Another funny moment

Textbook straw man for insider

I would like to respond to this gentleman, because this arrogance and straw man excuses can not be topped that easy.¹

In the end, there are exactly three crude pseudo-arguments that this gentleman is putting forward here:

1. “It is not peer reviewed.” Please read the article and bear in mind that every submission requires adjustments to the respective journal and therefore takes time. We will resubmit shortly and hope for the best. No one can refute our content without providing the required data.

"But it is not peer reviewed"

2. “It scandalizes without evidence.” Regrettably, we do not sensationalize, but rather systematically review the available omic data and evidence of the mechanisms at work, and use this to form a hypothesis.

3. “The reactions are normal and everything is fine. And “quantitative evidence”™ speaks pro vacc.” Firstly, if you don’t understand cell biology, you shouldn’t claim you do. And secondly, if evidence is understood to modeled data that is also based on assumptions such as a 95 percent relative risk reduction, <14 days after the second injection is unvaccinated, and IFRs that are completely divorced from reality, then yes, that is evident.

Let’s look at another example of the no-brainer “It hasn’t been peer reviewed” where the issue of excess mortality is precisely at stake:

https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/interview-kuhbandner

As far as the emperic is concerned, it is clear? Well, well... This argument is as full of holes as the Paul Ehrlich Institute’s data collection and would probably depend entirely on how the data is modeled/weighted and interpreted.

I will list here once again a number of papers that show the opposite.

Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022²

Differential Increases in Excess Mortality in the German Federal States During the COVID-19 Pandemic³

Covid-19 vaccinations and all-cause mortality -a long-term differential analysis among municipalities⁴

Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A BigData Analysis of 145 Countries⁵

Increasing SARS-CoV2 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the vaccinated populations during the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant surge in UK⁶

Age-adjusted non-COVID-19 mortality rates according to the COVID-19 vaccination status⁷

https://phinancetechnologies.com/HumanityProjects/yearly%20Excess%20Death%20Rate%20Analysis%20-%20Eurostat.htm

As I said before, “it’s not peer-reviewed” is an argument for people who don’t want to engage with the content.

Straw man 1:

He twists the neutral statement into: “it is presented as if it were groundbreaking.”

Reality:

The paper does not present a groundbreaking discovery, but rather mechanistic facts. I seriously doubt that he even got past the introduction and failed fundamentally at the pharmacokinetics stage.

Straw man 2:

He claims: Normal vaccine reactions are being sensationalized.

Reality:

The paper does not mention clinical vaccine reactions, but rather cellular mechanisms. He is attacking a distorted version of our statements, not our actual argumentation. And since when would be a disturbed PtdIns-Cycle and active LNP degradation blocks be a “normal vaccine reaction”? (Asking for a friend.)

Straw man 3:

He portrays our neutral formulations (“this suggests,” “we believe”) as “nonsense.”

Reality:

These formulations are standard in scientific hypothesis formation, especially when discussing mechanisms without proving them experimentally in vivo. The whole text is one lack of contextualization: He insinuates that we ignore quantitative data, even though we systematically cite experimental literature to substantiate mechanisms. In short: neutral, scientific caution is twisted into ignorance or alarmism. Probably he really thinks he made a point when the simple truth is: He does not understand biological plausibility.

I wonder whether he would be able to argue against the actual content without resorting to these run-of-the-mill smokescreens, which are typically used when one lacks substantive counterarguments. And I can guarantee that anyone who claims that up to 10 days of sustained mTORC1 overexpression is ‘normal’ while it transcriptionally targets cell-cycle control via BUB1, CDC25A and RRM2, with E2F1 and E2F8 decoupled in immune cells, has no understanding of cell or systems biology.

1. https://x.com/EfferUhe/status/1998675449954578906

2. Kuhbandner, C., & Reitzner, M. (2023). Estimation of Excess Mortality in Germany During 2020-2022. Cureus, 15(5), e39371. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.39371

3. Kuhbandner, C., & Reitzner, M. (2024). Differential Increases in Excess Mortality in the German Federal States During the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13098.18880

4. Redert, A. (2022). Covid-19 vaccinations and all-cause mortality -a long-term differential analysis among municipalities. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33994.85447

5. Beattie, K. (2021). Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A BigData Analysis of 145 Countries. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34214.65605

6. Emani, V. R., Pallipuram, V. K., Goswami, K. K., Maddula, K. R., Reddy, R., Nakka, A. S., Panga, S., Reddy, N. K., Reddy, N. K., Nandanoor, D., & Goswami, S. (2022). Increasing SARS-CoV2 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the vaccinated populations during the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant surge in UK. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276926

7. Kampf, G., & Fornerod, M. (2025). Age-adjusted non-COVID-19 mortality rates according to the COVID-19 vaccination status. Journal of the Academy of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.70542/rcj-japh-art-hxuadp