18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine

Editor’s Note: We are not opposed to vaccines. They have done much good. But there are risks and this article describes them masterfully, especially in regards to those for COVID. There are varying definitions of what a “vaccine ” is and we are not sure these even meet the more rigorous definitions. Modifying RNA for immunity is an ingenious idea, but we don’t know if it was done right and if all the ramifications were considered. Certainly not thoroughly tested/questioned.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal

By Christian Elliot 

A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I’ve read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can’t make sense of these covid vaccines.

THREE GROUND RULES FOR DISCUSSION

If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent.

Here are the rules…

I am more than happy to correspond with you if…

  1. You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.

  2. You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.

  3. You make your points using sound logic and don’t hide behind links or the word “science.”

If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.

With that out of the way, let me say this…

I don’t know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.

So here are the reasons I’m opting out of the covid vaccine.

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.

First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.

The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.

No liability. No trust.

Here’s why…

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:

  1. Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).

  2. Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).

  3. Are both (Johnson & Johnson).

Moderna had been trying to “Modernize our RNA” (thus the company name)–for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market–how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death–see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and Opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?

In case it hasn’t sunk in, let me reiterate…3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

Let me reiterate this point:

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.

No. I don’t trust them.

No liability. No trust.

Here’s another reason why I don’t trust them.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960’s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.

In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren’t necessary back then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.

For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960’s.

You can read a summary of this history/science here.

Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

  • In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets

  • In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated

  • In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.

  • In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.

The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.

The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a “cytokine storm” (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Here’s the lingering issue…

The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA “vaccines” been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I’m sure they figured that out.

Except they don’t know if they have…

#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “Data Gaps” they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.

They simply don’t know–i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

As Joseph Mercola points out…

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?”

If that’s not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data–i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

  • Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55

  • Pregnant or lactating mothers

  • Auto-immune conditions

  • Immunocompromised individuals

  • No data on transmission of covid

  • No data on preventing mortality from covid

  • No data on duration of protection from covid

Hard to believe right?

In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let’s turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the “90% and 95% effective” claims touted in the news?

Me too…

But they won’t let us see that data.

As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.

There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”

Wait…what?

Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?

Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to find out if they had covid?

Apparently not.

Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?

Can we only guess they didn’t test because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?

Where’s the FDA?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have “covid-like symptoms,” and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

I mean it’s only every citizen of the world we’re trying to get to take these experimental products…

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn’t that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?

Good question.

Foxes guarding the hen house?

Seems like it.

No liability. No trust.

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.

In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now–for ANY population.

Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky “data gaps” before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?

Well…that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point…

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

What most who are taking the vaccine don’t know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial.

They are part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.

Time will tell how this experiment works out.

But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t we be seeing that all over the news?

Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?

Well, if the adverse events reporting system was working, maybe things would be different.

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) – read page 6 at the link above.

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

“VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021.”

And those numbers don’t include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy.

If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,00 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn’t see that on the news.

That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don’t hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out, or check this out.

But then there’s my next point, which could be argued makes these covid vaccines seem pointless…

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

Wait, what?

Aren’t these vaccines supposed to be what we’ve been waiting for to “go back to normal”?

Nope.

Why do you think we’re getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.

If you don’t believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.

The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right?

That’s it…lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we’ve been waiting for.

Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

  1. It can’t stop us from spreading the virus.

  2. It can’t stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.

  3. To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don’t involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.

Now for the next logical question:

If we’re worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?

If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.

I can’t make sense of that either.

Take the risk.

Get no protection.

Suffer through the vaccine side-effects.

Keep wearing your mask and social distancing…

And continue to be able to spread the virus.

What?

It gets worse.

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

Talk about a bummer.

You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.

Given the reasons above (and what’s below), maybe this doesn’t surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.

It’s not.

That was never the point.

If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine…maybe they aren’t wowed by the rushed science either.

Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported…

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

According to the CDC’s own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn’t stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me–actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let’s not split hairs here.

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year…i.e. forever.

But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths, that’s alarming right?

I’m glad you asked.

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

Something smells really funny about this one.

Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.

Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with covid in their body, as having died of covid, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?

Until covid, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, or any other major co-morbidity.

The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, both the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of covid, are also included in the death numbers.

Seriously?

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?

According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section “Comorbidities and other conditions”) only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just covid.

Even if the former CDC director is correct and covid-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet ever year.

Then there’s this Fauci guy.

I’d really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn’t treated one covid patient…you should probably know…

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using tax payer funding.

Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine…which he approved government funding for.

In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna’s vaccine.

Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?

I say criminal because there’s also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general.

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

What is “Gain-of-Function” research?

It’s where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions–i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.

Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?

How could that possibly be helpful?

Our government agreed, and banned the practice.

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?

They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China–to the tune of a $600K grant.

You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.

Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do…and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.

For now, let’s turn our attention back to the virus…

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (who you’ll meet below if you don’t know him) it’s mutating about every 10 hours.

How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?

We’re not.

Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch covid?

Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?

That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

I can’t help but get snarky here, so humor me.

How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn’t it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics, and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

  • Lockdowns

  • Mask wearing

  • Social-distancing

  • Vaccine efficacy and safety trials

  • How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury

  • Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)

Wasn’t it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with covid) have their “science” questioned.

Wasn’t it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?

Oh, wait…you didn’t see those debates?

No, you didn’t…because they never happened.

What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.

Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can’t?

Hypocrite?

When did the first amendment become a suggestion?

It’s the FIRST amendment Mark–the one our founders thought was most important.

With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative…shouldn’t many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?

What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?

Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says “the science is settled” that’s how I know I’m dealing with someone who is closed minded.

By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.

If it was, it would be dogma, not science.

OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this…

I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN

I really do.

If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.

If masks work, I want to wear them.

If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.

But, if there is evidence they don’t (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence too.

If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.

I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.

I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.

Maybe I’m weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.

Don’t you?

To all my friends who don’t have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?

Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants, and greedy, power-hungry people?

Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it’s the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the covid vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?

Would you want to hear what he has to say?

Would you want to see the debate he’s asking for?

#17: THE WORLD’S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM…

Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn’t make sense to me.

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

  1. Why the covid vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating it’s ability to mutate and become more deadly.

  2. Why the covid vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic resistant bacteria).

  3. Why, because of previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

 

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.

If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.

If you don’t like his science, take it up with him.

I’m just the messenger.

But I can also speak to covid personally.

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

I didn’t enjoy it.

It was a nasty cold for two days:

  • Unrelenting butt/low-back aches

  • Very low energy.

  • Low-grade fever.

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days.

A week later, coffee still tasted a little “off.”

But I survived.

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity

…not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

In my body, and my household, covid is over.

In fact, now that I’ve had it, there is evidence the covid vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.

That is not a risk I’m willing to take.

IN SUMMARY

The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine.

Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don’t.

Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.

I for one think there’s a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

  • We all want to live in a world of freedom.

  • We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.

  • We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we’ll be censored or viciously attacked.

  • We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.

Agree or disagree with me; I’ll treat you no differently.

You’re a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else.

For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best.

I hope you found this helpful.

If so, feel free to share.

If not, feel free to (kindly) let me know what didn’t make sense to you and I’d be happy to hear your thoughts too.

Stay curious and stay humble.

PS. If you think I studied this topic well, think about how much thought I would put into helping you with your health. Helping people with their health is what I do all day, every day.

PPS. Health can’t be injected, but it can be earned.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal

Visit Christian Elliot at his blog True Whole Human

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

2.8 150 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
157 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sasseasue
Sasseasue
1 day ago

Thank you for sharing. I just wish my friends would wake up!!!

Naomi Krstinic
Naomi Krstinic
2 days ago

Thank you! I wholeheartedly stand where you stand and it’s so comforting to know I do not stand alone! God bless you!

Sally
Sally
4 days ago

Moderna & Pfizer both use mRNA — something the body ALREADY PRODUCES on its own to heal itself. In fact, mRNA is one of nature’s core building blocks, responsible for translating our genetic code into functional proteins, providing the blueprint for each cell within our body. Using mRNA in a vaccine provides a disease-eradicating platform that transforms each person’s body into its own therapeutic or vaccine factory. 

Moderna was founded ten years ago, specifically to develop mRNA therapies for a variety of diseases. In fact it’s name, Moderna, was created specifically to represent its focus on M-ode-RNA. mRNA-based therapeutics have been used in cancer treatments since 2016. This is not new. It is not unsafe. 

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
2 days ago
Reply to  Sally

Sally – I wonder how much you are being paid by either the vaccine industry or its partners in government and business who are profiting off of this scam-demic plan-demic. There is absolutely no assurance in any way that the mRNA gene therapy injections are safe. Why?
1) There has been no long-term safety testing in humans of the specific gene therapy agents that they have now rolled out for so-called “emegency use.”
2) They have bypassed some of the animal safety trials that would otherwise be required to obtain FDA approval.
3) For these reasons and more, these injectibles have never been FDA approved. Instead, they have been “authorized” (not approved) for emergency use under Emergency Use Authorization laws that require far less scientific demonstration of safety and efficacy than the normal FDA approval process.
4) Already we have thousands of reports of injuries following these injectable agents. Now, that is not strictly “proof” of a causal relationship in each of these cases – but there is also no “proof” that there is no causal relationship in any of these cases. Only a large-scale, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled safety study can answer the question for sure regarding causality and safety. Yet such a study on these new injectibles has NEVER been done. So you cannot say that these agents have ever been sufficiently tested to prove long-term safety.
5) There is NO liability for product defect or if there is any injury from these agents. The manufacturers have escaped legal liability for these products by getting special-interest legislation passed by Congress to shield them from any responsibility for paying for any damages found to be caused by these products due to product defect. The manufacturers of these products insisted on liability protection because they admitted they could not afford to be held responsible for any injuries they might cause. The situation is very simple: no liability leads to no trust. I will not trust any product that has been given special treatment by Congress whereby the manufacturers cannot be sued if their products cause harm.

Not FDA approved. Never tested properly for long term safety in humans. No liability for damage due to product defect.
No WAY……..

P.S. Sally, how much money are you being paid to push these risky experimental injectibles?

Jesse
Jesse
14 hours ago

Wow, Jeffrey, I had no idea how many of CJ’s readers are on the payroll of Big Vaccine.

How do I get my cut?

Jay Kay
Jay Kay
17 hours ago
Reply to  Sally

Cost: benefit calculation for cancer should be completely different for that done by a much less lethal condition. You are not comparing apples to apples.

Obviously time would not allow in the quick roll-out of these gene therapies being used as vaccines, but the manufacturers admit that no genetic testing was done in these particular “vaccine” studies, just efficacy & safety from immediate & devastating side effects.

Larry G. Brodie
Larry G. Brodie
4 days ago

Agreed with most of what you state and would personally add this: I won’t be taking in upon the advice of my primary care physical, as well as two other doctors who are friends and I have talked too. They cite many of the same things in this article. This doesn’t mean I won’t get a vaccine at some point but not now. BYW – I am a 72 year old male. Thank you for sharing!

Robyn
Robyn
5 days ago

Omigosh! Thank you so much for this extremely thorough, well researched and documented piece of journalism!! This is amazing! I am going to share this far and wide! It covers everything and more of what I have been trying to discuss with people!

Nwodo Collins
Nwodo Collins
9 days ago

Covid 19 vaccine is a poison of the highest order.
The harm it is doing is exceptionally data.
In less than 3 years, cancer,DM, BPH, ORGAN FAILURES and a lot more will go higher..

Companies that lack integrity should not be given the chance to serve the public in crisis. They will seize the opportunity to unleash more destructions.

Jay Kay
Jay Kay
17 hours ago
Reply to  Nwodo Collins

Yes, companies AND INDIVIDUALS that lack integrity should not be given the chance to “serve” the public, AT ALL.

Fauci, in addition to many conflicts of interest, should be disallowed participation based on his unethical support of & involvement in gain of function testing. Mad scientists tell us they must manipulate animal viruses to become transmissable to humans JUST IN CASE they should ever evolve the ability naturally. That way, they can prepare us by creating treatments & vaccines ahead of the need. Sane scientists tell us animal-to-human jump likely never would happen, that, at best, an accidental leak could cause world-wide pandemic; at worst, the research could be hi-jacked for use as a bioweapon. To give the involved scientists the benefit of the doubt, I think gain of function was performed by narcissitic (evil) geniuses just to see who could do the impossible (entertaining themselves thru bad scientific puzzles disregarding real risk), who attained much of their funding from nefarious actors.

Fauci discredited himself by admitting to lying to us (albeit, for good reasons, in his mind). When he finally came out to support the use of masks, he said he told us the opposite initially in order to save PPE for front-line workers (later claiming it was due to changes in scientific thinking). He initially told us that herd immunity should be accomplished at about 60%, changing later to 80-85%. Altho again he cites improved science, he also stated that he told us the lower figure to gain public buy-in, that we wouldn’t likely be standing in line if herd immunity, protection of our loved ones, were an impossibility. His lying is part of his condescending, paternalistic control & the dishonesty has no place in someone we choose to control the narrative. For him to think it’s perfectly ok to repeatedly do so & continue to get in our face daily is pure narcissism.

Daszak, whose passion is finding rare viruses & whose talent is finding funding, was also responsible for thwarting a safety inspection of the Wuhan lab that NIH wanted for much of 2019. Ironically, he’s the one holding the hand of the WHO & leading them (carefully) as they do their current investigation.

Both were chosen for their expertise, but it is exactly how they got their expertise that should disqualify they (& open them up to prosecution).

M. Mamdouh Ibrahim
M. Mamdouh Ibrahim
9 days ago

Thank you for your efforts to clarify thus 2020 strategy of covid 19 virus, I agree with you.
With my best regards.
Egyptian pharmacist

Delores
Delores
10 days ago

Mr. Elliot this is one of the best articles I have read on this experimental drug. You have captured everything in this one article. Thank you for taking the time to put it together and to share!

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
10 days ago
Assem Deif
Assem Deif
12 days ago

i have posted a question yesterday.
Does your comments concern the RNA vaccine of Pfizer or also astrazeneka. please comment
my name is Assem

TF
TF
13 days ago

The guy you’re referring to who is a Dr. – is a fn VETERINARIAN LOL

Sandra Dobiash
Sandra Dobiash
12 days ago
Reply to  TF

Oh, he’s much more than that. “Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s GH Discovery team as SPO and later on to work with GAVI as Senior Ebola Program Manager; he subsequently joined the German Center for Infection Research as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. Geert is now primarily serving as a Biotech/ Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on NK cell-based vaccines. His work is driven by a relentless passion to translate scientific breakthrough findings into competitive vaccine products. As a creative thinker, innovator, entrepreneur and visionary, Geert has been invited to speak at multiple international congresses.”

Sue
Sue
13 days ago

Supreme Leader, all wise Donald Trump had Covid and has received both Covid9 vaccine doses. The end of the story

Citizen Reporter
Admin
13 days ago
Reply to  Sue

He didn’t receive vaccine until well after he had COVID. Isstead, he used the remedy that est./MSM eschewed 🙂

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
13 days ago
Reply to  Sue

Donald Trump is not MY supreme leader, nor do I think he is very wise. However, how do we know for sure he got the real thing, and not a saline injection or some other switcheroo. We have already seen film evidence that certain top people in the government are not getting the shots we think they are, even when they are televised. https://www.bitchute.com/video/MtYxHRXAv6sn/

Last edited 13 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Gern
Gern
8 days ago
Reply to  Sue

So use your brain to decide your life and not a television screen.

Marcia
Marcia
1 day ago
Reply to  Sue

It wasn’t the same vaccine as what’s being distributed. If you recall, He took Rejuvenin, or something like that. Totally different than J&J, Moderna, Pfizer or Astra Zenecka.

Assem Deif
Assem Deif
13 days ago

Hello Mr Elliot

My question is simple. Do your comments apply only to the RNA vaccine or to Astra Zeneka. I write from Egypt where the government only supplied the latter, we don’t have Pfizer. Do your warnings also apply to AstraZenika so that I take care also
many Thanks
Assem

Amanda
Amanda
1 day ago
Reply to  Assem Deif

Hi, I am responding as a fellow reader. It sounds like most of the concerns are in reference to all vaccines, including AstraZeneca. However, since AstraZeneca is a “viral vector” vaccine and not an “mRNA vaccine”, the points about the dangers of mRNA do not apply to AstraZeneca.
This part specifically mentions AstraZeneca :

Also, AstraZeneca brand vaccine is not being offered in the US

Hope this helps, as I know you were looking for clarity! Stay safe!

John Weir
John Weir
13 days ago

Thanks Christian.

When Big Pharma cleans up its act and we have true transparancy, I may consider taking a vaccine voluntarily ( they may yet make me take it without consent ).

Many Thanks for your work.

Kindest Regards

John

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
14 days ago

RUTGERS’ VACCINE APARTHEID – THE PERSECUTION WORSENS UNLESS WE STOP IT NOW
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YjKanbHSeTFY/

Last edited 14 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
15 days ago

Here is more work of the highly-compensated, professional government propagandist Brian H. Spitzberg. Focus your attention on page 10 of this document he was involved in creating.
https://media.8kun.top/pdfs/src/1466690115124-1.pdf

On this page, he maps out his tools for propagandizing a population of citizens, taking advantage of various parameters which include “meme efficacy,” media publicity, media access/diffusion, counter-memes, networks, “altruism factors,” “N nodes (communicators),” “influencers,” “redundancy,” “attributed source of credibility,” and social networks. In other words, Brian H. Spitzberg is a world-class master of the science of manipulating the opinions of populations through propaganda, and is highly rewarded with government grants for doing so. I think if the Minister of Propaganda for Germany in the 1930’s, Joseph Goebbels, was able to come back to life, he would be jealous of Brian Spitzberg’s technical knowledge of how to propagandize the population and brainwash them with government propaganda.

Brian Spitzberg also specializes in social media surveillance research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341347083_Leveraging_Social_Media_for_Applied_Problems
I wonder if he is working with the government to invent better ways for the government to surveil everything we do and say on the Internet.

To Mr. Spitzberg: Do you want your legacy to be that of a “Big Brother?” Do you have any idea as to the fact that you are aiding and abetting an agenda which poses an existential threat to basic human freedoms? Mr. Spitzberg, please quit your high-paying government propaganda jobs and please join the ranks of freedom-loving and truth-seeking human beings who question the high-tech government propaganda that is being rolled out “scientifically” by technocrats like yourself.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

This is not the only plandemic they ae planning out for us. Johns Hopkins and their friends like Bill Gates have a new “pandemic” scenario all planned out for us in the next couple of years. It looks like they expect these “scamdemic” to never end: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Aqtj7flCNVs8/

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

This is how master propagandists for the state, like Professor Brian H. Spitzer, want people to think: https://www.bitchute.com/video/y1HEsqaTiNV9/

Kim Edwards
Kim Edwards
16 days ago

This was an amazing article! Thank you so much, as I’ll remain vaxx-free!!

Ella Brooks
Ella Brooks
16 days ago

Thank you for this wonderful article! I’ve been sharing it with everyone I can. I am one person who developed the Guillian-barre syndrome (GBS) in the early 90s from a flu shot and still suffer from the residual life-long neuropathy effects. My neurologist at the time, told me never ever to take any more flu shots or vaccines. Yet, my providers still continue to push me to take vaccines. I’m in my 70s now and I refuse to take anything. It’s mind-boggling that I’m still pressured even after my reactions have been clearly posted on my medical records! What happened to “patient rights to refuse” and “right to self-determination”?
I am a former member of the nursing profession and, until I had this GBS event, I too went along with whatever was mandated “from above” which was a huge wake-up call. I’m only one example of how people have become so gullible and accepting of “prescriptive medicine” without question–it’s a blind faith in medicine that now, might very well be the downfall of humanity.
My opinion is that this current EXPERIMENTAL covid labeled “vaccine” (is not representative of any type of “vaccine” parameters) and government strong-arming is nothing but government run medical tyranny. Almost every person I know who has taken this shot, believes that it will “prevent’ getting the illness! The horrible problems from these shots are being suppressed from public information. As of April 8, 2021, The National Vaccine Information Reporting Center (https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?EVENTS=on&PAGENO=261&PERPAGE=10&ESORT=&REVERSESORT=&VAX=(COVID19)&DIED=Yes) release of VAERS data headline: “Found 2,602 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died“. This headlines follows with 261 pages that details each of the 2,602 people who died. Data includes age, gender, locale, ‘vaccine” date, date of death and the sequelae of symptoms, etc. These are only the ones that were reported! It doesn’t mention the ones who are injured and still alive! Like everything else, only a fraction of actual gets reported. The long-term ramifications of these mRNA injections have not even begun to be manifested!
Every week child products are being recalled because of “potential hazards”. Yet these DOCUMENTED “shot hazards” are still touted as “safe”. Well, try to convince the loved ones of these 2,602 “cases” (AKA beloved family members whose LIVES DID MATTER) who are left grieving. This “vaccine” worldwide push is nothing but diabolical.

Barb
Barb
11 days ago
Reply to  Ella Brooks

My Aunt got GBS and did not survive. Since her death I have not taken a flu vaccine for about 7 years. I do not blame you at all for not getting one and I don’t think you should get the covid one either. I did finally break down and got the Pfizer vaccine. I am 70 now and decided I would get that one for personal reasons. But I will not be getting the booster they are now speaking of. This was a one time deal for me. Praying to get back to normal soon.

Jay Kay
Jay Kay
18 hours ago
Reply to  Ella Brooks

So sorry you had adverse reaction to a vaccine. Did it ever get documented at VAERS? I know mine didn’t because none of my drs thought there was a causal link. Of course, they were getting their info from incomplete education & from VAERS, in which like cases were underreported (viscious cycle: drs don’t believe relationship based on no like documentation in VAERS, so they don’t report, which compounds misinformation used by other drs).

My husband & I just don’t seem to get ill so don’t take flu shots. Until about 10 yrs ago when I was working with a population that likely included some folks who may have been immunocompromised. Out of a sense of responsibilty to them, I chose to get one. Within a month, I had significant joint pain & inflammation (affecting work, driving & daily living) along with great fatigue & general low-level illness.

Shortly thereafter, I was diagnosed with Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, a syndrome that can include positive diagnoses of lupus, sjogren’s, scleroderma & polymyocitis & can affect joints, skin, fascia, muscles & various organs.

In retrospect, I could see that I experienced some symptoms in a very mild form for many yrs. They were perfectly manageable &, except for extreme dryness, could be explained away (I didn’t stretch well enough, level of fitness, etc.). I never thought I got the disease from the shot, but the terrible increase in scale of the symptoms could easily, to my mind, have come from artificially jacking up an immune system that had a pre-existing or pre-disposition to autoimmune disease (turns out my family history includes higher than avg incidence of some, varied form of autoimmunity).

I have been told that thinking has since changed, but at the time, drs were denying any statistically significant correlation (maybe from self-reporting by vax manufacturers?).

Multiple of my current drs are either supportive or in agreement with my decision to not get this vaccine. My decision to get any vaccine will be an individual one based on a changing cost: benefit ratio (dependent upon possible improved technology, safety & efficacy, & upon my own increased frailty as I age). I have my current condition somewhat managed but when my illness was first exacerbated, I remember telling people I’d rather spend 3 weeks in the ICU than to risk this ever getting worse.

If anything, the author understates the need to test & consider subpopulations. Other than vaccines, no medicine undergoes such little screening for possible contraindications before being pushed on society as a whole.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago

Resistance starts with non-compliance to all of the insane “mandates.” The most visible sign of your compliance with this program of tyranny is wearing the mask. You can easily go maskless when you wear a mask exemption badge. Information is here: https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-great-american-mask-rip-off-citizens-are-peacefully-rebelling-against-face-masks/ Plus a link where you can order one is here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/143945765062

KENT YODER
KENT YODER
17 days ago

My Son And Daughter Had A DPT Shot When They Were Younger, They Both Experienced Fibro Seizures. They Said We Was Lucky Because Some Of The Other Kids That Received The Shot Are Now Mentally Retarded. My Daughter Takes Ant seizer Drugs My Son Doesn’t. My Oldest Daughter Who Didn’t Have The Shot Is Very Smart. The Son And Daughter That Had The Shot Are Not Stupid But They Are A Little Slow. So To Any One Reading My Post Be Careful Of What You Allow Them To Inject Into Your Body.

Steve
Steve
18 days ago

There’s a song that comes to mind…”freedom of choice”. Corona viruses are NOT what we’ve been encouraged to be vaccinated against, in the past. When I was younger, didn’t really have a choice. But, with the death rate being no worse than a severe flu, why the “pandemic hysteria” now? What about all the other flu strains that have gone through our country in the last 60 some years, I’ve been subjected to? Something smells rotten, about this whole thing. Everything Christian wrote, doesn’t have to be absolutely correct…even Fauci, can’t come anywhere, close to that! The author gives you plausible viewpoints and options…Fauci does not. I do believe vaccines have their place. But, nah, I think I’ll watch this mass “experiment” play out…and trust my natural immune system. Besides, we’ve done it for hundreds of years.

Anne Temple
Anne Temple
18 days ago

FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Will be sharing.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
19 days ago

The federal national government is succeeding at using vaccine virtue signalling to pit people against each other.

And distract from the danger of people surrendering ‘public safety’ to big government.

As you can see from the comments below…

Judy
Judy
20 days ago

Here is a massive information packet entitled “Frontline Workers Testimonies and VAERS Reports.” 113 pages of sobering documentation of firsthand testimonies of those who have suffered adverse reactions and published articles of individual deaths after taking the “vaccine:”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mNDdjXquWB1M

EmilyD
EmilyD
17 days ago
Reply to  Judy

Google has taken that link down…no surprise there….

Bee
Bee
11 days ago
Reply to  Judy

I knew they would take it down so I saved it as a pdf.

gramma g
gramma g
20 days ago

Is there any way you can forward to me so I can share this , PLEASE.
thank you

Mrs. Michelle Griswold
Mrs. Michelle Griswold
20 days ago

Great research! I’ve shared this with as many people as I can. Even family who has cut me off because I won’t get the vaccine.

Starr
Starr
21 days ago

Thank you for your perspective. You’ve affirmed my beliefs on the subject! Thanks but no thanks on that COVID-19 shot!

Paul Sulzman
Paul Sulzman
21 days ago

According to the private corporation called “The CDC”, as of April 1st more than 2,300 Americans have died from COVID vaccination and more than 58,000 SAE (Serious Adverse Effects) have been reported. A CDC study in 2009 concluded that 87 – 99% of SAE go unreported, so the 58,000 number is likely way off. This is enough to create “reasonable doubt” to any discerning American.

What the CDC numbers indicate is that a strong immune system is tremendously dominant over COVID. There are many ways of strengthening the immune system which do not pose a “Russian Roulette” dilemma.

Explore OZONE therapy, google up “Dr. Shallenberger / ozone therapy”, do your own research and disregard any vitriolic responses from other posts. INFORM YOURSELVES. SHARE WITH YOUR FAMILY/FRIENDS, and SPREAD THE WORD.

Ozone therapy is widely practiced all across Europe, Asia and it is even practiced in America.

Ozone destroys bacteria, mold and virus in the body on contact. It has destroyed the previous coronaviruses and this one as well. It is very affordable and you can learn to practice it on your own. The health benefits are astonishing and the safety factor is unparalleled.

Large studies are not done because Ozone is not profitable and anyone can learn to safely do it by a trained professional.

INFORM YOURSELVES.

Charlie Marie
Charlie Marie
21 days ago

Grow up, So don’t get the vaccine. That’s your choice and I respect that. However stop spreading false and embellished info. Such nonsense I stopped reading after the 5th one. I have better things to do with my time.

David
David
20 days ago
Reply to  Charlie Marie

Hi charlie..can you please provide the info that shows that all of this is false info? I really want to know.

Randy
Randy
19 days ago
Reply to  David

He can’t.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  David

There is some false information, but it’s mostly a mix of:

  1. Data taken out of context
  2. Opinions
  3. Logical fallacies (Strawman, confirmation bias, slippery slope, special pleading, black or white (binary decision), composition/division, loaded questions, ad hominems, and false causes)
  4. Misinterpretation of data
  5. Highly questionable sources

It’s a long article…perhaps you;d like to select what you believe to be the strongest point and I’ll make a counterargument?

Frank
Frank
13 days ago
Reply to  Charlie Marie

Such a good little soldier.

Gern
Gern
8 days ago
Reply to  Charlie Marie

Better hurry before the effects from that vaccine kill you.

Andreas M
Andreas M
21 days ago

“Evidence on masks and social distancing, please see the following, which collectively provide substantial empirical evidence that masks and social distancing do down-regulate the spread of the pandemic.”

All these studies are subject to the same weakness. All are based on the false assumption that each county conducted the same amount of testing. Remember, “cases” are based on testing, not the pre-covid, historical medical standard where a case meant someone got sick and needed treatment.
Counties that tested more had more “cases”. (won’t even get into the controversial PCR test and cycles and false positives)

Elijah DeRoche
Elijah DeRoche
20 days ago
Reply to  Andreas M

But, positive tests are still tracked by the CDC. If you read the information that I cited below – https://freewestmedia.com/2020/12/20/who-finally-admits-that-pcr-tests-are-unreliable/ – you would see that just by lowering the number of cycles tested using the PCR, “positive Covid cases” would plummet, making it appear as if vaccines work.” Why are they tracking it then? To inject more fear and mass-hysteria like they did in 2020 and into 2021?

I don’t know how you can make the assertion, “Evidence on masks and social distancing…” that it works? Yes, I’ve read some of the studies using statistical analysis, which makes the assumption that PCR positive tests are accurate. Keep in mind, COVID is a cold virus with many strains and everything after 2019 became COVID. The influenza rate dropped to 1,822 cases (2020-2021), from 38,000,000 cases (2019 – 2020), as cited by FOX NEWS and as reported by CDC. Prior to this CDC manipulation, co-morbidities were separated out and reported separately, and not within the influenza numbers. Afterwards, the CDC began reporting these deaths as related and as attributable to COVID! Pretty neat huh?

Christian makes a good point of this in, “#11 – THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID according to the CDC own numbers has 99.74% survival rate.” Go back and read that section, because co-morbidities are factored into his point.

Steve
Steve
18 days ago
Reply to  Andreas M

Andreas…why do you think they call the best medical mask a “N95”? Any idea? Research the “pore size” for masks. Then, research the size of viruses…then corona viruses. A masked society is a soulless society. Masks have always been used to reduce bacterial infections, in hospitals.

Andreas M
Andreas M
21 days ago

Sad that the critics below use misdirection and unsupported generalizations to critique these concerns.

For example-
RJayB – argues ignorance of statistics and vaccine hesitancy to counter the information above. Provides no evidence. Hesitancy is not an argument- are you arguing against critical thinking and informed consent? It appears so. “trust me” is not evidence.
You want to address “statistical ignorance” arguments, than include the research and studies establishing the voluminous ways to manipulate statistics to reach the desired conclusion. Most Pharma studies are designed to reach the desired conclusions. Also Long history of minimizing harms and exaggerating efficacy. Common problem in corp. America when pushing their products.

Brian H. Spitzberg-
“First, vaccines are, on balance, incredibly safe and effective.” Actually they are not. Since the introduction of vaccines, diseases have skyrocketed in all age groups. We have levels of disease/disabilities multitude of times higher than the turn of the century. Success against diseases is more closely correlated to historical improvement in sanitation and water filtration than vaccines. Never had a double blind vaccine study….. Vaccines have always taken credit when the immune system did the work because there is no way to distinguish the immune systems response in spite of the vaccine in ones system. With immune system 98% and higher effective against covid in younger age groups, does it make any sense to claim the vaccine is 97% effective? The same or less than the body’s natural success rate! What exactly did the vaccine add? Except for negative side effects that include death?

Second, the rationale for getting vaccinated is not just about you—it is about all of us. More med school and political virtue signalling propaganda. If the vaccine did protect you, you are safe. If I’m not vaccinated and the germ spreads, you are covered and I’m at risk. The theory- and it is just a theory, that the unvaxed get sick and spread the virus does not hold up. 1- still not a threat for you (even if true) if you are vaxed and it works (which appears it doesn’t ) 2- vaxed are getting sick worse than unvaxed because of a damaged immune system as a result form the vaccine! Each vaccine is a wear on your system with the promise of a leg up against one virus. 3- unvaxed don’t get sick at a higher rate than vaxed so theory doesn’t make sense.

Third, scholarly peer-reviewed sources are more credible than alternatives. – Not always- note that the NEJM and the Lancet both pulled “studies” rushed to discredit Hydroxylchloroquine. Quietly and with no fanfare. They also have studies showing a worrisome trend where peer review ends up being group think and the overall quality of scientific study had suffered greatly due to the corrupt influence financial interests. This is the age of information. Also the age of spin and misinformation. Also why the concern about suppressing and censoring alternative opinions and information is a BIG RED FLAG. If the facts support your side, you don’t need to suppress the other side.

“#1.  Vaccine makers are immune from liability. The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.
Wow. Blatantly and factually wrong right out of the gate. Not a very credible way to start an argument. Firearms manufacturers are legally protected from liability for crimes committed using their products.”

This is a pathetic and disingenous twist on the truth and/or an outright lie on Brian’s part. It also doesn’t change the point- THAT the manufacturers of vaccine are immune from liability! This is true! You are saying his statement that they are “the only industry” with immunity is false. Great misdirection from the point the main point (which you did not refute) that they have immunity from lawsuits which is the critical point here.
FYI – Gun manufacturers can be sued if their product fails and harms the user/malfunctions, eg backfires because of faulty manufacturing, is dangerous and does not function as advertised. That’s called product liability. They have liability. Big pharma has no product liability even if they knowingly produce a vaccine that they know will kill or substantially injure a percentage of the users and they knowingly hide this info.
There is a difference- Stop lying. Not apples to apples.

“The checkered past of the vaccine companies.
        Yes indeed. Checkered only in the sense that vaccines have, net, saved tens of millions of lives and prevented vast cases of suffering.”

Show me the evidence – this is all theoretical. No scientific proof that the vaccines actually prevented deaths and saved lives. Repeating theories and lies a million times in the media and to med students does not make them true.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES. There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
This hardly merits response.”

Ironically, your comment hardly merit a response. Your comment that “The very nature of science is to progress through failure. Failure is the way science advances. It is built into its very fabric.” Not failure at the expense of an uninformed and un-consenting population. That is NAZI experimentation. Extreme arrogance and unethical. Feel free to volunteer but you have no right to force experimentation on others.

I could go on with all your comments but you appear to be spitting back talking points from the controlled narrative. This is a forum of honest intellectual debate. Your sideways insults and attempt to discredit show a lack of honest inquiry.
The science is not settled. The core of the scientific approach is that we keep learning and the science is never settled……

A great tragedy awaits this Country and unfortunately most will suffer before they see the errors of their way and the errors of their logic. Not through their own actions (except their willful unwillingness to think and question) but through the very insidious manipulation of information in our age.

May God have mercy on us and protect us from ourselves.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  Andreas M

I have many questions for you regarding your post, but the one at the forefront relates to this statement: “Since the introduction of vaccines, diseases have skyrocketed in all age groups. We have levels of disease/disabilities multitude of times higher than the turn of the century. Success against diseases is more closely correlated to historical improvement in sanitation and water filtration than vaccines”

Do you have evidence to support an assertion that broad? We no longer have children coming down with polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, and other communicable diseases in large numbers, and those that do invariably reside in areas where vaccination percentages are lower than the norm. Are you arguing that the near-eradication of this diseases is largely attributable to improvements in sanitaion and water filtration? I ask because you use the word “correlate” rather than one that implies causality, and I’m curious which you mean.

I look forward to your reply.

Elijah DeRoche
Elijah DeRoche
21 days ago

This is my second attempt to submit. I’m not sure if I was censored and removed the first time, or it was just an accident, a fluke. I’m going to try to avoid a long write up with selected medical website links for support. I’ve read most of them… they are absolutely exhausting. 

For example with “masks” – The medical studies clearly show mask wearing creates dyspnea (shortness of breath and not being able to breath well). The studies also show increased respiratory adverse effects (or lack of oxygen). They also show respiratory pathogens on the outer surface may result in self-contamination. Cloth masks are not recommended because of the respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of used medical masks “may” result in self-contamination. I could on and on and document the typical language used, such as “may very slightly reduce the odds.” These studies could have used an accurate metaphor, such as, “Mask wearing is equivalent to a wearing a barb wire fence that prevent baseballs (virus) from entering.”

The truth of the matter is we have politically charged environment where masks have been mandated when they are in fact useless! Recent studies are very disturbing and I recommend reading these studies, see: https://rense.com/general96/Mask_Risks_Part1.pdf.

I have also got to say something about Dr. Fauci… It’s absolutely should be unacceptable for high government authority such as, “Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine…which he approved government funding for. In fact, NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna’s vaccine.” I’m a former government employee and I had to sign statements under penalty of perjury when there was a conflict of interests like having stock ownership, or other conflict of interests, when dealing with a company. The story behind Fauci is troubling. Spend some time researching the guy.

I also have to make a comment about the previous rebuttal, “First, Vaccines are, on balance, incredibly safe and effective. Vaccines, like all medical and pharmaceutical advances, have experienced occasional mistakes and misfortunes. The entire history of medicine is riddled with the occasional wrong turn—it is part of the nature of how science progresses.” 

I too admit that I’m not against vaccines, but I’ve not taken them since I was forced to in the United States Military. But, I want point out a recent federal court case. It’s a little bit dubious as to the outcome of this particular federal court case because it was dismissed – “relevant government documents were requested that proved all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality for over the past 32 years — and there were none” – US Government Landmark Case over Forced Vaccinations – https://stateofthenation.co/?p=14682 and https://cairnsnews.org/2018/11/19/u-s-govt-loses-landmark-vaccine-lawsuit/. You can read the links and decide for yourself. It’s clear the vaccine makers could not provide the requested documentation in federal court. I think it’s quite disturbing to say the least.

After writing all this, I believe Christian Elliot’s article was fair and on point. You call always find some points to slightly disagree with, or to muddy the content up with pages and pages of documentation. Believe me, the CDC does not have a stellar history – https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-04-13-cdc-corrupt-history-pushing-mass-hysteria-dirty-vaccines.html.

Jim
Jim
22 days ago

#19 – the drug companies have blown up the clinical trials by vaccinating placebo subjects

Tim C McLeer
Tim C McLeer
22 days ago

After reading this article and looking at the extensive rebuttals sent by some of the responders—I still will not get the vaccine shots. I care about my safety and the safety of others—no valid proof shown the vaccine is safe or will prevent me from transmitting or receiving covid 19

Laurie Thompson
Laurie Thompson
22 days ago

BINGO – all great points, and well-researched. I find it very worrisome that there is no mention being made to the public regarding the scenario of them being a person who already tested positive, recovered, and is no longer infectious. Don’t they already have antibodies? What dangers exist by overloading your immune system with vaccines, on top of that? Our immune systems are complex, sophisticated systems – introducing an overload of antibodies – which the writer touched upon – can actually be crippling or deadly. When one considers how many actually tested positive, it’s still a very significant number.

And what of the false positives? Do they possess enough antibodies with no intervention from experimental vaccines to fight covid?? Almost undoubtedly, many do, since we were told about the countless millions being asymptomatic. Why are we not hearing about antibody tests as a prelude to receiving the vaccine? Why are vaccines being so hurriedly administered instead of Titer Tests for covid? Undoubtedly, the people who have the “sit back and see what happens” with the vaccines are being faaar, faaar more cautious than those who are rushing to get their experimental doses.

Elijah DeRoche
Elijah DeRoche
21 days ago

Yes, I agree with everything you said. Especially in the way the vaccines are hurriedly being pushed. The whole PCR testing process seems terribly flawed. Dr. Kary Mullis, Noble Prize laureate invented PCR process, and was adamant that it was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool. That’s why all the false positives. It seems to me that WHO and the CDC has high jacked the process. My understanding is, the COVID virus has never really been isolated. So they use the PCR test to search for genetic materials that “may” indicate the virus. You may find this webpage interesting –
https://freewestmedia.com/2020/12/20/who-finally-admits-that-pcr-tests-are-unreliable/

The whole process, the past year, has been troubling to me including the vaccinations. It looks extremely well planned!

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  Elijah DeRoche

Dr. Kary Mullis, Noble Prize laureate invented PCR process, and was adamant that it was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool.”

PCR tests can and do test if someone has an active viral infection (qualitative analysis). What they are not designed to do is to diagnose whether an individual is contagious (quantitative analysis).

Let’s say for the sake of argument that COVID is real and a significant health threat for the elderly and people with compromised immune systems. If you want to know where COVID is most prevalent, the fastest and easiest way to do that is with PCR testing. It won’t tell you if someone is sick (i.e. symptomatic) or contagious, but it will tell you what percentage of the population has it. That data then drives decisions on COVID countermeasures. We can argue about those, but I don’t think the PCR test is worthy of assault.

Elijah DeRoche
Elijah DeRoche
11 days ago

The following is taken from the webpage – nojabforme.info. The webpage lists 35 reasons for not taking the jab. #11 addresses PCR testing:

“11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even Fauci admits PCR tests don’t work. The WHO backs him up. In this CDC document, testing guidelines state that false negatives and positives are possible – page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens – page 40. 

But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA“. Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can Stanford and Cornell labs, and in a CNN interview Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force of a pandemic. Again, the WHO backs him up.”

Elijah DeRoche
Elijah DeRoche
11 days ago

Correct link on PCR testing –
https://nojabforme.info/?

Dorothy L Lewis
Dorothy L Lewis
22 days ago

Excellent! I agree!

Jane
Jane
22 days ago

Excellent article. I agree on every point, and I’m so glad you wrote this.

When people (like some of the commenters here) say “getting vaccinated is for the good of all of us”… wow, that’s scary. Here comes communism, totalitarian technocracy, and complete violation of human rights.

My body, my choice!

If you disagree, go ahead and take the jab. Report back in a year (if you can) and let’s see how you’re doing.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Hi Jane…because this is the internet, this is probably going to sound worse than I want it to, but the government mandates behavior all of the time. (Not that they’ve mandated the vaccine up to this point). I get the ‘my body, my choice’ argument…it’s a compelling one.

But the government requires that you secure your body with a seatbelt while you are in a car.

It also requires you to not trespass your body or numerous other things that it has deemed unlawful.

Yes, those examples are different, and you might argue that putting something inside your body rises to a different level of privacy, etc. But as orifice-inclined drug smugglers have learned, the government has a vested interest there as well.

Those mandates (laws) are in place because it redounds to the public good. We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people flung from cars, wandering wherever they please, or transporting some of South America’s finest into the country. I think most people are okay with those mandates (well, the drug one might get my libertarian friends going, but it really doesn’t take much!)

I doubt it’ll ever rise to the level of a mandate, but I do think that it will be a choice that has significant consequences attached to it (e.g. airlines requiring vaccinations, etc). I haven;t seen any evidence that suggests it’s dangerous to get the vaccine, so I did. I’ll try to remember to check back in a year 🙂 Take care.

Dorothy McMahon
Dorothy McMahon
23 days ago

You forgot to add, I don’t like needles. # 19 perhaps? My list too.

JR Harris
JR Harris
23 days ago

You are my hero. I 100% agree with all you have written. If people ask, I tell them my “doctor” (me- not a doctor) says I am not able to take the vaccine because of pre-existing conditions (umm… intelligence?). No one ever questions it.
By the way, my hairdresser’s cousin and nephew BOTH died after taking the vaccine, and my cousin is in the hospital getting blood transfusions within 12 hours of the vaccine. But the vaccine is “safe”.
I am glad you brought up thalidomide in your article (the drug pregnant women were given to alleviate morning sickness that instead alleviating their babies from having those pesky extensions like “arms” and “hands”).
Bottom line: drug testing should take YEARS OR DECADES, not just months.
i took a screenshot of every page you wrote because I think censorship will remove it off the internet. * sigh *
Thank you for writing so thoroughly and eloquently.

Dorothy McMahon
Dorothy McMahon
23 days ago
Reply to  JR Harris

I agree 100%.
im also gonna take photos of this article to prove I’m not crazy.

Bri
Bri
21 days ago
Reply to  JR Harris

Holy smokes. Lots of tragedies so close to home. You know it’s bad when there’s empirical and statistical evidence at the highest level.

If you have a Mac and open this article in safari, click “File” – you should see an option to Export as a PDF!

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  JR Harris

JR, I’m very sorry to hear about the loss of your friend’s loved ones. When did this happen? I regularly check VAERS and other sources for a research project (along with internet searches, etc), and I don;t see anything that matches up. That’s why I ask about when it happened…sometimes it can take a while to update. Do you know if they were otherwise ill, etc? Again, my condolences.

Lawrence Steimle
Lawrence Steimle
23 days ago

I have heard (from an ER doctor friend) that in his hospital all doctors are asked to report deaths as being caused by covid if the deceased is found to have covid. I have also heard that hospitals are reimbursed more for covid deaths and even more if a covid patient dies on a ventilator. If this is true, surely such policies might be abused and exaggerate reported covid deaths.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago

Lawrence, I’m with you, and I’m sure that some unscrupulous hospitals have at least thought to do so. However, a friend of mine also pointed out that the number of excess deaths in the US indicates that something is picking people off at a higher-than-normal rate. We don’t do a great job in the US of updating death records in a timely fashion, so take this with a grain of salt, but as of mid-February, the US had ~385,000 excess deaths compared to what the ‘expected’ figure was. We probably know the actual COVID death figure for some time, but the excess mortality is telling.

Sally
Sally
23 days ago

If the author of the article put the same amount of time in studying the vaccine issue into everyday occurrences they would not drive or eat meat.

Phoenyx Wolfe
Phoenyx Wolfe
23 days ago
Reply to  Sally

Not everyone eats meat, Sally.

Sue
Sue
22 days ago
Reply to  Phoenyx Wolfe

Not everyone drives

Johanna
Johanna
21 days ago
Reply to  Phoenyx Wolfe

Exactly. I have done a significant amount of research,and, along with personal experience, decided 7 years ago to stop eating meat. Best decision of my life, and my only regret is not doing it sooner. But driving a car occasionally, when I can’t walk or bike or take a train, is a necessity. With the right precautions. Thankfully, there is such a thing as Common Sense too. Which honestly, I feel is one of the most dangerous and heartbreaking failings of Humanity: that so many of us have lost our ability to listen to our innate intuition and common sense. This is why marketing is so successful, and the Planet is in the terrible state its in. Because we allow—without question, research or experience—tradition and outdated Tribal,mostly Patriarchal rules to dictate the status quo. That’s how most of the Planet now has normalized and become addicted to drinking/eating the breast milk products of a Cow or Goat. I’ll say that again—-they have us thinking milk, designed by Nature for a baby cow—-is somehow healthy and normal. Exclamation point. Breast milk is for babies. Clearly designed by Nature for babies, until their teeth come in and they can eat regular food. But they have us putting cheese and butter on everything, and push this on our kids using celebrities and jingles like “milk does a body Good”. The cognitive dissonance is just so real. All the way to the constant vaccines we now face—and here’s where I come full circle—from none other than mainly Zoonotic diseases caused by us breeding, caging, and eating animals. They have manipulated, controlled and confused us so far away from common sense it’s mind boggling. And Finally, the reason I chose Dairy as my most passionate example of our collective dissonance is because I grew up on a Dairy Farm. “Pasture raised” “grass fed”—no one has eaten more dairy or meat than I have. And believe me when I tell you there is nothing Natural about it whatsoever. Not one thing. It is cruel, it is dangerous, it is unsanitary, it is completely anti-Nature and it is exactly why we are where we are today. On a Planet on the brink of the 6th greatest extinction of Wildlife species, and complete collapse.

RJayB
RJayB
22 days ago
Reply to  Sally

I totally agree. This is exactly my point. Society wide understanding of inferential statistics and statistical likelihood is appalling. And this misunderstanding manifests itself in all kinds of hypocritical attitudes towards risk taking that are totally non-sensical.

Some links to third party sources and using spell check is never going to be a substitute for even a basic understanding of conditional probability (not just probability).

Googling some information and simply hi-jacking the echo-chamber with low resolution rhetoric might get a lot of “likes” or whatever social media calls it these days … but no amount of ‘likes’ is going to change the laws of math.

If the author has 18 reasons not to take a vaccine he must have many, many more reasons why you would never drive a vehicle; go swimming; walk up and down the stairs …

Scott
Scott
1 day ago
Reply to  RJayB

Please provide 18 Reasons as to why you will be getting the “Vaccine”..

RJayB
RJayB
23 days ago

the psychology of vaccine hesitancy / denial has been widely studied and well documented by the world’s leading psychology departments.
The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) and a whole host of rock solid inferential statistical methods that are not subject to debate (it’s math !!) allow people to rationally compare risks that are non-correlates (for example, the chances of dying in a car crash relative to the chances of dying from a community wide vaccine / immunology program) but that co-exist in large sample / population.
Life is full of risk-adjusted decisions … sadly, ‘taking’ or ‘not taking’ a vaccine is a binomial decision. It’s neither divisible nor risk-devoid.
The most worrying aspect of the vaccine hesitancy / denial complex is the steadfast refusal of large parts of the complex to admit they might be wrong and, therefore, open to a u-turn / meaningful change in perspective. Blind spots and confirmation bias issues make the decision-making process fraught with inaccuracy. The historical success of widespread
The ‘some science bad = all science bad’ axiom is simply wrong.
The arguments against SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not newcomers to long-term anti-vaccine rhetoric. This is also well documented.
Widespread vaccination programs involve dealing with imperfect information. Human beings don’t like imperfect information (we’ve been programmed for ‘flight or fight’ binary responses). Throw in some calculus to better assess risk without the constraints and limitations of human biases and most of the globe are completely out of their depth.
The debate should not be about whether or not we are dealing with a situation where we have imperfect information … at least both sides of the debate agree on that …
The debate should be more about the willingness of a Confucius society to accept the reality of imperfect information and acknowledge the statistical likelihood of harm that vaccination programs inflict at the individual and group level.
SARS-CoV-2 risks and vaccination / therapeutics risks are not uniformly distributed. To talk about probability distributions as such risks making the mistake of viewing a multivariate problem as a univariate one.

Brian H. Spitzberg
Brian H. Spitzberg
24 days ago

A Response to Christopher Elliot’s (April 12, 2021) Essay: 18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a Covid Vaccine
There are many things that have not gone well in this pandemic, including the implementation of the vaccination public health campaigns here and abroad. But the vaccines themselves are an amazingly positive part of the ordeal.
It is a common rhetorical tactic to identify a large number of concerns about an issue. The tactic serves two functions. First, it inflates the apparent seriousness of the cause—18 reasons sounds more insurmountable than 2 or 3 concerns. But it is important to keep in mind that 18 invalid arguments are not even remotely as substantial as a single valid argument. Second, the tactic serves to move any opposition to the arguer’s own framing of the issue. Going point-by-point to counter each reason requires hacking down tree-by-tree where the planted them, thereby losing sense of the forest itself.
So, let me establish the valid forest framing of this debate to begin with, and then I will examine each point, and return to the appropriate frame in the conclusion.
First, vaccines are, on balance, incredibly safe and effective. Vaccines, like all medical and pharmaceutical advances, have experienced occasional mistakes and misfortunes. The entire history of medicine is riddled with the occasional wrong turn—it is part of the nature of how science progresses. The question is not whether or not there are risks to any medical advance—the question is whether the risk is worth the payoff. The history of vaccines is that they have saved net hundreds of millions of lives and prevented many millions more from suffering. Furthermore, the status of medical knowledge, ethics review panels, Title 45 regulations on patient consent, and the biomedical theory underlying vaccine safety have, as with all scientific knowledge, improved significantly over time, so past mistakes are far less likely now than in the past. The fact that some of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are based on new technology or biochemical delivery methodology in no way means that they are in any way inherently risky—it simply means our knowledge of how to engineer vaccination methodology has improved, as science does over time.
Second, the rationale for getting vaccinated is not just about you—it is about all of us. There is a reason vaccination programs are referred to as “public health” campaigns. Your personal risk of illness and death is only one of the concerns that are relevant to your decision to get vaccinated. The public risk is at least twofold: (1) Any individual who does not get vaccinated increases the risk that they might eventually contract the disease and become a vector for transmitting it to others, including those the individual might have influenced not to get the vaccine, who are at even greater risk of contracting the disease as a result. So editorials that deter others from getting vaccinated act as a multiplier by manifoldly increasing the risks to the public. (2) Any individual who does not get vaccinated provides a biological auger ripe for the evolution of variants of the virus. By not getting vaccinated, a person is increasing the likelihood that the existing vaccine will eventually experience viral breakthrough of deadlier and more infectious viral versions of the disease, which of course will require an entirely new round of vaccination development, health campaigns, public safety protocols and policies, and of course, sicknesses and fatalities. Research simulations demonstrate that at any level of vaccine efficacy, the public health consequences depend more upon issues of implementation and hesitancy than the vaccine’s efficacy (Paltiel et al., 2020). Editorials such as Elliot’s do far greater damage than the vaccine itself can prevent. We evolved with both selfish and altruistic motives to promote survival, so getting vaccinated is a public good, not just a private good. You owe me and everyone else to get yourself vaccinated, because not doing so endangers me and everyone I care about and everyone else and who they care about.
Third, scholarly peer-reviewed sources are more credible than alternatives. Any debate must account for the credibility of sources. As such, I will endeavor to rely primarily on blind, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles and reports from professional scientific institutions to any generic website or YouTube source. Blind scholarly peer-reviewed articles and institutional reports carry with them the credibility of checks against bias, collective scientific consensus, and the critical criteria of expert review. The nature of evidence matters, especially when the debate revolves around matters of specialized expertise.
Now, to the points.
#1.   Vaccine makers are immune from liability. The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.
        Wow. Blatantly and factually wrong right out of the gate. Not a very credible way to start an argument. Firearms manufacturers are legally protected from liability for crimes committed using their products. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act#:~:text=The%20Protection%20of%20Lawful%20Commerce,been%20committed%20with%20their%20products. This gift to firearms manufacturers was purely political. In the case of vaccines, it makes sense that the government has a responsibility to protect public health, but in the case of vaccines the government does not itself manufacture the products required, particularly when it requires certain protections. That is, the government contracted with the companies to make the vaccine, so the government must protect the companies in the process in somewhat the same way politicians, ambassadors and police have certain protections in administering their jobs. No one is beyond liability for fraud or malfeasance, including the vaccine manufacturers, as amply evidenced by the many examples of lawsuits and felonies identified in Elliot’s own essay. So the government protects the risks on the back end to promote ongoing R&D, production, and supply.
Subordinate in Elliot’s #1 is the claim that the government has produced a ‘one-size-fits-all’ product without testing on subpopulations. This is a basic epidemiological principle in which policymakers have to evaluate the lives lost from waiting to test on all subpopulations against using theory and research to provide best-possible cost-benefit judgments. The theory of viral management is very advanced compared to older vaccine models, and powerful computer modeling as well as animal testing now allows bioassays and simulations that create much more realistic models of potential human effects than past medical and biological models permitted. Further, the nature of the scholarly consensus is predicated on rigorous blind peer review processes involved in scholarly journal publication. It is not dependent on conjectures by anyone who happens to be able to garner a web- or blog-presence, which are almost entirely uncurated. Collectively, therefore, the professional scholarly medical community was able to identify the DNA of the SARS-CoV2 virus, engineer viral RNA molecules that would target the spikes of bonding proteins on the virus, and then test on tens of thousands of people, based on very solid models of how viruses work. Humans share over 99.9% of common DNA regardless of which “sub-population” they are, and this is why about 6 major vaccines were independently developed on two different models that are now already demonstrating effectiveness in reducing disease diffusion in societies and communities that are engaged in significant vaccination diffusion and sustaining other social distancing and masking in its unvaccinated populations. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine was tested on 23,848 subjects 18 and over from UK, Brazil and South Africa with a 90% efficacy, so at least different cultures were tested on some of the vaccines (Vaysey et al., 2021).  
As an aside, I am gladdened to know that Elliot will never own a gun, and that he will not trust anyone who does own a gun, since in his own categorical words, “No liability. No trust.”
#2. The checkered past of the vaccine companies.
        Yes indeed. Checkered only in the sense that vaccines have, net, saved tens of millions of lives and prevented vast cases of suffering. The first claim that the companies (J&J, Pfizer, Moderna) involved have never previously brought vaccines to market is irrelevant to the main point of the argument. It cannot matter that the present companies have or have not made vaccines before if the main argument is that past vaccines have a checkered history.
        As for the companies being felons: (1) Try to find any large multibillion company nowadays that doesn’t have some felonies in their past. (2) This is an argumentative fallacy—to indict the source rather than the product, and to indict a characteristic that may have nothing to do with the product. Let’s try to stick to the issue, which is whether or not the vaccines are safe and effective, which is the only relevant public health issue. (3) Many of the other examples lack direct relevance for one reason or another (e.g., thalidomide from the 1950s-1960s is ancient by today’s standards of safety and efficacy testing; Celebrex has not been banned because it still has significant applications as substitutes for Ibuprofen and Naproxen when potential health risks can be medically monitored; Bextra has been pulled because its cost-benefit ratio was unsustainable relative to other drugs due to heart, stomach and skin problems, etc.). The link provided about all the suits J&J has lost refer to hip implants, condom claims, misbranding, anti-psychotic drugs, etc., but not about whether or not their vaccine is cost-beneficial.
The FDA/CDC warning about J&J’s current SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has identified 6 cases out of 6,000,000 vaccinations who have developed blood clots. This means (1) we have a strong regulatory system heavily weighted toward monitoring safety concerns, (2) that this regulatory oversight system is transparent enough to identify any problems arising from vaccines, and (3) that nevertheless the vaccine is massively safe relative to the alternative of not getting vaccinated. The “rap sheet” on Pfizer again attempts to suggest that a variety of problems in the past implies something about the present product. A question not addressed is how many lives have been saved or cured of debilitating symptoms by their entire catalogue of medicines. As an analogy, I drive a VW GTI. They recently paid out the largest settlement of any auto manufacturer in history over their manipulation of data on the cleanliness of their diesel cars’ exhaust systems. Yet the non-diesel car I drive was Motor Trend’s car of the year and 5 years on it is the best car I’ve ever driven. The point is that a company that makes hundreds of drugs should not be judged as a whole by only a few of their products.
The opioid crisis is indeed a crisis, and all the companies involved owe (and will pay) massively for their promotion and facilitation of those medicines. But that was not a problem with how effective the drug was—the drugs were too effective. The problem was in marketing the drug for reasons not requiring the drug. That is irrelevant to a public health campaign to rid the population of a deadly infectious disease that threatens entire economic systems and mass casualties.
        The more important question, however, is not these particular companies, but the issue of vaccinations in general. “Vaccines have saved tens of millions of lives” (Worboys, 2007), from rabies to smallpox (now eradicated), diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, rubella, polio, measles, mumps, and papillomarivus and cervical cancer. “In May 2012, the 194 Member States of the World Health Organization Assembly endorsed the global vaccine action plan (GVAP) with the vision of delivering universal access to immunization, with at least 2–3 million lives saved per year worldwide (http://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/)” (Finco & Rappuoli, 2014).
        Finally, under this point Elliot asks: “Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?” Well, about three-quarters of the American public trusts medical doctors (Medical Economics, 2019) even though medical error is the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. (Makary & Daniel, 2016). I know that going to the doctor carries risks, but I go because I trust that they generally have my best interests in mind, they are far better trained than I am to manage any illnesses I may get or have, and on balance save far more lives than they shorten. This is a reasonable risk. Of course, now that Elliot knows that the medical establishment makes errors that cost thousands of lives every year, I’m confident Elliot will no longer seek the advice or treatment of the medical profession, given his criterion that any institution that makes mistakes should not be trusted to provide a service that is needed.
Finally, there are more than just a few companies making vaccines. According to “the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI); … 321 COVID-19 vaccine candidates were in development worldwide as of September 2020. Of those, as of November 2020, more than fifty had progressed to clinical testing in humans, eleven of which were in Phase III clinical trials—the large-scale population-based testing capable of producing the safety and efficacy evidence required for regulatory approval.5 As of early November 2020 four Phase III COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were under way in the United States, with preliminary results likely to be made available in the coming months and more complete results thereafter” (Paltiel et al., 2021). You are welcome to research the criminal history of every one of these industries until you feel confident that one of them has a pristine history, or you can accept that the current companies have been under an extremely bright regulatory spotlight in their contracts.
#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES. There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
This hardly merits response. It is aspersion by association only. The very nature of science is to progress through failure. Failure is the way science advances. It is built into its very fabric. Experiments are used to ‘break’ hypotheses and theories, and only when theories don’t fail do we know we are on the path to progress. Do you have any idea how many rocket ships NASA and SpaceX exploded before they got them to work? And even then, they made mistakes (Challenger, Columbia). Every time a human goes into space they are taking that history into space with them, and yet, they consider the benefits worth the risks. The only relevant question is not past failure but whether or not the current vaccines work.
#4: THE “DATA GAPS” SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS.
Again, irrelevant for the moment if the vaccines work. Cytokine storms sounds ominous and may indeed be a reason why people die from SARS-CoV-2, but they are not showing up in the trials thus far as a biproduct of the vaccinations. Furthermore, it is the disease that is thought to cause cytokine storms and resulting mortality, not the vaccine (Hojyo et al., 2020). To the extent the vaccines prevent hospitalization and death, it is obvious that they prevent the cytokine storms associated with the disease and its morbidity and mortality risks.
Further, the subpoints of this argument are that there were “No data on transmission of covid; No data on preventing mortality from covid; and No data on duration of protection from covid. In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.” Great. I really, really recommend readers go to these links. For example, in the linked Pfizer briefing document, they point out that “Efficacy findings were also consistent across various subgroups, including racial and ethnic minorities, participants aged 65 years and older, and those with one or more of the following conditions: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic cardiopulmonary diseases. While limited, available data suggest that individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection can be at risk of COVID-19 (i.e., re-infection) and may benefit from vaccination”. Where are the “gaps” in the data? They are exactly where you might expect them to be in an emergency development process—where subject groups were “too small to evaluate efficacy outcomes” at the time. Since then, many more studies have been conducted, which Elliot does not address.
#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS
First, there is considerable overall transparency in vaccine safety data (e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/data-sharing-guidelines.html). Regarding the example link provided by Elliot, the author (Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of BMJ) has issued a clarification due to all the comments and issues raised by his concerns (https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/05/clarification-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/). The debate that ensues can be followed through very detailed arguments and counter-arguments in the threads of response to his original essay and his subsequent clarification. A good counterargument to Doshi’s concerns can be found at: http://hildabastian.net/index.php/covid-19/103-unpacking-doshi-take. The point I have to continually return to, however, is that data subsequent to the original manufacturer trials continue to demonstrate high rates of efficacy and extremely low rates of complications due to vaccination. These are studies in real world contexts, representing now hundreds of thousands of vaccinated individuals. Elliot argues from query (rather than assertion) that: “Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have ‘covid-like symptoms,’ and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?” Not really, given that anyone who understands what a vaccine is understands that vaccines are intended to prevent COVID, not cure it. They are not designed for those who already have the disease they are designed to prevent.
#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING.
Of course not. As admitted by Elliot, “with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.” So there is obviously some risk of long-term but unpredictable effects. That may be part of what is showing up with the blood clots with the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines, but those are still rare (6 J&J cases out of 6.8 million vaccinations, 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis out of 25 million doses of the AZ vaccine), so a very acceptable risk-benefit ratio. Note however that in both instances the regulatory systems identified these cases through ongoing surveillance and were prepared to intervene and issue cautions and pauses.
Otherwise, the question is whether there is any aspect of the biomedical theory upon which RNA Messenger vaccines are based that would suggest a long-term risk. Since the methodology is basically one that simply sensitizes one’s natural antibodies to recognize the SARS-CoV-2 virus and attack it, there is little substantive basis for anticipating long-term effects, other than extending people’s life expectancies.
#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT.
So let me get this straight. Elliot wants to voluntarily avoid taking a vaccine that might save his life because they don’t ask him permission for volunteering? That’s why (at present), vaccination is voluntary—we consent through our voluntary decision to read the vaccinating institution’s literature and sit down and get the shot. Elliot argues that “if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t we be seeing that all over the news?” “Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?” How convenient. It is all over the news:
·        https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/986767069/johnson-johnson-vaccine-and-blood-clots-what-you-need-to-know
·        https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clots
Now that it is clear that such risks are openly reported and regulated, I suspect Elliot must accept that #7 is a moot point.
#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH
The Harvard study referred to covers inclusive dates from 12/01/2007 to 09/30/2010. The letter referred to from Siri/Glimstad identified a much higher rate than reported by the VAERS system, yet it was still only “rate of 2.47 [anaphylaxis events] per 10,000 [COVID-19] vaccinations”. The letter clarifies that “the rate of reporting still appears to be only around 0.8 to 2 percent of all cases of anaphylaxis,” potentially higher than 1%. They also point out that reporting such incidents is “mandatory for medical providers,” so it is not a basis of mistrust of the regulatory statute, but of regulatory enforcement. As Blumenthal notes of this study at Mass General Brigham “real world data on vaccinations among employees at Mass General Brigham provide reassurances of the rarity of such serious reactions, and the ability to recover from them.” In this study of 64,900 employees, 63% of those who had a reaction had a prior history of allergy and 31% had a prior history of anaphylaxis. Of the 64,900 doses, one person, and I repeat, 1 person, needed to be admitted to intensive care, and only 9 needed an intramuscular epinephrine shot, from which “all recovered” (Blumenthal, 2021, p. E2). It pays to actually read studies sometimes.
So Elliot’s own source refers to a study the authors use to claim the extraordinary safety of the vaccine, not its suspiciousness. Elliot’s subsequent deduction that .8 to 2% rate from this study of “adverse reactions” translates to 110,00 [sic] to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and is a ridiculous number of adverse reactions” is indeed “ridiculous.” Adverse reactions are not the same thing as deaths. As indicated by the very study cited, no deaths occurred, only 1 case of hospitalization, and 9 cases of needing an additional shot to relieve symptoms, out of almost 65,000 cases observed. The extraordinary leap from “adverse reactions” to deaths indicate a severe lack of good faith in argument.
Elliot drops in something ominous sounding that adverse reaction reporting does not include 578 cases of Bell’s Palsy. First, it is odd to suggest that “those numbers don’t include” these cases, since they are clearly reported in the official adverse reaction reporting system to which Elliot refers (now n = 620; https://bit.ly/3ttoBzC). However, CDC and FDA are on top of this, as they concluded that “Cases of Bell’s palsy were reported in participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. However, the (Food and Drug Administration) does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine” (Evans, 2021). It is not at all obvious if these are reactions to the vaccine, or merely the incidence of the underlying condition in the general population being observed. Some portion of people in the general population experience any number of adverse health events, and these people are getting vaccinated. It is important to distinguish reactions caused by the vaccine versus co-occurring with vaccination events.
#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION.
The subsequent claim is made that “The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.” The final insult (to his audience) is the weak anecdotal claim that “For what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.” Flu-like side effects might be as bad as the symptoms the average person gets from COVID-19, but the average case does not result in severe illness, hospitalization, intubation, long-haul symptoms or death. You don’t vaccinate to avoid the average case—you vaccinate to avoid the severe but possible cases, which occur in much, much greater incidence than the flu virus.
Argument #9 is spectacularly wrong on both counts. First, most evidence indicates a direct dose-response curve for infection from SARS-CoV-2 (Van Damme et al., 2021). What this means is that your likelihood of getting infected, and subsequently experiencing serious effects (e.g., hospitalization, intubation, death) are directly proportional to viral load, how much of the virus gets into and multiplies within your system. The COVID-19 vaccines operate by sensitizing your body’s immune system to conduct battle with the virus when it encounters it. So, those who are vaccinated are better able to limit their own body’s viral growth curve, and thereby make themselves a proportionally lower risk vector for spreading or transmitting the virus to others.
So, actual studies in actual immunization campaigns in actual large-scale populations continue to show very high efficacy, which means extremely low rates of infection (see: Benenson et al., 2021; Britton et al., 2021; Dagan et al., 2021; Daniel et al., 2021; Hall et al., 2021; Ioannidis, 2021; Keehner et al., 2021; Pawlowski et al., 2021; Polack et al., 2020; Paltiel et al., 2021). The CDC collection of these studies is impressive (see Table 1: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html). The only reasons that infections and cases are increasing in some areas is because (a) people are relaxing their safety protocols of masking, social distancing, and (b) because the more infectious variants are gravitating toward younger cohorts of the population who have yet to be among the prioritized vaccination target demographics.  
For example, the Hall et al. (2021) study of 23,324 participants in the U.S. across over 100 sites “estimated the vaccine effectiveness against infection for the BNT162b2 vaccine to be at least 70% 21 days after the first dose, increasing to at least 85% 7 days after the second dose in our study population. This demonstrates that the BNT162b2 is effective against the B1.1.7 variant given its predominance throughout the study period.”
“The median infection fatality rate across all 51 locations was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%)” with a “very steep age gradient for risk of death” (Ioannidis, 2021)
In a large scale study of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, “Each study group included 596,618 persons. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95); for symptomatic Covid-19, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) and 94% (95% CI, 87 to 98); for hospitalization, 74% (95% CI, 56 to 86) and 87% (95% CI, 55 to 100); and for severe disease, 62% (95% CI, 39 to 80) and 92% (95% CI, 75 to 100), respectively. Estimated effectiveness in preventing death from Covid-19 was 72% (95% CI, 19 to 100) for days 14 through 20 after the first dose” (Dagan et al., 2021)
Partial (1-shot) Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccines among skilled nursing facility residents found 63% efficacy (Britton et al., 2020). A study of 3,950 U.S. residents 18 and over, including Whites, Hispanic/Latino and others found a 90% efficacy by the second dose (Thompson et al., 2021). This is on top of the 43,548 studied to establish a 95% efficacy rate (Polack et al., 2020).
In short, actual studies in actual populations show that getting vaccinated decreases the likelihood of infection, and symptomology, and if infection and symptomology are not occurring, transmission becomes very unlikely, given a dose-response relationship between shedding the virus and the likelihood of infecting others.
Table 1.
Country
Population
Vaccine
Outcome
Vaccine Effectiveness
United States14
General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna
SARS-CoV-2 infection
89%*
United States15
Healthcare workers, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers
Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna
SARS-CoV-2 infection
90%**
United Kingdom16
Healthcare workers
Pfizer-BioNTech
SARS-CoV-2 infection
86%*
United Kingdom17
Adults aged ≥ 80 years, including those with multiple underlying conditions
Pfizer-BioNTech
Symptomatic disease
89%**
Israel18
General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech
SARS-CoV-2 infection
92%*

General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech
Symptomatic disease
94%*

General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech
Hospitalization
87%*

General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech
Severe disease
92%*
Israel19
General adult population
Pfizer-BioNTech
Symptomatic disease, severe/critical disease, death
>97%**
Denmark20
Long term care facility residents
Pfizer-BioNTech
SARS-CoV-2 infection
64%*

Long term care facility residents
Pfizer-BioNTech
SARS-CoV-2 infection
90%*
* >7 days after second dose
** >14 days after second dose

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED
Well, gee, this is not hard to figure. If a vaccine is 90% effective, then that means it may not be effective for up to 10% of people. So, I can’t anticipate any reader’s risk profile, but I find it far more preferable to choose a 10% chance of getting a potentially fatal disease rather than a possible 100% of eventually getting that disease.
A sub-argument to this point is when Elliot suggests that “If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine…maybe they aren’t wowed by the rushed science either.” I suggest that the reason 66% (the percentage varies from one poll to another, and will vary over time) may be hesitant is because they read essays like Elliot’s. Either that, or it suggests that healthcare workers have a shocking lack of understanding of biomedical science.
#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID
Yes, the CDC rate of 99.74% survival rate is likely a reasonable estimate, and it may decrease over time as medical regimens improve. But for someone who is all up-in-arms about how we don’t know what the long-term effects of vaccines are, it seems highly inconsistent to be blasé about what we do and do not know about the long-term effects of a virus that just crossed the zoonotic barrier two years ago. But, it is a probability game—do I want to take an extremely safe vaccine with about a 90% likelihood of preventing me from getting any symptoms, and more importantly, a likely 90% likelihood of not transmitting the disease to anyone else, or just take my chance and risk everyone else’s chances? I’ve made my choice, having completed my vaccination doses a couple of weeks ago. I want to protect myself, and I want to protect those I may come in contact with.
#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS
Just how bloated does the likelihood of “dying” have to be to undertake a minor procedure to result in a 90%+ reduction in a small but measurable likelihood of dying? Regardless, this is a common trope, and has been substantially debunked already (Aschwanden, 2020). However, more importantly, it is likely just the reverse. Several studies indicate that COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 related mortality has been substantially underreported (e.g., Angulo et al., 2021; Krants & Rao, 2020; Vandoros, 2020).
#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE
So? Owning patents indicates that these people are pretty smart and know what they’re doing. It seems appropriate that people be remunerated for their intellectual ingenuity and efforts. I didn’t get the Moderna vaccine, so I guess I’ll have to send a donation in to Fauci just to say thanks for his efforts toward the public good.
#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

Here it is. To reference the infamous and notoriously ill-founded documentary Plandemic as “fantastically well-researched documentary” is firm evidence that Elliot is in some “fantastically” alternate universe of reality. It has been extensively debunked and appropriately banned from Facebook (Brewster, 2020; Butler, 2021; Callaway, 2011; Neil & Campbell, 2020).

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Exactly Elliot. That is why public health professionals are so enervated by essays such as yours because they confuse the issue. If the virus is mutating, it is because it has host bodies in which to mutate. The faster we end the virus through vaccination, masking and social distancing, so that it no longer has any hosts, the better the odds that it cannot mutate into a variant that can break through the antibodies produced by the vaccines. This is so astonishingly obvious that it begs the question of why people continue to rationalize their vaccine hesitancies.

#16: CENSORSHIP…AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

Oh dear. Cancel culture. One of the reasons you may not have seen the debates you call for is that you apparently were expecting to see them “on every major news station.” First, that is not where you get detailed information about biomedical issues of public safety. If that is where you are looking then you need to upgrade your research skills. Second, there is plenty of scholarly and professional debate (witness, for example, the BMJ/Doshi editorial to which you refer). Third, as a published scholar on risk communication, I can confidently claim that when it comes to public health campaigns, consistency of messaging is key. One of the reasons that there is vaccine hesitancy regarding COVID-19 is that Trump constantly downplayed their role, even though his administration played a major role in kickstarting them, he and all his pals got vaccinated (quietly), and got the relatively untested Regeneron therapeutic regimen, and presented insane ideas such as letting people congregate in super-spreading events, drinking disinfectants, and shining lights inside the body to get rid of the disease. If you go to the trouble of looking at the sources I cite, you’ll notice that all of them identify the limitations of their own methodologies, and cite other scholars and issues that are under debate, unresolved, or still in need of more research. Debate is one of the fundamental crucibles of scientific practice and progress, but you have actually read the science to know this.

Which brings us to…

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?

You didn’t number this, but the title to the essay says there are 18 reasons, so I’m supposing this is #17. The simple fact is that the sources I cite, particularly those empirical pieces in blind peer-reviewed scholarly journals, do challenge assumptions. Clearly people have disagreed with the CDC (which was also censored and edited by Trump political appointees) and the WHO. The CDC has a lot to answer for in how they handled themselves under the Trump administration, but so far the evidence indicates that most of CDC’s research (not their policy pronouncements, which are more subject to political interference) is still up to the high standards of scientific practice.

I WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN

 I assume that this is #18, but it really isn’t a reason to be suspicious, given the weight of evidence. Since Elliot asks for evidence on masks and social distancing, please see the following, which collectively provide substantial empirical evidence that masks and social distancing do down-regulate the spread of the pandemic.

  • Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., & Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet395 North American Edition(10242), 1973–1987. https://doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
  • Dasgupta, S., Kassem, A. M., Sunshine, G., Liu, T., Rose, C., Kang, G. J., Silver, R., Maddox, B. L. P., Watson, C., Howard-Williams, M., Gakh, M., McCord, R., Weber, R., Fletcher, K., Musial, T., Tynan, M. A., Hulkower, R., Moreland, A., Pepin, D., … Rao, C. Y. (2021). Differences in rapid increases in county-level COVID-19 incidence by implementation of statewide closures and mask mandates – United States, June 1-September 30, 2020. Annals of Epidemiology57, 46–53. https://doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.02.006
  • Fischer, E. P., Fischer, M. C., Grass, D., Henrion, I., Warren, W. S., & Westman, E. (2020). Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Science Advances, 1-10. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd3083
  • Gapen, M., Millar, J., Uruçi, B., & Srira, P. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of alternative measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. Center for Economic Policy Research Papers, 56, 46-75.
  • Guy, G. P., Jr, Lee, F. C., Sunshine, G., McCord, R., Howard-Williams, M., Kompaniyets, L., Dunphy, C., Gakh, M., Weber, R., Sauber-Schatz, E., Omura, J. D., & Massetti, G. M. (2021). Association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with county-level COVID-19 case and death growth rates – United States, March 1-December 31, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(10), 350–354. https://doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7010e3
  • Huang, D. (2020). How effective is social distancing? Center for Economic Policy Research Papers, 56, 18-148.
  • Jones, N. R., Qureshi, Z. U., Temple, R. J., Larwood, J. P. J., Greenhalgh, T., & Bourouiba, L. (2020). Two metres or one: What is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)370, m3223. https://doi:10.1136/bmj.m3223
  • Joo, H., Miller, G. F., Sunshine, G., Gakh, M., Pike, J., Havers, F. P., Kim, L., Weber, R., Dugmeoglu, S., Watson, C., & Coronado, F. (2021). Decline in COVID-19 hospitalization growth rates associated with statewide mask mandates – 10 States, March-October 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(6), 212–216. https://doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7006e2
  • Krishnamachari, B., Morris, A., Zastrow, D., Dsida, A., Harper, B., & Santella, A. J. (2021). The role of mask mandates, stay at home orders and school closure in curbing the COVID-19 pandemic prior to vaccination. American Journal of Infection Control. https://doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2021.02.002
  • Min W. Fong, Huizhi Gao, Wong, J. Y., Jingyi Xiao, Shiu, E. Y. C., Sukhyun Ryu, Cowling, B. J., Fong, M. W., Gao, H., Xiao, J., & Ryu, S. (2020). Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-social distancing measures. Emerging Infectious Diseases26(5), 976–984. https://doi:10.3201/eid2605.190995
  • IHME COVID-19 Forecasting Team. (2021). Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States. Nature Medicine27(1), 94–105. https://doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1132-9
  • Pratt, C. Q., Chard, A. N., LaPine, R., Galbreath, K. W., Crawford, C., Plant, A., Stiffarm, G., Rhodes, N. S., Hannon, L., & Dinh, T.-H. (2021). Use of stay-at-home orders and mask mandates to control covid-19 transmission – Blackfeet tribal reservation, Montana, June-December 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(14), 514–518. https://doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7014a3
  • Renne, J-P., Roussellet, G., & Schwenkler, G. (2020). Preventing COVID-19 fatalities: State versus federal policies. Center for Economic Policy Research Papers, 56, 106-156.
  • Welsch, D. M. (2020). Do masks reduce COVID-19 deaths? A county-level analysis using IV. Center for Economic Policy Research Papers, 59, 20-45.
  • Yan, Y., Bayham, J., Richter, A., & Fenichel, E. P. (2021). Risk compensation and face mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports11(1), 3174. https://doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82574-w
  • Zambrana, C., Ginther, D. K., & Roberts, R. A. (2020, Oct. 25). Do masks matter in Kansas? Institute for Policy & Social Research, University of Kansas. https://ipsr.ku.edu/covid19/images/MaskMandateUpdate.pdf

The evidence is not hard to find if you fairly look for it, but I do have some advantage as a working scholar with access to a legitimate scholarly library and its research tools.

In conclusion, people believe they are being good citizens by claiming that they are “only asking questions” and that this serves the important function of assuring that ideas and policies pass critical evaluation. This is entirely fair, if such questions do not come with their own conclusions already fully-formed. As the aphorism goes, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. The best available facts at this point in time indicate: (1) the history of vaccines is such that they have an extraordinarily successful record of diminishing net illness, death and suffering in society; (2) the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely safe and effective; (3) when combined with other mitigation practices such as masking and social distancing, substantial public protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission is provided, and (4) to not get vaccinated is doing an ethical disservice to the community in which one lives.

References

  • AHC MEDIA. (2021). CDC: Immune-compromised can be vaccinated for COVID-19: People with Bell’s palsy also can be immunized. Hospital Infection Control & Prevention48(2), 1.
  • Angulo, F. J., Finelli, L., & Swerdlow, D. L. (2021). Estimation of US SARS-CoV-2 infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths using seroprevalence surveys. JAMA Network Open, 4(1), e2033706. https://doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33706
  • Aschwanden, C. (2020, Oct. 20). Debunking the false claim that COVID death counts are inflated. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/
  • Benenson, S., Oster, Y., Cohen, M. J., & Nir-Paz, R. (2021). BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among health care workers. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMc2101951
  • Blumenthal, K. (2021, March 9). Real world data reveal risks of allergic reactions after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Massachusetts General Hospital. https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/Real-world-data-reveal-risks-of-allergic-reactions-after-receiving-covid-19-mrna-vaccines
  • Blumenthal, K. G., Robinson, L. B., Camargo, C. A., Jr, Shenoy, E. S., Banerji, A., Landman, A. B., & Wickner, P. (2021). Acute allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. JAMA. https://doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3976
  • Brewster, J. (2020). Facebook bans users from sharing debunked “Plandemic” movie. Forbes.Com.
  • Britton, A., Jacobs Slifka, K. M., Edens, C., Edens, C., Nanduri, S. A., Bart, S. M., Shang, N., Harizaj, A., Armstrong, J., Xu, K., Ehrlich, H. Y., Soda, E., Derado, G., Verani, J. R., Schrag, S. J., Jernigan, J. A>, Leung, V. H., & Parikh, S. (2021). Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine among residents of two skilled nursing facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks — Connecticut, December 2020–February 2021. MMWR, 70, 396–401. https://doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7011e3external icon
  • Britton, A., Jacobs Slifka, K. M., Edens, C., Nanduri, S. A., Bart, S. M., Shang, N., Harizaj, A., Armstrong, J., Xu, K., Ehrlich, H. Y., Soda, E., Derado, G., Verani, J. R., Schrag, S. J., Jernigan, J. A., Leung, V. H., & Parikh, S. (2021). Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Among Residents of Two Skilled Nursing Facilities Experiencing COVID-19 Outbreaks – Connecticut, December 2020-February 2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(11), 396–401. https://doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7011e3
  • Butler, K. (2021). The mother of conspiracies. Mother Jones46(1), 55–58.
  • Callaway, E. (2011). Virology: Fighting for a cause. Nature471(7338), 282–285. https://doi:10.1038/471282a
  • Dagan, N., Barda, N., Kepten, E., Miron, O., Perchik, S., Katz, M. A., Hernán, M. A., Lipsitch, M., Reis, B., & Balicer, R. D. (2021). BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. The New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
  • Dagan, N., et al. (2021, Feb. 24). BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
  • Daniel W, Nivet M, Warner J, Podolsky DK. Early Evidence of the Effect of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine at One Medical Center. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMc2102153
  • Enserink, M., & Cohen, J. (2020, May 8). Fact-checking Judy Mikovits, the controversial virologist attacking Anthony Fauci in a viral conspiracy video. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral
  • Evans, G. (2021, February 1). CDC: Immune-compromised can be vaccinated for COVID-19: People with Bell’s palsy also can be immunized. Relias Media. https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/147491-cdc-immune-compromised-can-be-vaccinated-for-covid-19
  • Finco, O. & Rappuoli, R. (2014). Designing vaccines for the twenty-first century society. Frontiers in Immunology: T Cell Biology, 5(12), https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00012.
  • Hall, V. J., Foulkes, S., Saei, A., Andrews, N., Oguti, B., Charlett, A., Wellington, E., Stowe, J., Gillson, N., Atti, A., Islam, J., Karagiannis, I., Munro, K., Khawam, J., The SIREN Study Group, et al. (2021). Effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against infection and COVID-19 vaccine coverage in healthcare workers in England, Multicentre Prospective Cohort Study (the SIREN Study). The Lancet. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3790399
  • Hojyo, S., et al. (2020). How COVID-19 induces cytokine storm with high mortality. Inflammation and Regeneration 40(37), 1-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fs41232-020-00146-3
  • Hojyo, S., Uchida, M., Tanaka, K., Hasebe, R., Tanaka, Y., Murakami, M., & Hirano, T. (2020). How COVID-19 induces cytokine storm with high mortality. Inflammation and Regeneration40, 37. https://doi:10.1186/s41232-020-00146-3
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021). Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(10-33F). https://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892
  • Keehner, J., Horton, L. E., Pfeffer, M. A., Longhurst, C. A., Schooley, R. T., Currier, J. S., et al. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in health care workers in California. New England Journal of Medicine. https://DOI:10.1056/NEJMc2101927
  • Krantz, S. G., & Rao, A. S. R. S. (2020). Level of underreporting including underdiagnosis before the first peak of COVID-19 in various countries: Preliminary retrospective results based on wavelets and deterministic modeling. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology41(7), 857–859. https://doi:10.1017/ice.2020.116
  • Lutton, L. (2019, Sept. 2). Do Americans trust physicians? (2019). Medical Economics96(17), 10.
  • Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)353, i2139. https://doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139
  • Neil, S. J. D., & Campbell, E. M. (2020). Fake science: XMRV, COVID-19, and the toxic legacy of Dr. Judy Mikovits. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses36(7), 545–549. https://doi:10.1089/AID.2020.0095
  • Ozawa, S., et al. (2011). During the ‘decade of vaccines,’ the lives of 6.4 million children valued at $231 billion could be saved. Health Affairs, 30(6), 1-11.
  • Paltiel, A. D., Schwartz, J. L., Zheng, A., & Walensky, R. P. (2021). Clinical outcomes of a COVID-19 vaccine: Implementation over efficacy. Health Affairs40(1), 42–52. https://doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02054
  • Pawlowski C LP, Puranik A, et. al. FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are effective per real-world evidence synthesized across a multi-state health system. medRxiv. 2021;https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.21251623v1.full.pdf
  • pdf icon
  • Polack, F. P., et al. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383, 2603-2615. https://DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
  • Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., Bailey, R., Swanson, K. A., Roychoudhury, S., Koury, K., Li, P., Kalina, W. V., Cooper, D., Frenck, R. W., Jr, Hammitt, L. L., … Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. The New England Journal of Medicine383(27), 2603–2615. https://doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
  • Thompson MG, Burgess JL, Naleway AL, et al. Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers — Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020–March 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:495–500. https://DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7013e3external icon.
  • Thompson, M. G., Burgess, J. L., Naleway, A. L., Tyner, H. L., Yoon, S. K., Meece, J., Olsho, L. E. W., Caban-Martinez, A. J., Fowlkes, A., Lutrick, K., Kuntz, J. L., Dunnigan, K., Odean, M. J., Hegmann, K. T., Stefanski, E., Edwards, L. J., Schaefer-Solle, N., Grant, L., Ellingson, K., … Gaglani, M. (2021). Interim estimates of vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers – Eight U.S. locations, December 2020-March 2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report70(13), 495–500. https://doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7013e3
  • Van Damme, W., Dahake, R., van de Pas, R., Vanham, G., & Assefa, Y. (2021). COVID-19: Does the infectious inoculum dose-response relationship contribute to understanding heterogeneity in disease severity and transmission dynamics? Medical Hypotheses146, 110431. https://doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110431
  • Vandoros, S. (2020). Excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Early evidence from England and Wales. Social Science & Medicine258. https://doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113101
  • Voysey, M., Clemens, S. A. C., Madhi, S. A., Weckx, L. Y., Folegatti, P. M., Aley, P. K., Angus, B., Baillie, V. L., Barnabas, S. L., Bhorat, Q. E., Bibi, S., Briner, C., Cicconi, P., Collins, A. M., Colin-Jones, R., Cutland, C. L., Darton, T. C., Dheda, K., Duncan, C. J. A., & Emary, K. R. W. (2021). Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet397(10269), 99–111. https://doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
  • Worboys, M. (2007). Vaccines: Conquering untreatable diseases. British Medical Journal, 334(s19). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39045.558889.94
Jon
Jon
23 days ago

Wow! Very thorough and intelligent response! Thanks for putting in the time.

Carter
Carter
23 days ago

Wow, thank you for writing this amazingly thorough rebuttal. I hope people actually read it.

Dorothy McMahon
Dorothy McMahon
23 days ago
Reply to  Carter

Nope

Erica
Erica
22 days ago

Really Dorothy? Admitting that you won’t read an extensively researched rebuttal – even just to rebut it again – just shows that your research is exclusively informed by your pre-existing biases. You may think it makes you a free thinker, but it actually makes you one of the sheep you doubtless claim are brainwashed.

Mike Futch
Mike Futch
23 days ago

Glad you kept it short

Shawn
Shawn
22 days ago

Very solid response to Elliot and all other people who have concerns. Thank you so much for putting this together!

Leo T.
Leo T.
22 days ago

Quick comment: I see approximately 30+ uses of the word “safe” in the article here.
Let’s see…. Just how safe are we talking?

How safe is the AstraZenica vaccine?

Several EU countries suspend AstraZeneca vaccine to investigate blood clot cases https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/11/denmark-pauses-astrazeneca-vaccines-to-investigate-blood-clot-reports
A TOTAL of 18 countries have suspended the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine due to fears it may cause blood clots.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14344557/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-suspended-countries-blood-clots/

How safe is the Johnson & Johnson jab?

Injections of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine came to a sudden halt across the United States after federal health agencies called for a pause following the emergence of a rare blood clotting. It will also be halted in the E.U.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/13/world/johnson-vaccine-blood-clots

And Moderna?

California recommends pausing a batch of Moderna vaccines after possible ‘severe’ allergic reactions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/us/covid-coronavirus-california-moderna-vaccines.html

CDC, FDA Investigating California Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine Lot With ‘Higher Than Usual’ Allergic Reactions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/01/18/cdc-fda-investigating-california-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-lot-with-higher-than-usual-allergic-reactions/?sh=72351a67dfac

These are just some of the news items that pop up with a simple search.
SAFE????
Loose use of the word I am afraid.

The covid vaccines are all experimental. None are approved for use by the FDA. And you are calling them safe?!?!!? Absolute Insane Nonsense.

In fact, the height of Fake News.

———–

You said something else that is completely nonsensical. You say everyone will get Covid.
That is not even true with influenza. Where did you dig that one up?

————

Regards,
Leo.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago
Reply to  Leo T.

Leo-

I appreciate the sources…many folks here and other places on the internet don’t bother. In this case, I think the writer was using the word ‘safe’ as a euphemism for, “Statistically speaking, the covid vaccines are highly unlikely to be unsafe.”

They’re all approved for emergency use by the FDA.

The J&J vaccine has six reported clotting episodes out of over seven million doses administered. This is one example, at least, of an instance where you are more likely to die from COVID than the vaccine. Given that there are only six (and I’m not trying to minimize individual suffering or grief) out of seven million, it seems unlikely that the vaccine is the cause (vs a correlation).

As for Moderna, they resumed giving doses from that batch in California three days after the pause, with no additional reports of increased levels of side effects. (https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/california-says-halted-moderna-vaccine-batch-is-safe.html).

Remember, the virus has killed a lot of people. The vaccine has killed zero.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

William Griffiths – Are you a professional pharma shill? NONE of the experimental injections they are promoting right now are “approved” by the FDA. They are only “authorized” by FDA (for emergency use). There is a huge legal distinction between a product that is FDA “approved” and one that has emergency use “authorization.” The fact that you are muddying the waters with your erroneous use of the word “approved” means that readers should be highly skeptical of the accuracy of whatever else you post here.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
15 days ago

You win…I said “approved for emergency use,” and the actual verbiage is, “authorized for emergency use.”

Plato…Cicero…Voltaire…Lincoln…Schwartz.

You, sir, have joined the ranks of the immortals.

Inanities aside, would you care to respond to my points regarding the absolute lack of fatalities attributed to COVID vaccines, as well as the general lack of serious side effects?

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
15 days ago

Would you care to respond to my question: are you a professional pharma shill? In the name of transparency, I ask you to please disclose immediately any financial, business, or personal ties you have ever had, or currently have, or reasonably expect to have, with either the CDC, public health agencies, government agencies, government contractors, medical groups, pharmaceutical or vaccine corporations, or any of their friends in the vaccinaton-pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex.

Jesse
Jesse
14 days ago

Wow, the “vaccination-pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex.” That sure IS a huge conspiracy. Thanks for educating us through the misinformation-radical-cj-pseudo-journalism-industrial complex.

Full disclosure: I have never had, nor reasonably expect to have, any financial, business, or personal ties with either the CDC, public health agencies, government agencies, government contractors, medical groups, pharmaceutical or vaccine corporations, or any of their friends. Although at the same time I don’t believe they are trying to screw me the way others appear to.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
14 days ago
Reply to  Jesse

That’s funny that you call it a “conspiracy.” Those are your words, not mine. You must also think that the “military-industrial complex” is the same thing. President Dwight Eisenhower was the person who introduced that term to the American people in his famous televised Presidential address in 1961. The fact is, however, that two of the three “pro-vax” posters on this board have known ties to the government. Is it hard for you to believe that people who have financial links to the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry or government are on this comment board promoting vaccines?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H9GyqoPMvfRa/

Last edited 14 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Jesse
Jesse
11 days ago

You don’t need to lecture us on history. We all learned it in 7th grade, just like you.

And as for the military-industrial complex, personally I’m all for it. Keeps us safe every day.

But back to the point. If you don’t want to get a vaccine then don’t. Just hang with all the other scared snowflakes.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
11 days ago

Nope…no connections at all. I apologize that this doesn’t fit your narrative. I suspect you’ve managed to isolate yourself from this sort of occurrence, and that it must be very troubling for you. Would you care to address my point that the COVID vaccines have been a smashing success up to now and that the only hurdle they face going forward is knuckle-dragging Luddites who go snowflake when their absurd views are questioned, be they the forecasting of the fourth Reich, speculation of ‘bigly’ (am I pronouncing that right?) conspiracies, and/or massive, coordinated censorship?

Truth Sayer
Truth Sayer
13 days ago

There are currently 2,700 deaths and 13,000 serious injuries reported on VAERS. The statistical chances of all or even most of those being mere coincidence are near impossible — especially when you look at all of the cases in which the person had no relevant pre-existing conditions and died with 24 to 48 hours of the jab. Doctors have been denying autopsies to family members who strongly suspect the vaccine as cause of death. Why? Too expensive? Plus the Harvard study indicates that only 1-13% of SERIOUS drug-related side effects are reported to VAERS. So even if you think only a small percentage of the reports are due to the vaccine, you have to multiply that number by at least 10. And please bear in mind these are just SHORT TERM deaths and illnesses. There was a study that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated individuals and found that vaccinated people have 10x the level of chronic illness in the long run. Of course, the industry won’t allow more of this comparative research to be done.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
11 days ago
Reply to  Truth Sayer

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how VAERS works. VAERS does not indicate any causal relationship between a vaccine and a health outcome, be it mortality or something less serious. VAERS serves as a catchall for any reported vaccine side effects. Just because someone got the vaccine and passed away a week later does not mean that the vaccine was responsible. You understand the difference between causation and correlation, right? In 2019, about 7,800 people died each day in the US. If you want to talk about ‘statistical chances’, the chance that a COVID-vaccinated person died this year from other causes is approximately 99.99969%, accounting for the three people who (tragically) passed away because of blood clots after receiving the J&J vaccine. Three deaths out of ~975,000 total deaths in the US so far this year. Three deaths out of over 100,000,000 shots administered.

Here are two bullet points from this CDC website:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

  • To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.
  • VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following vaccination, even if it is not clear the vaccine caused the problem.

So enough with the VAERS nonsense. And I’d love to see the source of the “vaccinated people have 10x the long-term chronic disease rate compared with unvaccinated people.” I’m guessing it’s either false, misconstrued, or misunderstood, but let’s pretend it’s legit. Perhaps it’s true because the vaccinated people are still…alive? As I said, I look forward to you sharing the link to this one study that “the industry” let slip through the cracks…

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
10 days ago

Mr. Griffiths, How many hours have you spent researching the vaccine issue? It appears to be thousands of hours. You seem to know everything about the VAERS system, you have all the documents and research at your fingertips, you are able to point to documents, links, arcane statistics, all at ease. You seem like one of the world’s most skilled experts at “countering” any skepticism or criticisms of vaccines or vaccine policy. How many hours a week do you spend researching vaccines and posting pro-vaccine messages on the Internet? How do you afford to spend so much time researching pro-vaccine talking points? Do you have another job or hobby, or do you spend the majority of your waking hours researching and writing in favor of vaccinations? What is your website or other site where I can learn about your background, career history, and educational achievements? I am very skeptical of you. I suspect you are lying when you claim that you have zero financial ties to the vaccine industry or related industries or government agencies. So let’s get the truth – tell us all about you as a real person – your employment or career history, what state you live in, and what you are all about. Prove to me that you are not a pharma shill.

Last edited 10 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
10 days ago

Mr. William Griffiths:
You are on the wrong side of this issue, you are on the wrong side of history, and you are on the wrong side of humanity. If you are getting paid for your pro-Pharm, pro-vaccine internet posting, would you please seriously think about the harm you and your paymasters are doing? I urge you to read the following petition, then sign it, and then quit your work for the vaccine-pushers, and join our side. For the sake of your own humanity and your ability to have respect for yourself.
Here is the petition:
https://www.unite4truth.com/post/emergency-petition-halt-covid-19-protocols-severe-testing-flaws-vaccines-safety-risks-exposed

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
9 days ago

Given the post and your previous one, I’d have to say you’re on the wrong side of reality. I’m guessing you get a lot of funny looks in life…that should tell you something.

Additionally, if my posts here have, for you, the appearance of “thousands of hours,” of effort, may I suggest that you either become more productive or adjust your perception of others’ ability to assemble and present information?

As for letting you dox me, nah. Your skepticism is noted (with amusement). Frankly, if someone like you weren;t skeptical of me for the reasons stated, I’d have real cause for concern.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
8 days ago

You’re the one who is going to get more and more funny looks, Mr. Griffiths, as more and more people are awakening every day to the fact that they are being lied to by the government, the media, and collaborators like yourself.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
18 hours ago

It’s interesting that someone who disagrees with you is a “collaborator.” Standard rules of argumentation dictate that debaters should act charitably. That is to say, to assume good faith on the part of their debate opponent. Your repeated unwillingness to do so is telling.

Ask yourself this: Is there any combination of evidence that would cause you to change your mind on the topic of the COVID vaccine? If not, it’s the reptilian portion of your brain that’s doing the responding for you.

I freely admit that if there were worrying trends in the trial data, statistically significant severe reactions (or deaths) related directly to the vaccine, or some other adverse outcome, I wouldn’t have gotten the shot, and I sure as hell wouldn’t let my kids get it.

But none of those things exist. Claims of widespread severe reactions or deaths are either misinterpreted data (VAERS, principally) or easily debunked by people willing to look at sources that don’t inherently confirm their own biases.

Frank P
Frank P
9 days ago

“Vaccine has killed Zero” Not true.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210403-seven-deaths-in-uk-among-astrazeneca-vaccine-recipients-after-blood-clots
Says the UK confirms 7 deaths from blood clots from AZ shot.
And VAERS has over 2000 deaths reported, though the CDC denys them, beleive what you want.
and J&J reports 6 blood clots in the US? And you believe there is only 6? Dont be naive. VAERS shows over 60

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 hours ago
Reply to  Frank P

You don’t understand how VAERS works. Nothing in VAERS shows a causal link between receiving a covid vaccine and death.

I had been focusing on the US, but yes, it appears that 19 people have died as a result of blood clots related to the AZ vaccine, and that is tragic.

It’s also a 1 in 250,000 chance of dying because of the vaccine, or about .0004% (20M doses of the AZ vaccine had been administered when those deaths were confirmed. The average chance of dying from Covid. The latest data on observed case-fatality shows that in the US, you have a 1.8% chance of dying from Covid if you are infected.

.0004% vs. 1.8%

So you’re 4,500 times more likely to die from Covid than from the AZ vaccine. Tell me why it’s a bad idea again?

Big Wave
Big Wave
21 days ago

While it seems like your response is well thought out, and it is, it doesn’t make it correct in any way shape or form. In fact your entire supposition ignores that Germ Theory is just that, a theory, and in fact has been studied and shown to be suspect at best. So the entire premise of your argument is built on quicksand. Then you ignore mountains of data that show definitively that unvaccinated kids fair better in overall health that those with the shots. Then you somehow skate past the idea of trust, as though accidental mistakes equate to intentional ones. The same companies you defend, were caught intentionally adding harmful substances to many of their concoctions. You certainly can make the distinction between involuntary violations of ethics versus intentional. And you also fail to understand that correlation does not equal causation, giving the vaccines credit after the fact, when the disease trajectories were already diving down to insignificant. You also fail to mention the concept that many of these so-called diseases are not even necessarily caused by what you blame them on. The use of modern day pesticides and other industrial chemicals coincides perfectly with the name illnesses blamed on a mystery pathogen, and supposedly cured by a concoction developed by the same consortium of companies in bed with those same companies. Then, you skate by conflicts of interest so glaring it boggles the mind, no the nations “leading” voice cannot be trusted if he is involved heavily in the profits, that’s basic logic 101, you’ve failed so far. Next is your complete and total lack of fairness, you blame the unvaccinated for variants? You must not know a lot about variants and how they develop and how they become dangerous, I’ll leave
It at that. So, conveniently you ignore all logic from the opposite position while defending only yours, which effectually negates your voice as one of reason. If you can’t recognize the clear bias in your rebuttal, then you are an ideologue seeking only data that fits your confirmation bias. But let’s “circle back” to the beginning. Prove that germs spread illness before even beginning tour argument. I’d say a fair analysis of this basic issue will have you understanding it’s likely the terrain, not the pathogen. Hence the “asymptomatic” cases. You can also do a little research and realize the PCR test can be manipulated to produce as many “cases” as needed to build the necessary drama and fear to sell the “solution”. And no fair analysis would ignore Cuomo sending the Seniors to Nursing Homes to intentionally spread this flu, killing the weak. Lot of trust-building there. No, while you make a nice cogent rebuttal for those who can’t read through the nuances and flat falsehoods, it is a weak attempt to support an agenda that isn’t supported by trustworthy voices, or facts.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
8 days ago
Reply to  Big Wave

Dear Big Wave,
Brian H. Spitzberg is not an “ideologue.” He is a hired gun. He has been involved in getting grants from the CDC and other government agencies for years, and has been associated with grants totalling $10 million dollars. I highly doubt that he really believes the propaganda he writes here. My guess is that he is a “hired gun” who specializes in propaganda. He would probably be willing to write propaganda on any side of any issue if the money was right. He has sold his soul to the highest bidder. For you to get him to change his tune, you would likely have to bribe him with more than the $10 million that he and his friends have grabbed from the pro-vax propaganda funding treasury.

Last edited 8 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago

I think I might have seen this guy Brian on other vaccine message boards in the past. He sounds just like a guy named Brian has been on almost every message board on the internet promoting vaccines for the past several years. It is more than a full-time job for him to promote vaccines. Either he is independently wealthy and retired, or who knows, perhaps he is on the payroll of the vaccine-industrial complex.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago

Brian, I understand that you are a specialist in studying “Social network surveillance” and “big data.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341347083_Leveraging_Social_Media_for_Applied_Problems
Isn’t that a euphemism for a Orwellian, 1984-style, “Big Brother” police state? Is your research funded by government agencies, and if so, which ones?

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

Brian H. Spitzberg is a professional expert in the field of analyzing social media and using social media to sway “political and electoral referenda” (that is, to sway public support) “of controversial social topics at state or national level…” He does research on social media tracking, social media analysis through “Big Data” and high performance computing, and swaying political influence though social media. I wonder how much money he is being paid to influence people on the Internet about vaccines. In this endeavor, he has worked on a major project called “Diffusion of Social Media in Social Networks – Envisioning Crises and Political Issues” works with specialists in social network analysis, data mining and HPC (High Peformance Computing) and human behavior analysis. https://socialmedia.sdsu.edu/
He has been associated with government programs to stockpile supplies like vaccines in case of public health emergencies.
In 2004, he received a consulting fee in relation to a $50,000 CDC Control grant via the San Diego Department of Public Health.
In 2004 – he was involved with a grant report regarding “Disaster…preparedness media…plan.”
In 2005, he was involved in a grant report regarding, “Strategic national stockpile mass prophylaxis” reported to the San Diego County Health and Human Services Department.
In 2005, he was involved in a $10,000 grant involving the CDC and San Diego College Department of Public Health and the State of California regarding “Communication Responses to Enhance Compliance with Prophylactic…Plans”
In 2007-2008, he worked on a CDC panel reviewing one of their surveillance systems.
In 2010-2014, he was a co-primary investigator on a $1.3 million grant related to “Mapping Cyberspace…” and the “Global Diffusion of Ideas.”
https://psfa.sdsu.edu/images/docs/VITAE-SPITZBERG-2017-Fall1_%281%29.pdf
In other words, he is an expert in manipulating public opinion on political issues. In addition, he got a government grant in 2005 in relationship to “strategic national stockpile” of items like vaccines in the case of national emergency. I am wondering if a some governmental agency, NGO, or corporation is paying him right now to flood social media all over the Internet with pro-vaccine posts like the ones he has posted here.
Brian – I ask you – could you please disclose to us any and all financial and professional interests you have in relation to the your writing pro-vaccine posts on the Internet like the one you have posted on this article? Is it proper and ethical for a person like you to post pro-vaccine posts all over the Internet without disclosing your financial and professional interests, as well as your past professional association with the CDC?
Would you consider yourself to be a professional social engineer in the business of swaying public opinion regarding vaccines?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are highly paid by the government for your social engineering related to vaccines.
Come on, Brian, come clean, and tell us all about your past and present profession and business dealings with CDC and other government agencies.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
10 days ago

Dear Mr. Spitzberg,
You are on the wrong side of this issue, you are on the wrong side of history, and you are on the wrong side of humanity. I know that you have been linked to more than $10 million in government grants related to work on spreading memes on the Internet as well as other work related to pro-government communications and messaging as well as other communications studies that the government has interest in. I know that it is good money for you and your friends, and that you can use some of that money to enjoy a very nice lifestyle. But I want you to think again, and ask yourself if it is worth those 30 pieces of silver if in exchange you have to sell your soul and misdirect the public into trusting institutions that should not be trusted. If you are getting paid for your pro-Pharm, pro-vaccine internet posting, would you please seriously think about the harm you and your paymasters are doing? I urge you to read the following petition, then sign it, and then quit your projects that promote the vaccines and the vaccine-pushers, and join our side. For the sake of your own humanity and your ability to have respect for yourself.
Here is the petition:
https://www.unite4truth.com/post/emergency-petition-halt-covid-19-protocols-severe-testing-flaws-vaccines-safety-risks-exposed

Last edited 10 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
Frank P
Frank P
9 days ago

Excellent list, I agree. But on point 4 it would be nice if Mercola’s name was not there. As I like to show this list to those new to this topic, and Mercola’s name taints the list, as he is associated with those “crazy anti-vaxers”.
It would be great if you put a different source there then I feel better about showing list to “mainstream thinkers and the sheep”. TKS

Patricia
Patricia
3 days ago

Thank you so much for the millions of us that have been vaccinated!

Richard Bennett
Richard Bennett
24 days ago

Before I start, I’d like to know what qualifications the author has for dispensing medical advice. As far as I can tell, he’s a weight loss coach with no training in law, medicine, or science. So why was this article even published?

  1. The vaccine industry is not the only one with a limited liability shield. All businesses are broadly protected from lawsuits of the roles they may be playing in spreading COVID-19, including the author’s. Liability shields and safe harbors are common for science and technology products whose content is too complex for the average jury to judge whether they did or didn’t cause harm in any particular case.
  2. Many companies have lost lawsuits. Sometimes this happens because of misbehavior and sometimes it’s jury confusion. The #1 anti-vaxxer in the world – Joe Mercola – has paid more than $5M to settle false advertising suits brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The father of the anti-vaccine movement, former Doctor Andy Wakefield, has also lost lawsuits and had this license revoked. So vax or don’t vax, there are problems on both sides.
  3. The only true part of this claim is that research on mRNA therapeutics and vaccines has a 20 year history. Current data shows the mRNA vaccines are the most effective and safest vaccines ever produced.
  4. This claim is too confused to critique. The only data gaps in the initial applications are about the fact that the mRNA vaccines had not been studied in the mass population before they had been administered to the mass population. We’re collecting that data now and it looks very, very good. Funny that you cite Mercola here.
  5. Peter Doshi’s blog post in BMJ raises questions about data that has been analyzed and re-analyzed by FDA and its European counterpart. See this analysis by Hilda Basitan: http://hildabastian.net/index.php/covid-19/103-unpacking-doshi-take. Her conclusion: “I strongly support re-analysis of trials, and I frequently criticize the adequacy of trials, their analyses, and their reporting myself. I know many analyses and reports are downright dodgy – but that doesn’t mean they all are, or that every criticism should bring trustworthiness into question. As we move down the path of more re-analyses of trial data, I think we have to become far more discriminating about criticisms and re-analyses. The incentives that could influence people in a company producing a vaccine are obvious. But publications that get a lot of attention, citations, and then more grant money are a critical part of academic currency and career survival – and attention-grabbing claims are in the interests of many medical journals, too. What that encourages is not always in the public interest either.”
  6. This is where we can see you grasping at straws. The options are to risk the effects of COVID-19 – hospitalization, disability, and death – because you want ever more data may have been prudent in November, but isn’t today.

That’s enough for now. I’ve had both doses of the Pfizer vaccine and I’m doing fine. Mr. Elliott may be a fine weight loss coach, but his commentary is not persuasive.

Richard Bennett
Richard Bennett
24 days ago

Oops, the paragraph numbers in my original comment disappeared when it was published. My comment addresses reasons 1 – 6 in one paragraph apiece. Here’s where the numbers belong:

#1 The vaccine industry…
#2 Many companies have lost lawsuits.
#3 The only true part of this claim…
#4 This claim is too confused to critique.
#5 Peter Doshi’s blog post in BMJ…
#6 This is where we can see you grasping at straws.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

Hi Richard Bennett. Could you, in the interest of transparency, please come clean, and tell us all about all your past and present professional and financial interests in, or links to, either the CDC, public health departments, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, individuals, or other entities who derive income or revenue from vaccine distribution or uptake, or who have some other financial or political stake related to the vaccination program? I have found that most of the people I see posting long pro-vaccine comments like you do have some link to the vaccination-industrial complex or its friends in government. For example, Brian H. Spitzberg, another pro-vaccine commenter on this board, has financial ties to the CDC and has been involved in the process of getting millions of dollars of government grants. Do you have any personal or professional relationship with Brian Spitzbeg? Are you employed in academia or public health? What is your occupation?

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
15 days ago

It appears that Richard Bennett now runs his own website, but previously worked for a Washington DC think-tank that has Congresmen or former Congressmen sitting on the board of directors. (www.itif.org) This confirms my suspicions that Richard Bennett had ties to big government. His current websites attacks “truthers” among others https://hightechforum.org/attack-of-the-5g-truthers/
Mr. Bennett, can you please disclose all of your current and recent funding sources, in the name of transparency?

Truthseeker 911
Truthseeker 911
24 days ago

Here’s a quote from Richard Bennett: ” So, why was this article even published?” Ahhh, spoken like a true totalitarian! I guess you are one of the elite, who is so much smarter than the rest of us, so that anyone who you disagree with should have no right to publish anything. I found it very amusing that just about every point that you made, actually confirmed what Mr Elliot wrote. Here are the examples:

1) Just because some other companies have limited liability does not alleviate my concerns. By the way, the blanket protection from liability, given the vaccine makers, so they could rush out the vaccine and skip a lot of vital testing and research that would normally be required, goes far beyond limited liability.

2) So, because many other companies have lost liability lawsuits, we should have no concern that the vaccine makers have lost numerous lawsuits which harmed and killed many thousands of people? Thanks, that really puts my mind at ease!

3) You state that you frequently criticize the adequacy and analysis of trials, but that doesn’t mean that they are all faulty. Thanks again, for that caveat, that totally eases my concerns, especially for the Covid trials which were the most rushed trials for a vaccine, in history, by far.

4) You say that incentives that would influence people in a company producing a vaccine, as well as the publications that report on them, are obvious and not always in the public interest. gee, i wonder if any of those incentives came into play in the race for the multi-multi billion dollar windfall for the vaccine makers? Once again, you confirmed Mr Phillip’s point.

By the way, since when is researching a subject only valid unless the person doing the research is an expert in the field? All through grades 1-12 and my college career, my teachers and professors gave me assignments to submit a report on every subject under the sun. Gee, thanks to you, i now realize that this was an exercise in futility, a total waste of my time, since whatever I reported was invalid. Wow, what a bummer!

Since the only reporting that is valid is by someone who is an expert in the field, I’ve made an effort to provide you with just that. Here are some exact quotes that I have copied and pasted from Dr Mike Yeardon, former Pfizer VP, Chief Science Officer, highly credentialed and widely respected, now retired:

“This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus”.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products”

“I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population”

“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless

“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it”

“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation”

There are many more quotes that I can provide, but I think you get the idea. So, what are your scientific vaccine research credentials, Mr Bennett? No doubt, much better than Dr Yeardon’s, I presume?

In closing, my point is the same as Mr Phillips. Our most sacred 1st amendment, the freedom of speech, is what has set us apart from virtually all countries in recorded history. The exchange of ideas and opinions is what has enabled this country to advance the human condition more than any country on earth and it’s not even close. Do I take Dr Yeardon’s comments as more factual than any others? No, I don’t because at this point, I don’t know for sure. No doubt, there are other scientists that would have differing statements. I haven’t even decided for sure whether or not I will get the vaccine. I am still in the process of “doing my research”, studying various viewpoints, from scientists, as well as other sources, so that I can make the most informed decision possible.

So, to you, Mr Bennett, I say, shame on you for questioning Mr Phillips right to publish his research, which I found pretty impressive…just one more bit of research that I will take into consideration before I make my decision. Mr Bennett, in case you haven’t noticed, freedom of speech is under severe attack in this country, as well as in many other countries, that threatens our freedom. Hopefully, you will have an epiphany and become an advocate of the free exchange of ideas, instead of the totalitarian “elite”

Truthseeker 911

Brian H. Spitzberg
Brian H. Spitzberg
23 days ago

A comment that seems to typify the characterization of “extremism,” or the tendency to remove the gray middle of any opponent’s position and re-frame it in an extreme version that is easier to dismiss. The comment by Mr. Bennett of “So why was this article even published?” was not phrased as “This article should have been censored.” And yet, you move from a query regarding the legitimacy of the article’s content to “totalitarianism.” This suggests that it will be useless engaging you as an interlocutor because you appear to be unwilling to consider an alternative interpretation of Mr. Bennett’s response.

First, there is a difference between a blog and journalism. Journalism is supposed to vet the legitimacy of its sources, its evidence, and report news and information that has provenance and credibility. There is a difference even within journalism between editorials and reportage. As such, Elliot’s article clearly falls within his rights to publish as a personal essay or blog, but questioning why it was published I believe was a query to Citizens Journal, as to why they would publish it under their banner of “Real News for Ventura County.” It is not real news, and as such, for their Editor’s note to only indicate that the article “describes them [the risks of vaccines] masterfully” is a travesty of responsible journalism. The Editor needs education and a keener sense of responsibility to the public.

Second, there is a difference between asking why an article was published (as indicated above) and denying the right to publish it. Mr. Bennett in no way implied that there should be an overarching governmental authority regulating and censoring individual expressions of opinion (i.e., totalitarianism). Of course Elliot has the right to his opinion. That does not mean that journalists and private companies are required to publish such opinions. The presumption that every issue has “two sides” is both (a) a false dichotomy and (b) dangerous, because it implies that every question of fact has two sides (they don’t–that is why there is the word “fact”) and that when there are multiple sides to an issue that all sides are equivalent in legitimacy (they aren’t). Some sides are far, far, far, far, far, FAR more legitimate than others, and to hide under the presumption of “equal time” is merely an flimsy rhetorical trope for believing things that have no basis in fact.

Third, I am as strong an advocate of 1st Amendment rights as anyone I know. No rights are absolute, however, including this one (see, e.g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919). More to the point, however, is not the right to express his opinion, but whether or not doing so is damaging to the public good. A recent agent-based modeling study on other epidemic diseases found that reducing false or harmful advice being circulated by just 10% – from 50% to 40% – mitigated the influence of bad advice on the outcomes of a disease outbreak, and constraining or counteracting 20% of the population from sharing such advice had similar effects (Brainard & Hunter, 2020; Brainard et al., 2020), although they cautioned that even if 10% of information about a viral outbreak is false, the disease will continue to spread.

Free speech comes with consequences, and it is these consequences to which I try to draw attention. Elliot has a right to express his opinion, but it comes at the cost of people’s lives, and such costs should be considered when journalists and editors consider the power of their pens and the amplifying effects of their forums.

  • Brainard, J., & Hunter, P. R. (2020). Misinformation making a disease outbreak worse: outcomes compared for influenza, monkeypox, and norovirus. Simulation, 96(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549719885021
  • Brainard, J., Hunter, P. R., & Hall, I. R. (2020). An agent-based model about the effects of fake news on a norovirus outbreak. Revue d’epidemiologie et de Sante Publique, 68(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549719885021
Truthseeker 911
Truthseeker 911
18 days ago

Oh Brian,

Where do I even start?

Re: Mr. Bennet’s’ statement “Why was this article even published?” Your explanation is one of the greatest exercises of splitting hairs that I’ve seen in recent memory. It certainly implies that it should not have been published, but if we accept your convoluted defense, at the very least he is stating that it has no legitimacy. FYI, that’s a great example of cancel culture. He further questions Mr. Elliot’s right to publish it since he is only a weight loss coach, even though Mr. Elliot’s article was extremely well documented with his sources. Another example of Mr. Bennet’s cancel culture persona.. Cancel culture = censorship=totalitarianism. I’m still waiting for Mr. Bennett to post his expert credentials. If he doesn’t have them, then by his parameters, he shouldn’t have published his article.

Re: your definition of journalists: “First, there is a difference between a blog and journalism. Journalism is supposed to vet the legitimacy of its sources, its evidence, and report news and information that has provenance and credibility”…Thank you Brian, I needed a good laugh!

Re: Your comment that you are a strong advocate of free speech, you say: “The presumption that every issue has “two sides” is both (a) a false dichotomy and (b) dangerous, because it implies that every question of fact has two sides (they don’t–that is why there is the word “fact”) and that when there are multiple sides to an issue that all sides are equivalent in legitimacy (they aren’t). Some sides are far, far, far, far, far, FAR more legitimate than others, and to hide under the presumption of “equal time” is merely an flimsy rhetorical trope for believing things that have no basis in fact.”…So tell me Brian, who is the arbiter of what is fact and what is not? Here’s an example of an indisputable fact: Water has 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you are implying that the safety and efficacy of the vaccines are virtually indisputable fact, then I can only assume that you blindly agree with the comments of government agencies and institutions, Washington politicians, main stream media, big pharma and big tech. There are countless subjective opinions/statements regarding the vaccines, including from all of the above.. Many top experts throughout the world have weighed in with their concerns and outright opposition. I included one of the top experts in the world in my original response to Mr. Bennet. You can also google an article by Israeli researchers that may enlighten you, that what you consider “fact”, is far from it. These Israeli researchers found that the death rate for elderly that received the vaccine was 40 times vs those who hadn’t. In younger people, it was 260 times higher! Do I take their findings as absolute fact? No, I don’t know for sure, the figures are much Higher than what I would think, but it certainly causes me to want to do even more research. I include this to point out that there is no absolute fact regarding the vaccines…far from it. Probably a huge difference between you and I is that I believe in most cases, there is indeed more than one side to a story and I investigate all sides before I come to my informed best conclusion.

By the way, since you have so thoroughly bought into the narrative from the previously mentioned sources, you probably also bought into their lockdown narrative, based on “scientific fact”, as we’ve heard, over and over again. Below, I’ve provided a link for the Great Barrington Declaration. It is signed by 13,935 infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists and 42,520 medical practitioners. They disavow the lockdowns as” a destructive and futile mitigation measure” against the pandemic. Imagine that! For over a year, we’ve been told by the “scientific experts” in Washington that the lockdowns are essential, and that narrative was thoroughly supported by the totalitarian forces in this country and elsewhere, who censured any opposing viewpoint or scientific research from other sources. Could it possibly be that there is more than one side to the lockdowns? Don’t be a lemming Brian. Instead, do exhaustive research, as I do, and you will be much better served. Just because a biased source tells you that something is fact, doesn’t make it so. All the best, Truthseeker 911

Re:https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/

P.S. Mr. Bennett, if you read this article, I’m still waiting for you to post your expert credentials. Certainly you should be anxious to do so to prove how much more qualified you are than Mr. Elliot and the rest of us who posted articles, but I’m not holding my breath.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 days ago

You can also google an article by Isreali researchers that may enlighten you, that what you consider “fact”, is far from it. These Israeli researchers found that the death rate for elderly that received the vaccine was 40 times vs those who hadn’t. In younger people, it was 260 times higher! Do I take their findings as absolute fact? No, I don’t know for sure, the figures are much Higher than what I would think, but it certainly causes me to want to do even more research”

I’m usually pretty good at googling, but I can’t find this anywhere. Do you have a link??

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago

Google has suppressed most dissent regarding vaccines and policy related to the current public health scare. This is what happens in totalitarian countries – massive censorship. Massive censorship and media propaganda is what got totalitarianism started in Germany during the mid 1930’s. Let’s not repeat that here. We need free speech and open debate, not massive censorship on the internet.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
16 days ago

It’s interesting to me that I can type, “Why Google Sucks” into the search bar on Google and get ~148M results. Why would Google suppress vaccine dissent but not Google dissent?

As for 1930’s Germany…really? You think you can not only summarize the rise of Hitler in one sentence but also that it’s also analogous to the COVID vaccine situation? I’ll let my Canadian and Mexican friends know to expect the invasion soon, and I’ll do what I can to keep you out of the anticipated concentration camps for those who refuse the vaccine.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

They already have mandatory locked facilities related to the global scam-demic in Canada. They don’t call them concentration camps at this point – they are nicknamed as “COVID jails.” Haven’t you heard about them? https://www.bitchute.com/video/Db7E1XdEBak/

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
15 days ago

I guess what I’m saying is that your posts from a single site that seems to perfectly confirm your biases doesn’t really scratch my evidence itch.
And why would I be skeptical of “evidence” you present? Well maybe it’s the fact that your comparison to German concentration camps (you know, forced labor, starvation, mass execution of millions, etc) is a video highlighting the travails of a traveler forced to quarantine in a hotel for three days (whoops…actually just one). And he didn’t get a refund for the two other days! Fire up the Nuremberg Tribunal!

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
15 days ago

Your mentioning a search of “Why Google Sucks” is completely irrelevant to the points that have been made and irrelevant to this topic and this discussion. Are you trying to deny the reality that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and most other Big Tech platforms are actively censoring dissent about the government and media dogma and narratives about COVID and/or the experimental biological agents they erroneously are trying to call “vaccines”? If so, you are trying to deny reality. There is a full-on, frontal assault on dissent and discussion about government policy.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Az6DAWgY0lyR/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/h2U45VzVBl0/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iVCuXpJMTYlk/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hj0LKciyhjU/

Last edited 15 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
William Griffiths
William Griffiths
15 days ago

I guess what I’m saying is that your posts from a single site that seems to perfectly confirm your biases doesn’t really scratch my evidence itch.

And why would I be skeptical of “evidence” you present? Well maybe it’s the fact that your comparison to German concentration camps (you know, forced labor, starvation, mass execution of millions, etc) is a video highlighting the travails of a traveler forced to quarantine in a hotel for three days (whoops…actually just one). And he didn’t get a refund for the two other days! Fire up the Nuremberg Tribunal!

Truthseeker 911
Truthseeker 911
16 days ago

Hello William, When I was composing the post, I included a link for the article. The link was extremely long, literally like an entire paragraph long. It actually looked like part of my post was somehow mistakenly encrypted. It didn’t even look like it would be a link and I decided to delete it because I thought it would be very confusing. When I saw your request, I thought OK, I’ll just send you the link and then you and everyone who was interested would then understand it is a link and you could click on to the article.. So, I googled the article so that I could copy and paste the link for you. However, now the article is nowhere to be found. It was a very lengthy article quoting Dr Herve Seligmann, an expert in infectious diseases, who has some role in the Isreali Ministry of Health, if I recall. I continued searching and what I discovered was that the Isreali government disavowed his claims. No doubt, they were not too happy since there is a very aggressive campaign by the government to get everyone vaccinated ASAP. The first several denials that I came across were pretty brief, with little detail, i.e.There is no truth to his conclusions because they were based on invalid information, convoluted conjectures, stuff like that. However, I did come across one explanation from a government official who said that Dr Seligmann’s findings were invalid, because most if not all the deaths and illnesses were from people who had only received their 1st shot and not their 2nd shot, or,if they had their 2nd shot, the complications occurred less than 2 weeks after that shot, not enough time for the vaccine to provide protection from the virus.therefore they were not considered fully vaccinated and therefore were not protected from the virus, so it was the equivalent of not being vaccinated at all.

When I first saw the article, I copied and pasted what I considered the gist of it to keep in my own archives. Here it is:

FULL CLAIM: “We conclude that the Pfizer vaccines, for the elderly, killed during the 5-week vaccination period about 40 times more people than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the disease among the younger age class.”; “most serious hospitalized cases on February 10 or at a near date were in fact vaccinated with the first dose or up to two weeks after the second dose”; “vaccination promotes deaths because 51.9% of deaths […] are for the 12.5% vaccinated”

REVIEW
A forum post made by Haim Yativ on a Hebrew-language discussion board claimed that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine “killed […] about 40 times more [elderly people] than the disease itself would have killed, and about 260 times more people than the disease” in younger age groups. The post purported to show evidence of this through an analysis based on data provided by the Israeli Ministry of Health, that was published by the Israeli news outlet Ynet on 11 February 2021. According to Yativ, Hervé Seligmann, a scientist who studies evolutionary biology at Aix-Marseille University, collaborated with him on the analysis.

As I stated in my previous post, I don’t accept it as fact, I just don’t know. Also, the numbers were much higher than what I would have expected, even if there was a known problem.. I also said that it spurred me to investigate further, because if there was even a fraction of truth to it, it deserves further investigation. For example, even if there was proof that twice as many people died, instead of 40x or 260x, I would find that alarming.

Many years ago, I owned some natural food businesses. Early on, I would get very excited when I would find an article proclaiming a new nutritional discovery that was some panacea for our overall health. Then I would get deflated when I would read another article saying that it had no positive health benefits at all, or even worse, that it was toxic and dangerous to our health. I was fresh out of college and that’s when I was smacked in the face with the dilemma, how do I know what to believe? This was a frequent ocurrance as new nutrtional and health related discoveries kept coming. I was determined to find the truth. Usually, I would discover that one, or often both parties had a particular bias. This was well before the internet, so it was a painstaking task to try to discover the truth. Sometimes I never did come to a satisfactory conclusion. As I became more established in the industry, I became acquainted and friends with some brilliant biochemists and nutritional researchers with uncompromising integrity who had no dog in the fight. That certainly made my life a lot easier because I could call them and they would give me a detailed explanation, that I knew I could trust.

So, William, I guess my main point is that it usually takes a lot of time and a lot of work to try to get to the truth, even with now having the internet at my finger tips. Sadly, we can no longer count on the main stream media or most “journalists”to provide an unbiased report on virtually any subject. I would estimate that at least 90% of what is reported as factual, on any subject, is from a biased viewpoint. Integrity is in very short supply these days. I strive to find intelligent, informed, unbiased sources, for whatever I’m researching. Often, that is not possible, so I review information from all sides and then try to determine what are the likely valid points.

All the best,

Truthseeker 911

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
16 days ago

I do appreciate the lengthy reply, and I also appreciate that there is undeniable bias in the media. Frankly, I think the bias has always been there, but an avenue like the internet has raised our awareness of it (compared to pre-internet network news and local newspapers, etc…all fairly homogenous). My approach is to consume as much news as time permits from a host of sources, left/right, national/international, and professional/bloggers. I think trying to find an ‘unbiased’ news source will only lead to finding a news source that confirms one’s own biases. Cheers, Bill

Jay Kay
Jay Kay
1 day ago

I used duck-duck-go as my search engine with search terms “Israeli study vaccine death rates”. First came up were articles discussing 95% efficacy. After that, tho, were several articles discussing both sides of study Truthseeker cited. It wasn’t that difficult. If indeed google didn’t show any results then either he was also likely right about suppression of ideas or something’s wrong with your search.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 hours ago
Reply to  Jay Kay

Try that same search with Bing, which is the primary engine that duck-duck-go utilizes. Then tell me about how Microsoft is engaged in the “suppression of ideas.”

Jay Kay
Jay Kay
17 hours ago

I was helping you find the info you said you couldn’t find. You were the one who said you couldn’t find it on google. If you can find it on Bing, great.

I said EITHER he was likely right about suppression OR that something was wrong with your search. Glad you got it figured out.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago

Brian, are you the same guy who got a government grant in 2005 in relationship to “strategic national stockpile” of items like vaccines in the case of a national emergency? If so, doesn’t that mean that you have been on the payroll of the vaccine-government-industrial complex? If you have been on the payroll in regards to the field of emergency vaccines, don’t you have a financial conflict of interest in regards to perception of this supposed public health crisis?

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

To Professor and propagandist Mr. Brian H. Spitzberg,
You say that the cost of people’s lives, as well as the “public good,” should be considered when exercising free speech. I say to you Mr. Spitzberg, that your activities in working over the years on behalf of the CDC, Departments of Public Health, and other government agencies, taking grant money to do so, so that you can spread fear and panic and cause people to acquiesce to deadly “lockdown” orders and business shutdowns, leading to global economic devastation and millions of people becoming malnourished … that YOUR speech, YOUR opinions, could very well be causing severe damage to the “public good,” and could be causing millions of lives to be endangered. I implore you, beg of you, Mr. Spitzberg, that in the future, when you spread pro-governmental rhetoric, dogma, and propaganda to prop up the increasingly totalitarian “health security state” apparatus, and prop up the lies related to this scam-demic, could you please, please do the proper and ethical thing, and disclose right up front all of your financial and personal interests and ties, in the past, present, and foreseeable future, with the government, CDC, departments of health, and the scamdemic-industrial complex? Do the right thing, come clean with all of the payoffs you have received from the CDC, government, and other interested parties.

George Pattone
George Pattone
23 days ago

Goody for you… Fearful sheep…

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
15 days ago
Reply to  George Pattone

I don’t know if I would call Mr. Bennett a sheep. Perhaps he could be thought of as a fox in charge of keeping the chickens safe. His propaganda also makes me think of the book Animal Farm, where the pigs took over the farm and brainwashed the other animals with lies and propaganda. I think that taking millions of dollars from governmental agencies to spread propaganda to Americans could be thought of as “piggish.”

Last edited 15 days ago by Jeffrey Schwartz
BRUCE T THOMSON
BRUCE T THOMSON
23 days ago

Personally attacking the author on the basis of their qualifications or other personal attributes does not win the argument. What matters is the facts of the case.

Saying that it’s OK for big vaccine companies to loose lawsuits just because your favourite “anti-vaxxers” lost their cases too? That is deplorable. Even if there be a million dishonest anti-vaxxers in the world, that doesn’t make the big companies suddenly trustworthy going forward. Please don’t try to win an argument by attacking persons or diverting blame. It is the facts that are important.

Christian Eliott does present a lot of facts and links to news and information websites. I’ve checked them carefully. I do not accept that all his arguments are correct, some are and some aren’t in my opinion. But they do raise important questions. I’m very grateful to Mr Elliot for compiling useful information. Lots of facts are quoted. He’s not expecting me to accept what he says just because he is a doctor, researcher or health official.

Bravo Mr Elliott!

Veronica DiFalco
Veronica DiFalco
23 days ago

Then there is just plain common sense.
Look around the world. Oh all-this is just a big coincidence?
Read what the United Nations wanted since 1992.
Read Biden’s article from 1992!
Look at Biden’s slogan !
You don’t need any of the statistics for any of this… common sense, reality, actions vs words, gut instinct.
Wow all God Given Tools we were born with!
Try it sometime instead of keeping your head stuck in your Fauci follow the dvoencs mentality. I don’t need it to know we d as recall being screwed over. I am sure if I researched you it would take me less then 5 minutes to know exactly what I need to know about you which my common sense already has detected.
Human rights are being violated all over the world and now to the one Country people have fled to for years to escape crimes of humanity. if that’s not enough to wake everybody up and put the pieces of the puzzle together then it’s obvious they are victims of MSM , DAVID BROCK MEDIA MATTERS.
Maybe it’s time you spend researching other things or you probably already know this.

Erica
Erica
22 days ago

Oh my god Veronica.

Paul Velte
Paul Velte
22 days ago

The same ol, same old… Appeal to authority. He’s not an expert so he cannot argue the logic. PUHLeeze. I’m so tired of that old fallacy. Try responding to the logic, instead of just dimissing it because he’s not the expert you would prefer.

Erica
Erica
22 days ago
Reply to  Paul Velte

It’s not a fallacy to suggest that people cannot argue effectively with those more informed than them. If you were a world expert on anything, say the Bible, or the Pekingese dog breed, or the music of Abba, you could not have a serious debate with someone who had never heard of those things. We, and people like Christian Elliot, overestimate our own capacity to understand the research we claim to dispute.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago
Reply to  Erica

Classic appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy. “Authority” figures have been wrong so many times in history they even wrote a book trying to include some of the more ridiculous errors that “exoerts” have made: “The Experts Speak.” https://www.amazon.com/Experts-Speak-Definitive-Authoritative-Misinformation/dp/0679778063

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

Mr. Bennett, your response about liability may be technically correct, but you miss the point. The point is, that prior to this fake, planned, rehearsed, and scripted pseudo-emergency “plandemic,” the vaccine industry was the only industry in the country that was broadly shielded from almost all liability due to injuries or deaths caused by product defects.

You are correct in your pointing out that now, recent legislation provides that during a government-declared scamdemic, many businesses are broadly protected from lawsuits for any harm they may do to the health, lives, civil rights, or property of innocent and helpless citizens all in the name of a fraudulent “fight” against a propaganda-driven pseudo-pandemic. In particular, the pharmaceutical companies are given liability shields for any injuries due to their experimental new injections that have never been given proper human long-term safety trials. In addition, doctors and hospitals ae given shields from lawsuits no matter how much fraud and how many lies they exercise in the name of receiving huge dishonest kickbacks from governments and politicians, even though the hospitals are found to be nearly empty when recorded by brave citizen journalists who are sometimes arrested for their undercover reporting. This entire plandemic is a massive money-making fraud, and people who post on the Internet in support of this fraudulent scheme, like for example, Professor Brian H. Spitzberg, have been feeding at the taxpayer trough, collecting millions of dollars, getting huge grants or other payments from the CDC and other government agencies. Now, come clean, Mr. Bennett, what financial, personal, or political ties do you have to the government, the public health agencies, the vaccine-industrial complex, or anybody else who is making a buck off of the pandemic scam?
Videos exposing parts of the fraud:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zgv72wHl9T71/

Happy Realist
Happy Realist
24 days ago

At this point, the only reason needed to not take the vaccine is because it’s administered by the government!

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 hours ago
Reply to  Happy Realist

Tell me…will you also decline your Social Security benefits on this basis?

Jesse
Jesse
24 days ago

As Al X would say*:

OK, so you’re not getting injected — now STFU about it.

*source: https://www.citizensjournal.us/commentary-shut-up-already/

Tony
Tony
24 days ago

I have noticed that often when the “experts” are asked questions about Covid and affects of the vaccine their statements often end with , We don’t know or I am unsure.”
If they are unsure why should I trust the vaccine ?

Since I have had covid and recovered it seems reasonable that I now have an natural immunity so I should not need a vaccine. I have been told by my doctor I should wait at least three months if I did want a shot. Again logic says my body already recognizes covid and will fight it and getting vaccinated could work against my body.

Sheila
Sheila
23 days ago
Reply to  Tony

World War II everybody worked to win the war effort. This is World War III and everybody needs to participate to win this war effort. Otherwise will be wearing mask the rest of our life

Zena Padilla
Zena Padilla
4 days ago
Reply to  Sheila

Hmmm. My guess is the average everyday German was told something similar in 1932.

William Griffiths
William Griffiths
17 hours ago
Reply to  Zena Padilla

Ah. So from your logic the US and Germany were ideological equals with regard to WWII. Very interesting.

Brian H. Spitzberg
Brian H. Spitzberg
23 days ago
Reply to  Tony

Experts don’t say “We don’t know” to every question–only those for which we lack evidence or where the evidence is equivocal. They collectively are sure that the vaccines are the only justifiable and viable way to end the pandemic. I’m glad that you have a degree in medicine or biology or virology, given that you are able to reason that you have immunity and that your natural immunity will protect you. However, (1) we don’t yet know whether immunity to one variant = immunity to other variants, to which we may need to develop new vaccines; and (2) we don’t know how long immunity lasts (e.g., this is why we get “booster” shots for some potential diseases). Viruses are not bound by human logic. The collective consensus of experts and the scientific evidence should be the guide.

Erica
Erica
22 days ago

Brian you are my hero. Doing the Lord’s work.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
17 days ago
Reply to  Erica

Hi Erica, you should also get a job as a vaccine industry shill if you aren’t one already.

Jeffrey Schwartz
Jeffrey Schwartz
16 days ago

The consensus of doctors and scientists who do NOT have financial ties to the vaccination-industrial complex and who ae not on the big money plandemic payroll is clear. We do not have a medical pandemic. There is no real medical pandemic. The entire panic of 2020 to 2021 is based on the fraudulent PCR procedure, which is not a valid test of infection. Listen to the experts here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/aWgcUf6CDJAY/