University COVID-19 vaccine mandates are unethical because the vaccines are up to nearly 100 times more likely to cause a person of student age serious injury than prevent him or her from being hospitalised with COVID-19, a new study has concluded.
The study, whose authors include Dr. Kevin Bardosh, a recipient of funding from the pro-vaccination Wellcome Trust led by Sir Jeremy Farrar, and Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg of the Florida Department of Health, presents a risk-benefit assessment of booster vaccines among people of student age and provides five ethical arguments against mandates.
The researchers estimate that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalisation. In the study, which is currently undergoing peer-review, the authors analyse CDC and reported adverse event data and find that booster mandates are likely to cause a net expected harm. They estimate that for every COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, 18 to 98 serious adverse events will occur, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of serious injury which interferes with daily activities.
The authors add that given the high level of natural immunity following infection now present in the population, the actual risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.
On the basis of this evidence they argue that university booster mandates are unethical because:
- no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for the age group;
- vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
- mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
- U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
- mandates create wider social harms.
They consider counterarguments, such as a desire for socialisation and safety, and show that such arguments are weak and lack scientific and ethical support.
The authors include Dr. Vinay Prasad of the University of California and Dr. Martin A. Makary and Dr. Stefan Baral of Johns Hopkins University. A previous intervention in February by many of the same authors, published in BMJ Global Health, took a strong ethical stance against vaccine coercion in the form of mandates and passports.
It’s been clear for some time that the cost-benefit assessment of the vaccines will not be favourable for young people. But with leading scientists, including some funded by pro-vaccination organisations like the Wellcome Trust, now putting the case in top journals, hopefully the message will get through to politicians and administrators, especially in America, who continue to impose vaccine requirements on young adults.
While the present paper is focused on vaccine coercion, its arguments also apply more generally to the offer of vaccination to young adults, and raise questions as to whether vaccine recipients are being fully apprised of the risks and likely benefits before consenting to the inoculation.
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.
Booster mandates likely to cause a net expected harm. Yes, but not to big pharma profits and the funding for our beloved public ‘health’ NGO’s. Bollinger all round at the next board meeting chaps!
The price of being considered a respectable publication is writing ridiculous phrases like this one.
We know risks aren’t being fully appraised, they know, we know they know, they know we know. But yeah, this “raises questions”.
I wonder if after the allied soldiers found the nazi concentration camps someone wrote something like “this raises questions as to whether the jewish population under Nazi rule were treated humanely”
Since the risks are not understood as there have been no trials designed to assess the safety of these products, and since there have been no properly conducted trials to establish effectiveness at reducing severity of disease, and severity of infection exaggerated, it is impossible for recipients of these product to be appraised fully or otherwise of risks, side-effects, contra-indications or benefits
What is also certain is nobody is being appraised that booster doses significantly increase risk of infection – particularly within the two weeks post-injection, hospitalisation and deaths.
A wise recommendation, in effect, as far as it goes. But limiting it to a specific age group still leaves the door open to those who would like to coerce older ones, without proper consultation about their general health.
It is now time for PI lawyers and insurance companies to step up and do their jobs. Precisely because it is younger people, ergo the working age group that are being disproportionately injured, the harms go further than the obvious individual harms. Fall-out of vaxx-injured workers, longer-term disability/deaths of young working-age people, higher insurance claims – social security providers, insurers, employers all have a duty to society to ensure that things like social security and insurance premiums are kept affordable and that essential services can continue with healthy employees.
Outside of the fact that the risks ALWAYS outweighed the benefits for anyone under 50 (and probably for anyone over, it is obviously just harder to prove in older age groups – a heart attack in a 65-year old is not that unexpected, in a 25-year old it is a different matter), no one should ever be coerced into undergoing any form of medical treatment and certainly not forced to accept something into their body they don’t want. Physical rape is deemed an atrocity, but is there really that great a difference to being injected through coercion and undue pressure? Forced/coerced vaccination is another form of rape.
Forced medical intervention is far worse for society at large than a virus. If a particular virus were really so serious that thousands upon thousand were dying, people would be standing in line to willingly take whatever medication might be provided, even if experimental. The fact they had to resort to coercion and deception made it clear that most people rightly realised that this virus was simply not that serious. The problem was not the virus, the problem was a decimated health care system that simply could not handle the sudden increase in demand – something that seems to remain unchanged in all Western countries, despite the billions upon billions poured into the “pandemic response”.
The problem with insurance companies stepping up as you say is that the major shareholders of the insurance companies are the same major shareholders of the pharmas (which are the same major shareholders of the tech companies, the media corporations, the banks, the energy companies, the car companies, the food companies etc etc..).
Our entire society is bought and paid for and we are now simply doing what the owners want.
The only constraints they have are the limits to the abuse the general population is willing to tolerate, which at this point seem non-existent.
House arrest? No prob. Masks? No prob. Jabs? No prob. Vax passports? No prob. No more petrol cars? No prob. No more cash? No prob.
In fact, it almost seems as if with every indignity the population’s cheers grow louder.
Isn’t the problem that the major shareholders are our pension funds? They only act if their investment in any given company tanks. And even then they are notoriously slow to act. And when profits are increasing we don’t want them to move on.
The problem is the companies are indemnified and liability is assumed by the State and limited – in the UK the maximum is £120 000. That isn’t enough money to get a law firm interested.
I think that eventually this will go down the same route as it did with tobacco companies, or there will be a breaking of ranks (step forward Margaret Hilda Truss) and criminal charges will be brought against the pharmas.
Pfisser has been convicted in the past for falsifying data and other illegal acts. A lot of information has been intentionally withheld, in other cases, whereas there may have not been any information as such (because they didn’t bother to look for it / record it), there were definitely misrepresentations as to safety. For 2 years now the websites of drug regulators have clearly stated that there was insufficient information to state that the vaxx was safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children under 18 and so on. Nevertheless, the message presented to the public was not “we can’t be sure, but we think it’s safe”. No, it was a definite “it’s safe and effective, for anyone of any age of any health, any dose, any number of doses, any time anywhere”. Even now they push a 4th/5th dose of mrna, without having any idea what the long-term effects might be, for a vaxx that has now proven beyond any doubt to no longer be effective (if it ever was).
Tort of deceit, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, trespass to the person (lack of informed consent), medical negligence by refusing to contemplate/diagnose/treat vaxx injuries – there are a lot of legal options and a lot of possible defendants – the regulators engaged in deception and misrepresentation, unless they wish to pin it all on the pharma companies, who would then be facing charges of fraud; health care professionals could and should be facing any number of medical negligence suits, and they do not have the indemnity that was granted to the pharma companies. Even if they can get away with not having ensured informed consent, every medical professional who at this point in time still sends people away with a flea in their ear and refuse to countenance someone’s ailments as being related to the vaxx should be sued into oblivion. It is one thing to say they followed government advice when stabbing people, it is another thing entirely for them to ignore almost 2 years’ worth of appalling and increasing side effects. The government will simply say they expected doctors to alert them and hang them out to dry, along with the pharma companies. But someone will be sacrificed for this abomination.
This is bigger even than the deception of the tobacco companies – people chose to smoke, no one was forced to carry a smoking pass, no one lost their job for smoking.
Not surprising really, for those of us aware of the big pharma corruption stories in recent decades, id Pfizer is up to dodgy stuff.
Revealed: Big Pharma’s hidden links to NHS policy, with senior MPs saying medical industry uses ‘wealth to influence government’ | The Independent | The Independent (refresh page to avoid registering?)
Big Pharma lobbyists exploit patients and doctors | The Independent | The Independent
Maybe the Times muppets will put their journalist Oliver Wright (who wrote these pieces for the Independent in 2014) on the story? (Or then again, maybe the WEF and their fellow travellers have nobbled these muppets).
It is a different media landscape now. It’s pretty much all in the hands of the corporations that own everything else.
Excellent post.
Truss breaking ranks? And it’s Christmas next week.
If this violation was not a breach of the Nuremberg codes, I don’t know what was. And I repeat that I am deeply concerned by that story about a medication that could be received from the exhalations of others in close proximity. Could this really happen?
And I also abide by my long standing view that biological (and chemical) is likely to be a serious problem this century, and maybe more serious than nuclear (atrocities).
Too many financial incentives appears to be the problem with Cov ID, ‘act in haste repent at leisure’, couldn’t be more apt
Not favourable for anyone:-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
The immediate harmful effects are in Sections 10 and 14, and that’s just the start.
Warning, will make uncomfortable reading for some.
Today I received the latest issue of the Australian Journal of General Practice.
The lead article was on myocarditis following Covid infection, and how serious it can be.
A small addendum mentioned myocarditis following “vaccination”, though went on to say getting jabbed is the best way to avoid serious disease.
On the back cover was a two page advertisement for Paxlovid.
Pretty much a sign of how modern general practice works, and how it is easy to fool most GP’s most of the time.
…I’ve not seen a doctor in years, but I do wonder what I’m going to say if I ever do, if they bring up the quacksine….I suppose calling them liars, charlatans and murderers won’t enhance the service they give me..will it???
My wife ( an artist, not a doctor), swears she will never go to a doctor again, having been given iatrogenic injuries at her last 2 GP visits.
You’re better off to self-treat!
If they bring up the quacksine, ask them for a list of contents & what the effects of each individual constituent has on the body.
They won’t be able to tell you, therefore you can say that you cannot give fully informed consent if the GP can’t tell you what is being injected into your body.
Insist that it be documented in your notes. No challenge made to efficacy. Asking for information of what they should know is in the vials & they should have knowledge of what they’re doing to their patients.
At the start of this I got a call from my surgery inviting me for the jab, I said No, don’t want one, she said, ok no problem, we’ll take you off the list so we don’t bother you again. And they havent, I’ve had to go twice for a recurring ear problem and its never been mentioned. They did have a big Banner Get your ‘Jab’ here across the front of the surgery which has now been removed and a message on the answer phone that they no longer do them and to ring this number is you want one.
They’re easy to fool because they don’t want to know.
First MSM on the jab case was GB News a couple of months ago – and now quite asserive on this. Now the Welcome Trust may be behind this paper. We – and they – always knew this was an issue. They chose not to report it. So why now?
I think we have reached ‘peak jab‘. No more new victims are coming forward. The few jabaholics will always get the next fix. Most people in the middle – jabbed and partly jabbed – will worry. Is this the intended outcome from the powers that be? More stress and angst? And more distraction from further tyrannical actions?
This stress will bring further detriment to peoples’ health. That’s clear to anyone. But an interesting angle on this – one that I have been hitherto unfamiliar with – is that stress increases the body’s acidity. This makes people vulnerable. It is one of the factors that explains why some people become ill and others not. See Dr Ariana Love on the Corona Investigative Committee #116 (about 3 hours in) here, for example.
The interesting perspective on this is susceptibility to emf, 5g, smart meters and so on. I don’t experience this personally but I know several people who do. It seems reasonable to expect that an increase in body acidity would be more likely to respond to electrical interference.
This is all speculation on my part, of course. But the actions taken by TPTB – ostensibly to protect us – almost invariably cause more harm. We need to be careful where the paths that they control will lead us. If you see that stress levels are rising, that could be the intention.
In a nutshell, we need to eat healthily, keep fit and reduce our stress levels. Keep sceptical and discerning. Scrutinise all that we are told.
I think that many people have lost sight of the sheer absurdity of the concept of coercing or mandating a medical product. Not only does it violate the basic human dignity of bodily autonomy. Equally important, the logic doesn’t even hold:
Never before have I been castigated as a “granny killer” for failing to take an annual flu jab – but that is in essence exactly what I have been every year of my life during which I haven’t bothered with the shot, that is IF we’re going to extrapolate the current hyperbolic logic espoused by vaccine fanatics. Nobody batted an eyelid during the 4 years I worked at a nursing home and never took a flu vaccine (this was way before 2019).
All of a sudden, along comes this new product that those responsible for its global marketing insist must be the exception in all of medicinal history – it must be subject to aggressive marketing campaigns to the point where the phrase “no jab, no job” becomes a pithy slogan in some sectors.
For many within the pro-vaccine commentariat, the penny has dropped that transmission prevention isn’t really a thing, and now move onto the next piece of fuzzy, guilt-inducing logic justifying their collective stance: that by protecting yourself you’re protecting the……… NH-bloody-S! Again! So I’m now supposed to believe that simply because our health service, that has not a clue what to with our money (think diversity training and quadrupling bureaucracy), needs mollycoddling, it’s incumbent upon little me to do my bit and potentially sacrifice my long-term health for the short-term tiding over of the NHS?
Think again. I wasn’t born yesterday.
That’s a cracker
Follow this link to read a total of 79 reasons to inject your child or yourself with the safe & effective bioweapon injection!
All tongue in cheek of course
https://thevigilantfox.substack.com/p/29-more-reasons-to-inject-your-child
How is it that some of us, most who visit here, who do not ‘follow’ The Science™️ were so right about everything: masks; lockdowns; so-called vaccines; relative harmlessness of the ‘novel’ Cold-bug, whereas all those clever, sophisticated followers of The Science™️ were so wrong… about everything?
The main question is were they wrong or lying?
And we are now seeing CoVidCalamity-Rerun aka Net Zero, also The Science™️, and completion of our social and economic ruin, the bits missed by what the Government wrecking crew missed in 2020/21.
The new, cult religion of the 21st century, ‘The Science.’
Epoch Times
Study Found ‘Foreign Metal-Like Objects’ in 94 Percent of Sample Group of Symptomatic People Who Took mRNA Vaccines: Italian Doctors
Three Italian surgeons conducted a study analyzing blood from 1,006 people who developed symptoms after they got a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna mRNA injection and found 94 percent of them to have “aggregation of erythrocytes and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes of unclear origin,” one month after inoculation.
Erythrocytes are a type of red blood cell that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide.
“What seems plain enough is that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds … have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA ‘vaccines,’” the authors wrote in the study’s discussion and conclusions.
Brewed to a recipe as I keep repeating.
I sense the heat going out of the jab-a-thon although some in my circle will dutifully rock up for their bivalent booster, as is incumbent on members of polite society.
This article won’t do alone but it will be one more notch on the scorecard of witness against the cheerleaders in this horror story, and it is to be welcomed. Those in positions of care of the young: in universities and similar institutions, deserve every epithet thrown at them for requiring these drugs.
At the risk of being irritating I must state that vaccine recipients have not been appraised of the risks, but they should have been apprised of them.
Having got that off my chest I’ll get my my coat.
It appears that too many in society have lost their critical thinking. In the past it has always been incumbent on the producers of any new medicine to demonstrate safety with long-term clinical trials. The COVID injections are a new and experimental medical intervention with systemic genetic effects at the cellular level. They have been unleashed on the population with no medium and long term safety data and questionable short-term safety data (fraudulent, apparently, in the case of Pfizer). Yet rather than the ‘experimenters’ having to prove that the gross excess deaths and life changing injury now being experienced are not caused by their experimental medical intervention the onus has shifted to the ‘experimented upon’. Utter madness!