Experts say COVID-19 vaccine science was poor & biased

The truth around the COVID-19 vaccines continues to emerge with one of the top medical ethics and bioethics journals, Springer Nature’s Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, publishing two important critical articles on the jabs. The first is by Lipworth et al, a group including experts in Medicine, Bioethics, and Law, from several years back, opining that much went wrong with the vaccines’ development, recommendation, media coverage, and mandating; and the second is my just published response explaining how the emerging evidence has justified all they said and more.

The original paper, submitted soon after the vaccines were approved and mandated argued preclinical and clinical research were “sped up and scaled up”, resulting in multiple issues “regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication”. They even claimed: “Evidence is now emerging that “mainstream” interventions, which were widely supported by the scientific community and taken up into practice around the world, drew upon at least some data that was of poor quality and biased”. One example is that “some modelling studies to predict morbidity and mortality that were used as the basis for public policy responses, such as isolation, vaccination, and treatment of COVID-19, were biased and used poor controls, inappropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, and poor statistical analysis”. Source.

Skip forward a few years and my paper (unfortunately not open access - feel free to rectify that if you can afford it), submitted last year but just now published, summarises much of the emerging evidence and policy changes that appear to vindicate their strong claims, and more. I discuss issues with safety and effectiveness being exaggerated, concerning the clinical trials and observational studies, such as counting window issues and observed negative effectiveness. I point to the increasing evidence of adverse effects, which no longer seem so rare, and the little known fact that even Pfizer doesn’t know if their vaccine is safe - even now in 2026!

Of course I would also point to my critique of Watson et al, which found its way into the official record of the US Senate, revealing that the highly publicised claims that the jabs saved many millions of lives in just 1 year are bogus; and Ioannidis et al, which heavily revised the figure downwards and was still overly optimistic. Also relevant is the American and Australian governments recognising deaths caused by the vaccines, with the latter pretty much recognising “that the risks of the vaccines outweigh the benefits for healthy children, no longer recommending that they receive the vaccines—and this apparently was based on data available from the very beginning of their vaccination programme”, and the former “releasing a report—with little, and even deceptive, fanfare in the media and academe—acknowledging their many mistakes over fearmongering over COVID-19, the lockdowns, face masking, vaccine mandates (which they asserted “caused more harm than good”), and even the vaccines themselves”. Source.

There’s not really anything new here, it is stuff we already know. The good, nay, great, news is that this is being recognised by credible experts, and in top academic publications. Trust the science…

Okay then.

Extra: This just happened to be quite timely. Yes, despite what some might think by misinterpreting my comments on how a particular Fauci leak had been misinterpreted, my pronouns are definitely still prosecute/Fauci, and I continue to feel that nobody should take or should have taken the jab. And I continue to wage legal warfare over the vaccine mandates that destroyed my life.