A Polite Rebuttal To Richard Ebright
A Polite Rebuttal To Richard Ebright
Can diplomacy bridge the gap?
Previously these Tweets had been written…
There are of course, many more, but the article isn’t titled ‘the history of the times Richard Ebright mentioned the words vaccine mandate in a Tweet’, these are just to set the context.
Lab Leaks Threaten The World
Now, we agree on many things: we both agree the lab leaks are real, we both view Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric’s behaviours as inappropriate, I’ve even quoted your remarks on the lab leak topic, and we both view gain-of-function research as extremely dangerous.
Now, some of my readers might be confused as to why I’m trying to broach the matter with you, because as far as they’re concerned anyone who sponsors vaccine mandates are part of the pharmaceutical industry, but to me, your other viewpoints shows you’re not.
For example, when I shared the Wuhan Lab Leak timeline compiled for the article — easily over a hundred entries — for comment — it showed examples of Ralph Baric defending gain-of-function in support of vaccine research (archived), a page NIH have since deleted (highlighting added for convenience):
This isn’t an indirect thing either, Ralph Baric explicitly admits that his gain-of-function work is primarily in the development of vaccines:
Peter Daszak’s work does similarly, where EcoHealth Alliance explicitly admit their work involving gain-of-function has allowed them to make vaccines:
There’s also Pfizer’s denial-non-denial where they claim they haven’t been involved in gain-of-function research (much like Peter Daszak), but make statements showing the opposite:
You’re a smart enough man that I know you can see through the technical legal wording of the Pfizer press release to instantly know what they’re doing is gain-of-function research, just they exploit technicalities to pretend it isn’t, like many of the anti-lab leak media articles.
I think you’d also agree with me a BSL-3 is woefully inadaquete for a SARS-CoV-2 virus mutant strain given it wasn’t sufficient for the original. The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s purpose was similar — in 2016 they were working on a “novel chimeric virus” for a rabies vaccine, a foreshadowing of the events of 2019:
This isn’t the first time a lab with sloppy work practices have engaged in viral research or caused an outbreak as part of vaccine research. You often correctly point out sloppy lab work.
It would not surprise you to hear, then, that vaccine research labs have a sordid history of sloppy lab work, although I advise reading that extensive article after this one. Viruses are not the only way vaccine research labs have been sloppy.
The Context
This turns us, of course, towards the rebuttal, which is not intended as a personal criticism. There will be no ad hominems here! We both agree evidence is the way forward, and if not evidence, then at least rational, level-headed discussion.
I have previously referrenced the .CSV file showing over 900 peer-reviewed studies indicating harms with the shots in respondant Tweets. I hope this time consuming, well curated list is not an example of ‘antivax idiocy’. I compiled it myself, and trust even if you find one or two papers you dislike, you’ll review the others.
Perhaps Twitter buried the link from your view, as I did not receive a response despite multiple attempts to reach you, although I also notice you have not blocked me, which suggests you’re still open to peaceful dialogue.
Digesting The Evidence
Understandably such a large evidence size would be particularly burdensome to read, given this is arguably the first time in history so many peer-reviewed papers have been written detailing numerous injuries. Piling a large stack of books on your desk and saying ‘rebuttal’, a rebuttal does not make. So let us examine portions I think you will find interesting.
One of the first entries mentions "Immune-Mediated Thrombocytopenia Associated With Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; Johnson & Johnson) Vaccine", and buried further in is “A Case Report of Immune Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination”. There are others but we’ll stick with the two.
As you already know (written for benefit of readers), the Janssen/Johnson&Johnson and AstraZeneca (“ChAdOx1”) both use very similar technologies — genetically modified adenoviruses.
The technologies are so similar that the company Emergent manufactured batches for both companies in the US, and not only mixed the wrong lots, but contaminated millions of batches:
Perhaps this Congressional investigation by Democrats had something to do with the fact Donald Trump has shares in Johnson & Johnson, thus was politically charged…
…However, let us be fair, vaccine companies lobby both political parties with many millions (Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, as a few examples).
Why mention this? Operation Warp Speed under Donald Trump was seeking to order 100 million doses from Johnson&Johnson, and as evidenced above, Emergent destroyed 75 million Johnson&Johnson doses (15 million initial + 60 million follow up), not counting the others.
This means, a vaccine manufacturer screwed up roughly 3/4ths of their production line. By sheer coincidence, the same month and year you made your mandate remarks!
They only discovered the 60 million other errors by retroactive review. You would think they would have caught such a glaring, 60 million sized error sooner via quality assurance? But then again, no-one caught gain-of-function research either.
Sloppy Is As Sloppy Does
Obviously you understand there is evidence of sloppy lab practices when it comes to viral research. Do you think vaccine researchers, who are sloppy with viruses, become un-sloppy with vaccine development? Evidently as we see with Emergent, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric, the answer is no.
AstraZeneca has been recently withdrawn in Australia, for causing thrombosis with thrombocytopenia — the injuries shown in the above peer-reviewed papers (others are also in the list). This was 2 years after Denmark halted it in April 2021.
This isn’t a “rare” side-effect, as much as profiteering pundits would have you believe (namely said politicians on the payroll shown above). In-fact, it occurred so frequently that in April 2021, the UK’s NHS had to issue a guidance notice for handling VATT in ICU (vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia and thrombosis).
They updated it again in May 2021 using the term VITT (vaccine induced immune-thrombocytopenia and thrombosis), meaning much the same.
Thrombosis means blood clots (from thrombocytes, cells that clot), thrombocytopenia is the loss of platelets. It’s triggered by an auto-immune disorder where anti-PF4 (platelet factor 4) antibodies are produced post-injection.
The Rebuttal
This pivots cleanly to my rebuttal: no medical procedure, on anyone, should ever be mandated, because it is absolutely impossible to foresee all possible risks, nor should risks ‘known’ equate to confidence, because each individual has a distinct genetic profile. You don’t play basketball, I don’t run track and field. What works for me might not work for you.
For example, imagine I mandated the eating of peanut-prawn-egg-milk surprise. You object, that’s a tasteless combination of foods, but I counter it is perfectly safe. For the majority of people it will be, allergies will be rare. Those with allergies — it will induce life-threatening swelling of their airways, in some cases, fatal.
Some argue there should be ‘exceptions’ to the mandate, but exceptions are basically admitting you do not know all risks, and imply agreement it shouldn’t be a blanket mandate to begin with. And what if they’re denied? The US army denied 98.8% of filed exemption requests. Do you think the US army care about deaths?
Does the person, in desperate need of a job, risk the peanut-prawn-egg-milk surprise? Should the non-medically qualified employer be the one to make a universalist decision? Is the US government that psychic they can plot the course of millions of Americans? Are you? No other medical practice operates on universal dictats, so why should vaccines?
You seem to think that people who don’t want the shots are either dumb (‘idiocy’), or ‘hestitant’ and need to be pushed over the edge. And what of those who died from thrombosis in ICU, Richard? And their families that watched? And the medical staff who have to treat them first hand?
Are you saying ‘ignore the evidence of your eyes’? We both agree evidence is the way forward. Had the AstraZeneca vaccine been mandated, many more would have died from blood clots. Australia taking two years to end the usage compared to Denmark, means two more years of people taking it and getting injured and dying.
And what do you say to the vaccine injured if they refuse — rightly — to take it again, having had a bad experience? Is that hestitancy? Does their evidence not count? Ignore it, spin the roulette wheel again, hope it doesn’t make it worse? Is this how medicine works? I can refuse a surgery on the basis of risks, why not a vaccine?
How should the mandates work, Richard? At gunpoint? Loss of job and starvation? Deprivation of liberties? Denial of academic access so their life experiences can’t be used to inform decision making? Which ones? And where do you draw the line? Who gets to determine what is and is not a mandateable procedure? You? Me? A majority imposing on a minority? Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
Surgeries aren’t mandated.
Drugs aren’t mandated.
X-rays aren’t mandated.
Ultrasound scans aren’t mandated (and they’re safe).
So why mandate the shots made by the very industry that caused the outbreaks in the first place? Why give the gain-of-function players an unlimited cash cow via mandates? Peter Daszak and his cohorts are getting rewarded for causing this outbreak.
I know you know better.
Polio was re-introduced by vaccines. It’s even called “vaccine-derived poliovirus”. The CDC had the cheek to blame a person who wasn’t vaccinated against a vaccine caused outbreak:
The reduction is from hygiene. It spreads orally-faecally. I never did understand a blood injection for a disease that spreads in the gut; supposedly the oral versions caused the outbreaks, ask the WHO.
And the final Coup de grâce, Richard? Contagious vaccines. This isn’t some hokey-pokey website, this is from an ethics policy debate.
They’re already here; they’re debating if they should use them or not.
It ought to sound familiar, because it is precisely what gain-of-function ultimately seeks to achieve. No coincidence the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was from a Chinese lab that works on vaccines.
The virus outbreaks you’re vehemently opposed to, already being poised to be classified as the vaccine.
Opposition to gain-of-function is opposition to vaccines and vaccine research technology.
Either you’re with us ‘antivax idiots’ in opposition to the absolute corruption of the vaccine industry in causing these outbreaks, or you endorse the very technology that finances the gain-of-function research Peter Daszak and his cohorts promote, to the point you’re granting an automatic cash cow in the form of mandatory sales purchases and forced compliance of the population in order to fund it.
You may feel you’re arguing ‘just’ against gain-of-function, but it’s to the very politicians who have been bought out by the pharmaceutical lobbying who profits from such research for vaccines!
The original gain-of-function ban got partially lifted within months, after Ralph Baric argued against it, and the last portion after barely 3 years. All whilst the US government continued to greenlight and finance Peter Daszak’s work!
Gain-of-function and vaccines are synonymous; they use one for the other.
The vaccines ‘justify’ the gain-of-function research; the gain-of-function research causes the outbreaks; the outbreaks ‘justify’ the vaccines. If it’s vaccine-derived poliovirus, what’s the prevention method?
Should you be really mandating the products of the people who incentivise and finance gain-of-function?
Comment section is open, Richard, I hope you will take the thoughtful liberty to respond, as you did when I curiously asked about the lab leak outbreaks.
Twitter may not be the ideal place as it interferes proactively with posts, and I assure neutrality, I have endured much abuse and still sponsor free speech.
I also ask my readers to maintain politeness and decorum.
Excellent! Thank you.