I found an honest vaccine scientist
When the Israeli Ministry of Health story broke, I emailed hundreds of people involved in vaccine safety. Only one person replied saying he wanted to see the data: Martin Kulldorff.
Martin was the only scientist who wanted to see the Israeli data.
Nobody else was interested.
I wonder if this is because he cut his ties with Harvard, the CDC, and the FDA. Do you think that might have something to do with it?
For those of you who don’t know who Martin Kulldorff is, here’s his Wikipedia entry which I corrected to reflect the fact he’s no longer on the FDA committee (see italics):
Martin Kulldorff (born 1962) is a Swedish biostatistician. From 2003 to 2021, he was a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.[2] He is a former member of the Food and Drug Administration‘s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and a former member of the Vaccine Safety Subgroup of the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.[1][3]
In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity through infection, while stating that vulnerable people should be protected from the virus.[4] The Declaration was criticized as being unethical and infeasible and was widely rejected.[5]
During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed disease control measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates.[4][6][7]
Note that Martin is tenured faculty on leave from Harvard Medical School. He was not “booted” as some believe. He chose to temporarily leave for reasons I’ve been asked not to disclose that have nothing to do with his beliefs or that he is outspoken on this issue.
In other words, Martin is the type of guy that the CDC and FDA should be listening to with one caveat: Martin still believes vaccines for other diseases are beneficial and I’ve not yet been able to meet with him to discuss that belief. However, this means Martin cannot be labeled as an evil anti-vaxxer! He’s a highly respected pro-vaxxer who realizes the COVID vaccines are unsafe.
Martin is now free to speak his own mind because he’s not on a leash attached to the FDA, CDC, or Harvard. That’s pretty rare for someone of his stature to be “unleashed.”
On Jul 3, 2022, Martin wrote this article, Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe?
Few people know about the article because it concludes:
Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturers and FDA to ensure that benefits outweigh harms. They have failed to do so.
Talk about telling the truth!
He basically said that for a medical intervention, you have to show the benefits outweigh the risks. These vaccines don’t meet this bar for people under 70 in his article. This is further validated by the recent paper from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and UCSF showing the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young people.
As you might imagine, Martin’s article got no attention. I didn’t even know about it until just now when I searched my email and discovered that Martin emailed me about it on Jul 5, 2022. He wrote, “This may be of interest:” and sent the link to his article. Gotta love his low-key approach.
After I learned about the Israeli safety data leak, on Sep 9, 2022 at 10am, I emailed nearly 300 people at the CDC, professors at Stanford, UCSF, all the members of the FDA and CDC outside committees.
As of Sep 14, not a single one of them wanted to see the safety data.
These are all people who the public relies on for advice about the vaccine and none of them wanted to see the Israeli safety data.
The only scientist I emailed who wanted to see the data was Martin Kulldorff. Just one guy.
Stunning isn’t it?
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Peter F Gill
| #
That must have been like looking for a needle in a haystack Steve K!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
How many of you are going to comments about this article just to prove that you have read it. I just had a telephone conversation with the now head of the chemistry department where I earned my doctorate degree in 1969 after six years of being a graduate student. This HEAD is too busy to consider the observed fact that the air (atmosphere) temperature has never been observed (measured) to be below the air temperature measured at the same place and time. For this to seem important one needs to know that the prediction of the idea (theory) of the Greenhouse Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is that if there was none of CO2 in the atmosphere the air temperature would be about 33C (58F) lower than it is. However, observation is that the air temperature can be no lower than that commonly measured and this has nothing to do with the fact water is a greenhouse gas just as carbon dioxide is. It is that there is NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Are you too busy???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Do stick to the point please.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
” the air (atmospheric) temperature has never been observed (measured) to be below the air temperature measured at the same place and time.” For this you got a doctorate? Water is not a gas in the troposphere and is certainly not a greenhouse gas.
Herb
Reply
VOWG
| #
If there is no CO2 in the atmosphere we are all dead Jerry and that includes you.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi VOWG,.
Thank you both for your comments. Herb pointed out my blunder which I have struggled how to best correct so that others might better see my points. VOWG, I look forward to your very brief comments of wisdom.
First my blunder, I intended to write: “This HEAD is too busy to consider the observed fact that the air (atmosphere) temperature has never been observed (measured) to be below the air DEW POINT temperature measured at the same place and time.”
Now relative to your comment: We wouldn’t have been here to die if the atmosphere had no carbon dioxide. How is this for a one liner?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Hans
| #
Dr Krause, you appeared to have confused this missive [C-19] and
your profound announcement on greenhouse gasses.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Mr. Steve Kirsch (author of the article) describes Dr. Martin Kulldorff as a “Vaccine Scientist.” Is he (Dr. Kulldorff) a vaccine scientist? Has he worked with vaccines or the virus (its isolation or testing)? Not really. As per Dr. Kulldrorff’s CV, he is a statistician and epidemiologist (sub-class of statistics). So, why is he considered a scientist? A scientist concerning virus or virology is a person who has extensive experience in the area, most importantly isolation and characterization of the virus and potentially linking the virus to the illness or at least to the body or its fluids. Dr. Kulldorff’s expertise shows nothing in this respect. So considering him, a scientist is not a valid claim but a misrepresentation of his work or academic involvement.
A statistician or epidemiologist interprets the claim made by a scientist about the GIVEN results/data obtained from scientific/laboratory work, i.e., what are the chances of the correctness of the interpretation (not the results/data) to be statistically true?
A virus has never been isolated, its test or testing has never been validated, and there cannot be a treatment (vaccine) for a non-existing thing. So, from a scientific perspective, one cannot assess the vaccine’s good (efficacy) or bad (adverse) effect. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie or fraud.
The best one can say is observing (observational/survey data noted in the article) the effects of the injection, presumably a mixture (soup/gunk) of unknown components. One of the components is mRNA, a chemical compound that could potentially be dangerous or lethal. The danger comes from the fact that mRNA is similar in chemical structure and characteristics to the body’s DNA. There is always a possibility that mRNA gets substituted into the body’s DNA.
It is like lead toxicity, where lead ions replace similar bi-valent metals such as zinc, calcium, and iron, vital for body nourishment and survival, hence toxicity or lethality. So considering that mRNA would not interfere with the body’s RNA or DNA is a very unscientific (childish) claim, especially when no such experimental evaluation has been done. A true scientist would not make such unsubstantiated claims.
Science requires that an experimental or laboratory study be conducted to evaluate the side effects of the mRNA. In that case, it may be done by injecting pure mRNA, which presumably should be available as it is synthetic material prepared in the laboratory or “factory.” Unfortunately, such a study has never been done. Therefore, no statistical or epidemiological assessment or claims can be valid or relevant.
So, science or scientists are nowhere to be found like the virus, but only the claims – be careful about the claims.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Controlled opposition finds an honest doctor. That’s a new one. I’ll give them points for thinking of a new angle.
Reply