Editorial comments/recommendations from an attorney (not legal advice):
This is the "theme and theory" of your argument: "The neurologists don’t want to be identified because they know they would lose their licenses to practice medicine if they spoke out publicly." It's coercion and an amorphous threat of negative consequences. They think…
Editorial comments/recommendations from an attorney (not legal advice):
This is the "theme and theory" of your argument: "The neurologists don’t want to be identified because they know they would lose their licenses to practice medicine if they spoke out publicly." It's coercion and an amorphous threat of negative consequences. They think they can do more good by remaining quiet, which is what MANY are doing.
Spell out URF and cite the Harvard et al studies.
Point 1: tighten up "showing your work" on the math. There is a leap without citing the Modena death RATE only the total deaths. You implicitly, not explicitly, say there have been 100M Modena vaccines total when you divide 64,300/13,333. You could say~: "...we conservatively estimate there are 64,300 excess deaths from the 100M Moderna vaccines administered... So this is approximately 13,333 lives saved from COVID for the 100M fully vaccinated people, while increasing all-cause mortality by 64,300." Cite any authoritative corroborating evidence, like Malone and McCullough do when they cite peer-reviewed papers.
Point 2: cite small pox AE rates (with source), and compare it to what's in VAERS. Then cite mortality and damage from smallpox actually recorded at the time compared to COVID. Argue from authority too by using the most authoritative source on the subject; if you can cite government data + peer-reviewed data = best.
Point 3: Adverse event in this sentence: "How can that not be flagged as an adverse event?" Should read "safety signal." Cite the sources. Argument from authority- pick the most highly-regarded source you have.
Point 3: Point out the elephant in the room: coercion; don't accuse individuals, show them the looming force of suppression and make then victims. You're accusing the people you're talking to here: "The only way that can happen is if the people who are in charge of monitoring the safety signals are either blind or corrupt." They're going to stop listening and disregard everything you said/say. The best way to convince people is to "be the most reasonable person in the room." What does the suppressed safety signal mean? It means the truth: "The only way that can happen is if the people required to monitor safety signals are afraid to speak up for fear of consequences. The data are clear."
Close this section by citing a specific article like this one detailing every aspect of your comments with sources.
Other notes:
Word choice: don't use the word obvious, use "clear" instead. Obvious is a negative word. Things can be clear without being obvious if you don't have the experience or ability to see.
Backup data: What is a "background death" ? Showing your work on the 2*250 explains everything but the 2 (I believe it's years, but don't make your audience guess, they get distracted). I don't understand the red and green arrows, I'm going to be thinking about this while you're talking.
Make everything as simple as possible to understand. Run this by your waiter or waitress at the local diner, and ask them to tell you what they don't understand. They will help you make the language simple. This is because they likely have no background on your topic. This is Jerry to making sure you don't miss things in an explanation.
Change your summary:
"The only way the ACIP committee can vote to approve these vaccines is if the committee members are either asleep or corrupt."
You're calling them assholes. Call then scared instead.
"The only way the ACIP committee can vote to approve these vaccines is if the committee members are not free to make their own choices. The data are clear, and this vaccine should not be approved, for the sake of your children and my children."
If you can give them a way to approve it only for those most at risk of COVID, and for which the vaccine has some utility over risk, do it. They need an out.
Good luck, and thank you for keeping up the fight!
I appreciate and value your wise advice, and will also put it to use in the arguments that I make. Considering the Overton Window, "obvious" is a word for data that is well in the middle of the window, while "clear" is a better word for data that is still at the edges Thank you.
Editorial comments/recommendations from an attorney (not legal advice):
This is the "theme and theory" of your argument: "The neurologists don’t want to be identified because they know they would lose their licenses to practice medicine if they spoke out publicly." It's coercion and an amorphous threat of negative consequences. They think they can do more good by remaining quiet, which is what MANY are doing.
Spell out URF and cite the Harvard et al studies.
Point 1: tighten up "showing your work" on the math. There is a leap without citing the Modena death RATE only the total deaths. You implicitly, not explicitly, say there have been 100M Modena vaccines total when you divide 64,300/13,333. You could say~: "...we conservatively estimate there are 64,300 excess deaths from the 100M Moderna vaccines administered... So this is approximately 13,333 lives saved from COVID for the 100M fully vaccinated people, while increasing all-cause mortality by 64,300." Cite any authoritative corroborating evidence, like Malone and McCullough do when they cite peer-reviewed papers.
Point 2: cite small pox AE rates (with source), and compare it to what's in VAERS. Then cite mortality and damage from smallpox actually recorded at the time compared to COVID. Argue from authority too by using the most authoritative source on the subject; if you can cite government data + peer-reviewed data = best.
Point 3: Adverse event in this sentence: "How can that not be flagged as an adverse event?" Should read "safety signal." Cite the sources. Argument from authority- pick the most highly-regarded source you have.
Point 3: Point out the elephant in the room: coercion; don't accuse individuals, show them the looming force of suppression and make then victims. You're accusing the people you're talking to here: "The only way that can happen is if the people who are in charge of monitoring the safety signals are either blind or corrupt." They're going to stop listening and disregard everything you said/say. The best way to convince people is to "be the most reasonable person in the room." What does the suppressed safety signal mean? It means the truth: "The only way that can happen is if the people required to monitor safety signals are afraid to speak up for fear of consequences. The data are clear."
Close this section by citing a specific article like this one detailing every aspect of your comments with sources.
Other notes:
Word choice: don't use the word obvious, use "clear" instead. Obvious is a negative word. Things can be clear without being obvious if you don't have the experience or ability to see.
Backup data: What is a "background death" ? Showing your work on the 2*250 explains everything but the 2 (I believe it's years, but don't make your audience guess, they get distracted). I don't understand the red and green arrows, I'm going to be thinking about this while you're talking.
Make everything as simple as possible to understand. Run this by your waiter or waitress at the local diner, and ask them to tell you what they don't understand. They will help you make the language simple. This is because they likely have no background on your topic. This is Jerry to making sure you don't miss things in an explanation.
Change your summary:
"The only way the ACIP committee can vote to approve these vaccines is if the committee members are either asleep or corrupt."
You're calling them assholes. Call then scared instead.
"The only way the ACIP committee can vote to approve these vaccines is if the committee members are not free to make their own choices. The data are clear, and this vaccine should not be approved, for the sake of your children and my children."
If you can give them a way to approve it only for those most at risk of COVID, and for which the vaccine has some utility over risk, do it. They need an out.
Good luck, and thank you for keeping up the fight!
I appreciate and value your wise advice, and will also put it to use in the arguments that I make. Considering the Overton Window, "obvious" is a word for data that is well in the middle of the window, while "clear" is a better word for data that is still at the edges Thank you.
James, I agree. Also, as a gynecologist, can you put the menstrual irregularities into one group? Best wishes and thank you.
Fetal demise and miscarriages.