Get your “surprised look ready.” Experts from Harvard and Johns Hopkins co-published some research a few weeks ago that suggests the COVID19 vaccines are more dangerous than the Flu itself, and I can’t find any local press on it.
I did find some news at WMUR about the millions in freshly printed fiat money New Hampshire accepted this week to “vaccinate” more Granite Staters. But nothing about how,
This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.
Here’s the longer version from the study abstract (local copy, here).
We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 – 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this 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) US 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. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is little to no (emphasis on no) reliable reporting from the corporate media about vaccine harms or how or why anyone under 20 was never a vector or at risk and had no need to be injected with the experimental “pharmaceuticals.”
Our state’s own data (broken record, I know) has shown this to be true throughout the so-called pandemic.
We’ve shared expert opinion on this ad nauseum, as have a handful of other sites more reputable than WMUR or the Union leader. Health Freedom New Hampshire, Reopen/Rebuild NH, Liberty Block, and some smaller efforts. In other words, it’s not a well-kept secret. It’s been “reported” since – to borrow from Bassy-O, ‘since day one.’
Search any of the local media, and you’ll find little or nothing that is not supportive, glowing, or simple parroting of the approved public health line. And not just the media. Most of the Democrat party, far too many Republicans, and lots of people that have discovered that topics related to COVID (masks, vaccine, distancing, etc.) are as hostile a topic to broach as abortion.
But medical experts continue to challenge the government’s public health narrative monopoly. And these experts have taken a chance by stepping up and saying that the vaccine is more dangerous to young people than COVID.
They are not just challenging the presumptions with data, they are challenging the medical ethics. They are saying, especially to Universities that are COVID vaccines and boosters, that these are dangerous to your “customers” and unnecessary.
Will they listen? Doctrinaire Progressives running universities are not inclined to listen to what they do not want to hear, but students and parents, armed with research from such a distinguished list of experts, might have some new leverage when seeking exemptions.
