Predators in the legacy media... a personal story.
Sharing is caring.
I appreciate that this war that we are in revolves heavily around the science and the data, but I believe it is also vital for us to talk plain. So, this post will not be about science or VAERS, it will be about one of the personal and dehumanizing experiences that I am having/about to have, and that many medical doctors, nurses and scientists are having. My heart goes out to you all.
I was contacted by email by a female ‘reporter’ (for now, I will not disclose her name - I am giving her an opportunity to wo-man up) with a very irritating message. It was irritating because a) it was bad etiquette and b) it was plain old rude. I don’t like rudeness. Not at all. Here it is:
Dear Dr. Rose,
I'm a reporter for [Dr. Evil]. I'm writing an investigation about academic articles that could be used to promote misinformation about vaccines that have been published by peer-reviewed journals, which critics say shows serious flaws in the system of peer review.
One of the papers used as an example is: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Curr Probl Cardiol 2021 Sep 30;101011.
This is what we intend to report. Would you like to comment on the following?
We say the findings from your paper are demonstrably wrong, because the methodology is flawed. The paper is no longer online but an archived version exists here.
Here are some questions we would like to ask you.
Do you agree with the withdrawal?
Would you be able to explain how you came to this conclusion: "Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group."
How did you determine the baseline level of myocarditis among this age group?
What methodology did you use to assess the number of myocarditis cases among vaccinated people? EG: did you have access to the vaccination status of people who reported having myocarditis on VAERS?
Do you personally support the use of COVID-19 vaccines? Do you believe that getting a vaccine is safer than getting COVID-19?
Please feel free to comment on the above by email, or let us know if you would rather not. We intend to publish next week and ask that you respond by Friday, midday ET. Please let us know if you'd like more time and we can consider that. We would also be happy to talk on record on the phone.
Best regards, puppet.
So what do you guys think? Here’s what I think because I never have an opinion.
I think that her approach was completely unprofessional and quite frankly, not well thought out! I mean, if I was a journalist, as she claims to be, I would never write to someone I wanted information from by first telling them that they are ‘demonstrably wrong’ and that ‘this is what [I] intend to report’ and then asking questions. I mean, is everyone 4 years old nowadays? A little professionalism? A little maturity? A little good old fashioned sleuthing even? Where are these things? I gotta tell ya, I constantly have this feeling of being in a schoolyard and having my braids pulled by some bully.
But, besides her tactic being flawed from a professional/intelligent approach point of view, SHE COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. The paper’s content has NEVER been in question. CENSORSHIP is the issue. Censorship that is out-of-place, inexplicable and unexplained - an occurrence that appears to be becoming common-place these days.
I believe that I was very polite in my reply and I am giving her the opportunity to do the right thing, as you will read in this reply below. I am not naive enough to believe it won’t be snopes ‘fact-checker’ level nonsense, however. I imagine that in ‘reality’, she will continue to miss the point and that she will feed the hungry-hungry hippo narrative. It is shameful to me. In the true essence of the word. The thing I hate the most in all of this pandemic of testing and lies are the lies and also the wrongness. People who like math will know what I mean. The equation is so unbalanced here. And it ain’t the work of no Oracle.
Here’s my reply.
With all due respect, if you have the background as listed above (I omitted her background here), then you are more than capable of reading our paper to completion and thus, capable of finding the answers to all of your questions written here, and subsequently, understand that your questions are moot in the first place. The 'issue' with our paper is NOT the content: it is the CENSORSHIP.
The Editor-in-Chief of Current Problems in Cardiology, the Publisher and the multiple reviewers of this fully-accepted, peer-reviewed paper did not share your opinion that the 'findings are demonstrably wrong'. Current Problems in Cardiology is an esteemed journal and for as yet unknown reasons, have been incentivized by the Publisher to withdraw our paper. To be clear, the paper was censored without notification to myself nor Dr. McCullough and without scientific basis. They simply claimed it was their prerogative to do so. If the paper was 'demonstrably wrong' in its content, then the reviewers would never have let it pass.
If you do, in fact, have the credentials of [PhDr.Evil], then I assume you have published peer-reviewed scientific articles yourself. In which case, you should know very well that once a submitted article gets through the peer review process and is fully accepted for publication and immortalized on Pubmed, it is akin to book burning for a publisher to 'quietly' withdraw/delete the work thereafter. THIS IS THE ISSUE. Attacking the content of this work is not useful at this point. It is simply a tactic and one that serves no one in a benevolent way.
Please, be the science journalist that you are credentialed to be and acknowledge the real issue here: CENSORSHIP.
And feel free to read the paper.
You can quote me verbatim.
It is likely that our work will be used as an instrument of manipulation - a cautionary tale of how not to be a scientist who doesn’t ‘follow the science’. A message loud and clear to those who dare try to publish data and scientific results that counter what the news person is reading off of the teleprompter today: we promote censorship.
Let me be clear here. No matter what your stance, your beliefs, your thoughts, your age, your religion, your gender, your whatever, you must know that censorship is never a good thing and it is always a precursor to very bad things. And you will be affected by it.
This is my anti-censor Ship. A Ship of hope. A Ship of love. A Ship of truth. A Ship of devotion to ethical behaviour. Ethical behaviour is the design of Mother Nature. To be unethical is to go against her and that’s just stupid. Welcome to stupid.