into this analysis.
There are many variables swirling around the inoculations. For any given aspect of those inoculations, however, most of those variables are not immediately germane to analysis.
All of this, the different dosages, lots, batches, strains, various groups included or not in the studies, well, it is all just that much more evidence that the "experiment" is ongoing.
Either the "experiment" is ongoing, the "research" is just that sloppy and inept, or both.
Disturbingly, those possibilities are not mutually exclusive. The degree of scientific rigor for pharmaceutical studies these days borders on the nonexistent--which is the only reason Pfizer can make the extravagant initial claims they routinely do for their concoctions.
The one great takeaway from the Pandemic Panic Era: if you trust Big Pharma with your physical health you have NOT been paying attention.
It is disturbing, and illuminating.
It is like I said before, we are not just dealing with megalomaniacs and egomaniacs as well as totalitarians, we are dealing with all of them on drugs!
Very much so.
For much of my work I focus my research on the various posturings and pretensions of the corporate media. My reason for this is that the best way to debunk "official" narratives is to use their own words against them.
Paxlovid has been something of an inflection point for me, because the corporate media is so far behind the curve on this story. The best in-depth explorations of Paxlovid rebound are not being done by corporate media, but right here on Substack, and we should not ignore it. Igor Chudov and Brian Mowrey's "Unglossed" are just a couple of the excellent go-to sources here, as is Modern Discontent. A key subtext of what I write on this topic is to highlight the reality that the best analysis of the phenomenon is not found within the corporate media, and potentially not even within the peer-reviewed journals, but here on Substack.
Alternative media has always had writers with superior analysis and reporting than corporate media, but Paxlovid is one instance where the difference is so wide as to greatly advance the argument that alternative media is the future of journalism--and that future is a lot closer than folks realize.