In the article (link), Mr. Steve Kirsch (author of the article) describes Dr. Martin Kulldorff as a “Vaccine Scientist.” Is he (Dr. Kulldorff) a vaccine scientist? Has he worked with vaccines or the virus (its isolation or testing)? Not really. As per Dr. Kulldrorff’s CV, he is a statistician and epidemiologist (sub-class of statistics). So, why is he considered a scientist?
A scientist concerning virus or virology is a person who has extensive experience in the area, most importantly isolation and characterization of the virus and potentially linking the virus to the illness or at least to the body or its fluids. Dr. Kulldorff’s expertise shows nothing in this respect. So considering him, a scientist is not a valid claim but a misrepresentation of his work or academic involvement.
A statistician or epidemiologist interprets the claim made by a scientist about the GIVEN results/data obtained from scientific/laboratory work, i.e., what are the chances of the correctness of the interpretation (not the results/data) to be statistically true?
A virus has never been isolated, its test or testing has never been validated, and there cannot be a treatment (vaccine) for a non-existing thing. So, from a scientific perspective, one cannot assess the vaccine’s good (efficacy) or bad (adverse) effect. Saying it otherwise is simply a lie or fraud.
The best one can say is observing (observational/survey data noted in the article) the effects of the injection, presumably a mixture (soup/gunk) of unknown components. One of the components is mRNA, a chemical compound that could potentially be dangerous or lethal. The danger comes from the fact that mRNA is similar in chemical structure and characteristics to the body’s DNA. There is always a possibility that mRNA gets substituted into the body’s DNA.
It is like lead toxicity, where lead ions replace similar bi-valent metals such as zinc, calcium, and iron, vital for body nourishment and survival, hence toxicity or lethality. So considering that mRNA would not interfere with the body’s RNA or DNA is a very unscientific (dumb) claim, especially when no such experimental evaluation has been done. A true scientist would not make such unsubstantiated claims.
Science requires that an experimental or laboratory study be conducted to evaluate the side effects of the mRNA. In that case, it may be done by injecting pure mRNA, which presumably should be available as it is synthetic material prepared in the laboratory or “factory.” Unfortunately, such a study has never been done. Therefore, no statistical or epidemiological assessment or claims can be valid or relevant.
So, science or scientists are nowhere to be found like the virus, but only the claims – be careful about the claims.