Australia Launches Booster Shot Marketing Campaign

Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted May 13, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Australian government is spending millions on an ad campaign to encourage citizens to take a third COVID vaccine. Their method of marketing is quite surprising and I question who would be enticed to take the vaccine upon watching this ad. The campaign features individuals who received the two jabs — and still fell deathly ill with COVID.

You risked your life to take an experimental vaccine, twice, and STILL contracted the virus. Your symptoms were allegedly life-threatening, so the theory that the vaccine will lessen symptoms is moot here. All of that and people are still willingly taking the third vaccine. Cognitive dissonance is strong here.

Nearly 72% of Southern Australians are triple jabbed, yet the government feels it is worth spending $2 million to target that remaining portion who likely do not want another useless vaccine with known side effects. Governments across the globe were hoping we would all be mindless sheep, politely queuing each season for another immunization. Enough is enough.

The New Star Trek & World War III

Armstrong economics Blog/AI Computers Re-Posted May 8, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

A lot of people have written in to ask if I have been consulted for the Star Trek series or if some have used our forecast to write scripts. I have not consulted on Star Trek. If people are tapping into our computer forecasts for ideas, I cannot confirm nor deny that. I understand that connection to our model and I can say an awful lot of people do tune in to Socrates. Let’s hope their visual forecast of the future is not so dramatic. If it makes people think twice – it is fantastic. My fear is that those pulling the strings connected to the mouths of world leaders just for once stop with this nonsense of a Great Reset and let’s sit down and revise the world economy in a rational manner.

Study of Breakthrough Infections in Highly Vaccinated Belgium Provides Significant Data

Published originally on TrialSite New Staff on Apr. 28, 2022, 7:30 p.m.

Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April).  It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.  

So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).

The Study

More than 80% of adults in Belgium were fully vaccinated (received two doses) by August 11, 2021.

The study included all people in Belgium aged 18-plus who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 between February 1 and December 5, 2021. The 8,062,000 participants were followed up for an average of 150 days, from 14 days after their second dose.

4.6% of the participants (373,070) were reported to have a breakthrough infection. This figure does not, however, take into account how long each participant was followed-up after the study. When this is factored in, the incidence rate is 11.2 per 100 person-years. This means that if participants were followed up for one year, 11.2 would be expected to develop a breakthrough infection. 


Researchers share that “breakthrough infections were more common in those who had received viral vector vaccines than mRNA vaccines. Those who had previously had Covid had a lower risk of breakthrough infections.”

Overall, those vaccinated with a viral vector vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca or Janssen) had a higher risk of a breakthrough infection than those vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna).

In addition, “There was a higher incidence of breakthrough infections in younger age groups (18-64 year olds) than in older age groups (65-84 or 85-plus year olds), which might be due to differences in social behavior.”

Natural immunity also comes into play here. Researchers observed from the analysis that “those with a prior COVID-19 infection before vaccination were 77% less likely to have a breakthrough infection than those who hadn’t had Covid previously.”

Significant Implications

Such information regarding breakthrough infections can be helpful when designing vaccination programs, including decisions about who would benefit most from a booster dose and the timing and type of vaccine to be used. 

Dr. Stouten adds: “We identified risk factors associated with breakthrough infections, such as vaccination with adenoviral-vector vaccines, which could help inform future decisions on booster vaccination strategies internationally.

Lead Research/Investigator

Dr. Veerle Stouten, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium

Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April).  It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.  

So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).

Trudeau Admits He Does Not Understand Basic Math

Armstrong Economics Blog/Canada Re-Posted Apr 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

In an old video that has resurfaced from Justin Trudeau’s days as a West Point Great Academy teacher, the now prime minister admitted that he struggles with basic math. “I have a slight learning disability…that was never addressed,” the 29-year-old teacher stated. “I am dysnumeric,” Trudeau said after self-diagnosing why he cannot understand small math problems. Trudeau said that his learning disability did not prevent him from later teaching children mathematics. “Dysnumeric” is not a medical term, although there are learning disorders involving numbers.

Trudeau admitted he could not remember phone numbers. He said that he was still unsure of his multiplication tables.

Ironically, Trudeau says, “Questioning as a skill is not taught anymore.” Perhaps it is so that tyrants like Trudeau can invoke martial law over a peaceful protest and shriek at people to stay inside and trust the ever-changing “science.” Feasibly his revelation explains why he thought only a “fringe minority” of Canadians wanted to escape his COVID restrictions. He goes on to say that he also does not understand computers, but that his skill is teaching the youth how to think. “It’s not about teaching facts anymore,” he admitted years ago. It is about manipulating the people to trust what government claims is factual and implementing penalties for anyone who questions the status quo. It is no wonder that Schwab scooped Trudeau up to be one of his Young Leaders.

Major Riots Against Macron Throughout France Over Questionable Election

Armstrong Economics Blog/France Re-Posted Apr 25, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

There are major riots in just about every city in France over the validity of the election.  Police are breaking up protests by using teargas on civilians. The youth especially are protesting for Macron wants to create an EU army and that will inevitably lead to drafts.

French Presidential Election Today, Emmanuel Macron vs Marine Le Pen

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance 

The biggest election with global significance is taking place today in France as Marine Le Pen (economic nationalist) challenges current President Emmanuel Macron (economic globalist).  The world is watching this one, because if Le Pen can win it would be seismic in political consequence.

Current voter turnout is recorded as moderate (63% range) with rural areas running higher turnout than urban areas.  Forecasters were predicting around 71% voter turnout.   GBNews is on the ground with a report:

Marine Le Pen is a long shot.  If she wins it would be massive.

We will not know the early results for a few more hours, around 4pm ET.  Some other data below…..


Armstrong on USA Watchdog April 12th, 2022

Armstrong Economics Blog/Armstrong in the Media Re-Posted Apr 16, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Rule One, Economic Security Is National Security

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 | Sundance

…Rule two, there is no bigger rule than the first rule.

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Never has that Machiavelli quote been more apropos than when considering the MAGA movement and the rise of Donald Trump.

Thankfully, we are now in an era when the largest coalition of American voters have awakened to the reality that, to quote the former president: “Economic Security is National Security.”

As we live through the economic mess of a Biden administration hell bent on eroding the middle class of the United States, there are numerous pundits contemplating 2024 Republican presidential candidates other than Donald Trump; consider this group the lukewarm defenders Machiavelli noted.

At the same time the leftist coalition, writ large, are apoplectic about the base of the Republican Party now belonging to Donald Trump.  This group consists of those affluent Wall Street agents and politicians set on retaining the profits derived from decades of institutional objectives.

Institutional Democrats hate Trump, and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending Trump.  Both wings of the DC UniParty fear Trump.  Extreme efforts at control are a reaction to fear.  In this outline, I rise to explain why Donald Trump is the only option for the America First MAGA coalition; and I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.

Everything, is about the economics of it.

If you accept that at its essential core elements the phrase “economic security is national security” is true – meaning the lives of the American citizen, person, worker, individual or family are best when their economic position is secure – then any potential leader for our nation must be able to initiate policies that directly touch the economics of a person’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As a result, economic security and economic policy must be the fulcrum of their platform.

Now, look around and ask yourself this question: “What separated Donald J. Trump from the remaining field of 17 GOP candidates in 2016?”   An honest top-line answer would be immigration (border control), and his views on American economic policy.   In essence, what set Donald Trump apart from all other candidates was his view on the U.S. economy, and that was the driving factor behind ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA.

Now, look around.  Look at every other potential candidate for political office. Is there another person in the field of your political view who comes from the starting point that economic security is national security?

Put aside all other issues and shiny things that may change from moment to moment as the political winds swirl and settle, and ask yourself that question.  Who can deliver MAGA, if not the central person who lives, eats, sleeps and thinks about U.S. economic security from every angle at every second of every hour of every day.  That’s Donald J. Trump.

Trump knows the extremely consequential sequence of BIG things that lead to a structurally strong American economic foundation.

We don’t have to guess at whether Trump can deliver on that policy sequence, we have reference points.

♦ Donald Trump knew that independent U.S. energy policy was a condition for a strong U.S. economy. He also knew there would be negative consequences to allies and partners if the U.S. energy policy was independent.  Trump knew that OPEC nations in general would be negatively impacted, and he knew that Saudi Arabia specifically would be weakened geopolitically.   That is why the very first foreign trip by Donald Trump was to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that make up the majority of OPEC.

Look at what President Trump did on that trip.  First, he assured Saudi Arabia that the United States would stand with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mid-East nations as it pertained to their security.  Trump knew making the largest energy consuming nation independent from foreign oil would be adverse to the economic stability of the Mid-East, and as an outcome, could open a door to destabilization from extremist or ideological groups therein.

Take away top-line economic revenue from Saudi et al, and the leaders of those oil economies have a more difficult time remaining stable and controlling unrest and extremism.  Generations of Arab citizens know nothing other than the trickle down benefits of oil exports.  President Trump knew this, and he approached our need for energy independence by first assuring the Arab states of his commitment to their stability and safety.

President Trump delivered to those states a list of approved arms and defense agreements during that trip.  In essence, what he was doing was putting the promise of security into actual delivery of tools to retain that security.  Actions speak louder than words.  President Trump also promised to work diligently on peace in the region; a real substantive and genuine peace that would provide security in the big picture.

Over the course of the next few years, Trump delivered on that set of promises with the Abraham Accords.   Yes, economic security as national security applies to our allies as well as ourselves.  Again, actions speak louder than words.

With the U.S. energy independence program in place, President Trump then moved in sequence to the next big thing.

♦ Donald Trump moved to face the challenge of China.   A major shift in U.S. policy that is likely considered the biggest geopolitical shift in the last 75 years.  Trump strategically began with Trade Authority 302 national security Steel and Aluminum tariffs at 25% and 10% not only toward China but targeted globally.

The entire multinational system was stunned at the bold step with tariffs.   But remember, before Trump went to Saudi Arabia, he held a meeting with Chairman Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago.  The global trade world was shocked by the tariff announcement, but I’ll bet you a doughnut Chairman Xi was not.

That February 2017 meeting, only one month after his inauguration, was President Trump graciously informing Chairman Xi, in the polite manner that respectful business people do, that a new era in the U.S-China relationship was about to begin.  New trade agreements, new terms and conditions were to be expected in the future.  The tariff announcement hit Wall Street hard, but not Beijing – who knew it was likely.

U.S. financial pundits proclaimed the sky was surely falling.  These tariffs would cause prices to skyrocket, the global order of all things around trade was under attack by Trump.  They waxed and shouted about supply chains being complicated and intertwined amid the modern manufacturing era that was too complex for President Trump to understand with such a heavy handed tariff hammer.   Remember all of that?  Remember how cars were going to cost thousands more, and beer kegs would forever be lost because the orange man had just triggered steel and aluminum tariffs?

Did any of that happen?  No. Of course it didn’t. Actually, the opposite was true and no one could even fathom it.  Communist China first responded by subsidizing all of their industries targeted by the tariffs with free energy and raw materials, etc.  China triggered an immediate reaction to lower their own prices to offset tariffs.  Beijing did not want the heavy industries and factories to start back up again in the U.S, so they reacted with measures to negate the tariff impact.

China’s economy started to feel the pressure and panda was not happy.  Eventually, as the tariffs expanded beyond Steel and Aluminum to other specific segments and categories, China devalued their currency to lower costs even further for U.S. importers.  The net result was something no one could have imagined.  With lower prices, and increased dollar strength, we began importing all Chinese products at cheaper rates than before the tariffs were triggered.  Yes, we began importing deflation.  No one saw that coming…. but Trump did.

While all that initial U.S-China trade shock was taking place, Donald Trump took his next foreign trip to… wait for it…. Southeast Asia.

Just like in the example of the trip to Saudi Arabia, economically-minded Trump told partners and leaders in the export producing countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and ASEAN nations to prepare for additional business and new trade agreements with the U.S., as factories inside China might start to decouple.   Look at how they responded, they did exactly what Trump said would be in their best interests.

To seriously gather the focus of this SE Asia group, President Trump started direct talks with North Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-un for peace and regional stability.  It’s easy to forget just how stunning this was at the time, but generations of people in Asia were jaw-agape at the U.S. President confronting China, engaging with North Korea, and opening his arms to new trade deals with ASEAN partners.

On the world stage of geopolitics and global trade, any one of these moves would be a monumental legacy initiative all by itself.  But together, simultaneously, you can see how the entire continent physically stopped midstride and stood staring at this, this man, this American President, who was just about to step across the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea and shake hands with Chairman Kim…. and, wait for it…. they are smiling.

√ Energy security triggered and friends in Mid-East supported.

√ Mid-East peace initiatives triggered.

√ A return of heavy industry and manufacturing security triggered.

√ A confrontation of Chinese economic influence triggered.

√ Stability between South Korea and North Korea, triggered.

√ New trade deals and economic partnerships with Japan and South Korea, triggered.

And then, as if that was not enough… just as multinational investment groups started realizing they needed to change their outlooks and drop the decades long view of the U.S. as a “service driven economy”… just as they realized they needed to start investing domestically inside the United States for their own growth and financial security… as if all that wasn’t enough… President Trump kicks off an entirely new trade deal and renegotiated standard for all North American trade via NAFTA.

We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can put together a program to ensure Economic Security is National Security.  We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can deliver on economic policy.  We don’t have guess if Trump’s policy platform, proposals and initiatives would be successful.  We have the experience of it.  We have the results of it.  We have felt the success of it.

We also don’t need to guess at who is the best candidate to lead Making America Great Again, we already know who that is.

There is no other 2024 Presidential Candidate, who I am aware of, who could possibly achieve what Donald John Trump has achieved, or who could even fathom contemplating how to achieve a quarter of what President Trump achieved.

Do not tell me Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a better option. DeSantis is an unknown commodity, a blank slate, when it comes to big picture economic outlooks. DeSantis doesn’t have an economic agenda inside his administration from which to contemplate or analyze his economic views.

Governor Ron DeSantis has a lot of really good skills and policies on the domestic front unique to his position in Florida; however, it is not a slight toward him to point out he has never expressed any larger economic proposal that would give any confidence in a national economic policy.

Look at the sum total of it, and there’s so much more that could be outlined to what Donald Trump achieved and could yet still achieve, it’s not even a close question.

And that my friends is exactly why Donald Trump is under relentless attack from both wings of the UniParty in DC.  Additionally, it is clear the Wall Street Republicans are trying to position Ron DeSantis as an alternative to another Trump term.  Look carefully at the current advocates for DeSantis, Nikki Haley and/or Kristi Noem, and you will note every one of those early voices are attached to favorable Wall Street politics and multinational corporate advocacy.

Look at what Donald J. Trump was able to achieve while he was under constant political attack.  Just imagine what Trump 2.0 would deliver.

They, the leftist Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, are yet again absolutely petrified of that.

The Possibility of a Win for Marine Le Pen in France Has EU Worried

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 

One week from tomorrow the presidential election in France will be decided.  Polls put the race between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron in a statistical dead heat, and combined with the recent Hungary election outcome – that has many bureaucrats in the EU very twitchy.

No doubt this race would have major ramifications if Marine Le Pen could end up victorious.  Factually, the Western alliance military operation in Ukraine could fundamentally change.  A post-COVID shift toward increased nationalism in France and the European Union would be very problematic for the forward plans of the professional political class and corporate globalists.

ASSOCIATED PRESS – […] If Macron falters in France’s April 24 presidential runoff between the two, the far-right could be at the helm of the European Union, an abhorrent idea to most leaders in the bloc.

Experts say a win for Le Pen would have immense repercussions on the functioning of the EU. Not only would her coming to power damage the democratic values and commercial rules of the bloc, but it would also threaten the EU’s common front and sanctions in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

[…] France has always stood at the heart of the EU — a founding member that has partnered with neighbor and historical rival Germany to turn the bloc into an economic giant and an icon of Western values. … [Le Pen] has proposed removing taxes on hundreds of goods and wants to reduce taxes on fuel — which would go against the EU’s free market rules and efforts to fight climate change.

[…]  Jean-Claude Piris, who served as a legal counsel to the European Council, said a victory for Le Pen would have the effect of an “earthquake.”

“She is in favor of a form of economic patriotism with state aids, which is contrary to the rules of the single market,” Piris told The Associated Press.

“She wants to modify the French constitution by giving preference to the French, by suppressing the right of the soil, the right of asylum,” which would be “totally incompatible with the values of the European treaties,” Piris added. (read more)

There isn’t a ‘splodey head detonation meter big enough to record the sound of the EU eruption if Marine Le Pen stands victorious next Sunday.

Vive le France!

Dr. Jackie Stone Put it All on the Line to Treat the Ill During the Pandemic: Zimbabwe Throws Criminal Charges at Her

Posted originally on TrialSite New by StaffApril 12, 2022

TrialSite chronicled the efforts of Dr. Jackie Stone in Zimbabwe during the worst stages of the pandemic. Born in Zimbabwe, Dr. Stone has been fascinated by research since a young age, and her commitment to caring for people during the pandemic has been legendary. While her off-label ivermectin-based combination regimen was identified with the saving of many lives in this southern African country, the medical establishment isn’t too keen on thinking outside of the box, even during the worst pandemic in a century. Dr. Stone now faces a court trial with criminal charges for merely treating COVID-19 patients with an early outpatient treatment protocol based on a combination of off-label treatments that includes ivermectin. This, even though Dr. Stone treated many in the Zimbabwe government and military successfully. In fact, for a while, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) authorized access on an emergency basis for research—which amounted to care in this low-and middle-income country. The regulatory agency did a turnaround with ivermectin due to the results in the clinic of Dr. Jackie Stone.

Articles about Dr. Stone and Zimbabwe can be found at TrialSite. A fighter to the end originally of English and Norwegian descent, curious, and tough, yet elegant and empathetic, she grew up in the bush in this part of Africa, as her father was involved with geology and mining. Dr. Stone’s ethos, integrity, and commitment to doing good should have led her to awards from groups such as the World Health Organization.

Together Trial Mainstream Media Interpretations Could Put Low-Cost Regimen at Risk in MICs

Stone recently got together remotely with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss her concern with the Together Trial. While mainstream media have pounced on the findings, at least a dozen physicians and scientists are findings various issues with the data. 

Ed Mills, the principal investigator, did the right thing investing his time as well as raising money to study repurposed drugs. While the Together trial’s primary endpoint failed to show efficacy for ivermectin, even Mills went on the record in a private email declaring ivermectin proponents should be upbeat about some of the data generated in the study. But Mills’ data was taken by mainstream media and used as a weapon to attack the use of the drug worldwide. This isn’t Dr. Mills’ fault–again he took the time to investigate the drug as well as other important repurposed drugs.

But Stone’s concern centers on the needs of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for low-cost, available regimens for early care. Stone told TrialSite, “in poor and up-and-coming countries we don’t always have the luxury of waiting around for gold standard evidence. Rather, in the case of the pandemic, we need to move fast, and we did, leading to the saving of many thousands of lives.”

She continued, “My concern now is that papers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pounce on data, often misinterpreting quotes from the PI can lead to a cutting off of life-saving approaches in LMICs such as my country.”

“Dr. Stone’s commitment to LMICs cannot be denied based on a clear track record of success. With COVID-19 came politics around the use of off-label drugs such as ivermectin, and unfortunately, Dr. Stone is caught in the middle of a political battle, but she is one of the most resilient individuals I have ever come across,” reports TrialSite’s O’Connor.

What about Together?

Dozens of scientists and doctors now pour through data of the Together Trial. Recently, Dr. David Wiseman, affiliated with TrialSite, shared a dozen bullet points of concern associated with Together, including inputs from Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and others that TrialSite poses as questions.

Together Trial Questions: Ivermectin

#Question/Concern Issues for Discussion with Together Trial
1.Did the ivermectin arm of Together run later than the placebo arm, a time when a more virulent strain was present in that part of Brazil?
2.Why wouldn’t the protocol call for screening for ivermectin use—after all the drug was used in many parts of Brazil.  Were those participating already using the drug? It would be hard to prove now.
3.The critics fret about the lack of reported boosts in gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm leading to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the study—either A) placebo group was on ivermectin or B) those taking ivermectin were not administered real study drug
4.Were these placebo pills produced to look identical to the study drug?  As the drug is commonly used, this would have unblinded the study.
5.Together used ivermectin alone yet the early care community uses the drug in combination with other economical safe drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, as well as nutraceuticals such as vitamin D, C, and zinc. The study of ivermectin alone doesn’t mean much to frontline doctors.
6.Together started up to 8 days post symptom onset, but frontline ivermectin proponents declare the drug should be given immediately upon symptomatic infection. The P.1 variant also saw a faster progression to severe illness only compounding the problem.
7.In the Together study, they used a dose of (0.4 mg per kilo per day) which many critics called inadequate for ill patents–was the study underdosed?
8.Given ivermectin proponents suggest using the drug till symptoms are resolved, why did the Together protocol only call for use for 3 days?
9.Why did the protocol call for administration of the drug on an empty stomach when proponents declare the drug works best when associated with consumption of fatty food?
10.Why is so much basic data missing from the study results such as Recruitment Period, Recruitment Locations, Recruitment and allocation order per sit, Description of how the molecules and placebo were produced or compounded to look identical (otherwise loss of blinding); why is there missing age data for 98 patients?  Other gaps in data or anomalies are present for those interested
11.Some basic math shows that the numbers listed in the trial paper for the different arms and outcomes in the trial do not add up to the totals and percentages that they give – either a gross mathematical error or fraud. To see many of the strange mathematical discrepancies which invalidate the trial conclusions, go to investigative journalist Phil Harper’s article: Moreover Wiseman declares And the alteration of the death count in the trial data raises serious questions:

Seeking more information about Dr. Stone?

For all of those interested in Dr. Stone’s story check out the many articles published in TrialSite along with this important letter authored by Dr. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics Undergraduate Program Coordinator at The University of Texas — Rio Grande Valley School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences in Edinburg, Texas.

Call to ActionTrialSite suggests a fund to support Dr. Stone in her legal battle if needed.