I am being forced towards the vaccine but with the prior Nobel prize for medicine that discovered the HIV virus expressing concern of serious down stream side effects and prior head of corona virus research for one of the vaccine manufacturers expressing the same concern as well as the serious censorship of negative side effects reporting I am having a hard time getting enough studies to make an informed decision. I have done drug trials and we are not getting the usual required level of informed consent and the concerns go on. Do you know where there are reliable studies about the effectiveness and safety of the “vaccine”. I tried to ask my oncologist but he just got mad at me for not getting it already. Telling me to get it because he said so was not very helpful. Thanks Dr B

Expand full comment

I've been discussing aspects of vaccine mandate legality on Twitter today; I certainly agree that 'informed consent' will ultimately be a losing argument for the government, which is why they are working to fast-track the full approval within the next 2-3 months. Longer term, my perspective is that the 1922 Supreme Court decision will be changed [allowing mandates] because the science behind vaccines and medical tech in general are too complex to be governed by blanket powers that are 99 years old.

The key is 'informed consent,' for sure, as mRNA vaccines [and even the monoclonal antibody therapies] can't possibly be viewed as settled science in the manner of traditional vaccines; scientists openly admit that the mechanisms of action aren't fully understood-and neither are the long-term effects.

Specifically, the provably tailored information that was released excluded spike protein drift throughout the body, and the specific and unprecedented decision to not collect certain statistics that would be required in any other large-scale stage 3 trial [what is currently taking place for each person who gets vaccinated]. Thus, there is no attempt or even method to fully analyze VAERS data.

I am not a dr., and without getting into private age and health specifics, the literature is clear that every vaccine available in the US is unquestionably safer than contracting COVID-19 for anyone 50+, excluding certain pre-existing conditions that differ with each of the vaccines. Mortality rates for those with comorbidities 75+ can reach 50%.

Below 50, the risk slopes from 1% sharply downward. A 7 year-old has a 2000-fold less likely chance of fatal infection than someone 70 years old. H1N1 was 4.5x more deadly for children than COVID-19.

If you are immunocompromised [via chemotherapy, radiation therapy, etc.], then the mRNA vaccines are actually the safest for you; my mother is an example of someone benefiting from this, as the mRNA vaccines contain no live or attenuated virus. In such cases, the benefits still clearly outweigh the risk.

Personally, I chose to get the vaccine because of my parents - I'd already been sick in March 2020. But, I have no interest in having my 16 year-old daughter get it, because of a lack of data on long-term effects of the spike protein's affinity for the ovaries. There are no simple answers, and until [if] there are liability protections from severe side effects from the Gov/manufacturers, I find any push for mandates to be unconscionable.

Thus, I focus on doing what I've done with the rest of my COVID-19 research, which is to provide uncensored access to primary-source material. I still have full confidence in Americans to form their own conclusions from data:

[I've posted Yale's concise info sheet below on the differences between each vaccine].

That page contains links to studies on each of the vaccines. The best current resource I've found for current federal statutes for mandates and exemptions is on the EEOC website:



For child-age exemption policies by state:


state legal codes regarding school-age exemptions:


adult vaccine exemption laws by state:


Expand full comment

Thanks that is the best answer I have gotten in a year. Again thanks

Expand full comment

I appreciate that. But it's the level of response we've deserved and rarely gotten, and I think that's one of the biggest tragedies of this pandemic-

officials safe-siding everything with blanket mandates, instead of being honest.

& being humble about their limits of understanding.

If Dr. Fauci had begun by saying "I don't know, but I want ya'll to be safe until we do know more" in regards to masking, people would respect it. False displays of 'scientific certainty' and unanimity have had devastating consequences [but I'll not dive down that rabbit hole here].

They might be doubling down, but I'd rather simply try to follow the golden rule; someday, if we're lucky, a few of 'them' might see us and follow the example.

Again, I appreciate that. My goal is to provide resources, and be a resource; I've learned from experience that most people would fare far better with fewer mandates from others, and more resources at their disposal to do things themselves.

Expand full comment

You might find it useful to look for red flags from another point of view. So much investor capital has been poured into mRNA over the years, but there has never been a viable product, only failures in small market categories. For about ten years, I have kept an eye on the mRNA potential as an investor. I regret not keeping all the info, or I'd share it, but it should be available. Moderna was sued for cheating on their lab protocols for an earlier product -- someone died, the parents did the due diligence, the judge agreed. I forget the outcome, but it was an ugly disclosure. They were just not able to make a safe product to bring to market, despite the serious investor dollars at risk for years. By the time I finished due diligence, I decided I would never use any of their products. The chunk of money that went to the production facility that never manufactured anything only confirmed that decision.

If you want things to read, the Moderna offering documentation is public and useful.

If you look at alternative companies, check their track records via class action lawsuits. That is what we do before allocating money -- many experienced executives move to start ups, but one frequently finds they jump ship before something blows up.

Biotech companies always have a compelling song and dance, but most ideas fail. That is why they are such a dangerous allocation for private equity funds. The government has no one who can vet the technology. They rely on the presentations and documentation from the company. It is the same thing they do with every market sector. No one at our fund has gotten vaccinated -- we were looking at different vaccines from various countries because we would have traveled to get them.

Are you familiar with how ugly medical research funding has become? For example, if you are at Johns Hopkins researching diabetes, you have to go get your own funds, then about $150,000 is taken by the university for "administrative fees." If you get a second source of funds, the university takes this fee again. The admin does nothing. You have to find, write, file, etc, for every dime. They put you on a strict timeline, there is no interest in anything that does not have market potential (there is an incubator-style approach where professors from the medical school can contribute to research heading to the market). Even if you do good work with the funds you brought in, you can be cut loose if the university does not like the outcome of your research. Then you have to find another university to give you top cover before your funders cut you off. Accidental beneficial discoveries that took place 70 years ago will never happen again. And people wonder why research on non-drug treatments for diseases is sparse. My classmate found that colonoscopy scopes at Hopkins are contaminated by the pathogens. He is no longer on staff.

If you are with a big hospital, there is always private practice. There are interesting variations on private practices now. Keep your health.

Expand full comment

It's funny to think back to the fall of 2019, when Moderna was a topic in two of my MBA courses in the same week-mostly for being able to continue to attract funding whilst never succeeding at doing the one thing they needed to do as a business.

Now, the COI is disturbing - the NIH has a financial interest in preventing full disclosure about any issues with the vaccine, AND they've given Immunity to Moderna & Pfizer et al. There is literally no incentive for them to be honest about the vaccines, other than the fact that it would be the right thing to do.

Obviously, that's not a consideration at this point

Expand full comment

It has come to my attention that Americans who've been injured by vaccine reactions who end up in the hospital are being approached by "administrators" who are offering to pay their bills by "an anonymous donor" if they don't report their injuries to VAERS. My neighbors 24 year old daughter got the Moderna 2nd shot & had a heart attack & kidney failure. Her father was offered the best care for her IF he didn't report her injuries to the VAERS/CDC. I was wondering about this for the past few months & think its been going on for quite some time. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Expand full comment

Suggest that he take the free stuff for her, make daily video logs of the happenings, and then have someone else release it. Did the daughter sign the non-disclosure? Did they sign anything that prohibits them from releasing a documentary? It's likely an illegal agreement, anyhow, but it could be hard to fight. I was one of the investors for the documentary on blood donation-AIDS in Chinese villages, so we brainstormed many work arounds for regulations.

Expand full comment

Thanks so much for the advice. I'll keep looking into work arounds.

Expand full comment