There is an odd obfuscation of the effects of all the COVID vaccines on the menstrual cycles of women. Why? Read Naomi Wolf. One is tempted to wonder why in this piece the dangers to young men is featured prominently and not to young women.

Also not mentioned is the failure to promote drugs that ameliorate COVID — readily available and cheap drugs like Luvox.

Expand full comment

One thing we've learned from three years of COVID is when doctors say "debunked" and "discredited" someone is probably paying or incentivizing them to say it. Thank you Dr. Fauci.

Expand full comment

short version: lack of transparent data may cause people to jump to logical conclusions based on their own experience. Yes, good date might change our minds... wish we had some!

Expand full comment

Good article and thought. As a physician I have seen many cases of viral myocarditis that you can say was caused by a virus but for no apparent reason. Viral meningitis too. Anyway, what I don’t get is the excess deaths across multiple countries. And I don’t get why Africa (anecdotally) had less COVID. With the differences in culture I do not see the seemingly American explanation as particularly convincing. Then I am left with mRNA vaccine as the one factor in all these countries. I am 65 , have had 3 shots and had COVID 4 times. No politics just real science please.

Expand full comment

thank you for that very balanced report

Expand full comment

I no longer trust the CDC. But don’t get news from Twitter.

Expand full comment

Thank you docs for informing the public. I am formally trained in public health (MPH) and am used to demanding more info before consuming the latest popular belief on cause/effect. On behalf of public health - you can point an accusatory finger of blame in my direction. We in public health have performed as “our worst enemy” in terms of damaging our own credibility since 2019, when we allowed political activist propaganda to replace actual public health stories via City-gov and State-gov Equity indoctrination program. Then in 2020, we announced that allowing mass protests during a pandemic “shelter at home” mandate - made perfect sense. We created some of the anti-vaxers and drove others further into paranoia-conspiracy land. This is the outcome we reap for our unethical conduct. “Reversal of Course” is possible only if we lead by example. The 2 authors are among the few to adhere to public health ethics. Thank you.

Expand full comment

As a 64 year old woman with no history of cardiac problems whatsoever, who has been having scary symptoms since my second shot, the idea that the government will mandate these shots for children who do not need them at all, IS CHILLING.

I will NEVER get another one.

Expand full comment

A good article. But I know longer have faith in our medical, public health figures or big pharma. I believe many of the excess deaths and sudden deaths are due to damage from the MRNA vaccines.

Expand full comment

Is there any link between the vaccine and neuropathy? Both my wife and my cousin experienced serious neuropathy after taking the vaccine, so I'm curious if there's any data out there about a potential connection?

Expand full comment

My husband works for Northwestern Mutual-that’s where you see the data show up-if mortality rises in these age groups from certain causes-the clients will become either uninsurable or insured at only the most expensive premium-it won’t matter their age but you WILL see a pattern develop in the INSURANCE MORTALITY TABLES-everyone should look for that.

Expand full comment

Reasonable article, but I am so sick of links with "debunked" horse pucky, that my inclination is to immediately stop reading anything with them. This means left-wing or right-wing, but it is the left that uses this to the point of sickening. Far better to summarize the specific claims and the key reasons some consider them true and some false. Then provide links as a reference.

I have not looked into the statistical trade-offs myself, despite having the background to do it, but this doctor has - https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-aseem-malhotra-from-vaccine-pusher-to-vaccine-debunker-how-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-covid-19-jab_4915606.html. Based on his analysis, vaccine risk is higher than the benefit for most, but not all. His presentation has more extensive statistical support than does your article, albeit one has to assume that this highly published and knowledgeable doctor did the calculations correctly. Different conclusions can also come from different assumptions and data. He used the British national health system data.

Here is an interview with a woman whose nervous system was severely impacted by the vaccine that gives a completely credible story to me that there many significant vaccine risks other than myocarditis: https://www.theepochtimes.com/brianne-dressen-gaslit-by-doctors-and-loved-ones-some-vaccine-injured-are-making-the-ultimate-choice-to-end-their-suffering_4994340.html. She now heads the React19 organization - https://react19.org/

Expand full comment

You have to weigh the risk/benefit ratio as it pertains to your situation. The fact that lies flew all over the place about vaccination, and the over exaggeration by the government and medical personnel using scare tactics to get us to vaccinate before the real data was available was unconscionable.

Some of these dolts just won't let go, not wanting each person to decide for themselves what they should do. Exercising your individual rights seems to have been a ,thing of the vpast to the point of firing non-vaxxers.

Expand full comment

The danish approach has been cited a few times as far as its conclusions are concerned, but it also offers a perfect example of how trust is everything.

I am originally from Denmark (now in US) and had occasion to visit recently and found my family very relaxed in navigating without any restrictions whatsoever.

Now, I do not have a sense of what issues bubbled up over time in public or private discussions as I was not there, but I did find a 500+ page commission report (in Danish) issued Jan. 2021 and evaluating the Danish response to covid in early 2020. https://www.ft.dk/-/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/haandtering-af-covid19-foraar-2020.ashx.

It covers every aspect of the decision making process in chronological order and in painstaking detail. It acknowledges that many decisions were done in haste and that lessons should therefore be derived in full openness. It makes recommendations, legal, institutional and procedural.

Now already there is an example of accountability.

And here are some highlights that in my opinion demonstrate an overall concern for individual rights, transparency, proportionality and justification at all stages, resulting in a respectful, “adult” relationship between government and people:

- While new powers temporarily had been accorded the government, the commission found, that due to haste, there had been insufficient consideration of individual legal protection and recourse. But it also noted that parliament had already addressed this in part by December (2020), with amendments curtailing the ability to use mandates, triggering automatic judicial and administrative review of any restriction on personal liberty.

- In addition, all mandates implemented were done with inbuilt time constraints to evaluate if a continued critical threat to the functioning of society as a whole existed.

- There was sensitivity to the potentially devastating effects of even limited lock-downs, and economic packages were announced simultaneously with the mandates, to prevent lay-offs. Later, gradual re-opening showed a continued willingness to work with the private sector and define best practices.

- Great parliamentary agreement was achieved on topics that weren’t executive actions, the need for which was also acknowledged. However the intense involvement of the prime minister led to a centralized decision structure with resulting bottle necks, compared to effective and decentralized patterns in Norway and Germany, which the commission thought would be preferable going forward.

- Regarding transparency, the one specific criticism mentioned, concerned when the prime minister announced the first mandates that included closing schools. The health department representative was present behind her, but had not agreed, and this was not made known. This was not deemed to be mis-information, however, as this is how a government announces interventions, as a block. Pretty mild case, however you look at it, I think.

- There was, as everyone now knows, an early recognition that the risk profile of the disease skewed heavily towards the elderly and those with co-morbidities and that interventions should be targeted accordingly. Schools were opened as soon as possible, lower years where out from Mach to April, others returned in May (with some tweaks later as well).

Going beyond 2020:

- No vaccine mandates were ever introduced. Some have problems with vaccine passports, but here, I think, they were used in a context of trust that this would be a very tailored and temporary intervention. So they were used temporarily for certain activities (restaurants, bars, stadiums) and included not only vaccines but also counted actual covid exposure. You know, natural immunity. https://en.coronasmitte.dk/general-information/corona-passport

- In February ’22 Denmark, as reported in an Atlantic article, was “the first in EU to lift all restrictions despite leading the world in per capita infections” - that is they were guided by the best epidemiological data beyond mere numbers - and measures had been gradually scaled down until then.

There is more, but I understand my family’s confidence now. They relaxed when they were informed of covid’s risk profile, relaxed further when the first vaccines became available, and relaxed even more when the risk profile of Omicron was known. Measures taken always seemed reasonable to them, and they expect to be guided by the best evidence going forward.

This in my opinion is what competence leading to trust looks like in an imperfect world. And the vaccine and precaution guidelines (even for masks) are now VERY different from the US.

Expand full comment

Any side effect of any medicine big pharma ever pushes is felt the most severely by young men. The destruction of men is the goal of the would be tyrants. I know the Free Press is too distinguished for me to peddle my conspiracies, but it just gets more blatant every day Ive been alive

Expand full comment

Getting flu shots does not prevent getting the flu. Doctors recommend it every season and millions get it, it's not made into a big issue. I think people get the flu shot to reduce the severity of symptoms if they get the flu and hope they don't get it. The same is true for the covid vaccine. At no point did the CDC or the administration recommend the vaccine as a preventative measure. It was always to reduce the severity of symptoms as can be attested by millions of vaccinated people who got covid. Close this story and move on.

Expand full comment
Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023

False analogy. The current publicly available flu shot is not an mRNA genetic drug. As far as I am aware, even the current research mRNA flu drugs do not turn one's cells into a manufacturer of a toxic spike protein that can cause an auto-immune response potentially damaging to the nervous system, heart, and other tissue. Here is some evidence for that: https://www.theepochtimes.com/brianne-dressen-gaslit-by-doctors-and-loved-ones-some-vaccine-injured-are-making-the-ultimate-choice-to-end-their-suffering_4994340.html

As long as CDC policy results in vaccine mandates by schools, businesses, universities, etc., this is a big issue that many will not let rest. Here is a link to a video of Biden explicitly claiming that the Vaccine will prevent infection - https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccinations-prevent-covid-resurfaces-1726900

Expand full comment