Right . . .
Well he is a doctrinaly pure practitioner. While I am sure the genie can’t be put back in the bottle this guy is cool with more large scale experiments. Even if he says he doesn’t support that he does. Believes the covid mrna Vax saved lives and covid took lives. Covid protocols killed people. Not Covid. The Vax program is dangerous inherently and dangerous in the extreme despite this guy’s reasonable tone. Harnesses the full cohesive power of government boot iron and money to make the unwashed masses do as they are directed.
It’s a stretch to call the mRNA vaccines synthetic biology.
Huge stretch to claim they saved 20 million lives.
Nonsense to compare Covid deaths to atomic bomb blast.
Considering that the annual Flu, which kills about the same number as what COVID is attributed with, went to zero, while COVID suddenly included gunshots, suicides, car accidents, cancers, accidents, suicides and old age; it begs the question, how many would have died if Dr. Fauci hadn’t stolen millions of US taxpayer dollars, and given it to China to create this strain of bioweapon in the first place.
This is an interesting assertion, but it cannot be proved.
Consider I inject you with a sterile solution, harmless to you. You do not die. I say my injection saved your life. Prove it didn't.
One may peruse the current lit and fluff about "proving a negative" or "not proving a negative." and there will be found proponents on both sides. So, my harmless injection saved you life. Prove it did not. That is the game today.
If one goes to the study linked in STAT, the title of the paper is "Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study."
From the article: "The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed. We also estimated the additional deaths that would have been averted had the vaccination coverage targets of 20% set by COVAX and 40% set by WHO been achieved by the end of 2021."
Modelling. Estimates and estimates and modelling of the estimates. This is called "success" in the STAT article. The funders of the study which is a modelling of estimates? Wanna guess?
"Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel."
We proved by estimating and modelling our estimates, and that is SUCCESS! Prove us wrong? But what about prove us right? A quick word count finds the "study" has over ninety instances of "estimate." But that's an estimate....
Here is the Lancet link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
This article is propaganda that intends to drive research income streams. The alleged “mRNA vaccine” is not a vaccine.
Moderna = MODified Experimental RNA
It contains graphene which accumulates in the brain; not good.