Category Archives: Politically correct

Double standards: The Atlantic Tells the Story of a Doctor Whose Cancer Got Worse After Vaccination, but No Legacy Media Outlet Will Cover the Aftermath of a Boy Who Had Myocarditis

Source: Double standards: The Atlantic Tells the Story of a Doctor Whose Cancer Got Worse After Vaccination, but No Legacy Media Outlet Will Cover the Aftermath of a Boy Who Had Myocarditis

Why are we treating possible adverse events more seriously than a proven one?

Sep 25, 2022

This week the Atlantic published a long essay about a doctor: Michel Goldman, who has lymphoma, and who noticed that his cancer seemed to worsen after COVID19 mRNA boosting. Was the vaccine responsible?

Let me be clear: Is it possible his cancer got worse because of the booster? Absolutely, it is possible. Is it possible the cancer would have gotten worse without the booster? Absolutely, that often happens with lymphoma. Many patients experience what feels like a change in tempo, and it is hard to know what, if anything, precipitated it.

Imagine you put a gun to my head, and ask me to make the call. Is it related or unrelated? But you are a kind, and say you will give me 1 month, and allow me to use any data sources. I would do something very simple. I would go to a large electronic medical record with images. I would pick an incurable lymphoma where there is often repeat imagining— such as follicular lymphoma. I would extract images from patients (let us say 500). Some patients would have gotten boosters and others not— and it will not be random— this is a limitation. But, I can’t make excuses, I have a gun to my head.

I would use the raw images to calculate the g- or growth rate coefficient before COVID vaccination, and the g or growth rate after COVID vaccination (using established methods, see Fojo, et al.).

As a falsification test— (Learn about that here)— I would use the patients’ birthday to define a g before a birthday and a g after a birth day.

Here is the hypothesis: if the vaccine accelerates growth, the growth rate will change after boosting, but— let us be clear— it would not change at time of patient’s birthday. That’s the purpose of the falsification test— to serve as a negative control. You could also use a random day of the year for your falsification test. And you need a group of people to get a sense of the distribution.

With access to a nice dataset and omnibus IRB, a project like this could be done in 3 weeks. If I was allowed to involve Logan Powell— a Texas medical student who has done ~20 papers with me— we would be done in 2 weeks, because that kid doesn’t sleep. And, honestly, with Logan’s help (again, dude doesn’t sleep), I can think of 5 different studies to run to complement this analysis.

Do you know what I wouldn’t do? I wouldn’t extensively pour over the story of the individual Michel Goldman— because nothing can be found in one anecdote to help me. The yield will be low. And do you know what I really would not do: I wouldn’t broadcast this story in the Atlantic before I had strong evidence the link might be real!

Meanwhile, there is a proven safety signal I don’t hear much about in the legacy media. Myocarditis for boys after mRNA vaccination. It occurs as often as 1 in 3,000 after primary vaccination and 1 in 10,000 after boosting. It has very rarely but really resulted in young people ending up on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. It could be lowered (surely) if we banned Moderna in men <40, (possibly) if we lowered doses, (likely) if we spaced doses apart, and (surely) if we minimized doses in young men who already had COVID19. And yet, we have done nearly none of these things! The CDC only spread doses after a year of inaction, and we haven’t taken natural immunity seriously.

Vaccination means trying to maximize efficacy and minimize harm, but when it comes to young men, we haven’t taken the harm seriously and haven’t tried to minimize it. Yet, I don’t read this in the pages of the Atlantic. I just read about a famous old doctor who thinks the vaccine made his cancer grow faster. What is going on?

The entire episode led me to several conclusions:

  1. If he wasn’t a rich doctor; this would not be in the news. How sad is it that the experience of everyday Americans is not considered acceptable for news coverage. Many people have felt a range of medical issues were triggered or worsened by vaccination, but the media steadfastly refuses to cover those stories. Yet, in this case, they make an exemption because the individual is famous. I find this problematic. I prefer to not cover any anecdote, but this idea that if it happens to an electrician- it is anti-vax, but if it happens to a doctor- it is news— that’s problematic.
  2. Cancer accelerating after vaccination is not yet established as linked to COVID19 vaccination, but 2 things are fully established. Blood clots and runaway platelet activation after J&J vaccination is fully proven to be linked to the shot. And myocarditis, particularly in young men, has been linked to mRNA vaccines. And yet: I have never seen coverage of the human cost of either of these in any major news outlet!
  3. The news media could easily cover a poor young man who was forced to be boosted by his college or university, and experienced myocarditis. This occurs at the rate of 1 in 10k. One news story like this would be powerful— and strongly discourage these mid level managers from mandating novel medical products. And yet the media is silent on these stories. Why does the doctor get special treatment for a side effect that has not yet been vetted?
  4. What about this story of a 14 year old boy? Why is this (or a similar story) not in the Atlantic? Instead a doctor gets his unproven anecdote widely broadcast? 


  5. What about the young woman who had clot and brain damage from J&J? What about her family? Why no coverage of that? The news could also note that some (dim) scientists on Twitter compared runaway platelet activation after J&J to a blood clot in the leg after oral contraceptives. This was a deceptive and ignorant comparison that furthered preventable harm. Why does the media not cover this story? Why only a possible side effect— unproven— in a famous scientist?
  6. Consider the risk gradient here. Young people have far less to gain from each additional dose of vaccine, and even rare risks become salient. Older people who suffer from cancers that often lead to (or therapies lead to) b-cell inhibition face much higher risks of COVID19. Why are we covering an anecdote that might lead a higher risk population to forgo vaccination vs. lead colleges to consider that a lower risk population ought not be compelled? The whole thing is backwards.
  7. The White House is doing massive damage to our institutions— particularly the FDA— as they push a new booster based solely on mouse data. Their unethical pressure led Gruber and Krause to resign. They could have compelled Pfizer to run RCTs, but chose not to. The legacy media is largely complicit with this, writing many articles defending this choice, but it is entirely unprecedented. And yet, instead, they are happy to cover a putative side effect that might not even be related?
  8. I have no doubt there may be adverse events attributable to vaccines that are not yet established, but we don’t need to profile the people who have these (not yet), we need careful epidemiological studies. I agree the CDC’s passive collection is suboptimal, and I also no longer trust them, as I believe they have been captured by political winds, but the solution is better systems and independence, rather than covering anecdotes in the media.
  9. The Atlantic coverage is balanced and fair, but that’s not the point. The mere act of covering the anecdote to millions of readers, elevates it to something intensely plausible or true. No matter how much confidence you place in it, the truth is mycocarditis is more plausible and more true and should be preferentially covered. And yet there is no story of a boy who lost a football scholarship because he can’t play. Or a kid still ravaged with late gad enhancement after surviving mycocarditis. This discrepancy is fundamentally unfair.

The media coverage of vaccines and side effects is awful. They lack a philosophical framework and are unmoored. This article nicely shows how that is the case. Whether they choose to improve is beyond me. They have too much allegiance to the Biden administration, and have failed American boys as a result.

Like CommentComment ShareShare

If you liked this post from Sensible Medicine, why not share it?


A requiem for Black Lives Matter?

By Wilfred Reilly, Sept. 20, 2022

Source: A requiem for Black Lives Matter – spiked

Black Lives Matter has yet to receive a requiem, a summation in print. More than seven years into the globally unavoidable anti-police movement, there certainly exists a sizable BLM academic literature, dealing – as my political science colleague Bob Maranto has pointed out – with questions ranging from how the movement impacted on youth-voter turnout to the social impact of Ben & Jerry’s selling politically themed flavours of ice-cream.

However, almost no one has examined how well Black Lives Matter met its initial goals: reducing the police violence that was invariably presented as ‘epidemic’ or ‘genocidal’ and reducing crime more broadly, as brothers and others came to trust a fairer criminal justice system. For that matter, whatever happened to the literally billions of dollars donated, in good faith, to national and local BLM chapters?

This article takes a shot at those tough questions. In most cases, unfortunately, the blunt but real answer seems to be: Black Lives Matter had few, if any, positive impacts. Police violence is down slightly, if at all, while overall crime in BLM-affected areas has sky-rocketed back to 1990s levels. As Dr Maranto and I recently noted for Commentary magazine, rates of fatal shootings of civilians by US police – per an authoritative database from the Washington Post – appear to have hardly budged during the post-2014 BLM era. There were 994 fatal police shootings in toto in 2015, 958 in 2016, 981 in 2017, 993 in 2018, 999 in 2019, and 1,020 in 2020.

Not only was this change in rate clearly not significant in statistical terms, police shootings of citizens actually increased almost three per cent during the period under review. Fatal police shootings specifically of black Americans followed a very similar pattern year-on-year, with 258 black men and women shot in 2015, 236 shot in 2016, 222 in 2017, 228 in 2018, 251 in 2019, and 243 in 2020. The same was true for killings of unarmed persons: 95 ‘fatal shootings of an unarmed individual’ did take place in the outlier year of 2015, but we then saw 64 in 2016, 71 in 2017, 58 in 2018, 54 in 2019, and 60 in 2020 – a variance of less than seven per cent between the first typical year given here and the last.

It should be noted, honestly, that shootings specifically of unarmed (32) and black (178) individuals did decline sharply in 2021, following the Summer of Floyd. However, it is not obvious that this represents the start of any sort of novel pattern: at least 20 unarmed individuals had already been shot and killed by police when I fact-checked this year’s Washington Post database back in July. Furthermore, overall rates of police violence appear actually to be on the rise: 1,054 citizens were fatally shot by law enforcement officers in 2021, versus 1,020 in 2020, and the US is currently on pace for approximately 1,100 such killings in 2022 (we stand at 744 three weeks into month nine of the calendar). The picture here is complex.

In contrast, the post-BLM picture of American trends in street crime is quite simple: serious crime has sky-rocketed in recent years. The most reliable annual crime data are the homicide figures, and as Jason Johnson – police researcher, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, and former deputy police commissioner of Baltimore – points out: ‘[In 2020] the United States tallied more than 20,000 murders – the highest total since 1995 and 4,000 more than in 2019.’ This surge is remarkable when analysed at the level of any hard-hit individual city: NYC ‘added more than 100 additional homicides’ in 2020 and endured a 58 per cent overall increase in the murder rate.

New York hardly suffered alone. In the ‘Second City’ of Chicago, my hometown, the already world-famous murder rate increased by 65 per cent. Our friendly southern rivals saw surges of the same kind. Murders in St Louis hit the highest level in half a century, reaching a benchmark of 87 killings per 100,000 residents (the rate in El Salvador today is 61.8 per 100,000). The criminologist Jeff Asher points out that homicides in my new home of Louisville (KY) had jumped 80 per cent – from 78 in 2019 to 139 in 2020 – by the time he compiled his primary data set in October of the latter year.

The same pattern that explains each of these specific case studies was also easy to see more generally. The 2020-21 report from the Commission on Covid-19 and Criminal Justice (CCCJ) points out that, across basically all of 21 major US cities that opted to provide the project with data, ‘murder rates jumped more than 30 per cent fall-over-fall and more than 40 per cent summer-over-summer from 2019 to 2020’. Across the set of cities contributing information to this initiative – recall that 331 US cities currently have a population of more than 100,000 – murders soared by 610 between 2019 and 2020. And, importantly if unsurprisingly, almost all other serious violent crimes followed the same pattern: ‘Aggravated assaults went up by 15 per cent in the summer and 13 per cent in the fall of 2020; gun assaults increased by 15 and 16 per cent.’ To the extent that they are available, many – though not all – 2021 crime figures show the continuation of very similar patterns.

Many truly innovative, and sometimes entertaining, explanations for this massive nationwide surge in crime have been advanced on the American political left – readers with a sense of humour might want to check out this article from Vox. However, Dr Maranto, Johnson, and I and most other serious scholars writing in this field have no issue linking the crime wave to specific policies championed by Black Lives Matter and similar groups. While drastically reducing police budgets, which several major cities truly did do, can hardly have helped with the crime problem, the most obvious such policy was plain ‘police pullback’ – the reduction of officer stops of suspicious individuals and vehicles, ‘stop-and-frisks’, and other basically voluntary interactions between law-enforcement officers and citizens.

The data bear this out. In NYC, Chicago and Louisville, the just-mentioned surges in homicide followed decreases in officer-initiated stops (and subsequent arrests) of respectively 38 per cent, 53 per cent, and 45 per cent. In NYC, between June and December of 2020, the NYPD recorded an amazing 45,000 fewer arrests than it had during the same ‘six-month fiscal’ the year before. The results were predictable.

They were also nothing new. The modern leftist ‘kinder and gentle’ approach to the policing of tough urban areas has been tried over and over since its genesis during the 1960s, and the results have always been basically the same. Back in 2016, during the first wave of what has now been seven or eight years of BLM unrest in the US, a neighbourhood Chicago paper – with a heavily black readership – ran the tear-jerking but unremarkable headline: ‘Chicago Police Stops Down 90 per cent… Gun Violence Sky-Rockets.’ Decades before this, the Miranda v Arizona and Escobedo v Illinois legal cases, fruit of the poisoned-tree evidence doctrine, both shifted the balance of power in interrogations in favour of suspects. Meanwhile, the community policing movement, ‘maximum sentence’ campaigns and so forth of the 1960s led directly to a brutal new normal for American crime, which endured until the Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani backlash of the fed-up post-OJ 1990s.

Of what do I speak? For those too young to remember 1990s dramas like Kids and New Jack City, it is important to remember how bad crime in urban America used to be. Between 1963 and 1993, murders, rapes and robberies on an annual basis increased from baselines of 8,640, 17,650, and 116,470 respectively to 24,530, 106,010, and 659,870 – increases in the 500 per cent range that far outstripped any effect of population growth. The ‘Post-BLM Effect’ has been similar if smaller: US murders had dropped to 14,164 in 2014, before surging back over the hated 20,000 mark today. And there seems little doubt of a causal relationship here. The highly professional CCCJ report notes that: ‘Homicides, aggravated assaults and gun assaults rose significantly beginning in late May and June of 2020.’ As we know, George Floyd died on 25 May 2020, and widespread unrest and police pullback began almost immediately afterward.

Did Black Lives Matter help any ‘Black folX’ live better black lives, a wit might ask? Setting aside some genuine good works by local chapters like Hawk Newsome’s, a cynical but real answer would seem to be that the movement certainly helped its original founders, current leaders, and their favourite charities. As The Economist pointed out, donations to BLM-related causes – the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) and other NGOs at the heart of international BLM – between May and December 2020 amounted to $10.6 billion. And most regular American black working men or anti-racist British punks would likely be a bit bemused to find out where most of that money has gone.

Per my investigative article for spiked on this topic, a shortlist of causes to receive at least a six-figure grant from BLMGNF includes: ‘Trans United, the Audrey Lorde Project (Trans Justice), Black Trans Circles, the Transgender District, the Black Trans Travel Fund, the Okra Project, For the Gworls, the Trans Justice Funding Project, the Trans Housing Coalitions Homeless Black Trans Women’s Fund, Black Trans Media, and Black Trans Femmes in the Arts.’ Very probably, BLMGNF – an entity which is ‘unapologetically queer’ – has committed more money to gay and particularly trans-advocacy organisations than to black groups focused on improving the ‘hood’ or fighting police brutality. Indeed, a collective of urban Black Lives Matter chapters known as the #BLM10, which includes the significant New Jersey and Hudson Valley branches of the organisation, has publicly complained that its chapters have received ‘little to no financial support’ since BLM’s launch in 2013.

Be that as it may, organisational contributions and individual speaking fees have certainly enabled a pleasant lifestyle for the Black Lives Matter national leadership team, as well as those affiliated with the charities they support. During 2020 and 2021, former BLMGNF CEO Patrisse Cullors made headlines repeatedly because of her taste in luxury real estate – purchasing ‘a custom ranch … featuring a private aeroplane hangar’ on 3.2 acres of prime Georgia land, and a 2,370 square foot Topanga Canyon property including ‘two houses on a quarter acre’, as well as checking out a third property in a trendy Bahamas resort ‘where Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods both have homes’. These new toys joined the two homes she already owned: an $800,000 property in Inglewood, and a $720,000 home in diverse but gentrifying South LA. From the balcony of any of those, glass in hand, revolution must seem a fine thing indeed.

From my perspective on a typical American street, however, a quick and negative summary of the effects of BLM comes immediately to mind: Black Lives Matter got a lot of black people killed.

Wilfred Reilly is a spiked columnist and the author of Taboo: 10 Facts You Can’t Talk About, published by Regnery. Follow him on Twitter: @wil_da_beast630


BLM labels black pro-lifers ‘white supremacists’

Source: BLM labels black pro-lifers ‘white supremacists’ | America’s Frontline Doctors

Posted by Eliyahu Tulshinski,  Tue, Jul 05, 2022

Sides with racist, eugenicist Planned Parenthood founder despite her KKK talk

BLM’s official statement on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion, overturning Roe, includes an interesting label for black Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who adopted black children, and the other justices who concurred in the opinion not because of their views on abortion but because they viewed Roe as “an abuse of judicial authority,” based on a “plainly incorrect” survey of history.

According to BLM, though, anyone who supports this decision is supporting a decision that is racist by “design.”

Today, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, opening the door to statewide bans and subsequent rulings that will harm Black people disproportionately. This decision is one of several this week designed to limit freedom in service of a white supremacist and patriarchal agenda. [Emphases added].

SCOTUS empowered black voters 

In removing the federal government from involvement in the abortion debate, the justices returned the authority to determine its legality to each state’s representatives, representatives that face voters of every ethnicity:

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. [Emphases added].

As  self-described “liberal” constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explains, the justices did not take a stand on abortion itself, but on giving more freedom to individuals, of every ethnicity, to act through their legislators.  

Others falsely claim that the justices wrote an opinion opposing abortion. The decision focuses on who must decide this question, not what should be decided. The issue of abortion will now return to the states where abortion is expected to remain legal for most women in the country. [Emphases added].

Still free to decide

In addition to the freedom to vote on abortion in their home states, women in states without abortion services will be free to travel to states that do have them. So women gain the freedom to vote on abortion in their own state while retaining the ability to have one in either their state or another one – the only issue being how far they may need to travel for the procedure.

White supremacists want more black babies?

Interestingly, two-thirds of abortions in the US are carried out on minority mothers. According to BLM, a goal of white supremacists is thus to ensure the births of two minority babies for every white baby that would otherwise be aborted and, somehow, this will advance the creation of a white ethnostateSpecifically,

Although black Americans comprise 13.4% of the U.S. population, they accounted for 36.0% of the abortions in 2015 … In New York City in 2015, more black children were aborted than were born alive.

BLM claims that white supremacists want to make sure all of those babies are born alive.

Planned Parenthood’s racist founder

Ironically, a history of the abortion movement in America paints the exact opposite picture. White supremacists did not aim to allow states to limit abortion. Rather, they targeted black communities to push birth control and, later, abortions, to limit their population!

Planned Parenthood Founder and proud eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, used extremely racist language to explain why she wanted black doctors and black clergymen to run birth control clinics in black neighborhoods:

. . . while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with the white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the Clinic he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results among the colored people. . . .

The ministers’ work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reachWe do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. [Emphases added].

While legacy media outlets have defended Sanger to some extent, Reuters includes this caveat:

The NYU’s Margaret Sanger Papers Project acknowledged that Sanger was a supporter of eugenics, a now-discredited practice of selective breeding with specific characteristics, and described [Sanger’s] “Negro Project” as controversial from the onset and “constructed in terms and with perceptions that today smack of racism.” [Emphases added].

Planned Parenthood targeting black neighborhoods

It may then come as no surprise that, according to the Life Issues Institute,

. . . 88 percent of Planned Parenthood’s 25 mega abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black and/or Latino neighborhoods.

Fact checkers like PolitiFact do not deny this minority targeting claim outright, but rather point out that,

Data on this matter is in dispute, with advocates on each side of the abortion debate arriving at separate conclusions based on different methodology …

What is incontrovertible is that Sanger located her first two clinics in Brownsville, Brooklyn and Harlem, Manhattan, two neighborhoods in New York City with large populations of black Americans.

BLM aligning with KKK?

Page 366 of Sanger’s Autobiography includes a detail which exposes Sanger’s lack of embarrassment in her racist affiliations:

I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar [white supremacist] groups were proffered.


Sanger’s bragging of her alliances with white supremacists provide context as to whom she is referring as having “objectionable traits” in this quote from an article she penned supporting not just voluntary abortions but involuntary sterilizations:

a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. [Emphases added].

Donations earmarked for black fetuses?

An investigation by Live Action revealed that Planned Parenthood representatives agreed to receive donations even if they were earmarked specifically to perform abortions on black women as part of a racist agenda. Fortunately, the calls in that investigation were staged and the race based funds were never delivered.

Black “white supremacists”

Despite the clear connection between the abortion industry and racist eugenics, BLM is not alone in labeling Justice Thomas and like minded black people white supremacists.


Some black leaders who disagree with BLM’s accusations have shared their views on Twitter:


Church of England Will Not Define ‘Woman’

Quite disappointing but not a surprise, coming from “woke” churchmen. mrossol

Source: Church of England Will Not Define ‘Woman’ – American Faith

The church was questioned by a parishioner.

  • The Church of England has refused to define what a woman is, saying that there is “additional care” that needs to be used in defining the word.
  • The group says that the definition of “woman” used to be “self-evident,” particularly in the context of marriage.
  • The question was asked when lay member Adam Kendry questioned the church during the General Synod.
  • Senior Bishop Rt Rev Robert Innes responded saying that there wasn’t an official definition, according to the church at this point.
  • Innes brought up the Church of England’s “Living in Love and Faith” project, which is “part of discerning a way forward for the Church of England in relation to matters of identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage,” according to the group’s website.
  • “There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy,” Senior Bishop Rt Rev Robert Innes said when asked to define the word, according to a recent report.
  • News personality Calvin Robinson argued that the definition should not be difficult: “The definition of ‘woman’ is not a complex moral problem,” he said. “It is a scientific and biblical truth. How can you trust someone who cannot speak the truth about such basic facts?”
  • The new argument about the definition of the term ‘woman’ centers around transgender rights and was sparked into greater notoriety when now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked what a woman is during her confirmation hearings. “Can I provide a definition? No,” Jackson responded when asked. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”
  • Conservative commentator Matt Walsh’s documentary titled “What is a Woman?” has also been ruffling feathers, particularly in the transgender-identifying community, for exposing the “lunacy of pro-trans extremism.”