MSU Professor Mark Skidmore was exonerated by MSU; his landmark paper showing over 250,000 killed by the COVID vaccine is now back in the peer-reviewed literature

substack.com ^ | Oct 21, 2023 | Steve Kirsch

[ransomnote]

After a 7 month review by his university, Mark Skidmore, was exonerated of all charges and his new, improved paper was published in a more credible peer-reviewed journal.

Steve Kirsch

Oct 21, 2023

 

Michigan State University Professor Mark Skidmore was exonerated of all ethics charges after a 7-month investigation. His paper was revised and was reinstated in the peer-reviewed literature. It revealed that over 250,000 people were killed by the COVID vaccine. Others have found similar numbers.

Executive summary

Mark Skidmore wrote a paper that showed that 217,000 Americans were killed in 2021 by the COVID vaccine.

The journal retracted the article and Mark’s university commenced a 7-month investigation into unethical behavior by Professor Skidmore.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that Professor Skidmore has been exonerated on all charges and his paper, with some helpful additions suggested by Dr. Susan Oliver (and her dog, Cindy), has now been published in another peer-reviewed journal.

The news on the investigation and the paper

See this press release that Mark sent me.

The press release was drafted by the Liberty Counsel who was instrumental in defending Mark in the investigation by Michigan State University. If you want to support their work, please donate here.

Bottom line: After a 7-month ethics investigation, Michigan State University found that Mark did nothing wrong!

Note: What this really means is that they tried for 7 months to find something they could nail him on, and they failed.

The new paper is now published in a peer-reviewed journal

COVID-19 Illness and Vaccination Experiences in Social Circles Affect COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions.

Here is an excerpt:

With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 289,789 (95% CI: 229,319 – 344,319). The large difference in the possible number of fatalities due to COVID-19 vaccination that emerges from this survey and the available governmental data should be further investigated.

Let me translate that for you. Here’s the “plain English” version (my embellished interpretation):

“Our survey showed that there’s a good chance that 290,000 Americans (and maybe as many as 344,000) may have lost their lives due to taking the COVID vaccine and that’s in 2021 alone! That’s a lot of people and it’s a lot more than the US government claims. And for the record, this isn’t the only survey that found this. For example, the Rasmussen survey found a similar number of people were killed by the vaccine and the virus. So did other firms. So how come there isn’t an investigation to determine conclusively who is telling people the truth here? What’s wrong with you people? Instead of trying to censor the data, maybe it is high time we started talking about it so we can finally determine who is telling the truth and who is lying to you.”

Background

Here are the previous articles that I’ve written about Mark Skidmore’s paper.

If you have time to read only two articles, here are the top two I’d recommend:

1. New peer-reviewed study: >217,000 Americans killed by the COVID vaccines in just the first year alone!

2. It's time we hold these people accountable; let the lawsuits begin

The article, “What the "Defenders of Science" Miss About the Purpose of Scientific Peer-Review and the Open Dialogue: When You Censor or Support the Censorship of Dissident Voices, You Are In the Wrong” is an excellent summary also of how papers such as Mark’s, are retracted unethically.

Here’s an article recapping the whole thing by James Lyons-Weiler: Dr. Mark Skidmore Exonerated

 

Acknowledgment

Mark would like to thank Dr. Susan Oliver (and her dog Cindy) for all their helpful suggestions. Susan was nice enough to make a helpful video for Mark to ensure that even the most nit-picky peer-reviewer wouldn’t be able to find any errors.

Mark incorporated her suggestions into his revised paper to make it even stronger.

LA Times opinion

Why anti-vaxxers are pretending a flawed study on vacccine deaths has been vindicated

MICHAEL HILTZIK, business columnist for the LA Times, basically repurposed David Gorski’s new hit piece. It’s the same old arguments as they used before that the survey didn’t verify the deaths were caused by the vaccine. That’s right. The survey didn’t do that and never claimed to have done that.

What the survey did is say, “Whoa! We could have a MAJOR problem here; how do you explain all the carnage?”

Any objective scientist looking at that data would have to agree: this is smoke. Mark pointed out it was smoke.

Hiltzik should be writing about how nobody seems to want to investigate this signal.

So I decided to run my own survey. Nearly all my followers are anti-vaxxers; for most of their households, NOBODY in the household took the vaccine. So my respondents are biased; we’d expect there to be way fewer deaths in their households from the COVID vaccine because of so few vaccinations. Yet, we found around 1.5X more COVID vaccine deaths than COVID virus deaths in their households. That’s insane. We have a VERY deadly vaccine here. So how does Hiltzik explain that?

Summary 

So it’s now back in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that over 250,000 people were killed by the COVID vaccine in 2021 alone.

Other independent surveys (like Rasmussen and the outside surveys I’ve done) all are consistent with those numbers that the vaccine killed a comparable number to the virus. So that’s very validating of Mark’s numbers.

Remember that Rasmussen surveyed the general public. Over half the general public thinks the vaccines have killed nobody. So they are not reliably assessing vaccine caused deaths because they’ve been gaslit by the mainstream press and their doctors. So you should be VERY concerned that the Rasmussen survey found comparable numbers because it means that the reality is more likely than not that the the vaccine has killed more people than COVID.

So how are they going to explain the results which are verifiable and which can be replicated?

Answer: They will not. They will ignore it. Because they cannot explain it. Gaslighting people on this is too hard. That’s why they had to get the paper unethically retracted when it came out. Now that it’s out, they will ignore it. No fact checks, nothing. Silence.

Please help share the good news about Mark Skidmore with others. It’s important we let the world know that their governments have been lying to them.

[grey_whiskers]

The FDA requires volumes of safety and efficacy studies before it will approve a drug.

Uh-huh. And all of that was waived for the clot shots, as it was not approved, but given emergency use authorization, as I pointed out the CEO of Moderna gloated about on video. Nice try, lying by implication again, troll.

[Pajamajan]

bttt

[grey_whiskers]

You’re a liar.

Or rather Pfizer is a bunch of liars and you are covering for them.

Or have you already forgotten your long screed about methylation of uridine a few posts back?

The only way your rejoinder would have had any currency would have been to bring up the adenovirus-based jabs.

But you didn’t.

Dingbat.

[Jane Long]

Much like the vile paid anti-vax grifting Q-Anon $hills on this forum

---

Wow...you managed to wrap up ALL of the leftist media, Alinsky projection (accusing other of being/doing what YOU are) terms, into one sentence.

Why not tell us exactly who these folks are, that you’re referring to?

[Jane Long]

Looks like the Pfizerbucks checks have fired up, again.

Must’ve received another US taxpayer infusion.

[exDemMom]

No one likes to think ill of someone they once respected, but sudden changes in character are suspicious, and demand explanation.

Exactly. I have frequently pondered why Bob is (or was) doing this.

His behavior is even more inexplicable when you consider that early in the pandemic, he (along with his wife and colleagues) actually published a legitimate, good quality paper on the potential use of famotidine (an experimental antiviral) as a SARS-CoV-2 therapeutic.

COVID-19: Famotidine, Histamine, Mast Cells, and Mechanisms.

Much like the vile paid anti-vax grifting Q-Anon $hills on this forum, he's getting paid.

I really don't know. I do see that in December, 2022, he published a book that is available on Amazon.com. Certainly, he's receiving proceeds from sales of that book. (It's a conspiracy book with a forward by RFK, Jr. Amazon tells me that people who bought that book also bought books by Joseph Mercola, RFK Jr., Peter McCullough, and a selection of other antivax charlatans.)

I did an internet search and cannot find mention of Bob after Dec., 2022.

Maybe fame, maybe revenge for not getting the "proper" credit for the mRNA technology he claims to have invented, but with everything else eliminated, chances are there's some sort of quid pro quo that underlies the grift.

That is possible. I have seen someone else speculate that he might have felt slighted by what he perceives as lack of acknowledgement for his work in mRNA technology. He actually had abandoned that work and moved on to other things by the time I knew him.

[exDemMom]

You know what they say - if your taking flak, you’re over the target, etc...

Quite.

Since I have been heavily engaged in fighting misinformation wherever I find it, I have made a few observations about the people who believe the misinformation. (I'm retired now, so I have the time. I just can't put my scientific career behind me.)

One of my perceptions is that those who believe the misinformation have a strong emotional attachment to it. The charlatans reinforce this attachment by implying that they must be super smart to (for example) know how dangerous vaccines are when the majority of people accept them as safe. In reality, they have little to no understanding of STEM subjects.

Despite their consistent rejection of the scientific view, they want desperately to believe that their antivax/anti-science views have an actual scientific basis. So they get upset when I explain how and why the science does not support antivax/anti-science rhetoric. And because they cannot refute the science or my expertise, they resort to insulting me.

I'm not sure that they realize that when they try to insult me by calling me a "Big Pharma" or CDC shill or even comparing me to Dr. Fauci, they are acknowledging that they know I have the education and experience to qualify as an expert in this field. But they won't consciously admit this.

[exDemMom]

You haven’t read a single document that I have linked, have you? You didn’t even try to read my explanation of the purpose of 1-methylpseudo UTP in the synthesis of mRNA for vaccines, did you? You didn’t bother to even glance at the linked papers describing why the researchers made 1-methylpseudo UTP substituted mRNA at all, did you?

Here is a bit of advice: if you want to discredit me, you are going to have to systematically refute (with evidence) every link I have provided and every scientific fact or explanation that I post.

Personal insults do not count as scientific refutation of the facts I have stated.

Can you do that?

I doubt it.

[exDemMom]

Uh-huh. And all of that was waived for the clot shots, as it was not approved, but given emergency use authorization, as I pointed out the CEO of Moderna gloated about on video. Nice try, lying by implication again, troll.

Here we go again. I linked to the FDA website where the links to the decision memoranda and technical data about the vaccines are available.

Did you bother trying to read even the most basic technical documents (the ones meant for patients)?

Do you have any clue of what an emergency use authorization is? Are you even slightly aware that those emergency use authorizations have been upgraded to full authorizations? (Except for the J&J EUA, which was pulled due to concerns about vaccine safety.)

If you really want to discredit me, do your homework. Vague zings and insults don't cut it. You have to come up with solid evidence.

[Jane Long]

Don’t waste your time arguing with obvious BOTs.

[grey_whiskers]

ROFL!

You are already discredited because there never was a grave risk to everyone, which was the rationale for the hurried testing, short cuts, and attempted mandates struck down by the Courts.

And because the clot shots don’t work as advertised. (”100% effective” quickly degenerated to the point that the powers that be
be, had to change the very definition of a vaccine, to keep the fraud from sticking out like a sore thumb.)

And, because the clot shots have a vast number of (should have been anticipated by the trials, but oops, the trials were cut to miniscule size and duration, and then lied about) side effects; then should have been caught by VAERS (not meant to be proof, but a smoke alarm), but that was ignored; then all kinds of man-in-the-street effects which you do your feeble best to ignore and dismiss.

I don’t have to refute anything with what you call evidence. It’s like Iiowahawk said:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

You have thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions because you have ignored Feynman’s dictum, “You are the easiest person to fool.”

Let us know what Dr. Malone writes back to you.

Be sure to include both your text and his response, with all potentially personally identifying information reacted, of course.

[exDemMom]

Do you have a single reputable scientific source for ANY of those claims you made?

I have consistently been linking to references in the scientific/medical literature, as well as references to other sources, such as the FDA's pages concerning the vaccine approvals.

You have yet to link to a single scientific source.

Where is your evidence that safety issues during clinical trials were ignored? Given my experience with working with the FDA, the idea that a safety issue would be ignored is completely ludicrous.

We had a prototype drug. We wanted to push the prototype into human clinical trials. But before the FDA will allow that, we have to demonstrate drug safety in different animal species. So we gave the drug to rabbits. One died. The FDA would not allow us to continue any research on that drug until we could demonstrate that the reason the rabbit died would not affect humans. That one rabbit put our research schedule back about six months.

And you expect me to believe that the FDA is going to overlook safety issues in humans when they showed that much concern over a rabbit? Sheesh.

Anyway, once again, the onus of providing references from within the validated scientific/medical literature that describe actual studies showing safety issues with the vaccines is on you.

I'll give you a little advice on how to proceed with your effort to show that the FDA-approved vaccines are inherently dangerous and more risky than Covid:

1-Find studies that analyze the incidence of serious adverse effects following vaccination.

2-Find studies that analyze the incidence of those same adverse effects resulting from Covid disease.

3-Compare the studies. If there are fewer blood clots, for example, among vaccine recipients than among Covid patients, then the vaccine is a safer option than catching Covid. On the other hand, if there are more blood clots among vaccine recipients than among Covid patients, it is safer to risk catching Covid. (In the latter case, the FDA would not have approved the vaccine or would have pulled its approval.)

The primary source of medical and scientific literature, the one that scientists all over the world use, is called PubMed.gov. This is a database of medical scientific journals published all over the world. Authors of the journal articles come from every country and a variety of public and private scientific organizations. Most of the citations in the PubMed database are linked to the journal, and many articles are open access (i.e. free). It is searchable. You can search for any medical research topic or any author. You can even search for Robert Malone and see from his publication history that his career as a charlatan began quite recently.

Oh--about this--

I don’t have to refute anything with what you call evidence. It’s like Iiowahawk said:

1. Identify a respected institution. (...)

Is this, then, an admission that you are personally trying to discredit the entire medical science profession?

Good luck with that.

You'll never succeed without evidence.

[Pelham]

“I did an internet search and cannot find mention of Bob after Dec., 2022.”

He’s still posting at his substack account:

https://substack.com/@rwmalonemd

[absalom01]

Wow...you managed to wrap up ALL of the leftist media, Alinsky projection (accusing other of being/doing what YOU are) terms, into one sentence.

Now, Jane, there's at least one poster on FR who regularly tosses out what surely is meant as an insult in the general direction of anyone she disagrees with as a "horrid $hot $shill", based on her own highly emotional opinions, and nothing else.  Well, if them's the rules, how could such a person object when the tables are turned, using exactly the same level of evidence?

But "Alinsky projection?"  Is that a thing?  Or are you vaguely aware of Saul Alinsky's miserable legacy, and creating a new name for what Rush Limbaugh called the "Democrat Playbook"?  Rush's moniker was a lot more clear, and particularly witty and biting because it echoed a trope associated with Joseph Goebbels; Rush was basically calling the Democrat machine in general, and the Clintons in particular Nazis.  Mixing up Alinksky's "rules for radicals", which did not, in fact, include the "Democrat Playbook" as a concept seems to dilute the impact by mixing metaphors.  But effective argument doesn't seem to be a high priority for some on FR these days.

 

Why not tell us exactly who these folks are, that you’re referring to?

 

Why would that be of any interest to you?

[Jane Long]

Ahhh...so, you’re a coward $hot $hill....claiming folks, here, are “vile paid anti-vax grifting Q-Anon $hills” ... without the yads to back up your statement.

Because there are NO paid anti-vax grifting Q-Anon shills.

Another $hot $hill FAIL, on full display.

[exDemMom]

Thank you.

I’m not quite sure I want to bookmark that side. But it is interesting to peruse.

There is an announcement for an “International Covid Summit” which is now the “International Crisis Summit” according to the summit website. Both Bob and his wife Jill will be speaking there, but not about Covid.

It is strange to see a fairly liberal couple (especially Jill) suddenly spouting all kinds of supposedly conservative topics, like about the new world order.

It looks like that summit will be a smorgasbord of various conspiracy theories and antivax nonsense.

I wonder if Bob’s biotech company folded and this is why he is doing this.

[exDemMom]

Your remark about science building in past work was an attempt to redefine science as consensus.

Mhm. I expect science to be consistent, the quality you try to disparage as "consensus." If there is no consensus on scientific topics that have been exhaustively researched, there is a problem.

The scientific consensus is that DNA carries the "blueprint" of the organism. The scientific consensus is that the Black Death was caused by Yersinia pestis. The scientific consensus is that the sun is a giant ball of primarily hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion reactions and emitting light and heat. The scientific consensus is that fish gills enable fish to breathe under water. Etc. Etc. I can go on with scientific consensuses all day. The fact that scientists typically all agree with each other on scientific topics and facts does not discredit science. On the contrary, it reinforces the reliability and robustness of the scientific method.

You know what is not consistent and where there is no consensus? Antivax pseudoscience. Those kooks literally say anything.

[grey_whiskers]

Do you have a single reputable scientific source for ANY of those claims you made?

I have consistently been linking to references in the scientific/medical literature, as well as references to other sources, such as the FDA's pages concerning the vaccine approvals.

You don't seem to get it.

What part of "thrown away all credibility of all medical and pharmacological institutions" don't you get?

That was an after-the-fact observation.

You seem to think that quoting the peer-reviewed literature is dispositive of argument.

But it isn't, because scientific rigor has been replaced by Marxist or Orwellian censorship: everything not from an approved source, or anything even if from a once-approved source, becomes "misinformation" or "disinformation" once it deviates from the party line

There is no such thing as a fact-checker: there are only countless George Winstons, like yourself, anxious to stomp out any trace of crimethink.

Or have you forgotten it was Hillary Clinton who called for a "fact check" in her Presidential campaign debate with Trump?

The problem is that your bombast and rhetoric goes far beyond what the structures of science actually say, or call for. Such as

So, your distrust of "Big Pharma" scientists basically means that you distrust any scientist who does research.

So materials science, analytical chemistry, metallurgy, and physics aren't science.

Dingbat.

Such as

There is, therefore, no reason to take seriously anyone who makes claims that contradict the current knowledge about medical science.

Medicine isn't a science.

Science requires reproducibility under controlled conditions. And when dealing with medicines, you have all kinds of uncontrolled variables. Which you attempt to get around by large sample sizes.

or

You see, when scientists have established that something is harmful to health, there is a strong likelihood that you actually know or know of people who have died from that thing.

You mean like Ansel Keys? Or statins for cardiovascular health?

Dingbat.

Or of course there's always the infallible Lord Fauci:

[Lakeshark]

This is a great interview of Dr Maholtra. Famous cardiologist and medical expert from the UK. He is smart, professional, and medically scientific in this discussion. Highly recommended: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=+interviews+Dr+with+Dr+Maholtra&mid=8150453CE0D1E1DD17CF8150453CE0D1E1DD17CF&FORM=VIRE

[absalom01]

Jane, that $ound$ horrid.