Posted on 09/07/2022 8:36:01 AM PDT by Red Badger
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.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
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:
1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for the age group;
2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4. 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
5. 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 appraised of the risks and likely benefits before consenting to the inoculation.
Ping!................
Tens of billions of dollars in profits later and Big Pharma still laughing all the way to the bank.
Drive-by Dugway Duke arriving in 5, 4, 3,...
Thanks, Red Badger.
*PING*!
In before the $hot $hill$.
And DEMS, because they will get BIG campaign contributions from them and cushy jobs after they 'retire' from Congress.....................
Yes, agreed. My bad, forgot who Big Pharma largely contributes to...
I think both he and Gasbag_Dr have given up the ghost and gone over to other SM to promulgate that “Vid vaxxines be good” nonsense.... Either that or they just are now suffering from unspecified health complications.
—> Drive-by Dugway Duke arriving in 5, 4, 3,...
He got a promotion!
He still shills for the vaxx, but he now pimps for the homoglobalists’ war effort in Ukraine.
That would be SAD.
Get the jab, get the cold slab.
inoculation or indoctrination?
the dam is slowly breaking.
I had a long and lovely email exchange yesterday with my friend in Italy Giovanna, MD, PhD. She had just nursed her 89-year-old mother through a bad case of Covid.
She was happy to hear that I had only one Prizer shot, as she and her husband won’t take them. “They are too dangerous.”
jim jones: they are not drinking the kool-aid
dr fauci: put it in a syringe
jim jones: genius!
bkmk
”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. (Empahsis mine)
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:
1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for the age group;
2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits
given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4. 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
5. 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."
They reported in last night spewing more lies
If this is true, then what happens when some future, true deadly virus arrives, and the public ignores CDC and MSM recommendations, and refuse to get some "experimental vaccine" that ended up saving more people from the virus? Which are you more willing to do: risk your life with some possible deadly virus, or take some vaccine - that might be more harmful than the virus? If they come up with three different vaccines, which one will you choose?
Would you trust CDC or your doctors' advice when they highly recommend getting next year's flu shot? Are you going to ignore some future health recommendations that might end up being a REAL disaster - and not just a hoax - like Covid-19's vaccines?
Why do you think I took a chance and refused to get last year's flu vaccine?
Hey look.
MSN Network is starting a "modified, limited hangout" on Original Antigenic Sin.
(Once you get the jab, your body's immune system gets irrevocably trained to go after *the spike protein from the first jab, no matter what type of COVID it is, that is infecting you *now*).
Too many details to summarize, but an article from Geert Vanden Bossche. (" Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.
Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.
Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech / Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.")
And remember, before the $hot $hill$ start chanting "Vanden Bossche is a veterinarian" remember, so is the CEO of Pfizer.
ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.