The younger, the more lethal

It was always obvious that the dangers of the not-vaccine were considerably greater to the Under-70 population than Coronachan itself. Indeed, it would be hard for anything to be less dangerous, as in the last 18 months, more children under 18 were killed by bicycles, swimming pools, and curtains than by the dread Covid-19 virus. But now an Israeli expert has analyzed the Israeli vaccination data and demonstrated that the risk/reward ratio of getting the Pfizer therapy is even greater for the Under-70 population than many vaccine skeptics anticipated:

Both data bodies (Tables 1 and 2 from the Ministry of Health and the data from Dagan et al in Figure 2) were initially presented as evidence favouring vaccination. However, straightforward analyses of these data highlight adverse effects. They confirm suspicions that vaccination fragilizes the immune system of the vaccinated, not only during the vaccination process, but even after full vaccination (in Table 1, the fully vaccinated die 15 times more than the unvaccinated). The raw data on which the Dagan et al publication from Clalit is based are unavailable. These data are required for transparent independent assessment of conclusions of a publication with such consequences. Current circumstances do not live up, even from far, to this basic standard requirement. Before continuing the massive vaccination project, these adverse effects must be examined and carefully evaluated vs positive effects. 

The results on increased vaccination-induced infection rates (3-fold) and death rates (around 20 times the COVID-death rate of the unvaccinated) presented above are serious reasons to suspect that a balanced cost-benefit would not be in favour of vaccination for any risk group.  Considering only COVID19-associated increased risks during the 5-week vaccination period, vaccine-induced protection would need to be absolute, which it is not, and last much longer than the 12 months projected until the next vaccine injection is required. Including in calculations unavailable precise data on vaccine-induced increased risks unrelated to COVID19 will necessarily increase the vaccine protection period required to compensate for all vaccine-associated deaths, probably beyond 2.5 years. 

Our calculations for younger age groups predict an even more extreme and dire situation. It is long known that vaccination is not cost-effective against organisms or viruses with highly mutable genomes. RNA viruses, coronaviruses and HIV included, have the most mutable known genomes. Note that vaccine-associated risks increase proportionally to the strength of the immune system, predicting that vaccination will greatly increase the very low COVID19 risks experienced by the younger population. Extrapolations two independent available datasets confirm this prediction. The precautionary principle is the first priority of those responsible for public health and its urgent application is required at this point, especially when the whole population of a country, including its youth,  is  at  stake….

Vaccination-associated mortality risks are expected at least 20 times greater below age 20 compared to the very low COVID19-associated risks for this age group enjoying the healthiest immune system.

To summarize, vaccinated people over the age of 60 have been observed to die 14.6x more often than their unvaccinated age-peers in the first two weeks after vaccination. This is a corollary, not a causal, relationship, but it is such a strong correlation that it heavily implies at least some degree of causality.

Morever, this adverse effect is likely to be magnified as the age of the population declines, because adverse effects tend to be strongest in those with healthy immune systems due to the nature of the therapy. Since young people die less often than old people, and since the vaccinations are significantly increasing the likelihood of death in the two weeks post-initial vaccination, the analysis concludes that an inordinate number of young people are going to die after being unnecessarily vaccinated.

At this point, there is absolutely no way anyone under 40 should even consider getting the vaccination, and considering the potential adverse effects on fertility, anyone attempting to push it on women under 40 should be arrested and prosecuted.

In not-at-all-unrelated news, 57 scientists and doctors have demanded an immediate end to the mass-vaccination campaigns:

In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:

  • Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine�206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
  • Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
  • What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
  • What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?

In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.