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.

[exDemMom]

Sadly people on the Internet pushing this professor’s work as being exonerated are either ignorant, willfully ignorant or insufficient intellect to understand.

It is a combination of all of those.

My purpose is not to convince those who are completely taken in by antivax/anti-science propaganda. My main goal is to educate those who might not know much about science who might think that there is a basis to or be confused by all of the antivax propaganda. If they only hear the antivax/anti-science side, there is a problem. I present the science side, and I think that my expertise speaks for itself. Extensive knowledge of medical science is not something that can be faked.

[grey_whiskers]

Google ChatGPT...

"“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”" -- George Orwell, 1984

[Jane Long]

Saw that.

And, these despicable $hot $hills likely support this.

[metmom]

It’s absolutely lying about Dr, Malone on all counts. Not a scientist or Doctor?

Clearly AI is a product of liberal programming.

I’m not familiar with the others but a TV show producer and actress are NOT medical professionals or scientists, even if they were to play one on TV. Their opinion on anything means less than nothing to me. Actually, generally, if they are opposed to something, I know it’s a good thing.

[exDemMom]

Really? Is it true that Robert Malone—or Bob, as I called him when I worked in his lab—has given up trying to scare people about taking the vaccine and is now encouraging people to get vaccinated?

I’ll have to look into that.

I was very surprised when Bob suddenly appeared on all these conservative talk shows in order to tell people stuff that he knows is false and misleading about the Covid vaccines. One of the things that puzzled me is that when he was my mentor, he did not come across as a kook, but instead came off as a respectable and knowledgeable scientist.

If he has stopped spreading misinformation that he knows is false and has gone back to promoting valid medical information, then I am very happy and relieved for him.

I will have to look into this to see if it is true.

[grey_whiskers]

So you claim to have worked in Robert Malone's lab, and that is supposed to bolster your credibility, while his anti-clotshot stance simultaneously destroys his credibility?

Pathological troll is pathological.

[grey_whiskers]

See post #65 this thread.

1984 come to life.

[grey_whiskers]

Why don’t you call him personally or write to him under your real name, asking him in the usual unwarranted acerbic condescending tone you use here, and share his response, in a way that we can verify it *really was* his response?

Given that you said you were on a first-name basis with him when you worked at his lab, and all.

[Pelham]

They ought to switch sides and work for Big Conspiracy.

I hear that the pay is better and you don’t have to spend time learning anything.

Well, other than learning to copy and paste PubMed studies without understanding one word of what the study actually says. Good times!

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled 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, grey_whiskers wrote:

Why don’t you call him personally or write to him under your real name, asking him in the usual unwarranted acerbic condescending tone you use here, and share his response, in a way that we can verify it *really was* his response?

Given that you said you were on a first-name basis with him when you worked at his lab, and all.

The troll factory is not exactly sending us their best. I now imagine a fool with a fake nose, mustache and oversized glasses whenever I read its 'stuff'.

[grey_whiskers]

Go Friend Yourself, troll.

[grey_whiskers]

Science is about doing research and obtaining results that are consistent with the theory and previous research in the field.

Oh, like what Barry Marshall won the Nobel Prize for?

Dingbat.

[grey_whiskers]

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

No, I just know better than to trust Big Pharma.

Remember FDA-approved Vioxx?

Safe and effective, until it wasn't.

Remember the $18 BILLION (yes, with a "B") fine for the false claims made while marketing Vioxx?

Guess which company made it.

Notice how that company didn't rush pell-mell into manufactured RNA jobs (specifically engineered to resist degradation by the body) masquerading as vaccines.

Troll.

[Fury]

Re: 61 - good luck.

I see some posts on the thread from a poster that suggested that President Trump holding a glass of water with both hands like a child may have been trying to send a message to people about water safety. When you are dealing with that level of speculation, it’s challenging to educate and inform.

[exDemMom]

When you are dealing with that level of speculation, it’s challenging to educate and inform.

It is challenging.

My main reason for taking time to refute antivax nonsense is to reach people who might think there is a basis for it. By showing them the real science and the opinion of the scientific/medical community, they are empowered to reject the antivax nonsense and make better decisions about their health. In addition, I actually learn quite a bit myself doing these refutations. The antivax blogs are usually (loosely) based on a real study. They rarely give any links to the study, but since I'm an experienced researcher, I can almost always track it down. And then I learn something new by reading it.

[exDemMom]

The situation with Vioxx was that the effect size was too small to detect in a clinical trial population. The initial clinical trial population was 5,000 people. The risk of cardiovascular events occurring after taking Vioxx was low enough that it might not be detected in a study group this size.

The challenge for people analyzing drug safety is to determine whether the rate of cardiovascular events is higher in the population taking the study drug than it is in a matched control population. Doing this kind of analysis requires very heavy-duty statistical analysis.

Merck voluntarily initiated post-approval studies when its own post-market data suggested there might be a problem. And Merck voluntarily recalled Vioxx from the pharmacies in 2004 so that it could no longer be prescribed. The FDA did not order these actions. The FDA did request for Merck to do more studies in order to reintroduce Vioxx into the market, which Merck did not do. In October, 2021, Merck sent a letter to the FDA requesting the FDA to withdraw approval for the drug. The FDA withdrew approval for all of the previously approved forms of the drug in September, 2022.

The actual sequence of events does not suggest to me that Merck is some eeeeeevil big pharma company that pushes dangerous drugs onto the market. Instead, it shows that Merck was being responsible and took the initiative to recall the drug themselves.

The FDA went on to require all manufacturers of NSAID drugs to include labelling describing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks resulting from taking these drugs. In addition, the FDA now requires a black box warning to be included in the labelling of all prescription NSAIDs. Editorial note: A black box warning is the most serious kind of warning. When you are prescribed a drug with a black box warning, it is because your primary care provider has determined that the benefit of taking the drug outweighs the risk.

Instead of reading some inflammatory anti-science blog, try reading more factual articles. You can tell an article is based on facts by the lack of incendiary language and lack of blaming "Big Pharma" or "Big Government" or whatever the bogeyman of the day is. The FDA has an informative webpage on Vioxx and there is also an entry in the Federal Register about it. I also included an article published by a group called drugwatch.

Sources:

Vioxx (rofecoxib) Questions and Answers

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; Withdrawal of Approval of New Drug Applications for VIOXX (Rofecoxib) Tablets and Suspension.

Vioxx

[exDemMom]

Notice how that company didn't rush pell-mell into manufactured RNA jobs (specifically engineered to resist degradation by the body) masquerading as vaccines.

Ah, I see that you do not have a background in nucleic acid chemistry. Lucky for you, half of my PhD was based on learning all of the basics about nucleic acid chemistry. This field of science is called "molecular biology."

Now, I do not know the term "manufactured RNA jobs" and it actually does not make much sense. Are those jobs where people are employed to make RNA in a laboratory? Anyways...

The purpose of the modified RNA is to bypass the innate immune response against foreign RNA. Foreign RNA is typically the RNA contained in food or in microorganisms in your body. In addition to the innate immune response which just destroys the RNA, RNA can provoke an adaptive immune response, meaning that it provokes the formation of T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies against the RNA. Since the purpose of a vaccine is to cause an adaptive response to proteins, the adaptive immunity raised against RNA is problematic for a couple of reasons. An unmodified mRNA vaccine formulation might not survive long enough to reach the lymph nodes where the adaptive immune response takes place. And immunity against a viral mRNA is useless, since all viruses package their mRNA inside a protein-studded lipid membrane, where the immune system can't see it.

The specific modification of the RNA is to add a methyl group to the uracil, making 1-methylpseudo UTP. (UTP=uracil triphosphate) With this modification, the immune system no longer recognizes the foreign RNA. However, all of the RNA metabolism enzymes recognize it just like unmodified RNA. This means that the RNA polymerases that make the mRNA are perfectly capable of making the 1-methylpseudo UTP modified RNA. And the RNAse enzymes that chew RNA into its component nucleotides work equally well to chew up the 1-methylpseudo UTP modified RNA.

So, when you get your modified mRNA Covid-19 shot, the particles containing the mRNA enter the lymph nodes closest to the injection site. Cells in the lymph nodes internalize the particles by fusing with the lipid membrane and releasing the mRNA into the cytosol. Once there, the mRNA attaches to ribosomes where it directs the formation of modified spike protein. Since the spike protein is a membrane bound protein, it is inserted into the cell membrane so that the cell ends up having spike protein on its surface. (This also happens during viral infection.) Once the protein synthesis is complete, the ribosome releases the mRNA, which is then destroyed by RNAses inside the cell. mRNA within a cell typically has a half-life of less than a day; sometimes the half-life is just minutes, depending on the specific mRNA molecule.

Any of the following papers describing mRNA vaccine development prior to the pandemic will give you more details on the rationale of mRNA modification:

Modified mRNA Vaccines Protect against Zika Virus Infection.

Modified mRNA-Based Vaccines Elicit Robust Immune Responses and Protect Guinea Pigs From Ebola Virus Disease.

Efficient Targeting and Activation of Antigen-Presenting Cells In Vivo after Modified mRNA Vaccine Administration in Rhesus Macaques.

[grey_whiskers]

The m in mRNA in the jabs is not messenger but modified.

Fir jobs substitute jabs.

Stupid autocorrect.

The rest of your post went into /dev/null because it’s coming from a known troll.

[grey_whiskers]

Since the purpose of a vaccine is to cause an adaptive response to proteins, the adaptive immunity raised against RNA is problematic for a couple of reasons. An unmodified mRNA vaccine formulation might not survive long enough to reach the lymph nodes where the adaptive immune response takes place. And immunity against a viral mRNA is useless, since all viruses package their mRNA inside a protein-studded lipid membrane, where the immune system can't see it.

So you're talking in circles.p> Because the jabs were never designed to provoke an adaptive immune response to the m(modified)RNA, but to a specific protein generated by the m(odified)RNA.

The real problem was the innate response;and how to get the genetic package into the cells, *and* to have it last long enough to do it's dirty work of hijacking the protein construction to crank out artificial (therefore fixed, therefore losing efficacy in provoking immune response as the natural spike mutates in the wild over time).

So why you're wasting your time trying to bluster at people with a non-sequitur straw man is anyone's guess.

Maybe you're just paid by the word.

[exDemMom]

The m in mRNA in the jabs is not messenger but modified.

Um, no.

There are many types of RNA. The term used for the RNA that acts as an intermediary between the genes coded in the DNA and the ribosomes which make the protein is "messenger RNA", which is always abbreviated as mRNA.

When an RNA is modified, it is called modified RNA.

Scientists like to be very precise with their terminology. Notice that all three references I provided specified "modified mRNA." Had they just said "mRNA," that would have meant the mRNA is not modified.

Also, I am sorry the technical scientific explanations were too much for you. I'm pretty sure I heard the "whoosh" sounds as they flew over your head while I was writing them, but I posted them anyway.

I have yet to see someone who is hoodwinked by antivax and anti-science propaganda who understands anything about science or mathematics.

Here is a Wikipedia article that describes the different types of RNA: RNA.