My sister works as a PA in a hospital in WI. The letter they received has this same wording and more- her letter went further stating the employees should not even attempt an argument against the "science" of the vaccines because that would get them nowhere and specifically not even to call the V experimental, etc. . I kid you not. I read the letter. It also said very few if any religious exemptions would be provided. She tried both a medical (she was just recovering from Lyme disease) and religious exemption and both were denied. She then wrote a more forceful, convicted religious exemption and it was accepted. These letters to these hospitals came down from the CMS with threats to withhold funding unless enforced. I remain utterly baffled on the legality of any of this- particularly based on the science. How is science NOT the ENTIRE argument or even allowed to be the argument? I suppose the answer is simple and in front of us- because there is NO possible way of them winning on the merits of science so they just shut it all down. The product is still EUA. The FDA product is not even available. I honestly think this is against all medical ethics laws. It has to be. WHERE ARE THE GOOD LAWYERS AND JUDGES??
And yet another otherwise healthy person we know aged 50 just had a heart attack...
Some people are having luck with presenting employers with formal notices of liability for any damages from a vaccine they require. There are good boilerplates out there. There are pending cases. You can't sue pharma but schools and businesses can be held liable. And there are reports that some employers were scared off by this and gave the "exemption."
I honestly think this is the "golden ticket" So much of this has to do with spineless liability issues. For example, how could we ever expect a single news media outlet to report anything negative about the V when they forced their employees to get it?? Think of THAT liability? You are 100% right, bullies back down when you bully them back.
I notice both the pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax narratives have changed over time, and this is a problem for both sides.
At first, with the original variant, pro-vax people said the vaccine was 95% effective, and safe.
Then the reality got complicated. We learned it’s still safe and somewhat effective, but (1) less effective against the newer variant (at the time, delta); (2) you need a booster to promote (we hope “durable”) immunity. Otherwise it wears off. And (3) if it’s less effective in preventing illness in the vaccinated, that means the benefits in preventing _transmission_ are decreased as well. In other words, sick people can transmit whether they’re vaccinated or not. (The way transmission is prevented among the vaccinated is by them not getting sick.)
With omicron prevention from infection is even less effective even with a booster.
So then the pro-covid-vax narrative changed over time and became “we never said it decreased transmission; we never said it keeps you from getting sick; we said it prevents hospitalization and death.”
While the term “gaslighting” is very much overused, the pro-covid-vax people definitely gaslit everyone else, with predictable results. Of course all the hesitant people were rightly suspicious of a changing narrative from people who said the narrative had never changed at all. People aren’t stupid. They have memories of what was said before.
By the way, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death— but is that protection short-lived too? We don’t yet know. Will we be asked to get 4, 5, 6 shots or is that strategy played out (as some of the data from Israel suggest)? We know protection from infection fades, but what about protection from the worst consequences? We don’t know. So let’s acknowledge that. We don’t know.
The problem is: the pro-covid-vax people started from a position of being pro-covid-vax. It was the magic bullet that would get us out of the pandemic. It was the basket into which our government put all its eggs (instead of anything else: there’s been no talk of, say, improved methods of testing or improving indoor ventilation in public spaces).
Then, no matter how the situation shifted and changed, the “pro” people changed what they said in order to remain pro-covid-vax, and in fact acted as if this is what they always said, all along. No, not really. Will that win anyone over to their side? Will this instill confidence in anyone with a brain? No not really.
But meanwhile, the anti-covid-vax people have been just as rigid and have done exactly the same thing. They changed their story as they went along, and then maintain they “were right all along.” Nope. They were not any more right than the pro-covid-vax people, and they’ve been just as slow to admit it, and just as prone to rewriting the history of what they said.
Many people started out reasonably hesitant to use a new technology. Fair enough. They were not “classic anti-vaxxers.” They often got other vaccines but were worried about this one. Reasonable.
But: Instead of the pro-covid-vaxxers patiently explaining the pros and cons (as those were understood at the time), they just resorted to social shaming: they tarred these folks with the anti-vax brush, which both scared and angered them, causing them to retreat into the same degree of rigid thinking as the pro-covid-vax people. They chose their side and by gum, they’ve stuck to it just as badly as the other team.
How has this played out? Well, at first when people were hesitant, and were being insulted and pressured instead of dialogued with, they needed someone to give them reasonable sounding “reasons” not to get this vaccine. Saying “I’m scared and hesitant to adopt a new technology” is less compelling than being able to give impressive and science-y sounding reasons A, B and C.
Enter, right on cue, Robert Malone. I’ve laid out in my own newsletter some of the ways he’s misrepresented reality (some might say “made factual claims without adequate support”; some might say “lied”) so I won’t rehash that here. A lot of people have done so.
But claims he made early on, such as about the animal testing, such as about the spike protein being “toxic” haven’t quite panned out.
There is no shame in being hesitant, because there are clearly no risk-free choices in life. You can get, say, Guillain Barre from a flu shot. You can get anaphylaxis from antibiotics. Strong “medicine” by definition has strong effects —and some of those effects will be bad.
Therefore it’s no surprise: It looks like you can (rarely) get TTS from the J&J vaccine which is why it’s no longer in favor. It looks like young men can (rarely) get myocarditis from a second or third dose, which is why reputable scientists like Paul Offit, while very much part of the pro-covid-vax mainstream, said publicly he recommends the covid shots overall but not a booster for his young adult son. (Offit got a lot of pushback for going against the pro-covid-vax grain; but this is one reason he has my trust as respect.)
So…the science is revealing the (real) rare side effects over time, which gives people more reasons to ponder whether they want the shot, all things considered. It’s not an easy choice. If I were initially one of the vaccine hesitant people, and if I were looking at the big picture, I’d probably be encouraged and way less hesitant a year later.
In fact, it would be an easy choice (in my view) if we had a highly effective, durable vaccine. It’s still an easy choice (in my view) for health care workers who are regularly exposed to covid. Possibly it’s an easy choice for people who work with the elderly and in other crowded settings like schools. These are discussions which rational people can have— and disagree on.
But instead of (either side) saying “this is complicated; the shots might or might not be for you, depending on the big picture,” both sides dug in.
In the anti-covid-vax camp, when the “toxic” spike protein didn’t turn out to be true, when the fertility claims didn’t turn out to be true, when the early animal research became less relevant (billions of doses in humans later), well, they just moved on to (real but rare) myocarditis and emotional appeals to “think of the children” as if kids were dropping like flies from the vaccine (they’re not).
Yes, the myocarditis is a real concern. The discussion needs to be had. It might or might not be a good choice for your child. But whether these vaccines pose such a danger that they’re killing people left and right, to the extent we need to be marching on Washington — well, I think the time would be much better spent on protesting gain of function research. No one’s talking about research that could wipe out humanity in the near future. (I’m rooting for the octopuses to succeed us.)
This is my very long-winded way of saying I’m very, very disappointed in the way in which everyone has gone into their little corners and refuses to leave. The guy who wrote this letter has a shaky understanding of a lot of stuff he referenced. He’s being set up as some kind of hero. He’s neither a hero nor a villain. He’s a guy with concerns. A guy who probably shouldn’t be made to have a vax he doesn’t want, even if his understanding of the science is shaky.
We could all have a reasonable conversation about why this guy doesn’t want this particular vaccine at this particular time, in this particular context (omicron being so mutated). But instead, it seems we’re all stuck looking for heroes and villains.
For the anti-covid-vax team, this guy will be a hero. To the pro-covid-vax team, this guy will be an ignorant obstacle.
No one on the “pro” side will concede anything and say, “well, a piece of what he says is accurate: do we want to force anyone to take a vaccine in the context of it being marginally effective at best? Should we wait and revisit the idea of mandates until (if and when) we have a more effective long-lasting vaccine that might really control this?”
No one in the “anti” side will concede anything and say, “well, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death. It really doesn’t turn out to be as dangerous as we initially feared. Maybe it is better for some people in some jobs (like health care) to agree to it. Maybe not truckers though.”
If we all saw a little bit of wisdom in the people on the other side, if we didn’t cast them as irredeemably evil and/or “captured” and/or corrupt and/or zombie victims of “mass psychosis” (!) and/or stupid, maybe our conversations and our ability to problem-solve would improve.
There may well be people for whom your comments are accurate--for people on both the pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax sides--but this "the truth is in the middle" and "both sides are entrenched" argument feels wrong. I strongly disagree with this sentiment of yours in particular:
"But meanwhile, the anti-covid-vax people have been just as rigid and have done exactly the same thing. They changed their story as they went along, and then maintain they “were right all along.” Nope. They were not any more right than the pro-covid-vax people, and they’ve been just as slow to admit it, and just as prone to rewriting the history of what they said."
On DarkHorse, we have consistently had concerns about two new kinds of technology being introduced at once in the mRNA vaccines, with no evolutionary history of either, and the impossibility of knowing long-term effects. We were surprised, frankly, and not in a good way, to see such a strong Adverse Event signal showing up so quickly. (We obviously still cannot know what the long term effects might be.) Add to that the deeply polluted data stream, which only one "side" has full access to, and find many of us working hard to decipher what we can see, but at a considerable disadvantage.
I disagree that we know that the spike protein isn't toxic, or that it doesn't have fertility effects, or that Adverse Events are particularly rare, compared to AEs for other vaccines. In fact I see strong evidence to the contrary. That is not a mark of entrenchment. It is in fact the result of having repeatedly, every week, sometimes daily, looking for evidence to the contrary, and not finding it.
Finally, the idea that, given a much stronger AE signal than anyone (whom I know) was expecting, and the fact that it's impossible yet to know what long-term effects might show up, what sane skeptic would announce now that "it really doesn’t turn out to be as dangerous as we initially feared"? That would be a naive statement at best.
Well, I know you believe that, and to some extent, neither you nor I being subject matter experts in vaccines and the immune system or public health, it's a matter of which experts we choose to put our faith in. I think Robert Malone, for instance, is more a self-aggrandizing con man with conflicts of interest than a simple scientist. This is because of his history promoting various products (including a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being made in India) and the number of unsupported claims he's made, the ways in which he's overstated his subject matter expertise, and the ways in which he uses emotionally manipulative language. So I don't put my trust in him.
Neither do I put my trust in Fauci or Walensky when they and their organizations seem to have made decisions based on politics and not on evidence. And Becerra has just been MIA and needs to be removed.
I understand the distrust in the mainstream. I really do. I think the distrust is completely merited. I also understand that the mainstream holds the cards / holds the data. If you believe that the data are being withheld from the public, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I wouldn't put it past a sleazy company like Pfizer to do that. But I'm not quite to the point that I think -- even as politicized as they are -- that CDC and FDA are completely corrupt and would withhold safety information or AE information from us.
If that were the case, why did J&J fall from favor so quickly? If that were the case, why is the (real) myocarditis concern all over the news and being discussed so widely and publicly?
I understand the hesitance in new technology, or even new "regular vaccines." When my son was a baby the chicken pox vaccine was brand new. I made sure he had all the regular vaccines but didn't get the chicken pox one. The stakes were not very high. With covid the stakes are higher than with chicken pox, but I can still see a reasonable person not wanting their kids vaccinated.
I'm not saying the truth is in the middle. That's way too facile. I'm saying everyone has some valid points if only they would come out of their rigid corners, and reasonable people might come down on either side of the issue -- but I very much appreciate when people's reasons match the available data.
For example, the fertility thing. There's no particular mechanism by which the mRNA might affect people's fertility except a vague "the spike protein might get your ovaries" -- but then this came out last month: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734259/. No evidence of fertility problems -- and by the way, the Chinese are currently very invested in people having more children. If anything, the authors would be incentivized to point out any dangers of these vaccines as regards fertility.
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But...at some point, one has to move on from the fertility thing. And getting covid itself seems to negatively affect sperm (even if it seems, at present to be a transient problem) -- see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7978437/. So it's complicated.
If you were to have Paul Offit on Dark Horse, that would be an interesting interview. He's a really good communicator and even if find you disagree with him, I bet you would enjoy the conversation.
It seems to me that you are making a social argument, and I am trying to make a scientific one, albeit with one hand tied behind my back, as it were, because of the dearth of data available to the public.
The idea that what we should be doing is deciding which "subject matter experts" to put our faith in is wrong-headed. There are people who *are* diving in to the data that *are* available; they are not doing so by believing one person or disbelieving another. I recommend https://roundingtheearth.substack.com and https://drrollergator.substack.com in addition to the sources that Jordan cites.
Furthermore, viruses, vaccines, immunity, and population vs individual level decisions and processes are all evolutionarily tractable problems; in some cases they are explicitly evolutionary. It is precisely the lack of evolutionary background among some of the "experts" that has helped get us into this mess.
You say “I also understand that the mainstream holds the cards / holds the data. If you believe that the data are being withheld from the public, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I wouldn't put it past a sleazy company like Pfizer to do that. But I'm not quite to the point that I think -- even as politicized as they are -- that CDC and FDA are completely corrupt and would withhold safety information or AE information from us.”
I trust you are aware that the FDA fought in court to have their Pfizer approval data withheld from the public for 75 years?
I trust you are aware that the BMJ has called out the vaccine companies for not being sufficiently transparent their data?
I trust you are aware that the very same alphabet entities that you’ve mentioned, the same entities that are denigrating the utility of VAERS, are the entities that designed and manage it?
I trust you are aware that the Ventavia whistleblower showed that there was not adequate follow up for trial participants with AEs despite FDA “oversight”?
I could go on much longer. But the real world evidence does not support the idea that the FDA and CDC are being transparent and responsible with the data on these treatments.
On Fertility alone: There is all manner of possible mechanisms of action specified for menstrual and fertility problems. Syncytin-1 resembles spike protein enough to be concerned, lines the uterus, is necessary for implantation of eggs. Dr. Christiane Northrup among many others has been warning about this.
All manner of autoimmunity can lead to fertility problems and I would direct you to the work of Dr. Philip McMillan of Vejon Health in the UK who has been on the COVID story early, he has many useful videocast presentations and is an expert researcher in autoimmunity.
The ovaries themselves are protected compartments that shouldn't be exposed to novel entities like spike proteins and the lipid nanoparticles that slip everywhere into our body. We don't need that exposure to be "immunized" from COVID. Dr. Richard Urso has been urgently discussing this problem, first revealed as a risk by Dr. Byram Bridle a pediatrician in Canada when he FOIA'd Pfizer data from Japan. This showed the speed and breadth of penetration of lipid nanoparticles into many parts of the body, particular ovaries, in mice.
Most importantly if we don't know if the mRNA is damaging to female fertility, to the unborn, and to the health of offspring then caution is always the rule with pharmaceuticals and pregnancy. No research has cleared the mRNA technology as safe in any meaningful study with published data over any long term.
Hi 21st Century--Jordan (author of the above here). Two ideas came to mind while reading.
One, I say in the piece I'm open to being convinced, and that I expect many of the claims, particularly about the *hypothetical* adverse effects, will or may likely be disproven. I have moved substantially on Covid and vaccine policy in general--starting out far from where I'm at currently. I have also recommended the vaccines to others for whom they appeared to make more sense. But I looked into the absolute risks of Covid for myself, knowing my health status, and decided I was fine with the risks, especially because I've been spending substantial periods of time in high exposure environments already for two years. I did appreciate much of what Paul Offit said recently on a podcast with ZDoggMD. Still, what's the point of getting a two year out of date vaccine, for a disease that is now much more mild, and from which I've already recovered and become buddy buddy with in the back of ambulances? I've seen this thing first hand. I've done a two year deep dive on the pathophysiology. I've taught classes on Covid management. I know my own health history. Etc.
Second and perhaps more relevant-- The government has a gun to my head: "get the vaccine or else..." I respond, 'keep your gun if you must, but please just don't point it at my head and threaten me with it" and you say 'this guy is dug in unreasonably.' All I want is to be given the space to make personal medical decisions without threats and coercion. This is particularly infuriating as the pressure has become most extreme when the justifications for it are the weakest they've ever been.
What kind of world is it where someone like Jordan can't have his privacy, medical freedom and autonomy, and everyone gets to weigh in on whether he gets it or not, and assumes they have any right to know his business. This isn't a reality show. Someone else is as free to be ignorant or expert of various health issues for making their own decisions, but stay away from mine. We have to ask ourselves as a civilization--how did we get to this point so suddenly and violate those sacred boundaries? I will be looking forward to hearing about Jordan's journey.
I don't know man. I don't think that the kind of change you want can come via a middle position. It would probably just end in another(!) lowest common denominator solution. You say that his understanding is shaky and he's being set up as a hero...? Is that dig on Heather? Based on your own logic he has as valid a position as any and you probably should not even be commenting on it then? I'll re-read your comment a few times and see if I can find some science I can wrap my head around.
I'm sorry you are disappointed but your definition of *true* and mine don't seem to agree and I'm ok with that.
No this is not a dig at Heather. Why would I comment on someone's newsletter if I didn't have a certain amount of respect for what they have to say? (Unless I were a troll, but I'm not.)
And no, I didn't address the science here in a newsletter comment. People have hashed this out in many places (and when I write my own newletter and make factual claims, I include links people can look at).
My point is a narrower point than the state of the science (and I'm pretty sure I didn't make any wild claims in my comment). My point is that most -- including both pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax voices -- treat the matter as settled, and then any piece of information they come across fits into their narrow idea of "this is what I already thought; and what's more I knew it all along!" Even though the narratives of both sides have changed more times than anyone can count.
It's very destructive to conversation.
Re "he has as valid a position as any" -- not really. He's free and encouraged to speak, and if his factual claims hold up his position is "more valid" and if his factual claims don't hold up, his position is "less valid." The same as anyone's.
My point is that whenever anyone is trotted out as a hero before we even carefully examine why they say what they say, we've short-circuited our ability to improve our concept of reality, which all of us should be striving to improve.
For example, let's take something fairly non-controversial like antibiotics. When prescribed appropriately, they save lives and decrease suffering. But if overprescribed, they cause resistance and lose effectiveness, and a lot of other problems.
Let's suppose someone wrote an essay that advocated for not overprescribing antibiotics, and the reasons they gave were, "If we overuse them, the antibiotic gods will be displeased and curse us, so the antibiotics stop working."
Well, one piece of that is true. Overused, the antibiotics stop working. And if you listened to that person's advice, and stopped overprescribing, you'd have a good outcome -- less resistance. But the reasons they believe it's true -- the antibiotic gods being displeased -- are not correct reasons.
So, it's quite possible for someone to hold a reasonable opinion "let's not overprescribe antibiotics" for a completely incorrect reason "because the gods will be displeased."
In that sense, our antibiotic Cassandra's views "are not as valid a position as any" -- they need to be evaluated.
All's I'm saying is that everyone has retreated into two rigid little camps. We're all making our data fit our narratives -- and we even change the narrative while saying we haven't. And it's hampering good discussions and good decision making.
"All's I'm saying is that everyone has retreated into two rigid little camps. We're all making our data fit our narratives -- and we even change the narrative while saying we haven't. And it's hampering good discussions and good decision making."
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are many 'camps'. All shapes, colors and sizes. For myself it becomes incumbent on the individual to continuously discover and distill ones own narrative into a cohesive and functional methodology for living in an ever changing world. Would that qualify as science? Ones concern for his fellow man is a reflection of the care of his own self. Maitreya made a very poignant post a while ago about using the teaching of Buddha to perhaps do just that. Again, I don't know, just my perceptions and ideas. I guess some of us are just not a good 'passengers'.
Exactly. The people concerned about vaccine safety and the way it was used in mass vaccination instead of targeted in violation of all our previous lessons learned, and the people who are innovating and implementing early and effective treatments have been begging "other camps" for those conversations. But the other camps refuse to come to the table. Steve Kirsch has offered millions of dollars for people to come to the table and debate, but they don't respond. Nobody in the aforementioned positions are hiding away in corners or behaving rigidly. All these thinkers are continually updating their knowledge bases, seeking out new opinions and sources of data. Always mindful of and discussing the fact that the science isn't settled but evolving. Bret and Heather were constantly modeling this exemplary behavior for their followers. But it doesn't mean that there isn't a core of meaningful evidence for the now that is compelling and on which we can base important decisions. Treat early. Stop abusive and ineffective masking. Halt the entire vaccine program and conduct more research.
- Yes, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death.
- It is about as dangerous as I initially feared. In November 2020, I put down my gut feeling in writing: the probability of adverse side effects is around 10% of the probability of complications from Covid, and if your chance of contracting Covid is around 10%, the whole vaccine show is just maturity transformation, as we say in banking. And the mortality data clearly point to the possibility that vaccine-related deaths have exceeded Covid deaths during the 2nd half of 2021, here in Germany.
- It is better for some people to agree to it. I recommended it to my parents in the summer, when Covid was on holiday. They did not take it then, and they should not take it now (right at the omicron peak). I took a dose of J&J myself, stating clearly at the time that this was not for health reasons but to help society put the panic to rest. Latest regulations have thrown me back into vaccination limbo. I am not allowed into restaurants, swimming pools, most shops anymore. I will not take another jab.
- I am willing to drop all accusations if only the idea of mandates is abandoned (for the current vaccines and all hypothetical "more effective long-term vaccines").
My sister works as a PA in a hospital in WI. The letter they received has this same wording and more- her letter went further stating the employees should not even attempt an argument against the "science" of the vaccines because that would get them nowhere and specifically not even to call the V experimental, etc. . I kid you not. I read the letter. It also said very few if any religious exemptions would be provided. She tried both a medical (she was just recovering from Lyme disease) and religious exemption and both were denied. She then wrote a more forceful, convicted religious exemption and it was accepted. These letters to these hospitals came down from the CMS with threats to withhold funding unless enforced. I remain utterly baffled on the legality of any of this- particularly based on the science. How is science NOT the ENTIRE argument or even allowed to be the argument? I suppose the answer is simple and in front of us- because there is NO possible way of them winning on the merits of science so they just shut it all down. The product is still EUA. The FDA product is not even available. I honestly think this is against all medical ethics laws. It has to be. WHERE ARE THE GOOD LAWYERS AND JUDGES??
And yet another otherwise healthy person we know aged 50 just had a heart attack...
Some people are having luck with presenting employers with formal notices of liability for any damages from a vaccine they require. There are good boilerplates out there. There are pending cases. You can't sue pharma but schools and businesses can be held liable. And there are reports that some employers were scared off by this and gave the "exemption."
Bravo. Thanks for your courage, Jordan Hayes, both physical and moral. Looking forward to the next installment and wishing you the best.
A great writer. A powerful piece. That's who I want to come to my rescue if ever needed.
I honestly think this is the "golden ticket" So much of this has to do with spineless liability issues. For example, how could we ever expect a single news media outlet to report anything negative about the V when they forced their employees to get it?? Think of THAT liability? You are 100% right, bullies back down when you bully them back.
I notice both the pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax narratives have changed over time, and this is a problem for both sides.
At first, with the original variant, pro-vax people said the vaccine was 95% effective, and safe.
Then the reality got complicated. We learned it’s still safe and somewhat effective, but (1) less effective against the newer variant (at the time, delta); (2) you need a booster to promote (we hope “durable”) immunity. Otherwise it wears off. And (3) if it’s less effective in preventing illness in the vaccinated, that means the benefits in preventing _transmission_ are decreased as well. In other words, sick people can transmit whether they’re vaccinated or not. (The way transmission is prevented among the vaccinated is by them not getting sick.)
With omicron prevention from infection is even less effective even with a booster.
So then the pro-covid-vax narrative changed over time and became “we never said it decreased transmission; we never said it keeps you from getting sick; we said it prevents hospitalization and death.”
While the term “gaslighting” is very much overused, the pro-covid-vax people definitely gaslit everyone else, with predictable results. Of course all the hesitant people were rightly suspicious of a changing narrative from people who said the narrative had never changed at all. People aren’t stupid. They have memories of what was said before.
By the way, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death— but is that protection short-lived too? We don’t yet know. Will we be asked to get 4, 5, 6 shots or is that strategy played out (as some of the data from Israel suggest)? We know protection from infection fades, but what about protection from the worst consequences? We don’t know. So let’s acknowledge that. We don’t know.
The problem is: the pro-covid-vax people started from a position of being pro-covid-vax. It was the magic bullet that would get us out of the pandemic. It was the basket into which our government put all its eggs (instead of anything else: there’s been no talk of, say, improved methods of testing or improving indoor ventilation in public spaces).
Then, no matter how the situation shifted and changed, the “pro” people changed what they said in order to remain pro-covid-vax, and in fact acted as if this is what they always said, all along. No, not really. Will that win anyone over to their side? Will this instill confidence in anyone with a brain? No not really.
But meanwhile, the anti-covid-vax people have been just as rigid and have done exactly the same thing. They changed their story as they went along, and then maintain they “were right all along.” Nope. They were not any more right than the pro-covid-vax people, and they’ve been just as slow to admit it, and just as prone to rewriting the history of what they said.
Many people started out reasonably hesitant to use a new technology. Fair enough. They were not “classic anti-vaxxers.” They often got other vaccines but were worried about this one. Reasonable.
But: Instead of the pro-covid-vaxxers patiently explaining the pros and cons (as those were understood at the time), they just resorted to social shaming: they tarred these folks with the anti-vax brush, which both scared and angered them, causing them to retreat into the same degree of rigid thinking as the pro-covid-vax people. They chose their side and by gum, they’ve stuck to it just as badly as the other team.
How has this played out? Well, at first when people were hesitant, and were being insulted and pressured instead of dialogued with, they needed someone to give them reasonable sounding “reasons” not to get this vaccine. Saying “I’m scared and hesitant to adopt a new technology” is less compelling than being able to give impressive and science-y sounding reasons A, B and C.
Enter, right on cue, Robert Malone. I’ve laid out in my own newsletter some of the ways he’s misrepresented reality (some might say “made factual claims without adequate support”; some might say “lied”) so I won’t rehash that here. A lot of people have done so.
But claims he made early on, such as about the animal testing, such as about the spike protein being “toxic” haven’t quite panned out.
There is no shame in being hesitant, because there are clearly no risk-free choices in life. You can get, say, Guillain Barre from a flu shot. You can get anaphylaxis from antibiotics. Strong “medicine” by definition has strong effects —and some of those effects will be bad.
Therefore it’s no surprise: It looks like you can (rarely) get TTS from the J&J vaccine which is why it’s no longer in favor. It looks like young men can (rarely) get myocarditis from a second or third dose, which is why reputable scientists like Paul Offit, while very much part of the pro-covid-vax mainstream, said publicly he recommends the covid shots overall but not a booster for his young adult son. (Offit got a lot of pushback for going against the pro-covid-vax grain; but this is one reason he has my trust as respect.)
So…the science is revealing the (real) rare side effects over time, which gives people more reasons to ponder whether they want the shot, all things considered. It’s not an easy choice. If I were initially one of the vaccine hesitant people, and if I were looking at the big picture, I’d probably be encouraged and way less hesitant a year later.
In fact, it would be an easy choice (in my view) if we had a highly effective, durable vaccine. It’s still an easy choice (in my view) for health care workers who are regularly exposed to covid. Possibly it’s an easy choice for people who work with the elderly and in other crowded settings like schools. These are discussions which rational people can have— and disagree on.
But instead of (either side) saying “this is complicated; the shots might or might not be for you, depending on the big picture,” both sides dug in.
In the anti-covid-vax camp, when the “toxic” spike protein didn’t turn out to be true, when the fertility claims didn’t turn out to be true, when the early animal research became less relevant (billions of doses in humans later), well, they just moved on to (real but rare) myocarditis and emotional appeals to “think of the children” as if kids were dropping like flies from the vaccine (they’re not).
Yes, the myocarditis is a real concern. The discussion needs to be had. It might or might not be a good choice for your child. But whether these vaccines pose such a danger that they’re killing people left and right, to the extent we need to be marching on Washington — well, I think the time would be much better spent on protesting gain of function research. No one’s talking about research that could wipe out humanity in the near future. (I’m rooting for the octopuses to succeed us.)
This is my very long-winded way of saying I’m very, very disappointed in the way in which everyone has gone into their little corners and refuses to leave. The guy who wrote this letter has a shaky understanding of a lot of stuff he referenced. He’s being set up as some kind of hero. He’s neither a hero nor a villain. He’s a guy with concerns. A guy who probably shouldn’t be made to have a vax he doesn’t want, even if his understanding of the science is shaky.
We could all have a reasonable conversation about why this guy doesn’t want this particular vaccine at this particular time, in this particular context (omicron being so mutated). But instead, it seems we’re all stuck looking for heroes and villains.
For the anti-covid-vax team, this guy will be a hero. To the pro-covid-vax team, this guy will be an ignorant obstacle.
No one on the “pro” side will concede anything and say, “well, a piece of what he says is accurate: do we want to force anyone to take a vaccine in the context of it being marginally effective at best? Should we wait and revisit the idea of mandates until (if and when) we have a more effective long-lasting vaccine that might really control this?”
No one in the “anti” side will concede anything and say, “well, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death. It really doesn’t turn out to be as dangerous as we initially feared. Maybe it is better for some people in some jobs (like health care) to agree to it. Maybe not truckers though.”
If we all saw a little bit of wisdom in the people on the other side, if we didn’t cast them as irredeemably evil and/or “captured” and/or corrupt and/or zombie victims of “mass psychosis” (!) and/or stupid, maybe our conversations and our ability to problem-solve would improve.
There may well be people for whom your comments are accurate--for people on both the pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax sides--but this "the truth is in the middle" and "both sides are entrenched" argument feels wrong. I strongly disagree with this sentiment of yours in particular:
"But meanwhile, the anti-covid-vax people have been just as rigid and have done exactly the same thing. They changed their story as they went along, and then maintain they “were right all along.” Nope. They were not any more right than the pro-covid-vax people, and they’ve been just as slow to admit it, and just as prone to rewriting the history of what they said."
On DarkHorse, we have consistently had concerns about two new kinds of technology being introduced at once in the mRNA vaccines, with no evolutionary history of either, and the impossibility of knowing long-term effects. We were surprised, frankly, and not in a good way, to see such a strong Adverse Event signal showing up so quickly. (We obviously still cannot know what the long term effects might be.) Add to that the deeply polluted data stream, which only one "side" has full access to, and find many of us working hard to decipher what we can see, but at a considerable disadvantage.
I disagree that we know that the spike protein isn't toxic, or that it doesn't have fertility effects, or that Adverse Events are particularly rare, compared to AEs for other vaccines. In fact I see strong evidence to the contrary. That is not a mark of entrenchment. It is in fact the result of having repeatedly, every week, sometimes daily, looking for evidence to the contrary, and not finding it.
Finally, the idea that, given a much stronger AE signal than anyone (whom I know) was expecting, and the fact that it's impossible yet to know what long-term effects might show up, what sane skeptic would announce now that "it really doesn’t turn out to be as dangerous as we initially feared"? That would be a naive statement at best.
Hear! Hear!
Well, I know you believe that, and to some extent, neither you nor I being subject matter experts in vaccines and the immune system or public health, it's a matter of which experts we choose to put our faith in. I think Robert Malone, for instance, is more a self-aggrandizing con man with conflicts of interest than a simple scientist. This is because of his history promoting various products (including a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being made in India) and the number of unsupported claims he's made, the ways in which he's overstated his subject matter expertise, and the ways in which he uses emotionally manipulative language. So I don't put my trust in him.
Neither do I put my trust in Fauci or Walensky when they and their organizations seem to have made decisions based on politics and not on evidence. And Becerra has just been MIA and needs to be removed.
I understand the distrust in the mainstream. I really do. I think the distrust is completely merited. I also understand that the mainstream holds the cards / holds the data. If you believe that the data are being withheld from the public, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I wouldn't put it past a sleazy company like Pfizer to do that. But I'm not quite to the point that I think -- even as politicized as they are -- that CDC and FDA are completely corrupt and would withhold safety information or AE information from us.
If that were the case, why did J&J fall from favor so quickly? If that were the case, why is the (real) myocarditis concern all over the news and being discussed so widely and publicly?
I understand the hesitance in new technology, or even new "regular vaccines." When my son was a baby the chicken pox vaccine was brand new. I made sure he had all the regular vaccines but didn't get the chicken pox one. The stakes were not very high. With covid the stakes are higher than with chicken pox, but I can still see a reasonable person not wanting their kids vaccinated.
I'm not saying the truth is in the middle. That's way too facile. I'm saying everyone has some valid points if only they would come out of their rigid corners, and reasonable people might come down on either side of the issue -- but I very much appreciate when people's reasons match the available data.
For example, the fertility thing. There's no particular mechanism by which the mRNA might affect people's fertility except a vague "the spike protein might get your ovaries" -- but then this came out last month: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734259/. No evidence of fertility problems -- and by the way, the Chinese are currently very invested in people having more children. If anything, the authors would be incentivized to point out any dangers of these vaccines as regards fertility.
Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But...at some point, one has to move on from the fertility thing. And getting covid itself seems to negatively affect sperm (even if it seems, at present to be a transient problem) -- see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7978437/. So it's complicated.
If you were to have Paul Offit on Dark Horse, that would be an interesting interview. He's a really good communicator and even if find you disagree with him, I bet you would enjoy the conversation.
It seems to me that you are making a social argument, and I am trying to make a scientific one, albeit with one hand tied behind my back, as it were, because of the dearth of data available to the public.
The idea that what we should be doing is deciding which "subject matter experts" to put our faith in is wrong-headed. There are people who *are* diving in to the data that *are* available; they are not doing so by believing one person or disbelieving another. I recommend https://roundingtheearth.substack.com and https://drrollergator.substack.com in addition to the sources that Jordan cites.
Furthermore, viruses, vaccines, immunity, and population vs individual level decisions and processes are all evolutionarily tractable problems; in some cases they are explicitly evolutionary. It is precisely the lack of evolutionary background among some of the "experts" that has helped get us into this mess.
You say “I also understand that the mainstream holds the cards / holds the data. If you believe that the data are being withheld from the public, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I wouldn't put it past a sleazy company like Pfizer to do that. But I'm not quite to the point that I think -- even as politicized as they are -- that CDC and FDA are completely corrupt and would withhold safety information or AE information from us.”
I trust you are aware that the FDA fought in court to have their Pfizer approval data withheld from the public for 75 years?
I trust you are aware that the BMJ has called out the vaccine companies for not being sufficiently transparent their data?
I trust you are aware that the very same alphabet entities that you’ve mentioned, the same entities that are denigrating the utility of VAERS, are the entities that designed and manage it?
I trust you are aware that the Ventavia whistleblower showed that there was not adequate follow up for trial participants with AEs despite FDA “oversight”?
I could go on much longer. But the real world evidence does not support the idea that the FDA and CDC are being transparent and responsible with the data on these treatments.
On Fertility alone: There is all manner of possible mechanisms of action specified for menstrual and fertility problems. Syncytin-1 resembles spike protein enough to be concerned, lines the uterus, is necessary for implantation of eggs. Dr. Christiane Northrup among many others has been warning about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncytin-1
All manner of autoimmunity can lead to fertility problems and I would direct you to the work of Dr. Philip McMillan of Vejon Health in the UK who has been on the COVID story early, he has many useful videocast presentations and is an expert researcher in autoimmunity.
The ovaries themselves are protected compartments that shouldn't be exposed to novel entities like spike proteins and the lipid nanoparticles that slip everywhere into our body. We don't need that exposure to be "immunized" from COVID. Dr. Richard Urso has been urgently discussing this problem, first revealed as a risk by Dr. Byram Bridle a pediatrician in Canada when he FOIA'd Pfizer data from Japan. This showed the speed and breadth of penetration of lipid nanoparticles into many parts of the body, particular ovaries, in mice.
Urso was last seen discussing this on The Highwire: https://rumble.com/vtqnir-over-500000-covid-deaths-could-have-been-prevented.html
VAERS reports, and now DMED are reporting remarkable rise in fertility, menstrual and miscarriage problems.
Fertility clinics have been sounding concerns. Coroners and Morticians have been discussing the astounding rise on baby corpses.
Steve Kirsch's latest Substack and interview with Stew Peters covers these latest disturbing safety signals. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/stew-peters-episode-on-spontaneous?r=c8vqx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Most importantly if we don't know if the mRNA is damaging to female fertility, to the unborn, and to the health of offspring then caution is always the rule with pharmaceuticals and pregnancy. No research has cleared the mRNA technology as safe in any meaningful study with published data over any long term.
Hi 21st Century--Jordan (author of the above here). Two ideas came to mind while reading.
One, I say in the piece I'm open to being convinced, and that I expect many of the claims, particularly about the *hypothetical* adverse effects, will or may likely be disproven. I have moved substantially on Covid and vaccine policy in general--starting out far from where I'm at currently. I have also recommended the vaccines to others for whom they appeared to make more sense. But I looked into the absolute risks of Covid for myself, knowing my health status, and decided I was fine with the risks, especially because I've been spending substantial periods of time in high exposure environments already for two years. I did appreciate much of what Paul Offit said recently on a podcast with ZDoggMD. Still, what's the point of getting a two year out of date vaccine, for a disease that is now much more mild, and from which I've already recovered and become buddy buddy with in the back of ambulances? I've seen this thing first hand. I've done a two year deep dive on the pathophysiology. I've taught classes on Covid management. I know my own health history. Etc.
Second and perhaps more relevant-- The government has a gun to my head: "get the vaccine or else..." I respond, 'keep your gun if you must, but please just don't point it at my head and threaten me with it" and you say 'this guy is dug in unreasonably.' All I want is to be given the space to make personal medical decisions without threats and coercion. This is particularly infuriating as the pressure has become most extreme when the justifications for it are the weakest they've ever been.
What kind of world is it where someone like Jordan can't have his privacy, medical freedom and autonomy, and everyone gets to weigh in on whether he gets it or not, and assumes they have any right to know his business. This isn't a reality show. Someone else is as free to be ignorant or expert of various health issues for making their own decisions, but stay away from mine. We have to ask ourselves as a civilization--how did we get to this point so suddenly and violate those sacred boundaries? I will be looking forward to hearing about Jordan's journey.
I don't know man. I don't think that the kind of change you want can come via a middle position. It would probably just end in another(!) lowest common denominator solution. You say that his understanding is shaky and he's being set up as a hero...? Is that dig on Heather? Based on your own logic he has as valid a position as any and you probably should not even be commenting on it then? I'll re-read your comment a few times and see if I can find some science I can wrap my head around.
I'm sorry you are disappointed but your definition of *true* and mine don't seem to agree and I'm ok with that.
No this is not a dig at Heather. Why would I comment on someone's newsletter if I didn't have a certain amount of respect for what they have to say? (Unless I were a troll, but I'm not.)
And no, I didn't address the science here in a newsletter comment. People have hashed this out in many places (and when I write my own newletter and make factual claims, I include links people can look at).
My point is a narrower point than the state of the science (and I'm pretty sure I didn't make any wild claims in my comment). My point is that most -- including both pro-covid-vax and anti-covid-vax voices -- treat the matter as settled, and then any piece of information they come across fits into their narrow idea of "this is what I already thought; and what's more I knew it all along!" Even though the narratives of both sides have changed more times than anyone can count.
It's very destructive to conversation.
Re "he has as valid a position as any" -- not really. He's free and encouraged to speak, and if his factual claims hold up his position is "more valid" and if his factual claims don't hold up, his position is "less valid." The same as anyone's.
My point is that whenever anyone is trotted out as a hero before we even carefully examine why they say what they say, we've short-circuited our ability to improve our concept of reality, which all of us should be striving to improve.
For example, let's take something fairly non-controversial like antibiotics. When prescribed appropriately, they save lives and decrease suffering. But if overprescribed, they cause resistance and lose effectiveness, and a lot of other problems.
Let's suppose someone wrote an essay that advocated for not overprescribing antibiotics, and the reasons they gave were, "If we overuse them, the antibiotic gods will be displeased and curse us, so the antibiotics stop working."
Well, one piece of that is true. Overused, the antibiotics stop working. And if you listened to that person's advice, and stopped overprescribing, you'd have a good outcome -- less resistance. But the reasons they believe it's true -- the antibiotic gods being displeased -- are not correct reasons.
So, it's quite possible for someone to hold a reasonable opinion "let's not overprescribe antibiotics" for a completely incorrect reason "because the gods will be displeased."
In that sense, our antibiotic Cassandra's views "are not as valid a position as any" -- they need to be evaluated.
All's I'm saying is that everyone has retreated into two rigid little camps. We're all making our data fit our narratives -- and we even change the narrative while saying we haven't. And it's hampering good discussions and good decision making.
"All's I'm saying is that everyone has retreated into two rigid little camps. We're all making our data fit our narratives -- and we even change the narrative while saying we haven't. And it's hampering good discussions and good decision making."
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are many 'camps'. All shapes, colors and sizes. For myself it becomes incumbent on the individual to continuously discover and distill ones own narrative into a cohesive and functional methodology for living in an ever changing world. Would that qualify as science? Ones concern for his fellow man is a reflection of the care of his own self. Maitreya made a very poignant post a while ago about using the teaching of Buddha to perhaps do just that. Again, I don't know, just my perceptions and ideas. I guess some of us are just not a good 'passengers'.
Exactly. The people concerned about vaccine safety and the way it was used in mass vaccination instead of targeted in violation of all our previous lessons learned, and the people who are innovating and implementing early and effective treatments have been begging "other camps" for those conversations. But the other camps refuse to come to the table. Steve Kirsch has offered millions of dollars for people to come to the table and debate, but they don't respond. Nobody in the aforementioned positions are hiding away in corners or behaving rigidly. All these thinkers are continually updating their knowledge bases, seeking out new opinions and sources of data. Always mindful of and discussing the fact that the science isn't settled but evolving. Bret and Heather were constantly modeling this exemplary behavior for their followers. But it doesn't mean that there isn't a core of meaningful evidence for the now that is compelling and on which we can base important decisions. Treat early. Stop abusive and ineffective masking. Halt the entire vaccine program and conduct more research.
Which side am I on?
- Yes, the vaccine does seem to prevent a certain amount of hospitalization and death.
- It is about as dangerous as I initially feared. In November 2020, I put down my gut feeling in writing: the probability of adverse side effects is around 10% of the probability of complications from Covid, and if your chance of contracting Covid is around 10%, the whole vaccine show is just maturity transformation, as we say in banking. And the mortality data clearly point to the possibility that vaccine-related deaths have exceeded Covid deaths during the 2nd half of 2021, here in Germany.
- It is better for some people to agree to it. I recommended it to my parents in the summer, when Covid was on holiday. They did not take it then, and they should not take it now (right at the omicron peak). I took a dose of J&J myself, stating clearly at the time that this was not for health reasons but to help society put the panic to rest. Latest regulations have thrown me back into vaccination limbo. I am not allowed into restaurants, swimming pools, most shops anymore. I will not take another jab.
- I am willing to drop all accusations if only the idea of mandates is abandoned (for the current vaccines and all hypothetical "more effective long-term vaccines").