Covid Vaccines Defended by Junk Science
Atheists Pg > Marxism, Communism, and Socialism
By Stephen Michael Leininger
December 12, 2022
Raymond D. Palmer Journal Article
The latest attempt to debunk the vaccine-clots linkage comes from Raymond D. Palmer. Before critiquing his article, it should be noted that his background is somewhat questionable. So much so, his history leads to serious questions about his article’s legitimacy. This article will not address the details of his background, but the following linked articles will. These articles can be found here and here.
Palmer’s article can be read here.
Let’s begin by addressing Palmer’s use of the word, misinformation within his article. The use of this word immediately reveals his biased view, which is the foundation of the topic about which he writes. The term is Orwellian “newspeak” for Truth that contradicts an agenda and, therefore, must be censored — at all costs. The recent release of the “Twitter Files” is a prime example of how the media and the socials are substituting the word “Truth” with the word “misinformation.”
Another term that needs to be clarified is vaccination and immunity. Why the clarification? Because the definitions have been changed since the introduction of the new mRNA vaccinations. Looking at a 2018 archived page of the CDC’s website, we see the original definition of “vaccine” was, “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Furthermore, the definition of immunity” was “Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” In 2021, the CDC removed the word “immunity” from the definition. Why? Because the new vaccines were not designed to prevent transmission of Covid. They were only intended to lessen the severity of its consequences. The CDC’s statements directly contradict all of the previous misinformation we were told about the efficacy of the vaccines. The CDC is directly responsible for censoring the truth about the damage the vaccines cause.
The above provides an example of bait-and-switch tactics utilized in Palmer’s article. He writes, “Vaccines include antigens that produce an immune response which is adept at providing protection from disease.” Palmer’s comment contradicts the CDC’s new definition of vaccines. The Covid vaccines did not protect us from the disease. It only mitigates the symptoms of the disease — a big difference. Of twenty-five citations in Palmer’s article, only four (six if you factor in the 2020 introduction of mRNA gene therapies employed as vaccines) were written since the CDC changed the definition of vaccines. Consequently, Palmer may be conflating studies involving old vaccines with the new vaccines/gene therapies.
In his article, Palmer writes: “Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups.”[1] Could it be? Sure! And Santa Clause could also deliver all his gifts to the world’s children in one night. Unfortunately, Mr. Palmer provides zero research to support his causation hypothesis. Instead, he tries to hide that he is simply expressing an opinion. To make it sound authoritarian, he uses terms such as: “most likely cause;” “most likely be attributed to;” “it is highly probable;” and “highly likely.” All of these phrases are empty words. He is telling us: Don’t look behind that curtain Dorothy (in The Wizard of Oz). Nothing there to see.
The only statistically significant research he cites shows that stress can lead to “vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels” and the potential formation of blood clots. This assertion is common scientific knowledge. Research shows that stress affects every aspect of human biological function. However, he then makes a massive leap of logic by saying that these sudden deaths are “highly likely” to have been caused by anti-vaxxer “terrorism.” Unfortunately (for him), his opinions concerning the linkage are not supported by any research. In other words, Palmer is proffering an article based on junk science — his own unsubstantiated beliefs.
Palmer ignores other logical problems that affect the validity of his opinion. For example, some studies have shown that the risk of developing heart inflammation is two to three times higher with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine when compared to Pfizer.[2] According to Daniel Otis of CTV News:
The study tracked people 18 years or older who received a second dose of either the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna Spikevax COVID-19 vaccines in British Columbia between Jan. 1, 2021 and Sept. 9, 2021. In total, more than 2.2 million second Pfizer doses were administered in B.C. during that period, plus 870,000 Moderna doses.Within 21 days of a second dose, there were 59 myocarditis cases (28 Pfizer and 31 Moderna) and 41 pericarditis cases (21 Pfizer and 20 Moderna). Researchers then calculated the rate of heart inflammation, and found there were 35.6 cases per million for Moderna and 12.6 per million for Pfizer – a nearly threefold difference.
The above study contradicts Palmer’s hypothesis. In the real world, the level of stress among the vaccine recipients should generally be the same, regardless of which vaccine they received. However, this is not borne out by research. The results of one study indicate that individual vaccines (and not stress) produce different rates of myocarditis and pericarditis. Therefore, Palmer would have us believe that those receiving the Moderna vaccine were three times more stressed than the Pfizer recipients. Huh??? That is ridiculous. In other words, Palmer is peddling junk science. Does Palmer make the scientific case that anti-vaxxer misinformation may contribute to sudden death among young people? No. He is opining, employing bait-and-switch tactics; Palmer wants us to associate thinly-related studies to his unsubstantiated opinions concerning the “most likely cause” of myocarditis among the vaccinated. The American College of Cardiology [3] study debunks his opinion.
In an interview with Palmer by journalist Rebekah Barnett, Palmer launched into a monologue during which he described himself as a data-driven scientist. Is that so??? There was a long pause after Barnett asked him for the data he used to justify his claim that the stress of anti-vaxxer misinformation caused the vaccine side effects. Then he replied, “The literature hasn’t been written yet.” Allow me to translate: There is no data. I’m just guessing to further an agenda!!!
A statistically significant study (p-value <0.05) requires a null hypothesis that can be tested. I’ll make a prediction. There is no statistically significant study in which the null hypothesis says that stress resulting from anti-vaxxer misinformation and tactics of terror are causing sudden deaths among those vaccinated for Covid. For Palmer’s study to be trusted, multiple alternative hypotheses would have to be tested.
For example: 1) Almost all major media outlets and social media heavily censor those opposed to the Covid vaccines. Again, this is proven through the release of the so-called Twitter Files. Does it have an impact on the null hypothesis: 2) Could the immense pressure put upon employees by their employers and by the government to get vaccinated also cause the same side effects of the jab; 3) Could the intense peer pressure manifested through hatred, shaming, and personal attacks, upon those wishing to avoid the unsafe vaccines, produce sudden death? I could go on. Despite his objections, my son, a Physician’s Assistant, was forced to get vaccinated to keep his hospital privileges and income.
Palmer claims he is a scientist. Actual scientists are required to be objective, to go where objective science leads them. In Palmer’s article, it becomes clear that he is not an objective observer and scientist. For example, in his article, he writes:
1). “Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise [sic] people into staying unvaccinated.” Does that sound like objectivity to you?2). “The science for the vaccines causing blood clots has not been found.” This claim is patently false. Here are just a few studies Palmer thinks don’t exist:
3). “Other causes for this cascade from vaccines to blood clotting events may be found in existing medical literature.” The problem with this statement is this: as described above, chemical analysis of the large “clots” taken from the deceased in the video, Died Suddenly, are not blood clots. Instead, as Dr. Warrick said above, they are fibrous Emboli. Consequently, any studies that Palmer cites to support his blood clot theory are not even pertinent to his hypothesis.4). “The science discussed here clearly establishes that anxiety and fear causes vasoconstriction disorders, and that a particular movement that is trying to save people with a profound lack of scientific and medical training (the anti-vaccination movement) from vaccine side effects may actually be the entity causing the majority of side effects.” The only thing clear in this statement is Palmer’s disdain for, and bias against, those who disagree with his opinion, as evidenced by his blanket statement referring to the population as possessing a “profound lack of scientific and medical training.”
Speaking of biases and agendas relative to scientific studies, let us tackle the ugly reality of the current crisis of irreproducibility in the scientific literature. Since Palmer’s article is peer-reviewed, we need to address that process.
The Crisis of Irreproducibility; the Unreliability of the Peer-Review Process
According to Professor John Ioannidis, most (or even the vast majority) of all modern published research contains false findings.[4] Unfortunately, false results lead to incorrect conclusions that can radically affect our beliefs and actions. One of the significant factors cited by Ioannidis for these research errors is research bias and/or poorly designed research modeling.[5] False assumptions would fit into this category. Unfortunately, this lack of reliability is also true of the gold standard of research, i.e., peer-reviewed studies. The reliability problems with peer review are seen in the following cited sources.[6][7][8] A more detailed treatment of junk-, agenda-, false-, biased-science can be reviewed here.
Update: 10/12/2023
ENDNOTES:
[1]. Palmer, Raymond D. “Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines.” BioMedicine vol. 12,3 1-4. 1 Sep. 2022, doi:10.37796/2211-8039.1371.
[2]. Naveed Z, Li J, Wilton J, et al. Comparative Risk of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following Second Doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Coronavirus Vaccines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Nov, 80 (20) 1900–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.799.
[3]. Naveed Z, Li J, Wilton J, et al. Comparative Risk of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following Second Doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Coronavirus Vaccines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Nov, 80 (20) 1900–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.799.
[4]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Note: John Ioannidis is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research & Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.
[5]. John P. A. Ioannidis JPA (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
[6]. Richard L. Kravitz, Peter Franks, Mitchell D. Feldman, Martha Gerrity, Cindy Byrne, William M. Tierney, “Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?,” Plos One, Published: April 8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
[7]. Donna Laframboise, “Junk Science Week: You think 'peer review' proves anything about the reliability of science?,” Financial Post, https://financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-you-think-peer-review-proves-anything-about-the-reliability-of-science-think-again, June 19, 2017 (accessed 3/12/2019).
[8]. Smith, R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 12, S13 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742. (Accessed 3/19/2017).