This is just what they did in the covid shot trials, too.

"The problem with this entire paradigm is that the back door influences actually do exist and might make vaccines riskier for persons with those risk factors."

They said, "Oh, those people who had heart attacks or strokes during the trials were at higher risks for those things anyhow because they were on medication that increased their chances or had a physical condition that increased their risk."

So? You are expecting every single person in the country to get these shots. How many of them also fit that profile? Have you proven that their heart attacks or strokes were just incidental, that they would have happened anyhow because of those other risk factors? Or could it be that people with those other risk factors are at greater risk of those events because of the combination of those factors and the shots?

Expand full comment

I think they could call the current way they do vaccine science “ Wishful thinking” and have done with it.

So many people say, “ Nothing happened to me, my child or my neighbors child, therefore all vaccines are safe for everyone. “

This ignores so many things, chief among them is that all people are not the same due to a host of factors, genetic and environmental.

I wish there was acknowledgment that for some people, vaccines are infinitely worse than the illness they purport to protect people from, and that one size fits all mandates will cause irredeemable harm to that group of individuals that can almost never be recovered from.

If you point this out to those avowed vaccines proponents that logically, all people are not the same, and that we know from past vaccination usage that some people will suffer unanticipated harms from the shots, they respond that the risks of harm are very low.

As if that answer, “ the risk of harms are very low” is a reasonable justification for the potential infliction of suffering that can occur to untold people.

We might as well say these vaccine proponents have a “ Compassion Deficit “, since the unnecessary suffering of affected others is ok, unproven, ecetera in their book.

Expand full comment

Steve Kirsch had an interesting argument to counter the conclusion that nothing happened--therefore vaccines are safe for everyone. I hear the argument: the benefit is greater than the risk. Steve spoke to a doctor who had vaccinated 500 patients and only seen 1 death. This was not statistically significant, so could be dismissed. But Steve argued 1 death per 500 is equal to 2 deaths per thousand. This could represent a serious problem.

So here is another example. If you notice people dying or getting sick, you can argue that the risk is tiny because the number of deaths is tiny. The assumption is that we are GOING to keep on vaccinating unless we get to a very high number of deaths. (Deaths from adverse reactions to mRNA vaccines are rated much much lower than deaths from covid)

But I read an Op Ed in the NYTimes that argued we MUST go ahead and vaccinate our children because we need them to be protected (unproven assumption that vaccines protect children)--and even a single death is unacceptable. Our children are precious.

So small numbers of adverse events can be dismissed if not statistically significant. But even a single death from Covid is a significant signal and CANNOT be ignored or dismissed.

Expand full comment

Note shifting meaning of significance. When a test is Statistically insignificant, we will end up accepting the null hypothesis (that vaccines are safe). BUT infection and deaths really matter--they are SIGNIFICANT problems that can't be and shouldn't be ignored.

Expand full comment

I think of book titles on occasion. On this occasion, given the topic of reading scientific articles and understanding bias, i propose somebody please write” The Art of the Lie”

Unless Trudeau, Obiden and Macron have that one underway already.

Expand full comment

My first introduction to this vaccine studies thing was leading up to the birth of our first child . Someone posted something about the Disney measles outbreak . Somehow that got me to the Quebec retrospective study some years earlier (2012).

The virus was spread from a doubled vaccinated teacher on summer vacation . Sometime like 793 of the school population was infected , half being unvaccinated. More likely infected unvaccinated sought medical attention.

I forget how they registered who was infected and not , it’s been a while . But what really stood out to me was that it’s far more likely that a parent of a unvaccinated child would seek early medical attention as opposed to a parent that believes their child is somehow protected from some malady by the injection . This insight about behaviour of groups is also referred to in the influenza study among aged population . People dying didn’t see point of a shot , while those with good health sought to prolong it , thus more die in first group of unvaccinated

Expand full comment

You mind if I ask please what Quebec study you are referencing I would like to take a look myself if possible.

Expand full comment

I wish I could post the link . It was a measles retrospective observatory study . I believe it was 2012 . I’ll check snd see if it’s on google scholar

Expand full comment

Ok quite a few articles came up . I think the study was dated 2012 and the outbreak was in 2011.

Expand full comment

I once read a great study comparing active reporting to passive reporting . This would a great topic to write about,

Public medical prophylactics really should all have a requirement ( legislated ) of active reporting .

The study I read really

Opened my

Eyes to the difference and just how much more accurate and attentive

Active reporting


Expand full comment

Not sure what the name of all these fallacies are but I have another general one .

The general idea of effectiveness is carried over from the “ we know that these diseases were a problem and now are not , and it’s because of vaccines !”.

Where it seems to

Me that comparing the now to 70-100 years ago is just ridiculous . And I would point out that speed of diagnostics and access to treatment

And speed to sequestration and communicational management are now do advanced to have any comparison to such a time . Where the relevance of such an intervention which may have once seemed or considered quite high is greatly muted by other advances in medical management.


, to compare some back water underdeveloped starving population in the developing

World and ascertain that without all other factors it’s the shots that make the difference . Like do you remember

Vitamin A enriched rise ? The argument was to Address n malnourishment that affected measles outcomes . Or who remembers Dr’s without borders stating “ medicines are great , but clean water would make the biggest difference !”?

Expand full comment

Public health initiatives more then likely

Deploy a number of strategies to limit infectious pathogens in populations . Vaccination is simply one of them . Where the other tactics of management increase their effectiveness through innovation and advancement the impact of the vaccination tactic is relatively reduced.

People have argued that vaccination was the biggest advancement. But I argue that bigger is diagnostic capacity. It’s the advancement that has made the biggest difference in public health . Because being able to identify the problem makes the biggest difference in identifying the solution

Expand full comment

On item 7, I had the thought that athletes may be a population that uses performance enhancing drugs more than the general population. We will never know for the individual cases of sudden adult deaths. This is similar to currently unquantified vax history in SIDS victims.

Expand full comment

-The last MMR study they did found a risk in a susceptible subgroup. Ignored as nonsignificant. Author's should have known their sample size was no good.

- Don't forget exposure dilution bias: Comparing vaccinated people to "unvaccinated" people that have actually had other vaccines that may pose the same risk.

- The confounding by contraindication is the worse of all these issues. Especially because the vaccine avoidance will be concentrated in the susceptible subgroups. Risk ratios can theoretically be off by an order of magnitude.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately one must look back in time to search for any semblance of public health seeking to improve health.

If we have learned anything over the last 3 years, it is to ignore government assertions of virtue until proven otherwise.

Vaccine avoidance sounds like some kind of evil or stupidity in your article. There’s an assumption that has fallen flat a long time ago.

Expand full comment

The fixed acyclic graph didn't make sense to me. Why draw causal arrows from vaccination to race and family socio-economic status? Whether you get vaccinated does not determine your race except maybe in Biden's world..

Expand full comment

Great article. Many thanks. You ain't nothin but a HOUND dog

Expand full comment

Appreciate the article as always. Following and reading your material has enabled me to greatly enhance my understanding of scientific studies. For those of us whom are not trained scientists or had limited post-secondary exposure with respect to data-analysis, your analysis, videos, articles are greatly appreciated and allow us all to broaden our capacity towards critical thinking and reviewing scientific literature-not to mention your invaluable insight and sharing/distribution of historically important studies and research in which many of us would have no idea even existed without your diligent reading and sharing this vital and important material.

Expand full comment