“Social media pseudo-science, superstition and other forms of cerebral masturbation about Covid-19.”
Tom O’Connor, Stuff, 15 November 2021
A Stuff article, under the heading Locally-made ‘disinformation’ draws global scorn. Covid-19: A paper on vaccination in pregnancy co-authored by Simon Thornley has been panned by experts around the world,” Stuff reporters Charlie Mitchell and Katie Kenny advise us that the paper concerned was co-authored by Dr Simon Thornley, who is a senior lecturer of epidemiology at the University of Auckland, and Dr Aleisha Brock, an epidemiologist based in Whanganui.
What this Stuff article doesn’t tell us, is that Dr Simon Thornley, MbChB MPH (hons), has qualifications very similar to those of the hero of the hour, Dr Ashley Bloomfield. He is a Fellow of both the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine and of the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine.
So do we have good cop, bad cop, the hero and the anti-hero? We certainly have two strongly opposing views. Dr Thornley has been sidelined, his views denigrated, his position at the University of Auckland possibly under threat, while Dr Bloomfield has been praised and admired and remains the man of the hour.
In an earlier Stuff article, Charlie Mitchell launched a similar diatribe against Dr Thornley.
“As New Zealand became the global poster child for managing Covid-19, one local expert – the only one – still believes New Zealand’s response has been a failure. How did Dr Simon Thornley become a hero to anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and a villain within his own profession? National Correspondent Charlie Mitchell reports.”
[…] “Thornley remains convinced the public health establishment has got it wrong, and New Zealand should change course.”
Michael Baker and Simon Thornley have been at odds for some time.
“’It is shameful that some people have denigrated our efforts’, Thornley said, obliquely referring to Baker and other public health experts, many of whom had been critical of Plan B.
“They’re trying to shut down alternative views which have already been proven correct.”
Dr Thornley and Dr Aleisha Brock in their report expressed concerns about the spike protein and its effects on pregnancy.
Various experts have commented negatively on the report. Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, a government expert, rejects the paper’s speculation about the spike protein, claiming that “The paper has many hallmarks of pseudoscience.”
But in regard to the claims about spike proteins, Thornley and Brock told Stuff they “sought to raise questions, and not to conclusively prove the claim.”
“We do not claim to have evidence in our article – hence we did not supply evidence,” they said.
“We are highlighting the need for this to be investigated further and highlight the studies done to date in this area, plus gaps in the current scientific knowledge. This is one such gap.”
The Stuff article of 14 November continues, “Numerous studies show no link between mRNA vaccines – such as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine being rolled out in New Zealand – and miscarriages or other pregnancy complications. Immunologists and other subject-matter experts, as well as health authorities in New Zealand and overseas, say the vaccine can be given at any stage of pregnancy, which is true of several vaccines in regular use.”
Doctors Thornley and Brock are concerned about the gap in current scientific knowledge and, on the basis of that gap, their paper said, “Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy.”
Stuff reporters Charlie Mitchell and Katie Kenny then say of the Thornley Brock paper, “It concludes with a sweeping recommendation: ‘Withdraw the vaccine roll-out to all children, pregnant women, and people of “child-bearing age’.
The article uses emotionally loaded words and phrases, all designed to show the report authors, Doctors Thornley and Brock, in a bad light, casting them as “dangerous…of peddling mal-information that is false information with the intention of doing harm…of disinformation, …of being anti-vaccination,…of making a sweeping recommendation,…of ‘cherry-picking’ medicinal [surely medical? and scientific data to support vaccine hesitancy and to fuel mistrust.”
The MSM’s predilection for portraying anyone who dares to ask questions, to suggest gaps in current knowledge may lead to associated concerns, as purveyors of dis-, mis-, or mal- information, is shameful.
They throw offensive, damaging words and phrases around like cake sprinkles, with no regard for the mess they make. Those of us who dare to ask questions are branded as anti-vaxxers, or conspiracy theorists, or right-wing extremists or worse, as in the opinion piece by Tom O’Connor published by Stuff on Monday 15, Covid vaccine not a freedom threat, unvaccinated host population is
“In spite of hysterical anti-vax placard waving, irresponsible gatherings of self-proclaimed martyrs and illegal road blockages….”
His article concluded:
“There is a cost for the illogical belief in social media pseudo-science, superstition and other forms of cerebral masturbation about Covid-19. That cost will eventually be met by all of us through having a group of people in our midst selfish and stupid enough to provide a host population for the virus to survive and develop new and more deadly strains in.
That will result in more illness, lockdowns, economic hardship and even death. For our own safety we are not obliged to associate with such dangerously stupid people.”
Questions have always surrounded the use of vaccines. There have been vaccine failures, as evidenced by the 1955 polio tragedy.
The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis
“In April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned.
Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.”
I am not for a minute suggesting that we may see a repeat of this. The vaccine concerned was a live virus and the C-19 mRNA is not. However, New Zealand epidemiologists, Doctors Thornley and Brock, have identified a gap in current scientific knowledge. That they should be so scorned and derided seems at odds with a science-based approach to a serious concern: is the vaccine safe at all stages of pregnancy or not? In a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of jurisprudence: why not in medicine, why not in this case?
And yet we are required to ‘follow the science’ with an injectable still in nappies. We have not had a generation of testing with children born with or without the vaccine. A generation is generally described as about twenty to thirty years – from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child. That generational data is of course unavailable.
And yet, in the same time frame, pregnant women are cautioned against caffeine.
The government’s website 19 July 2021, provides an extensive list of foods to avoid during pregnancy including caffeine, alcohol, tahini, hummus, soft cheeses, creamy dressings, raw fish etc: a list detailing the food risks of Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli. Of caffeine they say:
“While consuming large amounts of caffeine does not appear to cause birth defects, it may make it more difficult to become pregnant. It may also increase the risk of miscarriage or having a baby with low birth weight.”
On Thursday, March 25, 2021, a news release from the National Institutes of Science stated:
“Pregnant women who consumed the caffeine equivalent of as little as half a cup of coffee a day on average had slightly smaller babies than pregnant women who did not consume caffeinated beverages, according to a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health.
The researchers found corresponding reductions in size and lean body mass for infants whose mothers consumed below the 200 milligrams of caffeine per day — about two cups of coffee — believed to increase risks to the fetus. Smaller birth size can place infants at higher risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes later in life.”
“The researchers were led by Katherine L. Grantz, M.D., M.S., of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research at NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study appears in JAMA Network Open.”
“Until we learn more, our results suggest it might be prudent to limit or forego caffeine-containing beverages during pregnancy,” Dr. Grantz said.
But an injectable yet to complete its trial is deemed safe. At all stages of pregnancy. While in the same timeframe, caffeine is not afforded the same free pass and caution is recommended.
I wonder where the hysterical reporting and claims of conspiracy theorists are? Of “cerebral masturbation” as Tom O’Connor put it.
Will Dr Grantz be seen as an outcast, a villain, in her profession for expressing her concern? Doctors Thornley and Brock deserve so much better.