Is Professor Jeffrey S. Morris the "truth teller" he claims to be?

No chance. Professor Jeffrey Morris, a biostats professor at UPenn, started writing critiques of my work claiming he was just interested in exposing the truth. Reasonable minds may differ on that one.

Sometime in June 2021, U Penn Professor Jeffrey S. Morris and I started talking about what was happening with the vaccines. Professor Morris believed the vaccines were safe but he presented himself as a “truthteller” only interested in determining truth and not supporting anyone’s agenda.

On that premise, Mathew Crawford and I started engaging with him on what we had found.

We quickly learned that this self-proclaimed “truth seeker” was anything but

When we brought up the fact that the clinical trials couldn’t be trusted and cited the case of Maddie de Garay as proof of: 1) a significant injury that appeared in the clinical trial and 2) proof of clinical trial fraud, we expected him to join us in sounding the alarm of clear fraud that should invalidate the trial. He did the opposite. He didn’t want to see the proof. He said it hasn’t been proven until there is a court case determining that. I said that could take years. He didn’t seem to mind.

We tried to show him that VAERS can be used to show causality. We said we had charts of dose dependency, an unambiguous sign of causality that is impossible to ignore. He never wanted to see that. He would change the subject whenever we brought it up.

He went to the trouble of writing up detailed critiques of what I had written (here and here) that would fool a good number of non-professionals that read it, creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the work that I and others had done.

I didn’t bother to respond to these as I have more important things to do with my time and he is smart enough to write these critiques in such a way that you have to write pages and pages of text to bring the reader up to a level of knowledge to dispute what he wrote. For example, the statement “VAERS can’t be used to determine causality” is false, but overcoming this misstatement in a way it cannot again be attacked is time consuming.

That wouldn’t be a problem if there was just one such statement. But when there are dozens of examples, it becomes a time sink. You end up producing documents that are so long that nobody in your target audience is going to ever read it. What most people will do is simply compare academic credentials at that point and determine that Morris is the winner.

How can Professor Morris know I’m wrong when he cannot even estimate the number of people who have been killed by the vaccines?

Morris admitted to me in an email conversation that he hasn’t got a clue as to how many people have died. He can’t figure out even a single way to estimate it. So how can he know I’m wrong? He can’t. He needs to come up with 9 different ways to show the “correct” number like I did. He hasn’t done that.

Why isn’t Professor Morris lecturing the nurses that what they are seeing isn’t true?

I’m just the messenger of the truth here.

So are these nurses. Is Morris now going to show you that all these nurses must be lying? What is their motivation for lying Jeffrey? Please tell us that.

And tell us why these professionals are lying as well (see article and video on autopsy results showing 92% of all deaths investigated, even 6 months after vaccine were caused by the vaccine). How do your statistics show that one?

Why is Professor Morris afraid to debate us?

Instead, I offered to have a recorded debate to settle the matter. Debates are great because you can’t duck the questions like you can in a written response. Morris declined all our offers, just as we expected he would.

If we got it wrong, why doesn’t he just tell us the right answer?

His comments came up again today after I wrote a substack article about the VAERS URF analysis that was prepared by a third party that confirmed the number that I had originally computed.

Morris wrote:

“Renz forgot to account for the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is given in 2 doses and Influenza vaccines in one dose, and so Renz was effectively comparing 28 days worth of deaths after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines vs. 14 days worth of deaths after Influenza vaccines.

When accounting for this, the CMS data show that the death rates within 14 days of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration are roughly equivalent to the death rates within 14 days of Influenza vaccine administration, so there is no evidence of any excess deaths after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the 65yr+ CMS population than there were in 2018-2020 after Influenza vaccination.

Given the acknowledged MUCH higher death reports in VAERs in 2021 relative to 2018-2020, unwittingly these CMS data provide convincing evidence whatever the URF is for deaths in 2021, it must have been MUCH higher in 2018-2020, and it appears a much higher proportion of deaths after vaccination are being reported to VAERs in 2021 than in the past.

This blog post discusses this in detail: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/renz-whisteblower-data-from-cms-falsely-claims-death-rate-higher-for-sars-cov-2-vaccine-than-flu“

My response

Well, getting into a comparison with influenza death rates in CMS is another can of worms, but if we stick to the topic, which is the computation of the URF, none of this is relevant. Did you notice that Morris never says, “… which means that the correct URF for VAERS based on the CMS data is X. Q.E.D.” No, of course not. A truth teller would tell us the CORRECT way to compute the URF. Morris wants you to totally forget this is about computing the URF and lead you on a journey to an argument that he thinks he can win on. He is basically basically trying to distract people with an off-topic discussion leading down a rat hole opening up a whole new area for debate. It does work on a fraction of my 120,000 followers. One of my followers was fooled by his argument.

Mathew Crawford’s response

My very clever statistician friend Mathew Crawford (who writes an excellent substack entitled Rounding The Earth) wrote a brilliant response.

The point of sharing Mathew’s response with you is to give you some “behind the scenes” insight as to what is really going on here. From my point of view it was nice to see Mathew write an argument that was very similar to how I felt (which I explained above about the return on investment in playing ping-pong with Professor Morris). I put that part in bold.

Here’s what Mathew wrote in a private note to me (he gave me permission to share):

The argument is nonsensical, but I have catchup work for weeks that is higher priority. He publishes nonsense so often that it would completely neutralize me to handle his bullshit.

I have to respect that it's clever bullshit, though. It would take me pages and hours to fully explain to even a decently educated person why what he said is gibberish, showing something like a spreadsheet simulation.

The argument that VAERS reports in 2021 are higher because VAERS is suddenly better known is nonsense that no honest and careful biostatistician could fool himself into believing. It wasn't until a historically large number of deaths had piled up that there was any press about VAERS, and even then the attention came largely in the form of a growing number of people who cared to look at what was going on making videos, blog posts, and social media posts about it. When I asked on Twitter what the reporting requirements were after looking them up, not a single person, including doctors and nurses, accurately answered (some were correct for their profession only, but not on the whole).

Not that I think that we should take the trial reports at face value given all the statistical shenanigans they pulled, but they reported 0.7% severe adverse events (SAEs), or thereabouts, meaning that we should be looking at 3 million or so serious adverse events reports right about now. We're nowhere close to that.

I wonder if Jeffrey even knows that VAERS doesn't update already-submitted reports, meaning that tens of thousands of the SAE reports might have resulted in death, and we would never know even if the report was amended.

Mathew’s argument was not a point-by-point rebuttal, but as we said, that would take time and then it leads to a never end game of ping-pong where the documents you send back and forth to each other get longer and longer. Been there, done that.

We want a debate. Jeffrey Morris doesn’t. Who do you think the truth teller really is?

The bottom line is that our offer still stands to debate Professor Morris anytime in a recorded debate for all to see. If he accepts, he won’t be able to get out of answering questions he doesn’t want to answer. That’s why he’ll never accept.

Professor Morris uses as his excuse, “Open debate is not the way scientific arguments should be resolved.” That’s a nice excuse, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. For example, Harvard Professor Al Ozonoff had no trouble with a recorded video call discussing our differences.

The bottom line is that I think the fundamental reason Professor Morris won’t debate us is pretty simple: