Fact checking Professor Glen Pyle's fact checks

Professor Pyle has legit credentials. I looked at three of his "fact checks" and found them deficient. You be the judge.

Unlike most fact checkers, Glen Pyle actually has legitimate credentials.

I first ran into Glen after my friend Professor Byram Bridle was attacked for his views by Professor Pyle and others at the University of Guelph. Pyle and others at the university, when challenged to debate the facts, refused to respond. Apparently, they can dish it out, but won’t defend their position.

Pyle is basically on the wrong side of history.

Athlete deaths fact check

I thought I would fact check three of the fact checks he wrote, starting with a fact check on the athlete deaths.

Dr. Pyle concludes that the vaccines are perfectly safe with respect to the athlete deaths. No connection at all and no increase in deaths.

He points out the deaths in the articles were overstated and the comparison group may not be complete. But he doesn’t clearly show the numbers to make his point either, other than simply make the claim that when other people did the work, they didn’t find an increase.

He isn’t convincing because he didn’t show the numbers. Why not?

The fact check that he refers to only uses data from the first 4 months of 2021 (“monate” is “months”). But look at the chart for the death rates:

What they did in the fact check is say if they extrapolate the deaths in the first 4 months of 2021 to the entire year, there is nothing unusual. As you can see from the chart above, that’s right. But it’s very misleading, isn’t it?

There are close to 1,000 deaths from April to April compared to a normal average of 29 per year which is an 34X higher death rate this year than average. WTF?!?!

One thing he does say is “In fact, peer-reviewed studies of COVID-19 trials report no connections between the vaccines and sudden cardiac arrest in any population.”

Technically, his statement is correct. Those studies basically said there was no link, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t lying.

For example, the Pfizer 6-month study published in NEJM showed a 4X increase in the rate of cardiac arrest for the group taking the vaccine (see page 11). That seems pretty suspicious to me. How does Glen explain that? He doesn’t. To Glen, it’s no problem.

How does Glen prove that it wasn’t vaccine related? Did they measure the troponin before and after the vaccines? Of course not!!! Did they do autopsies on the people who died to rule out the vaccine as being causal like Bhakdi and Burkhart did? No, of course not. So how could they rule out the vaccine as causal? Well, they can’t.

Glen should have picked that up if he was unbiased. But he’s not. He’s paid to find the conclusion supporting vaccination. He should have said “the causality link was never properly investigated” if he was being unbiased.

But I get it. All these fact checks are to sway people to your point of view, not to find truth and expose issues.

The Bhakdi study that I just wrote about (which you should definitely check out if you haven’t read it) in fact showed the connection when you actually did the autopsy. The vaccines are attacking the heart (and other organs) and killing people. In 14 of 15 cases, the heart was attacked by the vaccine.

So Glen, how can you be so certain the cardiac arrests in the clinical trial weren’t caused by the vaccine? The answer is he can’t. And with up to 93% of the deaths after the vaccine caused by the vaccine, it’s pretty darn likely there was a connection.

Also, if the vaccines are perfectly safe, then why is there a more than a thousand-fold increase in pulmonary embolism reports in VAERS for the COVID vaccine only?

Bottom line: When you consider all the evidence, our friend Glen is simply misleading you. He should be a lot more skeptical as a scientist on what the data is saying.

Gundry paper

When Glen looked at the Gundry paper, he wrote:

Finally, the statement at the end of the study claiming to have found T-cell infiltration of cardiac muscle comes with no evidence. T-cells are part of the immune system and are critical for providing the lasting immunity of vaccination. But high levels of T-cells within cardiac muscle is not a normal consequence of vaccination and would be concerning. The study provides no information on how cardiac T-cells were measured, or what the results were, suggesting that no investigation of cardiac T-cells was done.

The other reason no information was provided is that it was an abstract and had to be short. I think that’s the more likely explanation, right?

So now we come back to the Bhakdi study again. They found T-cells attacking the heart of 14 of 15 patients. So now we have confirmation of what Gundry claimed. And now we can say that Glen admitted it is concerning. He’s absolutely right about that!

But Glen could ignore that study because it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed journal so from his perspective, it doesn’t exist. After all, Glen is about proving his point of view, not telling the reader the truth.

But you and I know confirmation does exist.

And we all know that the rates of cardiac issues in VAERS is off the charts. Check this out. I’m sure Glen never looked at it… he didn’t mention.

So Glen may have been too hasty to write this off and he should acknowledge that Bhakdi and Burkhardt might be right. We have no data that proves otherwise. So the precautionary principle would lead us to assume they are right until shown otherwise. That’s what the data on the table shows.

We now have Gundry, Bhakdi, and VAERS all saying: “Houston, we have a cardiac problem.”

Yet Glen writes at the end: “it is unlikely that this will be the end of the story for COVID-19 vaccine opponents. And that is something that is truly frightening.”

Well, he’s right about the first sentence, but the second sentence he should talk about how happy he is that there are smart people who are critical thinkers looking at the data.

Myocarditis rates

Finally, Glen looked at myocarditis rates and concluded that “Post-vaccination myocarditis is an exceptionally rare complication in young people. Cardiologists, pediatricians, and medical societies continue to support vaccination, pointing out that the benefits far outweigh the risks.”

My issues with this are all referenced in my myocarditis article:

1. Myocarditis isn’t rare. The CDC simply forgot to multiply by the under-reporting factor of VAERS. When you do that you get a rate of 1 in 150 for teen boys. That’s not rare. Also, the anecdotal rates that I was able to uncover, confirms that. Sure, not a lot, but better than nothing.

2. The rates of myocarditis in vaccinated patients is way higher than the rates due to COVID. We saw this in Vinay Prasad’s presentation.

3. And we also see it in physician reported data, for example, my doctor friend who had no cases of pericarditis in 29 years and now, after the vaccines roll out, he sees 4 cases that happen right after vaccination. That is evidence of both points 1 and 2 above.

4. Can Glen find me a physician anywhere in the world that saw more myocarditis rates plummet after the vaccines rolled out?

Bottom line

In the future, Dr. Pyle would better serve the public interest by approaching fact checks objectively rather than resolve defects in the data in a way that comports with his personal belief system.