Nicolas Hulscher's recent Substack post, detailing his ostracism at the University of Michigan for researching mRNA vaccine harms, paints a chilling picture of academic suppression. As a Master of Public Health graduate, Hulscher faced ignored internship requests, career threats, and silent snubs from professors over his systematic review linking COVID-19 mRNA shots to fatal adverse events. His account, corroborated by his collaboration with Dr. Peter McCullough and their subsequent battles with censorship and "cartel-funded fact checkers," raises a critical question: If the science behind mRNA vaccines is so unassailable, why resort to passive-aggressive tactics to silence dissenters like Hulscher instead of engaging in open debate?
Hulscher's story is stark. At Michigan's prestigious School of Public Health, he alleges professors warned that probing vaccine harms would tank his career. His epidemiology poster session, presenting a systematic review of autopsy findings tied to mRNA shots, was met with avoidance; some faculty wouldn't even make eye contact. Post-graduation, his work with McCullough, including a pioneering autopsy study, drew intense backlash: online hate, defamatory "fact-checking," preprint censorship, and what he calls "illegal retractions" by a journal cartel controlling two-thirds of global publications. His November 2024 Substack post names heavyweights like Elsevier and Wiley, accusing them of enforcing unpaid peer reviews and restricting submissions to stifle dissent.
The study itself, published in 2023, analysed autopsy reports and found plausible links between mRNA vaccines and sudden deaths, citing mechanisms like myocarditis and blood clotting. While controversial, critics argue it cherry-picked cases and lacked control groups, it's a peer-reviewed contribution to a debate that's far from settled. Hulscher's broader point is the cost of his pursuit: professional isolation, personal attacks, and a David-vs-Goliath fight against academic gatekeepers. Yet he doubles down, saying the truth about potential vaccine harms outweighs the personal toll because "human lives" are at stake.
Hulscher's experience begs a simple question: If his work is flawed, why not dismantle it with data? Science thrives on debate, hypotheses are tested, critiqued, and refined through rigorous discourse. If mRNA vaccines are as safe as claimed, refuting Hulscher's findings should be straightforward. If Hulscher's autopsy study overstates risks or misinterprets causation, a point-by-point rebuttal in journals or public forums would suffice.
Instead, he faced what he describes as passive-aggressive shunning and institutional censorship. Professors ignoring posters? That's not science, it's politics. Retractions without transparent justification? That's power, not peer review. The "Journal Cartel" Hulscher references, major publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature, has been criticised elsewhere for paywalls and gatekeeping, with a 2024 study estimating they control 65% of global journal output. If they're retracting papers under pressure, as Hulscher claims, it's less about truth and more about protecting narratives.
This behaviour suggests fear, not confidence. The COVID-19 vaccine rollout was a global experiment. Why the fear? Several factors:
Public Trust: Admitting any vaccine harm risks fuelling anti-vax sentiment, already at 30% in U.S. polls by 2025. A 2024 Pew survey shows trust in public health at historic lows, post-COVID mandates.
Financial Stakes: The mRNA market, led by Pfizer and Moderna, is projected at $150 billion by 2030. Publishers and universities rely on industry grants; rocking the boat isn't lucrative.
Cultural Dogma: Post-COVID, questioning vaccines became a third rail. Academics fear being labelled "anti-science," even if their critique is methodological.
Silencing Hulscher avoids these landmines. Debating him risks amplifying his claims or exposing inconvenient data. It's easier to marginalise him as a crank than to engage, just like those opposing mass immigration, a parallel scam.
The real scandal isn't Hulscher's findings, it's the refusal to debate them. Science demands falsifiability, not orthodoxy. If his claims are wrong, prove it with data, not snubs or retractions. His resilience, forged by "academic bullying," mirrors whistleblowers like Dr. Andrew Wakefield (controversial but not entirely debunked) or Dr. Judy Mikovits, who faced similar ostracism. Whether he's right or wrong, Hulscher's treatment exposes a system more interested in control than truth.
Hulscher's saga isn't about vaccines alone, it's about whether science can still question itself. The passive-aggressive tactics he describes, silent professors, cartel retractions, signal an academic world scared of its own shadow. If the truth is on the side of vaccine safety, refuting him should be easy. Instead, the establishment's silence speaks volumes.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/they-told-me-id-never-have-a-career