A clueless propagandist case study - Jonathan (Monaco) Laxton, MD
A clueless propagandist case study - Jonathan (Monaco) Laxton, MD
A modern-days doctor, "debunking behind block", and hand-waving major red-flags with terrible Science
It’s a useful (and exhausting) procedure to test the validity of your conclusions by confronting them with analyses from other perspectives. It is in that spirit that I use X/Twitter (rather than as an information source, aside for a few selected profiles). I therefore had inventoried early the Medical professionals who were regularly advertising the Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 trial results.
I found few, in that process, who turned out able to reconsider their preconceived ideas on the subject and critically appraise data. However, I’m most grateful to those who helped me refine my arguments. Today’s case definitely doesn’t belong to the category of the educated points of view - so unless you’re interested in understanding how bad Science spreads, I suggest you to turn to another reading.
Ironically - given what will follow - my first interaction with Jonathan Laxton, Canadian MD and assistant professor1, took place on March 26, 20232, and wasn’t on Trial anomalies. On these, he had already been avoiding to engage a few times before3.
Instead, he was at this time defending Paul C. against Jikkyleaks, while Jikky was arguing that the collapse of the European fertility, shown by Paul’s charts, was cause for major concerns.
I hadn’t reviewed in depth the fertility subject at this time; although I had considered, following Jikkyleaks’ early alerts, that it may be a major problem. I wasn’t aware for example, as we would learn later via FOI (and thanks to Maryanne Demasi’s work4), that the only basis for recommending the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ to pregnant women, in December 20205, against the WHO recommendation6, was a study on 44 rats7 which had shown a doubling in fetal loss (9.77% mRNA vs 4.09% saline), a difference that Pfizer judged “not biologically meaningful”.
I had, back then, on this topic, only performed a systematic review of the CDC’s data, highlighting the fact that the pharmacovigilance was a myth8, missing 12% of the “COVID-19 vaccines related pregnancies ending in miscarriages or stillbirths” in its symptoms qualifications. This meant, obviously, that nobody was auditing the data and that the alert signals investigation was, to say the least, severely flawed.
Jonathan kept, in our subsequent interactions, to show the amazing depth of his understanding.
He was soon after earning his surname of “Monaco Jon” as, while I was blowing the whistle on Sweden’s collapsing births - measured on a 2010-2019 baseline at 6 sigmas in 2022, he came to argue that the situation in 2022 looked good because Portugal in 2021 was going fine9, and that Monaco hadn’t seen a drop.
He also produced a meta-analysis10, which I didn't even take the time to look at, as bad studies were flying around at the speed of science, and he had already demonstrated too heavy a degree of limitation. Yet it was, according to him, the irrefutable proof that there couldn’t be a link between fertility drop and COVID vaccination.
Later, after I had refuted another argument on Finland11, he developed the controversy, in a Twitter space12 by The Real Truther, “hoping to attract me in the room”. No matter that I was at this time banned from these spaces, following a Pfizer debate13. The following is just the relevant 5 minutes extract - but not to be accused of truncating a valid argument which never came, the longer 15 minutes section is here14.
As people who went through the above video heard, among other amazing statements, Monaco-Jon explained that a “6 sigma drop” was a reference to “a scam, quality improvement thing, going around in the business world 10 years ago” (1:04 to 1:15 in the video above; 03:35 to 03:47 in the original space). Which is.. the result you get when you don’t know what a Sigma means, and google “6 sigma”.
It goes without saying that Jonathan graciously admitted his mistake, after it had been clarified15. He never explained how the “6 Sigma” group would have logically appeared in a conversation about fertility, tho.
While Jikky kept ringing the alarm on #Placentagate16, I reproduced and expanded on Paul C’s analytics17 to provide updated figures, illustrating the fact that the picture looked even grimmer than what his January-June charts showed us.
Of course, the issue isn’t as much that Monaco-Jon is totally unable to grasp statistics (he is an MD18, and those who do understand stats are rare). The issue is that he lies, gish-gallops and most of the time refuses to acknowledge his blatant mistakes. Instead he feels allowed to masquerade as an expert-in-everything, and to hand-wave major red-flags, while he simply doesn’t understand the premise required to appreciate them.
So, Monaco Jon, behind a block, having recently felt allowed to “debunk” me, let’s address his claims.
He would have demonstrated, with a meta-analysis, that there would be no declines in fertility observed after COVID vaccination, both for women & males.
It would have been "very misleading" for me to argue that I had reviewed global fertility trends while citing a source in my latest article on Sweden.
Sweden would have been immune to the climate of propaganda & terror which had fell on the rest of the world.
Let’s start with the “irrefutable proof”, the meta-analysis19: “The impact of COVID-19 vaccines on fertility - A systematic review and meta-analysis”, by Drieda Zace20 et al., published by Elsevier’s “Vaccine” in September 2022.
The authors, appearing affiliated with the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campus di Roma., Rome, Italy, are declaring no conflicts of interest.
No matter if the first author was recruited by InnovSprint, a Startup under EU funding, to work on AI in Healthcare, in November 201921. Drieda Zace has published 23 papers, starting in 2018 for her first paper, no paper in 2019, followed by no less than 7 papers in 2020, and 8 in 202122. Impressive start.
Emanuele la Gatta, second author listed, published 13 papers between 2020 & 202423. He appears to have stopped to use Twitter in December 201924. His Linkédin profile25 doesn’t indicate what he did between July 2019 and January 2021.
Licia Petrella declares on other studies26 being affiliated to the service of cardiology, "Mazzini" Hospital, Teramo, Italy. On Research Gate27, she appears affiliated with the San Giuseppe Hospital. The PubMed search is noisy28, but she is listed on 7 papers on Scopus29.
María Luisa Di Pietro, the last author listed, h-index 13, is the most experienced author30. Her profile is a happy collection of red flags31, while she accumulates an impressive number of positions32, the latest being a 2019 nomination as Director of the Center for Research and Studies on Procreative Health, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome.
Summarizing, Drieda Zace, a low-quality-paper factory, did most of the job, helped by two other junior PhDs, and Maria Luisa Di Pietro tailored that for publication and opened Elsevier’s gates.
To list a few elements of the “substance” of the irrefutable proof…
Section 3.2. (Description of the included studies) details that 79.3% of the studies included are in 3 countries (USA, Russia & Israel).
Section 3.3. (Quality assessment) details that among the 15 cohort studies, 13.3% resulted to be of good quality, 33.3% of moderate quality, and 53.3% of poor quality. Among the 14 “Before and After” studies, 85.71% were estimated of moderate quality, 14.28% of poor quality.
The supplementary materials33 confirms the legitimate fears we can get from the reading of the abstracts and titles of the studies listed.
While the queries are listed, the screening details aren’t, making the selection process which led to the sustaining of the… 29 studies sustained… from 1489 queries results… completely hermetic.
Most studies have ridiculously small population size.
Only 1 cohort study34, reference 44 of the “meta analysis”, judged of “moderate quality”, addresses “normal pregnancies”; the rest being on IVF (2.5% to 3.5% of the births, depending on the country35 36).
Only 1 Before/After study37 concerns women fertility (eggs reserve) while not being on Sputnik or Sinovac.
Regarding men, 2 Before/After studies are relevant38 39, the rest being again on Sputnik or Sinovac.
The “meta-analysis” itself is an overall joke, mixing the products as they can be compared to one another without distinguishing between brands and judging risks on 95% confidence, in the good old tradition of pharmacovigilance gas-lighting, covered at length by the excellent Dr David Graham, in 2004, in this testimony it’s always worthy to relisten40.
But let’s have a quick look at the studies themselves…
The biggest & “highest quality”, reference 44, is “A Prospective Cohort Study of COVID-19 Vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 Infection, and Fertility” by Amelia K Wesselink et al., published in the American Journal of Epidemiology on January 20, 2022.
First, we can observe from the abstract that the study fits the Kirsch-quality-of-evidence-Standard. The study, concerning 2126 subjects responding to online questionnaires41, could have been filled by pharma-bots with this advanced method.
Reference 13, Viki Male is quoted to support the idea that “Anecdotal reports of menstrual cycle irregularities after vaccination have also contributed to concerns about the vaccine’s potential effect on fertility”. We’ll come back to Viki later, but for now let’s mention that the “anecdotal reports” (statement copy pasted to the identical a bit later in the study) are roughly 25% of the female recipients experiencing unexpected bleeding42, not mentioning the more severe complications leading to poorly studied but too common “anecdotal” reports of hysterectomy43, for example.
The rest of the study is absolute hermetic gibberish which would take days to retro-engineer and frankly isn’t worth it. They manage, for example, to quote the EUA memorandum (reference 14) as a reassuring sign that the vaccines weren’t impairing the fertility, while pregnant women and sexual relations between partners were explicitly excluded.
The supplementary materials, page 2, also show considerable disparities between the arms - and weighted or not - having a far poorer, more stressed and doubled rate of “history of infertility” (11.4% “unvaccinated” vs 5.9% Pfizer) in your pool doesn’t constitute a satisfying sample to draw any final conclusion.
At no point does this study (or any other listed in the meta-analysis, most of them being extremely small samples) allow to discard concerns over fertility impacts caused by a specific brand of vaccine.
The miserably powered and incomplete results44 of the Pfizer/BioNTech study on (3rd trimester) pregnancies did nothing to wave valid concerns.
Unconvinced reader: Yes but Viki said it was safe and has a full Google Doc of studies proving so..?
Well, we have addressed Viki’s topic at length. Arkmedic destroyed most of the papers she was promoting in these two articles, which anyone pretending to care about fertility subjects should have in mind.
Aside for that, Viki has demonstrated on countless occasions her total lack of scientific competence. Whether arguing with Jikky on the tremendous increase of the use of Estradiol (one of the main hormones responsible for regulating the menstrual cycle, important for overall reproductive health)…
Or discussing with me obvious selection bias in the garbage-Science she is regularly pushing.
Viki is, shortly summarized, the best “fraudulent-studies detector” out-there; as soon as she promotes something, you know you’ll find red flags in it at the first skimming. And that she won't even begin to care about investigating the bias that was pointed out.
So… What’s left… the “you only quoted Sweden” argument is exceptionally weak ; I quoted it (while it references the other articles) as the most recent figures, illustrating a screaming issue on which I had already extensively published. Adding more red-flags to someone who doesn’t understand that a 6-sigma drop is cause for serious concern and requires in depth and transparent investigation won’t significantly change his perception.
Sweden of course wasn’t immune to the propaganda and terror in 2020; on the contrary, it had exceptional compliance to pandemic restrictions on a voluntary basis45. It’s rather easy to find in the literature46, for example, acknowledgments that “Sweden would fall into the latter category insofar as it has used nudges and recommendations to ensure social distancing”.
I would only point out that anyone who doesn’t understand that, in a context where:
the Pfizer/BioNTech product deployed to the public was only tested, de facto, on 252 persons47
while showing considerable variability by batch, both through the EMA leaks48 and later numerous measurements49 50 following the alerts51 raised by Kevin McKernan
Not understanding that the variability by batch is a potential strong confounder in geographical disparities, rarely if ever studied by lack of transparency, appears to me critical.
So, this closes this “debunk of debunk”. If Monaco-Jon wishes to defend his point, he is of course welcome to do so in the comments - or as he prefers on Twitter behind a block, but I don’t expect there will be much to defend.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220603212443/https://openvaet.org/studies/vaers_fertility?currentLanguage=En (suspended by host - archive of the reports missed on demand).
Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 Trial - April 21 - Debate with "The Real Truther" Transcript
Rehosted on Rumble https://rumble.com/v52pu9k-extract-from-vaccine-save-lives-can-anyone-prove-me-wrong-x-space-from-2023.html after being suspended by Youtube for medical disinformation - https://youtu.be/-_xQSdINbuQ
Thanks for calling them out.
I would have thought the bit on the TGA website on the pfizer info, where it says "There is limited experience with use of Comirnaty in pregnant women", might have been a teeny, weeny red flag to any doctor encouraging the use of this jab. Obviously not, as many swear it is safe & effective for pregnant women.
Excellent, again!
I would like to add an important but simple issue with the meta-analysis of Drieda Zace.
They claimed:
"PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022."
As the decreased birth rates first occurred in January 2022, such search strategy cannot capture the real problems. Apart from all the problems you already listed.
The real problems are related to hindered nesting of oocytes in the placenta/uterus (most likely*) or by the male factor (less likely**). Both aspect can hardly ever be recognised by couples. If nesting in placenta/uterus is hindered, nobody can even recognise a pregnancy, because mentrual bleeding will occurr; hence, this problem cannot be claimed to be a sponataneous abortion. This female factor as well as the male factor can only be recognised in fertility clinics. Unfortunatly, all studies published until autummn 2022 on the male fator were rather bad.**
* https://tkp.at/2022/11/30/corona-impfungen-vermindern-erfolgsraten-bei-kuenstlichen-befruchtungen/
** https://tkp.at/2022/12/05/stellungnahme-zum-geburtenrueckgang-bei-der-klage-gegen-swissmedic/ see there the PDF of my expert opinion in the appendix (German).