Evidence over ideology. Explaining science in context, exposing harmful misinformation, sharing references—and posting reminders the world is beautiful.
Joined August 2011
- Tweets114K
- Following6.4K
- Followers12.1K
- Likes109K
BREAKING: MISS SWITZERLAND SAYS TRUMP R*PED HER, MEDIA YAWNS youtu.be/E6J5cXBFfh8?si=iBRU… via @YouTube
You’ve now made several claims, but the most revealing is the scientific paper you’ve just cited.
Mezache et al. (Scientific Reports, 2025) investigated whether SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could provoke cardiac arrhythmias in mice.
They found adverse cardiac effects after injecting high doses of purified spike protein intended to model severe COVID-19.
But here’s what you apparently missed: they also tested a lower dose intended to approximate vaccine-associated exposure. Those animals exhibited cardiac findings similar to the controls.
Your own reference does not support the conclusion you’re drawing from it.
You also claim that the youngest children faced the greatest cardiac danger. That contradicts established surveillance showing the highest vaccine-associated myocarditis risk among adolescent and young adult males.
You claim the original trials demonstrated excess vaccine deaths. Pfizer’s six-month blinded trial recorded 15 deaths among vaccine recipients versus 14 among placebo recipients. That difference does not establish a mortality risk.
And Sweden did not withdraw all COVID vaccines. It restricted Moderna in people under 30 while continuing to recommend Pfizer.
I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that mRNA vaccines can cause myocarditis and that some cases are serious. That has been established scientifically.
But you are repeatedly taking legitimate findings and extending them into claims of widespread cardiac injury and thousands of childhood deaths without producing adequate evidence.
The question isn’t whether vaccines can cause harm. They can.
The question is how frequently, in whom, under what circumstances, and how those risks compare with the benefits.
Those questions require epidemiology, appropriate comparison groups, and carefully defined outcomes.
You cannot answer them by extrapolating from a mouse experiment—especially one whose results you have misrepresented.
Yes, I’ve received each of the most recent version versions of those vaccines.
Re: Amish and Vaccines
The rate of childhood vaccines (and COVID vaccines) varies among different Amish Sects) are genuinely lower than the general population.
Search my account. I’ve written many posts about the Amish, vaccines, and health issues.
Bottom line: Amish cannot serve as a control group given the numerous confounding factors.
An important warning, Dr. Adams.
Dr. Peter Hotez (@PeterHotez) has been warning for years that dengue and other mosquito-borne diseases could become increasingly serious threats along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Florida’s outbreak illustrates why those warnings deserve attention.
Public health preparedness means taking emerging threats seriously before they become emergencies—not waiting until the case counts make the headlines.
You’re arguing against a position I haven’t taken.
Vaccine-associated myocarditis is real. It is a recognized adverse reaction, particularly among adolescent and young adult males. Some cases involve significant cardiac injury, and the long-term implications deserve continued investigation.
Nobody needs to deny that to challenge your conclusions.
But you’ve made a much larger claim: that vaccination killed thousands of previously healthy children and severely injured tens of thousands more.
Where is the population-level evidence establishing those numbers?
A serious cardiac event shortly after vaccination warrants investigation. In some cases, the vaccine may indeed be responsible. But temporal association alone cannot establish causation in every individual case, much less justify extrapolating to thousands of deaths.
In fact, large epidemiological investigations, including a 2026 Ontario study of 6.37 million people, have not found the widespread increase in sudden deaths your argument predicts.
Recognizing a genuine adverse effect is good science. Exaggerating its frequency and consequences without adequate evidence is not.
#BeBetter
Dr. Bowden, this graph has a fundamental methodological problem.
It labels its outcome “sudden cardiac death,” yet includes death certificates mentioning atrial fibrillation, cardiac murmurs, cardiac arrest, unspecified circulatory symptoms, and ill-defined causes of death. Those are not interchangeable diagnoses of sudden cardiac death.
It also reports deviations from a modeled baseline, not independently verified, population-adjusted incidence rates.
And where is the vaccination-status linkage? Without it, how can the graph distinguish vaccination from infection, changing death certification, or other factors?
Vaccine-associated myocarditis is real and deserves serious investigation. But converting a heterogeneous collection of death-certificate codes into a seven-sigma claim of vaccine-associated cardiac mortality is not sound epidemiology.
Large population-based studies examining vaccination and mortality directly have not demonstrated the widespread increase this graph implies.
The statistical presentation may be impressive. The causal evidence is not.
Dr. Bowden, this graph has a fundamental methodological problem.
It labels its outcome “sudden cardiac death,” yet includes death certificates mentioning atrial fibrillation, cardiac murmurs, cardiac arrest, unspecified circulatory symptoms, and ill-defined causes of death. Those are not interchangeable diagnoses of sudden cardiac death.
It also reports deviations from a modeled baseline, not independently verified, population-adjusted incidence rates.
And where is the vaccination-status linkage? Without it, how can the graph distinguish vaccination from infection, changing death certification, or other factors?
Vaccine-associated myocarditis is real and deserves serious investigation. But converting a heterogeneous collection of death-certificate codes into a seven-sigma claim of vaccine-associated cardiac mortality is not sound epidemiology.
Large population-based studies examining vaccination and mortality directly have not demonstrated the widespread increase this graph implies.
The statistical presentation may be impressive. The causal evidence is not.
Phil, I’m not suggesting McCullough devised some Machiavellian scheme to destroy his professional career. That would be an extraordinary claim, and I have no evidence for it.
But you’re presenting a false dichotomy.
It’s entirely possible that McCullough sincerely believes what he says, that his public positions contributed to professional consequences, and that he subsequently discovered a substantial commercial market for those same views.
These possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive.
Nor does being professionally marginalized somehow compel someone to promote supplements with unproven clinical benefits. Those remain personal and commercial decisions.
More importantly, none of this addresses the substance of my criticism.
Whether McCullough was pushed out, walked away, or experienced some combination of both has no bearing on whether COVID vaccines killed hundreds of thousands of Americans or whether his promoted products can meaningfully eliminate spike protein from the body.
Those are empirical questions requiring evidence.
I don’t need to establish McCullough’s motives to evaluate his claims. And you don’t need to defend his motives to defend his science.
The question remains: Where is the convincing evidence?
His distinguished past deserves recognition. His present claims deserve scrutiny. Both can be true.
Did I ever say or write that?
Reread what I’ve written. I choose my words carefully. Perhaps, McCullough and Hulscher could do the same.
Of course I don’t have any supplements to sell.
Nicolas Hulscher and colleagues claim FDA data show Moderna’s new mRNA influenza vaccine, mFLUSIVA, has an “extreme” risk-benefit profile—including roughly 2 “excess unexplained deaths” for every hospitalization prevented.
The numbers are largely real.
The problem is what happens to them afterward.
This is a useful case study in a familiar Hulscher analytical move: an observation becomes an attributable harm, an exploratory estimate becomes a dependable effect, and the resulting arithmetic is presented with far more certainty than the evidence permits.
Let’s follow the evidence. 🧵
This Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi?
1/ Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. is not an obscure internet influencer. He is an accomplished microbiologist whose work in bacteriology and immunology earned genuine scientific respect long before COVID.
But science doesn’t ask whether someone is credentialed.
It asks whether their hypotheses accurately predict reality.
Five years later, we can compare Bhakdi’s major COVID vaccine claims against what actually happened—not with politics, but with clinical trials, pathology, immunology and population data.
Let’s do exactly that.
IntegralAnswers retweeted
June 6, 1944. An American paratrooper jumps into Normandy in the dark and lands on the roof of a church.
By the end of the war he had been declared dead, held a funeral he didn't attend, escaped the Nazis, and fought his way toward Berlin in a Soviet tank unit.
His name was Joseph Beyrle. He's believed to be the only American soldier to serve in both the US Army and the Red Army during World War Two.
Beyrle was from Muskegon, Michigan. He joined the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. His buddies called him Jumpin' Joe.
On D-Day night his plane was hit by flak and he jumped early. He came down on a church roof, slid off, and lost his unit in the chaos. For a few days he fought on his own, blowing up a power station and cutting German communications.
Then he was captured.
Here's where it gets strange. A German soldier ended up wearing Beyrle's uniform and dog tags. That German was killed. When the body was found, the Americans identified it as Joseph Beyrle.
The army told his parents their son was dead. His hometown held a funeral mass for him. His obituary ran in the local paper.
Meanwhile, he was very much alive, being moved from one German prison camp to another.
He escaped more than once. One time he and two other prisoners jumped off a train heading east. They thought they were heading for Russia and freedom. They got lost and ended up in Berlin, where they were caught by the Gestapo, beaten, and tortured.
In January 1945, from a camp in eastern Germany, he finally made a clean escape. He went east, toward the gunfire. Toward the Soviets.
When he found a Soviet tank unit, he walked out with his hands up, holding a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes, and shouted the only Russian he knew. American comrade.
It worked.
He asked to join them. And they said yes.
For about a month, an American paratrooper rode with Soviet tank crews as they pushed toward Germany. He used his demolition training. He fought. He was reportedly welcomed by a Soviet officer who was one of the rare women commanding a tank battalion.
Then a German dive bomber attacked. Beyrle was badly wounded.
He was evacuated to a Soviet hospital. Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov reportedly visited, heard his story, and gave him papers to get to the American embassy in Moscow.
When he showed up, the embassy didn't believe him. As far as the US was concerned, Joseph Beyrle was dead. They held him under guard until his fingerprints proved who he was.
He made it home to Michigan in April 1945.
In 1946 he got married. In the same church where they'd held his funeral.
Decades later, in 1994, he was honored at the White House by President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin for serving both countries.
And the last twist. His son, Joseph Beyrle II, grew up to become the United States Ambassador to Russia.
“80–90% correct” is an impressive statistic. How was it calculated? Which predictions were assessed, against what outcomes, and by whom?
You’re mixing established adverse events with claims that remain unsubstantiated.
Yes, mRNA vaccines can rarely cause myocarditis, particularly in adolescent and young adult males. Yes, vaccine components can distribute beyond the injection site. Neither finding was simply ignored by scientific investigators.
But myocarditis is not evidence that vaccines caused widespread sudden cardiac deaths. Nor does the existence of rare adverse events establish that COVID vaccines caused large numbers of concealed deaths, blood clots, or brain hemorrhages.
And “most of it is peer-reviewed” is not a substitute for demonstrating causality. Peer review doesn’t transform weak methodology, uncontrolled observations, or speculative mechanisms into reliable conclusions.
No serious assessment requires vaccines to be perfectly safe. It requires that their benefits and risks be measured accurately.
If you believe 80–90% of his predictions have been validated, show us the original predictions, the studies that tested them, and the evidence establishing their accuracy.
That would be a scientific argument. What you’ve offered is an assertion.
Leonardo, the distinction matters.
Brazil's Supreme Court reported 1,399 people held criminally accountable for events surrounding January 8, 2023. As of January 2026, only 179 remained imprisoned or under house arrest.
Those cases involved charges ranging from incitement and criminal association to property destruction and attempted coup. That is not evidence of 1,000 people imprisoned merely for questioning an election.
As for Flávio Bolsonaro, you're correct that his passports were ordered surrendered immediately after the October 25 election. But reporting also identifies an ongoing investigation involving alleged financial crimes. The judicial order remains under seal, so claiming he was punished simply for complaining about the election goes beyond the available evidence.
I'm perfectly willing to criticize judicial overreach in Brazil. But criticism should rest on verified facts.
Can you identify a specific person imprisoned solely for peaceful election criticism, rather than for an independently alleged criminal offense?
That was my original question.