How many COVID-19 vaccine related serious adverse events are acceptable? In part 1 of this two-part article, we tried to answer this question by reference to the population and the ‘collectivist’s’ view. But when it comes to medical treatment it is the individual that is paramount and not society. Some of the greatest medical abuses of history have been justified through the ‘benefit to society’ argument and this is why ethical frameworks in medicine focus on the individual patient and the benefit and risk to him or her, and him or her alone.
There may be incidental benefits to society, but these are additional effects of treatment and not its purpose, which must be to benefit the patient. This latter point is made in the ‘Green Book’ in the opening sentences from the chapter on informed consent for vaccination (Chapter 2).
It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations. This reflects the rights of individuals to decide what happens to their own bodies and consent is a fundamental principle of good healthcare and professional practice. (our emphasis)
No mention of broader societal consideration here, but a very clear statement as to whose rights are important. So, in thinking about what is an acceptable level of serious adverse events (SAEs) from the COVID-19 vaccinations, we need to bring it down to the individual level and be able to describe the benefit and risk to the person receiving the vaccination. If there are genuine benefits to the individual, then these may well produce population level benefits, but ultimately it is the individual who needs to decide on whether the treatment will be of benefit to him or her.
A point that the Green Book goes on to make when discussing what valid consent means:
For consent to immunisation to be valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question. (our emphasis)
So, what does “appropriately informed” mean when it comes to the benefits and risks of the COVID-19 vaccinations to the individual?
The 90% ‘lie’
To be appropriately informed first means understanding how serious COVID-19 is to the person who is going to potentially receive the vaccination. We can get a sense of this from estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (IFR). A relatively recent paper by Pezzullo et al. gives just such estimates of the IFRs for different age groups based on a meta-analysis of 31 pre-vaccination studies. These are summarised in Table 1 and give us our baseline ‘seriousness’ by which to measure the individual effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing death. Obviously, these are median figures and so if you are someone who has a pre-existing condition that raises your risk above this level, but this speaks to the need to understand your own risk (and benefit) if you are to consent to treatment.
Two things leap out from this analysis. First, the ‘ageist’ nature of COVID-19; for those under the age of 19, the likelihood of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection is three in a million, whilst for those in the 60-69 age group it is 1 in 200. Second, none of these IFRs comes close to the 1% that Professor Chris Whitty used as his theoretical example of a disease with a low mortality rate for which he said:
For a disease with a low (for the sake of argument 1%) mortality a vaccine has to be very safe so the safety studies can’t be shortcut. So important for the long run.
Having established how serious COVID-19 is to oneself, the next question becomes what benefits do the COVID-19 vaccinations offer with respect to the likelihood of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection? The ONS figures on vaccine effectiveness suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines have an initial relative effectiveness of 90% in preventing COVID-19 related deaths and this ‘90% effective’ benefit is routinely used as the justification for getting vaccinated. But, putting aside the question as to whether this figure is accurate or not, what does ‘90% effective’ actually mean? Well, for the 0-19 year-olds this means we changed their risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection from three in a million to three in 10 million, which is indeed a relative risk reduction of 90%, but is an absolute reduction in risk of 0.00027% (Table 1). Whilst for the 60-69 year olds the risk of dying of COVID-19 has gone from 1 in 200 to 1 in 2,000, an absolute reduction in risk of 0.45%. The benefit to the 60-69 year-olds is about 1,700 times greater than to the 0-19 year old, despite the vaccine being (for the sake of argument) ‘90% effective’ in both groups of people. For a disease with a ‘low mortality’ IFR of 1% the vaccine reduces the risk to 0.1%, an absolute reduction of 0.9%.
So, in terms of being ‘appropriately informed’, being told that the vaccine reduces your risk of dying “by 90%” is the great statistical ‘lie’, because it potentially leads to a complete misunderstanding of the real benefit to you as an individual. For example, if you are a healthy 20-something year-old then a ‘90% reduction in risk of dying from COVID-19’ sounds like a great benefit from vaccination because it tacitly suggests that you are at significant risk from COVID-19 itself. That is until you realise that a 90% reduction in risk really means reducing your risk of dying from COVID-19 from 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 500,000, an absolute risk reduction in the IFR of 0.0018%. A trivial gain in overall risk reduction following a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
So much for the benefits, what about the risks – what is the risk of suffering a fatality following a COVID-19 vaccination? As discussed in part 1, estimates of these figures vary from 12 in a million for the mRNA vaccines to potentially as high as 1 in 5,300 for the AZ vaccine. If we focus on the mRNA vaccines (not least because it appears that the AstraZeneca vaccine is being quietly dropped from use) and for simplicity’s sake assume that the risk of a vaccine induced fatality is 1 in 100,000 per dose for everyone receiving the jab (10 in a million), then what does this mean for an individual’s risk of dying if vaccinated against COVID-19? Now we need to consider not just the residual chance of dying from COVID-19 if vaccinated (assuming 90% effectiveness) but the added risk of dying from vaccination itself which means simply adding the two risks together to get the overall risk of dying (Table 1). We can then go on to work out what the absolute risk reduction is if we take this rate of vaccine fatality into account. Doing this, it is immediately apparent that with a 1 in 100,000 level of vaccine fatality, vaccinating children and the under-19s actually increases their likelihood of dying by about three-fold (from three in a million if unvaccinated to 10 in a million if vaccinated) and for those in their 20s, this level of vaccine fatality halves any gain from COVID-19 vaccination (from 0.0018% to 0.0009%), because the absolute risk reduction from even a ‘90% effective’ vaccine is so modest that it is impacted by the 1 in 100,000 chance of a vaccine induced fatality. For those more at risk from COVID-19, this level of vaccine fatality does not substantially alter the overall benefit of vaccination, although the absolute reductions in risk remain modest.
The benefits to an individual of having a COVID-19 vaccination are not just about reducing one’s risk of death, but also avoiding potentially serious illness. A full-blown bout of COVID-19 is a deeply unpleasant experience, which might end up in a trip to hospital and so having a jab to avoid serious illness is also of genuine medical benefit. But, as is obvious from the definition of an SAE (see part 1), vaccine-induced injuries and SAEs can also be truly awful, and even life-altering, without necessarily being fatal. More people will benefit from any positive impact of the vaccine on serious disease, but similarly more people will also suffer non-fatal SAEs and so, the real balance of benefit/risk comes from understanding these broader impacts of the vaccination. As discussed in part 1, effectively quantifying such benefits and risks outside of a clinical trial is very difficult as we’re depending on spontaneous reporting and there will be lots of assumptions and biases in the analyses. In the end, we can only really focus on ‘countable’ things like deaths and hospitalisations but the vast majority of potential benefit (reduction in disease severity due to COVID-19 vaccination) and injury (SAEs and AEs that are still significant and potentially life altering) will not be reported and so will be invisible to the assessment of benefit-risk.
Multiple doses
But there’s a further consideration we need to take into account when trying to be ‘appropriately informed’ about the benefit and risk and that is that a COVID-19 vaccination is not a single jab but multiple jabs. This is necessary to achieve (and maintain) the ‘90% effectiveness’ of the vaccination, but each dose carries the risk of an SAE and so to really understand the risk means figuring in the impact of needing to have several injections, in other words what is the overall risk for the vaccination course?
Let’s assume that most SAEs are not fatalities and that the SAE rate associated with the mRNA vaccinations is 10 times higher than the potential fatality rate i.e., 1 in 10,000 per dose (which would still be classified as very rare events). What does this mean if you were to have a course of three jabs i.e., primary dose and then two boosters? To calculate the risk across all three doses, we need to work out how likely you are to not have a vaccine induced SAE for this course of treatment. For each dose the odds of not having an SAE are 9,999 in 10,000 or 0.9999. For all three doses, the odds of not having an SAE are therefore 0.9999 × 0.9999 × 0.9999 = 0.9997. Which means the risk of a vaccine SAE over the three-dose treatment course is three in 10,000 (1–0.9997 = 0.0003) or about 1 in 3,300. The risk over all three doses is substantially greater than from an individual dose, although each dose carries the same 1 in 10,000 risk.
In contrast, the benefit does not increase with multiple doses. In fact multiple doses are required if we are to receive the ‘90% effective’ benefit, assuming that it is actually this great in the first place (see for example these two discussions on vaccine effectiveness). Even assuming the original vaccine effectiveness was 90%, because the current COVID-19 vaccinations are against variants that are different to those endemic in the population now, the effectiveness of subsequent ‘boosters’ actually drops off, meaning that the assessment of benefit and risk must also change for the new variants compared to the original variants. Obviously, anything less than this ‘90% effective’ figure proportionally reduces the benefits discussed here and the consequent balance of benefit and risk.
Overall, understanding the benefit-risk ratio of any treatment can be a fluid thing, especially for an evolving infectious disease like COVID-19, and so it needs to be constantly reviewed and refined. As a result, it turns out that being ‘appropriately informed’ about your individual benefit-risk for the COVID-19 vaccinations is extremely difficult, despite the billions of doses that have been given to people around the globe.
Final thoughts
The issue is not that the COVID-19 vaccines have SAEs, all vaccines carry some risk of such adverse drug reactions. The issue is that these vaccines have been used in an indiscriminate way across entire populations, with individuals at very low risk from the disease being encouraged, and even coerced, into getting vaccinated. As we discussed in part 1, this kind of wholesale use of these new vaccines is almost the logical conclusion of the ‘collectivist’ view of vaccine benefit against COVID-19 once we allow perceived broader societal benefits to become part of the calculation. Also, we must not forget that unlike a treatment given to someone who is ill, vaccinations are given to otherwise healthy people and so, if these vaccines are going to be ‘safe and effective’ for everyone, then they need to be not just ‘very safe’ but extraordinarily safe. This is for the simple reason that for most healthy individuals, COVID-19 is not a disease that has major risks and so the benefits from the vaccination are consequently small (vanishingly small in some cases) and so to try and make the benefit-risk equation balance for many people means having levels of vaccine safety that are almost beyond the bounds of pharmaceutical possibility. Of course, if we decide to count the potential benefits to society, we can skew these calculations, but even here these societal benefits need to be pretty large and tangible if they are to balance out even rare levels of vaccine-related SAEs.
As Professor Whitty noted in his WhatsApp message to Matt Hancock, with a disease with such low mortality “safety studies cannot be shortcut”. Yet, this is precisely what happened because one cannot do a two-year safety study or long-term follow-ups in six months. As discussed in part 1, trying to get a handle on vaccine safety post-marketing is challenging, especially in identifying and quantifying very rare safety issues. Worryingly though, rather than potentially being very rare events (occurring less frequently than 1 in 10,000 doses), reanalysis of trial data suggests that the risk of an SAE from the COVID-19 vaccines could be as high as 1 in 800 per dose, although this number is subject to some dispute. But if this 1 in 800 per dose figure is accurate then because, as we discussed above, the vaccinations require multiple doses the risk over a course of injections will be even higher, approaching a 1 in 250 chance of having an SAE over a course of three doses. In fact, in a world where every person over the age of 50 has a COVID-19 ‘booster’ every winter, if this rate of SAEs per dose was to remain unchanged, then the likelihood of having an SAE before your 80th birthday would be about 1 in 25. With these rates of SAEs, it is hard to see how it would be ethical to justify vaccinating all but the most vulnerable individuals.
Having a drug-related SAE is a bit like being involved in a major car crash in that the likelihood of this happening might be low but the consequence to the individual can be catastrophic. We need to bear this in mind when talking about SAEs and vaccine injury from the COVID-19 vaccinations: just because such events are rare or a ‘statistical tail-effect’ they are still real people, experiencing real life-changing events. Worrying about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t make one an ‘anti-vaxxer’ any more than worrying about the safety of cough medicines or drugs makes one an ‘anti-piller’. It recognises that people suffering from a vaccine-related SAE have as much right to a healthy life as those unfortunate enough to catch serious COVID-19. Unfortunately, ignoring safety signals does not make them go away.
How many COVID-19 vaccine induced SAEs are acceptable? Difficult to say but just because it is an awkward question doesn’t mean we should stop asking it. Perhaps the more pertinent question for today is:
How may COVID-19 vaccine related serious adverse events would it take before we decided that these vaccines have a problem?
George and Mildred are pseudonyms of senior individuals working in the pharmaceutical industry.
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.
Many thanks for your insightful articles. The multiple doses effect is particularly interesting.
I keep plugging away at the potential dangers/SAE’s posed by all (and frighteningly future) mRNA jabs as evidenced in papers such as this –
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
I would like to know if, given your work in the industry, you have ever heard of those in charge of mRNA development being aware of these dangers?
The dangers are both short (particularly CV events) and long term ie for the rest of your life, however long that may be.
It’s difficult enough to blame the jabs when the temporal association is short, ie it’s being ignored by the MSM even now – but consider how more difficult it will become to blame mRNA as time goes by.
It would be cheering if Whitty, Ferguson, Hancock, Farrar et al were pondering how many kicks to their flabby derrieres might be endured before they experienced a SAE.
As my wife said about her feelings towards that worm Hancock, her problem is not that she would punch him, but that she would not stop punching him. SAE alert!!!
So where does this leave the WHO changes to the IHR etc? Will the UKHSA be required to revise the Green Book?
This should be required reading for every medical practitioner.
When initially rolled out the Covid 19 vaccines had absolutely no contraindications. This is unheard of in medicine. Even water is contraindicated in some conditions.
That for me encapsulates the dishonesty of the campaign.
100% Safe and Effective was the giveaway, wasn’t it?!
” How may COVID-19 vaccine related serious adverse events would it take before we decided that these vaccines have a problem?”
We’ve already decided they have a problem. Significant numbers of recognised Experts in the Scientific and Medical Communities believe they have a problem.
Big Pharma, Public Health Bureaucrats and the Governments which pushed/mandated them (and continue to do so) refuse to even consider the evidence.
THAT’s the real problem.
The whole analysis is very interesting and the case made that this poison should not have been forced upon the entire population as this would never result in the claimed “benefits outweighing the harms”.
There are nevertheless some important things missing. First is the fact we have absolutely no idea yet about potential mid- to long-term damage caused by the shots. This is a novel therapeutic, with 2 novel problems – how the mrna itself will behave (including what problems could arise if the mrna itself is flawed in some way, i.e. due to poor quality control resulting in corrupted code, which might lead to things like prion disease – this may take years to come to light), and how the LNP not only behaves (spreading throughout the body and invading areas and organs that a virus may never have had the opportunity to do in a healthy person with a functioning immune system. There is also the issue of DNA damage which, for all the protestations that this is not possible, they cannot possibly know conclusively. Let’s not forget the fact that the product has been proven to remain active for significantly longer than was originally claimed – again, we have no idea for how long and how much harm is done from ongoing production of spike protein and presumably an ongoing inflammatory response by the immune system.
There is also the known risk of immune suppression for the product to be able to work in the first case, which is being linked to cancers.
On top of that, from the beginning there were some people who seemed to be more likely to have serious covid, even in some younger age groups, compared to others. In some cases this was due to chromosomal problems relating to the immune system, but there is probably still a lot more ground to cover as to why some people got so very sick and others did not. This may also bear light on why some people had such poor reactions to the poison and others did not.
And of course there is the unknown territory of risk of autoimmune disease resulting from instructing the body to itself make the very pathogen that was supposed to be destroyed, which one might think could lead to confusing the immune system as to what was and what not innate to the body.
The review of benefits and harms goes way beyond this simple calculation which, although a start, still does not come close to weighing all the potential damage that may yet be established for something for which it was apparently known from the start would only provide temporary relief at best.
Absolutely superb. Thanks Jane.
I agree absolutely. There is also the risk of the vaccine creating epigenetic factors that will influence the human genome in unknown ways on an ongoing basis. This is an emerging and still poorly understood science, and the danger for this and future generations cannot be known.
This is the stuff of science fiction and very scary.
Seems like somebody needs to come up with a Drake equation for calculating drug safety
Toby Rogers and co-authors have done something similar for the societal cost of autism:
https://open.substack.com/pub/tobyrogers/p/a-modern-day-witch-trial?r=mskdd&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
It pains me to have to keep writing this, especially after such a wonderful article, but I will keep writing it until the semantics change, because it matters. We are allowing words to be twisted by the very people who care not a jot for the fundamental liberties under discussion.
They are not vaccines!
There has been a deliberate re-definition of the term “vaccination” and “vaccines” to encourage the use of the products on offer, and to work around the requirements for the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, along with the granting of “Emergency Use” in different parts of the world. In addition to that, financial immunity has been given to the trade as well. What a surprise that the usual suspects are keen on encouraging the use of them.
Seconded.
Quackcines kill and injure ‘George and Mildred’. Period. Analysis done. No need to torture the data and twist it. End the criminal Pharma industry and watch the collective health improve. Science closed. Consensus.
Unfortunately, it seems that informed consent – which should underpin doctor-patient relationships and all medical interventions – matters not a jot when rogue, tyrannical governments, working in lockstep with their similars, deign to forcibly impose ‘their’ will on the people, come what may.
I came across the paper in the link, dated 22/07/2020 – when it was fast becoming apparent – to those of us who could see through the ‘narrative’ – that mandates were in the offing, amongst other unpleasant actions planned by governments to subjugate people. Many were saying such actions were against Human Rights and could not / would not happen. Yeah right! The usual fallback mechanism utilised against dissenters was to be mental health and the ‘greater good’.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 also included reference to ‘mental health’ issues and how those ‘affected’ could be forced by various means to submit. Dangerous ground indeed.
The paper – written evidence from several ‘academics’ about compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law – and presented to a parliament UK committee – seems to support compulsory jabbing because:
‘The law permits compulsory interference with bodily integrity under mental health law.This derogation from the common law principle of no treatment without consent is compatible with the ECHR. It is arguable that if compulsory treatment under mental health law is compatible with human rights law, so too is compulsory vaccination…’
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/pdf/?fbclid=IwAR1k_iJsuD-t2ZRNiCJUuF-NkDXyHHgDqQ6senzUOlQNYMbvJoKgsIzy6EI
It is almost as if by hook or by crook, the ‘people’ will be jabbed…informed consent or otherwise…
Yes, that is very well remembered; thanks.
I remember all this ellie and your conclusion “It is almost as if by hook or by crook, the ‘people’ will be jabbed…informed consent or otherwise…” was one I shared then and most certainly now given the proposals in the International Health Regulations and the planning for Billy’s new release.
At the time I was seriously frightened and I don’t mind admitting it. Now my view is that I will die first before they stick me.
From the PDF:
If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public
30 protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that
compulsory vaccination is too.
And how does this argumentation look like?
In the context of highly infectious disease, every person is at risk of
infection and a potential threat to the life and health of others—a person’s default state
is of a nature and degree to warrant immunisation.
The first thing to note here is that this isn’t really an argument, but just assertion: Everybody who hasn’t been injected with a covaxx is a lethal risk for others, hence, compulsory vaccination to protect these others is justified. This doesn’t hold water because it implicitly assumes that a person’s immune system doesn’t work against naturally occurring pathogens but can only be made to work against them by intentional exposure to a synthetic pathogen which – for some reason – will trigger the immune response exposure to the real thing couldn’t trigger, ie, it’s implicitly asserted that the immune system doesn’t work in situation where the people who want compulsory vaccination don’t want it to work but will work in situation where they do want it to work. Unfortunately, if a people’s immune systems really hadn’t worked against Sars-CoV2, everyone who got ever infected with it prior to availability of the covaxxes would have died.
And it gets better: The authors want compulsory vaccination because they assume that otherwise, too many people would chose to avoid the vaccines. But if their immune systems wouldn’t work against the real pathogen, they would never have that choice because they’d all be dead.
Pulling this together yields They want compusory vaccination as people’s immune systems don’t work against Sars-CoV2 which is a problem because people’s immune systems do work against it(!).
Dr Lisa Forsberg, Dr Isra Black, Dr Thomas Douglas and Dr Jonathan Pugh should really have been politely asked to take a long walk over a short plank. Instead, they got bootloads of cash, honours and recognition and are all still with us for a rerun of The Terrible Pandemic as soon as they can manage to get this off the ground for the next time.
As far as I’m concerned those 4 doctors are no different to Dr Mengele.
That paper is truly frightening. Would the Government really authorise the detention, strapping down and forcible injection of an experimental “vaccine” into people who declined to have it voluntarily?
After the tyranny of the past few years, I am no longer confident that they wouldn’t.
Let’s also not forget what this 90% efficiency against death number is based upon:
the chance, secondary discovery of a rigged trial, which stuffed those most at risk of death of C19, the seriously obese, into the placebo group, deleted some fatalities in the ‘vaccine’ group and had so few cases overall out of the 40.000 participants, that this result has no statistical, let alone real world, significance at all.
Which is why it wasn’t looked at and marketed for half a year.
Only when the equally rigged 95% infection reduction VE, which they falsely but likely deliberately also marketed as almost 100% transmission reduction VE to enable their passport, coercion and discrimination agenda, became a too obvious lie in the real world, did they resort to marketing the ‘effective against death’ lie.
Also see that one on the latter, but it was actually already obvious and well known after the Massachusetts ‘parties’.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/proof-the-fda-knew-on-september-17
Time for another secondary school maths recap: A probability is the likeliness that a specific outcome of a random selection process will occur. Eg, when rolling a dice, the probability that the resulting number is 1, 2 or 3 is 50%. But this doesn’t mean that every other throw of a dice will result in either 1, 2 or 3. What it really means is when one keeps rolling the dice and keeps track of the results, the number of results which are either 1, 2 or 3 will approach being half of all results.
The article contains the claim that the IFR of COVID for the age group 0 – 19 would be 0.0003%. This is a misleading claim because there’s no random selection process involved here which can be rerun and then have another outcome with which will occur with a certain probability. What this claim really means is At some point in time in the past, in some group of people of age 0 – 19, 3 in 10,000 people died because of a Sars-CoV2 infection. It doesn’t mean that, at a different point in time in the future, another 3 out of 10,000 different people will die because of a Sars-CoV2 infection and it also doesn’t mean that the individual risk of dying because of a COVID infection is 0.0003% for all people of age 0 – 19. Eg, some of them will have possibly serious comorbidities which will greatly increase their chance of dying because such an infection. But grouping people solely based on their age implies dropping information about pre-existing conditions on the floor.
…why does a pre-existing condition take you over the median IFR level..? Who says so? Where were the people with pre-existing conditions in the original trials..oh, that’s right there weren’t any….so where does this belief come from? Why should I believe it? Where are the studies showing this to be true?
Why shouldn’t I believe, as I do, that if you have any serious pre-existing conditions..this gunk will make them worse…?
Because most people who – regardless of their age – reportedly died of COVID had pre-existing conditions. That’s basically just the tacit admission that this age-based grouping is junk and makes COVID appear more dangerous than it is. For general problems with these sort of pseudo-predictions, see comment above.
…yes, let’s face it if you are 70+ you are likely to have something wrong with you!
Don’t they always use the correlation isn’t causation argument?
So maybe those old people were ok with their co-morbidities and it was the gunk that killed them? The thing is nobody cares and nobody will ever do a study that can be reported in DS….!
My parents are 84 and 83 and they decidedly don’t Have something wrong with them for the kind of wrongs which make people more likely to succumb to pneumonia should they contact it. And this is true for a great many other people, too.
But that’s an aside. I think you misunderstood the median IFR statement. It wasn’t about vaccination at all, just about the real world observation that people with preexisting conditions died much more frequently of COVID (or so) than people without them, regardless of their age.
The question whether covaxxination actually helped anyone or rather, just hurt everyone to varying degrees is indepdent of this statement.
Excellent analysis.
The statistics are clearly incredibly complex, but should have been explained to the public in simple easily understood and honest terms as the evidence became clear – but that would of course have undermined the government’s ill-informed fear-generating propaganda campaign.
Signing up to the WHO treaty and regulations for future pandemics is potentially even more dangerous to us as individuals, as well as at a population level.
Sadly most members of the public still remain in thrall to the official propaganda and misinformation and as a retired doctor I am truly terrified of the consequences.
Let’s talk about informed consent. I accepted the Covid vaccines based on the results of Pharmaceutical companies published test results. Now we know theses were inadequate and incomplete and were not up to the standard normally required for accepted and licenced vaccines. Furthermore, we now know the tests done were biased to give positive results and some of the potential negative were not declared. If I had an honest report from the companies pedalling these vaccines, I like probably millions of others, would not have allowed them to be administered to me.
.
How much informed consent to cvd19 vaccination would have been obtained from fit-and-well people aged under 65 if the pre-jab form they were presented with to sign had said:
Now sign here.
Thank you, George & Mildred. You make clear the importance of the IFR for different age bands to understand potential benefit (or lack of) when giving informed consent. You have assumed the SAEs are similar for all ages, whereas perversely, the risks are highest for younger age groups with least to benefit. Eg this CDC report (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-09-01/05-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf) shows myocarditis in males after the second dose is 0.7/million for 50-64s but literally a hundred-fold higher at 79/million for 16-17s. Put that into the equation for risk:benefit and it is clear why vaccinating children to protect grandparents was never an ethical option.