2 Responses to a letter by Edmonton Zone Medical Association
Fallacies, Pseudoscience and other Techniques + Stunning Ignorance of key issues
Added here for my reference - and possible use/adapatation by others - the text of the post below as well as a brief introductory email.
When a Medical Association asks for Data Assuming that will silence Vax-safety advocates
So, 129 people recently signed a letter to the AB Premier with this request:
We ask that the Premier and Minister of Health permit Alberta’s public health leaders (CMOH at Alberta Health, SMOH at Alberta Health Services) to make publicly available the evidence on COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness in children, and address any concerns the public has raised. Albertans deserve accuracy and transparency about these important disease and prevention issues so that we have the freedom to make safe and informed choices about the health of our children.
The letter was written by the Edmonton Zone Staff Medical Association which represents physician practitioners; dentists and oral surgeons; podiatrists; community-based specialists; clinical scientists and medical staff of hospitals, continuing care facilities, PCN and Non-PCN based community clinics.
And it was endorsed by the Board of the Alberta Public Health Association and the Community Health Nurses of Canada – Alberta Branch.
It is laudable that medical professionals want to ensure that governments make public all available evidence around COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness in children alongside of any concerns the public has raised.
I continue my remarks below but am now jumping to this excellent critique:
Thank you to the person on X who posted this… I am looking for your name or Twitter Handle, but lost track of which thread you posted it in….
Here is the link to the letter in question:
You wrote:
A thorough critique reveals several fallacies, pseudoscientific claims, and false attributions in this letter:
𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀
1. **Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)**: - The letter relies heavily on the endorsement by health ministry officials and so-called "internationally recognized scientific and medical experts" without addressing the substantive issues raised by opponents. This is a classic appeal to authority, suggesting that the stance is correct merely because authorities say so.
2. **Straw Man Argument**: - The letter misrepresents the anti-vaccine proponents by implying they are entirely against vaccines or do not understand the science. It simplifies their arguments to make them easier to attack, rather than engaging with the nuanced concerns about safety and efficacy.
3. **False Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy)**: - The letter presents the situation as a binary choice: either continue with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations or return to a state where children are at high risk from vaccine-preventable diseases. This ignores other potential strategies and interventions that could be considered.
4. **Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad Metum)**: - There is a heavy use of fear tactics, suggesting dire consequences if the vaccination programs are altered or halted, without providing balanced evidence of the risks versus benefits.
𝗣𝘀𝗲𝘂𝗱𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
1. **Misrepresentation of Historical Vaccine Success**: - The letter implies that the success of childhood vaccination programs in the past century directly translates to the success of the new mRNA vaccines. It does not address the unique aspects and novel risks associated with mRNA technology, which differs significantly from traditional vaccines.
2. **Assumption of Safety and Efficacy**: - The letter claims that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are "safe and effective" without acknowledging the ongoing debates and emerging studies that highlight potential risks and adverse effects. For instance, studies have shown varying degrees of adverse reactions that need to be openly discussed and investigated.
3. **Neglecting Emerging Data**: - It disregards the growing body of evidence suggesting that vaccine side effects might not be as benign as claimed. For example, concerns about myocarditis in young males post-vaccination are not addressed.
4. **Ignoring Vaccine-Induced Immune Enhancement (VIE)**: - There is no mention of potential issues like Vaccine-Induced Immune Enhancement, where vaccinated individuals could theoretically have a more severe reaction upon exposure to the virus.
𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀
1. **Selective Reporting**: - The letter selectively cites historical data to bolster its argument without acknowledging the complexity of the current situation. For instance, the reduction in childhood diseases due to vaccines over the past 100 years is not directly comparable to the current deployment of mRNA vaccines under emergency use authorization.
2. **Lack of Long-Term Data**: - It assumes long-term safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, which is still under study. Long-term studies are crucial to understanding the full impact of these vaccines.
3. **Oversimplification of Opponent’s Position**: - It paints all opposition as anti-science or anti-vaccine, which is a gross oversimplification. Many critics are asking for more rigorous safety data and transparency rather than outright rejection of vaccines.
4. **Economic and Social Impact**: - The letter does not discuss the broader social and economic impacts of the pandemic response, such as lockdowns and mandates, which also affect public health.
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 While the letter is framed as a defense of public health, it employs several logical fallacies, misrepresents historical vaccine success, and fails to engage with legitimate concerns about the mRNA vaccines' safety and efficacy. A balanced and honest discussion is necessary to address these issues comprehensively, ensuring that public health policies are based on robust and transparent scientific evidence.
Back to my own points about this letter:
The letter is stunning for a number of reasons:
1) It appears the letter writers were NOT aware that, until the triple-COVID-injected were starting to have much higher case rates of COVID-19 infections than the zero/one/two times injected, Alberta statistics were openly public. In fact, data analysts like Sheldon Yakiwchuk have been diligently digging into the publicly avaiable stats and presenting Albertans with detailed analyses of the statistical data that confirms the medical reasons why the products do NOT live up to their “safe and effective” marketing slogans. Can all of the Edmonton area medical professionals possibly NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS this entire time — while a computer engineer and countless concerned citizens have been working nearly 24/7 to get this information to them?
(one example of many - Search Alberta on Yakk Stack for more)
==
2) it appears the letter writers naively believe that IF the Premier makes the aforementioned data evident, it will of course support their claim that the speakers at the Calgary UCP caucus event are purveyors of misinformation. Have NONE of the signatories taken the time to do their homework and look the speakers up BEFORE adding their names to a letter that throws around insults like “discredited and unlicensed doctors”, “spokespersons who cater to an anti-science agenda” or “anti-science proponents”? If I were to put my name to a document that maligns someone, I would want to ensure that I have real cause to do so, otherwise, I could be faced with charges of defamation.
Here are links to recent recordings of the key speakers at the June 17 event, for example in the form of sworn testimonies at the National Citizens Inquiry. Yes, Google might report that the someone might have had their licence stripped from a medical college. Does that necessarily point to a problem with the doctor? Or with the college? Since when did we stop applauding those who go above and beyond to point at true harms being ignored for political expediency? What of the heroic characters we admired in our youth? Have we become so jaded that we believe those who willingly put their job security on the table to advocate for the greater public good must necessarily be the evil ones?
a) For Dr. David Speicher to be branded as “ANTI-SCIENCE” is flat out stupid. It was Dr. Speicher who followed the work of the Human Genome Project lead Kevin McKernan and determined that all of the vials in a recent round of Pfizer COVID-19 boosters in Canada were in fact contaminated with DNA,
Hear Kevin McKernan’s testimony here: https://rumble.com/v4yrcve-kevin-mckernan-may-30-2024-regina-saskatchewan.html and read Dr. Speicher’s summary here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-138096528 Practising scientists cannot by definition be “anti-science.”
b) Another ridiculous claim is that Dr. Eric Payne is discredited and anti-science. You don’t work as pediatric neurology and epilepsy consultant at the Mayo Clinic and the Calgary Childrens’ Hospital or become Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Neurology at the University of Calgary by “catering to an anti-science agenda.” https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-eric-payne-2/ Already 25 months ago, Dr. Payne was one of the members of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance who pulled together the risk/benefit analysis for COVID-19 injections in children, an analysis that was sorely missing in the world of Canadian Public Health. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/all/stop-the-shots/
Why was this information not immediately circulated to all the medical associations around the country? Under whose mandate at the Public Health Agency of Canada was this information withheld from Canadian parents, physicians, pharmacists? Why, in October 2022 when the scientists of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance presented their evidence-backed critique of the booster recommendations by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), did our Canadian press not give any space for this crucial information as required of them by all media and broadcast ethics guidelines in the country? https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/all/why-covid-19-vaccine-boosters-are-unnecessary-and-not-recommended-a-critique-from-the-scientific-and-medical-advisory-committee-of-the-canadian-covid-care-alliance-october-4-2022/ Had they done so, Dr. Eric Payne and others would not now be falsely accused as misinformation providers and the signatories of this letter would not be so easily misled into believing false accusations.
c) You also cannot find a more passionate, thorough, eloquent, multi-disciplinary and positively sparkly scientist than Dr. Jessica Rose - and those signing the aforementioned letter should line up to come listen to and learn from her instead of claiming that she is someone who caters to an anti-science agenda.
Given how recent the Regina NCI hearings were, and how silent our government-funded media are on the matter, it might not be surprising that few have seen this recent testimony by Dr. Rose in Regina: https://rumble.com/v4yrp8e-dr.-jessica-rose-may-30-2024-regina-saskatchewan.html or this recent article in which Dr. Rose summarized the implications of Kevin McKernan’s findings.
BUT there is no excuse for not having noted her clear explanation of the problematic scientific findings around the mRNA injections made visible via VAERS data that has been publicly available for an entire year! See https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-jessica-rose/ .
d) Dr. Chris Shoemaker’s testimony has also been up for an entire year. He was one of the earliest to “put his money where his mouth is” and even engaged in a hunger strike to draw attention to the rate at which the COVID-19 injections were being used unnecessarily and recklessly. https://rumble.com/v2oxmfc-dr-chris-shoemaker-discusses-the-vaccines-and-their-safety-and-efficacy-ott.html Especially people who do not question how long the injection remains in the body and who do not ask how many copies of spike protein the body makes for each shot should learn how Dr. Shoemaker addresses these topics.
e) Dr. Byram Bridle’s Guelph ON lab was initially granted government funding to LEAD THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA’s COVID-19 VACCINE. You can’t get more pro-science than that. There are plenty of recordings and articles online that feature Dr. Bridle https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/?s=Bridle that should have been referenced by those who are trying to include him in this defamation letter:
f) Dr. Mark Trozzi took advantage of the empty hospitals during the early pandemic months (yes, empty, not filled to overflowing till after the vax rollout) to study as much as he could about the different toxic effects of masking, vaxxing and social distancing. Please see https://drtrozzi.org for an idea of where the science is leading those with the eyes to follow. Why Dr. Trozzi is being discredited by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is something to ask the college. There is clearly something in the air when regulatory bodies who draw heavily from corporate advertising let their ideas of what constitutes best practice be swayed by the entity paying the piper to play its tune. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-mark-trozzi/
To see the data and references presented by the speakers at the NCI, please visit: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/exhibits/
==
3) Another stunning point is that the letter writers appear not to have any clue as to how different the mRNA injections are from regular vaccines. This is evident in statements such as
Childhood vaccination has provided the single greatest contribution to improved infant survival over the past 50 years. Giving credence to conspiracy and misinformation, and ignoring scientific evidence, actively jeopardizes the health of our children while vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise.
&
These anti-science proponents are requesting that government remove COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from the childhood vaccine program in Alberta, a move that would actually reduce the freedom of choice of parents wanting to protect their children.
If a certain batch of Brand X hot dogs is proven to contain e-coli, and is removed from store shelves, is anyone saying that no one can ever have any hot dogs ever again? No. The recall would clearly be limited to the product that is causing the problem. To play along with the e-coli example, it is likely not known by the signatories of this letter that in fact e-coli does play a role in the mass production of vaccine products. And that what was produced for mass-injection was produced differently than what as lab tested. For more on the issue around e-coli bacterial contamination in COVID-19 vax production, please listen to the sworn testimony of molecular biologist Dr. Laura Braden https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-laura-braden/.
The critics of the June 17 “Injection of Truth” event seem not to have realized that the various expert presenters will be pointing at problems specific to the COVID-19 mRNA injections, not to ALL vaccines ever made. To insinuate that experts who have a long list of peer reviewed, published, replicated studies that point at problems specific to the COVID-19 injection products are coming to Alberta to pull ALL vaccines from the market is overkill. (However, everyone who has read Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myths will come to some pretty eye-opening conclusions about the vaccine industry as a whole, but that is not the focus of the June 17 event.)
==
4) Equally stunning is the naive gullibility of the signatories in that they believe that our federal and provincial health authorities are properly monitoring vaccine adverse reactions
Millions of doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine have been given to children in this province. Alberta’s government Health Ministry (Alberta Health) and Alberta Health Services (AHS), along with Canadian and internationally recognized scientific and medical experts, reviewed the vaccine effectiveness for preventing COVID-19 and the safety of that vaccine prior to its use across all age groups. As a matter of routine due diligence, Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services have monitored, and are continuing to monitor, the effectiveness and particularly the safety of the vaccine.
Canadian media outlets are clearly not meeting up to the legislation and and industry ethics guidelines that govern their profession. (For a listing, see: https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/are-our-canadian-media-living-up.) Otherwise the signatories would realize that to be effective, a vaccine must prevent illness and prevent transmission. And the signatories would be fully aware for example that the Pfizer trials were not designed to evaluate the vaccine’s effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as discussed by Dutch Member of the European Parliament Rob Roos and Janine Small, president of international markets at Pfizer back in October of 2022 already.
A number of Canadians physicians (including Dr. Charles Hoffe and Dr. Patrick Phillips have testified under oath as to the reactions from provincial health authorities when they do report adverse reactions that go beyond the stereotypical swelling and redness at the injection site. (https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/expert-witnesses/ & https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-patrick-phillips/ )
There is a great incentive for the “system” to back the “safe and effective” claim. SO MANY of the lay witnesses testifying before the National Citizens Inquiry through the 27 days of NCI hearings have spoken of the disbelief, gaslighting and general lack of support they have received when reporting their vaccine injures. In fact, when the newly appointed lead of the Canadian Medical Association has been cited to have said that vaccine injured people “do not exist”, it is clear that both she and the signatories of this letter live inside the mainstream bubble that does not reflect the lives and experiences of the majority of Canadians.
==
5) Finally, when the signatories of this letter and its backers at the Alberta Public Health Association make claims like this one:
The upcoming UCP-sponsored event (“An Injection of Truth” Town Hall) is an example of the fear-mongering by anti-vaccination proponents transmitting fringe opinions informed by hearsay and innuendo
we must note that they themselves cannot supply sound evidence that the “safe and effective” mantra is anything but hearsay itself.
One of the leading critics of the scientists speaking on June 17th is Prof. Timothy Caulfield at the University of Alberta. In one of his attacks on what he terms “anti-vaxxers” he tried to point to studies that he believed supported the “safe and effective vaccine” viewpoint. However, his choices of what were likely the best studies he could find in support of COVID-19 vaccine usage were easily critiqued as being too limited and too reliant upon modelling when actual data are available. See:
It is clear from the massive Pfizer data drop that Pfizer itself hid crucial data so that it could simply imply safety and efficacy. For more on that topic, please listen to the testimonies of those working directly with the Pfizer data as part of the Daily Clout initiative. See: https://rumble.com/v503k19-dr.-robert-chandler-may-31-2024-regina-saskatchewan.html and https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/dr-christopher-flowers/
I invite members of the Edmonton Zone Staff Medical Association to follow the chain of emails currently posted between Dr. Byram Bridle and the MLA organizing the event as seen here:
The sad reality appears to be that those who are trying to hold fast in support of the “safe and effective” narrative appear not to have received the memo yet that the gig is up.
We need to follow where the evidence leads us, even if that means letting go of some of the pillars that have long grounded our perceptions of illness prevention.
I too attended all three days of NCI hearings in Regina on May 30, 31 and June 1st. I've come to the conclusion that the world is divided into two groups. Those who seek the truth, and those who don't. But also those who want others to know the truth, and those who want to hide the truth. Most disturbing is that many in the so called health profession are committed to hiding the truth. Every person who signed the letter ought to attend the Injecting Truth event and then write a detailed and referenced rebuttal if they still hold the same perspective. But to announce an opinion prior to attending the event tells me they make decisions based on ideology, not evidence.
Thank you so much for this very balanced & well researched article. Having personally attended all three days of the National Citizens Inquiry in Regina, Sask just 2 weeks ago, I can confidently state that the truth heard at these hearings is undeniable. The enormity of the scientific findings presented to the people at the hearings cannot be ignored. One only has to hear to know what you are being told is hard sought after facts.