 |
| Christian Elliot, who wrote the "18 Reasons" image from here |
A couple of days later my most-frightened-of-Covid friend posted a link
to a rebuttal called “18 reasons I SHOULD be getting a Covid vaccine,” by
Katelyn Jetelina, which she wrote to dispel Elliot’s fearmongering and harmful misinformation.
I clicked on her bio, and she has a Masters
in Public Health and PhD in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. So we’ll keep that
in mind as we go through the information, noting that she derides Elliot as
“not an epidemiologist, not a healthcare provider, not public health
specialist, not an immunologist, and not anything that qualifies him to speak
accurately on this topic.”
However, what he is writing on is his personal reasons—which
apparently we’re not allowed to have if we don’t have a PhD in epidemiology?
Let me note that her qualifications DO NOT qualify her to know my
reasons better than I know them about this or any other topic.
My plan, here, is to list his reasons and her rebuttals, and
decide which one I’m persuaded by. It will be even longer than my usual (not as
long as Elliot’s original, though). So it will be my only post this week.
Before I do the exercise, I don’t know whether I’ll tend
toward different sides on different reasons. But I’ll note that Elliot provides
a great many links to sources he used. Jetelina uses occasional government
sources and many links to her other blog posts (not that I object to that; I do
it). I’m just saying Elliot wasn’t setting himself up as the authority; he was
showing you what sources persuaded him, which you’re free to check out for
yourself.
And now we’ll proceed.
#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY
 |
| Katelyn Jetelina image from here |
The point here goes to Elliot.
#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES
This is a provocative way of wording it. But Elliot gives
long lists of the lawsuits in question, with links, so you don’t have to take
his word for it.
Jetelina says, “I guess this is true. But most companies
have a checkered past?” Do they really? And that should inspire our trust? She
points out that’s why we have a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for
every study, of the FDA scientists, and the CDC scientists—because government
regulation works so well you won’t even have a need for lawsuits. Oh, wait…
The point here goes to Elliot.
#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS
VACCINES
Jetelina says, “What? There is no ugly history.” It’s all
bright and shiny and heroic and not rushed. Proof here. (It’s her blog of January 17, 2021.)
But she doesn’t actually respond to the historical failures
Elliot cites:
· A 1960s attempt at making a Respiratory
Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine for infants, which ended up making vaccinated
infants much sicker than the unvaccinated. Here’s the reference.
· In 2004 attempted
vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets
· In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to
coronaviruses after being vaccinated
· In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
· In 2016 this
study also produce
lung disease in mice.
· A pattern was, when children or animals were
exposed to a wild version of the virus, an
unexplained
phenomenon called Antibody Dependent
Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where
the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly
attacked the body), and the children/animals died.
Elliot says,
In other words, never before has any attempt to make a
coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that
is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market.
I agree with Jetelina that there was a lot done prior to
2020. I also agree with Elliot that there were a lot of past failures, and we
don’t actually know yet whether the current Covid vaccines are going to follow
in that pattern or be a miraculous breakthrough.
Elliot wins this point as well.
#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE
VACCINE MAKERS
As Elliot explains, “among the many ‘Data Gaps’ they
reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame
that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.”
Jetelina doesn’t argue that point but challenges some
particular data gaps Elliot lists. She admits there are gaps for under 18 and
for pregnant and lactating mothers. But she challenges the other categories:
age 55+, those with auto-immune conditions (not a gap, she says, but not enough
examples, so consult your own physician, who won’t have more data either, but
at least presumably knows you), immunocompromised (ditto: not a gap, but not
enough examples), transmission of covid, preventing mortality from covid, duration
of protection from covid.
Elliot links to FDA reports for Pfizer (see page 46) and for Moderna (see page 48) from December. Jetelina links to her previous blog from February, which
reported hopeful “leaked” reports that she hadn’t actually seen.
Are there data gaps? Yes.
Elliot gets this point.
#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS
Elliot refers to a January BMJ (British Medical Journal)
article by associate editor Peter Doshi, in which Doshi questioned using “suspected
COVID-19 cases” in a study, without follow-up on why they remain only suspected
but were included in the data. By the way, Doshi follows up in February with
additional clarification—on his question, but not additional data, which still
hasn’t been provided.
Jetelina links to “raw data” in the form of a report from
J&J, Moderna, and Pfizer to the FDA—which, it turns out are her blogs about
the reports, not the reports themselves. But there’s data in there. (Elliot
linked again to those same two reports from the previous question.) She does not respond
to the question Elliot refers to, brought up by Peter Doshi.
Elliot gets another point.
#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING
This is obvious, since the product has only been on the
market for a few months. That kind of data can only come in time. Jetelina
agrees, but says there’s reason not to worry. She links to—yet another of her blogs, in which she says the lack of previous FDA approval is “NOT because the past
mRNA vaccines have been deemed unsafe. It’s because past mRNA vaccines haven’t
been very effective.” The trouble has been getting them into the cells. Later
in the piece, she says the reason mRNA is not dangerous like DNA-containing
vaccines (none approved for humans) is because they don’t get into the nucleus
of the cell. So did they solve that getting-into-the-cell-to-be-effective
problem or not? Not clear.
She does include a link to this University of Cambridge policy briefing, pre-dating COVID-19, which is informative about mRNA vaccines
and what they are. I think, though, she may have skipped over the part about “Important
Challenges,” which includes “Unintended effects: the mRNA strand in the vaccine
may elicit an unintended immune reaction.”
Elliot gets this point too.
#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT
Elliot views the vaccinations now ongoing, in which we don’t
have actual FDA approval but we have EUA (emergency use approval), as a trial.
He and others who have not taken the vaccine are the de facto control group.
Jetelina says that, if you’re in a trial, you absolutely do
read a 15-page explanation, so you are informed fully of your risk, which you
sign before taking the trial medicine. I agree that is what should happen in a
trial.
So I suggest asking anyone who has gotten this vaccine: Did
you read and sign a 15-page document explaining the risks and giving your permission
to be used as a trial subject?
If they did, then there is no way a person should be
pressured into becoming part of a trial. If they didn’t, then Elliot is right; they
are part of a trial without informed consent.
Either way, Elliot gets this point.
#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH
Elliot cites a Harvard study commissioned by the US
government, reporting that fewer than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines
are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System
(VAERS).” And VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID-19 vaccines, as well as
close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
It’s hard to say whether COVID-19 vaccine reactions are
underreported. But if they are, he says, “you can do the math, but that equates
to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a
ridiculous number of adverse reactions.” My layperson guess is, that
extrapolation is rather high, at least so far. But the reported 2,200 isn’t so
low that it's inconsequential either.
Jetelina claims there’s never been a more transparent
vaccine reporting than for this one. She “proves” it with several of her own
blogs.
Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (I believe
that’s the single shot one, which is similar to the Astra-Zeneca vaccine
suspended elsewhere) was “paused” in the US, because of six cases of blood
clots, including one death. I speculate that a vaccine with that much
investment doesn’t get pulled for a tiny problem, or “an overabundance of
caution,” as the press release stated.
Elliot wins another point.
#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION
and #10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED
I’m taking these two together, because they’re related.
These vaccines were not designed to completely stop
transmission or infection. Elliot says, “The primary endpoint (what the
vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.” He refers to the
FDA reports linked earlier (here and here).
Jetelina says, yes, they do stop transmission and infection.
She links to a February 20 blog post she had referred to before. And a table she made.
Mostly I think we don’t know yet what happens when a
vaccinated person is exposed to the virus—because most vaccinated people have not
yet been exposed.
However, there are reports of vaccinated people getting the
virus. Here’s his list:
·
It's happening in
Washington
State
·
It's happening in
New
York
·
It's happening in
Michigan
·
It's happening in
Hawaii
· It's happening in several other states too.
· It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got the vaccine in Kentucky. Two of them died by the way.
Also, maybe you recall this story from Britain, telling
people not to hug their vaccinated kids. So which side is fearmongering, again?
Jetelina says vaccinated people getting/spreading the virus
only happens when you haven’t had both shots, or when you get exposed too soon
(within a couple of weeks) of getting your shots, when immunity hasn’t had a
chance to build up yet.
So how do you explain those FDA reports about long-term
immunity not even being the goal? Or the requirement to keep wearing a mask and
remain uncertain about whether you can get it or spread it? She doesn’t respond
to that.
While we’ll eventually get more data, both points go to
Elliot.
#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID
The question here is, why take a risky vaccine for an
illness that has a 99.74% survival rate? I’m not sure what the comparative
numbers are, but there are vaccines now for measles, mumps, rubella, and
chicken pox.
The odd thing here has been a lockdown of the population for
a disease so unlikely to cause death. And while Elliot doesn’t bring it up here,
around 70% of deaths would have been prevented if the known treatments had been
allowed to be used. (See my posts here and here.)
Elliot says it this way:
Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop
infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of
killing me—actually in my age range it has about a .1% chance of killing me
(and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here.
Jetelina halfway admits this is true—but not for some
populations (80+ and those with multiple co-morbidities). I’ll note that my
octogenarian and nonagenarian friends who have had COVID-19 all recovered, so
that’s my anecdotal experience. She points out, though, that death isn’t the
only bad outcome.
She started her piece by claiming Elliot had been
dangerously fearmongering. But here she says, “There isn’t one body system that
COVID19 hasn’t left a mark.” (I think she means “on which it hasn’t left a
mark.”) This is actually what my most fearful friends fear. It’s an effective
argument. But it doesn’t overcome the knowledge that we’ve had effective
treatments for over a year that, if given early on, would have prevented damage
to all those other body parts.
I’m persuaded by Elliot again on this point.
#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS
I have found the reporting of COVID-19 on death certificates confusing from the outset. Elliot references a WHO classification document, with chart. I still don’t find it clear.
 |
| COVID-19 flowchart for coding death certificates image from here |
Jetelina says this just isn’t true, and we should have more
faith in our medical experts. She links to a blog post she wrote in March on
excess deaths.
Are there more COVID-19 caused deaths than reported? Or
fewer than reported? I don’t know. However, I know one person whose mother died
from cancer—totally unrelated to COVID-19; she did not have COVID-19 and had
not been exposed to it. He was livid to learn that they listed COVID-19 as the
cause of death on her death certificate. Also, I have a good friend whose
mother (in her 80s) was near death for two months with heart issues. My friend
and her mother both came down with COVID-19 the same week. Her mother died. Actually of
heart failure. Probably sooner than she would have because of COVID-19.
It took a long time for me to know anyone who actually had
COVID-19. I’ve known many now. I have not personally known anyone who died of
COVID-19. So my anecdotal experience is that over-reporting is more common than
actually dying of COVID-19. Clearly not a scientific study, but it affects my
belief.
I give the point to Elliot.
#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE
MODERNA VACCINE and #14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION
RESEARCH
Elliot links a story and video here, and a story (containing multiple source links) about NIH’s (part of NIAID) connections
to Moderna.
And on #14 he adds a couple of links talking about “gain-of-function”
research: here and here.
Jetelina doesn’t dispute the claims. She just says,
essentially, so what? And, “Stop targeting this man.”
This man has been duplicitous and condescending,
disregarding our lives, our freedoms, our need to make a living—as if eradicating
this low-mortality and treatable disease was the only life purpose anyone should
have. He’s been a bully. I’m not too concerned that people are calling him out
for things that look shady.
Both points go to Elliot.
#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE
Mutating is what viruses do. Typically they do it in a way
that is less likely to kill the host and more likely that they can reach
additional hosts. Viruses get more contagious but less virulent. The question
Elliot brings up is whether the vaccine will be effective for the mutations—the
variants. Or whether new vaccines will be required continually.
Why get a risky vaccine that won’t be effective in just a
few months, so you’ll have to get yet another risky vaccine? Ad infinitum?
Jetelina’s claim is that it’s the vaccines that are
effective against the variants. That natural immunity is specific only to the
original. Reading I’ve done is exactly opposite of what she says. She offers no
links.
The point goes to Elliot.
#16: CENSORSHIP...AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC
DEBATE
Elliot points out that robust debate was completely missing
concerning:
·
Lockdowns.
·
Mask wearing.
·
Social-distancing.
·
Vaccine efficacy
and safety trials.
· How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury.
· Therapeutics, (i.e., non-vaccine treatment options).
I’ll add to that the various effective treatments. If you so much as questioned these things, you were censored. That
included doctors—some of whom got fired or reprimanded for bringing up these
things—along with the data they had collected.
 |
| America's Frontline Doctors screenshot from video |
Elliot adds, “Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can
question vaccine safety, but I can't?” with a link to a Washington Times
piece about Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy.
Jetelina’s entire response is,
Absence of scientific debate? This guy needs to get outside
of his echo chamber. There has been nothing but scientific debate during the
entire pandemic. See any of my posts from the past year that describe this.
As noted above, her blog posts are opinion pieces. She puts
data in them, but everything is designed to support her personal opinion. There
is no debate there.
I’ve been shadow-banned and had cautions added to my very innocuous
posts on social media. My personal experience aligns with Elliot’s assertion. Maybe
Jetelina’s the one who needs to get out of her echo chamber.
This point definitely goes to Elliot.
#17: THE WORLD'S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE
ALARM...
Elliot refers to a particular doctor, Geert Venden Bossche. Elliot
says,
When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has
spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is
shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man
should be heard.
In case you missed it, and in case you care to
watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:
1. Why the covid
vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating
its ability to mutate and become more deadly.
2. Why the covid
vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic
resistant bacteria).
3. Why, because of
previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a
mass casualty event in the next few months/years.
Jetelina responds, in entirety:
This “leading vaccinologist” worth another misinformation post in
and of itself. Maybe I will do that next.
I don’t know how to vouch for this particular vaccinologist. But I
would add his concerns to those of Dr. Scott Atlas,
Dr. John Birge, Dr. Ralph Keeney, Dr. Alexander Lipton, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Redfield (CDC director until recently), Dr. Simone Gold, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko,
Dr. Robin Armstrong,
Dr. Didier Raoult, Dr. Rob Elens,
Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Astin Massihi, Ivor Cummins, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, and probably many others. Why are their
experience, their data, their questions, their conclusions all wrong, but we
should trust Dr. Jetelina as the expert?
The point goes to Elliot.
#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID
Elliot had it. It was unpleasant. But he survived. His whole
household did. And, as he says, and backs up by linking to the data,
Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long
immunity...
...not something likely to wear off in a few
months if I get the vaccine.
That’s how viruses have always been understood; you survive them and get immunity as your reward.
It seems much more
likely that those who have had it are all now immune for life. Or at least for
such a long time that the variants have turned it into an entirely different,
unrecognizable-by-the-immune-system virus, which is I think why we can
repeatedly get the flu and common colds. But we don’t shut down society for
those.
Jetelina says,
Doesn’t matter if you already had COVID19. We don’t know how much
natural protection helps and, more importantly, who or when it helps.
Protection weans [sic.] especially for the milder or asymptomatic cases. Also,
we have seen very recently that the antibody response is stronger for those
with vaccines (when compared to “natural” infection).
Why don’t we know whether you get immunity from having the
disease? Why would this virus be different from all others? And why would
protection wane (I’m pretty sure she didn’t mean “weans”) for milder or
asymptomatic cases? Isn’t it true that your immune system already worked well
against the virus if you only got a very mild case? Why would an antibody
response be stronger for people who’ve had the vaccine than those whose immune
systems already worked without it?
She doesn’t say.
I’d say Elliot won this point—the hard way.
That means the score is Elliot 18, Jeterina 0.
CONCLUSION
I have personal reasons for not getting the vaccine: while I risk
getting a bad case, it is treatable; whatever happens to me as a result of the vaccine
is not. Experience taught me the hard way not to get a flu shot either. I’ve
been vaccinated for various other things, including a booster for tetanus not
so long ago. But my immune system is a special case, with sensitivities to a
great many things that normal people don’t worry about. I work hard to stay
healthy. And I deserve the respect that I’ve earned—without being shamed for
not taking this risk, without being deprived of my ability to travel, shop, or
attend events. My healthcare is my private business, and not the government’s,
or some corporation’s.
What I’ve learned from this comparison exercise, though, is that having
a PhD in something doesn’t make you less likely to be so emotionally invested in
an outcome that you fail to think things through. Sometimes it takes someone
outside the specialty to ask the right questions.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t get the vaccine (or that you shouldn’t
have, if you already did). I haven’t even tried to scare my kids away from
taking it. Some have gotten theirs. What I am saying is, we ought to assume
that a person has their reasons for the decisions they make. And maybe if you
listen to them, you’ll learn something you didn’t know that you didn’t know.
No comments:
Post a Comment