23rd February 2021
Prof Ted Steele points out serious flaws in Peter Doherty’s advocacy of the vaccine
(note: do read this: Covid vaccine watch)
I’m sharing an EXTRACT from Prof. Ted Steele’s widely shared critique of Peter Doherty’s article. This is vitally important.
TED’s EMAIL’S TITLE: I strongly disagree with your vaccine advocacy
So there can be no misunderstanding in what I now say and analyse, I attach a scan of your article which appeared on the Opinion page 22 of Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper on Monday February 22, 2021.
Your article is a political tract , an article of advocacy, not Science. Sorry, that is the way it is. But I will engage you at both the scientific and political levels.
Your article contains scientific contradictions which I highlight (yellow) here for further discussion ( my
comments follow in red) , Paragraph 15 though 19 viz.
“Apart from some issues for highly allergic people I don’t see danger signals to date ( large numbers
of deaths of elderly Pfizer recipients in Norway?- what typeof allergy B/T cell? or innate immune? ) , or any reason as yet to doubt that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines protect against severe disease” ( Where is that
evidence? That seems a faith–based statement to me. Why has Merck made a strong advisory that the AstraZeneca vaccine not be given to those > 65yr? Why is this advisory being ignored not just by you but also the Federal
“ And, while they may not stop early infection in the nose, my personal guess is that they will reduce
the extent of transmission . But that will take a while to emerge. At this stage , its probably too early to know whether prior infection or vaccination provides better long-term protection.”Why say all this inthe public pages of the Herald-Sun newspaper when you simply do not know the answer?You cannot have it both ways- that is why your article is a political tract.
“ We know that people who had clinically mild COVID-19 can sometimes be re-infected but,
with the widespread use of nasal swabs and the sensitive PCR tests we all
hear about every day , we’ve set a higher standard for COVID-19 proetction than
has ever been applied to any respiratory pathogen. ( Yes , I agree, past
seasonal common colds epidemics and pandemics ( and flus) have never
been tracked like this before– but both have always been lethal for elderly
co-morbids in aged care and nursing facilities. My estimate is the 0.1 % of all
genuine COVID-19 patients run the risk of dying. This is the group
longitudinal studies identify as having little if any innate immune anti-viral
defences , see Figure 2c in Lucas et al 2020).
“ The basic message is : minimise any chance that you will develop symptoms of COVID-19 by
taking whatever vaccine you’re offered at the earliest opportunity” ( What an
extraordinary exhortation given your statement above viz. .”. my personal guess is that
they will reduce the extent of transmission .
But that will take a while to emerge. At this stage , its probably too early to know whether prior
infection or vaccination provides better long-term protection.”. How can you
possibly advocate that unless on political grounds- is the Doherty Institute
beholden financially to Morrison or the Andrews governments? The average
citizen sees through this advocacy- that is why the Australian Open crowd
spontaneously erupted and loudly boo’ed the other nightwhen the MC
tried to sell the vaccine! To a tennis crowd – you are just being a
political advocate here, pure and simple, it is so transparent.
“You owe that to yourself , to your family, and to your fellow citizens” – Peter, the
air and the public space is already saturated with lies and misinformation, and
here you are adding more pure unadulterated BS to the mix.
“ And, the more of us who are vaccinated, the less governments will see a need for
lockdowns and border closures” . Surely you do not agree with those
latter measures which are have now destroyed our society and economy and caused
untold misery – far greaterv tyan any common cold virus.
On ABC TV Insiders’ the day before your article appeared, Minister Greg Hunt frankly
admitted this is the” biggest clinical trial in history and much data on safety
and efficacy will be will be collected…” !! . Normally citizens are only
exposed to a medicine or vaccine after a clinical trial. The
treatment campaign is not considered a clinical trial. That cannot be true as a
normal clinical trial is also subject to halt at any stage (‘first do no harm’)
with any significant adverse reactions (Pfizer should have immediately pulled
its vaccine after the Norway nursing home fatalities).
Immune defenceless and compromised elderly should be last people
to be exposed to an untested experimental vaccine, not the first as is
planned in this ill thought out roll-out. Surely the aim should be, in this
vulnerable group, to boost the Innate Immune response rather than an acquired
adaptive response? See the clear deficiency in elderly co-morbids in the
“severe” COVID-19 category, in Lucas et al 2020.
I have widely circulated this criticism of your misguided public position – to
colleagues, collaborators and newspaper editors both as Cc and Bcc.