Visit our Re-post guidelines
In an era where digital censorship masquerades as fact-checking, one prestigious university's attempt to discredit vaccine injury reports exposes a web of conflicts, biases, and hidden agendas that threaten not just public health, but the very foundations of free speech and informed consent.
McGill University's recent attempt to minimize concerns about vaccine injuries reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has sparked significant controversy. Below, we outline ten critical reasons why their stance is not only flawed but also deeply disingenuous.
# 1. Conflict of Interest from Pharmaceutical Funding
McGill University has received substantial funding from major pharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. These financial ties create an inherent conflict of interest, casting doubt on the objectivity of McGill's research and public statements regarding vaccine safety.1,2,3,4
# 2. Dismissal of Legitimate Concerns as "Anti-Vax Propaganda"
The article categorizes those raising concerns about VAERS data as "anti-vaxxers," a tactic that oversimplifies and discredits legitimate questions about vaccine safety. This blanket dismissal prevents necessary discussions and fosters distrust in public health narratives. This approach aligns with the tactics of organizations like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has been criticized for its role in suppressing dissenting voices in health debates.5
# 3. Overemphasis on "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation"
While it's true that correlation does not automatically imply causation, McGill overuses this argument to dismiss potential safety signals in VAERS. VAERS is designed to identify correlations that warrant further investigation, not to dismiss them without due consideration.6
# 4. Minimization of Serious Adverse Event Reports
The article highlights trivial and questionable reports in VAERS to discredit the entire database. This approach ignores thousands of serious reports, including deaths and severe reactions, which deserve rigorous scrutiny rather than being downplayed.7
# 5. Lack of Transparency in the Evaluation of VAERS Data
The article mentions that many VAERS reports contain insufficient information for definitive assessment but fails to provide transparency on how these determinations are made. This lack of clarity leads to perceptions that legitimate concerns are being unjustly dismissed.8
# 6. Ignoring the Context of Increased VAERS Reports Post-mRNA Vaccine Introduction
McGill does not adequately address the significant increase in VAERS reports following the introduction of mRNA vaccines. The surge in reports is attributed solely to increased usage and media attention, ignoring the possibility that the novel technology and rapid rollout might present unique risks.9
# 7. Appeal to Authority Without Addressing Core Issues
The article frequently appeals to authority figures without critically assessing whether the regulatory systems are functioning adequately, especially under unprecedented conditions like the pandemic. Blind reliance on authority figures without scrutiny undermines public confidence. This approach fails to recognize the role of the "Fifth Estate" - networked individuals enabled by the Internet who can hold other estates accountable - in challenging mainstream narratives and promoting diverse perspectives on health issues.10
# 8. Dismissal of VAERS Data as "Scare Tactics" While Covering Up Vaccine Injuries
Labeling concerns as "VAERS scare" tactics dismisses the experiences of those who have suffered vaccine injuries. Additionally, recent revelations from the Twitter Files have shown that there has been an organized effort to suppress stories of vaccine injuries, highlighting a coordinated coverup rather than an open and honest discussion about potential risks. This aligns with the broader "Censorship Industrial Complex" that works to suppress information challenging official narratives, particularly regarding public health policies and medical interventions.11
# 9. Failure to Acknowledge the Role of Underreporting
Even the Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges that underreporting is a significant limitation of VAERS, meaning the system likely captures only a fraction of actual adverse events. McGill's failure to emphasize this point skews the narrative, suggesting that the data in VAERS is less significant than it actually might be.12
# 10. Potential Influence of the Disinformation Dozen Narrative
McGill's reliance on the Center for Countering Digital Hate's (CCDH) report on the "Disinformation Dozen" further undermines its credibility. This report, which has been challenged by entities like Meta for its flawed methodology, paints a biased picture that aligns with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. McGill's uncritical adoption of this narrative raises questions about the impartiality of its analysis. The CCDH's claims were later revealed to be grossly inaccurate, with Meta stating that the "Disinformation Dozen" were responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook, a 1460-fold discrepancy from CCDH's claims.13,14
Conclusion
McGill University's attempt to 'debunk' VAERS data and vaccine injury reports is fraught with conflicts of interest, logical fallacies, and a lack of transparency. In an era where public trust in science is paramount, it is essential that institutions provide unbiased, evidence-based information. Unfortunately, McGill's approach appears more aligned with protecting its financial interests and the pharmaceutical industry's agenda than with ensuring public safety. This case highlights the ongoing struggle between established institutions and the emerging Fifth Estate in shaping public discourse on critical health issues.
References
1: Jonathan Jarry, "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy," McGill Office for Science and Society, July 11, 2019, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/
2: "Merck Donates $4 Million to McGill University," McGill University, August 12, 2013, https://www.mcgill.ca/
3: "McGill researchers receive over $5M to explore new directions in research," McGill University, July 17, 2020, https://www.mcgill.ca/
4: Laura Hensley, "Big pharma pours millions into medical schools -- here's how it can impact education," Global News, August 12, 2019, https://globalnews.ca/news/
5: Sayer Ji, "9 'Dark Money' Sources Funding CCDH: A Foreign 'Digital Hate' Group Which Used the White House to Quash Free Speech," GreenMedInfo, July 24, 2023, https://www.greenmedinfo.com/
6: HHS Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data, VAERS, Accessed August 2024, https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/
7: Ibid.
8: Ibid.
9: Sayer Ji, "BREAKING: A 'Vast Censorship Enterprise' Funded by Taxpayers Knowingly Suppressed Vaccine Injury Content," GreenMedInfo, March 10, 2023, https://www.greenmedinfo.com/
10: William H. Dutton, "The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of Networks," Prometheus 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/
11: Matt Taibbi, "Twitter Files: The Censorship-Industrial Complex," Substack, March 9, 2023, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/
12: HHS Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data, VAERS, Accessed August 2024, https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/
13: Jonathan Jarry, "Dozen Misguided Influencers Spread Most of the Anti-Vaccination Content on Social Media," McGill Office for Science and Society, March 31, 2021, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/
14: Monika Bickert, "How We're Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders," Meta, August 18, 2021, https://about.fb.com/news/
Disqus