I’m with Dr. Watson, up to a point

To the Editor:

In your latest issue there was a good number of letters relating to Covid vaccines and the comments that your paper has been so right to publish. As a scientist that has been researching this issue for the last year plus and as a maligned contributor to your Viewpoints page, I can see that the question of vaccine safety will never be settled here. There have been many very good contributors making very valid points as well as the usual group of critics, who offer their emotion filled rhetoric and nasty comments to those trying to offer the vaccine dangers point of view.

Now obviously, there might be some information that has not been totally vetted but blindly agreeing with the mainstream narrative is also not the correct position. If one chooses not to do any research on the subject of this “shot,” at least be considerate of those who have chosen not to blindly follow.

Which brings me to Dr. Monica Watson. While I can’t totally know her position on the “shot,” I will assume that from her comments she falls on the “pro” side. Her letter was rather lengthy and she did offer some good rebuttal points to previous letters, and I must admit I was basically sort of with her until her last point on cardiomyopathy and blood clots. Here her data just doesn’t correlate with the Jan. 28, 2022, release of the VAERS data. For those who do not know, VAERS is the acronym for the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

As I read her comments on this, this side effect versus the VAERS data, it flies in the face of the data the good Dr. reported as she appeared to me to down play this critical side effect of the “shot.” So now, skeptical me, starts to wonder about the other data she presented.

Her closing statement chastises the publication of disinformation as an ethics violation in journalism. What would be considered an ethics violation in medicine?

Tony Ansaldi

Byram