Occam's Eraser
Just erase all the Occam's Razor evidence to prove vaccine safety
Note: I normally don’t prefer to write these types of articles which just aggregate a lot of information but don’t get into much technical analysis. There is probably very little I am adding to the discussion which COVID19 vaccine skeptics don’t already know, plus for some reason these take much longer for me to write.
I wanted to write this because I am very disturbed at how people are now pretending that all the necessary information (informed consent) was available to people before they took the vaccines. Whatever you may think about the tradeoffs, the bigger issue is that these tradeoffs were not discussed before people were asked to take their vaccines. The next article will probably go back to being more technical, for better or for worse :-)
Pharma companies are not only declaring that the mRNA tech is a “success”, but also using this success to use mRNA technology for other diseases.
At the same time, here are three things which are “baffling” our health experts:
increase in excess mortality all over Europe
many <60 year old Doctors “suddenly died” in Canada
the leading cause of death in Canada is now “Unknown causes”
Some people are asking uncomfortable questions by applying the Occam’s Razor strategy
In order to follow the science keep the mRNA gravy train going it is important that the powers-that-be erase all Occam’s Razor explanations for such questions.
That is what I am referring to as Occam’s Eraser.
Here are some examples of Occam’s Eraser.
Erase vaccine injury descriptions
See, VAERS is a major problem for the mRNA rollout.
It lets anyone file a report, as if vaccine science is expected to be democratic or something.
Potential VAERS replacements turn out to be even more damning than VAERS itself
EMRs have the potential to radically improve the practice of medicine. For example, I have worked with individuals who on their own were able to produce AI systems that could comb through data collected by EMRs and identify proof of iatrogenic injuries or compare outcomes of different pharmaceuticals to determine ideal treatment algorithms. These are very simple to do (hence why small teams can pull them off), and yet despite a fanatical need to “acquire more data” are never done.
That said, I know of two cases where an AI system was made to analyze EMR data, found strong evidence of vaccine injury, and then was discarded. For example to quote the Real Anthony Fauci: ”In 2010, the federal Agency for Health Care Research Quality (AHRQ) designed and field-tested a state-of-the-art machine-counting (AI) system as an efficient alternative to VAERS. By testing the system for several years on the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, AHRQ proved that it could capture most vaccine injuries. AHRQ initially planned to roll out the system to all remaining HMOs, but after seeing the AHRQ’s frightening results—vaccines were causing serious injuries in 1 of every 40 recipients—CDC killed the project and stowed the new system on a dusty shelf.”
Anyway, recently the VAERS site added this disclaimer:
“Disclaimer: At the request of European regulators, CDC and FDA have removed certain data fields (country codes; reported symptom case narrative free text; diagnostic laboratory data free text field; illness at time of vaccination free text field; chronic conditions free text medical history field; allergies free text field) from foreign VAERS reports which were submitted to VAERS and may not comply with European regulations. Domestic (U.S.) VAERS reports are not affected by this process.“
Here is an article by Dr Jessica Rose explaining not just the recent changes to the VAERS data, but how these changes deleted vital information about the myocarditis safety signal.
But vaccine induced myocarditis is just “mild” and “transient” isn’t it?
Well, turns out, some people think it can actually cause long term problems.
Thankfully, only conspiracy theorists seem to agree with such videos.
Besides, it isn’t as if myocarditis can be dangerous and can cause death among otherwise healthy young people.
Also scientists have been assuring us that the baffling increase in sudden death is just due to something with the very insightful name of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome”.
I hope you can make it to the end of this article without keeling over from SADS.
Erase danger signals
This is how the CDC determines serious adverse events following vaccination:
“In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, reports are classified as serious if the submitter reports one or more of the following: hospitalization, prolongation of an existing hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, or death.”
If someone files a VAERS report which includes one of these, it would be considered a serious AE.
But the CDC has been filing duplicate VAERS reports where they delete the report with a serious AE and change it to one which doesn’t have the serious AE.
I found out about this during my analysis of the data, and did not really know for sure how this happens.
When I posted my findings on Twitter, someone came forward and explained what was (is?) going on.
But still, this isn’t any reason to worry is it? Surely there are many checks and balances in the system?
Besides, in this age of instant, always-on communication, all you need to do is use social media and you will be able to provide clear proof and get people to understand what is going on.
And once you establish conclusive proof, it will all be just one Google search away, so there is NO WAY anyone can avoid learning about vaccine injuries.
Erase dissident voices from social media
First of all, just because you post something on social media does not mean it will be allowed to stay up on social media. Facebook purged large vaccine injury groups.
YouTube (YT) demonetized or threatened to demonetize so many dissident voices even before the vaccine injuries became obvious, that many video creators self-censored and refused to even discuss the topic of vaccine injuries.
It was a Catch-44 (which I am told is twice as problematic as a Catch-22) for the vaccine injury discussion. Creators with the best reputations and thus biggest reach not only had the most to lose from demonetization, they were also told that YT will still display ads on their already popular videos and just pocket the money for themselves.
“Thanks for working so hard on OUR behalf, chump! That should teach you a thing or two about how scientific discourse happens on our platform”
It certainly had a chilling effect on the Ivermectin discussion, which is another giant can of worms.
Twitter suspended so many high follower accounts that some people started joking that Twitter was increasing Substack valuation one suspension at a time.
Here is a Doctor who was suspended from Twitter. Check out her track record - of course the medical establishment will probably tell you that she is lying about it so they can feel better about their own ineptness.
LinkedIn kicked out doctors who were asking too many questions about vaccinating children.
There is also Dr Darrell DeMello (who I know personally, and who treated me when I got COVID19) who successfully treated over 20000+ acute COVID19 patients in India, many of them during the severe Delta wave.
His LinkedIn account was suspended for discussing vaccine induced myocarditis.
Instead of brainstorming with doctors who had the best track records, the medical community usually vilified them, with plenty of support from Dr Big Tech.
Erase search results
Google site search is a feature which allows you to add site:URL before your search query and this will force Google to only return relevant results for that particular website. In fact, I believe they were the ones who pioneered and implemented this idea before the other search engines.
For example, if you want to search on the World Economic Forum website to learn about their CBDC plans (not that anyone would want to do such a thing), you can type this:
If you click into those results, you always end up on the World Economic Forum website. Of course that’s the whole idea of using the site search operator.
Since Substack does not have a feature which allows you to search across all the Substacks of different writers, you can technically use this site search feature to find articles discussing a specific topic across ALL Substack websites1.
Except that it doesn’t work as expected on Google.
Here is a site search result on Substack for the phrase “pfizer vaccine injury”. None of the search results go to a Substack website2. All of them go to other resources which either talk about how the vaccines are safe and effective, or defend taking the vaccine despite adverse reactions because it is still better than catching COVID19.
You can go and check this out for yourself. Do it soon.3
For a comparison, here is the same search on DuckDuckGo:
As you can see, every single result on DuckDuckGo (DDG) actually goes to a Substack website. DDG engineers don’t seem to suffer from mental problems, such as deciding they know what is best for the people better than people know what is best for themselves.
Also, I am not sure if Google engineers are qualified to tell us peasants what to think about vaccine injuries. The last I checked, a degree in medicine, statistics or epidemiology was not listed as a requirement to work there.
Besides, if I add a site search operator in my query, I think it is fairly safe for Google to think that yes, I actually do want search results from a Substack URL. In fact, typing extra characters is more work, and if I just wanted generic results I would have just not typed those extra characters into a search box.
Erase reputations
Wikipedia plays an important but somewhat invisible role in suppressing vaccine injury discussions. People usually think of Wikipedia as a trustworthy website which built up its reputation over a long period of time.
Which makes this section all the more ironic.
Here is a list of people whose reputations have been erased by Wikipedia - Robert Malone, Bret Weinstein, Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough and I am sure many more that I forgot. Most people who look up these names on Wikipedia will probably never read both sides of the debate after that. Their reputations have not just been erased - these people have been actively vilified.
One of the most interesting things about Wikipedia’s articles on COVID19
”misinformation” is how many of them have at least one citation to the Health Feedback website, which is run by Science Feedback, whose President allegedly does not want to even appear before the court to defend their fact checks.
Wikipedia is not a “Big Tech” company but in some ways its influence exceeds even that of Big Tech because it is even harder to compete with.
At least it is possible for an upstart like Rumble to take away market share from YouTube because a lot of people will pay Rumble just to get an alternative to YouTube due to the censorship.
How does that even work for a non-profit like Wikipedia?
Who is competing with Wikipedia to cross-verify their articles?
How many people know that one of the Wikipedia editors who is responsible for COVID-19 related information has no training in science?
So if you and I have no training in science, people with training are quick to ask you to send your own correction to the NEJM4. Even if we somehow muster the enthusiasm to send in the correction, it might actually be read by a few thousand people at the most?
But a Wikipedia editor has no training in science can still makes edits to the profiles of scientists which are probably read thousands of times a day.
Yes, Wikipedia vs NEJM is not an apples to apples comparison. But Wikipedia’s editorial process is not very balanced and some might even say it has plenty of political bias.
And it is worth remembering that when you read your next Wikipedia article related to COVID19.
There is a small caveat. The site search operator will not work if someone uses a custom domain name for their Substack website. Very few writers use that feature. So the site search itself isn’t a perfect solution to our problem. But that does not change the overall point I am making here.
None of the results in the first page of the search results, at least. A few years back someone made a joke (which now seems a little ominous) that “the best place to bury a dead body is in the 2nd page of Google search results because no one ever looks there”
Interestingly, I am not sure which is now more likely to happen. Will DuckDuckGo start suppressing vaccine injury results and become more like Google’s search results? Or will Google change their search results to make it look like I am wrong (and that it was some kind of a ‘mistake’)? Who knows?