Another brilliant paper from Doc Romy Quijano. He's a Retired Professor at the Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine, Univ. of the Phils. (UP) Manila; a Member of Steering Council, Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific; Project Leader of Bioassay and Toxicologic Studies on Medicinal Plants, National Integrated Research Program on Medicinal Plants, among others.
No date when he presented the ppt somewhere. Enjoy.
-------------
Scientific Investigation in Post Pandemic Diseases
Romeo F. Quijano,M.D. Professor (Ret.), College of Medicine University of the Philippines Manila (Slide 1)
During the “pandemic”, especially during the peak periods in 2021 and 2022, practically every unexplained, excess illness and death is immediately attributed by the authorities and vaccine promoters to Covid-19, co-morbidities or co-incidence. Yet, it has become increasingly clear that the official explanations are not compatible with scientific and real world evidence. What seems to have been forgotten by many is an honest to goodness explanation based on scientific investigation anchored on true science and not on “corporate science”.
Science is about truth and a true scientific investigation means the· search for truth in a systematic and
logical manner. True science involves basically 5 elements of what is commonly called the scientific
method : (Slide 2)
1. Astute observation of objects and events,
2. Careful formulation of hypotheses (or explanation of the observations),
3. Valid and adequate experimentation and data (information) gathering,
4. Unbiased analysis of data and credible information from independent sources,
5. Logical conclusions.
(Slide 3)
This diagram illustrates these basic steps of the scientific method. Observation is usually followed by
questions, then an attempt to answer the questions and formulation of a hypothesis that enables you to
make a prediction of subsequent events. This hypothesis can then be tested by gathering data already
available or by generating data with an experiment. Then of course you need to analyse the data
gathered or generated which in turn enables you to make a conclusion. All these steps, of course, must
be done objectively, honestly and independently, without any vested interest or biases involved.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing these days is the dominance of “corporate science”.
Corporate science or pseudo-science is characterized by manipulation of objects and events, vested-
interest-driven and obscured formulation of hypotheses, biased experimentation, selective data
gathering and analysis, and market-directed, pre-determined conclusions. Data are collected, generated,
or even fabricated to support corporate objectives and achieve marketing targets. Arguments are not
based on human logic but are predetermined by corporate interests. Information is not something that
may be true or false but something that is created and packaged to sell a product or to accomplish a
predetermined corporate objective.
(Slide 4)
Let me now try to present a brief outline of what a scientific investigation might be as applied to the
theme of this webinar: “Emerging Post-pandemic Diseases”.
First are the observations:
1. “The Rise of Autoimmune and Immune Deficiency Syndromes”
2. “The Rising Incidence of Myocardial Diseases”
3. “Blood Clots, Hemorrhages, and Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS)
4. “The Sudden Appearance of Turbo Cancers”
5. “Short-Term and Long-Term Genomic effects of Immunizations”
6. “Excess Death Data”
I will leave it to the next speakers to discuss the details of these observations. What I can say at this point is that these observations cannot just be explained by Covid-19 infection, co-morbidities or co- incidences. Nor can they be explained by the known risk factors that gave rise to relatively stable variations in statistical data of incidences and prevalences of the diseases or events over the pre- pandemic years. The basic question remains: what is really happening here?
(Slide 5)
The second step in scientific investigation is the process of formulating a hypothesis that could explain
these observations. This involves a complex process that must be undertaken carefully. The basic
question being asked by concerned doctors is: Why are we seeing something different from what we
usually see in our clinical practice? Initially, several questions need to be asked and several hypotheses
that could address these questions may need to be formulated. A valid hypothesis should be reasonably
based on existing facts, theories and best available knowledge and not just a wild guess or an instant
explanation handed down by those in positions of power or influence. It should be scientifically
testable. It can either be supported or refuted by further observations, experiment, data gathering and
analysis or by another scientific investigation. Different relevant variables or factors must be explored
and analysed carefully taking into account the best available knowledge. This is quite similar to a
process we often do as physicians in differential diagnosis
(Slide 6)
The third step is valid and adequate experimentation and/or data/information gathering that would test
the soundness of the formulated hypothesis or explanation of the observations. However,
experimentation may not be necessary in situations where experimentation carries with it serious
ethical questions, when it is not feasible or when existing scientific data and other types of information
are available and adequate to support the hypothesis. With respect to post-pandemic diseases, some sort
of experimentation have actually been done which is relevant in trying to formulate a hypothesis that
might explain the observations. For example, the covid-19 mass inoculations done globally was
undertaken under an emergency use authorization, which, basically constituted mass experimentation
of human subjects with covid-19 “vaccines”. This “massive” experiment, however, was done
forcefully, haphazardly and with dubious scientific justification in gross violation of basic human
rights, including the right to informed consent. As a result, it has become commonsensical that the
emergence of post-pandemic diseases as observed by many concerned doctors and citizens was
somehow related to this “massive” experiment. In addition, numerous scientific publications have
concomitantly emerged revealing biologic mechanisms and pathogenesis that could explain the
unprecedented increase in post-pandemic diseases. Furthermore, data from official sources and
independent, credible sources of information have also come out which tend to support a hypothesis
that could explain the unprecedented increase.
(Slide7)
At this stage of investigation, causality begins to be unravelled. Ample evidence that fulfill the standard
scientific criteria, called the Bradford Hill criteria, for determining cause and effect relationship have
actually emerged:
1. temporal relationship (temporality),
2.strength of association (or correlation),
-
consistency of observations or findings,
-
biological plausibility,
-
absence or unlikely presence of other plausible cause/s,
-
specificity in the clinical manifestations and findings (ex. excessively high incidence
of myocarditis among the vaccinated young adults way above the background
incidence for that group) and
-
dose-response relationship
The causal relationship between the post pandemic diseases and the mass inoculations is quite clear,
despite the willful blindness of the corporate captured authorities and those responsible for pushing the
mainstream narrative of this pandemic disaster. I will just go through the evidence quickly because of
limited time. I hope you will find time to study carefully the available evidence yourself.
(Slide 8) For example, in the US, the cases of reports of children aged 5-11, within one week after over
a million children were injected, the percentage of adverse event reports that were made within 48
hours was about 84%, which dovetails with the classical temporality graph observed with anaphylaxis,
where no doubt exists about causality. Another example is the rapid exponential rise of adverse event
reports within weeks after the bivalent vaccine roll out. (Slide 9). Even with temporality evidence
alone, the case for causal relationship is already very strong. As for criteria 2 and 7, the linear
regression between the covid-19 vaccine doses and disabilities reported at VAERS shows a very strong
correlation and this finding is consistent in various US states. (Slide 10-11) and in various countries
(Slide 12,13). This, obviously, cannot be explained merely by coincidence or Covid-19 illness. The
reported adverse events have actually been found to be consistent with characteristic pathogenic events
predicted by known mechanisms of toxicity and in most of these cases, there is absence or unlikely
presence of other plausible causes. These have been demonstrated in autopsies (Slides 14-17) and in
various credible scientific studies (clinical, animal and in-vitro studies). Here, for example, Dr
Bukhardt shows his autopsy findings of endothelial stripping and destruction in a cardiac venule and
infiltration with lymphocytes of the heart muscle and the central artery of the spleen after covid-19
vaccination. Numerous other pathologies were found in other organs after autopsy of the vaccinated.
Specificity in the clinical manifestations and findings is also quite evident (Slides 18-21).
(Slide 22)
The fourth element in scientific investigation is unbiased analysis of data and credible information from
independent sources. The scientific facts have already been laid out by the third element. What is left is
an honest to goodness analysis of data from experimentation and/or best available knowledge from
credible sources of information. This should be done by independent experts or credible analysts
without bias or any conflict of interest and guided solely by the pursuit of scientific truth. There are
now several of these independent experts and credible analysts who have published their work in
several types of publications and formats, including scientific journals and alternative media.
(Slide 23)
After fulfilling the four elements mentioned above, it is time to come up with a logical conclusion, the
fifth basic element in a scientific investigation. This necessarily involves a process of logical reasoning.
Essentially, there are two types of logical reasoning, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
Both types of logical thinking are used in a scientific investigation. Inductive reasoning “connects the
dots” in a series of observations to come up with an general explanation and deductive reasoning uses a
hypothesis to predict outcomes that are observable and testable. A scientific investigation usually combines both types of logical reasoning. The soundness of the logical conclusion is of course dependent on the accuracy of the observations, soundness of the hypothesis, reliability of the data used and the credibility of the analysis.
(Slide 24)
The result of a scientific investigation is not necessarily final but it provides a rational basis for
decision making, medical response, regulatory action and policies. However, in the current corporate
and power elite dominated world, no matter how sound and scientific the conclusion of the
investigation is, detractors whose vested interests are negatively affected by the result of the
investigation will pose a serious challenge and even vilify the person or persons involved in the
scientific investigation.
(Slide 25)
The detractors will exert all efforts to rebut (or “fact check”) the valid conclusion, they will nitpick and
cast doubt on every bit of uncertainty in the entire process of the scientific investigation, especially if
the result of the investigation strongly suggests a causality between the observations (post-pandemic
diseases) and the experimental intervention (mass inoculation). They will insist that the science is not
settled and more extensive and rigorous scientific studies need to be done, with a retinue of “experts” to
back-up their stand. If the logical conclusion stands on solid scientific grounds, it should be able to
withstand the attack of the detractors. (Slide 26) However, any scientific investigation will inevitably
contain some uncertainties and these uncertainties will certainly be used to argue that there can be no
valid conclusion.
(Slide 27)
Countering this false argument is the “precautionary principle” which recognizes that administering
drugs and vaccines are inherently hazardous and must be presumed harmful unless proven otherwise. It
accepts the reality that adverse impacts, especially long-term impacts, of the interventions are difficult
to predict and often impossible to prove. (Slide 28) It is not dependent on a system of decision making
that demands generation of extensive scientific data and requires exhaustive and quantitative analysis
of risks as pre-conditions to policy formulation and action. The precautionary principle is particularly
relevant to third world countries where the resources needed to characterize the risks are not readily
available.
The precautionary principle consists of essentially the following elements: (Slide 29)
1. Prevention-The intervention must be truly preventive. The question that must be asked is whether
the benefits truly outweigh the risks. Any doubt that this is not so must be in favor of not subjecting the
individual to the potential risks.
2. Reverse onus – The burden of proof of safety must be on the proponent of the intervention and not
putting the burden of proof of harm on potential victims.
3. Elimination – The ultimate goal under the precautionary principle is the elimination of any
intervention that is harmful and inessential. (Slide 30)
4. Community-oriented – The health of communities is a primary concern of the precautionary
principle. The people’s basic right to health takes precedence over corporate and proprietary rights. Any
potential threat of harm must be dealt with in a precautionary manner that protects basic human rights
using the best available knowledge and should not wait for rigorous scientific studies to provide
evidence of harm. Community monitoring data and people’s testimonies of harm must be given due
importance and should be sufficient to form the basis of a precautionary action. (Slide 31)
5. Alternatives assessment – The presence of other treatment and preventive alternatives that are likely
safer and effective in the management of a disease cannot justify the introduction of a novel
intervention that is experimental and potentially harmful. (Slide 32)
6. Uncertainty is a threat – The precautionary principle considers uncertainty as a potential threat. Even
if we assume that the pharmacovigilance reports do not constitute evidence of causality, this is not
evidence of absence of harm. Very often, lack of evidence is due to ineffective and poorly functioning
monitoring systems that do not capture the evidence of harm. To be meaningfully protective, an
assessment process should consider uncertainties as a warning signal. (Slide 33)
7. Technically/scientifically sound – Contrary to what critics often say, the precautionary principle is scientifically and technically sound. It is based on the best available knowledge guided by technically sound analytical procedures. Where scientific data is lacking, precautionary action protective of human health should be taken if there are serious doubts that the intervention in question poses unacceptable risks, taking into account not only scientific but also people’s testimonies, independent physicians’ real world clinical experiences and socio-political and cultural factors. (Slide 34)
8. Information unrestricted –The precautionary principle requires full disclosure and accessibility of information relevant to the appraisal of potential threats. It does not accept confidentiality of information to protect corporate proprietary rights. The appraisal process should not be made subordinate to corporate interests. The right to information is an extension of the right to health and any restriction of the right to information would violate the non-derogable nature of the right to health. (Slide 35)
9. Open – The precautionary principle provides an open, democratic and participatory process. It is not the exclusive domain of elite scientists and the regulatory authorities. The public have the right to look into and scrutinize whatever medical intervention is offered or is mandated on them. It is the people’s right to participate in the decision making processes relevant to the protection of their health. This right is an extension of the people’s right to self determination. The people have the right to determine for themselves what they need and what they don’t need; what risks are acceptable and what are not acceptable. This right is also an extension of the right to health, since without it, the right to health is unattainable. (Slide 36)
10.Need based – Any potentially harmful intervention like inoculation should be directed towards real needs of the people. They should not be products of profit motivation and power intoxicated ruling elite and corporations. Unfortunately, the moneyed elite gained control of governments, health and other institutions to promote drugs and vaccines at the expense of traditional, people oriented and socio- economic upliftment measures that, historically, led to the dramatic decline of infectious diseases in the late 19th and early 20th centuries even before the appearance of these drugs and vaccines.
(Slide 37)
Elements of the Precautionary Principle
1.Preventive- truly preventive of unacceptable harm
2.Reverse onus- burden of proof of safety on the proponent of drug
3.Elimination- ultimate goal is elimination of unacceptable harm
4.Community oriented- community health is primary concern
5.Alternatives assessment- presence of safer alternatives vs new drug
6.Uncertainty is a threat- uncertainty in safety is a warning signal
7.Technically sound- scientifically sound analysis
8.Information unrestricted-full disclosure and accessibility
9.Open- open, democratic and participatory
10.Need based- directed towards real needs of the people.
(Slide 38)
The reality is that corporate interests and political expediency are the dominant factors in mainstream
“science” and government decisions pertaining to public health. This is especially true in developing
countries where financial, technical, human and other resources are sorely lacking and where socio-
political circumstances are conducive for powerful companies to exert influence and manipulate public
policy. The unequal power relations between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor,
and between the First world and the Third world is very much in the decision-making processes of
government. Decisions that tend to protect public health are allowed only in so far as these do not
threaten significantly the dominant economic interests or only when there is strong public pressure or
protests. Any scientific investigation of post-pandemic diseases, therefore, should take cognizance of
the socio-economic and political reality that exist in the world today.
(Slide 39)
References.:
1.Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589117/
2.Jessica Rose VAERS Key Ways to Prove C19 Jab Harm Causation
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/uvc-jessica-rose/ 3. Burkhardt Autopsies-Evidence for Jab Related Harm and Deathhttps://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/uvc-arne-burkhardt/ 4. Excess deaths vs Boosters_29 countries
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/proven-relationship-covid-boosters?
5.Quijano, RF. Elements of the Precautionary Principle, Chapter 2 in Precaution, Environmental Science and Preventive Public Policy, Ed. Joel Tickner, Island Press, Washington DC, 2003.
-------------
No comments:
Post a Comment