by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
A Danish group published a statistical analysis in 2023 showing disproportionate adverse events for early Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, which was met with criticism from Anders Hviid, a Professor of epidemiology, and later by Borja Somovilla del Saz, a 23-year-old computer science student.
Somovilla del Saz’s criticism was the most prominent as it was referenced by Pfizer-BioNTech and the Paul Ehrlich Institut (“PEI”).
An investigation into Somovilla del Saz’s background and writing style has revealed inconsistencies, suggesting the involvement of external parties, and his critiques of various papers on vaccine safety and other topics appear to be reactionary and strategically timed.
It seems Somovilla del Saz is a ghostwriter used by the pharmaceutical industry to deliver messages that align with their interests.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Smoke, Mirrors And Ghostwriters
By Health Advisory & Recovery Team
In 2023, a Danish group published a statistical analysis showing disproportionate adverse events for early Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The graph of blue, green and yellow dots was widely circulated.
The behind-the-scenes story is one of lack of transparency, regulatory oversight and manufacturing consistency. The critiques of the paper are easily refuted. Interestingly, the most prominent critique came from a 23-year-old computer science student. Perhaps he’s a polymath genius or perhaps the evidence points to him being a ghostwriter being used by an industry renowned for such behaviour.
How the Story Unfolded
The main author, Vibeke Maniche, published her work on Twitter at 7:13 am on 11 April 2023. Within 12 minutes, Anders Hviid, Professor of epidemiology at the Serum Institute and a key figure regarding vaccine safety surveillance in Denmark, wrote, “FRAUD or incompetence? … This is a case of deliberate misinformation.” When independent scientists have taken the time to collate a huge dataset by batch number and carried out detailed analysis, such a response from a fellow professional seems rash to say the least.
He then wrote to the editors of the journal pressuring them to retract. The editors stood their ground and forwarded the critique to the authors who were able to defend each point successfully. He was invited to write a letter which was published on 15 July and made the point that shipped doses might not all have been given. Before his letter was published a separate letter was submitted not authored by him but by a single author, Borja Somovilla Del Saz, the 23-year-old computer science student.
What was going on?
Who is Borja Somovilla del Saz?
In his July 2023 paper, Borja Somovilla del Saz argued that the higher adverse event rates in early batches were due to their distribution to high-risk populations, including healthcare workers and the elderly. When De Welt asked BioNTech for comment they referenced his paper saying, “There is nothing more to say than this.” How odd that a pharmaceutical company has nothing more to add than what was penned by a 23-year-old computer student? The Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany also referenced his paper. Stranger still. Is he a polymath genius or is something else going on?
On Research Gate (where academics share their publications) he lists his skills as “computer networking.” Elsewhere he advertises for tutoring in computer programming. He earned his degree from Universidad Del Pais Vasco but claims affiliation to Valencia University where he lives and has an academic email address. He has a Twitter account which links to a Spanish blog.
His papers on Research Gate include the following:
1. A follow up critique of the Florida Surgeon General’s findings:‘Reconsidering the inclusion of Ladapo’s work in the meta-analysis: Validity concerns and implications’ Feb 2024 (Accepted in 2 months)
2. A critique of the Florida Department of Health publication accusing them of bias when reporting on cardiac deaths in males: ‘Questionable robustness in the findings of a meta-analysis’ Aug 2023 (Accepted in 17 days)
3. His letter regarding the Danish batch paper: ‘Batch-dependent safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine’.
4. Spanish commentary on covid vaccines: ‘Evidence supporting the use of covid vaccine (Update: 25/12/2022)’
5. Critique of the Malhotra paper: ‘Comment on Malhotra et al (2022): Curing the pandemic misinformation with more misinformation?’(Preprint only)
6. Paper critiquing the assertion that abortion has a clear negative impact on mental health: ‘Critique of Coleman’s new study: “The Turnaway Study: A case of self-correction in science upended by political motivation and unverified findings”’
The last one is interesting. This paper adopts the style of a social scientist, characterised by verbose and flowery language, extensive use of lengthy quotations, use of academic vocabulary at the expense of clarity and a focus on critiquing theoretical frameworks and study design rather than engaging in rigorous data analysis or presenting novel empirical findings.
