Discussion about this post

User's avatar
ExcessDeathsAU's avatar

Hi Sasha, apologies for not reading your always excellent post before commenting (I will shortly). Just letting you know that in 18 minutes Australia's age assurance legislation is due to be deployed. At midnight I will know if I am locked out of my Substack account or not. I have been demonetising since July in anticipation of this moment.

I will not be placebo complying with VPNs or workarounds to prop up a corrupt system.

If I do not get the chance, I just wanted to thank you for all your due diligence (and art). Keep fighting!

David Lamson's avatar

President Eisenhower warned us not only about the threat of a military industrial complex, but also of the threat of a growing "expert class" in which various disciplines, including science, would become popularity contests rather than being based on evidence.

This evidence first presented in 2023 of this clear distinction between EUA and EAU, was an eye opener- it was a smoking gun of the covid hoax. Yet, opinion reigns over evidence.

When I asked AI about the difference between EUA and EAU, it first accused me of a typo. After defining the terms, it produced a moderately accurate response (including EUA requiring no IND or IRB approval, nor monitoring of adverse effects.)

I asked how such a EUA released drug could be considered safe. AI then ridiculously claimed clinical trials were performed.

But, I asked, if no IND or IRB approval is required, how can a clinical trial be performed?

Round and round (and round) we went.

Eventually, a partial truth emerged: "No clinical trial is performed under EUA—only authorized use. Clinical trials require IND and IRB; EUA bypasses both because it is not designed to study the drug, but to use it."

Ultimately, it was people who were used... and abused.

But, continued thanks to Miss Sacha (and Katherine) for their work.

93 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?