Author’s Note: In the past, and on very rare occasions, vaccinations have had adverse effects upon the individuals subjected to the treatment. To place this in a context – it is perhaps one individual in millions. Now, having known people who have suffered adverse reactions – a young girl developed ‘Polio’ from an anti-Polio vaccine whilst another had her white blood cells wiped-out by the MMR vaccine – I am not unsympathetic to those who generally ‘fear’ vaccines. However, as medical science evolves, the dangers, although not entirely non-present, nevertheless are greatly reduced. When I was young growing-up in a ‘Socialist’ UK – we were taught that vaccinations saved millions of lives and represented the apex of medical science! We were injected left, right and centre – as the right-wing had not yet adopted an anti-science agenda to win over adherents. Today, the right-wing state that ‘vaccines do NOT work’ – and have no evidence to support this idea other than their ‘imagined’ conspiracies and misinterpreted data! The right-wing, apparently believes that the ‘mass’ saving of lives is a ‘Communist’ ideal – as it prevents the deaths of ‘those not worthy of life!’ as Hitler stated! McCullough lies and lies again in the following interview, and it is disturbing to watch from an academic perspective! He is deliberately manipulating the audience for the gain of the far-right! Do not be deceived! ACW (10.7.2023)
Peter McCullough is an anti-vax academic. He is endlessly quoted on right-wing and far-right websites – where he advocates a ‘conspiracy’ concerning the Covid-19 Pandemic. The right-wing news outlets associated with these pages present McCullough as an ‘objective’ an ‘impartial’ academic who only has the public’s well-being at heart. This is an inverted and entirely incorrect viewpoint. Vaccinations work and save endless lives – therefore McCullough’s opinions and research have the potential to ‘fear-monger’ the general population away from this life-saving medical treatment! He cherry-picks available data and then presents this data in a manner that appears to reflect his opinion – this is NOT science – but faith-based reasoning. He tried this recently – by placing a paper on a ‘Lancet’ related website – in the hope that ‘Lancet’ would become surreptitiously ‘associated’ with his anti-intellectual agenda! A cursory and ‘objective’ review of his work, however, quickly revealed its inverted nature. This is why his latest attempt at misleading the general public was soon taken off the Lancet-related site!
His ‘conclusions’ are NOT supported by the research ‘methodology’. This is because his ‘conclusions’ pre-exist the gathering of data he attempted to use to justify their existence. The false impression given by his paper is that the gathered data – when objectively viewed – results in the ‘conclusions’ he gives, but it is clear that the ‘conclusions’ are a pre-determined set of biased and dogmatic opinions that cannot be ‘matched’ with the gathered data or be correctly interpreted as being a result of the data gathered! Therefore, the ‘conclusions’ run counter to and in parallel with the data – being unrelated to it – despite this anti-vax attempt at manipulating scientific findings. When interviewed, McCullough deceitfully attempted to deflect scrutiny from what he attempted to do – that is misrepresent personal opinions as objective, scientific fact – and turn the attention of his audience toward a situation where the only dispute is over ‘methodology’ when it has never been an argument about ‘methodology’!
A typical straw dog argument skilfully deployed amongst a general public with little genuine understanding regarding the ‘no hypothesis’ of the academic process or the gathering of genuine scientific knowledge. Many trust in his academic status and take his word for it – looking no further for verification. It is NOT about ‘methodology’ but all about information control. McCullough is linked to the political right-wing and is supportive of its current policy of denying the validity of ‘vaccinations’! As part of his support – he has continuously presented an inverted view regarding medical science – and has presented anti-intellectual arguments in its support. He hides the fact that he is ‘lying’ (as in ‘misinterpreting’ data) – by attempting to turn the academic establishment’s ‘rejection’ of his report into being an argument over ‘methodology’! As his conclusions are ‘non-scientific’ – they do not match-up with the ‘scientific’ nature of the data collected in the ‘methodology’ – and therefore possess NO correlation!
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 