Why the Criticism of COVID Vaccines by State Surgeons General Cannot Be Dismissed, By Mrs. (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)
In a striking departure from the federal public health narrative, Louisiana Surgeon General Dr. Ralph Abraham and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo have publicly declared COVID-19 vaccines "dangerous," challenging the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and federal health authorities. Their statements, grounded in clinical observations and supported by specific studies, carry significant weight due to their positions as state health officials and practicing physicians. This discussion argues that their criticisms cannot be dismissed, as they reflect a growing body of evidence, highlight systemic issues in vaccine policy, and amplify the need for transparent, individualised healthcare decisions.
As state surgeons general, Abraham and Ladapo are not fringe voices but high-ranking medical officials tasked with overseeing public health policy. Abraham, a rural family physician, and Ladapo, a Harvard-trained doctor, bring both clinical experience and administrative authority to their claims. Their willingness to break ranks with federal guidelines signals a rare and courageous stance, especially in a climate where dissent on vaccines has often been met with professional ostracism. Their positions lend credibility to their warnings, as they are informed by direct patient interactions and access to state-level health data, which may reveal patterns not fully captured by federal reporting.
Abraham's public statement on X, backed by five specific claims, draws on peer-reviewed studies and data that challenge the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. These points are worth examining:
1.Record Death Reports in VAERS: Abraham cites OpenVAERS, which reports more deaths linked to COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since 1990. While the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is not conclusive proof of causation, the sheer volume of reports, unprecedented in its history, demands investigation. Dismissing this as mere correlation ignores the scale of the signal.
2.DNA Contamination Concerns: A study published in Autoimmunity Reviews found DNA contaminants, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter sequence, in COVID vaccines at levels exceeding FDA limits. This raises questions about manufacturing oversight and long-term safety, particularly given the novel mRNA technology's limited long-term data.
3.Negative Efficacy: A Cleveland Clinic study indicated that higher doses of COVID vaccines correlated with an increased risk of infection, suggesting negative efficacy as the virus evolves. This challenges the narrative that vaccines uniformly reduce transmission or infection rates, a cornerstone of mandate justifications.
4.Large-Scale Observational Data: A study of 99 million people, published in Vaccine, confirmed elevated risks of serious adverse events like myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and venous sinus thrombosis post-vaccination. This is among the largest datasets to date, lending statistical weight to safety concerns.
5.Myocarditis Risks: Research published on ResearchGate suggests myocarditis is more common and severe after vaccination than after natural infection. This is particularly alarming for younger populations, who face low risk from COVID, but higher vaccine-related cardiac risks.
These studies, while not conclusive on their own, form a compelling body of evidence that cannot be brushed aside as misinformation. They suggest gaps in the safety profile of COVID vaccines that warrant further scrutiny, especially given the rapid development and emergency authorisation of these products.
Abraham's critique of the PREP Act, which grants vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, highlights a structural flaw in the vaccine ecosystem. This protection, intended to encourage rapid development during emergencies, reduces incentives for manufacturers to adopt safety improvements. If adverse events occur, patients bear the consequences without legal recourse, eroding trust in both the vaccines and the institutions promoting them. Ladapo's call for research into vaccine "injuries" further underscores this gap, as federal agencies have been slow to fund such studies despite growing reports of harm.
The erosion of trust is compounded by what Abraham describes as "COVID missteps," including inconsistent messaging on masks, school closures, and vaccine mandates. These policies, often presented as scientific consensus, alienated many who felt coerced into compliance without adequate transparency. The surgeons general's criticisms resonate because they echo public scepticism, particularly in states like Louisiana, where only 55% of the population is fully vaccinated, and childhood vaccination rates rank among the lowest nationally.
Both surgeons general emphasise informed consent over blanket mandates, arguing that vaccine decisions should be made between patients and their doctors. This stance aligns with medical ethics, which values individual autonomy and risk-benefit assessments tailored to personal health profiles. Abraham acknowledges that some high-risk patients may benefit from COVID vaccines, but insists that the risks, particularly for younger, healthier individuals, must be weighed carefully. This nuanced approach contrasts with federal recommendations, such as the CDC's endorsement of COVID vaccines for infants as young as six months, which Abraham and Ladapo argue is "out of touch" with public sentiment and emerging data.
The push for individualised decision-making is particularly critical given the evolving nature of the virus and vaccines. The Cleveland Clinic study's findings on negative efficacy suggest that vaccines may not provide the universal protection once promised, especially as variants emerge. Forcing a one-size-fits-all approach, risks undermining trust further, especially when adverse events like myocarditis disproportionately affect certain demographics.
Dismissing Abraham and Ladapo's warnings as anti-science or politically motivated, ignores their evidence-based arguments and the broader context of public health failures. Their critiques are not isolated; they align with sentiments expressed by other figures, such as Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who has publicly supported Abraham's stance. The fact that two state surgeons general, representing millions of Americans, are openly challenging the CDC, signals a significant shift in the public health landscape. This is not a conspiracy theory but a call for accountability, grounded in data and clinical experience.
Moreover, their statements amplify a growing public demand for transparency. Posts on X, such as those from users like @NicHulscher and @Holden_Culotta, reflect similar concerns, citing studies and autopsy evidence to argue that COVID vaccines have caused harm. While X posts are not conclusive, they indicate a broader sentiment that cannot be ignored, especially when corroborated by peer-reviewed research.
Critics, including Senator Bill Cassidy and medical organisations like the Louisiana State Medical Society, argue that vaccines remain safe and effective, citing FDA approval and CDC studies showing reduced hospitalisation rates. Cassidy, a physician himself, has advocated for broader vaccine access, suggesting Abraham could issue blanket prescriptions to ensure availability. However, this argument sidesteps the adverse event data and the ethical concerns around mandating a medical intervention with known risks, especially when trust in institutions is shaky.
Medical associations have also labelled Abraham's policies as "anti-science," pointing to the success of vaccines in reducing severe outcomes. Yet, this defence often glosses over the specific issues raised, such as DNA contamination or negative efficacy, and fails to address the PREP Act's role in shielding manufacturers. While vaccines have historically been critical for public health, the unique circumstances of COVID vaccines, rapid development, novel technology, and limited long-term data, justify a more cautious approach.
The criticisms from Abraham and Ladapo cannot be dismissed because they are rooted in credible data, reflect real-world clinical observations, and address systemic flaws in vaccine policy. Their positions as state surgeons general give them a platform to challenge a narrative that has often suppressed dissent. By advocating for informed consent and highlighting risks, they are not rejecting science, but demanding a more rigorous application of it, one that chooses patient autonomy and safety over institutional dogma.
The wall of silence around vaccine harms is indeed cracking, as Abraham's post on X and Ladapo's earlier warnings suggest. Their defiance of federal policy is a wake-up call for a public health establishment that must rebuild trust through transparency and accountability. Ignoring or vilifying these surgeons general risks further alienating a public already sceptical of top-down mandates.
Louisiana Office of the Surgeon General
The COVID vaccines are dangerous -
is right. I see the fallout in my clinic every day. Senator Cassidy should remember that the PREP Act gave manufacturers immunity from liability for harms caused by these products, so they have little incentive to make them better. As always, people should consult with their doctors, determine whether benefits outweigh risks, and make the decision that is best for them. When making that decision, it is important to keep in mind the facts. I list a few of them here because many people, including doctors, seem to be unaware: 1. More deaths have been reported to VAERS after COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since tracking began in 1990: https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality 2. DNA contaminants were found in the COVID vaccines, which far exceeded the FDA's allowable limits - including the cancer-causing SV40 gene from monkeys: https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2551517 3. Several studies have shown zero to negative efficacy as the virus changes over time, including this one from the Cleveland Clinic, meaning that those who took the shot were more likely to get the disease: https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v5.full 4. The largest ever observational study, including 99 million people, showed increased risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, venous sinus thrombosis, and other serious adverse events following COVID vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/ 5. Myocarditis is more common and more severe after COVID vaccination than from the disease: https://researchgate.net/publication/390587954_Myocarditis_after_SARS-CoV-2_infection_and_COVID-19_vaccination_Epidemiology_outcomes_and_new_perspectives OTC orders and blanket prescriptions have a place when a drug is old, well-studied, and generally known to be safe. Although I don't recommend them, some contend there are high-risk patients for whom COVID vaccines make sense, but the question should be carefully considered on an individual basis by looking not only at benefits, but also risks. My hope is that patients and doctors will look closely at both sides of the equation when making an informed decision.
https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/louisiana-surgeon-general-declares
"Louisiana Surgeon General Dr. Ralph Abraham has issued a stunning public warning declaring the COVID vaccines "dangerous," backing Governor Jeff Landry (R) and listing five damning facts he says most Americans—and even doctors—don't know.
While Florida's Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo was the first to officially advise against (here) mRNA shots, Louisiana's move adds unprecedented momentum to the public-health rebellion against federal COVID vaccine policy.
Breaking Ranks with WashingtonDr. Abraham didn't mince words in his post on Twitter/X:
"The COVID vaccines are dangerous – @LAGovJeffLandry is right. I see the fallout in my clinic every day."
He reminded Senator Bill Cassidy that the PREP Act shields manufacturers from liability for harms, leaving them with "little incentive to make them better."
Abraham stressed that patients and doctors should weigh both risks and benefits before making decisions, then laid out the facts.
The Five Facts Louisiana's Surgeon General Cited1.Record Death Reports: More deaths have been logged in VAERS after COVID shots than for all other vaccines combined since 1990.
2.DNA Contamination, Including SV40: Independent testing found DNA fragments inside COVID shots far exceeding FDA's limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter sequence.
3.Negative Efficacy: A massive Cleveland Clinic study showed repeated vaccination actually increased the risk of catching COVID.
4.Largest Study Ever—99 Million People: The largest observational study in history confirmed higher risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré, venous sinus thrombosis, and more after COVID vaccination.
5.Myocarditis Worse After the Shot: Evidence now shows myocarditis is more common and severe after vaccination than after infection itself.
Informed Consent, Not MandatesAbraham said blanket prescriptions may make sense for "old, well-studied, and generally known to be safe" drugs—but not for the COVID shots.
While he conceded some high-risk patients might still consider them, he emphasized that decisions must be made individually, weighing both risks and benefits.
Bottom LineFlorida lit the match when Surgeon General Ladapo warned against mRNA vaccines.
Louisiana has now thrown fuel on the fire.
With two state surgeon generals openly defying the CDC narrative, the wall of silence around vaccine harms is cracking—and Americans are finally hearing from top officials what they already suspected: these shots are not safe."
Comments