From Mark Medinnus

Etna, Calif.

In his online comment to my recent letter to the editor, Trinity Bob was concerned with my use of the VAERS vaccine-related death count of 7,437. I would like to respond to his concern by sharing the research that supports my use of this number.    

Bradford Hill’s criteria of causation has been used as a tool in public health research for decades. Of his nine criteria, I considered for my research the fourth alone, Temporality. This criterion says that for any pair of events the cause must precede the effect. Because I oppose Gov. Gavin Newsom’s school vaccine mandate, the cause here becomes the therapeutic intervention V for vaccination, the effect the outcome D for death. Therefore, for these two events, V must precede D.

While satisfying the criterion of Temporality is necessary in this way, it is insufficient to infer causality between them. For example, consider a patient who passes away six months after being vaccinated. Is this causal? I would say unlikely, because a confounding variable like a cardiovascular event could easily have been the proximate cause of their death. Nevertheless, a causal inference between them is strengthened as the outcome of death follows closely the therapeutic intervention in time.  

In a recent safety update on the topic of COVID vaccination in teenagers, for example, Tom Shimabukuro, who sits on the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, used a risk window of 7 and 21 days post-vaccination to gather data on the incidence of possible vaccine-induced teen myocarditis. While he used 7 and 21 days in his study, I used only 3 days for my letter. Of the 7,437 VAERS vaccine-related deaths as of Oct. 1, 2021, 786 or about 10% fell on the very day of vaccination. 939 more followed on the second day, 395 on the third. In other words, 2,120 or somewhat over 25% of all vaccine-related deaths occurred within the first 72 hours after vaccination.  

Despite the CDC’s cautionary language that Trinity Bob cited in his online comment, this is strong circumferential evidence that supports my assumption that vaccination was indeed the proximate cause of death in these cases. But I would say more. Following the Precautionary Principle, I would say that the burden falls on the CDC to investigate this circumstantial evidence to prove otherwise. Their path would be steep.

VAERS underreporting is well-known. This underreporting involves all adverse events, including the subset of serious adverse events like anaphylaxis or death. In the 2010 Harvard Pilgrim Study, for example, Ross Lazarus, the principal investigator, observed “Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” His 1% figure implies a URF (Under-Reporting Factor) of 100 times. That is, to capture the true number of adverse events, each reported event must be multiplied by 100. I have seen more current URF’s ranging from 4-120 times. In the research for my letter, however, I used the conservative number 4. As I mentioned above, somewhat over 25% of the reported vaccine-related deaths fell within a 72-hour post-vaccination window. Multiplying a URF of 4 times to this 25% figure brings the vaccine-related death count back to roughly the original number of 7,437 that I used in my calculations.  

As readers may recall, I used this 7,437 number in calculating the national COVID vaccine-related death rate of one death per 52,946 doses given. Thereafter, I assumed that all 9,026,750 California children ages 0-17 would receive two doses of COVID vaccine, bringing the total doses administered to 18,053,500. I then divided this number by 52,946. In doing so, 341 was the number of vaccine-related childhood deaths I calculated that could result from implementing Governor Newsom’s Vaccine Action Plan. In my letter I failed to add a margin of error. I will do so here.  

For this margin of error, I will trim the 9,026,750 child population number in two ways. First, because Governor Newsom’s Vaccine Action Plan excludes from its primary vaccination series infants 0-6 months of age, I will assume an exclusion count of 600,000, which drops the child population to 8,426,750.  Second, of this remaining 8,426,750, I will further assume that 25% have been fully vaccinated already.  Doing so trims the final child population number to 6,320,063. If everyone in this final number receives two dose of vaccine, then the final dose count is 12,640,126. Lastly, using this final dose count to recalculate the childhood vaccine-related death count yields 12,640,126 divided by 52,946 or 239 child deaths. Even with my margin of error, this number still compares unfavorably to the 37 COVID-related death total for all California children ages 0-17 cited by the California Department of Public Health as of Oct. 1, 2021.  

Please consider, our children are in the morning of their lives. Each is precious. For their sake, I believe that we should always err on the side of caution, especially, as here, in the absence of long-term safety data for the mRNA vaccines.

I am grateful to Trinity Bob for expressing his concern and, especially, for sharing his kind words.  Thank you, T Bob! This is what community is all about. Still, despite his objection, I believe that my use of the VAERS death count – what he calls my ‘initial premise’ – is more than justified by the research I have shared in this letter and is in keeping with the spirit of primum non nocere, first do no harm.      

I offer this reflection in closing. Throughout my career as a dental professional, I have reviewed hundreds of health studies, opinions and reports. During this time, I have never encountered a public health proposal – much less a mandate – that would intervene therapeutically in a 0-17 age cohort for a disease whose annual survival rate for this same group is 99.9997%. To me, Governor Newsom’s mandate is unprecedented. As such, I oppose his school vaccine mandate. Thank you so much.

(1) comment

Truth First

You don't need to take seriously anything put forth by the lefty boneheads, Mark, and you surely don't need to be thanking them. Unless it's for showing the world what true ignorance looks like, so that we all may learn to know it and call it out whenever possible.

And we don't need a bunch of figures and statistics to know what basic logic dictates: that children are at almost no risk whatsoever from this virus, a fact fully evident right from the beginning. Conclusion: we're hurting our kids by giving them these unholy jabs. That's also known by another name: child abuse. Which makes these evildoers who are promoting the childhood Fauci Virus vaccines no better than pedophiles.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.