This story is about a very brave Columbia University researcher who co-authored a paper on the risks associated with COVID vaccination (“vaccine mortality”), October 2021. .
The researcher’s name is Spiro Pantazatos, Ph.D. He is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology (Psychiatry) at Columbia University. He is also a Research Scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The title of his paper (preprint) was “COVID vaccination and risk of all-cause mortality stratified by age”:
“Accurate estimates of mortality and serious adverse events caused by COVID vaccines are critical for risk-benefit analyzes of vaccination and boosters against COVID-19. coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in different age groups. However, available surveillance studies are not designed to reliably estimate life-threatening events or vaccine mortality (VFR).
Here, region-varying vaccination rates are used to predict all-cause and non-COVID deaths over subsequent time periods using two independent, public data sets. from the US and Europe (month and week level resolutions, respectively). ”
Currently Dr. Pantazatos is trying to sponsor a house for this paper but all the journals where he submitted it so far have refused.
Dr. Pantazatos was interviewed for the “Pandemic Perspectives” series, and in my opinion the interview turned out to be fantastic (with a disclaimer that the topic is terrible. terrible, so it’s a great interview about a terrible thing). Dr. Pantazatos’ presentation is so charming and so good that it could be a “video” to your friends who have been calling you crazy all this time!
Dr. Pantazatos Original COVID Position Was 100% “Primary”
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Pantazatos was moved by the vivid images the media were providing us with – and as a result he became terrified of the virus. His original plan was to lock the doors in the house until a vaccine was released.
What prompted him to become more cynical?
But then he began to look at the data presented by scientists like John Ioannidis, for example, and he quickly realized that the situation was different from the one painted by the media.
Subsequently, Dr Pantazatos’ co-author on this paper, Herve Seligmann, presented an analysis of European data showing a consistent trend in which vaccination campaign seems to be accompanied by an increase in prevalence all-cause mortality in the month following the vaccination campaign. .
Dr. Pantazatos didn’t like that conclusion much because it implied the utopia, and so he decided to do his own analysis based on US data (vaccination and all-cause mortality) , published by the CDC. And when he did his analysis using US data, it showed a similar trend. His analysis of CDC data showed that after a vaccination campaign in a given locality, there was an increase in all-cause mortality over the following month, followed by a decrease.
In Dr Pantazatos’ opinion, the risk associated with a COVID injection is comparable to the risk associated with contracting COVID – if the risk associated with COVID is assessed as high, prior to occurrence. epidemic. And since the two risks are comparable, and the risk of injecting seems to increase with each subsequent one – and drug companies are pushing boosters from here to the horizon – he believes they We really need to discuss VFR.
Why refuse magazines?
Interestingly, Dr. Pantazatos mentioned in the interview that even before 2020, he was well aware that the process of carrying out scientific works published in prestigious journals was contaminated. He refers to a 2005 article in the journal “PLOS Medicine” entitled “Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies” that talks about how exactly journals are marketed by medical journals. Pharmaceutical company recommended.
Furthermore, scientists themselves have formed the habit of trading the whole integrity of their research for the prestige and benefit of having their work published – and so, even before 2020. , it’s not uncommon for researchers to “massage” angles, etc. to match . From myself, I would like to add the following quote from the Lancet:
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, can simply be untrue. Influenced by studies with small sample sizes, small effects, invalid exploratory analyzes and obvious conflicts of interest, coupled with an obsession with fashion trends of questionable importance , science has gone dark,” Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of Fingertips in 2015.
Incidentally, I wrote an article about corruption in healthcare last year, just in case you were curious.
The importance of speaking out
Dr. Pantazatos is not shy about sharing his analysis, and he is also incredibly gracious and humble in presenting it. Personally, I was impressed by Dr. Pantazatos’ scientific integrity and his ability to truly “follow science” – as well as the grace with which he presented this rather ugly subject.
He believes that the matter is important and that it is important to speak out. His message to other scientists is to find their voices and stop being silent.
Full transcript of the interview.
About the author
To find more work by Tessa Lena, be sure to check out her profile, Tessa Fights Robots.
