Caulfield: Your Overly Brief Social Media Posts Are Sometimes Dangerous

Wow, I have responded to some public requests to address questions about social media posts made by Canadian ‘misinformation’ ‘expert’ Timothy Caulfield, and now I find myself flooded with more requests. And I can’t help but respond to yet another one because the amount of potential harm to the public is too great.

Look at this post on X that was sent to me…

…many alarm bells are going off!

Caulfield, please, please, please add additional critical information to this post to place this into a proper context!!! This is paramount to ensure public safety.

Apparently, the first comment to this post is from someone interpreting your message precisely as I feared some might…

Do you really think this is an appropriate and balanced way to present purported scientific evidence? The only way for people to make properly informed choices is to be fully informed. Failing to disclose important pieces of information is not acceptable. It can be just as harmful as relaying misinformation. To ensure their safety, please relay the following information to your followers on X…

1. You pointed to a Washington Post article about a letter of correspondence in a scientific journal. This is inappropriate. People want to follow the science, not state-funded media opining about the science. Ditch the hearsay evidence. The link to the published letter of correspondence is here.

2. The Lancet, which published the letter of correspondence states that “Correspondence” is “Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.” This downgrades the reliability of the evidence.

3. The authors highlighted several critically important disclaimers that you failed to disclose. These include, “hypervaccination occurred outside of a clinical study context and against national vaccination recommendations“. Importantly, the hypervaccination was the focus of “an investigation… with the allegation of fraud, but criminal charges were not filed“. Further the authors declare, “Importantly, we do not endorse hypervaccination as a strategy to enhance adaptive immunity“.

4. The article describes a non-peer reviewed study of a single individual who may very well be mentally ill. After all, they adopted a medical protocol that could legitimately be characterized as ‘crazy’. Do you remember this quote that you gave when asked about the reliability of large- versus small-scale studies, "Size really does matter in this context“? Why aren’t you disclosing that now? At this point in time, to promote a study of one person without placing it into the broader context of the massive body of scientific literature is misleading. The safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 shots is being actively debated in the peer reviewed literature and via exposure of hidden information through court orders and freedom of information requests. The reality is that COVID-19 shots are not completely safe, nor completely effective; no vaccine is. To avoid this larger context is to downplay the importance of the growing number of people that have suffered severe harms from COVID-19 shots. Read the second comment to your post and show some empathy.

5. The number of control samples in assays were limited to only four to seven. With only one sample in the test group, no statistical analyses could be performed. No attempts could be made to match clinical characteristics of the control subjects and test subject. Data for control subjects were from other publications using different methods and protocols. This is somewhat similar to comparing apples to oranges.

6. Among other study limitations, “This report is further limited by the fact that sampling for HIM only started after the 213th out of 217 vaccinations“ (see study appendix 2). So, baseline data are unavailable.

7. Eighty-three of the vaccinations were self-reported, meaning they could not be verified.

8. A type of antibody known as IgA is generally considered to be the most protective at mucosal surfaces. SARS-CoV-2 infects via the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract. No spike-specific IgA was detected in the saliva after receipt of 217 shots (see appendix 2 of the study).

9. This is of substantial concern: the implication of safety is based on this statement from the letter of correspondence… “From November 2019, to October 2023, 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters showed no abnormalities attributable to hypervaccination (appendix 1 tab 2)“. First, only routine clinical chemistry parameters were evaluated and only in blood. Despite the numerous documented side-effects of COVID-19 shots, the authors failed to look for things like damage to the cardiovascular system, including D-dimer testing, etc. A classic way to demonstrate safety is to avoid looking hard for potential harms, especially if you avoid looking for known harms. People like Caulfield seem to be taking the statement of “no abnormalities” at face value. But, the authors used an unacceptable ‘trick’ here. Note that they tempered the statement by claiming there were no abnormalities “attributable to hypervaccination”. In reality, they hid the fact that there were numerous abnormalities detected and there would be no way for anyone to know whether they had been influenced by hypervaccination or not. No baseline clinical chemistry parameters were made avaialble and there is no documented history of data for people undergoing COVID-19 hypervaccination schedules. Did you know that numerous abnormalities were found? Despite disclosing raw data for all immunological parameters, the authors, for some reason, refused to disclose absolute numbers for the clinical biochemistry data. Remarkably, they chose to report what would have been interesting and informative raw data in a table that simply stated how many tests came back as abnormal for a given parameter, alongside subjective comments in which they made claims that parameters were “not consistently changed“. Or they claim the changes were “mild” but, again, did not prove this by showing the numerical result relative to the normal range. We are left with having to take the word of the authors at face value. Or, parameters were apparently “known before 2019, not related to vaccinations“ despite not disclosing whether out-of-range values had become accentuated. The authors should be compelled to disclose these raw data. Otherwise, what are they hiding? The reality is this, out of the 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters that were evaluated, 32 of them (more than half) were abnormal on at least one of the timepoints tested! Further, even parameters that are ‘mildly’ and/or ‘inconsistently’ out of range can sometimes be indicative of serious problems. And even if ‘mildly and/or inconsistently out of range’ were to equate with ‘mild or inconsistent harm’, that certainly does not equate to safety! In short, table 2 from appendix 2 of the study provides evidence that receipt of 217 COVID-19 shots might indeed be harmful! For anyone to state otherwise is a bald-faced lie. I encourage people to check out study appendix 2 for themselves. This is not how one demonstrates safety!

These many nuances place the overtly short and simple comments in the X post into a much more appropriate context, don’t they?

The most important message to all readers: do not take the study that was indirectly referred to in Caulfield’s post, nor the post itself as evidence of safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 shots.

---