85 Comments

The whole con comes down to inconsistent burdens of proof. Tested PCR positive within 28 days of death? It’s a Covid death. Died after vaccination with a heart full of spike protein and history of adverse events following jabs, with no positive PCR test or history of Covid symptoms? Also a Covid death.

There is literally no conceivable amount of evidence that could get people like Ms. Oliver to believe Covid vaccines killed anyone. For no reason other than “we all know the Covid jabs are safe and effective.” This is a cult.

Expand full comment

She's not a cultist, if my experience with the ruthless propagandist type of personality read her right. She's a psycho getting money for this. That's my bet anyway.

Expand full comment

Is there a preexisting term for the logical fallacy of evaluating competing hypotheses by inconsistent burdens of proof? It is quite commonly deployed against heterodox opinions surrounding COVID.

Expand full comment

Google "Beware isolated demands for rigor"

Expand full comment

Ironically, the man who coined the term would probably side with Ms. Oliver on this one, as he seems to have fully bought in to the “safety” narrative for reasons I cannot fathom.

Expand full comment
Mar 10, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023

"Scott Alexander" his or her pen name, a psychiatrist and blogger of the old school.

NYT threatens doxxing:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog/

Currently at https://astralcodexten.substack.com/

Says ivermectin does not work, after a review of studies.

For the record: ivermectin DOES work, as do HCQ, zinc, quercetin and sweet wormwood. Both sweet wormwood as Artemisinin and the avermectin improved by unknown chemists at Merck into mighty Ivermectin work well against covid, viruses (many) in general, and cancers (many) in general. I say this from my own carefully curated book of facts, and I base my knowledge on modalities of action, demonstrated and in theory, for that, friends is REAL science in the biology of cellular metabolism in multi-organed animals. Case studies? So wisdom of the maddening crowd ish.

Expand full comment

I read almost everything Scott writes. I think he’s a good faith actor and an interesting thinker. He’s just naïve. He grossly underestimates the amount of corruption that goes into making “The Science” and thus regularly treats blatant propaganda like legitimate science.

Expand full comment

So too did Great Teacher John Campbell, a truly great and honest man, and a lover of mankind. Which is why I stopped watching his otherwise very good videos: my own uptake of how good IVY is occurred months before his, but worse, he advised vaccinations for about a year or so after it was clear they were not at all good. Uptake of informatin that greatly challenges existing thought guidance structures we each develop over the years is very difficult.

A walled castle.

Expand full comment

This factor is mighty. Emotions and group-membership signalling are through all roofs of houses of logic and science.

Expand full comment

Much Worse than the Jim Jones kool aid cult.

Expand full comment

I still don't understand why people don't bring up the mechanical differences between SARS-COV-2 infection vs direct injection of mRNA. All these comparisons of internal tissue samples with spike protein end up in this same fight over whether or not the vaccine or the virus did the damage. Every single additional dose of vaccine makes this a more ridiculous argument since that is the only vector by which the spike protein has direct access to internal tissues. The viral spike MUST get past the outer defense and be reproducing enough to get significant amounts of spike into internal tissues. The vaccine has no such barriers to deal with, and can begin replicating in internal tissues immediately (indeed that is it's function).

ADDITIONALLY.... the virus has a known and predictable replication progression. We can graph how much viral material a virus infection creates. We have ZERO knowledge of exactly how much spike protein any individual human makes after vaccination. No one has done those studies. the mRNA vector amounts to a pharmaceutical that generates an uncontrolled dosage INSIDE THE BODY.

So, if I am to presume viral infection caused all this internal damage, I have to believe that all these cases are people who had very severe covid and likely barely survived it.

If, on the other hand, I am to presume that vaccines caused all this internal damage, all I have to believe is that that person got too much mRNA in the bloodstream and their body's cellular metabolic rate was high enough to make waaaaay more spike protein than their body could deal with.

Expand full comment

Your reasoning sounds way more logical than Susan’s. Why do we even care what Susan thinks. Is this story all about confusing those who know the vaccines are shit!!

Expand full comment

Evolution for multicellular organisms required and continues to require membrane barriers to keep out as much unwanted viral and bacterial material as possible. Susan has no logic. She ignores factual, simplistic, well established, biological reality to justify her ignorant conclusions, and bandies about her credentials to attempt to shame lay people into going along with her insanity. There are many like her.

Expand full comment

First time I have seen a mention of something that was for me a big no-no for these products. The antigen is the spike produced in the tissues of the body, it is produced for many weeks at least and we do not know the dose. What past vaccines have been given without a controlled dosage? The other medical intervention with unknown dose is fluoridation of water - also bad.

Expand full comment

No one at CDC could really tell us WHICH cells would produce the spike protein, for how long, what would be the stopping criteria for spike protein production, and then which cells would come along to clean up & dispose of that mess.

They basically just kept insisting that the shot stays localized in the arm (that doesn't make sense, even to a civilian like me); it cannot permanently change your DNA (I honestly wasn't worried about it until they kept harping on it); and that mRNA is so delicate, it breaks down quickly (but that's natural mRNA-- unlike the synthetic Frankenstein pseudo-uridine-stuff concocted in a lab).

Expand full comment

I had not read this when I added to your other comment. Just so. It was all misinformed consent. My main anger point is that people suffered and died because effective treatment was suppressed.

Expand full comment

My thought was, the main way someone could end up with spike protein in their brain after viral infection, is if they were already so severely immunocompromised & likely elderly.

Basically their body had no intact defense system able to combat the virus, and so it was able to overtake the internal organs.

But most people do have some sort of functioning immune system to prevent this.

Like, how bad would the BBB have to be for actual virus to invade the brain tissue? I feel like the only way this is possible is if BBB permeability has been severely altered, like by vaccine ingredients over time perhaps the metals in annual flu shots?

Expand full comment

The LPNs used to deliver the Pfizer mRNA can pass the BBB. Of course we were told that it would stay in the arm, and initially I thought as it was just mRNA that lasts only minutes so not much of a problem, but the mRNA had been modified to last for weeks at least.

Expand full comment

I've never seen so much (literal) hand waving. Susan Oliver really stands out.

Expand full comment

Bill Gates is another waver. He reminds me of a praying mantis ready to strike its prey.

Expand full comment

I wonder if that's a tell. I mean, there are people who look away from you whenever they're lying. Maybe it's the same thing with hand waving for Oliver and Gates. IDK.

It's also interesting that Oliver labels Campbell a "grifter" because he's monetized his YT videos. And that makes me wonder where Oliver's grant money and funding come from. Is she shilling for the establishment? What does she have to gain for making these videos? (It probably isn't ad revenue because very few people watch her videos.)

Expand full comment

Ah! I love her, she looks and acts like Dolores Umbridge (or Dolores Dumbbitch, as my doughter likes to call her) form Harry Potter.

You can not think of her as of evil.

Expand full comment

From the outsider's perspective I understand some of the criticisms with the case report, which at the time of the autopsy may have seemed like a sound assumption- check nasal samples for nucleocapsid. The possibility of a SARS-COV2 test during time of admittance would also provide additional support, as well as the fact that someone in his 70s with a comorbidity may present with symptoms, but that may not have been included in the reports.

However, since no histological assessment appeared to have been done with lung tissues, which would certainly show evidence of both spike and nucleocapsid if it was an infection, then that leaves a gap in the preponderance of evidence which leaves open that window of criticism. I think given that vaccine injuries are an inherent uphill battle an assertion of a vaccine injury should be more tight to prevent these openings for criticisms.

Now, when comparing the videos I tend to go towards the MedCram video being a video of hesitancy and providing additional context, whereas Oliver's approach seems to rely on a reactionary, bad-faith and rather envious position. She seems to have several videos criticizing Campbell, which on the surface wouldn't be an issue if the studies weren't being looked at properly, but I think her approach of focusing on Campbell rather than the articles gives off a bad impression.

Expand full comment

"her approach of focusing on Campbell rather than the articles gives off a bad impression."

as in, assigned target ... of the agit-prop professional.

Expand full comment

Time waits for none. The Medcram videos are careful, but in the era of Covid not bold enough to have saved many lives ... in this situation, lives must be saves and weren't for dilly-dallyisms.

Expand full comment

Lung tissue ought to have been looked at, but that's not a major failing. Finding spike where there was evidence of jab and no evidence of covid is the key point. Ruling out N-protein is a nice-to-have.

Evidence is probable, but not conclusive, that the death was jab-related.

Expand full comment

Thank YOU! . . . several months ago a close friend whom I go back and forth with on the COVID policies and the therapies sent me that Susan Oliver video.......call me non-scientific but her condescending tone and body language creeped me out whereas John's tone and and body language is one of someone who does not know but is trying to learn and understand . . . your article connects my 'feelings' to the 'facts'.....keep it up....oh, and BTW, whenever I forward something of yours my friend has a hard time picking it apart and has actually complimented and/or agreed on some points....he has a PhD in O-Chem, is brilliant in that realm and is the Lab Director for California DTSC but has trusted the science policy to be at the level he holds to himself even though he states he distrusts Pharma......point is he is no slouch so his lack inability to take down your work and compliment it at times speaks volumes......again, thank you.

Expand full comment

Great article. Just wondering why this person would keep getting the shots since he suffered reactions to each one?

Expand full comment

Good point. I'd think he "trusted the science" after every doc told him that the vax was perfectly safe, according to all the world's so-called experts. He didn't realize it was really "corporate science".

Expand full comment

She is so sarcastic and that comes across as ugly. I have a hard time listening to her. I trust Dr. Campbell!

Expand full comment

So Campbell doesn’t know what he’s talking about and was duped by a shoddy study- but she, after claiming to know how to properly read the data (provided by the organizations and manufacturers profiting off of the products)- still claims these pokes are completely safe and aren’t causing bodily harm. Even though a layman can read those same “studies” and see there was a lack of proper testing done. We can also see the stories of thousands posted online, or those we personally know, sharing about their health decline since their pokes, but I guess that doesn’t count as the information isn’t coming from a peer reviewed paper?

At this point, any “expert” claiming these shots are perfectly fine has lost all credibility in my eyes as they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about, and it makes me question what else they promote that isn’t safe.

Expand full comment

The study wasn't shoddy.

Expand full comment

Oliver claims it was

Expand full comment

I apply a rule here. It is the rule of like measures. By what ruler and markings, standardized, on it can anyone claim something is "shoddy"? I don't deny that is a finding, and a reasonable one, too, in many or most cases of human endeavor, in particular a study from post-mortem exam of a fellow lost to this murrain, or rather the four murrains of the epoch since Chinese New Year of the White Male Metal Rat (25 January 2020 to mark a date).

The study was in depth, used modern proven technologies, considered many things related to the condition of tissue, the death, the infection and vaccination state. There is no reason beside emotional uproar, or to incite careless and reckless emotional uproar, to call it "shoddy". It is far from shoddy.

Expand full comment

Makes me question why a substack writer is even writing this story!

Expand full comment

It's a story with a bite-odor that draws all the dogs, eh? Cur that I am, but the rest of ye are good fellow humans, to be sure.

Expand full comment

Oliver is screechy and preachy like nails on a blackboard. Campbell has a record of being careful (too careful) about claims of vaccine efficacy and harm. He has left the cult of vax-worship. Oliver is still genuflecting.

Expand full comment

I think Susan Oliver is just really biased. While she dives into the methodology of some studies (John Campbell doesn't do this level of review), her goal is not to openly assess the field of evidence like a scientist should. She only talks about the science that confirms her pro-vaccine injection, denial of vaccine injury stance. I don't watch many of her videos because I find her quite immature. She can't be taken seriously as a scientist with her level of bias and the insulting language she throws around.

I appreciate your post, you have a very clear way of communicating this complex subject. I enjoyed the panel with you, JJ, Jessica and Matthew. 👍🏽💕

Expand full comment

Her demeanor does come off as very condescending and I think that make people very hesitant to look at what she's saying.

One thing that she and the MedCram video overlooked was the fact that the heart study wasn't intended to find virus in the heart, and instead considered whether the myocarditis was due to spreading of spike and the inflammatory response afterwards. So the findings that no N was in the heart works both ways- you won't be able to tell in either direction, but I think Oliver uses that to infer certainty in places where certainty can't really exist.

Expand full comment

Joomi was great on the panel!

I loved it, too.

Thank you!

Expand full comment

Ah, so I think what you're saying is they weren't looking for the N protein, so they didn't test for it.

Yeah, I find her extremely grating. It's too bad that she seems to only talk through the anti anti-vaxxer perspective, because she does go deeper into studies then someone like Dr Campbell, so she has potential to provide a valid perspective. And it's important for as many people as possible to recognize that they need you read studies and not just depend on what the media says about them, like Dr Campbell was doing early on in the pandemic..

Expand full comment

Oliver's giant fake smiles remind me more of Meghan Markle than of a "scientist". Poor thing must be very unhappy in her personal life.

(Since she personally attacks Campbell, I'll assume she thinks that to be a proper way to comport oneself. Turnabout is fair play. Besides, whilst Pfizer et al. made immense fortunes, what does Campbell make on a video? Thirty quid each?)

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023

I've looked briefly though her Twitter. She puts her childish, irrational, bigoted politics throughout. What a surprise. Is she unbiased? Not in the slightest.

Expand full comment

Who funds Susan? This will explain a lot...

Expand full comment

I have to add, after checking out her channel, all she does is “debunk” anything that comes against the pokes. I’d be interested in knowing if she’s financially invested at all, to be fangirling so hard.

Expand full comment

Oliver is projecting her off-the-wall speculation that S-protein presence was due to covid. There is no evidence that covid contributed spike from anywhere except Oliver's speculation.

We know that the deceased had recently been jabbed. No speculation required as to a potential source of spike--the jab was a known causative agent.

So, while it cannot be conclusively stated that the patient's death was due to jab, that is probable.

Expand full comment