To the editor: Correcting misunderstandings about Covid vaccine and climate change
The Chester Telegraph | Nov 18, 2024 | Comments 6
First, Mr. Stern said that the FDA/CDC VAERS website “reported incidences of adverse reactions” to the vaccine. Of course there are reported adverse reactions, as there are for all drugs. The question is whether they are so frequent or serious compared to the drug’s effectiveness that the drug is compromised.
That is not the case with the Covid vaccine. According to the VAERS website “VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine.
The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.” They go on to say that “VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone…” These are not necessarily submitted by doctors but are reported in all cases. In fact, the vaccine was implicated in very few deaths, especially when compared to Covid itself.
Mr. Stern also claimed, without references, that you “can find out on the internet the increased rate of sudden death in adults that coincides with the beginning of the Covid ‘vaccine.’ ” As we know, you can find anything you want on the internet.
One believable thing I found on this was an article in the ASA/AHA journal Circulation by Gaspari, dated 18 Dec. 2023, which concluded that “Causes of SCD in young people, including those who experienced SCD within 30 days of their COVID-19 vaccination, were consistent with pre-pandemic causes as established by rigorous autopsy, and no increase in the prevalence of myocarditis has been observed.” In other words, the notion that the vaccine caused a lot of sudden deaths is nonsense.
As to climate change, Mr. Stern told VTDigger that, “The legislators have gone off the rails to try and fix a
non-existent problem.” In a comment to a letter to the editor in The Chester Telegraph, he also took great delight when a Nobel Prize winner who worked in physics some years ago expressed skepticism about climate change. Our most respected scientific organization is probably the National Academies of Science, which numbers
200 Nobel Prize winners among its members.
The NSA has said a great deal on climate change, for example, “Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.” This is echoed on the websites of organizations like NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, and the American Statistical Association. These consensus opinions of thousands of scientists carry a lot
more weight than the remarks of someone who never worked in the field.
Finally, Mr. Stern made the inane statement that “grant money is given to scientists who follow the party line.” He gave no evidence for whatever he thinks this means. In fact, grant money goes to scientists and groups who, after a great deal of study and research, have demonstrated their expertise and submitted detailed plans which are carefully reviewed by experts.
I can assure Mr. Stern that the papers I submitted to scientific journals were carefully reviewed and critiqued (and all eventually published). Not being independently wealthy, I worked for a salary. (Some research I did out of professional interest, not money.) So, I guess I’m compromised, unlike Mr. Stern who has apparently never worked in science.
To summarize, the Covid vaccine is safe, climate change is happening and we are causing it.
Kem Phillips
Cavendish
Filed Under: Commentary • Letters to the Editor
It is just your opinion, Mr. Stern, and it is not convincing. Why should we trust your opinion more than the evidence provided by reputable scientific organizations? Please provide a link to your “evidence”. Thanks.
As a registered but unaffiliated voter, I watched the conversations here prior to the elections with an air of semi-detachment, feeling the voters would see through the smoke. Following the national outcome, I realized that it is not sufficient to allow the tactics of innuendo, partial and incomplete statements, and organized disinformation campaigns to go unchallenged. I was very pleased to see Kem Phillips address the disinformation surrounding vaccination and climate change.
Keith Stern wrote here earlier to explain what Republican issues are, using examples of his interest in water quality and a development moratorium in Burlington, and then asserted we should rely on “settled law” as Vermont’s protection from the national Republican Party’s excesses. He sounds confused. He also wrote earlier of our planet surviving previous warmer climates, as if it were the planet facing an existential threat, rather than us facing a budget-draining future of local flood recovery in addition to federal disaster expenses that will only continue to grow with inaction. In this light, I was intrigued by who would write an extensive defense of Stern’s positions, even to the point of clarifying his thoughts on his behalf. I eventually learned Dr. Murray is listed as the Republican Party Chair of Windsor County, writing to us without self-identifying; I did not realize until Kem clarified for us that he is also simply a PhD, using the Dr. title in a medical issue discussion, which is poor form.
Clearly there are issues too large for individuals to address, but which society can choose to work together to address. In the zeal to shrink the size of government, the issue of our pollution leading to heating of the planet has been a disinformation target for years. Initially there was the denying, now, as we see, there is much care to assert a difference from the denial stance on issues to one of more study necessary. Likewise, the risk and damage of a pandemic is an issue best addressed by society as a whole, but is another fly in the ointment for the fairy tale of government is always bad, so vaccination and public health strategies have been subjected to intense disinformation campaigns. In both circumstances it is the scientists delivering the message, and so they are also attacked and smeared.
The decision to attack science (when the suggested action is inconvenient) is dangerous and costly. Lives were needlessly lost in the last pandemic due to these politics that Stern and Murray are perpetuating, and COVID is not the only virus to be watching (Avian Influenza has made concerning gains toward spreading within humans this past year). The regular flooding we’ve seen since Irene has been costly to recover from, and all signs point to worsening impacts due to inaction.
Pay attention, because they are playing a destructive, shortsighted hand. The political delays, while continually allowing conditions to worsen, increase our costs today and far into the future.
Sam Comstock, PhD (quantitative genetics)
Kem Phillips has decided to pick apart anyone who doesn’t agree with him and that is his choice. But I choose to stick with evidence that the planet was once warmer than it is now when humans had no effect, and that ice cores show higher CO2 levels followed warmer periods, not what many scientists are claiming. I for one will follow what scientists know actually occurred, not what scientists are trying to prove through their computer models. As for evidence on the Covid “vaccine” I will let the record stand on its own, not use the I disagree so it’s not true method.
My thanks to Kem Phillips for writing both his letter to the editor and his rebuttal to Keith Stern and August Murray for stating proven facts as opposed to those unproven ones written by Mr. Stern and backed up by Mr. Murray. Both Mr. Stern and Mr. Murray are well versed in using unproven scare tactics to ,as usual, misinform the public. Shame on both of them. It’s going to be a rough road ahead, thanks again to Mr. Phillips.
Malcolm Beverstock
Cavendish, Vt
Dr. Murray’s defense of Mr. Stern’s letter mischaracterizes both Mr. Stern’s positions and mine. He attributes to Mr. Stern many things he did not in fact say.
First, Dr. Murray states that Mr. Stern “never denied” that the “VAERS database includes unverified reports”. True, because he never addressed that issue, but only said that VAERS “reported incidences of adverse reactions,” as if that somehow shows that the vaccine is dangerous. Nor did I “dismiss all VAERS data as irrelevant.” Furthermore, Mr. Stern did not “call to scrutinize the reports.” Having worked in clinical trials for 30 years, I can assure Dr. Murray that I’m more familiar than he is with how reports of adverse events are analyzed and reported. According to his public biography, he has a PhD in Computing Technology in Education, and is not a medical doctor. He does not seem to have worked in medical science or done any serious research, so he has little credibility in these areas.
Dr. Murray seems to claim that my dismissal of Mr. Stern’s statements about an unproved correlation between taking the vaccine and sudden death were based on my noting that you can find whatever you want on the internet. But Dr. Murray is intentionally distorting my argument. My point was that Mr. Stern gave no evidence for this claim, only that he says that you can find it on the internet. Dr. Murray is also unable to point to any actual study that he could reference if it were true, and he ignores the study that I found that shows just the opposite.
Dr. Murray refers to Mr. Stern’s “skepticism toward legislative overreach on climate change” and that I “conflate skepticism about policy with denial of climate science.” But in the VTDigger Mr. Stern calls climate change is a “non-existent problem.” Dr. Murray ignores this. Policy positions have not arisen in this debate. And, I would point out that Dr. Murray is no more a climate scientist that either Mr. Stern or me. As far as the Nobel Prize winner is concerned, he worked on quantum entanglement, not climate science. Mr. Stern and Dr. Murray seem to say that his opinion should outweigh the views of hundreds of Nobel winners and thousands of scientists in the respected organizations I listed.
Dr. Murray says Mr. Stern “draws attention to the potential for bias in the system, not the integrity of individual scientists,” but what Mr. Stern said was that “grant money is given to scientists who follow the party line.” If that inane remark doesn’t demean the integrity of the system and the scientists who take part in it, it is hard to imagine what Dr. Murray thinks would. Using the notion of “potential for bias” to support Mr. Stern’s bogus claims of actual bias is thoroughly illogical.
Dr. Murray makes much of the notion of skepticism. In matters such as politics and religion skepticism is crucial, but in science it requires a much higher bar. It is expected that scientists who understand an area will point out possible flaws. However, Mr. Stern seems to have no training or experience in any area of science, so does not meet that criterion. Dr. Murray finally suggests that I “dismiss the concerns of others” about scientific inquiry, but he is doing exactly that to me, even when, in the case of clinical trials I have 30 years more experience than he has. But I will admit that I do dismiss the blather of people who don’t know what they are talking about.
Kem Phillips, PhD (statistics)
Rebuttal Defending Keith Stern:
The recent letter critiquing Keith Stern reflects a perspective that deserves counterpoint, especially since it misrepresents and oversimplifies Mr. Stern’s views while dismissing legitimate concerns he has raised. Here’s a closer look:
On VAERS and Vaccine Adverse Events
The letter emphasizes that the VAERS database includes unverified reports, which Mr. Stern never denied. However, VAERS exists precisely to document potential adverse reactions for further investigation. Dismissing all VAERS data as irrelevant undermines its purpose as an early warning system for public health. While the CDC clarifies that reports are not proof of causation, they serve as critical data points for understanding trends. Mr. Stern’s call to scrutinize these reports reflects caution—not misinformation—and aligns with the principle of transparent science.
As for the assertion that the vaccine caused “very few deaths,” it overlooks the nuanced debate about vaccine risk-benefit analysis. Reasonable individuals like Mr. Stern can question the proportionality of mandates or the silencing of dissenting voices without denying the broader benefits of vaccination.
On Sudden Death and the Internet
The letter dismisses Mr. Stern’s observation that increased rates of sudden deaths coincided with vaccine rollouts, simply because “you can find anything on the internet.” This is an unfair dismissal of genuine public concerns. Mr. Stern’s argument does not deny that misinformation exists online but highlights patterns worth examining—patterns echoed by reputable scientists who continue to investigate long-term vaccine safety. For example, increased transparency and independent reviews of medical data could address these concerns constructively instead of dismissing them outright.
On Climate Change
Mr. Stern’s skepticism toward legislative overreach on climate change is rooted in legitimate concerns about the efficacy and cost of policies like Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act. The letter writer conflates skepticism about policy with denial of climate science, which are distinct issues. One can agree that the climate is changing while questioning whether proposed solutions justify their economic and social costs.
As for the Nobel Prize-winning physicist referenced by Mr. Stern, skepticism is essential to scientific progress. Dismissing their views because they are in the minority ignores the history of scientific breakthroughs driven by dissenters challenging the status quo. Mr. Stern’s point underscores that scientific consensus is not infallible and should always be scrutinized.
On Research Funding and “Party Lines”
The suggestion that grant funding can be influenced by prevailing narratives is not as “inane” as the letter claims. This is a well-documented concern in scientific research, where funding agencies naturally prioritize topics aligned with current priorities. Mr. Stern’s comment draws attention to the potential for bias in the system, not the integrity of individual scientists.
In Summary
The scientific method encourages questioning and Keith Stern represents the voice of many Vermonters who value independent thought and transparency in public policy. His questions about vaccine safety, climate policy, and scientific funding are not fringe ideas—they reflect a commitment to open debate and accountability. Disagreeing with the conclusions of others is fair, but dismissing their concerns outright stifles the productive dialogue needed in a free society.