HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_02_04 RRennebohm_Morz ArticleFrom:Rob Rennebohm
To:Allison Berry; Tom Locke; Board of Health
Subject:Follow-up Response Re Morz Article
Date:Saturday, February 4, 2023 3:19:28 PM
Attachments:COVID ANALYSIS #157c Letter to Dr. Berry and BOH 2-4-23.docx
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Dr. Berry, Dr. Locke, and BOH members,
On January 18, 2023, I personally attended the BOH meeting in hopes of engaging in
scientific dialogue regarding the critically important article published by Dr. Michael Morz. Unfortunately, actual dialogue was not permitted during that meeting. Therefore, I have
written a response to the response put forth by Dr. Berry at the January 18 meeting.
Please see my attached response.
Rob Rennebohm, MD
Dear Dr. Berry and Members of the Jefferson County BOH,
On November 16, 2022, I sent an email to Dr. Berry, Dr. Locke, and members of the Jefferson County Board of Health (BOH) to alert all of you to an important medical article entitled, Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19.
The article, written by German pathologist Dr. Michael Mörz, is a case report of autopsy findings
in a 76-year-old man who had died three weeks after receiving his third vaccination against
COVID-19. The article was published by the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines on October 1, 2022.
Dr. Mörz’s article provides compelling and sobering evidence of the potential of mRNA vaccines to cause serious harm to the brain and heart – namely, vasculitis, necrotizing
encephalitis, and myocarditis. In my view, his report represents one of the most important to be published during the pandemic because of its potential to appropriately change attitudes about the mRNA vaccine safety.
I attached the Mörz article in my email. I also attached my own analysis of the Mörz article to help non-physicians to more easily understand its significance. I asked the BOH a series of
pointed questions about possible vaccine-related immunopathology, the informed consent
process, and the BOH’s continued promotion of the COVID vaccination campaign.
I was hoping that my email would stimulate and facilitate a healthy, scientific dialogue about the safety and wisdom of the COVID mass vaccination campaign — a dialogue that would inform and benefit all involved, including the general public. I requested a response from the BOH
“within 2 weeks (i.e. by Nov 30), if possible.”
Unfortunately, I never received any response from any physician or staff or member of the BOH — not even a brief email saying, “Thank you for calling our attention to this article.”
Public Comment & BOH Meeting Response
Because the BOH never responded to my email of November 16, 2022, I decided to personally attend the Jefferson County BOH meeting on January 19, 2023. During a 15-minute segment set aside for “comments from the public,” I was given 3 minutes to again state my concerns about the significance of the Mörz article and to ask the physicians and BOH members for their
thoughts about the article. I pointed out that no one had responded to my email of November 16,
2022.
Dr. Berry explained that the physicians and BOH members had “briefly talked about” the article among themselves. Dr. Berry emphasized that the article represented “a single case report” that, “notably,” had been published “in a ‘pay-for-play’ journal, which is the lowest quality of
journals that we have.” She pointed out that the article’s findings “had not been replicated
elsewhere in high quality research” or “in the valid peer-reviewed literature.” In her view, these
observations about the article “called into question the accuracy of the findings.” For these reasons Dr. Berry and the BOH had decided not to take any further action regarding this article.
Unfortunately, the rules of the “public comment” segment of the meeting are that the citizen
making the public comment is not given any opportunity to respond to the response of the members of the BOH. In other words, actual dialogue is not permitted.
After the brief public comment segment was over, the BOH members proceeded with their business meeting. After about 30 minutes of listening to that business meeting, I decided to
leave. I had considered waiting until the end of the meeting to possibly engage Dr. Berry in
further discussion of my concerns. But I decided it would be better to respond in writing, rather than be perceived as “confronting” the BOH.
My Written Response to Dr. Berry & BOH
Well-trained physicians use their critical thinking skills and medical knowledge base to develop their own opinion regarding the quality, value, and significance of a published article. If they humbly conclude that their knowledge base is too limited to perform an adequate assessment of the article, they seek help from more knowledgeable colleagues.
When I initially read the Mörz article, including the methods section and a careful look at the
numerous images, it was immediately obvious to me that his analysis was scientifically sound
and of very high quality. As a rheumatologist who has published extensively on the neuropathology of Susac syndrome, I could easily see for myself the lymphocytic infiltration (inflammation) surrounding vaccinal spike protein in the microvasculature and parenchyma of the heart and brain.
Well-trained physicians also double-check their conclusions, even when they feel quite certain, particularly when much is at stake. Accordingly, I double-checked my conclusions by sending the Mörz article to two of North America’s most knowledgeable and experienced neuropathologists. Both concluded that the article was excellent, scientifically sound, and that the author had drawn appropriate and important conclusions.
In comparison, how did the BOH and its physicians approach the article? Did they strive to develop their own independent opinion about the article? Then, particularly if they felt their knowledge base was inadequate, did they seek the opinion of experts in the field? Did they bother to carefully read my written analysis of the article, which I painstakingly wrote to help non-pathologists interpret the article and its images?
Apparently not. Instead, they concluded the following:
It is “a single case report”. It was published, “notably, in a ‘pay-for-play’ journal, which is the lowest quality of journals that we have.” Its findings “have not been replicated in the valid peer-
reviewed literature.” These observations “call into question the accuracy of the findings.”
My response: Yes, it is a single case report. But, at the time of its publication, it was the first
published study of its kind. It represented the first and only published autopsy study that had used immunohistochemistry to detect presence/absence of spike and nucleocapsid proteins in the
analysis of autopsy tissue. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that the autopsy findings
documented by Mörz are common, but it certainly means that Mörz’s findings need to be taken very seriously and absolutely warrant immediate further investigation (i.e., many more autopsy studies of this kind) — to urgently and carefully determine more exactly how common these findings are.
The responsible reaction to the Mörz article would be to, first, double-check its quality and
significance by obtaining the opinion of objective experts in the field. If its excellence and importance are confirmed, the responsible reaction would be to thoughtfully and carefully share its findings with the public and call for more autopsies to be similarly performed— out of an abundance of caution — which is our moral and medico-legal obligation as part of informed
consent and human decency.
One could also argue that this single case report should at least prompt us to strongly consider stopping all COVID vaccination, at least of children and healthy young adults — until further similar autopsies are performed. It is irresponsible for a BOH to conclude that since this is a single case report, its findings need not concern us, need not influence our thinking about the
safety of the vaccine, need not obligate us to change our message to the public, and need not
modify the information we provide the public as part of our informed consent process.
Should “Open Access” Journals Be Discounted?
Regarding BOH’s conclusion that: It was published, “notably, in a ‘pay-for-play’ journal, which
is the lowest quality of journals that we have.” Its findings “have not been replicated in the valid
peer-reviewed literature.” These observations “call into question the accuracy of the findings.”
There is a great deal wrong with the above conclusion.
For one thing, the important question is “what is the quality of the article,” not “what is the quality of the journal in which the article is published.” The fact is, excellent articles may be
found in journals that are considered “low quality” journals or journals with “low impact scores,” and very poor articles can be found in “highly reputable” journals.
It is also important to point out that there is a considerable difference between journals that have a “low impact score” and journals that are of “low quality.” A journal that has a low impact score can, nevertheless, be an excellent journal or at least publish excellent individual articles.
Journals with “high impact scores” and reputations for “high quality” – like the New England
Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and British Medical Journal – can and have published articles on COVID-19 that are of extremely low scientific quality and even fraudulent and retracted, whereas relatively obscure “low impact” journals have published articles on COVID-19 that
have been excellent, scientifically sound, and extremely important (like the journal Vaccines in
this case).
So, just because an article has been published in a relatively obscure medical journal that does not have a “high reputation” or a “high impact score,” does not automatically mean that the
article is not of high scientific quality. Furthermore, during this COVID-19 era, it must be
realized that “highly reputable” medical journals have been very hesitant to publish scientifically excellent articles, if those articles contradict the prevailing COVID narrative.
It is naïve to think that “highly reputable” medical journals have not refused to publish certain articles. If a physician or scientist submits an article that supports the prevailing COVID-19
narrative and its mass vaccination campaign, that article is much more likely to get published
than an article of even greater scientific merit that provides sound scientific evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative. This is not a “conspiracy theory;” it is a reality that has been experienced by many physicians and scientists who have dared to challenge the prevailing narrative. Many scientists and physicians who have challenged the prevailing narrative have not
only had their submitted manuscripts rejected, but have also been threatened with loss of
employment, even loss of licensure. That is a fact.
So, one reason why an excellent scientific article might be published in an obscure journal with a low impact score, rather than in a “highly reputable/high impact journal,” is that the latter journals have been hesitant or unwilling to publish an article that raises questions about the
merits of the prevailing COVID narrative and is mass vaccination campaign. In many cases, the
author of an excellent article may need to publish it in an obscure journal by default. That is a fact.
It is also wrong, and insulting, to insinuate that an article has been published in an “open access” journal because the article did not merit publication in a more reputable “closed access” journal,
and/or because the author needed to pay a journal in order to get the article published. Such an
assertion insinuates that the author is bribing the journal to publish an unworthy article and the journal is willing to accept such a bribe. Such an insinuation is insulting to both the author and the journal.
“Open Access” Journals Provide Open Access!
A major advantage for publishing in “open access” journals is that their articles will be free to anyone (including ordinary citizens) to read. Journals that are not “open access” force readers to either have a paid subscription to the journal or pay a fee to view the article. That fee-to-read is
in the range of $30-50 per article. Since “open access” journals do not receive revenues from
subscriptions or fee-for-read, they have to charge the author a publishing fee to cover the journal’s costs of publication.
Some authors purposefully choose to submit their article to an “open access” journal because they want the public to be able to read their article for free. Publication in an open access journal is a more democratic way to provide information and provides greater opportunity for ordinary
citizens to read an important article. Publication in a “closed access” journal discriminates against and disadvantages those who cannot afford to shell out $30-50 to read a single article.
In fact, it is cruel to insist that people who are desperately seeking health information must pay in order to obtain it. The entire concept of “closed access” goes against the concepts of “health
equity” and “health care is a human right,” not to mention the concept of common decency. It is
extremely misleading to portray “Open access” journals as “pay-to-play” journals. Again, it is insulting to insinuate that authors choose an “open access” journal “because it allows them to pay a journal to publish an unworthy article.”
The above discussion points out, again, the importance of evaluating the scientific quality of
the article itself. If the article is scientifically excellent and important, it does not matter if it is
published in an “open access” journal that is relatively obscure and has a “low impact” score — especially, if another reason for the excellent article appearing in an obscure journal is that “highly reputable” journals are not willing to publish excellent articles that challenge the prevailing narrative.
BOH Needs to Focus on Safety Signals, Not Journal Prestige
Did the BOH and its associated physicians take the above complexities into consideration when they discussed the Mörz article? Did they focus on the scientific quality of the article itself (which is obviously excellent to anyone who knows what vasculitis looks like or bothers to ask
more knowledgeable colleagues for help)? Or did they simplistically conclude that it is not a worthy article because it was published in an lesser known journal that requires authors to contribute to the coverage of publication costs?
The facts about the Mörz article are:
• The article is excellent. It is scientifically sound, and its findings are obvious and of
profound significance and urgent importance.
• Even though it represents a single case report, the proper conclusion is that this single report is of such great concern that it should be carefully shared with the public, should result in urgent and careful further study, and should raise the question of whether
COVID-19 vaccination should be halted until more is known — at least in children and
young, healthy adults.
• At the very least, the information provided in the Mörz article should become part of the informed consent process that physicians and health departments are legally and morally obligated to provide (but which is not being provided).
It is worrisome that the physicians and BOH members were not able to recognize the obvious scientific excellence and obvious significance/importance of the Mörz article. It raises questions about what else they may not be recognizing or understanding. Good, well-trained physicians are able to recognize obvious vasculitis, or ask for help if they are uncertain about the findings and quality of an article.
It is also worrisome that the physicians and BOH members were unable or unwilling to think of
several possible explanations for the appearance of this article in the journal Vaccines, rather than in a “more prestigious” journal. Well-trained physicians consider more than one possible explanation when evaluating a problem. They don’t just think of one possibility (one diagnosis)
and jump to that conclusion; they construct a differential diagnosis (carefully consider all plausible explanations).
It is worrisome that the physicians and BOH members concluded, simplistically, that they did not
need to take any further action in response to this article: they did not need to share its findings with the public, or engage in dialogue with those who are concerned about the article’s findings, or change their thoughts about the mass vaccination campaign.
Good, well-trained physicians recognize “safety signals” that warrant urgent attention and further
careful study, even if those signals might turn out to be rare---especially when the incidence of
worrisome side effects is quite unclear. Good, well-trained physicians practice “anticipatory medicine” and take potentially worrisome signals seriously, “out of an abundance of caution.” Well-trained physicians thoroughly educate the public and provide true informed consent.
BOH Needs to Invite Dialogue, Not Discourage It
Let me emphasize that a fundamental principle of science and medicine is that challenges to the prevailing wisdom should be welcomed and respectful scientific dialogue should be strongly encouraged. My November 16, 2022, email represented an invitation for such
dialogue. But no dialogue occurred. The BOH and its associated physicians did not even show the courtesy of responding in any way to my email. Their only response was silence.
When, two months later, I made a personal appearance to discuss the article, there was again no opportunity for dialogue. I was given three minutes to state my concerns. Dr. Berry and the BOH had as much time as they wanted to respond to my concerns; I was given no opportunity to
respond to their response.
That, by definition, is not dialogue. They had all the power; I had none. That is not equity. That is not democracy. These represent gross violations of fundamental principles of science, use of power, and practice of democracy.
If a physician:
• is not able to recognize obvious vasculitis on their own, or does not bother to seek help to evaluate an article that they feel unable to adequately assess by themselves;
• is unable to recognize an excellent scientifically sound, profoundly important article;
• does not consider multiple plausible explanations for why a particular article is published
in a “low-impact” journal;
• is not able to recognize worrisome “safety signals” and/or is unwilling to act on those signals;
• is unable to recognize medical information that must be shared with the public, or refuses to carefully share that information with the public;
• fails to fulfill their obligation to provide true informed consent;
• shows no interest in engaging in scientific dialogue;
• simply regurgitates the “group think” narrative handed to them by their superiors;
…then that physician has either not been well-trained (regardless of where they may have gone to medical school or received their public health education) or is not practicing what they were
taught. In either case, such a physician is failing miserably to properly serve the public.
Such a physician is a danger to the public and should not be in a position of power over the public’s health.
Has Mass Vaccination Prolonged the Pandemic?
Finally, let me add this: I was prepared for the possibility that the BOH’s response to the Mörz article might have been: “Yes, the article raises legitimate concerns about the safety of the COVID vaccines, but we are convinced that the overall benefits of the vaccines, particularly at a population level, have far exceeded the risks.”
Those who make the above argument fail to understand that the mass vaccination campaign itself
has prolonged the pandemic and made it far more dangerous. They fail to understand that in the
final analysis, more lives will have been lost cumulatively (over the past 3 years and in the many months ahead) because of the COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign than if it had never been implemented in the first place — that is, if we had relied, instead, on common sense mitigation measures and the competency of the immune system.
The prevailing COVID narrative’s argument that “far more people would have died” if the
COVID mass vaccination campaign had never been implemented, is scientifically and mathematically inaccurate. As I have explained in the several articles listed at the end of this document, far more people are going to end up dying because of the mass vaccination campaign, compared to the cumulative number that would have died if the campaign had never been
implemented. The argument that “the benefits of the vaccine are so great that we must accept some ‘extremely rare’ side effects in some unfortunate individuals” is scientifically unsound.
Unfortunately, those who insist on promoting and obediently following the prevailing COVID narrative do not realize that this narrative and its mass vaccination campaign are based on a
woefully simplistic understanding of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and glycosylation biology involved in the COVID situation---not to mention that the prevailing narrative and vaccination campaign are based on data that are of woefully poor scientific quality. The prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign are scientifically unsound and unacceptably harmful---at both an individual and population level. Sadly, the BOH
apparently does not recognize this.
Sincerely,
Rob Rennebohm, MD
February 4, 2023
See the following companion articles for more information about the consequences of the misguided COVID mass vaccination campaign and why it continues to be far more harmful than
helpful:
What is the Current State of the COVID Situation?
What is the Current State of the COVID Pandemic?—Part 2
Analysis of the Current COVID-19 Situation in China
Creating Social Beauty in Response to Abusive Silence
Responding to Abusive Silence by Creating Social Beauty
How Would Three of Canada’s Greatest Historical Figures Respond to the COVID Situation, If They were Alive today?
Pediatricians, Internationally, Please Call for an Immediate Halt to the Global Campaign to Vaccinate Children Against COVID
An Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part I
Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part II: A Review and Update
Open Letter to Parents Regarding COVID Vaccination—Part III: Questions to Ask Your Physician
Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians—Part IV: The Harmful Immunologic Consequences of
Vaccinating Children Against COVID