Everyone I know who was not vaccinated it was Omicold...to everyone who was vaccinated it included your symptoms of fever, chills etc. Not scientific but..
The universal vaccination, and the focus on very young children, is only designed to do one thing: eliminate the control group and shield Pfizer and Moderna and their partners in the public health arena that pushed these useless and often dangerous shots. Pushing these in late 2020 when it's all we had is one thing, understandable, but pushing them now is bordering on criminal.
Dr. Hollander, you seem like a voice for moderation who has taken a critical look at the data. Would you be willing to debate Steve Kirsch regarding vaccine safety on a recorded video call? I think it would be very instructive for everyone to see. I do not represent Mr. Kirsch, but could attempt to contact him if you would be interested.
Dr. Hollander, we hope you are feeling better today! Maybe I should have said "discussion" and not "debate"? I really think it would be an interesting conversation if we could connect you and Mr. Kirsch. This would also help promote your Substack.
I think Steve Kirsch wants to lure bigger SM fish than me into his debate. I happen to enjoy this sort of thing, and probably am called to rebut the latest post by Alex Berenson or Robert Malone by my contrarian friends and patients on at least a weekly basis, but the key distinction is that they actually are interested in what I have to say, and only say things they genuinely believe to be true. Good-faith "discussion" is one of my favorite aspects of medicine.
Mr. Kirsch has put out a lot of offers to get almost anyone with knowledge and expertise to debate the data with him or his team on a recorded video. I would not be surprised if he was very interested in speaking with you. What is absolutely true is that you would have a large audience of truth-seekers anxious to hear your explanation of how the vaccines are actually worthwhile.
You seem to be implying that Mr. Kirsch would be dealing in falsehoods or actual misinformation. If that is true, then it should be easy for you to expose the lies and prevarications and show everyone why Mr. Kirsch is wrong. It would be an opportunity to discredit someone who is spreading destructive propaganda.
Debating or “discussing” vaccine safety with Mr. Kirsch would draw an audience of thousands of people who genuinely want to hear what you have to say. I think you would enjoy it and find the experience worthwhile, since it is a chance for you to spread truth and a moderate point of view.
Hope you are almost back to 100% after your illness!
Dr. Hollander: Steve Kirsch said that he was willing to discuss safety issues with you. It would be awesome to hear your points of view juxtaposed. This would be a fascinating discussion for you, for Steve, and for the thousands who will watch the video. Will you give it a try?
(Did I mention that you could use it to promote your Substack?)
A lot of us are tired of the lack of discussion between the two sides. (OK, I know there are more than two sides.) They just take pot shots at each other in front of their own cheering supporters, but they never have a dialogue. Let's bridge this chasm and have a meeting of the minds.
Vaccines are wonderful*, and my children have received lots of shots for childhood diseases and even HPV. My children have not received Covid vaccinations, given their low risk of serious complications from infection, lack of long-term and intellectually honest studies of these new vaccines, indications that the vaccines have not significantly impacted spread to others, and because my children have now had Covid and developed some degree of acquired immune protection. I may change my mind, but currently have little faith in public health decrees, such as Dr. Walensky's 80% cherry-picked pseudo science masking claim.
Unfortunately, my children will miss out on some opportunities because I live on the border of Washington state, where many people have been convinced that they should wear masks outside and some community leaders now unreasonably require Covid vaccination for participation in some summer camps and other youth activities.
* and no, I do not trust doctors who cannot distinguish between general acceptance of vaccines and specific cases/concerns.
This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. The virus has a known age profile for complications, and otherwise healthy people under 70 appear to be at limited risk of severe outcomes. As you know, the number of cases is always the focus of news reports, but that might be the least important number. ICU admissions, according to practicing physicians I know, are far more important. Everyone seems to know a child who "came down with COVID19, so they're at risk." Yes, but not equal risk.
I first observed in February 2000 that we've known how to deal with a respiratory disease epidemic for over 100 years. Outdoors is better than indoors, because even slight breezes will typically dispel a vapor cloud. Sunlight helps generate Vitamin D, and is not friendly to viruses. Indoors a vapor cloud can linger up to three hours in a room, invisible to all who enter. Protect the elderly and the obese first, and leave everyone else alone pending more information. Shutting down the global economy was certain to cause far more damage than the disease.
So, we did the opposite. We ordered everyone to stay indoors and treated all age cohorts as though they carried the same risk profile. I'm 74, 2x CVA, 1x MI, uncounted TIAs, one cardiac arrest, a constellation of neurological disorders, 2x bladder cancer, one bypass and a horribly abused body I wish I'd taken better care of. It's a bit late now. Stage 3 COPD complicated with hypercapnia.
Moderna reported a 0.5% serious adverse event rate in one cohort. That's 1 in 200, while placebo was 0.0%.
Dr. Buzz, can you comment on this? Your readers mightn't, but surely you know what the definition of "serious adverse event" is -- and 1 in 200 kids ain't good.
I disagree that the characterization of a generally "safe" vaccine is compatible with such a high serious adverse event rate, but would appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks for inquiring about this (and esp for including the page # for reference - I scrolled through those 120 pages so many times with a high fever that the mere thought of doing it again gives me PTSD!). So... only 1 of the 8 SAEs was deemed related, so I don't think using that 1/200 rate is appropriate. If you review the actual table on pg 95, I think their adjudication is fair. Is it just bad luck for Pfizer that the (3X smaller) placebo cohort had zero of these random-seeming events? Maybe not, I grant you - some of the infectious stuff leading to the SAEs soon after vaccination very theoretically could be related to transient immune suppression (if that's actually a real thing; most think it's not). Then in the >1 mo out list, there was one case of diabetes linked to the vaccine, although it was well after the shot and also followed a viral infection, so that seems rather unlikely vax-provoked.
So: 1-2 genuine events in 1800 vaccine recipients; probably 1. I think that's acceptable IF the vaccine is as effective in preventing severe disease for a year as the adult vaccines have proven to be, since the annual hospitalization rate for the <5 age group per COVID-NET (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html) is in the 1/650-700 range in the past 12 mo. Even allowing for "with not for" covid noise, that's a favorable cost:benefit for high risk kids, which is the group whom I think we should be targeting. Of course, if we *knew* it was highly effective vs hospitalization, and/or had additive benefit for kids with confirmed prior infection, that would make the decision to recommend much more clear.
I think we probably agree that it's important not to pretend that these vaccines are without any risk; hence the need to establish benefit, and in which groups, before recommending. I also think it's important to not pretend that there are no benefits to an effective vaccine for this cohort; i.e., right now I have a patient w/ an infant family member having a very stressful protracted case of covid for which they would have happily traded a 1/1000 risk of a febrile seizure. The hospitalization rates in the very young are not high relative to middle aged and older adults, but they are also a long way from zero.
I do appreciate having to think harder about the risk:benefit ratio for this cohort. Thanks for the question!
- 18 serious adverse events among Moderna recipients
- 1 in placebo
Again, nearly all of the vaccine group SAEs are adjudicated "not related".
Without impugning the motives of FDA or the principle investigator, I'd feel better about the reliability of these assessments if they were remotely balanced between groups.
Yes, when they expanded the timeline beyond 30d after injection, the #s rose to 18 events in the Moderna group, 1 in placebo. A few comments:
1) This should be very reassuring to ppl who think Moderna/Big Pharma will squash all concerning data! I love the data transparency if not the results, much how I felt with the mRNA myocarditis concerns.
2) Bear in mind there are 3X the number in the Moderna group than placebo, but I grant you that does not explain an 18:1 ratio.
3) I think the adjudication is fair, in that blaming the vaccine on other viral infections/abscess/etc weeks later would be out of keeping w/ current views.
4) However, allowing for the fact we lack confidence intervals etc we are left to conclude that either a) Moderna 25mcg dosing led to a higher rate of non-covid infections requiring hospitalization than placebo for some yet-to-be-determined effect on immune response or b) this was a random walk, albeit a rather extreme one or c) Moderna's trial investigators did a terrible job tracking or reporting complications in the placebo arm.
Obviously, if Moderna vaccination really led to an all-cause hospitalization increase of nearly 1/100 vs placebo this would be headline news. I find it hard to believe, making me suspect answer b) or c). But I do think the FDA should address it, but for obvious reasons might be reluctant to do so.
This is insightful! The only point I take issue with is the ostensible "obviousness" that all-cause hospitalization increases of such a magnitude would be headline news. In the current climate something as (presumptively) newsworthy as "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial" makes the BMJ [https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635] -- but not the news
One more nugget...
Not what I expected, and likely not something most parents will be told, but the "severe Covid" ratio for 2-4 year-old Pfizer recipients is 6:1 in the wrong direction:
"7 participants 2-4 years of age (6 BNT162b2 recipients and 1 placebo recipient) met the criteria for severe COVID-19"
I had tweeted about the Pfizer “severe” cases, being mostly a problem of defining severe cases more than a problem with Pfizer. I think it was probably 1:1 if adjudicated properly, so a lower rate in the Pfizer cohort. That said, your comments stuck in my craw enough to write a whole other post, JMJ being duly credited :)
Everyone I know who was not vaccinated it was Omicold...to everyone who was vaccinated it included your symptoms of fever, chills etc. Not scientific but..
The universal vaccination, and the focus on very young children, is only designed to do one thing: eliminate the control group and shield Pfizer and Moderna and their partners in the public health arena that pushed these useless and often dangerous shots. Pushing these in late 2020 when it's all we had is one thing, understandable, but pushing them now is bordering on criminal.
The point of universal vaccination campaigns is eliminating the control group, not stopping the virus
Yes, it's much harder to find a smoking gun in a room full of smoke (and mirrors)...
Dr. Hollander, you seem like a voice for moderation who has taken a critical look at the data. Would you be willing to debate Steve Kirsch regarding vaccine safety on a recorded video call? I think it would be very instructive for everyone to see. I do not represent Mr. Kirsch, but could attempt to contact him if you would be interested.
Dr. Hollander, we hope you are feeling better today! Maybe I should have said "discussion" and not "debate"? I really think it would be an interesting conversation if we could connect you and Mr. Kirsch. This would also help promote your Substack.
I think Steve Kirsch wants to lure bigger SM fish than me into his debate. I happen to enjoy this sort of thing, and probably am called to rebut the latest post by Alex Berenson or Robert Malone by my contrarian friends and patients on at least a weekly basis, but the key distinction is that they actually are interested in what I have to say, and only say things they genuinely believe to be true. Good-faith "discussion" is one of my favorite aspects of medicine.
Mr. Kirsch has put out a lot of offers to get almost anyone with knowledge and expertise to debate the data with him or his team on a recorded video. I would not be surprised if he was very interested in speaking with you. What is absolutely true is that you would have a large audience of truth-seekers anxious to hear your explanation of how the vaccines are actually worthwhile.
You seem to be implying that Mr. Kirsch would be dealing in falsehoods or actual misinformation. If that is true, then it should be easy for you to expose the lies and prevarications and show everyone why Mr. Kirsch is wrong. It would be an opportunity to discredit someone who is spreading destructive propaganda.
Debating or “discussing” vaccine safety with Mr. Kirsch would draw an audience of thousands of people who genuinely want to hear what you have to say. I think you would enjoy it and find the experience worthwhile, since it is a chance for you to spread truth and a moderate point of view.
Hope you are almost back to 100% after your illness!
Well said!
Dr. Hollander: Steve Kirsch said that he was willing to discuss safety issues with you. It would be awesome to hear your points of view juxtaposed. This would be a fascinating discussion for you, for Steve, and for the thousands who will watch the video. Will you give it a try?
(Did I mention that you could use it to promote your Substack?)
A lot of us are tired of the lack of discussion between the two sides. (OK, I know there are more than two sides.) They just take pot shots at each other in front of their own cheering supporters, but they never have a dialogue. Let's bridge this chasm and have a meeting of the minds.
Vaccines are wonderful*, and my children have received lots of shots for childhood diseases and even HPV. My children have not received Covid vaccinations, given their low risk of serious complications from infection, lack of long-term and intellectually honest studies of these new vaccines, indications that the vaccines have not significantly impacted spread to others, and because my children have now had Covid and developed some degree of acquired immune protection. I may change my mind, but currently have little faith in public health decrees, such as Dr. Walensky's 80% cherry-picked pseudo science masking claim.
Unfortunately, my children will miss out on some opportunities because I live on the border of Washington state, where many people have been convinced that they should wear masks outside and some community leaders now unreasonably require Covid vaccination for participation in some summer camps and other youth activities.
* and no, I do not trust doctors who cannot distinguish between general acceptance of vaccines and specific cases/concerns.
This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. The virus has a known age profile for complications, and otherwise healthy people under 70 appear to be at limited risk of severe outcomes. As you know, the number of cases is always the focus of news reports, but that might be the least important number. ICU admissions, according to practicing physicians I know, are far more important. Everyone seems to know a child who "came down with COVID19, so they're at risk." Yes, but not equal risk.
I first observed in February 2000 that we've known how to deal with a respiratory disease epidemic for over 100 years. Outdoors is better than indoors, because even slight breezes will typically dispel a vapor cloud. Sunlight helps generate Vitamin D, and is not friendly to viruses. Indoors a vapor cloud can linger up to three hours in a room, invisible to all who enter. Protect the elderly and the obese first, and leave everyone else alone pending more information. Shutting down the global economy was certain to cause far more damage than the disease.
So, we did the opposite. We ordered everyone to stay indoors and treated all age cohorts as though they carried the same risk profile. I'm 74, 2x CVA, 1x MI, uncounted TIAs, one cardiac arrest, a constellation of neurological disorders, 2x bladder cancer, one bypass and a horribly abused body I wish I'd taken better care of. It's a bit late now. Stage 3 COPD complicated with hypercapnia.
Moderna reported a 0.5% serious adverse event rate in one cohort. That's 1 in 200, while placebo was 0.0%.
Dr. Buzz, can you comment on this? Your readers mightn't, but surely you know what the definition of "serious adverse event" is -- and 1 in 200 kids ain't good.
I disagree that the characterization of a generally "safe" vaccine is compatible with such a high serious adverse event rate, but would appreciate your thoughts.
see: https://www.fda.gov/media/159157/download. Page 92.
or Jessica Rose's write-up here: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/moderna-safety-document-quick-make?s=r
Thanks for inquiring about this (and esp for including the page # for reference - I scrolled through those 120 pages so many times with a high fever that the mere thought of doing it again gives me PTSD!). So... only 1 of the 8 SAEs was deemed related, so I don't think using that 1/200 rate is appropriate. If you review the actual table on pg 95, I think their adjudication is fair. Is it just bad luck for Pfizer that the (3X smaller) placebo cohort had zero of these random-seeming events? Maybe not, I grant you - some of the infectious stuff leading to the SAEs soon after vaccination very theoretically could be related to transient immune suppression (if that's actually a real thing; most think it's not). Then in the >1 mo out list, there was one case of diabetes linked to the vaccine, although it was well after the shot and also followed a viral infection, so that seems rather unlikely vax-provoked.
So: 1-2 genuine events in 1800 vaccine recipients; probably 1. I think that's acceptable IF the vaccine is as effective in preventing severe disease for a year as the adult vaccines have proven to be, since the annual hospitalization rate for the <5 age group per COVID-NET (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html) is in the 1/650-700 range in the past 12 mo. Even allowing for "with not for" covid noise, that's a favorable cost:benefit for high risk kids, which is the group whom I think we should be targeting. Of course, if we *knew* it was highly effective vs hospitalization, and/or had additive benefit for kids with confirmed prior infection, that would make the decision to recommend much more clear.
I think we probably agree that it's important not to pretend that these vaccines are without any risk; hence the need to establish benefit, and in which groups, before recommending. I also think it's important to not pretend that there are no benefits to an effective vaccine for this cohort; i.e., right now I have a patient w/ an infant family member having a very stressful protracted case of covid for which they would have happily traded a 1/1000 risk of a febrile seizure. The hospitalization rates in the very young are not high relative to middle aged and older adults, but they are also a long way from zero.
I do appreciate having to think harder about the risk:benefit ratio for this cohort. Thanks for the question!
Dr. Hollander, your response adds depth to the conversation and is much appreciated!
Here's an update I think you'll find interesting, and sincerely hope you'll have time to comment on.
Is the SAE ratio in young Moderna recipients 8 to 0? Or is it 18 to 1?
Check out FDA's Briefing Document here:
https://www.fda.gov/media/159189/download
The table that spans p. 169-171 reports:
- 18 serious adverse events among Moderna recipients
- 1 in placebo
Again, nearly all of the vaccine group SAEs are adjudicated "not related".
Without impugning the motives of FDA or the principle investigator, I'd feel better about the reliability of these assessments if they were remotely balanced between groups.
What's your take?
Yes, when they expanded the timeline beyond 30d after injection, the #s rose to 18 events in the Moderna group, 1 in placebo. A few comments:
1) This should be very reassuring to ppl who think Moderna/Big Pharma will squash all concerning data! I love the data transparency if not the results, much how I felt with the mRNA myocarditis concerns.
2) Bear in mind there are 3X the number in the Moderna group than placebo, but I grant you that does not explain an 18:1 ratio.
3) I think the adjudication is fair, in that blaming the vaccine on other viral infections/abscess/etc weeks later would be out of keeping w/ current views.
4) However, allowing for the fact we lack confidence intervals etc we are left to conclude that either a) Moderna 25mcg dosing led to a higher rate of non-covid infections requiring hospitalization than placebo for some yet-to-be-determined effect on immune response or b) this was a random walk, albeit a rather extreme one or c) Moderna's trial investigators did a terrible job tracking or reporting complications in the placebo arm.
Obviously, if Moderna vaccination really led to an all-cause hospitalization increase of nearly 1/100 vs placebo this would be headline news. I find it hard to believe, making me suspect answer b) or c). But I do think the FDA should address it, but for obvious reasons might be reluctant to do so.
This is insightful! The only point I take issue with is the ostensible "obviousness" that all-cause hospitalization increases of such a magnitude would be headline news. In the current climate something as (presumptively) newsworthy as "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial" makes the BMJ [https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635] -- but not the news
One more nugget...
Not what I expected, and likely not something most parents will be told, but the "severe Covid" ratio for 2-4 year-old Pfizer recipients is 6:1 in the wrong direction:
"7 participants 2-4 years of age (6 BNT162b2 recipients and 1 placebo recipient) met the criteria for severe COVID-19"
See Pfizer, p. 56: https://www.fda.gov/media/159195/download
I had tweeted about the Pfizer “severe” cases, being mostly a problem of defining severe cases more than a problem with Pfizer. I think it was probably 1:1 if adjudicated properly, so a lower rate in the Pfizer cohort. That said, your comments stuck in my craw enough to write a whole other post, JMJ being duly credited :)
https://wellnessandequality.com/2016/06/20/how-much-money-do-pediatricians-really-make-from-vaccines/
I would really like to see a reasoned debate on the subject between Dr. Hollander and Steve Kirsch or one of his doctor friends.