My Failed Attempt to Red-pill Dorit Reiss

By STEVE KIRSCH

I pointed out that there are no safety studies for any US vaccine proving they are safe. This didn’t seem to bother her. Here’s the transcript of what happened.

When I asked her, Professor Dorit Reiss was unable to locate a credible objective US study showing that ANY vaccine in America is safe to use. In short, the “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on faith in seriously flawed studies. It’s turtles all the way down.

Note: This is extracted from an earlier article so if you read that, no need to read this again.

Executive summary

This article chronicles my failed attempt to red-pill Dorit Reiss (Twitter: @doritmi).

I wasn’t expecting success, but what I found was someone who appeared to me to be incapable of separating fact from fiction.

The key learnings of this article are:

1. It’s not easy to red-pill someone, even when you can objectively show that the studies that their core beliefs are based on simply do not exist. You are arguing to a part of the brain that has stopped functioning.
2. It’s hard to convince someone that they are wrong, when their livelihood depends on it.
3. There are no safety studies that demonstrate that any of the current vaccines used in the US are safe (at least nobody could find one)
4. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals can be ridiculously flawed.
5. One of the biggest failures in medicine that has caused enormous loss of life is the cavalier way that study authors dismiss deaths in the treatment group as “not judged to be related to the drug.”

Introduction

Dorit Reiss is a well-known “debunker” of anti-vax so-called misinformation spreaders like me.

When I posted my plans to increase data transparency in California, she wrote a hit piece attacking me and my article. I was surprised by her reaction because data transparency always leads to superior health outcomes. Only pharma companies or their paid shills should be attacking me for wanting to expose the truth. Nobody else.

Science is about finding truth, challenging assumptions, making hypotheses, gathering quality data, and figuring out which hypothesis best fits the observed data. No real scientist should be attacking me for asking for transparency of public health information; they should all be cheering me on. More data is always better. Anyone who attacks you for wanting to see the data is not a scientist.

So I decided to turn the tables on her in the comments section of her article by attacking her fundamental assumption of vaccine safety and showing it is all based on a belief or in believing deeply flawed studies rather than the proper studies (such as the UK has attempted to do).

I wanted to expose to the world that her belief in the safety of vaccines is not based on credible data, i.e., I wanted to show that the “vaccines are safe Emperor” has no clothes.

So I challenged her to show me any objective credible large-scale, post-marketing US study showing that any of the vaccines in the US are “safe” as defined by Paul Offit back in 2002 as fewer than 1 death per million doses.

She failed.

At first she directed me to a list of articles and none of them were responsive to my request. Next, she cited a deeply flawed study that she said was “just for fun.”

I repeated my request was serious and this was a serious issue, and she confirmed that her answers were serious.

She failed to respond with a document that met the objectives because the data simply isn’t there.

None of her readers could find a credible objective large epidemiological study done in the US showing that any US vaccine is safe either.

I just got off the phone with Dr. Peter McCullough who is a walking encyclopedia of studies and he wasn’t aware of any credible study either for large-scale vaccine safety.

So let’s see if any of my readers can find one!

Dorit’s response: a deeply flawed study

I was asking Dorit to show me a study similar to what the UK ONS did for COVID, but for any US vaccine. Should that be so hard?

I also asked how keeping the data secret improves clinical outcomes. Nobody touched the second question for some reason.

Initially, Dorit directed me to a page at the CDC saying the answer was there in the 2017 section without specifying the paper. I guessed she had nothing because if there was a paper there, she would have named it rather than risk me getting the wrong study.

I called her bluff. I read every paper in that section page and I told her that none of the papers were responsive. Again, I told her I wanted at least one paper showing I’m wrong. Note: I’d even take multiple papers if she had requested that which she never did.

Then she said “just for fun” here is a 2016 study claiming that a 30 day post vax study in 2M kids aged 9 to 26 showed that the vaxxed, for most vaccines, had dramatically lower mortality and therefore vaccines are safe.

I read the paper. It was total garbage (I’ll explain why below). At that point, I said game over. You couldn’t find a paper showing safety. She’s basically throwing junk at me that I assume she believes is solid science.

After I posted a message to see what her other readers thought of the paper, my post was removed! Is that how scientific debate is done?

And this isn’t “just for fun.”

People’s lives are at stake and a cavalier attitude about safety issues is totally inappropriate.

The issues with the study Dorit provided

To show safety at a level of 1 in 1M, ideally you’d want at least 10M person-years minimum in the study (not 2M) so that the numbers are large enough to show significance, i.e., at least 10 deaths. And you can’t do it with just a narrow age group observed over a bucket of just 30 days; you have to break up the 30 day period after the shot into smaller buckets. They said they looked at bucket sizes before going for the 30 day size, but I’d have liked to have seen this data.

Here are the major red flags that pop out immediately when you read the paper:

Of the 59 deaths with medical records available for review, the team of CDC physicians confirmed the cause of death in 53 cases and found no relationship between vaccination and death.

It’s always very problematic to rely on something like this.

The study needs to be objective. It should not rely on CDC judgment calls at all. This is always a mistake. Judgment calls led to 50 years of elevated deaths from the DTP vaccine.

Judgment calls on the deaths in the Phase 3 trials were also used to deem the COVID vaccines “safe.” Post-marketing, the CDC was completely inept at assessing causality. They couldn’t find a single person who died from the mRNA COVID vaccine even after an estimated 500,000 people died from the vaccine. As far as anyone knows, they never did the required tissue stains to assess whether the vaccine might have caused the death. Why would they not do this?

Now let’s go to Table 1… Check out the RR column values:

Wow. Just wow.

This table shows that taking any vaccine (except for the HPV vaccine which is super deadly) makes you less likely to die compared to not taking the vax: it cuts your risk in half (plus or minus). There is no way this is possible. This is crazy stupid. For the MCV4 vax, you’re looking at a 71% reduction in risk of death.

This is in a peer-reviewed journal!?!?! STOP right here.

This shows the study is just complete crap.

Look, if this study was true, every kid would be getting the MCV4 vaccine every month. And there would be a HUGE mortality advantage to being vaccinated.

So you have to have a non-working brain to take this study seriously. There is absolutely no mechanism of action that could explain this. If there was, the drug companies would package this as an immortality drug in a nanosecond (and ignore the immunogenicity). So not even the drug companies believe this bullshit.

Then comes the killer. The most devastating part of the paper that blows the entire paper to pieces:

Recently, deaths immediately after 4vHPV vaccination have garnered intense media attention. Often, these media stories do not take into account the background rates of death in older children and young adults or disclose the potential for non–vaccine-related causes of death. In our study, 13 deaths were identified after 4vHPV vaccine among individuals 9 to 26 years of age within the 0- to 30-day risk window, a rate of 11.7 deaths per 100 000 person-years. This is significantly lower than what would be expected in this age group regardless of vaccination. The National Center for Health Statistics found the 2011 death rate for all causes among persons 15 to 24 years to be 67.6 deaths per 100 000 people.

OK. The study was deeply flawed, but this takes “deeply flawed” to a whole new level.

This could be the most preposterous statement I’ve ever read in a paper.

The HPV vaccine which is definitely killing people at much higher rates than other vaccines (like 2.5X) is basically causing people vaccinated with HPV to be REDUCING ACM BY 6X vs. an unvaccinated person?!?!?! NFW. And the other vaccines were shown to provide even more of an all-cause mortality benefit.

The HPV vax is super-dangerous. At the time it came out, it was the COVID vax of the time but way worse: there were 3X more VAERS adverse event reports for this vax than all the vaccines in VAERS combined (see Turtles, p. 114). This vaccine is a complete shitshow for serious adverse events (including deaths). Read Turtles pages 112-119; you’ll be appalled.

In the VAERS search below, the ratio of deaths between the flu vaccine vs. the HPV vaccine is 2.5X higher risk whereas in the Table above it’s 2.9X higher risk so they are in the same ballpark. So the magnitude and direction is consistent: HPV is way more deadly than the flu shot. At least they got that right!

So the study she supplied was just so deficient on so many levels. It shouldn’t be taken seriously even for the age group. Yet Dorit appeared to have absolutely no problem citing this study as proof the vaccines are safe! And none of her readers had a problem with the paper either.

Remember: this was the very best she could do. I gave her one shot and this was her best shot.

And not only that, we know the flu vax isn’t safe at all whereas the paper says it is. I’ll explain in the next paragraph.

For the flu specifically, the study says it reduces your risk of death by >2X vs not being vaccinated. Someone’s wrong. Like I said, a 2X ACM reduction is insane. Not credible.

Look at the Medicare graph for the flu vaccine in my flu vaccine article. The death rate on day 0 is not explainable if the vaccine is safe. Dorit’s study misses this entirely because it doesn’t look for it.

It appears to me that Dorit’s beliefs in the safety of vaccines were predicated on trust in authority rather than seeing the data. When I asked her to provide a compliant study, she failed. Shouldn’t she have known of one study? After she gave me a flawed paper that couldn’t possibly be accurate it made me wonder: is the type of quality study she uses to justify her position on vaccine safety?

Of course, now that this is pointed out to her that there are no credible safety studies, I don’t think it will change her views. My guess is that she will simply find a way to rationalize away the cognitive dissonance that I just created.

The discussion (selected screenshots)

You can see the whole conversation here if you scroll down to the comments. It’s a riot. The benefit to me was that it helped me find any ambiguities in my article.

My suggestion is you don’t engage because there is an excellent chance your comment will be immediately deleted.

Here are a few highlights.

Generally, when I asked for the data, I received insults mixed in with a response that doesn’t meet the criteria I set:

So her first try was to this page on the CDC website. But that was a complete wild goose chase!! Which led me to post this:

And then we move to Twitter with this:

So she apparently had no clue that the study she provided to me was not credible.

I asked her for clarification on the study she provided as to whether it was “just for fun” or she was serious. It appears she wasn’t joking as you can see here:

Bottom line: I asked for just one study, and she argues that she sent in multiple studies and I rejected multiple studies as not being “one” study. That’s preposterous. This is her “real Scotsman” reference (claiming that she gave multiple studies vs. the one I asked for).

None of the studies she provided met the criteria so I simply asked for one so I could show that even her “best” example didn’t satisfy the question at all.