Public Has Lost Trust in Scientific Manuscripts from Vaccinated Authors or Institutions that Promote or Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination

Social Media Poll Finds 98% Don't Believe Results and Conclusions

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

I have always wondered how hard it would be for a research scientist or clinician-investigator to publish a paper concluding COVID-19 vaccination was unsafe when they took the jab, had their family vaccinated, pushed it on their patients, and worked in an environment where their job was dependent on compliance with a vaccine mandate.

Following this line, is it possible that that deep bias among these individuals drive them to find ways of working with data that lead to the false conclusion that '“vaccines are safe and effective?” As a senior clinician, I think COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy must be one of the most egregious examples. In this application, pregnant women would excluded from the original placebo-controlled RCTs because the products have a dangerous, genetic mechanism of action, long-term studies over many years would be required, and the pediatric outcomes would need tracking in order to determine if COVID-19 vaccination was “safe.” So how do deceptive manuscripts actually get into print?

Ibroci et al used the Generation C Study, N=3157 but excluded 1,308 for many reasons including not knowing the vaccine status in 475. They whittled the sample of vaccinated mothers to 250 and compared them to 1,544 unvaccinated from an earlier time or received the vaccine after gestation. There are no long term outcomes and no assurances of complete data capture. For example, if a mother had a stillbirth or died in a hospital outside the Mount Sinai System, then they would not be included in the 250. You can easily see how selection bias could completely influence this small study and observe how the authors in the introduction and conclusions make the false claim vaccines are safe.