We’re publishing an original piece on the Daily Sceptic by a senior executive in a pharmaceutical company about why penalising those who haven’t had a Covid vaccine is contrary to the principle of informed consent. Here is an extract:
Unlike the benefit, the safety risks associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are not age dependent and include rare, serious adverse events including death. So, the balance of benefit and risk for their use also varies with age and is vastly different for a diabetic man in his 60s compared to a healthy young woman in her 20s. From the perspective of the benefit to the individual, there is therefore no way we should be considering vaccinating healthy young people using these vaccines. The likelihood of serious adverse effects may be small but then so is the likelihood of avoiding serious COVID-19 and so there is a very real possibility that a mass vaccination campaign of young people will produce more harm than benefit. In fact, the original strategy was to focus COVID-19 vaccinations on the over-50s for precisely this benefit/risk reason.
But somewhere along the way, COVID-19 vaccinations stopped being solely about the benefit to the individual and started to be about the benefit to society (i.e., the goal of achieving herd immunity). A brief reminder: herd immunity occurs when a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to a given pathogen in such a way that the likelihood of encountering an infectious person drops, as does the likelihood of an infectious person being able to pass the infection on to another individual who also becomes infectious. As a result, herd immunity protects individuals who are naïve to an infection simply because they are unlikely to ever encounter an infectious person and at the same time it means that an infection can no longer spread effectively through the population and may even die out.
Vaccinations can produce herd immunity and in the case of smallpox were so effective that they led to the elimination of the disease itself. But from an informed consent perspective there is one huge difference between vaccination campaigns that have historically produced herd immunity and that being pursued for COVID-19 and that is that historically the diseases concerned were of significant risk to those receiving the vaccination. For example, measles is a significant risk for young children and so we vaccinate young children. But young children often grow up to be adults and carry their measles immunity with them and so, as a result, measles herd immunity emerges as a consequence of measles vaccination… it is absolutely not its aim.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: For a diametrically opposite view, see this piece in Salon: “It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated – they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms.”
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Smallpox is different. There are no animal reservoirs of the virus. Unlike SARS-CoV-2 which can infect cats, dogs, and other mammals and re-infect those in contact with them later.
This is happening everywhere in the world at the moment in countries who have barely seen a case, but i suppose its just government stupidity and incompetence, its strange though the ruthless lockstep efficiency of worldwide governments to force this on their populations, it almost makes me think more of a coordinated plan as the most logical explanation maybe?
The line in the ad should be “Don’t miss out on your COVID jabs (x2)” it should be (x♾)
This is a criminal conspiracy employing coercion, silencing of debate, threatening good doctors with retribution for advocating early treatment, and suppression of medical truth.
For a tightly argued and irrefutable article that demolishes the vaccine-crusaders who are demonizing the unvaxxed, see this: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-no-this-is-not-an-epidemic-of-the-unvaccinated-its-a-pandemic-of-censored-early-treatment. The vaccine-crusaders also conveniently forget that in 5-10 years time it will be the unvaxxed who will be footing the bill for the medium-to-long term side-effects of the vaccinated, a large proportion of whom will be incapacitated by their afflictions resulting from the mass medical experiment that they so joyously participated in and are now so self-righteous about.
“It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated – they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms.”
Let’s not blame the gangsters for smashing up the shop: it’s all the fault of the guy next door for refusing to pay his protection money.
Does anyone else have an urge to slap that simpering unicorn shirted girl? I’m now finding that poster as offensive as the look him in the eyes one.
“Threatening the unvaccinated with social penalties flies in the face of informed consent”
Now there’s a phrase this comment brings to mind…what was it now? Oh yes that’s it.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
FFS. This is light years beyond that!
It’s easy to get bogged down in the detail of the snake oil.
But the issues are quite simple :
Everything else just follows.
I don’t recall a single Human Rights Lawyer challenging the Government over its coercive policies …. and certainly not the Empty Suit that is called Leader of HM Opposition.
The intention is the passport, not immunity. Governments need the passport in order to change the banking and monetary system to fully digital. This will mean you will carry your passport as your bank account and credit card, it will be loaded with digital currency that can be used at the “stores”, however it can and will be used to control behaviour, in other words a form of slavery. They want to lock down again, they don’t want you to travel more than 3 miles from your home, then your ability to use your money will stop at the 3 mile point. They need to take more money from you in taxes, they will just take it from your digital account. Why is it that large companies such as the Supermarkets were allowed to continue trading wheras the individual owned shops selling similar things were enforceably closed? Because the Banks and the Governments only want to deal with the larger corporations where they can integrate their systems. Meanwhile the small businesses go to the walls and the private equity groups pick them up cheap. The vaccine passport is your individual marker, your tracker with its built in virtual electric shock… Read more »
Spot on. And they are doing it on the pretext of saving granny at the expense of the young.
I do wonder how many of them in the know have had or will have the “vaccine”.
Hopefully they will all rot in Hell.
There is a huge and very important difference between the SARS and smallpox viruses regards eradication, the Sars virus has an animal reservoir so we cannot eradicate it, whereas the smallpox virus does not, meaning we could control the human-only spread and so eradicate it.
It’s one of those truly amazing developments during this ‘pandemic’ that this Epidemiology 101 Basic Fact was and continues to be ignored.
Another factor, in all of this coercion, is the potential for catastrophic family breakdown, if parents have been pressurising their young adult children to be jabbed, and it all goes wrong…
I haven’t read the Salon piece yet but I can confirm that the non-vaccinated are not robbing anybody of any freedoms and to suggest such displays a sub – normal level of intelligence.
I’m not going to read it as it won’t help my mental state but I can confirm that as an unvaccinated person, I have not deprived anyone of their freedoms. In fact I would urge them to avail themselves of all freedoms, at any opportunity. Freedom to show their face, go in a pub, get their hair cut, go on holiday, all that shizzle.
The people depriving people of freedoms are politicians, who are largely vaccinated (or masquerading as such). THEY are the ones you should turn on, YOU ABJECT CONTEMPTUOUS FOOLS.
It’s actually worth reading: emotive, fact-free, thought-free, hyperbolic garbage.
We’re winning this war.
We are!!!
Salon, let us recall, is communist and, as such, must blame the victims.
Those Frogs really don’t like that vax apartheid (and good for them!) The Marseillaise seems an appropriate song for the situation:
https://twitter.com/Elanders_Voice/status/1426119778897432578
Aux armes, citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons!
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!
To arms, citizens!
Form your battalions
Let’s march, let’s march
That their impure blood
Should water our fields.
Let’s hope the French get that 1789 spirit again. Macron is a pretty good replacement for Louis XVI.
That Salon piece, what an entitled plonker. Thing is, that sort have plenty to say about everything that stops them doing exactly what they want.
Salon are communists, completely opposed to all freedom and are currently blaming government policy on the victims of government policy.
Reminds me of being 10 years old under the care of one of our more intolerant teachers who would hold us to impossible standards of “order” and punish the whole class when one individual let the side down.
Most of us knew it wasn’t that one kid it was the bitter old cow standing at the front of the class exercising her inner tyrant but our collective frustrations were directed at the one kid.
..
‘coincidence’
“However, it becomes an issue in this case because you need lots of young people (and the population in general) to be vaccinated in order to cross the magic threshold for herd immunity and purely relying on a sense of community or selflessness may not be sufficient…”
It already has been sufficient, so why keep pushing for tyranny?
For the full details, I don’t actually oppose vaccine bribes, Sweden seem fine with it and a mere £17 in Krona works wonders on the hesitant (if not the refusers), but threats and negative coercion must be opposed be any and every means.
Th article points a good picture of the danger the country is sleepwalking in to, we must make it plain in advance how far we will go if necessary to sabotage the checkpoint state and two-tier society so that those planning it are put off by the realisation that not only will it not work (it never could) but that also we’ll make sure they can’t even maintain the illusion of it working.
“For the full details, I don’t actually oppose vaccine bribes” So you’re OK with political and health leaders bribing the gullible to take a vaccine they don’t need, that said leaders know full well will not benefit anyone else either, for political reasons?
I tend to go for the view of not holding views on what medicines others should or shouldn’t take, on the understanding it isn’t my business to pry in to anyone else’s medical status just the way it isn’y anyone’s business to dictate mine. For many the vaccine might be pointless, undoubtedly for some it can be helpful, and I’d sooner see a small fortune of tax money wasted on bribes for people who perhaps don’t need a vaccine than see a large fortune wasted on tyrannical measures and force. If people want the vaccine as a comfort blanket let them have it, if someone wants to get a little positive bribe for getting jab, let them. As far as protecting choice and privacy goes the important thing is fighting back against coercive policies.
Thank you , Toby, for the link to Salon. It is good to see a total lack of logic exposed to full public view, and all because of spin sessions, whatever they are.
Fuck of Toby you arse creeping cunt
Impressively crafted comment.
Cheers
Yeah, plainly somebody who just got A* in their English A level.
Do you mean OFF?
Out of order.
You wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Toby.
Which is supposed to mean what?
Testing is still running at over 800k per day and “positives” are running at around 30,00 per day. When testing goes down positives go down. Maybe there is some link (sarcasm, in case you didn’t realise).
Exactly wait till September the kids back at school and university, the testing madness will start again the cases/infections or whatever they call a positive these days will go up again and hey presto just intime for Johnson to extend the emergency laws and bring in another Lockdown, Its so patronisingly insulting you couldn’t make it up, and the press and the sheep will lap it up without question, and we will all be back down the Rabbit hole again in time for Christmas. But this time Johnson has someone to blame doesn’t he? The unvaccinated or should we call them the disobedient, the threat to his total dominance. He will use his psyops team to create propaganda which will lead to unvaccinated people being targetted and attacked, mark my words.
“The likelihood of serious adverse effects may be small”
Weee..ll. It depends on your criterion. If one judges by the normal threshold for judging medicines ‘safe’, then the likelihood is quite extraordinary, and minor adverse events astoundingly common.
Unless shown as an example of the deluded thinking of our opponents that Salon article is NOT ok. To suggest that anyone, the vaccine refusing, the hesitant or the already-jabbed, should loose any freedoms because they or someone else wasn’t jabbed is to suggest lockdowns were a)effective and b)proportionate. Rather than merely describing as “diametrically opposite” all sceptics should define that article as a symptom of mental degeneration, it is not the vaccine hesistant/refusing who are denying others freedom, it is the lockdownist fools who are too scared to tolerate a true return to normality and are now trying to use the unjabebd as scapegoats for their mistakes. Given the beliefs of the typical lockdownist even if all the unjabebd were somehow miraculously vaxxed overnight, they’d find a new reason to deny people their freedoms.
These People are no better than the Nazi’s they are inciting violence and hatred of a segment of society, they are dangerous,
It’s OK to blame the unvaccinated — they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms.
Not in the mood to even look at this: Your freedoms were taken from you long before vaccination became an option. Hence, they cannot now be robbed from you and not by other people whose were also taken from them.
I found the whole article unintentionally hilarious. The argument is full of holes and seems to want to blame everything on Trump supporters.
The sad thing is that it is idiotic (amusing) rants like this that Joe Bloggs is believing, not the nuanced debate.
I am not so sure they are. With every passing day, more people know fully vaccinated people who have caught covid. Arguments in favour of vaccine passports cannot stand up to that lived experience. I don’t follow what the, appalling, man has to say, but I imagine even Piers Moron has gone quiet on the idea of vax papers.
I am not so sure in terms of people waking up. My friend who is double vaccinated, both of her young adult children recently took their first “vaccination” both are now very sick WITH Covid, but my friend says “think how ill they would have been if they hadn’t had the vaccine”. I replied that I thought the drug was supposed to immunise, was she certain the vaccine hadn’t actually caused the illness. She would not entertain such a concept. Sorry but the Public have accepted the brainwashing, that a vaccine that was supposed to confer immunity when it came out, which subsequently has stopped nothing, and so the propaganda line of if you hadn’t had it you would die wheras now you won’t has been bought. People seem to have forgotten it was the very old and sick that died and that over 99 percent who caught covid survived. Hats off to the Goebbels in Westminster they pulled off the lie.
When an excellent post! Something I’ve been trying to tell people, such as friends and in comment sections online, but it is entirely lost on people. It’s no wonder the atrocities of the past were committed as one can see how easily people can be manipulated.
There’s logic error in here: If the unvaccinated are a danger to the broader vaccinated population, it follows that the vaccine doesn’t protect said broader population, hence, increasing the number of people who are vulnerable despite vaccination accomplishes nothing (minus selling vaccine doses).
The proponents of mandatory-vaccination-in-all-but-the-name usually try to get around this claiming that they believe it will reduce the unknown risk of getting COVID by an unknown amount. But this just means that they believe something despite they don’t have any evidence to prove it and other people’s unsubstantiated beliefs don’t justify use of coercive force.
Very little of the government’s response has been logical, though, has it?
Actually, he does address it in the column. He says the vaccine could reduce the severity of the disease, that is, if you actually get it. These are “leaky” vaccines meaning they don’t provide any immunity whatsoever, they just reduce symptoms. They are very much like flu vaccines.
This statement has absolutely no relation to mine and vaccination doesn’t provide symptom relief, only immunity (to some degree). This may – in turn – lead to the immune system eliminating the pathogens before serious symptoms develop.
There is no hard evidence that the vaccines provide symptom relief. If on the other hand the vaccines only provide partial immunity to Covid-19, then it is very likely that the vaccines will themselves cause the virus to become increasingly vaccine resistant.
It is a standard tenet of vaccinology, that mass vaccinating into the teeth of an epidemic with a non-sterilising vaccine is bad practice, being an almost certain way of encouraging a virus to mutate and become resistant to that vaccine. This is exactly what Geert Vanden Bossche was warning about in the spring of 2021. Of course, not that many were listening.
What Vanden Bossche was saying is well known, so that for me, it indicates that those instigating the mass vaccinations wanted to make things worse or perhaps more likely that the injections have a real purpose that is totally unrelated to preventing or ameliorating Covid-19, whatever it really is.
This is the reason why there is such resistance to vaccination of Badgers, bovines and fecking Alpacas to TB.
Glorified bloody aspirin but about 1,000 times more dangerous.
I think the proponents of mandatory-vaccination-in-all-but-the-name at the very highest level know it’s got no health benefit. Vallance and Whitty et al are not stupid, and neither is the PM. I think they are drunk on power.
What has happened to the contribution of natural immunity? Just dismissed and not talked about but it must play a significant role.
The reason they are ignoring our immune systems is because they are intent on destroying them, once destroyed you will have to depend on boosters to keep you going!
And boosters for everything, if the jabs wipe the immune system of it’s cellular immunity. People don’t realise that immunity can be wiped. My daughter has her immunity to MMR and chicken pox checked on a regular basis because of her autoimmune condition. Just imagine if 30% of those vaccinated have lost their immunity to measles…
Interesting. Do you have links to relevant research please?
Hearing death rates in Republican States are creeping up? Is this the CDC again fudging numbers?
This is a general question, not related to the topic. My employer is expecting me to take a temperature check when I return to the office. What right do they have to insist on that?
Absolutely none.
I would say none.
The problem is that one generally doesn’t want to have a fight with one’s employer.
The trick is to find a non-confrontational way of resisting what they are trying to force you.
Could you very softly just say: look, this is intrusive. I totally understand you want to make sure.that no one who is ill comes to the office. I promise to check my own temperature before.coming in. If I come in, it’s because I don’t have a temperature. Presumably you don’t think I will lie to you about something this serious?
At the very least you put them in the very awkward position of telling you to your face that you may be a liar.
Neither do they have the right to ask about what underwear you’re wearing, or not.
They don’t have a ‘right’ but it might be reasonable if they can give a sound explanation. Have they done health and safety risk assessments that show temp checks would mitigate an identified risk? What are they looking to achieve by taking your temperature? Have they been instructed to do so by their liability insurers? Some employers don’t take too kindly to their staff questioning their decisions but as long as you do so in a discreet way you should be ok. If you’re in the UK please bear in mind that in the first 2 years of employment there’s far less on your side.
No right whatsoever, same with mandating masks and soon vaccines.
But we keep putting up with it, so they keep doing it.