We Cannot Afford to Censor Dissenting Voices During a Pandemic – Prof Martin Kulldorff

Source: Lockdown Sceptics.

One of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Martin Kulldorff, got in trouble for tweeting:

“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. Covid vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takes. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

I challenge anyone to explain what is wrong with this statement.

6 thoughts on “We Cannot Afford to Censor Dissenting Voices During a Pandemic – Prof Martin Kulldorff

  1. “I challenge anyone to explain what is wrong with this statement.”

    If you catch the virus, you can spread it. Including children. To say otherwise is disingenuous anti-vax nonsense. Children can and do spread the virus. Those with prior natural infection may or may not need it. We do not know either way at this point. Even T**** got vaccinated after he cleared medical protocols to receive the vaccine as a prior infected individual.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html

    The case count in Michigan is over 3,000 per day now. And numbers are continuing to climb.

    Outside of deadly allergic reactions, there is plenty of reason for ALL to be vaccinated. At least a lot more than have been thus far.

    Challenge met. It really wasn’t difficult either. Just paying attention to reported facts and trusting my “lyin’ eyes”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “If you catch the virus, you can spread it. Including children. To say otherwise is disingenuous anti-vax nonsense.”

      Dr. Kulldorff didn’t say otherwise.

      RE: “Those with prior natural infection may or may not need it. We do not know either way at this point.”

      Why do you say this? Dr. Kulldorff says the exact opposite. What do you know that he doesn’t?

      The point of the challenge is to explain why or how Dr. Kulldorff’s tweet has something wrong with it. Asserting things he didn’t say and merely contradicting him with your own beliefs doesn’t accomplish that.

      Like

      1. He said THIS: “Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.””

        I say, that when the studies show it is safe and effective for children, then they too should be vaccinated.

        “Dr. Kulldorff says the exact opposite. What do you know that he doesn’t?”

        NOBODY knows at this point. His assumptions, just because there is a DR in front of his name ,doesn’t mean he has the proof or data to say one way or the other. He is out over his ski tips.

        Your counterfactual beliefs are coming to the fore. I challenged what he said, You didn’t like my answer. I have as much evidence as he does to challenge him.

        You and he come off as know-nothing know-it-alls.

        Like

  2. First of all, what does “scientifically flawed” mean in this context? If everyone received an effective vaccine then the virus would be gone. What is flawed about that.

    Second, what about younger high-risk people?

    Third, it is probable that surviving an infection has the same effect as a vaccination so he may be right about that but it is not a completely settled question. Yet. So, instead of a vaccination you would have to have a test to confirm that it really was Covid-19 that made you ill. You might as well get the vaccine. And the certificate that goes with it.

    Fourth, what is “scientifically flawed” about vaccinating children. Because most of them survive? Is that how a parent is going to see it should a child-safe vaccine become available? I don’t think so. A risk of hospitalization and death – even a small risk – is something to avoid if possible.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “If everyone received an effective vaccine then the virus would be gone. What is flawed about that?”

      Everyone doesn’t need to be vaccinated for the virus to be “gone.” A common estimate for herd immunity is 70% of the population having immunity to Covid-19.

      RE: “Second, what about younger high-risk people?”

      What about them?

      RE: “Third, it is probable that surviving an infection has the same effect as a vaccination so he may be right about that but it is not a completely settled question.”

      So you say. Dr. Kulldorff says the exact opposite. What do you think you know that he doesn’t?

      RE: “Fourth, what is ‘scientifically flawed’ about vaccinating children.”

      You should probably ask the FDA. No Covid vaccine is currently approved for use on children.

      Like

      1. “So you say. Dr. Kulldorff says the exact opposite. What do you think you know that he doesn’t?”

        We do not know if having had the virus causes natural immunity, WE, even the good doctor. That is why Paul said PROBABLY. And if that were truly the case, why did the 45th president get vaccinated after clearing the medical protocols from his treatments?

        ” No Covid vaccine is currently approved for use on children.”

        But if they don’t need it why are the drug companies conducting testing on children? They have published some reports about the safety and efficacy in children 12-16. The younger age groups are being studied.

        Even some doctors are not in favor of any vaccines. Promoting that belief is idiotic. Ya know, Demon Seed.

        More fact than opinion in my post then the idiotic tweet you referenced.

        Like

Leave a Reply to John Todd Roberts Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s