Pro-Vaccine Scientist Claims Confirmation Of Kennedy, Bhattacharya, & Makary Will Decrease Skepticism But Misses The Mark With Argument

Vaccine skepticism began occurring long before the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shot burst on the scene. Parents had long reported health problems in their children after certain vaccines were administered. With the push of the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shot, coupled with the repeated lies from those at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and various “public health agencies, the skepticism surrounding vaccines has multiplied, particularly where mandates are concerned.

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, biostatistician, and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, claims in an article posted at The Brownstone Institute, first appearing at Real Clear Politics, that vaccine skepticism has a cure. While Kulldorff claimed “the only way to restore public trust in vaccination … is to put a well-known vaccine skeptic in charge of the vaccine research agenda”. Kulldorff is referring to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. being nominated as the director of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Since when is the director of HHS “in charge of the vaccine research agenda”? While Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been outspoken on childhood vaccines and injuries reported by parents, one could hardly call him a “vaccine skeptic”. He has indicated in the past he wanted to have “safe and effective” vaccines, verified by proper placebo-controlled studies. It is true that Kennedy questioned the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shots, speaking out against the bioweapon facets. However, there are more vaccines than just the CONvid-1984.

At the same time, we must put rigorous scientists with a proven track record of evidence-based medicine in charge of determining the type of study designs to use. Two ideal scientists for this are Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, who have been nominated to lead the NIH and FDA, respectively.

There is no doubt that study designs for vaccine products produced by pharmaceutical companies need to be more rigorous and thorough, not to mention including long-term evaluation for immune mediated diseases. Good manufacturing processes have to be implemented, evaluated, and enforced. Currently, this is not being done and Kulldorff doesn’t address this. Moreover, the pharmaceutical companies should not be involved in testing and evaluating its own product in clinical trials. Clinical trials should be conducted by independent, non-biased, conflict of interest free entities.

Kulldorff is operating from the belief that “vaccines save(d) lives” and there are “tried-and-true vaccines that are proven to work”. His entire article was a “lead in” to cultivate support for Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary. However, the argument he used appears faulty.

Vaccines are – along with antibiotics, anesthesia, and sanitation – one of the most significant health inventions in history. First conceived in 1774 by Benjamin Jesty, a farmer in Dorsetshire, England, the smallpox vaccine alone has saved millions of lives. Operation Warp Speed, which rapidly developed the Covid vaccines, saved many older Americans. Despite this, we have seen a sharp increase in general vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine scientists and public health officials who did not conduct properly randomized trials made false claims about vaccine efficacy and safety and established vaccine mandates for people who did not need the vaccines, sowing suspicion and damaging public trust in vaccination.

If you want to thank anyone for improving health and decreasing diseases, thank a plumber. Wasn’t the “smallpox” epidemic about over when smallpox vaccines were “mandated” in certain US states? Are there any documents and/or studies indicating the “smallpox vaccine has saved millions of lives”? And, did Operation Warp Speed save many older Americans? Kulldorff makes these claims without providing any source to validate his claim, meaning Kulldorff is operating from his “belief system” regarding vaccines. “Vaccine hesitancy” had been increasing over the last decade due to issues with childhood vaccines. But, the hesitancy surrounding the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shot occurred because of the perceived rapid nature with which these products were produced using new technology never tried on humans, and the emergency authorization use of these products. Mandates then pushed the skepticism over the edge where the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon product was concerned.

Based on what is known, the FDA relies on the clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies to determine efficacy and safety. There has been no independent “vaccine scientists” nor any public health official or agency that has conducted “properly randomized trials” to verify the results submitted by the pharmaceutical companies to the FDA. Once the product is approved, it is considered “unethical” to do another trial or study.

What went wrong? The purpose of the Covid vaccines was to reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the randomized trials were only designed to demonstrate short-term reduction in Covid symptoms, which is not of great public health importance. Since the placebo groups were promptly vaccinated after the emergency approval, they also failed to provide reliable information about adverse reactions. Despite these flaws, it was falsely claimed that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural infection-acquired immunity and that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission.

Governments and universities then mandated the vaccines for people with superior natural immunity and for young people with very low mortality risk. These mandates were not only unscientific but with a limited vaccine supply, it was unethical to vaccinate low-mortality-risk people when the vaccines were needed by older high-risk people around the world.

Since government and pharmaceutical companies lied about the Covid vaccine, are they also lying about other vaccines? Skepticism has now spread to tried-and-true vaccines that are proven to work.

While Kulldorff indicates mandates were “unscientific” and “unethical” concerning the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shot, he fails to recognize mandates violate proper informed consent, ignore rights contained in the Ninth Amendment, and protected civil liberties. Moreover, Kulldorff ignores the “mandates” for children to receive vaccines recommended by the CDC for infants and children to attend school, which are also unscientific, unethical, violating proper informed consent, ignoring rights contained in the Ninth Amendment, and violating protected civil liberties. Kulldorff claims there are “tried-and-true vaccines that are proven to work” without providing any documentation to support his claim. To answer Kulldorff’s question – yes, if the government and pharmaceutical companies lied about the CONvid-1984 mRNA gene therapy bioweapon shot, they have lied about other vaccines as well.

And there are real, unanswered vaccine safety questions. Seminal work from Denmark has shown that vaccines can have both positive and negative non-specific effects on non-targeted diseases, and that is something that must be explored in greater depth. Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) scientists studying asthma and aluminum-containing vaccines concluded that while their “findings do not constitute strong evidence for questioning the safety of aluminum in vaccines…additional examination of this hypothesis appears warranted.”

While VSD and other scientists should continue to do observational studies, we should also conduct randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials, as RFK has advocated. Since we have herd immunity for many diseases, such as measles, trials can be ethically conducted by randomizing the age of vaccination to, for example, one versus three years old, while spreading the trial over a large geographical area so that the unvaccinated are not all living close to each other.

I am confident that most vaccines will continue to be found safe and effective. While some problems may be found, that is more likely to increase rather than decrease vaccine confidence. For instance, it was found that the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine causes excess febrile seizures in 12- to 23-month-old children. MMRV is now only given as a second dose to older children, while the younger kids get separate MMR and varicella vaccines, resulting in fewer vaccine-induced seizures that scare parents. Although safety studies were inconclusive, it was also wise to remove mercury from vaccines. Even if we end up with fewer vaccines in the recommended vaccine schedule, that’s not necessarily a terrible thing. Scandinavia has a very healthy population with fewer vaccines in their schedules.

Kulldorff’s argument is heavily based on belief, not facts. While recognizing there are “unanswered vaccine safety questions”, he maintains “most vaccines will continue to be found safe and effective”. He ignores the lack of evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective. Kulldorff endorses what is considered unethical behavior in conducting trials after a product has been approved. He also ignores the other adjuvants in vaccines that could be harmful as well as contaminants that have been found in vaccines – aborted fetal cells, SV 40, tromethamine, and unidentified DNA contaminants. Would finding problems truly increase vaccine confidence? Individuals making decisions on whether or not to vaccinate are not provided proper informed consent. Moreover, when these products are “mandated” by government, problems with vaccine products are swiftly shoved under the rug. Government has long protected the pharmaceutical companies from liability through immunity for injury and death their vaccine products have caused while protecting the profit of the pharmaceutical companies through mandates. Moreover, government employees enjoy “royalties” from the administration of these products. These are also issues that have contributed to vaccine skepticism.

At no point does Kulldorff address the CDC’s ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) nor the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). There are serious issues with both of the advisory committees, including conflicts of interest and the ability of the agencies under which they operate to ignore recommendations.

Why does Kulldorff not address these issues? If these products were, as he believes, safe and effective, product liability immunity should be removed, mandates lifted for everyone, and government employees should be prohibited from profiting through royalties. If these products are so great, are safe, and are effective, shouldn’t the pharmaceutical companies and government be able to convince the public on the merits without mandating the products?

We won’t restore vaccine confidence by preaching to the choir. After the Covid debacle, Kennedy’s stated goal is to return to evidence-based medicine free from conflicts of interest. Letting him do that is the only way that skeptics will trust vaccines again, and those of us who trust vaccines have no reason to be afraid of that.

Attempts by the public health and pharma establishments to derail the nominations of RFK, Bhattacharya, and Makary are the surest way to further increase vaccine hesitancy in America. The choice is stark. We cannot let lopsided “pro-vaccine scientists” who clamp their hands over their ears at the mildest questions do any more harm to vaccine confidence. As a pro-vaccine scientist, and in fact, the only person ever being fired by the CDC for being too pro-vaccine, the choice is clear in my mind. To restore vaccine confidence to previous levels, we must support the nominations of Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary.

It’s going to take more than the Senate approval of Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary to their nominated positions to restore confidence in vaccines – much more. And, no one should put their “trust” in man, a product, or government. Trust of that nature is more than misplaced. There are career employees in these agencies Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary are nominated to head that can and will derail any of their efforts – it is part of the “deep state”. Considering that these agencies (FDA, HHS, and NIH) are unconstitutional, along with the CDC, there should be zero confidence in anything and everything these agencies do.

Kulldorff gets an “A” for effort; but, the content of his argument gets an “F” for looking through the lens of a “pro-vaccine” belief while failing to recognize and address the depth of issues that have caused vaccine skepticism, which has been perpetrated by the unconstitutional government agencies, the pharmaceutical companies, legislation passed by Congress protecting the vaccine industry, and complicity of the States in all of this.