SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: Who Benefits?
“But you don't have a choice. People act like you have a choice.” [Bill Gates, Amateur Vaccine Enthusiast & Eugenicist]
Having inflicted upon humanity the abomination known as Windows, Bill rightfully feels he knows a thing or two about viruses. How Windows relates to Bill's vaccine fetish is harder to say, but for the rest of us, any medical intervention should be based on analysis of costs and benefits. If trauma is extreme, a tumor malignant or a condition deadly then there may be little choice but to intervene — even if the intervention itself is dangerous. A terminal cancer patient with little left to lose may be more than willing to submit to a new experimental treatment even when the risks are not well known or understood. Even in this extreme case however, it seems reasonable to argue that at least four conditions need to be met before any doctor is allowed to administer such a treatment.
- Large upside, negligible downside. The treatment involves the exchange of little to no downside for a highly uncertain upside. As in the cancer example, certain (or near certain) death does not admit much downside, so even a high-risk chance of survival may be worth taking.
- Voluntary participation. Participation is entirely voluntary. No direct or indirect coercion is applied.
- Information relevant to consent is mandated. The decision to participate is informed by the full, objective and comprehensible disclosure of all evidence that's relevant to the choice by entities who are liable for the consequences of any failure to do so.
- Liability for harm by default. If the provider of the treatment is to be exempt from liabilities arising from the treatment, then the exemption must be known, understood and explicitly granted by the voluntary participant.
Let's now turn to what may well be mankind's first push to unleashing a new and experimental medical intervention on the entire planetary population. Make no mistake; the SARS-CoV-2 (a.k.a. COVID-19) vaccine is new and experimental. It works by genetically modifying healthy cells to manufacture the coronavirus's spike proteins and so induce an immune response:
As foolproof as that sounds, let's make a quick point-by-point assessment based on the costs and benefits we know to date.
Upside vs. Downside
Most recent estimates of the infection fatality rates by age group, from the US Centre for Disease Control, are summarized as follows:
For the majority of the population, even relatively aging populations where the median age is in the 40's, the SARS-CoV-2 presents an IFR of 0.02% or lower. Equivalently, the probability of surviving the infection is 99.98% or higher for the majority of the population. At the same time it's worth remembering that the overwhelming majority of deaths in all age groups occur in people with significant comorbidities: the CDC itself estimated that only 6% of all deaths occur in cases without comorbidities.
Ionnadis et al. [2020] conclude that: “People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.” The risk of death from COVID-19 is high only for high-risk elderly individuals. However, even for the elderly, the unconditional probability of survival is around 95% — hardly a death sentence warranting desperate measures!
Given the negligible risk of fatality for the majority of the population, any intervention through vaccination should entail little to no risk for it be contemplated by anyone but those at the highest of risk exposure. So what of the first coronavirus vaccine waiting in the wings? The former scientific director of Pfizer and a German lung specialist, who also happens to be a parliamentarian, highlight concerns based on previous studies of coronaviruses, including:
- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
The original story with links to a petition to the European equivalent of the U.S. FDA can be found here.
We could stop here. The risk of death or serious harm to reproductive health from a flu vaccine is more than enough to be a showstopper. And note that the argument that 'there is no evidence of harm by the vaccine' is dangerously idiotic. The onus of proof lies with the vaccine providers to show that the vaccine is safe not with rational skeptical citizens to show that it isn't.
Voluntary Participation
Governments, pharmaceutical companies, Bill Gates and other benevolent agents are doubtless well aware that the HEALTH costs and benefits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 suggest that vaccination should be avoided like the plague by most if not all. They are also aware that explicitly mandated vaccination might provoke hostile protests, or are of questionable legality in most jurisdictions. Instead, governments are imposing lockdowns, travel bans, curfews and all manner of social and economic costs in a desperate bid to alter unfavorable ratio of health costs to benefits and hoping that most people opt for the path of least resistance. Is this voluntary?
Information Relevant to Consent is Actively Suppressed.
What we, the public are allowed to see is determined by tech giants who are openly and aggressively banning all content that questions official vaccine narratives. This is presumably in the name of 'science'. On Facebook this commenced almost exactly one year ago when it banned all vaccine awareness content.
Also one year ago Brandy Vaughan, a Merck & Co. whistleblower, posted the following messages on social media:
Her 9-year old son found Brandy Vaughan dead in her home four days ago. Her mission was to help the public make informed choices with respect to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccination. A Google news search reveals that the UK Sun was the sole English language media outlet to cover the story. Some biographical information from her foundation's website aside, the article provides nothing other than the statement “It has not been revealed how or when she died”.
Vaccine Makers are Indemnified by Governments
This criminal little twist seems to be getting little airtime. Not only are vaccines trials being fast-tracked, their development is subsidized by governments, only for the final product to be purchased by governments, who at the same time, indemnify vaccine manufacturers:
“A senior executive for pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has confirmed that his company cannot face legal action for any potential side effects caused by its Covid vaccine. Those affected will have no legal recourse.” The full story here.
From a vaccine manufacturer's standpoint the whole venture is pure upside with no possibility of downside. An attractive business model if ever there was one. Only vaccine recipients have skin in this particular game.
Overall, the question becomes all but rhetorical. Since the probability of survival from infection with SARS-CoV-2 for most people is 99.8% or significantly better, why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to an experimental, first of its kind, fast-tracked vaccine whose long-term effects (positive or negative) are unknown and whose developer has been indemnified against any liability from vaccine harm? Little wonder that crony capitalists are seeking to mandate vaccination through disinformation (relentless fear-porn and suppression of dissent), economic blackmail, social shaming and legislative coercion.
Some Notes
i. The foregoing analysis of risk superficial by necessity. At the time of writing I have seen no multivariate model that would enable a more nuanced conditional analysis of the risk of fatality in the event of infection.
ii. It is worth noting not only absolute risks of death from cancer, but the difference it makes when detection is late. This is but one example of why the redirection of attention and medical resourcing to a virus that's no more dangerous to most people than a seasonal flu will doubtless escalate fatalities for years to come. And no vaccine will help with these.
Comments, questions or suggestions welcome! email: artofbull@mail.com