Connect with us

Let's Talk

Medical debate – Elon joins

The last forty-eight hours saw a robust medical debate on the safety of coronavirus vaccines – and Elon Musk joined it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Early yesterday morning, Elon Musk directly joined the medical debate of the century, over COVID vaccines. For the first time he revealed that he had a “second booster,” and had “major side effects” from it. He then revealed that his cousin suffered severe myocarditis and required hospitalization. These tweets have brought swift reaction, not all of it sympathetic. The non-sympathetic users don’t wish him ill – but they deny that he actually fell ill. Which shows how sensitive the medical debate has become.

Elon Musk gives a medical anecdote

The debate actually began Friday morning at 8:16 a.m. EST. Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll asking people whether they had taken “the vaccine.” Here are the results they reported:

Note the key finding. 68 percent of respondents say they took “the vaccine,” and 7 percent of “takers” reported major side effects. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) insist that side effects are “rare.” So how “rare” is “rare”? According to the primary European regulatory agency, “rare” means 0.01 percent to 0.1 percent. 7 percent is considered common.

About an hour later, User Scott Adams quoted the tweet and asked his followers:

Eighteen hours later, Elon Musk joined the debate with this medical testimony:


Most of the immediate response expressed sympathy. This included some of the most prominent “vaccine” critics. For example, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., a frequent critic, shared this graphic on myocarditis resulting from the “vaccine.”

The tweet contained a link to this article that appeared in October of 2022. In it, Dr. McCullough called for the withdrawal from the market, and total discard, of all COVID immunizations.

One other user shared this article from the American Heart Association. The authors insist that the infection poses a greater risk of myocarditis than the immunization.

The study involved appeared in the journal Circulation in August of 2022.

How many affirmatives and negatives?

CNAV estimates that about half the reaction to Elon Musk’s medical evidence (admittedly anecdotal) was favorable to him. The rest were unfavorable, and include many tweets we shall not share here.


The only tweets worth sharing, are those actually providing medical and biochemical evidence. Here, for instance, is a paper on how fast the mRNA from the virus and the “vaccine” can replicate. Most readers will find the prose very difficult to read, even if they understand the concepts. But it adds up to changes, not in the genes of body cells but in the enzymes and other proteins that process genetic material. The author said:

Despite 2 positive reviews this preprint got buried by an editor at a journal.

We need to decentralize peer review. All the tools are in place.

See also this one-and-one-third-hour motion picture concentrating on those who have reported adverse reactions, and the questions they have.

The anecdotal evidence cuts both ways. Consider, for example, this report:

In contrast, consider this one:

This sequence shows an interesting contrast in findings:


One user suggested that the problem, if problem there is, comes from mRNA preparations only:


On November 23, 2022, Twitter revoked its medical misinformation policy. (We now know that this policy came from an outside group with drug-industry ties.) Three days later – six at the outside – Twitter administration deleted the policy.

Within the last forty-eight hours, evidence has come forward that might explain the revocation. Not only did Elon Musk find the policy offensive to his sensibilities about liberty, but also – and more to the point – he had formed the belief that the immunization had injured him. That’s relevant because the original policy might have forbidden him to say anything about it.

Aside from the rudeness some users showed, that last forty-eight hours also showed what healthy medical debate can look like. Musk has in fact expressed his determination that Twitter should be a place where one can find truth. Sometimes truth can be impossible to determine – thus making free debate necessary.

It ill befits anyone to doubt Mr. Musk’s account. More to the point, Musk has opened up the debate, and that should help everyone. Notably, no one at the CDC has yet weighed in. If they are truly confident in their interpretation of observations and events, they should.


Finally, everyone observing this affair should wish Elon Musk and his cousin full and speedy recoveries.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

1 Comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald R. Laster, Jr

Those who paid attention to the real information sites, not propaganda sites, knew the COVID-19/Wuhan.Fauci virus was less dangerous than the seasonal flu. And they knew the COVID-19/Wuhan/Fauci injections did not help anyone – for instance people who took the injections got infected and suffered worse consequence, including death. People should research the 1918 Flu Epidemic and what was really killing people – experimental vaccines that caused bacterial meningitis infections.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x