Yes. That got my foot in the door. But in order to stay there, I actually had to become an influenza expert. I became that expert because I read many papers and attended meetings on influenza virology and vaccine development, and I could consult a CDC doctor who knew a lot of influenza experts over at the CDC. Lots of people consulted me about influenza, and I won a pretty nice award for my work in that position.
My supervisor knew that I was smart enough to become that expert. He had my CV (resume for doctors) in front of him and knew what I could do.
Secondly, McCullough was talking primarily of retrospective observed events, in the cardiac tissue, of those who had received the jab.
No. He never did that. He is not a pathologist who is trained to look at tissue sections and figure out what is going on. His "retrospective studies" consist of looking through medical records and published case reports in order to try to piece together a narrative that fits his agenda.
A study of cardiac tissue collected at autopsy is not a retrospective study. It is a case report. By definition, a retrospective study only looks at medical records and published studies.
I think what you are actually referring to was a review (linked below) that McCullough and co-authors wrote. This review, like the retrospective "study" which tried to "prove" medical benefit for Covid patients from hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, was pieced together to support a narrative. Reviews are not written to describe research that the authors personally conducted. They are sourced from studies that OTHER scientists did. They are meant to provide an overview of the current status of research and knowledge in a given field.
McCullough did not personally conduct any autopsies or examine cardiac biopsy tissue for this review. Autoimmune inflammatory reactions triggered by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in terminally differentiated tissues. In order to support the narrative, he referred to four other papers. One of these only described biopsies (taken from living people). The other three referred to a total of seven autopsies of people who died following Covid vaccination. They were not definitive "proof" that vaccine killed anyone. One of the papers describes a 14 year old Japanese girl who died, a case which antivax propaganda creators love to tout as "proof" that vaccines will kill you. However, it turned out during autopsy that the girl had pneumonia. I would hypothesize that her immune system was already quite actively fighting the pneumonia, and that vaccination at that time tipped her over into a fatal cytokine storm.
Let's assume that the other six of those seven autopsies represented a person who died from a Covid vaccination. That is 6 deaths out of 220,756,604 people who have received at least two shots. That comes out to one death per 36.79 million people. That is way lower than your risk of dying from any cause. At age 50, you have a 0.5% chance of dying within the next year. This makes your chance of dying within any given six week period one in 1,738. By age 80, your risk of dying in that same time frame is one in 149.
Odds of dying in the US: Age, gender and more.
The reason I choose a six week time frame is because vaccine side effects occur within six weeks. Most occur within the first day or so. In addition, if you catch Covid, the overall risk of dying is 1%; this risk increases the older you are. The risk assessment is in deciding whether a one in 36.79 million risk from the vaccine is higher or lower than your risk of dying from any cause or from Covid. Since it is significantly lower and the vaccine has been shown to decrease risk of serious outcome from Covid, I'll choose to get the vaccine.
BTW, if you want to criticize my analysis of the McCullough review, read it in its entirety first and make sure you understand it sufficiently to point out where I am wrong. Otherwise, don't bother.
So, again, by YOUR rules, you have no room to comment. As for the award, the Feds hand them out to pretty much anyone who can fog a mirror, especially when they are a member of the preferred victim- group-of-the-week. Bye, Dingbat.
Hey everyone,I think we found Dingbat!
Oh wait, too young and good-looking. ...never mind