Unfortunately, I have found myself writing a lot about the antivax false claim that COVID-19 vaccines are causing a wave of “turbo cancer” in young people, mainly because, aside from the usual quacks like Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, and William Makis, a seemingly “respectable” cancer doctor named Wafik El-Deiry has also been amplifying such claims in the name of “open-mindedness” and wanting to consider “all scientific possibilities.” In brief, the claim is that COVID-19 vaccines are causing “turbo cancer,” which is never really well-defined as a term but seems to mean—in antivax parlance, at least—rapidly growing and unusually aggressive cancers arising de novo or the recurrence of cancers that had been in remission in a particularly aggressive and fast-growing form soon after vaccination with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. The fantastical mechanisms proposed are many, but most come down to the claim that the vaccines are “contaminated” with plasmid DNA used to make the mRNA used I the vaccines and left over from the manufacturing process and that that plasmid DNA contains SV40 sequences. It’s a conspiracy theory that goes right back to the old conspiracy theory that contamination with SV40 virus found in polio vaccines in the early 1960s was responsible for a wave of cancer decades later. (Hint: It wasn’t. Also, SV40 promoter sequences are not the same thing as the intact SV40 virus, the latter of which is oncogenic.)
After my most recent post on “turbo cancer” claims, I thought I was done for a while. Unfortunately Wafik El-Deiry got all credulous again and decided to amplify another paper by Kevin McKernan as “concerning” that there might be something to this whole thing about plasmid DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines and “turbo cancer”:
The preprint being flagged as “concerning” is apparently McKernan’s followup to his original awful study of his that I first discussed in depth a few months ago and that led to followup studies that were equally bad by scientists like Phillip Buckhaults. I will agree that the study is “concerning,” but not because it provides support for the claim that mRNA vaccines are massively contaminated with plasmid DNA to the point that they can cause “turbo cancer,” Prof. El-Deiry’s post/Tweet notwithstanding. A quick read of the preprint, DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events, revealed many problems to me other than its having been coauthored by at least two antivaxxers, Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose and abusing the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database in a way that antivaxxers love to do.
The CliffsNotes version of the paper’s findings is that there is a horrible amount of plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna and that the amount of plasmid DNA in the vaccines correlates to an increased incidence of adverse events (AEs). If you take what McKernan and colleagues have done at face value, they claim to have found more VAERS AE reports for COVID-19 vaccine bearing lot numbers that, by their analysis, had higher levels of plasmid DNA “contamination’ compared to vaccine lot numbers with lower levels of plasmid DNA “contamination.” I bet you can already see the problem here, but we’ll get into the issues with the study in more detail. I also note that, for unclear reasons, McKernan used two different methods to assay DNA “contamination” in the vaccine vials, the gold standard of quantitative PCR and an assay based on the binding of a fluorescent protein to the DNA and RNA called the Qubit assay. Depending upon the specific fluorophore used, a scientist can distinguish between double-stranded DNA (like plasmid DNA), single-stranded DNA, and RNA. (mRNA is single-stranded.)
Before I dig in, though, let me just cite Ed Nirenberg, who has pointed out that we literally have DNA vaccines that use orders of magnitude more intact DNA of much longer length than any amount of DNA you could possibly find in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines:
As an aside, I know just how correct Ed is because three decades ago I did my PhD in a lab where one of the projects involved getting muscle to express proteins coded by plasmid DNA and to use that technique to see how gene regulatory sequences functioned in vivo rather than in the very artificial conditions of cultured cells. (Here’s a representative paper from that lab.) I didn’t work on the project, but we did have lab meetings in which each of us would present our work; so I did see lots of presentations on the progress of the research. Also, DNA is supposed to be in the nucleus, not the cytoplasm, which is another reason why there are mechanisms in cells to get rid of it when it is detected in the cytoplasm:
In fairness, at least with this study we are told where the vaccines used in the study came from in more concrete terms:
Expired unopened vials of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (n=8) and Moderna Spikevax 113 mRNA-1273 (n=16) were obtained from various pharmacies in Ontario, Canada (Figure 114 1). Three vials of in-date remnants of the same lot of Moderna XBB.1.5 vaccine were also 115 obtained. In total, 12 lots were surveyed across 27 mRNA vials: 5 lots of Moderna 116 child/adult monovalent, 1 lot of Moderna adult bivalent BA.4/5, 1 lot of Moderna child/adult 117 bivalent Wuhan-BA.1, 1 lot of Moderna XBB.1.5 monovalent, 3 lots of Pfizer adult 118 monovalent, and 1 lot of Pfizer adult bivalent Wuhan-BA.4/5 vaccines. An unopened 119 sterile injectable vial of alprostadil 66 mcg/mL in combination with papaverine 21.7mg/mL 120 and phentolamine 1 mg/mL (TriMix) was used as the negative control. The unopened 121 vials were untampered as they had intact flip-off plastic caps with printed lot numbers and 122 expiration dates. Vials had been stored in a purpose-built vaccine unit at +2-8oC in the 123 pharmacies and were transported in insulated containers with frozen gel packs and 124 placed in the testing laboratory fridge within 5 hours. Only one Moderna vial did not have 125 a printed expiration date but had a QR code that required scanning by a pharmacist. The 126 Moderna XBB.1.5 vials were similarly stored by the pharmacy. Vials were removed from 127 the refrigerator, warmed for ~20 minutes, and administered by the pharmacist to patients 128 over ~30 minutes. The remnant vials were placed in an insulated container with frozen 129 gel packs and transported to the testing laboratory fridge within 12 hours. 130
Samples from these vaccines were subjected to quantitative PCR (qPCR) using sets of primers designed to amplify sequences associated with the gene for spike protein, ori (the origin site of the plasmid used, presumably a measure of just the plasmid), and the SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori DNA. A standard curve was constructed using known amounts of target DNA, so that the signal obtained from the unknowns could be quantified and the amount of target DNA in them calculated. As I’ve explained before, the SV40 promoter-enhancer is often used in plasmids because it is a very strong promoter that can drive the production of lots of the desired mRNA encoded by the cDNA sequence attached to it. (Seriously, it’s nothing more nefarious than that.) Even though the plasmids used for mRNA vaccines are grown in bacteria and then transcribed to mRNA in an in vitro reaction, a lot of “stock” plasmids have SV40 promoter sequences in them. In this case, although I don’t know the reason why SV40 is included on this particular plasmid, I suspect it’s for dual use purposes and possibly as part of the attempted development of a DNA vaccine, so that the same plasmid could be used to generate spike protein in cell culture. Whatever the reason, it’s not dangerous.
Here’s a map of a typical generic plasmid, just to give you a visual reference:
For the Qubit assay, the authors used AccuGreen® HS fluorescence reagents from from Biotium. The authors also did some assays to determine the distribution of sizes of the DNA fragments in base pairs (bp). Let’s start with their “money” graph, Figure 5:
Does anyone notice anything about the top panel of the graph? You should. Basically, by the authors’ own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the FDA guidance of 10 ng DNA/dose. Did you also notice the little trick they did? They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is. For instance, in all the Moderna vials, the amount of DNA isn’t half of the recommended limit, it’s less than one-tenth the recommended limit, and, in the case of the ori sequence, well under 1/100 of the limit. The abstract itself even notes that the authors found DNA at “0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 – 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR.” So, from McKernan and Rose’s own data, the vial with the very highest concentration of DNA was one Pfizer vial that had less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA, while the Moderna vial with the most plasmid DNA contamination had less than one-tenth the maximum recommended by the FDA. In other words, there’s a whole lot of nothing here so far.
Before I move on to the Qubit assay results, I note that there’s also an issue that I wondered immediately about regarding why there should be an order of magnitude less ori sequence in the Moderna vaccine compared to spike sequence. In the Pfizer vaccine, there were roughly equal amounts of ori and spike is what one would expect, given that each plasmid only contains one cDNA for spike protein. It’s very odd and makes me question the validity of the assay. Certainly, McKernan and Rose never try to explain this discrepancy. If I were a reviewer for this article, I would certainly bring up that observation and ask for an explanation. (In fairness, the authors do mention it, but do not even speculate why they observed what they did for the Moderna vaccine.)
So now what? The authors got a result that they didn’t like using qPCR, specifically residual DNA content well below (and, for Moderna, quite well below the maximum recommended by FDA guidelines). What to do next? I think you know the answer. They used a different assay to do the same measurements. Enter Qubit.
By Qubit, they measured much, much more residual DNA (presumably plasmid DNA) in the vaccines, orders of magnitude more:
The amount of residual DNA varied substantially between lots (0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose for Pfizer ori, 0.22 – 2.43 ng/dose for Pfizer spike, 0.01 – 0.34 ng/dose for Moderna ori, 0.25-0.78 ng/dose for Moderna spike) when tested by qPCR. Fluorometer based measurements (e.g., Qubit®) of the vaccines show 2,567 ± 618 ng/dose (range: 1,896 to 3,720 ng/dose) for Pfizer and 4,280 ± 593 ng/dose (range: 3,270 to 5,100 ng/dose) for Moderna suggesting a high fraction of the DNA is under the size range of the qPCR amplicons.
A rule of thumb if you’re a scientist: If two different analytical methods result in such different readings, something is going on and that something is usually method-related rather than a real difference. Of course, note how, instead of investigating further to try to figure out the reason for the discrepancy, McKernan and Rose assume that they are seeing a real difference and immediately look for a reason to conclude that the DNA measurements orders of magnitude higher are the “correct” ones that most reflect reality. Elsewhere, they try to argue that even very tiny DNA fragments are highly dangerous:
The FDA guidelines are also written to only quantitate DNA fragments of 200 bp or 518 greater, in part because fragments smaller than this were not considered to be able to 519 produce a functional gene. However, Klinman et al.,31 suggests that fragments as small 520 as 7bp can pose integration risks.
Naturally, I looked up the reference cited, which notes:
In evaluating the potential harm of plasmid integration, it should be noted that the risk of introducing plasmids with strong regulatory regions into the host genome far exceeds that associated with random point mutations [43;50]. Moreover, the technology used to detect plasmid persistence does not examine the frequency with which short fragments of plasmid integrate. In this context, sections of DNA as short as 7 bp can affect rates of integration or recombination. Examples include the VDJ recombination signal sequence and related sequences, chi-like elements and minisatellites, ALU sequences, a recombinase signal present in hepatitis B and mammalian genomes, and topoisomerase II recognition sites [43].
This section appears to me to be talking not about short sequences on an intact plasmid that serve as regulatory elements in the context of DNA vaccines, which would involve the injection of huge quantities of DNA. It’s a different beast, and using that reference is rather deceptive.
In fairness, though, the authors did do one thing, which was to do use Oxford Nanopore sequencing to quantify the average size of the DNA fragments detected, but they only did it with one “previously studied vial” of Pfizer vaccine. Naturally, their results don’t support their speculation that there are huge quantities of short bits of DNA in the vaccines not being detected by qPCR. In fact, the amount of DNA between 45 and 73 bp is very tiny.
This brings up another issue. The amplicons (stretches of DNA amplified by the PCR primers used) are only a little more than 100 bp (105 bp for ori, 114 bp for spike). Only a small percentage of DNA is less than 100 bp. Also, as I like to point out (and would have, if I were reviewing the manuscript), you can amplify shorter sequences, although in fairness it’s hard to amplify much shorter than around 70 bp, and for qPCR an amplicon size between 70-200 bp is generally recommended. Still, think about what McKernan and Rose are saying. They are claiming that, by Qubit analysis, there are greater than microgram quantities of residual plasmid DNA in the vaccines, which is a huge amount of DNA. By Qubit, the average amount of DNA is 600-fold higher than the maximum measured by qPCR in Pfizer vaccines; for Moderna vaccines, it’s nearly 5,500-fold higher. These are discrepancies of a magnitude that would make any good scientists search hard for a methodological explanation rather than just accept the highest number because it’s the most useful for their narrative, the latter of which is what, of course, McKernan and Rose did.
Then they claimed that they could explain the higher number by Qubit by their supposedly being huge quantities of short DNA fragments that PCR won’t detect. Yet their own Nanopore analysis, albeit of only one vial, does not support this speculation for the cause of the discrepancy between the two methods. I also had another thought. I know from reading the package inserts (irony of my noting this understood) that the AccuGreen fluoresecent dye used is “highly selective” for double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) over RNA. However, one would expect, given the qPCR results, that the vaccine, once the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) were disrupted by 95° C heat before PCR and before the Qubit assay, would have orders of magnitude more RNA than dsDNA. When there is a lot more RNA than dsDNA, even a highly selective assay could be affected by the RNA.
Yet McKernan and Rose didn’t do the most obvious control: Treat the solution with RNase, an enzyme that chews up RNA but not DNA, before doing the Qubit assay. (A qPCR assay wouldn’t be affected by a lot of RNA because the RNA was not reverse-transcribed.) Were I reviewing this paper, I would have insisted on that control. I mean, the authors used DNase to chew up DNA not in LNPs in order to estimate how much DNA was in the LNPs (and thus protected from DNase digestion) than was free in solution wit the LNPs. Surely they could have used an RNase to make sure that the large amounts of RNA one would expect in the LNPs was not interfering with their fluorescence assay. I mean, it’s an obvious control that they didn’t do.
This brings us to the VAERS results, which are hilariously bad. Rose and McKernan looked at the lot numbers for each vial and then searched VAERS for AE reports for that lot. Then they divided the number of serious AEs by total number of AEs for each lot and then graphed them against the DNA concentration that they had measured in the vials they had from that lot.
Figures 8 and 9 tell the tale:
Figure 9 shows the qPCR results for Pfizer (upper panel) and Moderna (lower panel). The Moderna results are plotted in separate panels because of the huge differences found between ori and spike sequences. First of all, these graphs are what we used to like to call “star charts” in the labs that I’ve worked in. There are too few points for anything resembling statistical power, and there doesn’t appear to be much of a correlation. Even more hilarious, look how they did their curve fitting:
The curves were plotted on a logarithmic axis and a trend line drawn using the 227 linear function within Microsoft® Excel.
You read that right. They used Microsoft Excel to do the curve fitting! Seriously, though, they could have used any software, and the results would have been just as risibly bad. Their using Excel instead of a real statistics package is just the chef’s kiss, the cherry on top of the crap science sundae, particularly given, as Ed Nirenberg points out, the Qubit assay actually contradicts their hypothesis:
Meanwhile, someone else also noted:
I’ll be honest. By this point, I was too tired to go dumpster diving into VAERS to try to figure out how much Rose and McKernan had gotten wrong. It wasn’t necessary anyway. Even if every single VAERS entry they cited were absolutely perfectly cited, their analysis is still laughably awful science so bad that I’ll assume that Prof. El-Deiry never bothered to read the methods or the rest of the manuscript aside from the abstract and what McKernaan said about it on Twitter, like this:
In the end, this is yet another awful study that, even if taken at face value and assuming the methodology was valid and analyzed correctly, doesn’t show what the authors claim that it shows. Add the methodological questions and the lack of some key controls, and it’s not only not good evidence for harm from residual plasmid DNA left in COVID-19 vaccines, but it’s downright uninterpretable.
With this study, McKernan and Rosen have joined the long, dishonorable list of antivax “scientists” producing bad science to support their antivaccine fear mongring going all the way back to Andrew Wakefield.
151 replies on “VAERS and plasmid DNA “contamination” of COVID-19 vaccines: The nonsense continues”
Anti-Vax scientists trying to do real science against vaccine advocates is like a Pop Warner youth team trying to play football against a Pac-12 collegiate football team!
It’s is just ridiculous how in over their head that antivaxxers always are!
A. Did they try to explain this inverse correlation?
B. When Rose, at least, goes looking for a real academic job, since the antivaccine gig is unlikely to keep paying without the pandemic, this kind of bad work should, in fairness, work against her.
[…] articolo quindi si basa sulle analisi di Orac, che potete trovare qui nella loro interezza, e che spiegano perché il preprint in questione è problematico e perché non […]
I’ve posted the following comment to the Substack of Dr. Byram Bridle, at https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/explosive-story-health-canada-admits/
“Dr. Bridle, I have no scientific background and will not be able to judge the science, but for me to continue to trust the doctors and scientists who are questioning the mainstream scientific viewpoint, I need to see a comprehensive response to the arguments being presented by Dr. David Gorski at his blog. Here’s his latest post on the DNA contamination issue: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/10/21/vaers-and-plasmid-dna-contamination-of-covid-19-vaccines-the-nonsense-continues/
You keep asking for debates, well, you can post a comment there without having to pay any fee and thus engage directly with Dr. Gorski, which is what I personally would like to see to be able to better judge who to trust (the only thing I’d suggest is to save your comments before posting as there may be a character-limit which will truncate your post and require one or more additional posts to finish).
I’ve posted that link on Dr. Malone’s and Dr. McKernan’s Substacks as well, so you may want to contact them first so there is no duplication of effort. But I sincerely hope someone will engage with him directly, as otherwise that seems to indicate a fear of doing so.”
Bridle won’t do it. He can’t monetize commenting on someone else’s blog.
While I am having doubts as to who is correct on complex scientific issues I’m unable to judge, for the most part, and I appreciate your allowing comments here without having to pay any fee, nevertheless I have sympathy for doctors and scientists whose careers have suffered or been lost altogether because they courageously expressed their honest point of view with regard to medical matters for the sake of saving lives, imo – i.e. Dr. Pierre Kory with regard to ivermectin, among other instances – and I have no problem with their trying to compensate by having paid subscriptions on their blogs. I think you hurt your case by accusing people of expressing views primarily, or in large part, for the sake of money – with motivations, of course, being about impossible to prove (correct me if you haven’t done that, but I think you often have). I think such criticism rises to the level of defamation (or should) if stated as being fact rather than opinion. I think Dr. Bridle generally, if not completely, avoids criticizing people in that way.
Funny how you don’t like me pointing out that people like Pierre Kory now make a lot of money selling quackery but seem nowhere near as troubled (correct me if I’m wrong) when Kory’s fans and other antivaxxers frequently claim that I am in the pay of big pharma and that’s the only reason I do what I’m doing. As for Kory and ivermectin, he was wrong. Ivermectin does not treat COVID-19. That is not even debatable from a scientific standpoint anymore, so overwhelming has the evidence become. If Kory had just admitted that he was wrong and moved on, I doubt he would be viewed in nearly as low esteem as he is now. But he didn’t do that, did he? He kept selling ivermectin plus a lot of other unproven nonsense in an “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to COVID-19—and now to COVID-19 “vaccine injury.
Kory has also gone fully antivax. I still remember his Tweet from December 2022:
https://twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1606830454006587393
Quote:
That’s the very definition of antivaccine.
I’m sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities, but to me that statement above is very strong evidence that Dr. Kory is an antivaxxer. In my opinion, he is also a grifting quack.
It does trouble me that some people claim you’re in the pay of big pharma and that’s the only reason you do what you’re doing. I don’t believe that myself and I think there’s a good amount of unreasonableness on both sides of the pandemic-response and vaccine issues. I still think Kory is right with regard to ivermectin at least, however, with his explanations of how the pharmaceutical industry has “captured” the high-impact medical journals, our health agencies and the RCT process – with the most-cited studies which found no statistically-significant effectiveness for ivermectin “designed to fail” – seeming quite reasonable to me. I think he summed up the techniques used well in this recent interview: https://rumble.com/v3n61vp-frosti-logason-podcast-s01e55-propaganda-and-fraud-in-the-pharmaceutical-in.html (28 min with most of the info in the first 17). Perhaps you or someone here can watch and let me know if you’ve responded previously to the exact arguments he is making. I’m not sure that you have.
I don’t watch long YouTube videos by quacks, as it’s an incredibly inefficient use of time. Has he written this up somewhere?
Also, nearly every disappointed doc blames the clinical trial design when it fails to find a benefit. I’ve read the most cited trials. The designs have been fine.
Also, ivermectin was never a plausible treatment from a scientific standpoint anyway. It requires a concentration in cell culture to inhibit viral growth that’s something like 75-fold higher than what can be safely achieved in the human bloodstream. Based on that alone, I was utterly unsurprised when it failed in RCTs. If ivermectin were a lead compound, no drug company would’ve pursued taking it to clinical trials for COVID because its pharmacology for COVID sucks big time.
When it comes to ivermectin Kory is a deluded fool or grifter. Or both.
“effectiveness for ivermectin “designed to fail” – seeming quite reasonable to me.”
I’m sure a person of your reasonableness will have noted the two problems in your comment.
Are you qualified to judge RCT methodology?
A person who claims a product works obviously has no reason financially or professionally for wanting a test biased towards positive results eh?
By Kory’s standard, apparently, all drug RCTs are “designed to fail.” Also, remember that Kory’s claim isn’t just that ivermectin is effective against COVID, but that it’s very effective, damned near miraculously so. If ivermectin were as effective as claimed, the RCT Kory bemoans would’ve detected it, “designed to fail” or not.
Here’s a paper last updated January 2021 which seems to address your concern about blood concentration on Page 5, and on Page 6 purports to show evidence of anti-inflammatory properties which contribute to its effectiveness as well: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
I’ll try to transcribe or lay out the serious problems, according to Kory, with the design of the RCTs which found no effectiveness later today. His argument seems compelling to me but I would like to hear your evaluation.
That “paper” (not peer reviewed and not even a good review”) does not address the huge disparity between in vitro activity of ivermectin and claimed clinical activity. In fact, I laughed as I read it, given how it was such obvious bullshit. While it does mention that the concentration required to achieve in vitro effects is higher than the concentration that can safely be achieved in the human bloodstream, it does not mention just how much higher (a hell of a lot!) that concentration is and just engages in a bunch of handwaving without data and evidence claiming that in vitro studies don’t include the whole physiology of the organism and that “it would have worked” in vitro if they had exposed the cells to the lower concentrations for a prolonged time. (75-fold lower concentrations for a long time would have worked? I highly doubt it.)
I might have accepted such an argument for a difference of a few-fold, having worked with a drug that seems to work in mice against cancer at a concentration of about 5-fold less than what is required in vitro, but making the same claim for a 75-fold disparity is stretching pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic plausibility to the breaking point. It’s obvious bullshit. Again, no pharmaceutical company that came up with ivermectin as a lead compound, seeing how high a concentration it takes to inhibit viral growth, etc., in vitro compared to what can be safely achieved in vivo in, for instance, an animal model, would have bothered to continue development because the pharmacology of the drug alone against COVID makes it highly implausible that it would work in vivo.
Is it possible that ivermectin might have worked? Yes, but just barely. Given its pharmacology against COVID-19, the prior probability that it would have clinically relevant activity against COVID-19 was always incredibly low. If it hadn’t been for all the hype from quacks like Kory and all the conspiracy mongering, hardly anyone would have looked twice at it, much less gone to the expense and trouble of doing large RCTs testing it against COVID.
I suggest you look up the term ‘surrogate outcome’ John.
A miraculous cure will cure miraculously. As Orac said, you can’t hide that kind of efficacy.
@Jon Schultz if ivermectin studies are designed to fail, you can certainly tell us what is wrong with the designs.
None of negative studies is financed by Big Pharma, so cannot use this one.
Not to mention his “treatments” are incoherent lies to anyone who knows anything about clinical medicine. He’s a lying buffoon.
Hi Dr. David Gorski,
I do not take well to so-called professionals who incessantly name-call, label, and judge fellow professionals. Your writings seem to be chock-full of such immaturities. And I’m not convinced that you have first-hand knowledge of most of the people that you accuse. You certainly have not met me, yet you seem to feel empowered to accuse me of only engaging in scientific discourse if it can be monetized. Being an academic faculty member at a taxpayer-supported institution, I consider myself a public servant.
I ask that you carefully review the following peer-reviewed scientific paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4
The science underpinning the ‘misinformation gurus’ and ‘fact checkers’ makes it clear that those who accuse others but then refuse to show up to public discussions trigger this outcome…
“not turning up to the discussion at all seems to result in the worst effect [in terms of countering misinformation]”
So, Dr. Gorski, I respectfully request that you and I hold a respectful, moderated discussion about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots. I recently engaged in a public discussion, although the individual had never accused me of spreading misinformation. As you can see, it was very professional and respectful:
https://open.substack.com/pub/viralimmunologist/p/scientific-discourse-about-covid?r=109bxj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
There was no name-calling, no yelling, no labeling, and no judgment. It was entirely evidence-based. Both of us had equal opportunities to share our points of view. The public loved it and have asked for many more of these kinds of talks, especially between those with very disparate views.
Please email me at [email protected] and let’s arrange a similar public discussion. Please put “Public Discussion” in the subject line so I can find it among my overwhelming number of emails. To reiterate, we do not have to talk to each other. Instead, we can have equal engagement with the public and let them take from the conversation what they want. I am happy to have the discussion in real-time online, or in-person. Perhaps we could speak at a venue ~halfway between us. I would even be willing to meet you at a venue near your border in Windsor, Ontario, if that helps.
I don’t have a lot of time to screen my emails for responses that may never come. So, let’s set a time limit for accepting this offer. I have recorded noon EST next Friday, November 3rd, as the time that I will search my email for a response from you under the heading of “Public Discussion”.
I have also set aside a couple of hours after that to write a Substack article about the outcome of this invitation.
There is a reason anti-vaccine activists prefer a theatrical debate, where the assessment is not on the evidence, but on theatrics.
They’re better at theatrics than evidence.
Note that Dr. Gorski criticizes you after having debunked previous claims you make in detail. Here is a lengthy discussion of a previous bit of misinformation from you. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/14/covid-19-vaccines-and-female-infertility-a-lie-that-never-dies/
Note that the study you share supports the need for countering and rebutting misinformation. That’s what Dr. Gorski does. he does not have to do a theatrical debate with you for that: correcting you on his blog gets the job done.
Hi Dorit,
Ask Dr. Gorski to follow the ‘misinformation science’. As per the peer-reviewed literature, those who fail to show up to invited public discussions are cowards and, by default, assumed to be wrong. You know very well that there is a big difference between writing ramblings in isolation versus a real-time discussion where there is nowhere to hide. There are no theatrics involved. Watch the video where I provided a solid evidence-based arguments alongside a physician. Clearly you know not of what you speak. Not bothering to take the time to review other people’s evidence does not make it wrong. When a team doesn’t show up to the game, the other team wins by default. That’s how it works. You can’t legitimately claim to the champion, yet never compete. So far, it looks like your so-called champion is unwilling to enter the arena. Sorry, but that makes him a coward no matter how you try to justify it. Why don’t you ask him to include your reference to his article about me part of the proposed discussion. If he doesn’t accept the offer, I would suggest that you start questioning why he is unwilling or unable to discuss things like a mature professional. Only fools field cowards as their champions.
Sincerely,
Byram
Dorit,
I just checked out the hit piece that Dr. Gorski wrote that you pointed me to. I’m not going to get into all the details, but suffice it to say that I never made a claim that the modRNA shots affect fertility in the interview that Gorski was critiquing. I said the LNPs clearly traffic to the ovaries, which raises the POSSIBILITY of issues and I called for research to be done (we call this the precautionary principle; something that many ‘misinformation gurus’ and non-researchers have thrown out). And you do realize, that I was critiqued as though I had published a scientific article, when in reality it was a short radio interview in which I was addressing a lay audience? So, Gorski’s article is largely nonsense in terms of anything directed at me. This is precisely why real-time conversations for the benefit of the public are so valuable. Among many other benefits, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and assumptions can be resolved on the spot, which saves everyone a whole lot of heartache. Yet another reason for Gorski to step up to the plate; he has a demonstrated history of misquoting people.
Ah, so you were just JAQing off. Thank you for clarifying. I will consider going back and linking to your comment to point out your admission.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Nope. The advantage of “live public debates” for cranks is that rhetoric and stage presence trump data and they can Gish gallop, which is very difficult to counter in real time.
It’s not as though I haven’t discussed this many times before, and you’re basically following a very old tactic. For instance, I was writing about it a decade ago:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
More recently:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/02/07/debate-me-bros-in-the-age-of-covid-19-disinformation/
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/03/04/debate-and-censorship-vs-quality-control/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/rfk-jr-and-joe-rogan-putting-the-old-denialist-technique-of-bad-faith-debate-me-bro-challenges-on-steroids/
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/04/17/neil-degrasse-tyson-demonstrates-why-debating-cranks-is-a-horrible-idea/
The study you linked to did not say that. I understand you are desperate for a debate, likely since you realize you are failing to support yourself here and hope a televised forum where you could go for charisma rather than evidence would hep you.
But honestly, if you can support your beliefs with evidence you should be able to do it here.
That must be why one of your first moves was to express your “concern”—so much “concern”!—about articles you found upon Googling me, such as the one by disinformation spreader Mike Adams’ that is full of outright lies about me, the fake negative reviews about me on a doctor’s site, and a deceptive article by Paul Thacker about me and then say that these sources were “concerning.” Sorry, but you don’t get to complain about “name calling” and “judging” and then do exactly the same thing, just in a much more “polite”- and “concerned”-seeming way.
A stereotypical response from a self-proclaimed ‘misinformation guru’. Taking things out of context and playing the victim role. Grow up. Are you going to accept my invitation or admit, by default, as the ‘misinformation science’ proves, that you are a coward who lacks the knowledge and expertise to stand a chance in a real-time discussion where you don’t have the chance to retreat to endless internet searches to try to come up with arguments? To not accept will look very bad in the public eye when your own science states that this is exactly what needs to be done. How will Dorit be able to accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about if her champion is never willing to enter the proverbial arena?
@Dr. Bridle I too would like to see live discussion – I think you can learn a lot about someone from the sound of their voice and seeing how they interact, if they are willing to listen and not be evasive with regard to points the other person is trying to make – but I’m not sure a single, in-person event is the best way to go. If the discussion is a mutual search for consensus for the sake of public knowledge and health – and not a contest to see who is intellectually or morally superior – it shouldn’t be a one-time debate, imo, but a series of at least two or three video discussions, between which the participants can review the studies and points raised by the other person in the previous session. Perhaps Tom Woods, who moderated a very respectful discussion between Drs. Eric Topol and Martin Kulldorff with regard to the Great Barrington Declaration, would be a moderator acceptable to you both: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG6sGowVz6M
I, or someone else, could also set up a neutral-as-possible forum for discussion about the sessions – since YouTube comments are heavily censored, in my experience, I think automatically by algorithm – so everyone who feels they can add to the discussion can do so.
So apparently I was mistaken that Byram Bridle wouldn’t show up in the comments of my blog because he couldn’t monetize it. Apparently he is a glutton for punishment, willing to subject himself to it without pay. My apologies. I do sometimes make mistakes.😂
I think you’re being too generous here. Note that most of his comments are demands for a theatrical debate, and I bet he can monetize that. He did not really answer the substantive responses.
Bridle is an expert witness
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/controversial-u-of-g-prof-called-as-vaccine-expert-in-family-court-fight-6088356
Hi Jon,
First, thankyou for being open to respectful scientific discourse. To specify, what I am seeking are real-time public discussions with anyone who would accuse me of spreading misinformation. As per the scientific literature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0632-4) real-time discussions are, by far, the best way for the public to assess expertise and to debunk genuine mis/disinformation. Writing back and forth is inefficient and can be a cover for knowledge gaps. Almost anyone can find at least one piece of scientific literature that seems to back up what they are saying. What the public needs to see is where the overall weight of the evidence lies. A person with lesser expert cannot hide that fact in real time.
I don’t know anything about Dr. Gorski, but a quick internet search yielded many concerning articles, a few of which include…
https://shiftfrequency.com/gorski-victims-get-usd8-million/
https://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/329899/Dr-David-Gorski-Detroit-MI.html/
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/gorskis-law-a-skeptic-ends-discussion
I cannot judge the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by others. I can attest to having been defamed prolifically online. But, a key difference is that I read examples of people trying to engage with Dr. Gorski, but he declined. That is a sure sign of someone whose messaging cannot be considered legitimate. In my case, I have invited every single person who would accuse me of spreading misinformation to publicly discuss their concerns with me. To date, only one agreed, and that was somebody who actually shared a lot of my views. We shared a mutual interest in having a professional, respectful discourse, in the absence of name-calling, labeling, or judgement. This discussion can be viewed here:
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/scientific-discourse-about-covid
It was non-confrontational. Both parties simply had equal opportunities to engage the public. The public feedback was exceptionally positive, with many calling for more of these kinds of events.
No other accuser has ever been willing to discuss the scientific foundations of my messaging.
I noted in his response to you that Dr. Gorski has accused me of only discussing science if it is monetized. He clearly does not know me, but was willing to judge me anyways.
I will respond directly to Dr. Gorski below and invite him to have a public discussion about the COVID-19 shots. Please encourage him to participate. If he does not accept the offer, all I ask is that you make that public. People need to see who is willing walk the walk after talking the talk. …and who isn’t.
Let’s just say that I’m not impressed with your actual sincerity given that you have cited outright lies about me. For example, that first link is from Mike Adams, whose article is full of lies about me. Are you familiar with Mike Adams? I suggest that you peruse some articles about him:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/tag/mike-adams/
In 2016, Mike Adams launched a smear campaign about me in which he reported me to the FBI on on false charges and tried like hell to link me with Dr. Fata even though I don’t recall ever having met the man, much less having worked with him as claimed. Moreover, Dr. Fata was NEVER on the staff of my cancer center, nor, as Adams claims, have I ever impersonated patients to give myself favorable reviews. On the other hand, antivaxxers have shown up on MD ratings sites like the one you cite and provided fake negative reviews. (Seriously, they are very easy to spot and have been a favored tactic of antivaxxers for a long time against not just me but any doctor who combats antivax misinformation online.) But, then, I suspect you knew that when you cited Rate MD as “concerning” about me.
You might have gotten me into a discussion if you hadn’t cited longtime well-known disinformation spreaders like Mike Adams and fake reviews of me on doctor rating sites. Unfortunately, your citing such sources tells me that you are not engaging in good faith, making me suspect that engaging you in good faith would be a waste of my time. No doubt you’ll write another whiny post about me on your Substack. Such is life. People far worse than you have done the same, for instance, Paul Thacker, whom you also cited.
I’ll just leave a couple of links for you explaining more about why I don’t “debate” antivaxxers, basically in order to say that I agree with Tim Caulfield:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/04/19/byram-bridle-is-upset-at-timothy-caulfield-because-he-wont-debate-antivaxxers
Again, you might have enticed me if you hadn’t gone Googling for attacks on me and then included them in one of your initial comments them with an oh-so-implausible expression of “concern.”
Dr. Gorski,
I knew it. I recognized your MO right away as being very similar to Caulfield’s. Have you checked Caulfield’s X posts recently. He has got to be one of the most ratio’d ‘misinformation gurus’ on the planet. You do realize that a few years ago he was lecturing the ‘misinformation experts’ on how fabulous the article that I cited is; he was so excited to announce the lack of validation of the ‘backfire effect’. You know very well why he won’t have a discussion with me. Did you not read that I acknowledge that many people get defamed, including me. In fact, I have now learned that you are one of those people. But, pat yourself on the back for taking the selectivity/victimhood scheme right out of Caulfield’s playbook. How long are you going to talk the talk but not walk the walk? The public is tiring quickly of the people who do this. What could possibly go wrong with an online discussion in which we each address the audience, not each other, followed by equal opportunities to answer questions from the viewers? Are you not confident of the outcome? If not, why not? I’m sensing cowardice and a lack of confidence in your expertise.
Calling a genuine vaccinologist an ‘antivaxxer’ is also so typical of a ‘misinformation expert’. Have you seen my publications. If you want to discuss the textbook definition of an ideal vaccine, you can I can pat one another on the back all day long; I’ll defend that as well. The COVID-19 modRNA shots are nowhere close to being ideal vaccines. Want to know why? Let’s chat.
I will keep calling you out so your loyal fans can see how confident you are in your ability to hold up in a real-time discussion with members of the public.
You notice that you yourself made a false claim about Orac ? What if that had been happened in a public debate ? It would have been you against him. A faact check is needed there. Show some documents to prove your clsim.
Thank you, Dr. Bridle, for acceding to my request that you post here. I hope, however, that you will reconsider your decision not to continue participating in the discussion. I’m not sure how many followers Dr. Gorski has but some of them are doctors, who I imagine will see the discussion, and if you can effectively rebut all or most of Dr. Gorski’s points then I think numerous people will link to the discussion on X and elsewhere. I am hoping you and Dr. Gorski can agree on two things: 1) that you both could possibly learn something from considering what the other has to say; and 2) that it doesn’t really matter who has been more unreasonable up to this point or who is right, with regard to the science, but whether or not pregnant women, children from 6 months of age and others should have been advised, and should still be advised, to take the Covid shots. I could be wrong but I think Dr. Gorski is a sincere man who will admit he was making mistakes if it becomes clear to him that he has been – and I think the same of you – so I request that you reconsider your position, at least for now. Thank you again.
Hi Jon,
One thing that I forgot to mention in my reply to you was an example of how Dr. Gorski is misleading people with this blog post. As I mentioned, I don’t have the time, nor is it the most effective, to rebut everything in writing in a comments section that very few people will ever read. However, I do think it is important to demonstrate that there are major flaws with Dr. Gorski’s reasoning. So, here are a few examples.
Example 1: “It’s a conspiracy theory that goes right back to the old conspiracy theory that contamination with SV40 virus found in polio vaccines in the early 1960s was responsible for a wave of cancer decades later. (Hint: It wasn’t. Also, SV40 promoter sequences are not the same thing as the intact SV40 virus, the latter of which is oncogenic.)” Note the contradiction. Dr. Gorski conclusively stated that SV40, which was known to have contaminated polio vaccines, could not possibly have caused cancers. He then proceeded to correctly identify SV40 as being oncogenic (i.e., cancer-causing). So, how can he definitively prove that a cancer-causing virus injected into people didn’t cause any cancers?
Example 2: Dr. Gorski spent a lot of time arguing that cells are very inefficient at taking up DNA vaccines (i.e., naked DNA plasmids). Generally speaking, he is correct. Except, phagocytic cells of the immune system are designed to acquire particulates, so they can do this more efficiently than other cells (albeit still inefficiently). However, what he failed to consider, but did confirm later in his text, is that the DNA fragments contaminating the modRNA shots are in and/or adsorbed on the surface of the lipid nanoparticles (the DNA has a negative charge, the cationic lipids in the nanoparticles are positively charged). As such, they are not naked pieces of DNA. The lipid nanoparticles would ensure very efficient uptake by all cell types.
Example 3: Dr. Gorski could not understand why two different methods would be used to quantify the DNA. The authors were showing that the methods yielded very different results. Why is this important? Because the European Medicines Agency uses the ratio of DNA to RNA as their quality control cut-off. He did not disclose that they allowed the use of the PCR assay, which underestimates the amount of DNA, to quantify the DNA in the vials. But they allowed the RNA to be quantified using a different assay that vastly overestimates the amount of RNA. This seems like a strategy to bias the results in favour of showing a acceptable ratio of DNA to RNA. Further, Dr. Gorski did not disclose that regulatory agencies allowed the Pharma companies to do their own quality control testing and simply report the results; nobody double-checked the accuracy.
Example 4: When talking about the size of the DNA fragments, Dr. Gorski seemed to ignore that the average size was 214 base pairs in length. He correctly identified that 200 base pairs is the size cut-off that was assessed. Contrary to his conclusion, the graph he showed demonstrates that a majority of the fragments were smaller than 214 base pairs.
Example 5: Although all this science is very interesting, Dr. Gorski seems to have missed a key point in this debate. Health Canada has confirmed that the DNA contains a SV40 promoter sequence, that it is bioactive in mammalian cells, that it was not disclosed to them (Pfizer seemed to have removed it from the map they indicated; which was supposed to disclose every bioactive sequence), and they confirmed that this broke their rules. So, Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots are, by definition, adulterated products. I find it frightening that a physician who treats patients would promote the use of an adulterated product, regardless of what the fine details of the science are. Rules are rules, and when regulatory rules are broken by a pharmaceutical company, the historical norm is that they get pulled from the market for obvious reasons. To set any other precedent is not in the best interests of public health.
I could go on, but just wanted to provide some assurance that Dr. Gorski’s take is not the be all and end all on this subject.
Should Dr. Gorski rebut these comments in his blog, I will not reply again. Instead, I stand by my offer for a public discussion with him on the topic.
I can’t believe that someone who claims expertise in molecular biology could have written something so ridiculous, obviously conflating a short promoter sequence (the SV40 promoter) with the whole SV40 virus, whose large T antigen is oncogenic. As for how we know that SV40 contamination didn’t result in a surge of cancers, we have epidemiological studies dating back 20+ years.
Also, I highly recommend this video that even more thoroughly dissects McKernan’s nonsensical study, in particular explaining why they Qubit assay results are almost certainly artifacts of the high mRNA concentration relative to leftover plasmid DNA concentration in the vaccines:
I’m not sure Dr. Bridle did conflate the SV40 promoter with the whole SV40 virus, since I believe he was correctly saying the whole virus was in the polio shots, not the Covid ones. He simply hasn’t responded, at least yet, to your and Ms. Reiss’ comments about the epidemiological studies.
Then, Dr. G., after refusing to watch 17 minutes of the Kory video which I asked you to watch, on the grounds that it would take up too much of your time, saying you prefer to review written arguments – after which I took a fair amount of my time to transcribe many of his remarks, which you haven’t responded to (or my question about whether the blood concentration issue invalidates the numerous other possible mechanisms of effectiveness referenced in Dr. Kory’s paper) – you refer Dr. Bridle to a 13-minute YouTube video which may or may not address his example points 2-5 (I haven’t watched yet). So I think the ball is in your court to rebut those points in writing and perhaps add other points from the video.
Dr. Gorski,
I am getting really concerned about your ability to interpret basic writing. Are you not taking the time to read things properly? Please read what you said and what I said. I never stated that the SV40 enhancer has proven to be oncogenic. I merely pointed out that you stated SV40 (it’s not ‘SV40 virus’; the “V” in “SV” is ‘virus’; it is not the simian virus 40 virus) is oncogenic AND you noted it was in the polio vaccines, yet you made a definitive declaration that there was no way that an oncogenic virus in the polio shots could possibly cause cancers.
What we are showing to Jon here is exactly why back and forth writing is so inefficient for a scientific discussion. Are you willing to follow the science and discuss this in public?
You seem unable to read as well, as I didn’t say what you think I said, that you claimed that the SV40 promoter or enhancer is oncogenic.
This is what I wrote:
And you have been conflating the two things, likely because you know that, thanks to all the fear mongering about SV40, mentioning SV40 promoter/enhancer sequences without distinguishing them from the SV40 virus will result in more people being afraid of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. True, you didn’t explicitly claim that the SV40 promoter/enhancer was oncogenic, but, again, that’s not what I claimed, and I did take note of your rather precise wording used to construct your straw man argument. You also know that most people don’t have the background in molecular biology to know the difference without its being explained to them.
There are epidemiological studies about polio vaccine and cancer . Read them..
Well, Dr. Bridle, if Dr. Gorski is not going to respond to the numerous scientific points you have made on this page (and to what I think are the very reasonable questions I have raised as well) then I think he has been terribly evasive and there is very much to be said for your insistence that he – and other prominent doctors and scientists who are labeling you, Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Kory and numerous other highly-credentialed and credible-sounding (to many people) scientists as cranks and/or grifters – face you in live discussion, where he won’t be able to be so evasive, or at least his evasiveness will be more evident to those of us who are trying to decide whom to trust.
I think both of you have been somewhat unreasonable with the name calling, which seems to have derailed any chance the two of you will agree to the kind of discussion I was hoping to see here, one in which you both agree to make your reputations and financial interests of less importance than the dilemma many people are facing as to whether they should trust the pandemic-response recommendations being made by our health agencies, and be willing to interact in a non-evasive way, without insults, and admit errors – which one or both of you must be making, unless you are simply lying for some reason – when they become evident (and if either of you do think the other is lying, with regard to any issue, to state that as respectfully as possible without moralistic accusation which I think is always foolish and counterproductive, i.e. “Judge not that you be not judged…”).
I personally am less concerned about the DNA contamination issue than the issues of whether 1) the Covid vaccines have done and are doing more harm than good, both in terms of side effects and Dr. Vanden Bossche’s assertion that they will lead to a variant which is deadly for the fully vaccinated who were not infected first (if I understand him correctly) and 2) whether ivermectin and other treatments being advocated by the FLCCC and Dr. McCullough, among others, have been unfairly dismissed and this has resulted in significant damage – which is why I tried to pivot to the ivermectin issue on this page. My reason for being less concerned is Dr. Malone’s statement that “In my mind the risk is not acute; I’m not hyper-alarmed about this” (which apparently you disagree with, and I’m not qualified to say which of you is right, so I would like to see a live discussion between you, Dr. Malone and Dr. Vanden Bossche on this issue and the issue of Dr. Vanden Bossche’s assertion noted above).
With that said, I’m not sure the video made by Dr. Wilson addresses the points you made here which Dr. Gorski has ignored to date (your Example points 2-5 plus the points in your response to Garke, while he falsely claimed, imo, that you conflated SV40 with the promoter – and I excuse your not responding about the epidemiological studies because I don’t think any epidemiological study can “definitively prove” no cancers were caused by SV40 in the polio vaccines, which is all you said about that issue in conjunction with your saying that the promoter in the Covid vaccine is reason for concern), nevertheless I found Dr. Wilson’s relatively short presentation to be very credible sounding (apart from his labeling people as “antivaxxers,” which I find appalling) and hope you will address it here or in a video that you make – or provide a link to someone else addressing it in what you feel is a correct and comprehensive way.
Thank you again, I think you have sacrificed much to express your genuine concerns with regard to the pandemic-response issues. People generally don’t become rich and famous by standing up to societal orthodoxies, I think history shows that they more often lose everything they have and are sometimes only recognized for their great work long after they are dead. I think there is a place for the debunking and censoring of people who make pseudo-scientific claims to sell snake-oil products to sick people, but I strongly believe that doesn’t apply to you and the other doctors noted above. I also think the pharmaceutical industry – and associated groups – may be paying people to make pseudo-scientific arguments which sound somewhat similar to yours but which can be easily debunked by people like Dr. Gorski. That’s one of the points Dr. Malone has been making, if I understand him correctly.
Time for Glenn Greenwald…
Methinks you are far too trusting of Dr. Bridle. Notice something? Notice how he’s disappeared? This is what we call the “hit-and-run.” Now, you can argue that he left because he didn’t get anywhere. Maybe. But notice how badly he wanted me to show up in a public “debate” or discussion of some sort. Remember how I said he wouldn’t show up here because he couldn’t monetize it? At first, I thought I might have been mistaken, given that he did show up. Then Dorit set me straight. No doubt, if I had agreed to his “debate” or “discussion,” that would have been monetized. When I refused, he disappeared and left the hit piece to James Lyons-Weiler.
This ain’t my first rodeo.
Well, we’ll see if he comes back or at least responds comprehensively to the video of Dr. Wilson, which is what I would like to see, on his blog. Since his financial health has been seriously affected, I believe, by his expressing his scientific and political views on the pandemic over the past 3-4 years, I have no problem with his trying to monetize his blog as best he can and, if his science is correct, hope he gets super rich by doing so.
In the meantime, sir, are you denying that you have been evasive here, as I described? I think it should be obvious to anyone reading this page as objectively as they can that you have. And how do you propose the average person, with little or no specialized science training, should decide between the contradictory complex scientific arguments of people with decades of experience in their specialist fields? I think there are only two ways. One, we can side with the specialist majority point of view, which I think you perhaps represent, knowing that method has historically often turned out to be the wrong choice, or we can judge by character, by who is willing to engage in scientific discussion – at least with highly-credentialed people who are believed by many people, such as Dr. Bridle and the other people I have referenced – for the sake of people who feel confused with regard to important medical decisions, which I think encompasses a pretty large percentage of the population, without evading the details of the scientific arguments put forth by the other side. I don’t want to hear Dr. Bridle call you a fool or a coward and I don’t want to hear you call him a fool or a grifter – at least until and unless I have seen you both make what I consider to be a good faith effort to address the exact scientific concerns the other is expressing. And in my opinion, for what it’s worth, sir, Dr. Bridle has done a considerably better job of that than you have on this page, up to now. My impression is that you’re a very nice person, Dr. Gorski, but something is rotten in Denmark, imo, and I think it’s important we all find out where the smell’s coming from.
And my impression is that you very much want to believe all the bad things about vaccines Bridle and his fellow antivaxxers are seliing in their messages. Why don’t you just let me worry about my own reputation. I’ve been at this nearly 20 years. Bridle is far from the first oh-so-very offended antivaxxer to whine about my supposed “incivility” and “cowardice” as a tactic to try to shame me into a fake debate, and he won’t be the last, I’m sure.
Far from being evasive, Dr. Gorski wrote a detailed post explaining where he stands, and then let Dr. Bridle comment at length (If not to the point – note his ignoring of quite a few of the points raised in rebuttal), and responded to his comments.
I think people who are not very, very actively looking to believe Dr. Bridle can see that.
I’m not worried about your reputation, Dr. Gorski, I’m just trying to determine who has the most accurate scientific perspective on these matters and am very disappointed in your evasiveness. When I first asked Dr. Bridle to comment here I didn’t expect he would, but thought that if he did you would be more impressive on the science, but the reverse has occurred with your ignoring his arguments – and Dr. Kory’s arguments with regard to the pharmaceutical-industry-influence and ivermectin issues – and basically only linking to Dr. Wilson’s video to support your position.
Now Dr. Robert Malone – who I think is as scientifically qualified as anyone to comment on the DNA contamination issue – has examined the issue more thoroughly and written a comprehensive article – https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/mod-mrna-vaccines-dna-fragment-risks – about it. I still want to see a comprehensive rebuttal of Dr. Wilson’s video, but at this point am finding Dr. Malone’s article – and Dr. Bridle’s arguments – to be more convincing. Perhaps you could write an article analyzing Dr. Malone’s perspective – without ignoring main points, as now seems to be your M.O. – instead of going after people who are much easier for you to criticize.
If you find Malone and Bridle more convincing, it is clear to me that (1) you really, really want to believe; (2) you do not understand the relevant molecular biology; or (3) both.
Be careful what you ask for, though. I saw that post by Malone and had been considering addressing it. What held me back is that it’s basically the same ol’, same ol’.
I definitely do not understand the relevant molecular biology, but I don’t want to believe Dr. Malone, Dr. Bridle, Dr. McKernan, et al. on the scientific aspects (as opposed to political) of the pandemic-response issues – although I would have to admit I have mostly been wrong in my social-media postings and conversations – I would prefer to believe that our health agencies are going a good job, their recommendations can be trusted and millions of people haven’t been harmed by corruption. Again, I’ve been impressed by some recent articles of yours – and I’m impressed that people can make reasonable comments here without having to pay anything – and did expect that you would be more impressive, scientifically, than Dr. Bridle, but you ignored much of what he said and you completely ignored the pharmaceutical-industry-influence and ivermectin-study issues in the Kory-interview transcription I posted, so I’m not very impressed. If you or anyone you find credible has comprehensively responded to those EXACT concerns in the past and you can provide one or more links, I would be appreciate.
If you do respond to Dr. Malone’s article, please try to cover every piece of bolded text in it, he bolds the points he feels are most important. Again, my present criteria on who to trust with regard to these health issues which affect all of us – since I’m not able to judge the complex science – is to simply trust whoever is less evasive of credible-sounding arguments being made by people with impressive credentials, especially if they are influencing many people. I would prefer to see live discussion, as I think Dr. Bridle is correct that affords less opportunity to be evasive, but I’ll take what I can get. I wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with you that he was foolish to be interviewed by Del Bigtree.
Holy hell, I just read Malone’s Substack about the “adulteration.” Let’s just say that “biologically active” as applied to SV40 sequences is doing some seriously heavy lifting far outside of its weight class here. Reading this, it’s hard for me to believe that this man was once a molecular biologist. Of course, the other possible explanation is that he knows he’s peddling bullshit.
Yes, I think a post might be in order. I just can’t decide whether to do it for tomorrow or Friday here or wait until Monday for my turn at SBM. Decisions, decisions…
A. “…how can he definitively prove that a cancer-causing virus injected into people didn’t cause any cancers?” Besides the point that Dr. Gorski made – that you are, either through (troubling) ignorance or through intentional dishonesty conflating the SV40 promoter with the live virus – Dr. Gorski can point out that the 1960s SV40 contamination of polio vaccine did not cause cancer because several large epidemiological studies looked at that, and found no link. This summary of the evidence has a number of references on this. https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/sv40
B. mRNA vaccines are not DNA vaccines.
C. Note that you did not engage with Dr. Gorski’s point, that such large differences between the methods suggest a methodological problem that needs to be explained. In other words, he did address this point.
D. Health Canada said it was aware of the residual DNA. The Epoch Times, apparently, just did not tell readers that. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/regulatory-agencies-knew-residual-dna-covid-mrna-vaccines-no-evidence-health-concern/
I am now even less convinced that Dr. Bridle was acting in good faith with his comments given how rapidly James Lyons-Weiler posted to his Substack an attack on me for my interactions with him in this comment thread. That showed up so fast that it’s really difficult not to suspect that it might have been…planned.
I’m not going to post a link to it here. You can easily find it if you’re curious. It is, however, very convenient how fast Lyons-Weiler had an attack post ready, given that this little dustup in the comments section has only been going for a few hours at most since I first approved Dr. Bridle’s first comments.
Also, it is amusing to me how Dr. Bridle emailed me and Jessica Rose responded very rapidly saying how much she would love to take part in a public “discussion” of the issue of plasmid DNA in the COVID-19 vaccines. I might be a little paranoid given the nearly 20 year history I’ve had of antivaxxers pulling stuff like this on me, but paranoid doesn’t always mean wrong about someone having it out for you.😉
Particularly interesting is how Dr. Bridle appears to have disappeared since his initial comments.
Dr. Bridle and his colleagues sincerely believe, imo, that the Covid vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster, Dr. Gorski, and are continuing to injure and kill large numbers of people, while their scientific arguments in support of their position are largely being ignored – and while you cherry pick and criticize, in their opinion, only points of theirs which you can find flaw in – so it wouldn’t surprise me if they do “have it out” for you, in terms of debunking your point of view.
Let me ask you one question, please. Do you think there is any truth to the assertions of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Kory, Dr. Bridle and I think thousands of other doctors, that the $1.4 trillion (I have heard) pharmaceutical industry – major companies in which have been fined tens of billions of dollars in total for judged misconduct – is exerting undue influence, to any extent, over our health agencies, the medical profession (including the journals, as Dr. Kory asserted) and the major media companies for which its advertising provides a large share of their revenue?
Thank you again for allowing discussion here.
Dr. Gorski,
You are hilarious and getting very desperate to find excuses not to follow the science and discuss this in public. There was no preplanning. They were blind carbon copied on the email that I sent you, which was well before you approved my comments to be posted. Their rapid reactions are clearly because so many of the people that you defame are super-keen to see you follow the science and discuss this. You didn’t seem to tell your fans that Jessica’s response to my email was one sentence. Do you really think it takes more than three hours to compose a sentence. So, once again, are you willing to follow the science and discuss this in public?
This isn’t a good optic for you.
I’m not hiding. My reputation would be as much on the line as yours, if not moreso. After all, I am a vaccinologist, you aren’t.
Why don’t you just let me worry about the “optic” for myself? (Hint: I’m not worried.) Seriously, do you think you’re the first to have come at me like this and tried mightily to “shame” me into a fake “debate”? Antivaxxers and quacks have been periodically doing just that for at least 15 years, if not longer. Water off a duck’s back.
You’ve trashed your own reputation far more effectively than I ever could, even if I were interested in trying to do that.
@Jon Schulz Where id you get trillion vaccine industry ? Value possible refers whole worldwie pharmaceutical industtry, quite different thing,
I don’t because, unlike all of the people you named, I’m not the babbling fool of a conspiracy monger you’d need to be to say that.
My goodness, Dorit. You and Dr. Gorski are embarrassing yourselves. Read my response about this to Dr. Gorski. Also, go read the original email from Health Canada. They clearly confirmed the presence of the SV40 promoter. I am not going to waste time continually rebutting and repeating myself. If you want to see this resolved fully and efficiently, get your champion to follow the science and discuss this in public.
Note that Dr. Bridle did not address my referenced response, which pointed out the data showing that the SV40 contamination in the 1960s did not cause cancer and pointed out health Canada’s statement that they knew of the use of plasmids.
Hyperbole may look good in a televised debate antivaccine activists are desperate for, but does not work so well to counter substance.
1: There lots of epidomiological studies of polio vaccines and cancer. Suggest hat you read them.
2. Uptake into cells is not same thing that incorporating into DNA. T here is an enzyme called integrase for that purpose (as an example)
3. If two measurements gave a hugely different results, either of them must erroneous. Amount of DNA cannot be both nanograms and micrograms.
4. What is problem with that ? You are even more wrong that Orac says
5. You course could cite Health Canada.
There are many epidemiological sudies about polio vaccine and cancer. Read them.
Intaking into cells is not same thing tthan incorporaing into DNA. Latter requires a specific enzyme, for instance integrase,
If two diffrent measures give vastly different results, either of them is wrong, Amount of DNA cannot be both nanograms and micrograms.
What is a problem ? You are even more wronger than Orac says.
You could cite Healh Canada This is from Robert Health Canada said, “We have concluded thaKnnedy Jr: t the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” and that it does rely on manufacturer claims but “conducts an in-depth independent review” to make sure the vaccines meet “our high standards for safety, efficacy and quality.”
I highly recommend referencing Dan Wilson’s new debunking of this pre-print.
Sorry, but Dr. Wilson’s explanation is easier to understand than Orac’s. Overall Dr. Wilson’s communication skills are extraordinary. He should be getting star level support to make sure he keeps making videos.
To each his own. I’m not 100% sure he’s correct about one point, namely that McKernan used the whole plasmid length in order to calculate the amount of plasmid DNA. The methods can be interpreted as McKernan having used the ~100 bp average DNA fragment length to do the calculations. It’s why I didn’t mention that in my post; I wasn’t sure, and it wasn’t necessary to show that the preprint is BS anyway.
The rest is very well done. I wish I could do video like that. I don’t know what I’m doing, and I don’t have the time to really experiment and learn.
Dr. Gorski,
There is a very efficient way to figure out exactly what Kevin McKernan did or didn’t do. It is called ‘having a discussion’. Try it sometime. It is remarkably more efficient and effective than making assumptions. Are you willing to follow the science and discuss this in public?
“Did you know that cells really HATE having foreign nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) inside them? Did you know that they have elaborate, redundant mechanisms to detect and address these?”
This is a strange one, it was supposed to work as a vaccine via spike mRNA getting trafficked to ribosomes and translated in huge amounts. I was actually surprised those defenses were so easily overwhelmed.
Hi Garke,
You make a great point. One thing to note is that the nucleic acids in the modified RNA are synthetic. They are far more resistant to being broken down than natural RNA. That is why they have been found in the body well beyond the ~36 hours we were ‘guaranteed’ over two years ago. As for the DNA, the modRNA can bind to it, making unnatural triple strands. These cannot be efficiently digested by enzymes that would normally degrade DNA very rapidly. This also makes it resistant to the DNA-digesting enzymes that would have been added to try to get rid of the DNA. This is likely why the DNA contamination has occurred. It is an example of the development of the shots exceeding the true speed of science. Further, one reason why the SV40 enhancer sequence is so concerning is that it can facilitate shuttling of the DNA into the nucleus where it would be further shielded from degradation. A plasmid for making modified RNAs for use in humans should not include an enhancer/promoter that is active in mammalian cells. Moderna knew that. Theirs does not have this element. But, Pfizer’s also has the same enhancer/promoter that Moderna used. There was no reason to duplicate this function for clinical use. I suspect Pfizer’s plasmid was designed for efficient preclinical and translational research purposes so they could express gene products in both bacteria and mammalian cells. Not deleting a nucleus-localizing sequence in the clinical plasmid was a profound oversight; likely due to the warp speed nature of the development process. Knowing this might explain why the label for it mysteriously disappeared from the plasmid map (confirmed by both Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency).
Not really. It’s just standard practice for labelling plasmids and not the sinister thing you present it as, as explained here:
“Also no mention of the AmpR promoter, the HSV polyA signal, or the restriction sites. Hence, the “they only omitted the SV40 promoter” is a lie. Only the relevant parts were labeled while the whole sequence was disclosed. Why is this confusing for you?”
https://twitter.com/Debunk_the_Funk/status/1717892701629161589
You’re basically misleading paranoid non-experts who don’t know much about molecular biology, genetics, etc. Folks familiar with those fields can see through what you’re doing.
Yep. While I am not an expert on the very latest in, say, RNAseq and genomic analyses (that’s why I collaborate when needed), it doesn’t take such in-depth knowledge of the latest and greatest to recognize that what those fear mongering about “plasmid DNA in vaccines” and “SV40 in COVID-19 vaccines” nonsense is, in fact, nonsense. All it takes is what I learned in the 1990s about molecular biology, plus all my experience since then doing research using plasmids, lentiviral constructs, shRNA, promoter bashing, quantitative PCR and RT-PCR, etc. to recognize the bullshit that Kevin McKernan and Byram Bridle are peddling.
Did they know ~98% of transcripts are non-coding, and ~50% of human protein coding genes are also anti-sense transcribed in the 1990s? I don’t think so. I mean that is even pre- human genome project. Instead I’d guess it was considered a rare thing, if it was considered at all.
This type of overconfidence in out-of-date “textbook” knowledge can become quite problematic.
Actually, we did know much of that by the time I started my own lab, and I’ve published on noncoding transcripts like microRNAs and how they regulate gene expression. What amuses me is that none of that is relevant to McKernan’s claims about plasmid DNA “contamination.” Nice try, though. Well, not really.
Actually, we did know some of that by the time I started my own lab, and I’ve published on noncoding transcripts like microRNAs and how they regulate gene expression. What amuses me is that none of that is relevant to McKernan’s claims about plasmid DNA “contamination.” Nice try, though. Well, not really. It’s not as though I haven’t kept up with major advances.
Don’t you realize that any sequence not included in a quick plasmid diagram was intentionally hidden because it’s dangerous?
There’s no way manufacturers gave the full plasmid sequence to regulators so that could see such sequences anyway.
[/s]
“What’s your next argument? That the kanamycin resistance gene is toxic?”
https://twitter.com/DavidLMayhew/status/1718278997702840327
“T7 is directly relevant to the in vitro transcription reaction, which is used to make the RNA.
EMA regulators state the whole plasmid sequence was submitted and the SV40 promoter element is not relevant to the final product. Your biased opinion is not relevant.”
https://twitter.com/DavidLMayhew/status/1717527605316870603
I did not know degraes rapidly. Think what you write.
Thanks, Orac, for your response, I’ll see if I can get Dr. Kory to respond to your criticism and let you know if he does, but one question, please, does the blood concentration issue affect all of the possible mechanisms of action described on Pages 5 and 6 of that paper, there’s quite a lot of them with numerous references? In any case I did transcribe most of Kory’s argument in that interview, as best I could. Note in the first paragraph below he says his 11/20 paper did pass peer review and “was about to be published, before they yanked it” – I believe that’s the same paper as the one I linked to, but the linked paper was revised 1/21.
Physicians… get their information from high-impact medical journals, and the high-impact medical journals, in my mind, the foundation for all of the fraud and the corruption and the needless death that has occurred around the destruction of ivermectin, I think that the foundation of it all occurred at the level of the high-impact medical journals because in those journals they wrote articles and editorials… The Number 1 journal in the world is the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal and the Lancet are the top four – and all of them published numerous editorials and fraudulent trials showing that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work, ivermectin didn’t work. That’s where the corruption was….
The trials that supposedly showed that ivermectin didn’t work… there were six very large trials on ivermectin, those were the only trials published in the high-impact medical journals, each trial failed to find a statistically significant benefit with ivermectin, each trial was described as “large, high-quality and rigorous” and they were published in the top journals in the world. And each time they were published huge newspaper and PR campaigns went out: “Ivermectin doesn’t work latest study says!”
So you take a doctor like that [a doctor the interviewer had been quoting] and what does he know? He knows what he sees in the media, he knows what he reads in the journals, and the journals were absolutely crystal clear on this, the best trials showed that it doesn’t work….
It’s actually the biggest trials that were fraudulent. They were the only trials done by investigators that had ties to the pharmaceutical industry
Interviewer: But these articles are peer-reviewed, right?
Kory: Supposedly. To talk about peer-reviewed and how flawed that is, that would be another 3-hour conversation. But you can’t use the words peer-reviewed in regards to those articles and I’ll tell you why. When those articles were published, myself and a large network of deeply committed researchers and scientists – I mean some people experts, spent their lives doing research, conducting trials, analyzing trials – so not just me. I’m a clinician, I’m well-read in medicine, I know how to look at a trial, but the extent and the expertise of which my colleagues were able to deconstruct the actions they took in these trials, what we found was repeated instances of the same tactics. So in each of those trials they did the same tactics, I’ll just list them for you.
Number one. Many of the trials were done in South America, in regions where ivermectin was available over the counter. When they put people into the trials they didn’t take a lot of care to exclude people on ivermectin. So you literally had trials being done where the control group was on ivermectin. It’s very hard to prove that ivermectin is better than ivermectin. So that’s only one thing they did.
The other things they did is they tried to give the drug at lowest dose possible, for as short a duration as possible. There’s no antiviral that I know of that’s in use today that’s given for less than five days. Any antiviral that’s been approved is at least five days of treatment. In the ivermectin trials they would give one dose, sometimes three doses, but never five.
So as short as possible, for as lowest dose as possible. They instituted these new weight limits. So never before in history has there ever been a weight limit to ivermectin dosing because ivermectin is weight based. So if you’re 100 kilos you get a certain dose, if you’re 200 kilos you get another dose. And here in these trials they said “Anyone over 86 kilograms is just going to receive this dose.” So they underdosed the sickest patients. We know that obesity has the worst outcomes so those with the worst outcomes got even worse, they were underdosed. And there’s no explanation for why they gave a dosing limit, there’s no problems with dosing according to weight.
So you can see that they’re literally doing fraudulent actions.
Interviewer: This is intentional?
Kory: It’s totally intentional. And by the way, just so you know this, fraud in pharmaceutical trials has been going on for decades. I mean they are experts. They know how to run a trial to show something works, they know how to design a trial. So this is not new, what I’m describing, this has been well described for decades.
But in terms of ivermectin, the other things that they did is they made sure to use the mildest and youngest patients possible. Because if you want to dilute the evidence of efficacy of drugs, study the population for whom the drug really is not going to benefit. Young people with no comorbidities, no illness – they’re going to be fine whether you treat them or not.
And so they did this repeatedly, and what’s interesting about that is even despite taking those actions, we know of at least two instances in those trials where they found a statistically significant benefit to ivermectin anyway, and they had to then resort to literally manipulating data, which actually would be a crime if you could take them to court and prove it, but we have a number of evidence showing that they manipulated the data, on purpose, after the trial was started, in order to
Interviewer: When you say “they” manipulated the data…
Kory: I would put, when you see a lot of authors on a trial, most of the people on the trial didn’t actually do the work. They might have reviewed the manuscript, they might have helped with the design, but they weren’t involved in the conduct. I would say those in charge of the conduct of the trial and the analysis of the data, those are the ones who would have committed these actions.
Interviewer: Are you saying the medical journals are corrupt or are people misusing them?
Kory: There’s corruption at every turn. So let me give you an example for how the medical journals are corrupt. So there’s corruption in the design and conduct of the trial, that leads to the investigators, and it’s not really the investigators, it’s the funders of those investigators.
So one of the things that I’ve been attacking is in modern medicine now it seems like the only thing that changes practice or gets anything approved is a large, randomized controlled trial – double-blinded, prospective. And I think it’s the worst thing that happened to medicine because large double-blind randomized controlled trials take immense amounts of money. And the bias of the funders of those trials essentially invalidates the trials. The bias is so strong from that person or entity who’s funding it that you cannot expect an objective accurate answer. There’s too much money…
And so the money is influencing the behaviors of the investigators but where the journals come in is immediately when these papers were published – I mean, all of us who looked at were like, “The New England Journal published this crap?” Like if I had done my own trial, with some colleages, we had done the same trial, and I had done those same design things and done those same manipulations, had I done that the journal would say – it would have gone to peer review and the peer reviewers would say “I’m sorry you’re trial is invalid and it cannot be published, you need to redo the trial.”
For instance, the NIH trial on ivermectin, in the middle of the trial they changed the primary endpoint of the trial. Now maybe that’s too geeky for your listeners but essentially when you do a trial you have to submit the protocol for the trial, like how many people you’re going to study, what are their ages, what are the inclusion criteria, what are the exclusion criteria, what is the main difference you’re going to compare between the two, it’s called the primary outcome. And their primary outcome was, I believe, it was a difference in symptoms at Day 14 – and in the middle of the trial they posted a new protocol for the trial. That’s what’s called changing the goal posts in the middle of the game.
And so they uploaded new protocol after the trial already started, after they had seen the data, and now, curiously, they changed the primary outcome to the difference at 28 days. Interesting, right, for an acute viral syndrome, now you want to compare symptoms at Day 28 instead of Day 14, isn’t that odd? First of all it doesn’t even make logical sense, for an acute viral syndrome, but in the paper you can see the data. At Day 7 and Day 14 ivermectin was superior to a high degree of statistical significance. At Day 28 that statistical significance disappeared slightly, and it was written up as ivermectin has no role in the treatment of Covid-19.
This is how brazen it happened. And so the journal allowed that to be published. There’s another trial called the Together Trial which also pulled a lot of shenanigans. And in the protocol of the Together Trial repeatedly said that they would have the individual patient data or IPD – basically the source data for their analyses and conclusions, it’s what every researcher with integrity in science has been calling for decades to make that mandatory – when you collect data you do a trial on vaccines, on drugs, why can’t we be transparent and see that source data so we can look at it ourselves? The trialists in all of those trials said that they would share their source data after the trial, none of them did. Even if it’s in their protocol, they said they would make it upon request, they would make it publicly available – all of them are hiding their data. And the journals let them do this, the journals let them do it….
Before Covid I venerated those journals, before I learned this lesson and before I got to see the scope and the scale of the corruption of these journals, I thought only the best science and the best scientists were published – I mean, they were literally venerated. Almost like the example you gave of this Icelandic expert – he believes what he reads in those journals. I have to tell you, the pharmaceutical industry captured those journals decades ago. And yet – this is widely known, that they’re completely run by pharma – yet their integrity and their reputation has not been diminished at all….
A woman by the name of Dr. Marcia Angell, she’s not the only one, but she was the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. In 2001 she stepped down from her post and wrote a book about how corrupt the papers and the science that was being published in the top medical journals, how corrupt it was – this is 2001, this was 20 years ago – she was an editor of the journal, she could no longer continue on in her post so she stepped down and wrote a book about it. Other editors of the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, famous quotes like “You cannot believe more than 50% of what is published in those journals” because it’s fraudulent, there’s so much money…. In medical school there’s no class which outlines the history of conditions and criminality and influences of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine, we’re not aware of it….
The real core of their game is at the level of the medical journals.
<<<
Kory is telling stories of “them”. You shoul name the sctual perperator.
NIH trial is this:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2797483
Outcomes were these:
Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28.
Death or hospitalisation is on secondary outcome
TOGETHER trial is there:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869.
Have you ever taken antibiotics ? Three days will have quite an effect. As for ivermectin beingfreely avaialake, people taking placebo would not know that. No reaason ake ivermecinoutof trial.
Kory is selling ivermectin. Perhaps this is just an ad ?
@Aarno Syvänen Neither Kory or his organization at FLCCC.net, which is a nonprofit organization, sells ivermectin. He simply provides medical services, as a doctor, which may or may not involve the prescribing of ivermectin – which he readily admits doesn’t work for everybody and has always recommended in conjunction with other agents, which are listed in the protocols at the FLCCC website. Some people confuse the FLCCC (Front Line Critical Care Consortium) with another organization named “Front Line” something or another, which is or was selling ivermectin prescriptions.
actually I don’t care if they sell Ivermectin directly or not. They are clearly pushing it as a key part of their treatment protocol. And their information page does not link to published meta analysis of Ivermectin. It does not even list all the studies they seem to reference. All you get is a persuasive looking graphic.
But compare the treatment benefit on whatever studies they picked for that graphic with Figure 2 in this meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308124/
All the studies with data to calculate an effect show the results straddling 1. In other words, there is no benefit from Ivermectin use.
Thanks for your response. That is an interesting study to be considered, unfortunately I don’t have the background knowledge to judge it very well and would like to hear one of the FLCCC doctors respond. I don’t know if you’ve seen their page at https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/totality-of-evidence/ but it explains their “Totality of Evidence” approach, including links to many studies and to C19Ivermectin.com – which forwards to https://c19ivm.org/ – and the page there at https://c19ivm.org/meta.html which is a meta-analysis of 99 studies.
@Jon Schultz
I took a look at the c19ivm “meta analysis” earlier. However, I didn’t go back to it for this comment because my computer browser flagged it as a dangerous website.
But I will note a few things. The website looks impressive at first glance. But it doesn’t really follow the typical protocol for a meta-analysis which you can see in the link I shared. And it has not been peer reviewed and published in the literature.
It references a lot of small studies with just a couple hundred subjects.
But there was a teaser note at the top with no apparent link about possible unblinding in the TOGETHER trial of ivermectin.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869
That trial had over 3500 subjects and was a proper RCT, unlike many of the trials the website lists which also have much smaller patient numbers.
I also noted that their main web page spends a lot of space talking about possible problems with RCT’s and meta-analyses. This seems to be in order to justify relying on small observational studies, which are much more prone to error.
I also noted in the figures with the forest plots of effect size, practically all of them had a very wide uncertainty range that crossed 1. In other words, the results were not statistically significant.
They reference a prophylactic trial by Mahmoud et al, but I couldn’t find that listed in Pubmed.
The overall look reminds me of the ivmmeta website which Dr Susan Oliver discussed in this video.
She spends about 5 minutes discussing what is supposed to go into a meta analysis before explaining why that website doesn’t qualify.
https://youtu.be/v_1mmnRm7EU?si=ygytfnnXAIrKhbrJ
@squirrelelite I first learned of ivermectin I think early in 2021, when I started watching the weekly broadcasts of the FLCCC, headed by Drs. Kory and Marik. Every week they had a different guest doctor, many of whom are specialists, and they pretty much all explained how they were initially following the guidance of the CDC and just sending Covid patients home to rest and maybe take something like Tylenol, telling them to come back or go to a hospital if they get seriously ill, which many of them did. But after they heard that early-treatment doctors were having good success with ivermectin and various other agents, they started prescribing them and found that in fact far fewer of their patients then got seriously ill. Week after week, doctor after doctor. That’s what convinced me and when I saw the FDA horse dewormer tweet and heard Dr. Fauci say there was “no evidence” that ivermectin helps, I knew that was bullshit. I didn’t need to review any studies, with my limited ability to do so.
If you didn’t notice, Dr. Bridle already posted about the limitations of the TOGETHER trial, from his point of view, and if you’re going to make the studies your primary method of determining whether ivermectin has value for Covid, you have to examine every one for the flaws Dr. Kory mentioned in that interview I transcribed: whether the researchers who conducted the trial worked for an organization with ties to a large pharmaceutical company, the dosage given and whether a dosage limit for people over a certain weight was implemented (extremely important), how many days after onset of illness treatment was started and for how many days the treatment was given, whether the trial was conducted in a country in which the drug was available OTC and people were talking about it being effective for Covid – if so people enrolled in the study who were exposed to sick people or started to get sick would naturally start taking the drug, not knowing if they were getting a placebo, and if they were getting paid for participating would naturally be reticent to divulge that – and one factor Dr. Kory didn’t mention in that interview is whether the ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, which is what is usually recommended for parasites, or with a fat-containing meal, which is what the early-treatment doctors found works best and what the FLCCC recommends.
The Life Extension Foundation – https://www.lifeextension.com/protocols – has been recommending for decades that whenever you start coming down with a cold or flu it’s important to hit it immediately with antiviral and/or immune-boosting agents, before viral replication gets out of control and takes hold of your system. I remember when the FDA raided them in the mid-1980s and confiscated the Coenzyme Q10 they were selling, which I think almost all medical sites now acknowledge to be a safe and beneficial supplement. If you’re not suspicious that the $1.48 trillion pharmaceutical industry may be unduly influencing our health agencies, various aspects of the medical profession, and the major media companies which receive most of their advertising revenue from them, I think you’re somewhat naive.
@Jon Schultz,
I think we’ve both made ourselves clear and it’s a good spot to let the discussion end.
However, if you or anyone else has a study on ivermectin that you think merits consideration, please post the link here.
Published scientific research is far from perfect, but it is open for evaluation and should meet some minimum standards.
And keep in mind the saying that the most dangerous phrase in science is “in my experience.”
Also, I would note that a better place for Dr Bridle to post a comment on the TOGETHER ivermectin trial would be on the Pubmed listing for that trial.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35353979/
Two other trials with negative results were referenced.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2201662 has over 1000 patients.
10.1101/2022.06.10.22276252 (ACTIV-6) had over 1500 patients.
@squirrelelite “And keep in mind the saying that the most dangerous phrase in science is “in my experience.” And you keep in mind that there are an infinite number of variables to be considered in analyzing situations in terms of words and numbers, and that in the end decisions based on such analysis are invariably educated guesses based on nonverbal experience. As Alan Watts wrote in “The Joyous Cosmology: Adventures in the Chemistry of Consciousness,” his 1962 book on philosophical reflection under the influence of psychedelics: “Decision can be completely paralyzed by the sudden realization that there is no way of having good without evil, or that it is impossible to act upon reliable authority without choosing, from your own inexperience, to do so. If sanity implies madness and faith doubt, am I basically a psychotic pretending to be sane, a blithering terrified idiot who manages, temporarily, to put on an act of being self-possessed? I begin to see my whole life as a masterpiece of duplicity—the confused, helpless, hungry, and hideously sensitive little embryo at the root of me having learned, step by step, to comply, placate, bully, wheedle, flatter, bluff, and cheat my way into being taken for a person of competence and reliability. For when it really comes down to it, what do any of us know?”
So I do hope you will watch the Kory interview, if you haven’t already, as you will learn a lot more about how trustworthy he is from seeing and hearing him, as opposed to just reading the words I transcribed. And in that regard, here is a 23-minute scientific presentation from Dr. Bridle on the alleged DNA contamination, three weeks ago: https://rumble.com/v3nxx7g-urgent-expert-hearing-on-reports-of-dna-contamination-in-mrna-vaccines.html?start=4681
In any event, thanks for the respectful discussion.
The TOGETHER trial has fatal flaws. It is absolutely incorrect to assume that people in the placebo group would not be taking ivermectin. Many people did in a rather uncontrolled fashion, since it is an over the counter medication there. Many knew of the promising studies and how safe it is. A properly conducted study would have taken blood samples to assess ivermectin concentrations to 1. ensure the treatment group was complying with the protocol and 2. ensure the controls were not taking ivermectin. Also, the vast majority of physicians have been recommending the use of ivermectin in conjunction with other agents as an early treatment intervention strategy, or even prophylactically. In the TOGETHER trial they waited until patients were seen in a hospital. Any disease is more difficult to treat the more advanced it is, no matter what the treatment strategy is. And there were other flaws. How about asking Dr. Gorski to have a public discussion with Dr. Pierre Kory and then let people decide for themselves once they have seen the full spectrum of the evidence laid out before them. That is how science used to work until the ‘misinformation gurus’ usurped science.
Again that public discussion. Perhaps Kory can discus here ?
People did know that they were in placebo group, so there was no reason to take ivermectin.
Are you arguing that ivermectin is inefficient if patients are hospitalized?
I don’t need to. I KNOW that shit doesn’t work. Search my previous comments about people dying in my ICUs who followed his bullshit protocol. If you believe anything Kory says, you’re either willfully delusional or a lunatic. Yes. I’m name calling. Boo hoo.
The good news is that they are not charging vaccinated people for all the extras they are receiving: free random DNA pieces, free nuclear localization signals, p53 inhibitors, HIV gene fragments etc. All of that is perfectly free. When the covid vaccine reverse transcribes into DNA, this is like getting your boosters continuously over the years, thanks to never-ending spike protein production. Lots of good news all around
COVID vaccine would not conain reverse transciptase or integrase. HIV sequences are short and shard by many genes. p53 inhibitorris a new claim. Should really give link.
What a load of bovine faecal matter.
I’m guessing that p53 inhibitor thing is you’re new “Buh buh these cause mega super ultra cancer!!” Schtick. Based on nothing more than something you heard in your dog’s bark or the voices from a steam grate on the street.
Since Dr Joel isn’t here to say it I will:
You are SICK SICK SICK
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
@Orac
“I do not take well to so-called professionals who incessantly name-call, label, and judge fellow professionals. Your writings seem to be chock-full of such immaturities.
That must be why one of your first moves was to cite disinformation spreader Mike Adams’ lies about me, fake reviews about me on a doctor’s site, and a deceptive article by Paul Thacker about me. Sorry, but you don’t get to complain about “name calling” and “judging” and then do exactly the same thing, just in a more “polite”-seeming way.”
I wouldn’t mind if you met him. Shake hands is better than war. And you are offering us the possibility to judge about who is right about the dangers of these vaccines. Should I pay for the ticket for this meeting?
Lucas, your comment assumes (indeed, requires) that all parties are good faith actors who want to reach the truth. Mike Adams is not. He is a grifter who attacked Orac for showing him up.
Your argument is at best naive, and at worst dishonest.
@Dorit Reiss
“There is a reason anti-vaccine activists prefer a theatrical debate, where the assessment is not on the evidence, but on theatrics.
They’re better at theatrics than evidence.”
Hold on, for what reason would an anti-vaxxer be better at theatrics than pro-vaxxers? Quit your nonsense please.
And what is the relevance of how good my opponent is at theatrics? If you have the better arguments you’ll be the winner of a debate, at least in a pro environment this is usually the case.
So why trying to prevent Gorski from not showing up? I would say it’s a good opportunaty to win a few souls for the vaccine, take the opportunaty. We learn a few things and the man gets his ticket for free…
Look Dorit, I think you’re not being very sportive, to say the least. It’s easy to make accusations from behind a pc and say you explained and proved it all. And who knows perhaps rightfully so, but when the moment is there to defend what you said, be a man, go! You think you’ve got the arguments, so no need for weak knees.
Who says A says B.
“Hold on, for what reason would an anti-vaxxer be better at theatrics than pro-vaxxers?”
When theatrics are all you’ve got, it pays to be as good at them as possible.
Pro-immunization advocates, who have facts on their side, don’t have to rely on emotional displays. They tend to be at a disadvantage compared to antivaxers when it comes to manipulative techniques..
@Julian Frost
“”Shake hands is better than war.”
Lucas, your comment assumes (indeed, requires) that all parties are good faith actors who want to reach the truth. Mike Adams is not. He is a grifter who attacked Orac for showing him up.
Your argument is at best naive, and at worst dishonest.””
Not naive, no need to suggest. Dishonest? How can a suggestion be dishonest? Don’t talk crap.
So Gorski cannot handle the arena? That’s sad.
If so I would suggest he stops attacking (whether rightfully or not) fellow doctors. But hiding behind a desktop when challenged is not just pathetic. It means Gorski can slander whomever he wants, he’s simply not there when asked for an explanation anyway. Yuk.
Aside from crawling behind mama’s skirt or whatever the reason he doesn’t like to show up, if he’s so sure he’s right and the other wrong, in such setting it is not about appearances, it is about arguments.
So what is he afraid of, really? Now we may have the impression he’s got something to hide, like mistakes or a lack of specific, relevant knowledge about a subject. Well, does he, is he?
So just go, go, go! The tickets to get there will be paid for him, but he does need to make up his mind now. What would you want more?
Btw, shake hands is better than war, trust me. Unless perhaps you’re paid to fill a gossip magazine. And no, even if all parties are not good faith (what party is nowadays?), you can only gain, as there’s nothing to loose. They won’t finish him off there, I’m sure.
A suggestion can be dishonest if the person making it knows that what they say/imply will happen, won’t. In my above example, Mike Adams is a grifter. In any debate, he will use a mix of lies and half-truths, and tactics like the Gish Gallop and Ham Hightail to smother Orac in bad arguments. And according to the Brandolini BS Asymmetry Principal, it takes several times the effort to refute a bad argument as to make it. It would be impossible for Orac to disprove all of Adams’ bad claims, and Adams would be ruled the winner, because he lied effectively.
Ditto for people like Byram Bridle and Jessica Rose.
Even Mike Adams can argue here with Orac. Why he is not doing i ?
Lucas: I have a suggestion for you. You’d be happier if you just confessed your crimes, apologized to those children, and accepted the punishment,
How indeed?
@Dangerous Bacon
“When theatrics are all you’ve got, it pays to be as good at them as possible.”
This is not politics. This is about arguments. And you have the clear advantage when yours are right.
“Pro-immunization advocates, who have facts on their side, don’t have to rely on emotional displays. They tend to be at a disadvantage compared to antivaxers when it comes to manipulative techniques.”
Even if so, it doesn’t mean you have to hide.
What emotional display would you possibly expect in an in-depth discussion?
“This is about arguments. And you have the clear advantage when yours are right.”
As Jonathan Swift said: “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”.
Cranks are in love with the idea of manipulating the conversation through staged debates, but are frightened out of their wits* at having to defend their claims in peer-reviewed journals or through thoughtful online exchanges with actual scientists or even non-experts with critical thinking capacity.
What is there to be so scared of, aside from being humiliated over and over again?
*such as they are.
@Dr. Byram W. Bridle
“A stereotypical response from a self-proclaimed ‘misinformation guru’. Taking things out of context and playing the victim role. Grow up. Are you going to accept my invitation or admit, by default, as the ‘misinformation science’ proves, that you are a coward who lacks the knowledge and expertise to stand a chance in a real-time discussion where you don’t have the chance to retreat to endless internet searches to try to come up with arguments? To not accept will look very bad in the public eye when your own science states that this is exactly what needs to be done. How will Dorit be able to accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about if her champion is never willing to enter the proverbial arena?”
Exactly what I wrote as a a mere outsider before you did.
I even offered to pay for his trip. I knew he is a coward and would not accept the offer. But had he done it, the deal was his: who says A says B.
This should go for Gorski too. If I was him I would accept the invitation to avoid a public failure.
However, he realises that his (in some way payed) hobby here is at stake.
Silly troll. I make no money from my blog. Quite the opposite, in fact. I pay all hosting expenses. When occasionally one of my posts goes viral, it costs me money.
Funny, how this guy cannot even understand the preprint he posted as proof of an unidentified vaccine shedding virus. Time to ignore.
@Orac
“Silly troll. I make no money from my blog. Quite the opposite, in fact. I pay all hosting expenses. When occasionally one of my posts goes viral, it costs me money.”
A troll? That would be an expensive hobby if so.
Shall we substitute the what ‘costs you money’ part with ‘investment’?
Like I wrote before, only a fool invests (time, money, it’s the same thing) with nothing in return. So for once be honest, what is in it for you? Be it through some backdoor, be it in the form of prestige which may eventually pay off, be it through research you get payed for by Pharma). “Nothing” isn’t the answer, Gorski. Don’t lie to me.
Different subject, you should accept the invitation. You’ll loose credibility if you don’t and the public will consider you a coward.
What’s in it for me – and this is why I offered to pay for your trip – is learning about safety and necessity of these vaccines.
I don’t see pro and against meeting often – if at all. The media for some reason doesn’t like that. But it’s valuable that it happens. The public has the right to watch these discussions too, don’t you agree?
I’m attached to a large organisation that didn’t recommend to take the vaccine, but promoted it anyway. From day 1 I wasn’t too happy about this for several reasons described before here in detail. I want them to be proven right anyway.
So it’s not that I’m particularly fond of you, let alone that creep Dorit Reiss, but I need you to ‘win’ that discussion. With arguments, that is.
Just go.
People can argue here. Results are no very good.
If pharmaceutical company pays Orac, he must disclose the fact:
https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/
@Julian Frost just commented on VAERS and plasmid DNA “contamination” of COVID-19 vaccines: The nonsense continues.
“A suggestion can be dishonest if the person making it knows that what they say/imply will happen, won’t. In my above example, Mike Adams is a grifter. In any debate, he will use a mix of lies and half-truths, and tactics like the Gish Gallop and Ham Hightail to smother Orac in bad arguments. And according to the Brandolini BS Asymmetry Principal, it takes several times the effort to refute a bad argument as to make it. It would be impossible for Orac to disprove all of Adams’ bad claims, and Adams would be ruled the winner, because he lied effectively.”
The suggestion was mine and not from Mike Adams. But let’s give that a rest.
I guess Gorski is articulate enough to cope with lies and half truths. Basically you’re always in a comfort setting if you have the truth on your side.
Why are you so scared? What’s there to be afraid of? You cannot unmask someone that speaks the truth, but it is possible to unmask a liar.
And then, these discussions are different as they have an in-depth character. Which is about arguments. Gorski has the right arguments you say, then don’t be a weasel and encourage Gorski to go. Period.
“but it is possible to unmask a liar.”
Silly billy. Then they just ignore the unmasking and double down, or move onto the next lie. I know an innocent like yourself won’t have realised this, but it’s a show. They don’t have to be right. They just have to look like they’re winning.
@Dorit Reiss
The study you linked to did not say that. I understand you are desperate for a debate, likely since you realize you are failing to support yourself here and hope a televised forum where you could go for charisma rather than evidence would hep you.
But honestly, if you can support your beliefs with evidence you should be able to do it here.
“But honestly” – you must have Googled for the spelling.
Suppose he would come with that evidence here, what you do is cherry pick some of the content and give it some twist. Then the other party responds and what usually follows are phrases like “we explained it to you” and that’s it.
Doris, in all ‘honesty’: how do snales like you manage to live with yourselves.
And what puzzles me even more: what is your purpose in life? What do you do here?
You owe me an irony meter, because that statement just destroyed mine.🙄🤦🏻♂️
Bridle blew up my best irony meter with this:
“Are you willing to follow the science”
Ditto when he complained about my lack of professionalism.
If there were a cherry picked content, he could answer and point the fact
@Orac
“You owe me an irony meter, because that statement just destroyed mine.🙄🤦🏻♂️”
😄
A public discussion or debate about Covid vaccines?
Don’t we already have that? IN THE LITERATURE? Bio or medicine is argued through research that is published in periodicals that are peer reviewed. Orac’s “guests” want something extremely different: a “debate” in front of their followers who will cheer them on as Orac describes ( in his cited articles about why he doesn’t debate) and as Julian notes.
One of the alt med proselytisers I survey brags that he ‘never lost a debate’. Decades ago, as a radio host, he “debated” medical experts- even a Surgeon General- about why medicine fails and how his methods save lives. He would rant and rave against the inhumanity of medical care and how it kills. His audience consisted largely of the general public who understand little of what actual research says and who were probably critical of SBM if they showed up in the first place. He usually presents misquoted, misunderstood or frankly manufactured data in a theatrical manner, fighting for the ‘oppressed victims of medical criminals’. This is someone without a standard medical, biology or psychology education who claims he can cure hiv/aids, cancer or MS with diet. I witnessed one of his presentations live in a book store where he had the audience screaming and stamping in approval as he confabulated stories and data and yes, they bought his books.
Why should Orac waste his time? He’s a busy guy, working as a surgeon, researcher and professor. He’s not paid for his writing.
I do not get paid to write either: it is a hobby that enables me to communicate with like minded people and perhaps educate others . I could make money by counselling more people or researching new investments in my spare time.
Two ways people can debate:
–publishing their research in peer reviewed journals
— interaction through the internet with citations, judged by experts in relevant fields
No free-for-alls for fanbois/ grlz
We have no real problem because research in journals is ALREADY THERE.
So we’ve seen a huge amount of evidence that neither igor nor lucas have any concern for facts. Instead, whenever they are shown data that completely contradicts what they say, there’s either a vast conspiracy [lucas’ BS about ‘leftism’ in education for a variety of things, showing how far removed from education he really is, igor’s rants about Bill Gates and the Club of Rome, the crap both of them have spewed about the United Nations] or the research is wrong because, well, it just is.
So: why do they do it? Are they getting paid to spread things that are flat out wrong or are they really both so delusional that they believe it?
Some of those I survey attack higher education as overly liberal and ‘woke’. Universities produce non-thinking clones who parrot corporate talking points. They are careerists- not spiritual and humanitarian. One repeatedly plays tapes of ( supposed) college students
who can’t answer simple questions. ‘Trans-‘ and ‘woke’ ideas override
real studies and professors are locked into that programming.
Interestingly, they sound like Bill Maher and many right leaning activists who reject modernity. Children and young adults have many problems because their parents are preoccupied with careers instead of ONE OF THEM staying at home to care for children. Families are dysfunctional because of these new family structures and technology’s importance.
So they would return to a society where everyone knew their place : woke, trans and child care are codewords- I suppose- for Black, LGBTQ and feminists.
Guess which people have graduated from universities/ into professions at much higher rates lately?
Fun fact:
prn.live played a video of Naomi Wolf quoting Igor’s work
The weirdest part is that some of the Europian right-wing extremist leaders are feminine, who hardly lead the live, they declare as the best. They don’t stay home to take care of their kids and Alice Weidel from the AfD is involved in a lesbian relation and has adopted two children, something only possible because of some progressive laws.
@Chris
“Funny, how this guy cannot even understand the preprint he posted as proof of an unidentified vaccine shedding virus. Time to ignore.”
Chris, are you experiencing early stage dementia, perhaps from the vaccine?
Why do you keep on repeating what you misread? This research is about vaccinated individuals with covid vs unvaccinated individuals with covid; this was what I shared with Renate until you showed up.
After your short circuit up above you were the one that started rambling about vaccine shedding.
Btw, Joel Harris had quite a different opinion on the subject just a year ago. But that’s just another fool.
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Rawhide!
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them comments trollin’,
Rawhide!
Cherry pick!
(Head em’ up!)
Move goalposts!
(Move ’em on!)
More insults!
(Head em’ up!)
Rawhide!
Make stuff up!
(Paste ’em in!)
Change topics!
(Cut em’ out!)
Whine some more!
Paste ’em in,
Rawhide!
Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
Though they’re disaprovin’
Keep them comments trollin”,
Rawhide!
Don’t try to understand ’em
Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
Yeah, Lucas has gotten on my last nerve. He’s not even an entertaining troll.
Being annoying and not entertaining seems to be common with illiterate trolls.
@ Chris,
Very good! Creative!! Made me laugh, thanks!!! See, music therapy does work…I’m not frustrated with being in auto-moderation at the moment.
It’s Oct 31st, 2023 (Trick or Treat).
Q. Are Orac’s minions more likely to give a trick on Halloween.
Send me your address, I’ve got a box of TP rolls that need tossing…
@Dangerous Bacon
“As Jonathan Swift said: “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”.
Cranks are in love with the idea of manipulating the conversation through staged debates, but are frightened out of their wits* at having to defend their claims in peer-reviewed journals or through thoughtful online exchanges with actual scientists or even non-experts with critical thinking capacity.
What is there to be so scared of, aside from being humiliated over and over again?”
Peer reviewing is fine, online exchanges are fine and a public debate is fine.
An ‘ambush’ is not fine and when challenged to step out in the open, Gorski is hiding behind mama’s skirt. That’s DISGUSTING.
Gorski is a coward. And is probably not having the arguments to win the debate.
You can bring up excuses as many as you need to, Dorit Reiss does the same. But aren’t you just licking wounds?
I have zero respect for weasels without real output.
“I have zero respect for weasels without real output.”
And I have zero respect for anonymous trolls.
What is it with you and mama’s skirt, you fruitcake?
Bridle does in fact conflate the SV40 promoter/enhancer as shown here: https://x.com/ByramBridle/status/1717897632566391082?s=20
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprintthat analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] you’ll excuse my reference to Marvel’s Loki—has consisted of fear mongering about residual plasmid DNA in the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, complete with sequences from the dreaded SV40 promoter, which […]
[…] en Canadá. Ninguno de estos trabajos se ha publicado en revistas revisadas por pares y se han criticado muchos de […]
[…] This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized. […]
[…] might recognize a certain preprint by antivaxxers including Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan that I deconstructed in detail after it was released last fall. (I also pointed out that “billions” of fragments is […]
[…] afirmaciones un artículo escrito en coautoría por un conocido activista antivacunas eso es casi inmediatamente negado después de ser publicado en […]
[…] affirmation dans un article co-écrit par des militants anti-vaccins connus c’était presque instantanément démystifié dès sa publication en […]
[…] it’s based on a claim in a paper co-authored by known anti-vaccine activists that was almost instantaneously debunked upon its publication in […]
[…] 由知名反疫苗活动人士共同撰写的论文 那几乎是 瞬间被揭穿 […]
[…] dangerous vaccine lots also had higher amounts of the plasmid contaminants.” Those were bogus, crappy studies done by antivax ideologues using poor […]
[…] it’s based on a claim in a paper co-authored by known anti-vaccine activists that was almost instantaneously debunked upon its publication in […]
[…] it’s based on a claim in a paper co-authored by known anti-vaccine activists that was almost instantaneously debunked upon its publication in […]
[…] it’s based on a claim in a paper co-authored by known anti-vaccine activists that was almost instantaneously debunked upon its publication in […]
[…] VAERS and plasmid DNA “contamination” of COVID-19 vaccines: The nonsense continues […]
[…] contamination of vaccines – residual fragments of DNA in vaccines are neither a contaminate nor a safety […]