A new online attack

I will respond to my new acquaintance politely.

There is the new hit-piece brought to my attention by a fellow galaxy watcher today. If you’re interested, you can go to my Substack article on hit-pieces that explains how to recognize them so you can avoid reading them.

I have since removed the author’s name¹, as per the suggestion of a subscriber, so as not to provide a platform for said author, and will use the pseudonym ‘D’ for this person. Pleasant enough, eh?

This piece is quite atrocious. The author makes a series of strange and false claims about me. This is par for the course for this person, so I am informed. But this article is about the personal and public attack aimed at me.

D has never met me, or spoken to me, and did not try to contact me before taking time out of precious life to write this piece, and to publish it. I imagine D at her beautiful cherry desk with her bookshelves lined with encyclopedia behind her, typing madly away at her laptop about this terrible girl named Jessica. What was your purpose here, D? If these COVID-19 shots are safe, then they are safe. Why do care about my position on this subject matter? It doesn’t affect you. Does it bother you? Why does it bother you? If you personally believe that I am contributing to so-called ‘vaccine hesitancy’ by presenting data, and that this belief holds any water at all, then I suggest: the truth, transparency and informed consent. The truth, transparency and informed consent, in fact, would have prevented any kind of vaccine hesitancy, in my opinion.

People are rejecting the shots now because they are seeing loved ones being injured: not because of what I say. I am speaking on their stories reported to VAERS, not the other way around.

Let’s start at the beginning with a screenshot.

Yes. I remember that. It was written a while back by someone whom, for some bizarre reason, goes by the pseudonym ‘ORAC’. I wonder what that stands for? Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity? Orgone accumulators? I don’t know. In any case, I was very creeped out when I first saw that write up on me because, well, I didn’t know who this person was who was claiming, to the public, to know me so very well and furthermore, was, for all intents and purposes, defaming me. The ‘article’ was poorly-researched and revolved around my ‘credentials’ and had nothing to do with me, my work or science. It was literally just a badly-researched defamation hit piece. Defamation is litigatable, by the way.

It’s such a strange thing to me, these ad hominem attacks. Doesn’t an attack on another’s character require that one KNOW the character? How else can an attack on character be founded? One of the reasons I claim that the ORAC article was poorly-researched with regard to his claims pertaining to my epidemiological background, was that ORAC failed to mention that I have a degree in Applied Mathematics. I have written on this as well, and you can read that here. Clearly, this person does not know me, my background or that my background thoroughly qualifies me to speak and/or write on epidemiological data.

On a personal note, since these people make it so, I think it’s pathetic in general: this in-tandem ‘taking each other down’ and lack of ‘building each other up’. How is it possible that there are so many emotionally-stunted immature ‘adults’ walking around in grown-up outfits posing as leaders and officials, pulling the pigtails of others for no reason other than to try to not feel so bad about themselves? It’s just bullying. In the schoolyard of life. Plain and simple.

Back to D’s claims in this piece.

[Dr. Jessica Rose is part of a] new generation of anti-vaccine activists [who has] built [her career] on misrepresentation of VAERS.

Watch this D. I am actually quoted in this video as saying that I didn’t know what VAERS was 2 years ago - before our stupendous leaders decided to ruin human society. I also am quoted in this video as saying that am exceedingly pro-vaccine and vaccinated, which I remain.

What I am against are UNSAFE PRODUCTS, and abuse of words like ‘vaccine’ to promote agendas and marketing schemes to sell products with no long-term safety data associated with them.

And unlike some, I do not lie.

D also states that my specialty is ‘bad analyses of VAERS’ and that I ‘misrepresent’ VAERS data. I plot the numbers from the downloadable data from the VAERS website (CDC/FDA/government data). I do not misrepresent this data. I simply plot it on charts so that people can easily understand that the numbers from past aren’t like the numbers since the COVID-19 products were injected into billions of human beings. What do you guys think? Do you think that’s my specialty? Do you think that my analyses are bad? Do you think I am ‘misinterpreting’ VAERS? You know me better than D does.

D claims I was a once a young and legitimate person. Sigh. You’re right D, I am old now. As for legitimate, read this recently published peer-reviewed article entitled: “The copper-linked Escherichia coli AZY operon: Structure, metal binding, and a possible physiological role in copper delivery”, published in January 2022, if you can. That name there ‘Jessica Rose’: that’s my name. Last time I checked anyway. By the way, I don’t ever go by a pseudonym: I want people to know who I am.

And there’s this one too entitled “Titratable transmembrane residues and a hydrophobic plug are essential for manganese import via the Bacillus anthracis ABC transporter MntBC-A”, from October 2021.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34822841/

They’re both pretty high level, so no worries if you have trouble reading them, D. D then quotes someone else’s false statements about me - another person who has never spoken a word to my face. That’s like stacking poop on poop, it’ll collapse or dry up and turn white, eventually.

D also brings up my recently-posted Substack article (without posting a link - come on D - we’re all friends here, aren’t we?), where I wrote up a Q and A on VAERS facts prompted by a colleague, for the general public. Most of what I wrote are quotes from the VAERS website, and the rest is built on 2 years of data analysis of the system. And by the way, you don’t have to agree with me when I do make assessments of the safety of these products from my analyses of the VAERS data, or any data. But to claim that my VAERS Q and A is ‘misleading’, is simply wrong.

To mislead one is to lead them in a direction that is not the direction of truth. First of all, I am not, and will never be, so arrogant as to think that I have that kind of power over others. People are intelligent enough, and indeed, have the right, to decide for themselves what is the truth, and what is best for them, D. And furthermore, to make an informed choice requires input from many sources. That’s precisely why censorship is bad. D, I implore you to read this and this as well. Second of all, I only tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Mother Nature. Thus, I would never intentionally ‘mislead’ people even if I did that power, which I do not claim to, or believe, that I have. Occasionally, I might be unintentionally in error, but the fact that I am honest means that I fess up to these errors. I see the value in making mistakes and more importantly, owning up to them when I make them. I am not afraid to let people see the journey in the scientific process or in my writing, in fact, I think it is very valuable to do so and that it promotes trust. The people in charge of reducing ‘vaccine hesitancy’ should take a note here.

D, I propose a meet and greet via Zoom. You and me. We’ll record it. Professor of Law to Medical Scientist → face-to-face. We can call it: The Common Ground. You can make my virtual acquaintance, and I, yours. I understand that meeting someone one-on-one, and getting to know a little about who they are, requires curiosity, integrity and honesty. I will wait with bated breath.

Sincerely, Dr. Jessica Rose

1. https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/11/dorit-reiss-shows-immune-system-ignorance-while-promoting-vaccination.html