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]

Now do the six foot separation rule, which was recently admitted to have been made up.

Or Lord Pfauci’s about face on masks. Remember, he literally said,”I am the science!”

Or the change in the very definition of vaccines, to allow the clot shots to be called that, to fool the masses.

Or the insistence that the materials from the clot shots remain localized at the injection site.

Or the consensus that for purposes of tracking things, people receiving the jabs were to be called unvaccinated until two weeks later.

Part of “you are the easiest person to fool” is knowing to keep your thumb off of the scale. (Only butchers do that.)

Incidentally, you never addressed why the consensus was to make the jabs mandatory, and even push them on children, when the death rates were greatly skewed to the elderly with multiple comorbidities.

What has happened — as I pointed out earlier — is that the institutions have been hijacked to make money.

If not worse.

Science is not a moral disinfectant against greed, or eugenics, ot totalitarianism.

[grey_whiskers]

You keep on missing the problem if false consensus for immoral ends. Remember Lysenkoism? Hint: follow the science money and career advancement (or destruction).

Hint 2: As Vox Day pointed out,

SJWs always *lie*

SJWs always *project*

SJWs always *double down*

Why the immediate cancel culture towards anyone who questions the narrative?

[grey_whiskers]

Remember how Dingbat said. (in response to ChatGPT or similar), saying Dr. Malone had once more embraced the jabs?

The below is why you shouldn't trust ChatGPT:

Google was rotting from the inside out before AI came around but it's going to get 10 times worse pic.twitter.com/5NYlw4WTEy— Christopher Ingraham🦗 (@_cingraham) October 26, 2023

But remember, ChatGPT was written by Top. Experts.

Because Credentials.™

...and SCIENCE!™

[Fury]

The other thing you’ll see when someone simply doesn’t have the intellectual heft to participate in a discussion is for that person to make claims that others are “on the take”, so to speak, or are “shills”. It’s all they have left once they realize they can’t keep up with the conversation.

[exDemMom]

Remember Lysenkoism?

It is more ironic than you can possibly understand that you mention Lysenkoism. Lysenko was an apologist for the Soviet government who tried to force science into a political mold. The problem is that science, which is based in physical reality, cannot be forced to fit some ideological mold.

Yet here you are, trying to alter science to fit a bizarre ideology. Sorry, but humans do not have the ability to force physical reality to fit an ideology, no matter how much they have invested emotionally into that ideology.

The only reason that professional antivaxxers and charlatans try to discredit the role of consensus (i.e. the consistency of observation regardless of observer) is because they are feeding you a line that completely contradicts the science. When tens of thousands of scientists who have studied and analyzed the data conclude that a vaccine is safe, but the professional charlatan is trying to tell you (without any scientific evidence) that the vaccine is dangerous, of course the charlatan wants you to automatically reject any data that the scientific community as a whole accepts. Because otherwise, you might realize that there is something suspicious about the one guy out of tens of thousands who keeps yelling about doom and gloom.

[exDemMom]

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

What part of PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE do you not get?

Dismissing science out of hand just because it won't fit your conspiracy theories is not a valid argument and in no way invalidates the scientific profession, the scientific method, or the results of scientific experimentation and observation.

You can't actually come up with a compelling evidence-based reason why we should reject all science, can you?

At least some people who have been hoodwinked by charlatans and snake oil salesmen make an effort to link to material that they think provides smoking gun proof of whatever antivax trope they are repeating. You don't even try to link to the conspiracy blogs.

It looks to me like you aren't trying to provide any links because you know that I'll tear apart the tropes and provide a slew of references in the medical literature which show just how wrong the tropes are.

Oh, by sinking down into insults, you have already acknowledged that I actually have the background to discuss infectious disease countermeasures. Thank you for recognizing my expertise.

[exDemMom]

The other thing you’ll see when someone simply doesn’t have the intellectual heft to participate in a discussion is for that person to make claims that others are “on the take”, so to speak, or are “shills”. It’s all they have left once they realize they can’t keep up with the conversation.

Yes. When they go that far, they are acknowledging that I know what I'm talking about.

What were those lines from the Jim Croce song?

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim

I think that's fitting. If you want to take on a scientist in her field of expertise, you better come well prepared.

[Jane Long]

Oh, c'mon, man....it's a bot *scientist* who knows *Bob*.

😂

[grey_whiskers]

You had it right at Soviet.

What's more Soviet? Allowing people to make up their own minds, or forcing them to take an under-tested, unsafe jab with severe side effects just to make a few people at the top rich, after scaring everyone with "we're all gonna DIE!" (while Congress and Pfizer exempted themselves)?

Get stuffed, cretin.

[grey_whiskers]

What part of PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE do you not get?

I already did. The government officials knew there wasn't a real crisis, by how they behaved personally.

The Dancing Nurses proved their wasn't a crisis, by staging Tik-Tok videos of dancing in empty halls of supposedly "overflowing beyond imagination" hospitals full of dying patients.

Pfauci proved it by changing his mind repeatedly on masks and showing up in public with a sh*t eating grin with his mask on his chin.

the Democrats proved it when they called Trump RACISS for trying to cut off travel from China early on, and they encouraged people to party it up during Chinese New Year, refused to send the sick to dedicated US Navy Hospital ships (instead preferring to send the sick to nursing homes to spike the case rate and death rate).

And don't forget during the OMG we're all gonna die quarantines, that anti-Trump protests and BLM were allowed to protest and mingle in crowds in public; but Trump rallies were discouraged.

Moderna proved it in their SEC filing where they admitted they couldn't get funded without an EUA.

Dismissing science out of hand just because it won't fit your conspiracy theories is not a valid argument and in no way invalidates the scientific profession, the scientific method, or the results of scientific experimentation and observation.

It's like I said. What you call SCIENCE™! has been corrupted.

You even gave the game away yourself personally in an earlier post: using a sample size of 1 (yourself) to show you you, getting the jab, didn't catch it on vacation while in a room with your family.

Sample size, anecdote, yada yada.

But somehow the rules which you refer to in a Pecksniffian fashion, never need be observed by people advancing the narrative.

Here's a hint, Dingbat: We know your playbook. It was tried out first by the University of East Anglia on Climate "Science". And then doubled down on by the so-called "Center for Countering Digital Hate". They gave the game away when an editorial in Nature by one of their cronies blamed the misinformation on "Russia, Russia Russia" and said the people who resisted the jabs were also "Election Deniers" (IIRC).

[grey_whiskers]

Notice how Dingbat never addressed the point that Lysenkoism forced beliefs from above and censored unapproved viewpoints?

But Biden & Pfauci did try to mandate the clot shots.

So naturally (”SJWs always *project*) she accused me of Lysenkoism for saying people should be free to make up their own minds, and that people shouldn’t listen to corrupted institutions.

Dave Burge (Iowahawk) quote on wearing the institution like a skin suit and demanding respect and all that.

[grey_whiskers]

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.

Now you're mixing the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy with the Fallacy of Composition.

As well as lying through your teeth about the unanimity of science.

It's just the doctors and MDs who spoke up in opposition to the clot shots had their careers destroyed.

And how do we know they were wrong? CONSENSUS!!!

Circular reasoning, see also reasoning, circular.

Incidentally, this is aided by the censorship of by Goolag and others as people are deplatformed, demonetized, and links "disappeared". Remember George Winston and the constant revisionsI mentioned earlier.

Dingbat.

[dennisw]

Pushing the Like button for all your posts here.