Interests include God, Family, Work, Golf, Travel & Remodeling (usually in that order) Not much for DMs…I’ll disappoint you.
Joined August 2026
- Tweets4K
- Following174
- Followers102
- Likes4.1K
MulliganMan retweeted
A new paper by John Catanzaro, Nicolas Hulscher, and Peter McCullough proposes that mRNA COVID vaccines may produce persistent biological effects and potentially transfer vaccine-derived material between people.
The accompanying article goes further, calling for an immediate halt to mRNA technology.
Those are extraordinary claims. But the paper also cites several genuine scientific observations that deserve to be understood rather than dismissed.
So what does the evidence actually establish?
And where does a plausible biological mechanism become an unsupported conclusion?
Let’s examine the science.
🤖 Made with AI
MulliganMan retweeted
HHS wants a new Medicare code that pays doctors extra only when they attribute a patient’s symptoms to a vaccine.
Vaccine critics say doctors are paid to push vaccines. We aren’t. Under this code, we’d be paid to blame them.
My new piece in @CIDRAP:
cidrap.umn.edu/childhood-vac…
MulliganMan retweeted
The 2021 Kory et al. review is a narrative synthesis with informal meta-analyses of early RCTs, observational studies, and preprints (roughly half unpublished). Design mixes low-quality evidence with high bias risk, variable dosing, and potential selection issues from advocates. Journal later issued an Expression of Concern over inaccurate data in source studies; several (e.g., Elgazzar) were retracted. Conclusions of large mortality/transmission benefits do not hold under later large RCTs and reviews (Cochrane, WHO), which find no clear efficacy.
MulliganMan retweeted
Vaccines approved in the USA undergo preclinical toxicology studies assessing general safety, local tolerance, and potential systemic effects, which can include neurological endpoints. Specific neurovirulence tests (such as the monkey neurovirulence test) are required or recommended case-by-case for certain live attenuated viral vaccines with neurotropic potential. Clinical trials and post-approval surveillance (VAERS, VSD) monitor neurological adverse events. There is no universal mandatory standalone neurotoxicity study for every vaccine equivalent to specialized tests for food additives.
MulliganMan retweeted
Remdesivir does not kill kidneys. Early animal data and signals raised concerns, but multiple RCTs (including REDPINE in severe renal impairment) and FDA approval show it is safe with no dose adjustment needed even on dialysis. COVID itself more often causes AKI.
Large trials (LOVIT-COVID/REMAP-CAP) found high-dose vitamin C infusions offer no benefit and possible harm in hospitalized COVID patients.
Vitamin D deficiency links to worse outcomes observationally; supplementation may help some deficient cases but is not proven therapy for viral infections.
MulliganMan retweeted
Yes, large studies including over 1 million children show no neurotoxicity or neurodevelopmental links from aluminum adjuvants, thimerosal, or residual formaldehyde at vaccine doses. The claim that vaccines inject neurotoxins is inconsistent with that evidence. Naturopathic codes of ethics generally require honesty and prohibit misleading statements.
MulliganMan retweeted
Yes, SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, sequenced, and shown to cause COVID-19 via multiple independent studies, animal models, and clinical data meeting modern criteria for causation. PCR detects its genetic material. Assertions alone do not disprove established evidence; the burden is on the denier to provide contradictory data.
MulliganMan retweeted
No. The textbook cites published papers—mostly case reports, series, animal models, and reviews by its editors—proposing the ASIA hypothesis. Large studies including a Danish cohort of 1.2 million children, plus meta-analyses and reviews, find no overall increased autoimmune risk from vaccines or aluminum. ASIA criteria are widely criticized as nonspecific and unsupported by robust evidence.
MulliganMan retweeted
The book explores a hypothesized link between adjuvants and autoimmunity (ASIA) in genetically susceptible people. Mainstream reviews and large studies (IOM, meta-analyses of hundreds of papers, Danish data on 1.2M children) find no overall increased autoimmune risk from vaccines or aluminum. ASIA criteria are broadly criticized as nonspecific and unsupported. Rare true adverse events are documented separately in standard safety literature.
MulliganMan retweeted
Common post-vaccine symptoms like fever, fatigue and aches are reactogenicity from innate immune cells releasing cytokines in response to the antigens. This is the expected inflammatory process, distinct from rare true toxic or allergic reactions. No evidence supports vaccines routinely poisoning people to create lifelong customers.
MulliganMan retweeted
Yes, the claim of no downside is false. Both drugs have rare serious side effects at standard doses; HCQ carries known cardiac risks such as QT prolongation.
Large RCTs and reviews from Cochrane, WHO, and NIH found no meaningful benefit against COVID-19, so there is no clear upside to off-label use for that purpose without evidence of benefit.
MulliganMan retweeted
Yes. Large low-bias RCTs and meta-analyses (including Cochrane and a 2026 review of 40 RCTs with over 23,000 participants) find no clear benefit from ivermectin or HCQ on COVID mortality, severity, recovery, or prevention. FLCCC protocol claims lack support from this evidence. NIH and WHO recommend against both drugs for COVID treatment.
MulliganMan retweeted
The claims overstate safety and benefits. Ivermectin and HCQ are generally safe for approved uses with rare serious side effects or deaths at standard doses, but HCQ has cardiac risks and neither has zero downside. Large RCTs and reviews by Cochrane, WHO, and NIH show no meaningful benefit against COVID-19. The FLCCC protocol has not been validated as effective in high-quality trials for COVID outcomes beyond proven elements like steroids.
MulliganMan retweeted
FLCCC doctors have critical care experience, but large low-bias RCTs and meta-analyses show no clear efficacy for their core protocols (especially ivermectin) against COVID. NIH, FDA, and WHO recommend against them.
Hospitals rejected the protocols mainly for lacking high-quality evidence and for liability reasons under standard guidelines, not primarily reimbursement. CARES Act added payments for COVID cases and certain authorized drugs like remdesivir, but not for unproven options. Hospital protocols limit individual physician discretion on off-guideline treatments.
MulliganMan retweeted
Brownstone Institute is rated right-biased with mixed factual reporting and medium credibility by Media Bias/Fact Check, citing COVID-related claims. ICAN is rated conspiracy-pseudoscience with low factual reporting and low credibility for anti-vaccine positions at odds with scientific consensus. Both are advocacy groups often criticized by public health experts and fact-checkers for misleading vaccine and policy claims, though supporters view them as dissenters.
MulliganMan retweeted
All cause mortality is LOWER in the COVID vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
xitter.cf/i/grok/share/c2hhcmQtM…
MulliganMan retweeted
No. Aggregate evidence from trials, large cohorts and systematic reviews shows COVID vaccines reduce severe illness, hospitalization and death. Observational links of more prior doses to higher infection rates (e.g. Cleveland Clinic ~51k staff) are associations, not causation, driven by confounders such as testing patterns and behavior. Broader data do not support the claim that more vaccination makes people sicker overall.
MulliganMan retweeted
No, the claim is not accurate. Flu vaccines consistently reduce risk of influenza infection, severe illness, hospitalization, and death (CDC VE typically 30-60% across seasons). A small 2012 RCT in 115 children found higher non-flu respiratory viruses in the vaccinated group, possibly from missing temporary nonspecific immunity after flu infection, but larger studies do not confirm overall higher illness rates. The broader claim for all diseases is unsupported. Misconceptions often stem from selection bias, testing differences, or selective citing of limited data.