This is a clip from the upcoming episode of "Breaking Bread with Martin Kulldorff in Connecticut".Speaking Wrong At The Right Time is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Much, much more attention needs to be paid to this issue; how government AT EVERY LEVEL, cities and states, schools and the military to just name a few jumped into bed with the pharmaceutical industry to either force or coerce so many people into taking a drug that was not necessary is a crime of a scale that is unimaginable.
"If you're pro-vaccine you should be against vaccine mandates." Really really a very interesting argument. He's the first...only...person I've heard that argument from and he has a very interesting and perhaps valid point. Look forward to the whole episode.
Thank you for sharing. I can't wait to hear the full interview. Martin Kulldorf is a real hero of our time; one of the few courageous enough to speak the truth.
My dear Mr. Coleman, however laudable the belated aspiration toward an ethical stance may be, the a priori assumptions regarding "need" are unsupported by anything more than hyperbole and fanciful prognostication.
Many of the best minds have long understood and documented the way that novel viruses move through populations. First, the weakened and comorbid succumb in waves. With each wave, the statistical "point spread" applicable to vulnerability narrows. This narrowing is vulnerable to exploitation by means of statistical legerdemain that "justifies" a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion. This is the underpinning of the "need" assumption.
There is a very good reason why the mass human trials were imposed with an EUA; the "E" denotes its classification as "Experimental." The experiment is ongoing and hasn't yet reached even a midpoint. The very concept of "need" cannot be evaluated logically for at least another four years.
The ethical violation was the imposition of ANY sort of mandate, full stop. The cynical denial of any means of acquiring informed consent is obvious at this point, becoming more painfully and horrifyingly obvious with the publication of each new research study, many of which had formerly been suppressed or retracted without regard for verified facts or logical consistency supported by well-established protocols and priors.
I first heard of Dr. Kulldorff when he co-created “The Great Barrington Declaration”
with Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta. I have admired his stance on lockdowns and willingness to speak out. However, after all this time, I am surprised that he seems to believe that the vaccines were effective. (Maybe I’m taking this clip out of context.)
Much, much more attention needs to be paid to this issue; how government AT EVERY LEVEL, cities and states, schools and the military to just name a few jumped into bed with the pharmaceutical industry to either force or coerce so many people into taking a drug that was not necessary is a crime of a scale that is unimaginable.
No one needed it.
"If you're pro-vaccine you should be against vaccine mandates." Really really a very interesting argument. He's the first...only...person I've heard that argument from and he has a very interesting and perhaps valid point. Look forward to the whole episode.
Thank you for sharing. I can't wait to hear the full interview. Martin Kulldorf is a real hero of our time; one of the few courageous enough to speak the truth.
Awful!
My dear Mr. Coleman, however laudable the belated aspiration toward an ethical stance may be, the a priori assumptions regarding "need" are unsupported by anything more than hyperbole and fanciful prognostication.
Many of the best minds have long understood and documented the way that novel viruses move through populations. First, the weakened and comorbid succumb in waves. With each wave, the statistical "point spread" applicable to vulnerability narrows. This narrowing is vulnerable to exploitation by means of statistical legerdemain that "justifies" a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion. This is the underpinning of the "need" assumption.
There is a very good reason why the mass human trials were imposed with an EUA; the "E" denotes its classification as "Experimental." The experiment is ongoing and hasn't yet reached even a midpoint. The very concept of "need" cannot be evaluated logically for at least another four years.
The ethical violation was the imposition of ANY sort of mandate, full stop. The cynical denial of any means of acquiring informed consent is obvious at this point, becoming more painfully and horrifyingly obvious with the publication of each new research study, many of which had formerly been suppressed or retracted without regard for verified facts or logical consistency supported by well-established protocols and priors.
I first heard of Dr. Kulldorff when he co-created “The Great Barrington Declaration”
with Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta. I have admired his stance on lockdowns and willingness to speak out. However, after all this time, I am surprised that he seems to believe that the vaccines were effective. (Maybe I’m taking this clip out of context.)
At least, this :
https://brownstone.substack.com/p/winning-back-freedom?
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-who-we-wont-get-fooled-again?