I wonder what your intention is with this substack. I don’t know anything about your relationship with the authors, but in my opinion it would be way more constructive to contact the authors directly instead of writing this substack to the public which undermines their credibility.
I have a "relationship" with 3 of the authors. I actually gave McKernan the master list of lot expiration dates. Wiseman whom I've had the most interaction wrote me back a long one page explanation of events and details after this critique. McKernan also gave me a little "heart" on Twitter since. They were the first people I shot off my critique when I published them. They are well aware of me before the paper was even written or the "team" was even formed. They know I'm the VAERS guy or at least "a VAERS person". The bottom line is they are coming out with a "version 2" manuscript. The explanation I was given doesn't really hold water with me how they missed 2 deaths but that's besides the point. The world is getting a updated manuscript, it will be even more precise and will be even more damning for the jabs, not that the details matter that much. Dog shit is Dog shit.
I'm an antivaxxer and anyone thinking or wanting to attempt for "fix" the formula is not on my team. I imagine there are at least a couple authors that would hypothetically might still believe in vaccines just not this vaccine or this MRNA platform? I don't know for sure, but that doesn't matter either. Bottom line, do your job well and so will I. They could have drafted me on the team from the beginning, they should know I would 2x check all the VAERS data as I do on the important stuff regardless.
As for this substack and me, I'm the VAERS guy. After almost 3 yrs of auditing VAERS I am positive the VAERS management team (CDC/FDA/GDIT) it just running cover for big pharma, it's not the phrama, it's not the pharmacovigilance early warning tool it should be because all the data obfuscation being done to it. This manuscript is a great example of data obfuscation, where it practically takes a computational biologist to extract the data.
I put a sentence in there that this wasn't a slight or playground patty cakes dispute, this is iron sharpens iron in the clubhouse. They know me, they have the PhD's not me. The truth has a way of fending itself, just like everybody has selective perception and how they select to perceive things. I select to perceive that you are just witnessing a evolution of a sincere and complete pharmacovigilance tool in vaersaware.com with all the bells and whistles aka data viz, automated data cleansing and integrity. If the world is going to keep vaxxing then a we (I) need to keep scrutinizing. God Bless
Thank you for your response. I just read your post of today, wherein you share private correspondence between you and mr Wiseman. It affirms my feeling about this subject. In my view it seems you are writing from frustrations of not having certain titles and feelings of not being seen and valued (and thus placing ego in the way). Although I can understand these frustrations, it would be better to keep this away from the public and certainly do not share private correspondence.
I regard the authors as very genuine people with the best intentions. You could accept their decisions, they clearly have their own reasons.
Their work has the potency to turn the tides.
It should be avoided to bring unnecessary negative attention to their work; they will have a hard time to resist all the censorship and cancellation by the mainstream media anyway.
Selective perceptions I guess and everyone is allowed to have one. I think I said I can't wait to co-sign or not their next iteration. They could incorporate me to see if I see anything off or can be improved with respect to VAERS before next iteration. Or do whatever they want to do. I've made my case, I don't have allegiance or alliance to anybody but the truth. We can all do whatever we want, but thanks for your concern for me. Truth trumps consequence.
I gather the manuscript might be edited and corrected with your valuable contribution, as long as the authors are directly contacted.
I wonder what your intention is with this substack. I don’t know anything about your relationship with the authors, but in my opinion it would be way more constructive to contact the authors directly instead of writing this substack to the public which undermines their credibility.
Jane,
I have a "relationship" with 3 of the authors. I actually gave McKernan the master list of lot expiration dates. Wiseman whom I've had the most interaction wrote me back a long one page explanation of events and details after this critique. McKernan also gave me a little "heart" on Twitter since. They were the first people I shot off my critique when I published them. They are well aware of me before the paper was even written or the "team" was even formed. They know I'm the VAERS guy or at least "a VAERS person". The bottom line is they are coming out with a "version 2" manuscript. The explanation I was given doesn't really hold water with me how they missed 2 deaths but that's besides the point. The world is getting a updated manuscript, it will be even more precise and will be even more damning for the jabs, not that the details matter that much. Dog shit is Dog shit.
I'm an antivaxxer and anyone thinking or wanting to attempt for "fix" the formula is not on my team. I imagine there are at least a couple authors that would hypothetically might still believe in vaccines just not this vaccine or this MRNA platform? I don't know for sure, but that doesn't matter either. Bottom line, do your job well and so will I. They could have drafted me on the team from the beginning, they should know I would 2x check all the VAERS data as I do on the important stuff regardless.
As for this substack and me, I'm the VAERS guy. After almost 3 yrs of auditing VAERS I am positive the VAERS management team (CDC/FDA/GDIT) it just running cover for big pharma, it's not the phrama, it's not the pharmacovigilance early warning tool it should be because all the data obfuscation being done to it. This manuscript is a great example of data obfuscation, where it practically takes a computational biologist to extract the data.
I put a sentence in there that this wasn't a slight or playground patty cakes dispute, this is iron sharpens iron in the clubhouse. They know me, they have the PhD's not me. The truth has a way of fending itself, just like everybody has selective perception and how they select to perceive things. I select to perceive that you are just witnessing a evolution of a sincere and complete pharmacovigilance tool in vaersaware.com with all the bells and whistles aka data viz, automated data cleansing and integrity. If the world is going to keep vaxxing then a we (I) need to keep scrutinizing. God Bless
Thank you for your response. I just read your post of today, wherein you share private correspondence between you and mr Wiseman. It affirms my feeling about this subject. In my view it seems you are writing from frustrations of not having certain titles and feelings of not being seen and valued (and thus placing ego in the way). Although I can understand these frustrations, it would be better to keep this away from the public and certainly do not share private correspondence.
I regard the authors as very genuine people with the best intentions. You could accept their decisions, they clearly have their own reasons.
Their work has the potency to turn the tides.
It should be avoided to bring unnecessary negative attention to their work; they will have a hard time to resist all the censorship and cancellation by the mainstream media anyway.
Selective perceptions I guess and everyone is allowed to have one. I think I said I can't wait to co-sign or not their next iteration. They could incorporate me to see if I see anything off or can be improved with respect to VAERS before next iteration. Or do whatever they want to do. I've made my case, I don't have allegiance or alliance to anybody but the truth. We can all do whatever we want, but thanks for your concern for me. Truth trumps consequence.
I think it would be good to contact the authors and suggest them some corrections. It is a preprint.