Eschewing the hard work of reporting, while lacking legitimate scientific expertise, Grimes offers up strong personal opinions.
Here is a complaint sent to Scientific American about Grimes a few years ago.
Misconception of 5G
"Grimes claims that peer reviewed scientific research is flawed while clinging to the ‘thermal heating’ point of view, which does not consider other forms of risk from Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) exposure other than heating, turning a blind eye to the effects from the nonthermal frequencies, pulsations and other signalling characteristics."
Thanks for writing this article, Paul. I have been aware of Grimes’s dodgy antics for years and the disservice it does to science and rational debate.
I wrote an article on him (and his US counterparts, David Gorski and Steven Novella) several years ago, linked here:
Science is supposed to be about facts but science is occupied by things like Grimes, media too. I am a science communicator in biology and biomedical sciences because this is my proven expertise. Of course real expert on COVID-19 will prove the narrative wrong. Narrative is earning money for elites so no way to let people like me outside social media following where we are also under scrutiny. My LinkedIn account was deleted.
Grimes is a bully who loves to pull professional rank (and rancour) but while we gaslight the harmed we are not doing science we are undoing it. People used to think that medical science was there for the patient not for the industry - a very quaint notion to Grimes. An even bigger elephant in the room than discovering that adenovirus causes clots at the end of 2021 is that it was always known. Back in April after a tip off from a distinguished virologist I pointed out in an on-line letter to BMJ that the connection between adenovirus and clots was long established:
I followed this up with a letter questioning the role of the MHRA in allowing these products:
More recently I wrote a one sentence letter to June Raine CEO of the MHRA asking why they allowed this:
“Can you explain why the MHRA permitted the use of adenovirus in Covid vaccines bearing in mind that it was known to be associated with clots.”
and await a reply.
This is a most disgraceful episode.
When I hear that Ursula van der Leyen wants to put the Neroberg Codex out of Place I get goose Pubs!
The Nuremberg Codex is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created by the U.S. v Brandt court as one result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In a review written on the 50th anniversary of the Brandt verdict, Katz writes that "a careful reading of the judgment suggests that [the authors] wrote the Code for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.
This is not about a Virus this is about much much more! The control of human mankind!
There are proper vaccines, mRNA is NOT a Vaccine, which we could use, but nearly all the Governments refuse to accept them. It's fully understandable that people are scared and do not trust mRNA. It has simply not been adequately tested.
Using it on children even worse!/Users/tinaabegg/Desktop/https-::uncutnews.ch:vietnam-drei-kinder-sterben-und-120-werden-nach-pfizer-biontech-impfstoff-ins-krankenhaus-eingeliefert-und-es-wird-weiter-geimpft:.webloc
There was typically pugnacious blog about Grimes and HPV vaccine by David Healy 5 years ago
I also note my own comment at the time
When the two brands of HPV vaccine were introduced they had behind them each approximately five years of trials – Ben Goldacre, apparently advocating for GSK, made a fuss about Cervarix’s trials being 6 months longer. Unfortunately, even to establish any net benefit in the diminution in the rates of cancer it would have taken almost as many decades, so the whole thing was introduced at the very best speculatively. On the other hand what they had control ruthlessly were reports of adverse advents – the anecdotes. They had to trust well established systems and methods for junking reports, intimidating victims (sometimes using Munchausen labels, bring in the family courts to silence parents etc). And, of course, they were taking a bigger risk because unlike with infant vaccines the injured were articulate. On the other hand what a wonderful way to test the system in preparation for further atrocities and denials.”