Havard Study: The Vaccine Appears To Be More Dangerous Then The Virus Itself

 

I posted on this a few weeks ago, but it bears repeating.

From Jennifer Brown:

A new study conducted by scientists from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, currently in pre-print, reveals that the COVID-19 vaccines were up to 98 times worse than the virus itself. The study is critical of the booster requirement for American university students, stating in the abstract: 

“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.”

This study looks at 5 ethical harms to vaccine mandates at college universities.  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. 

Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates in North America.

GRTWT.