Voices for Vaccines is unable explain the huge increase in deaths in young children who were vaccinated compared to their unvaccinated peers

They tried to debunk the Hooker paper based on official Louisiana mortality data. They failed. Miserably. In fact, it showed that they are inept.

Executive Summary

Voices for Vaccines is the organization that is supposed to set the record straight on vaccine safety. They highlight that Paul Offit and Sean O’Leary are their key experts that they rely on.

VFV reviewed the Brian Hooker paper showing infants who got vaccinated at age 30 days to 60 days subsequently died at a higher rate than their unvaccinated (during that window) peers. The Hooker paper found that in all 55/55 subgroup analyses, they all found that vaccinated kids died at a higher rate after vaccination.

The VFV alternative explanation for that result if it wasn’t the vaccine: no explanation given.

So the “experts” can’t explain it either.

I even asked preprints.org to explain the data. They removed the paper but none of them would explain the scientific justification explaining how the data could be caused by a confounder. They all refused to answer.

I asked ChatGPT to explain the confounder explaining the data and ChatGPT couldn’t explain it either. Nothing we know fits.

So I posted a $2,000 reward for the experts on X to explain the data. No takers.

Addressing the VFV “critique”

The VFV critique makes 3 key points:

1. The cause of death for everyone in the study wasn’t revealed

2. They used a narrow definition of vaccinated

3. The confidence intervals cross over 0

The problems with this critique is obvious: it ignores the elephant in the room which is that in 55/55 subgroup analyses, the vaccinated died more than the unvaccinated every single time, sometimes at double the rate!

To respond to their 3 points specifically:

1. They had the ICD10 codes for cause of death, but it was too noisy to see any clear differences.

2. Yes, vaccinated = got vaccine from day 30 to day 60 in the child’s life. This is a positive. How this invalidates the study is baffling.

3. Odds ratio CI’s never cross over 0. This is sign of an incompetent reviewer. Here are the CI’s for each vaccine and if they had more data, the CI’s would have been tighter:

   

   

My email to VFV

My email to Paul Offit (for the record)

Summary

The “expert” fact-check by VFV shows they have absolutely no basis for attacking this paper.

This paper is devastating to the “safe and effective” narrative.

Nobody has been able to even hypothesize a confounder that can explain the data other than “it was the vaccine.”

Such a confounder would have to meet the following criteria: