To evaluate the risk/benefit of a vaccine for treating a virus, such as covid-19, we can compare the all-cause mortality rate of vaccinated against unvaccinated people on a periodic basis. If the mortality rate for those vaccinated is consistently lower than that for unvaccinated then we might conclude the vaccine must be beneficial.
_____________________________________________________
Such a study would only be meaningful if conducted by a group with no affiliation to or support from those who stand to gain from a conclusion that the vaccines are beneficial in the long term.
Let’s make the very modest assumption that the jabs are only slightly dangerous to the jabbed in both the short-term and the long-term. If access to hospitals and medical treatments is limited or denied to the unjabbed, more unjabbed will die from their untreated diseases. In the meantime, the jabbed are still getting treatments for their diseases, maybe even heroic treatments, to maximize the appearance of beneficial results. We’ve already heard reports of this. Ivermectin is being effectively used on vaccinated people both with covid and prophylactically (Congress), and denied to people who aren’t vaccinated.
In the first 3 years of analysis, the number of jabbed dying from the effects of the jabs may end up being less than or similar to the number of deaths of the unjabbed, but for different reasons, all of them contrived. At some point, all the heroic measures in the world won’t stop the jabbed from dying from their jabs, since that is the point, but it may take more than 3 years to see the pattern clearly. In the meantime, TPTB will have pointed to their short-term lower mortality rate of the jabbed from all causes as evidence that the jabs are beneficial and, therefore, mandatory jabs are the right way to protect people. Once that happens, all the real evidence goes away.
