Why Substack is so much more powerful than old media - in two emails

Michael Hiltzik, an mRNA and lockdown fanatic at the Los Angeles Times, is writing a hit piece on the Stanford University conference about Covid I went to Friday. Let's help him out!

On Friday, Stanford University held a one-day conference about Covid and its aftermath called “Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist who risked his career to fight lockdowns in 2020, put the event together. I was lucky enough to attend - and speak on a panel.

The discussions were interesting. That they happened at all at a top university was even more interesting. The public health types who loved lockdowns and mRNA mandates were furious Bhattacharya had won Stanford’s imprimatur. They whined loudly, hoping to derail the event.

They failed, but they’re still whining. As I just found out for myself. Michael Hiltzik, a Los Angeles Times columnist who infamously wrote in 2022 the deaths of Covid vaccine skeptics should be mocked, emailed me some not-at-all leading questions about the conference at 6:46 p.m. Saturday night.

Hiltzik said his piece would run “as early as Monday.” Too bad for him, thanks to Substack, I don’t have to wait - not even until tomorrow. His questions and my responses are below. Enjoy.

—

(Beating them at their own game, with speed and the truth. Stand with me.)

—

Below is Hiltzik’s email and my answer, in full and unedited.

—

His email (he did not address me):

In connection with a follow-up column about the Stanford pandemic policy conference, I would be interested to know what points you made during the panel you participated in on "Misinformation, Censorship, and Academic Freedom."

Also, given the record of COVID vaccination, have you moderated or changed your opinion about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?

I can be reached at xxx. I am planning to post this column as early as Monday.

Regards, Michael Hiltzik

Business Columnist, Los Angeles Times

—

(Yes, Michael Hiltzik is still employed at the Los Angeles Times. No, I can’t explain why.)

—

(My response)

Michael:

Thanks for your note. I already know what you think of the conference. Your previous column about it was headlined "Stanford throws a party for purveyors of misinformation and disinformation about COVID." So I don't see much need to walk you through what I said. Mostly I discussed government censorship and Berenson v Biden, as the efficacy and safety of the mRNAs were not the topic of my panel. I think the panel is or will be publicly available, and you are welcome to watch it.

But this does seem like a great chance to answer your second question. Yes, my opinion on the mRNA Covid vaccines has changed since 2021.

It has worsened considerably.

The shots proved completely ineffective against Covid infection and transmission within months. The argument that they prevent serious cases or death is based on observational data that is effectively worthless because of healthy vaccinee bias.

They produce lasting immunological changes - notably the IgG4 class switch and their failure to produce long-lived plasma cells - which were unanticipated and problematic and may have long-term negative effects. Even Yale's Akiko Iwasaki expressed her concern about the recent study on long-lived plasma cells.

https://x.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1839739442300424382

It is now clear the mRNAs should never have been offered to children, teenagers, or healthy young adults, who were at essentially zero risk of death from Covid and very low risk of serious outcomes. That they caused myocarditis in young people far in excess of Covid's risk of doing so is incontrovertible. The efforts to say otherwise rely on whatever risks of myocarditis Covid may present to older people, and many cardiologists think those risks are overstated.

They caused sudden cardiac deaths in young adults in rare instances; again, this fact is incontrovertible, and I can send you the studies proving it. More recent studies have shown other potential health problems, including a very large study showing that the shots are associated with a significant increase in new-onset asthma in children.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/very-urgent-covid-19-mrna-vaccines

These realities are widely understood outside the tiny community of mRNA jab fanatics, which is why almost no one will take the shots anymore. Moderna has had to repeatedly reduce its sales estimates, and its shares are LOWER than they were before the shots were authorized and down over 85 percent from their mandate- and booster-driven August 2021 peak.

I would not be surprised if there is NEVER another successful mRNA jab for wide use (I can't speak to the anti-cancer mRNA shots).

I am quite sure nothing I say will make any difference to you, so I'll stop there. Go ahead and quote Peter Hotez and Angela Rassmussen and all the usual suspects while writing that I "refused to comment on your questions," or whatever. I don't mind. I have a larger and more important audience than you and my readers trust me more than yours trust you, so I'll just post this now, while you wait for Monday.

Oh, wait, turns out I do have one question for you. Do you still think "mocking anti-vaxxers’ deaths is ghoulish, yes - but necessary"? My readers would love to know.

All best

Alex