There is an elephant in the room. WHY ISN'T THERE AN UNVACCINATED CONTROL GROUP?
In my experience, it could be because the study becomes unpublishable if it clearly demonstrates vaccine harms. (Not literally unpublishable, but none of the mainstream journals will consider it. I have tried. Others tell me of the same experience.)
As Surgeon General, Dr Ladapo presumably has access to the necessary Florida health data to extend the study with an unvaccinated control group. He chose not to. Maybe it's because he has an irrational prejudice against vaccines, and he doesn't want to show the world how many lives the mRNA shots have saved. That's Laxton's presumption. Or maybe politics has made vaccine safety a very touchy issue, and Ladapo is being strategic about bringing out the safety data gradually, and with impeccable statistical foundation.
Yes. The editorial boards of these journals are undoubtedly corrupted. No chance of publishing a study that demonstrates vaccine harm.
I also think that finding a cohort that is unvaccinated is more difficult than we realize. How do we really know who never got jabbed? There certainly was an enormous reason to keep that quiet. If anything, I don't think they would have found 750 thousand matched cohorts that were unvaccinated. It probably would have been a significantly smaller study with less significant results.
You got it Josh Mitteldorf. ABV anything but the vaccine! One other thing I can't understand is why we are still talking about "covid deaths". There were no covid deaths. Covid protocol deaths - yes, many, but deaths due to a virus that was never properly isolated? Just more dogma and medical religion.
why they must deny..(according to Charles Eisenstein)
"Why must they be wrong?(antivaxxers) Because if they are right then the whole edifice of modern society — its systems of knowledge production, its public institutions, academia, government, and the ideology of progress — must be unsound, for the core medical practice of vaccination is embedded within them. You can’t believe “We got this one item wrong” without impugning the rest of the edifice along with it."
Sincere thanks Diarmuid. "...[T]hen the whole edifice of modern society must be unsound." Not seeking disaster, yet this reckoning must inevitably occur in case we are ever to move forward (experts' cognitive dissonance notwithstanding). Seeing that glorious day is reason enough for all of us to remain as healthy as possible. Best to all
Has all-cause mortality from mRNA shots ever been compared to unvaccinated controls? The British Office of National Statistics started to publish data classified by vax status. Then just as the declining effectiveness of the vaccines was crossing through zero into negative territory, they stopped publishing data AND they revised their data from the past. I wrote about this here:
It's also concerning that our own CDC has NEVER published such data, though they have the data in house. In fact, a great deal of data that was routinely published every year has been delayed since the end of 2023. I hear that Secretary Kennedy is working to release that data.
There are no good sources of unvaccinated outcomes due to the intentional biasing of the counting window definition to suppress damage to the Narrative.
Laxton accuses you of having a fixed belief, yet doesn’t see that he has his own. Thats a problem. Based on all I have read and heard over the past five years it appears most doctors are unwilling to step outside their frame of reference. All the years spent in pharma backed med school, reading pharma backed journals, going to pharma backed conferences, being fed pharma backed alerts from the CDC every single pandemic day, watching/reading pharma backed MSM, and hanging out with their like minded friends, seemingly unwilling to even consider a view other than their own? This is what we are up against. It’s feels Sisyphean, and concerns me greatly.
"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”– Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Wow! Quite a quote. It tells me that we are struggling along a path similar to Bonhoeffer. (I hope we won’t be hanged for it!) This should come as no surprise. The Third Reich used the same psychological weapons to sell their message to their own people as the US cigarette industry used to sell the idea that smoking was a wonderful, sophisticated, glamorous, harmless occupation that doctors (!) encouraged, etc etc. And people in both contexts bought the messages. The same weapon has been used to train pretty much all doctors in the US and obviously elsewhere - how far and wide, I don’t know - about vaccines as the saviour of humankind from the misery of the big killing diseases of old. But the statistics tell otherwise. Why don’t doctors know that? Is it stupidity? Or simply ignorance? The institutions teaching medicine do not refer their students to look at historical source documents, according to some medics who have woken up to the fake history they were told. This therefore is not really just stupidity. It is ignorance. But it is ignorance anchored in the mind as the result of brainwashing, and all the concomitant tactics used. It is such a gigantic historical fraud perpetrated by its long-sighted author/s for long-term profit and power. What a combination!
It is painful to be woken out of such fake realities, but necessary. Smokers have discovered that pain to their horror. The German people to theirs, most of them. And now we have, too, discovered the edge of the abyss as it continues to be played out.
I can’t judge the factors underlying why this doctor fails to apply logic to these statistics, but I hope that more and more people step back and ask each other questions that direct us all to consider what could be true, and that people do look at historical data because it will prompt a huge number of questions and open a lot of eyes.
After all, science entails the acceptance that our knowledge can always be affected by our continuing perception of things, and that includes researching the past.
I've exhausted myself trying to encourage some of my friends and family to--respectfully, please!--merely try to think just a bit more critically. And nothing extreme. Just to please open the mind a little to allow for some non-establishment possibilities.
I've even enlisted some other friends to participate in a "good-cop/bad-cop" routine. No luck.
Taking the following comments from a note I made regarding Steve Kirsch's Jan 25, 2025 article "What's the best way to redpill someone on the COVID vaccine (and vaccines in general)? ChatGPT provides excellent guidance if you know how to ask in the right way. But if you ask the same question the wrong way, I'll show you what happens."
Unfortunately, I've had to resign myself to this situation in regards to MANY of my relatives and other friends.
Here are the lines from this article (actually I think it was a comment from the article) that really hit home for me:
Summary
Changing someone’s core beliefs isn’t about "winning" an argument—it’s about creating the conditions for them to reconsider their perspective. Respect, curiosity, and patience are your most powerful tools. Even if the change doesn’t happen immediately, your approach can set the stage for future reflection.
However, don’t be disappointed if you fail. As Guy Duperreault wrote in the comments: “I believe you wanted to compile a list of best practices that didn't happen because, as most of us here know, it is almost completely impossible to change anyone's mind!
In fact, for most core belief items the vast majority will choose physical death over the death of a core belief and/or defining narrative regardless of their truth to reality. Truth may be stranger than fiction. However, fiction is stronger than reality!”
The core belief has become such an entrenched part of the person's ego that they may in fact take the belief to their grave. And we know the ego is not "really" real.. yet we are often still devoted to our ego because it may have saved our life when we developed it as a child's protective defense. It's usefulness has long passed, yet we cling to the belief nonetheless.
I feel very powerless to help some of my family. That doesn't necessarily mean I give up. But I practice my patience and try to rely on some little remaining faith. Apologies, but you have my sympathies. In case I come up with anything better I will let you know..
The real problem is that even if the unvaccinated died with greater frequency the difference in mortality rates between the two vaccines is almost certainly indicative of some kind of harm. That is why we are supposed to track AESI (Adverse Events of Special Interest) and report them (at least in theory). That information is used to learn more about how the vaccines are actually working and perhaps identify certain groups who are prone to severe reactions. In the Pfizer trial there were 126 Serious Adverse Events but because the risk of Covid hospitalizations was reduced the argument was made that the benefit exceeded the harm for most people.
It's very obtuse to look at the difference in mortality rates between the two vaccines and assume it is all from differences in effectiveness only.
On the other hand, if both moderna and pfizer looked the same, that's when we can say there's nothing informative without examining what happened to the unvaccinated.
Thank you. I appreciate your engagement with people holding different viewpoints. You are open, have great arguments and step out of your bubble to engage with others. Laxton doesn’t seem genuine or open to ‘the other’. The shaky foundation for his argument is MAYBE the vaccines prevented more deaths than they caused. The pharmaceutical industries efforts to prevent studies of vax vs unvaxxed make it possible to entertain that foundation-less possibility. He’s bubbled to the degree that his arguments don’t get challenged. You planted some good seeds. Hopefully they will fruit one day. Sadly he’s defended himself with callousness, ridicule of others and a need to live in a bubble.
I don't really think I planted any seeds. He made it clear up front how simplistic his approach to this study was. The point here is that we need to know what we are dealing with before we can endeavor to change minds.
Like he said himself, this is basic stuff. If we can't agree on the basics there's little we can do.
Have you ever actually convinced someone to change their mind about something like this? I know I haven't. I think a lot of it is just tribalism. Some people strongly connect their sense of self-worth to their perceived placement among those they see (or want to see) as peers. He considers you and your arguments as being outside of his social bubble, so there is nothing you could say that he wouldn't counter, regardless of logic or data. To relent to your argument means possibly falling out with his group. Much easier just to mock you with the language of his "elite" brethren and keep you out of the castle.
Another possible approach: posing innocent questions. These from The Truth About Cancer Apr 19, 2025: "Until these questions are answered, not talking points and censorship, no government, no boss, no school, and no pediatrician has the moral or legal right to dictate what gets injected into your body:"
1. Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers Immune from Lawsuits If Their Products Are Safe?
2. Why Does Big Tech Ruthlessly Censor Vaccine Injury Stories?
3. Why Are Doctors Refusing to Sign Liability Waivers for the Shots They Push?
4. Where’s the Proof That Vaccines Outperform Natural Immunity?
5. Why Are Vaccine Trials NOT Using True Placebos?
6. Why Is the Flu Shot Still Mandated When the CDC Admits It Often Fails?
7. Why Are HPV Vaccines Still Marketed After Thousands of Life-Altering Injuries?
8. Why Are Doctors Financially Rewarded for High Vaccination Rates?
9. Why Are CDC Scientists Blowing the Whistle on Fraud—And Being Ignored?
I'm no longer at all surprised at how clearly intelligent people can be so obtuse. You should have sent him graphs with theoretical deaths in the unvaccinated being below the other two and then said, "but what if this is the case?"
All that would do would be to have him come back with "That would be impossible. Everyone knows the vaccines are safe." In the legal world I work in, that's called "assuming what you're trying to prove."
Cognitive dissonance strikes again. Plus it is clear that Lawton is a Big Pharma shill. Plus his arguments are full of irony. We can easily predict that he is opposed to the use of placebos in vaccine research.
Laxton, one presumes, is the recipient of multiple shots and ready, poised and willing to embrace the rest of a continuous highly uncertain modRNA/LNP line-up? Indeed, this addiction may underscore a potential wider cognitive decline? The early absence of proper controls was intentional from the start. And with no established dose/response associated with modRNA shots (obviously), given a wide unpredictable anatomical topography at the site of the unknown injectate with its widespread distribution and infiltration into circulatory venule or arteriole, larger vessels, lymphatics, loose connective tissue, myofascia, adipose tissue, just who has the slightest idea about what exactly was and is going on, or knows the precise modRNA delivery into a cell or for that matter, the nucleus of a given recipient? The articles published comparing Pfizer and Moderna shots early in the piece, highlighted enormous variation in the immunological consequences and avidity of the shots. This standard cohort approach could never work and sits somewhere between such an antediluvian approach and the individual precision medicine approach. It's plainly disastrous and quite unfit for purpose, notwithstanding the absence of an actual pandemic let alone a methodologically sound and properly isolated, contagious, obligate intracellular parasite.
The list of potential AESIs (Pfizer) suggests a non-generalisable composition with multiple versions of modRNA/LNP shot, including of shots with 'no evidence of the elements of life'.
The non-generalisability serves all too well to cloak the desired nefarious aims?
I am wondering whether you have seen this elegantly simple experimental design suggested by Dr Jonathan Jay Couey, which could reveal a lot about the toll taken by intramuscular injections of all kinds, particularly those "traditional" vaccines we inflict upon babies, infants and children? A short term crossover design would overcome the objections of vaccines-save-lives enthusiasts who argue that it's "unethical" to have a placebo control group:
"The increased risk in mortality began to appear within a few weeks and expanded over time. This means that this was not due to differences in reactogenicity but from a longer term physiological impact."
The issue that bothers me is that deaths skyrocketed in the US (in certain places) immediately after the WHO declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. And there were 2 more unprecedented "death waves" in the US after that in 2020, prior to the official introduction of the vaccine on Dec 14, 2020. It makes sense the vax could be dangerous--since VAERS reports of serious injury and death from Covid shots were way up from the beginning. But the "death waves" pre-vax and post-vax look very similar, at a surface level--that demands an explanation.
It seems to me that "Covid-19" deaths were exaggerated by improper diagnostic testing. John Beaudoin's work with actual death certificates in MA (my home state) showed definitively that excess mortality went back to zero by July of 2020. There were no more waves of deaths here. However when the shots rolled out, excess deaths started to climb in the younger and stayed over baseline for more than a year.
I was referring to all-cause deaths, not so-called Covid deaths--there was a massive increase in all-cause US deaths in 2020, the likes of which has not been seen since Spanish flu. This is a matter of record. A 19% increase, compared to the 10-year average increase of 3%.
I've looked a little at MA mortality by month during the Covid years. There was a massive 97%j increase in deaths in April 2020, compared to the 2018-2019 average. Deaths were down to a 59% increase in May 2020--and then, for the most of the rest of the Covid years, there was nothing very remarkable about MA deaths. This data is summarized here: https://www.virginiastoner.com/deaths-by-state-and-month
I haven't looked elsewhere for spikes in all cause deaths. And yes, the MA all cause deaths as you recounted are in line with my understanding as well.
The largest spike in that regard by far was the NYC mass casualty event of Spring 2020--and whatever poisoned people in that place and time is likely the same thing that poisoned MA at the same time. This was really a regional event. More on the NYC event here: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/7/26/the-nyc-420-genocide-oh-my
I am glad that you posted a comment here. I have been on your site for awhile and will keep reading. Your data is interesting. I believe Italy had a similar death wave to NYC. I have been suspicious of the 'no virus it was just the flu' conclusions that many have made. Something was different. Something happened to people. What was it? Do you have any thoughts?
Due to the regional nature of the death waves, the bell-curve-like distribution of deaths, and other characteristics of the deaths, I think it was most likely either a series of chemical weapon or radiation weapon attacks, or maybe some other kind of covert weapon that can be controlled to some degree by the hand of man.
Can you explain that a bit more? Are you saying that these folks who chose the Pfizer shot expected to do worse? Or realized that they chose poorly after the fact? I don't there was any good evidence prior to this study that Pfizer recipients did any worse than those who got the Moderna shot.
No, I mean the fear was pumped up so high, that some people who felt poorly in the least, with anything, believed they had covid and thus expected to die. I was responding to the person mentioning the waves of death prior to vaccine rollout.
Impossible--look at the numbers. There is no precedent, anywhere, any time, for fear-induced mass death (50k extra deaths in 25 adjacent counties), while deaths in most of the rest of the country, which had the same stressors, remained mostly normal.
There is an elephant in the room. WHY ISN'T THERE AN UNVACCINATED CONTROL GROUP?
In my experience, it could be because the study becomes unpublishable if it clearly demonstrates vaccine harms. (Not literally unpublishable, but none of the mainstream journals will consider it. I have tried. Others tell me of the same experience.)
As Surgeon General, Dr Ladapo presumably has access to the necessary Florida health data to extend the study with an unvaccinated control group. He chose not to. Maybe it's because he has an irrational prejudice against vaccines, and he doesn't want to show the world how many lives the mRNA shots have saved. That's Laxton's presumption. Or maybe politics has made vaccine safety a very touchy issue, and Ladapo is being strategic about bringing out the safety data gradually, and with impeccable statistical foundation.
Yes. The editorial boards of these journals are undoubtedly corrupted. No chance of publishing a study that demonstrates vaccine harm.
I also think that finding a cohort that is unvaccinated is more difficult than we realize. How do we really know who never got jabbed? There certainly was an enormous reason to keep that quiet. If anything, I don't think they would have found 750 thousand matched cohorts that were unvaccinated. It probably would have been a significantly smaller study with less significant results.
You got it Josh Mitteldorf. ABV anything but the vaccine! One other thing I can't understand is why we are still talking about "covid deaths". There were no covid deaths. Covid protocol deaths - yes, many, but deaths due to a virus that was never properly isolated? Just more dogma and medical religion.
why they must deny..(according to Charles Eisenstein)
"Why must they be wrong?(antivaxxers) Because if they are right then the whole edifice of modern society — its systems of knowledge production, its public institutions, academia, government, and the ideology of progress — must be unsound, for the core medical practice of vaccination is embedded within them. You can’t believe “We got this one item wrong” without impugning the rest of the edifice along with it."
Sincere thanks Diarmuid. "...[T]hen the whole edifice of modern society must be unsound." Not seeking disaster, yet this reckoning must inevitably occur in case we are ever to move forward (experts' cognitive dissonance notwithstanding). Seeing that glorious day is reason enough for all of us to remain as healthy as possible. Best to all
Has all-cause mortality from mRNA shots ever been compared to unvaccinated controls? The British Office of National Statistics started to publish data classified by vax status. Then just as the declining effectiveness of the vaccines was crossing through zero into negative territory, they stopped publishing data AND they revised their data from the past. I wrote about this here:
https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/im-not-going-to-write-about-the-british
It's also concerning that our own CDC has NEVER published such data, though they have the data in house. In fact, a great deal of data that was routinely published every year has been delayed since the end of 2023. I hear that Secretary Kennedy is working to release that data.
I don't know of any. The ONS data, as we both know, is corrupted. It is quite easily demonstrated that they misclassified deaths in each group.
There are no good sources of unvaccinated outcomes due to the intentional biasing of the counting window definition to suppress damage to the Narrative.
Laxton accuses you of having a fixed belief, yet doesn’t see that he has his own. Thats a problem. Based on all I have read and heard over the past five years it appears most doctors are unwilling to step outside their frame of reference. All the years spent in pharma backed med school, reading pharma backed journals, going to pharma backed conferences, being fed pharma backed alerts from the CDC every single pandemic day, watching/reading pharma backed MSM, and hanging out with their like minded friends, seemingly unwilling to even consider a view other than their own? This is what we are up against. It’s feels Sisyphean, and concerns me greatly.
"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”– Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I'm not sure who said this: "It is very difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person. With a stupid person it is impossible."
Wow! Quite a quote. It tells me that we are struggling along a path similar to Bonhoeffer. (I hope we won’t be hanged for it!) This should come as no surprise. The Third Reich used the same psychological weapons to sell their message to their own people as the US cigarette industry used to sell the idea that smoking was a wonderful, sophisticated, glamorous, harmless occupation that doctors (!) encouraged, etc etc. And people in both contexts bought the messages. The same weapon has been used to train pretty much all doctors in the US and obviously elsewhere - how far and wide, I don’t know - about vaccines as the saviour of humankind from the misery of the big killing diseases of old. But the statistics tell otherwise. Why don’t doctors know that? Is it stupidity? Or simply ignorance? The institutions teaching medicine do not refer their students to look at historical source documents, according to some medics who have woken up to the fake history they were told. This therefore is not really just stupidity. It is ignorance. But it is ignorance anchored in the mind as the result of brainwashing, and all the concomitant tactics used. It is such a gigantic historical fraud perpetrated by its long-sighted author/s for long-term profit and power. What a combination!
It is painful to be woken out of such fake realities, but necessary. Smokers have discovered that pain to their horror. The German people to theirs, most of them. And now we have, too, discovered the edge of the abyss as it continues to be played out.
I can’t judge the factors underlying why this doctor fails to apply logic to these statistics, but I hope that more and more people step back and ask each other questions that direct us all to consider what could be true, and that people do look at historical data because it will prompt a huge number of questions and open a lot of eyes.
After all, science entails the acceptance that our knowledge can always be affected by our continuing perception of things, and that includes researching the past.
It's not stupidity. It's a very effective propaganda campaign, bought by the pharma companies with tens of billions of dollars every year.
https://scienceblog.com/experimentalfrontiers/2021/04/27/trust-me-im-a-medical-researcher/
yeah that's called stupefication
Agreed Diarmuid
Thank you Dr Setty for your inspiring work.
I've exhausted myself trying to encourage some of my friends and family to--respectfully, please!--merely try to think just a bit more critically. And nothing extreme. Just to please open the mind a little to allow for some non-establishment possibilities.
I've even enlisted some other friends to participate in a "good-cop/bad-cop" routine. No luck.
Taking the following comments from a note I made regarding Steve Kirsch's Jan 25, 2025 article "What's the best way to redpill someone on the COVID vaccine (and vaccines in general)? ChatGPT provides excellent guidance if you know how to ask in the right way. But if you ask the same question the wrong way, I'll show you what happens."
Unfortunately, I've had to resign myself to this situation in regards to MANY of my relatives and other friends.
Here are the lines from this article (actually I think it was a comment from the article) that really hit home for me:
Summary
Changing someone’s core beliefs isn’t about "winning" an argument—it’s about creating the conditions for them to reconsider their perspective. Respect, curiosity, and patience are your most powerful tools. Even if the change doesn’t happen immediately, your approach can set the stage for future reflection.
However, don’t be disappointed if you fail. As Guy Duperreault wrote in the comments: “I believe you wanted to compile a list of best practices that didn't happen because, as most of us here know, it is almost completely impossible to change anyone's mind!
In fact, for most core belief items the vast majority will choose physical death over the death of a core belief and/or defining narrative regardless of their truth to reality. Truth may be stranger than fiction. However, fiction is stronger than reality!”
The core belief has become such an entrenched part of the person's ego that they may in fact take the belief to their grave. And we know the ego is not "really" real.. yet we are often still devoted to our ego because it may have saved our life when we developed it as a child's protective defense. It's usefulness has long passed, yet we cling to the belief nonetheless.
I feel very powerless to help some of my family. That doesn't necessarily mean I give up. But I practice my patience and try to rely on some little remaining faith. Apologies, but you have my sympathies. In case I come up with anything better I will let you know..
Again, sincere thanks for your work.
Best to you all
Wouldn’t the simplest answer here be for him to simply cough up the long term placebo controlled data and put the debate to end at long last?
How can he possibly be plotting made up “what if?” lines as any kind of serious rebuttal? My brain simply can’t compute that one.
Love your work Madhava.
Thanks.
The real problem is that even if the unvaccinated died with greater frequency the difference in mortality rates between the two vaccines is almost certainly indicative of some kind of harm. That is why we are supposed to track AESI (Adverse Events of Special Interest) and report them (at least in theory). That information is used to learn more about how the vaccines are actually working and perhaps identify certain groups who are prone to severe reactions. In the Pfizer trial there were 126 Serious Adverse Events but because the risk of Covid hospitalizations was reduced the argument was made that the benefit exceeded the harm for most people.
It's very obtuse to look at the difference in mortality rates between the two vaccines and assume it is all from differences in effectiveness only.
On the other hand, if both moderna and pfizer looked the same, that's when we can say there's nothing informative without examining what happened to the unvaccinated.
Thank you. I appreciate your engagement with people holding different viewpoints. You are open, have great arguments and step out of your bubble to engage with others. Laxton doesn’t seem genuine or open to ‘the other’. The shaky foundation for his argument is MAYBE the vaccines prevented more deaths than they caused. The pharmaceutical industries efforts to prevent studies of vax vs unvaxxed make it possible to entertain that foundation-less possibility. He’s bubbled to the degree that his arguments don’t get challenged. You planted some good seeds. Hopefully they will fruit one day. Sadly he’s defended himself with callousness, ridicule of others and a need to live in a bubble.
I don't really think I planted any seeds. He made it clear up front how simplistic his approach to this study was. The point here is that we need to know what we are dealing with before we can endeavor to change minds.
Like he said himself, this is basic stuff. If we can't agree on the basics there's little we can do.
Have you ever actually convinced someone to change their mind about something like this? I know I haven't. I think a lot of it is just tribalism. Some people strongly connect their sense of self-worth to their perceived placement among those they see (or want to see) as peers. He considers you and your arguments as being outside of his social bubble, so there is nothing you could say that he wouldn't counter, regardless of logic or data. To relent to your argument means possibly falling out with his group. Much easier just to mock you with the language of his "elite" brethren and keep you out of the castle.
Yes I have. A few doctors too. What helps the most is to have a long standing relationship with them first.
Dr Setty: with apologies for a second comment...
Another possible approach: posing innocent questions. These from The Truth About Cancer Apr 19, 2025: "Until these questions are answered, not talking points and censorship, no government, no boss, no school, and no pediatrician has the moral or legal right to dictate what gets injected into your body:"
1. Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers Immune from Lawsuits If Their Products Are Safe?
2. Why Does Big Tech Ruthlessly Censor Vaccine Injury Stories?
3. Why Are Doctors Refusing to Sign Liability Waivers for the Shots They Push?
4. Where’s the Proof That Vaccines Outperform Natural Immunity?
5. Why Are Vaccine Trials NOT Using True Placebos?
6. Why Is the Flu Shot Still Mandated When the CDC Admits It Often Fails?
7. Why Are HPV Vaccines Still Marketed After Thousands of Life-Altering Injuries?
8. Why Are Doctors Financially Rewarded for High Vaccination Rates?
9. Why Are CDC Scientists Blowing the Whistle on Fraud—And Being Ignored?
Best to you all
I'm no longer at all surprised at how clearly intelligent people can be so obtuse. You should have sent him graphs with theoretical deaths in the unvaccinated being below the other two and then said, "but what if this is the case?"
All that would do would be to have him come back with "That would be impossible. Everyone knows the vaccines are safe." In the legal world I work in, that's called "assuming what you're trying to prove."
Yes! My thought exactly.
Cognitive dissonance strikes again. Plus it is clear that Lawton is a Big Pharma shill. Plus his arguments are full of irony. We can easily predict that he is opposed to the use of placebos in vaccine research.
Laxton, one presumes, is the recipient of multiple shots and ready, poised and willing to embrace the rest of a continuous highly uncertain modRNA/LNP line-up? Indeed, this addiction may underscore a potential wider cognitive decline? The early absence of proper controls was intentional from the start. And with no established dose/response associated with modRNA shots (obviously), given a wide unpredictable anatomical topography at the site of the unknown injectate with its widespread distribution and infiltration into circulatory venule or arteriole, larger vessels, lymphatics, loose connective tissue, myofascia, adipose tissue, just who has the slightest idea about what exactly was and is going on, or knows the precise modRNA delivery into a cell or for that matter, the nucleus of a given recipient? The articles published comparing Pfizer and Moderna shots early in the piece, highlighted enormous variation in the immunological consequences and avidity of the shots. This standard cohort approach could never work and sits somewhere between such an antediluvian approach and the individual precision medicine approach. It's plainly disastrous and quite unfit for purpose, notwithstanding the absence of an actual pandemic let alone a methodologically sound and properly isolated, contagious, obligate intracellular parasite.
The list of potential AESIs (Pfizer) suggests a non-generalisable composition with multiple versions of modRNA/LNP shot, including of shots with 'no evidence of the elements of life'.
The non-generalisability serves all too well to cloak the desired nefarious aims?
I am wondering whether you have seen this elegantly simple experimental design suggested by Dr Jonathan Jay Couey, which could reveal a lot about the toll taken by intramuscular injections of all kinds, particularly those "traditional" vaccines we inflict upon babies, infants and children? A short term crossover design would overcome the objections of vaccines-save-lives enthusiasts who argue that it's "unethical" to have a placebo control group:
https://stream.gigaohm.bio/w/rjE2HCRjptFqQCZriNhjHf
(As for the transfection (mRNA) injections, anyone with a modicum of biological understanding would have thrown out this idea at the design stage.)
"The increased risk in mortality began to appear within a few weeks and expanded over time. This means that this was not due to differences in reactogenicity but from a longer term physiological impact."
https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com/p/cadaver-calamari-amyloidogenic-fibrin
The propensity to develop protease resistant clots over time is one probable reason for the accumulating death rate.
The issue that bothers me is that deaths skyrocketed in the US (in certain places) immediately after the WHO declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. And there were 2 more unprecedented "death waves" in the US after that in 2020, prior to the official introduction of the vaccine on Dec 14, 2020. It makes sense the vax could be dangerous--since VAERS reports of serious injury and death from Covid shots were way up from the beginning. But the "death waves" pre-vax and post-vax look very similar, at a surface level--that demands an explanation.
It seems to me that "Covid-19" deaths were exaggerated by improper diagnostic testing. John Beaudoin's work with actual death certificates in MA (my home state) showed definitively that excess mortality went back to zero by July of 2020. There were no more waves of deaths here. However when the shots rolled out, excess deaths started to climb in the younger and stayed over baseline for more than a year.
For a general summary of US mortality data in the Covid years, see the 2nd half of this article. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/8/30/the-us-democide-of-2020-2022-in-a-nutshell-kjl68
I was referring to all-cause deaths, not so-called Covid deaths--there was a massive increase in all-cause US deaths in 2020, the likes of which has not been seen since Spanish flu. This is a matter of record. A 19% increase, compared to the 10-year average increase of 3%.
I've looked a little at MA mortality by month during the Covid years. There was a massive 97%j increase in deaths in April 2020, compared to the 2018-2019 average. Deaths were down to a 59% increase in May 2020--and then, for the most of the rest of the Covid years, there was nothing very remarkable about MA deaths. This data is summarized here: https://www.virginiastoner.com/deaths-by-state-and-month
I haven't looked elsewhere for spikes in all cause deaths. And yes, the MA all cause deaths as you recounted are in line with my understanding as well.
The largest spike in that regard by far was the NYC mass casualty event of Spring 2020--and whatever poisoned people in that place and time is likely the same thing that poisoned MA at the same time. This was really a regional event. More on the NYC event here: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2023/7/26/the-nyc-420-genocide-oh-my
I am glad that you posted a comment here. I have been on your site for awhile and will keep reading. Your data is interesting. I believe Italy had a similar death wave to NYC. I have been suspicious of the 'no virus it was just the flu' conclusions that many have made. Something was different. Something happened to people. What was it? Do you have any thoughts?
Due to the regional nature of the death waves, the bell-curve-like distribution of deaths, and other characteristics of the deaths, I think it was most likely either a series of chemical weapon or radiation weapon attacks, or maybe some other kind of covert weapon that can be controlled to some degree by the hand of man.
I'd like to throw in the possibility of a massive nocebo effect.
Can you explain that a bit more? Are you saying that these folks who chose the Pfizer shot expected to do worse? Or realized that they chose poorly after the fact? I don't there was any good evidence prior to this study that Pfizer recipients did any worse than those who got the Moderna shot.
No, I mean the fear was pumped up so high, that some people who felt poorly in the least, with anything, believed they had covid and thus expected to die. I was responding to the person mentioning the waves of death prior to vaccine rollout.
Impossible--look at the numbers. There is no precedent, anywhere, any time, for fear-induced mass death (50k extra deaths in 25 adjacent counties), while deaths in most of the rest of the country, which had the same stressors, remained mostly normal.
But please, see if you can correlate the mortality data with hysteria-induced mass casualties. You cannot--I explained some o the basic problems with this speculation in this article. It doesn't even pass the speculation sniff test. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/7/28/researchers-discover-reason-for-31-million-excess-deaths-worldwide-mistakes-were-made-l2any-j8egn