The prestigious American Journal of Epidemiology kindly published a response from me, entitled “Critical analyses concerning COVID-19 vaccines need to be consistently critical and informed”, on what seem to be double standards concerning a recent article on the “need to be critical of the claims made by both COVID-19 vaccine proponents and critics”.
People should be going to jail not asking if they would consider our argument. Until we shove the crime they committed down their throats, they will do it again.
They forced people to have to make a choice between work and supporting their families or get injected with an experimental drug.
They lied and claimed that herd immunity would be reached with the injection, knowing it has never been done.
They lied that for the first time in history a corona virus could be stopped with an injection.
They lied and told scared parents to inject their kids or they could die.
Pfizer may have immunity from civil suits but not criminal ones that need to be done. Same for the people that funded the lab
Raphael, I've read a bit about what happened to you and I hope you are recovering from the entirely unnecessary injury inflicted on you by your employer as a result of their unreasonable management action, taken in an unreasonable manner. Please take them to the cleaners.
I have a question. I'm a bit concerned about the unchallenged claims I frequently see about the shots providing protection against severe illness and death. Have you seen this paper I've cited below by Peter McCullough and colleagues? You can access the PDF from the site at the link. Do you think the argument and conclusions, with respect to boosters, are reasonable? I do.
Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov, Peter A McCullough (2023) The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 28, Issue 1
The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact
Generally yes, I have stated this in various ways. My stuff on negative effectiveness, and my insistence that the myocarditis risk alone probably wipes out any 'benefit' of the jabs in the young and healthy at least. I've even shown that Pfizer kind of admits they don't know the benefits outweigh the risks as they don't know the extent of the CV risk. All this is easily overlooked, however, as I have a very small audience.
Thank you. I hope you are able to get a much bigger audience. I have been extremely suspicious of the purported efficacy against severe covid, hospitalization and death, ever since the narrative changed from "prevents infection and transmission" to this fall back position.
I can see how the elevated myocarditis risk alone would wipe out the benefit, if any, in the young and healthy. I can't see how there would be any benefit at all in the elderly, due to immunosenescence.
And in the end I mock my doctor friends to this day about the Amish control groups that proved, everything they said and done was crap. Masks, social distancing, shut downs and injections all did not work and the ones that keep talking about it should lose their medical licenses.
"Despite Morris stating that we should be looking at the clinical trials and observational studies critically..."
If he'd followed his own advice during 2020, he could have helped prevent the "excess deaths" of these people in Ireland (and multiples of others around the world):
Great article, Raphael! You are doing beautiful work, please keep it coming.
One thought here: I live on a fixed retirement income (US Social Security). I can't afford to subscribe to every writer who's work I love, but I could occasionally send a small donation. Please see if you can enable your Substack to receive one time donations. I'd be delighted to contribute when I can.
Thank you. Not necessary, I'd only ever want people to become paid subscribers if they can really afford it. Not in it for the money. If I were I'd be taking Big Pharma's money to parrot the mainstream narratives like our buddy Morris here!
Mr "the protocol was fine" Morris who belives in 95%.... oh no, thank you. I remember reading his articles 3-4 years ago on his blog. His answers and comments are even better or worse.
Where is the scholarly curiosity, huh? We just don't care that they didn't actually demonstrate a death benefit? As if that isn't the ultimate goal, to save lives? Scholars these days!
These people come in varying degrees of “amplification of Pharma lies,” so that the consumer has a choice. Morrison presents as Medium, whereas Offitt would be Large, and Hotez XXL.
You've framed it very nicely, and that may explain all this ill will toward him. I guess people feel like he really should have been more 'medium' and scholarly but maybe leaning towards the pro-jab side, like me but the other way, but despite all his bluster he just reiterates Big Pharma's narrative and doesn't really critique their claims as I do.
Wasn't gonna say nothin' but look at the people that gave money to his employer. Looks like they have partaken of that Bill Gates money. And lo, though it smelleth rotten it tasteth so sweet! https://www.med.upenn.edu/donorrecognition/donor-walls.html
It would be enough to expose his posts on his blog if someone has the time and desire. There is enough material there about what he believes in. The financial issues are just the icing on the cake
Wow, the comments. It looks like this guy got under a lot of people's skin. Maybe because you thought he'd be more of a middle of the ground type actual scholar but ended up just shilling for Big Pharma? Anyway, make sure to let him know exactly how you feel, politely, because you know he'll be here reading every comment. And Kirsch apparently texted this to him. Hi Jeff, and thanks for being a good sport!
People should be going to jail not asking if they would consider our argument. Until we shove the crime they committed down their throats, they will do it again.
They forced people to have to make a choice between work and supporting their families or get injected with an experimental drug.
They lied and claimed that herd immunity would be reached with the injection, knowing it has never been done.
They lied that for the first time in history a corona virus could be stopped with an injection.
They lied and told scared parents to inject their kids or they could die.
Pfizer may have immunity from civil suits but not criminal ones that need to be done. Same for the people that funded the lab
And the people that approved it, promoted it, mandated it. We're coming for them all.
Raphael, I've read a bit about what happened to you and I hope you are recovering from the entirely unnecessary injury inflicted on you by your employer as a result of their unreasonable management action, taken in an unreasonable manner. Please take them to the cleaners.
I have a question. I'm a bit concerned about the unchallenged claims I frequently see about the shots providing protection against severe illness and death. Have you seen this paper I've cited below by Peter McCullough and colleagues? You can access the PDF from the site at the link. Do you think the argument and conclusions, with respect to boosters, are reasonable? I do.
Yaffa Shir-Raz, Shay Zakov, Peter A McCullough (2023) The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 28, Issue 1
The Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters against Severe Illness and Deaths: Scientific Fact
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=LzqEaOkAAAAJ&cstart=800&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=LzqEaOkAAAAJ:Xtec1x7NZGAC
Generally yes, I have stated this in various ways. My stuff on negative effectiveness, and my insistence that the myocarditis risk alone probably wipes out any 'benefit' of the jabs in the young and healthy at least. I've even shown that Pfizer kind of admits they don't know the benefits outweigh the risks as they don't know the extent of the CV risk. All this is easily overlooked, however, as I have a very small audience.
Thank you. I hope you are able to get a much bigger audience. I have been extremely suspicious of the purported efficacy against severe covid, hospitalization and death, ever since the narrative changed from "prevents infection and transmission" to this fall back position.
I can see how the elevated myocarditis risk alone would wipe out the benefit, if any, in the young and healthy. I can't see how there would be any benefit at all in the elderly, due to immunosenescence.
And in the end I mock my doctor friends to this day about the Amish control groups that proved, everything they said and done was crap. Masks, social distancing, shut downs and injections all did not work and the ones that keep talking about it should lose their medical licenses.
In "their" own words - "And No One Shall Give Them Shelter."
"Despite Morris stating that we should be looking at the clinical trials and observational studies critically..."
If he'd followed his own advice during 2020, he could have helped prevent the "excess deaths" of these people in Ireland (and multiples of others around the world):
2020 = 1732
2021 = 4556
2022 = 5588
2023 = 5660
2024 = 5574
2025 = off to a bad start...
https://irelandexcessdeaths.com/excessdeaths
Great article, Raphael! You are doing beautiful work, please keep it coming.
One thought here: I live on a fixed retirement income (US Social Security). I can't afford to subscribe to every writer who's work I love, but I could occasionally send a small donation. Please see if you can enable your Substack to receive one time donations. I'd be delighted to contribute when I can.
Thank you. Not necessary, I'd only ever want people to become paid subscribers if they can really afford it. Not in it for the money. If I were I'd be taking Big Pharma's money to parrot the mainstream narratives like our buddy Morris here!
Like I said, you do beautiful work! Your generous heart makes me very happy.
Mr "the protocol was fine" Morris who belives in 95%.... oh no, thank you. I remember reading his articles 3-4 years ago on his blog. His answers and comments are even better or worse.
Where is the scholarly curiosity, huh? We just don't care that they didn't actually demonstrate a death benefit? As if that isn't the ultimate goal, to save lives? Scholars these days!
These people come in varying degrees of “amplification of Pharma lies,” so that the consumer has a choice. Morrison presents as Medium, whereas Offitt would be Large, and Hotez XXL.
You've framed it very nicely, and that may explain all this ill will toward him. I guess people feel like he really should have been more 'medium' and scholarly but maybe leaning towards the pro-jab side, like me but the other way, but despite all his bluster he just reiterates Big Pharma's narrative and doesn't really critique their claims as I do.
Maybe it's time to critique Jeffrey Morris's financials.
Wasn't gonna say nothin' but look at the people that gave money to his employer. Looks like they have partaken of that Bill Gates money. And lo, though it smelleth rotten it tasteth so sweet! https://www.med.upenn.edu/donorrecognition/donor-walls.html
It would be enough to expose his posts on his blog if someone has the time and desire. There is enough material there about what he believes in. The financial issues are just the icing on the cake
Wow, the comments. It looks like this guy got under a lot of people's skin. Maybe because you thought he'd be more of a middle of the ground type actual scholar but ended up just shilling for Big Pharma? Anyway, make sure to let him know exactly how you feel, politely, because you know he'll be here reading every comment. And Kirsch apparently texted this to him. Hi Jeff, and thanks for being a good sport!
check out a page called the expose