NEW: What Went Wrong with COVID-19 Policies? with Martin Kulldorff
Hi everyone,
We wanted to formally release this brilliant episode with Martin Kulldorff on his firing from Harvard and the CDC with our new production capabilities on all platforms. Whether you listened to it at the time or are going to watch for the first time, I highly recommend you check it out.
We discuss his journey through the COVID-19 pandemic, the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, and his thoughts on lockdowns. This conversation delves into the real impact of public health policies and the importance of open scientific debate. Get an insider's perspective on one of the most debated health crises of our time.
— Jay
Watch Now:
Ways to support The Illusion of Consensus:
Become a paid or founding member to receive early-access episodes and ask questions for future episodes.
Support The Illusion of Consensus with a donation
Subscribe to our YouTube and Rumble channels
Follow us on Apple podcasts and Spotify
I watched it yesterday and is was very good.
Excellent discussion! Like Dr. B, Dr. Kulldorff is worthy of great admiration and respect. History will look back on him as one of a small group of scientists who were brave enough to speak out and tell the truth in the face of almost unspeakable derision and enmity. One point I disagree with, however, is his attitude and reflection on the J & J vaccine pause. While I agree with some of his points in his 4/21 opinion piece in the Hill (i.e. that there shouldn't have been a pause for at-risk elderly patients), I feel that he doesn't give proper weight to the risks to young healthy individuals. In the piece, he notes the oft-repeated statistic of 1/1,000.000 in regard to the CVST risk in those receiving the J & J vaccine. I have a very hard time believing that figure, given that there was a case of CVST in the original J & J study. A healthy 25 yo male suffered a transverse sinus thrombosis shortly after receiving the vaccine. Incredibly, this event was deemed "not related to therapy". The PI's explanation strains credulity:
"Event most likely resulted from multiple pre-disposing factors including pre-existing cerebral sigmoid sinus stenosis that pre-disposed the participant to cerebral venous thrombosis, and an infection with an unknown organism that started 8 days following vaccination, triggering inflammation and a hypercoagulable state. Thrombocytopenia also observed. Subsequent testing identified anti-PF4 antibodies at the time of the event."
If the risk is 1/1.000.000, what is the likelihood of finding a case in 22,000 participants in the vaccine arm? In my humble opinion, the risk benefit ratio for the use of this vaccine (as well as for the mRNA vaccines) never made sense for young healthy people.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2101544/suppl_file/nejmoa2101544_appendix.pdf
p.50