…and the risks that are emerging from the CV 19 vaccines clearly outweigh the benefits in many of the groups currently receiving it or who are mandated to receive it. There is very little doubt that individuals who are otherwise healthy and who are considering this vaccine should “look at the data” as it were.  This is particularly true in children where the benefits are negligible and the risks are clearly significantly above and beyond those that are known.  There are many that may be unknown for years.  This parallels the abuse that went on for almost a year that mandated that children actually wear masks all day long in public spaces. It is clear now that this made absolutely no difference in transmission, risk, infectivity, etc. And yet the psychological and biological downsides continue to play out. The ignorance of parents who had otherwise healthy children wearing masks has been breathtaking.  Now we have similar behavior in the mandate that people receive vaccines when they have absolutely no idea what they are buying into.

A study published this week in a scholarly European Journal effectively states that the entire vaccine mandate may need to be “rethought”. There is simply not sufficient safety data in the COVID 19 vaccines to recommend their use in groups who have minimal risk. The conclusion of the study was that the vaccine would theoretically prevent 3 deaths for every 2 that it actually caused. This is clearly an unsatisfactory risk:benefit ratio and belies a high level of irresponsibility in mandating it for groups who are at very little risk (such as anyone under the age of 29). This would include all of those college students who are currently being forced to take a vaccine without which they cannot return to school. There is no science behind this, and the school should bear all of the responsibility for any adverse side effect to any student ignorant enough to go along with it. Additionally, there is the common assumption that only the vaccine manufacturer would be responsible for a major untoward adverse event – such as death – but this is not true.  First of all, vaccine manufacturers in the United States are uniquely immune to product liability.  However such legal immunity does not apply to institutions for mandating the intervention itself.  In fact in many states, institutions mandating the intervention are fully responsible for any adverse effect particularly if it is done against the individual’s will.  Although it would take some years to play out, a wrongful death or major irremediable injury resulting from the administration of the vaccine mandated, e.g., by a school district for a teacher should be placed at the hands of that school district. In the end, taxpayers and shareholders will foot the bill for this irresponsible and ignorant public policy.

We are in uncharted territory here. Governments, educational institutions, managed-care organizations running hospitals, and private corporations are mandating the administration of vaccines in groups for which the risk:benefit ratio is utterly unsupportive. There is absolutely no proof that this is justified, and one wonders whether or not there are other perverse incentives behind this recommendation. In any case, the only way this will end is if some unfortunate individual – or their surviving family – is able to successfully sue the mandating institution for so much money that they will think twice about doing it again.

The only other alternative would be a new form of civil disobedience – a variation on herd immunity – “herd disobedience”.

3 Comments on It’s the risk against the benefit…

  1. We agree with your conclusions!
    Ps going in for second hip replacement today. First one was mar 4th. Both severe osteoarthritis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *