New Paper Emphasizes The Dangers & Harms of Mandatory COVID Vaccination Policy
Several researchers from various academic institutions in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada have published a new paper in pre-print form titled, "The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Segregated Lockdowns may cause more Harm than Good."
The paper explains that there has been a limited evaluation regarding the consequences of these policies, and hypothesizes that they've been counterproductive and harmful in several ways, some of which are outlined below.
The researchers also point out the misleading messages that have been disseminated to the public during the COVID vaccination campaign by legacy media and political rhetoric.
Let's start with the misleading messages. The authors point out six main areas where this has occurred. Below are five that have stood out during this pandemic.
The paper states,
"Communications have sometimes over-emphasized the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, both for preventing infection and transmission, and in preventing severe disease (e.g., Christie, 2022; Guardia 2021c; New York Times, 2021, Nordstrom et. al, 2021; ONS 2021a; VCP 2021a, b: Wong, 20211)"
The authors point out the misleading messages that have surrounded COVID vaccines from health authorities and legacy media. For example, "end the pandemic" and "get back to normal" when it's clear that a "growing body of evidence, however, shows significant waning effectiveness against infection (and transmission)." They also point out that with Delta and Omicron variants, waning immunity may even reach 0 percent.
Furthermore, there have been multiple cases of exponential outbreaks throughout this pandemic in the most highly vaccinated populations, as well as multiple studies showing both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can carry the same viral load.
According to a study published in October 2021, infected vaccinated and unvaccinated people can carry the same viral load. Viral load is a good proxy for infectiousness. Another study was conducted with positive samples from asymptomatic testing at UC Davis for Healthy Yolo Together and at the Unidos en Salud walk-up testing site in the Mission District of San Francisco.
A press release from UC Davis Explains,
"When they analyzed the data, the researchers found wide variations in viral load within both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, but not between them. There was no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between asymptomatic and symptomatic groups."
2. Vaccine Incentives
The authors point out that communications from official sources have been associated with freedom from restrictions and lockdowns, and "going back to normal." This in itself is being called unethical by many. The authors explain,
"Restricting people's access to work, education, public transport, and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarization, and adversely affects health and wellbeing. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in scientific institutions ."
The authors state,
"The media have often downplayed the age - and comorbidity - based risk of COVID-19 while promoting population-wide vaccination across all age-groups. As vaccination programs have moved down the age spectrum, the media has followed suit by over-emphasizing the risks of COVID-19 for young adults and then children in turn (Broadfoot, 2022; Bekiempis, 2022, Project Halo 2021a)."
This is something that's taken place throughout this entire pandemic. But early on in the pandemic academics who were emphasizing this were vilified.
For example, Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute published a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, during the first wave in Sweden, no child died from COVID. This was despite no mask mandates or lockdowns in the country at the time.
After he published this piece, an article was published in the British Medical Journal by Ingrid Torjesen explaining what he experienced,
"The Swedish government has said that it will strengthen laws on academic freedom after a leading Swedish academic announced that he was quitting his work on covid-19 because of an onslaught of intimidating comments from people who disagreed or disliked his research findings….After the letter’s publication he was bombarded with angry messages through social media and email... "
Fast forward to today and we now know that children have a 99.98 chance of surviving a COVID infection. Multiple countries, like Germany for example, have since published data showing extremely low mortality rates for children, and in many cases for certain age groups, zero deaths. Chances of hospitalization are similar, and children have also been shown to be poor spreaders of COVID. You can access that data in an article I published last October, here with more examples from multiple countries.
These are few of many reasons why some countries like Norway, for example, are not recommending these shots for children.
When it comes to comorbidity, in the United States, 95 percent of people who have died with COVID have an average of four other causes listed on the death certificate alongside COVID. A Freedom of Information Act Request Released on Jan 17, 2022 by the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics shows that there have only been 6,183 deaths caused solely by COVID in England and Wales between Feb 2020 and Dec 2021.
4. Vaccine Safety
It was great to see the authors bring up this point, because media messaging has claimed these vaccines are safe and effective for everybody, and that risks of vaccine injury were virtually non-existent.
These are the author's' main points regarding COVID vaccine safety,
"Limited pharmacovigilance and data sharing in some settings, including the original clinical trials (Doshi et al. 2022; Tanveer et al., 2021). Early evidence of blood clotting complications were reported as "one in a million" events (BBC News 2021B; The Daily Mail 2021), but ultimately proved much higher (Hippisley-Cox et. al., 2021). More recent safety signals associated with myocarditis in young men (Mevorach et. al, 2021) and with the Moderna vaccine in particular (Patrone, et. al., 2021) have been downplayed and risks may not have been fully considered in the context of protection afforded by prior infection. Reports often state that the risk of myocarditis is greater from infection that vaccination, without fully disclosing age or sx stratified risk in da detailed fashion (Patone et. al., 2021; Pyle & Huang, 2022)."
We've covered vaccine injuries quite a bit throughout this pandemic. Vaccine adverse events reporting systems around the world are recording a record number of injuries. By October 15th, 2021, adverse events reported worldwide passed 2,344,240 for COVID vaccines alone in the World Health Organization (WHO) reporting system VigiAccess.
More than 50 percent of adverse reactions reported to the Vaccine Events Reporting System (VAERS) within the last 30 years have all been from COVID products. These reports include deaths, permanent disabilities and more.
Government and public health responses to these numbers has been that these numbers are unreliable, but they offer no explanation.
Furthermore, there are numerous reports of injuries being shared across all social media platforms, although many have been banned from companies like Meta. Here's an example from Australia. Although these are anecdotal, they should not be dismissed.
5. Acquired Immunity
The authors note,
"The media and several governments have downplayed the importance of acquired immunity. Often the media has framed vaccination as the safest and only route to protection, but this lacks context for those with prior infection, who may have a higher risk of vaccine side effects and vaccine-specific risks in particular demographics (Patrone, et. al., 2021), as well as as lack of detailed age and sex stratified risk benefit communication in light of the reduced severity of the Omicron variant."
There are now well over 130 studies regarding natural induced immunity compared to vaccine induced immunity. One of the most recent ones was published by the CDC. It clearly outlines those with natural immunity are just as protected, if not more protected, than the vaccinated.
Another recent publication found evidence of natural immunity 20 months post infection.
The authors also note the political rhetoric that was used to stigmatize the unvaccinated. They stress that vaccine hesitant people often have legitimate concerns, yet during this pandemic they've had fingers pointed at them which in turn has created even more societal divide.
Many people have even experienced this within their own family.
"Public and political discourse quickly normalized stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles; for example, a popular news outlet compiled a list of "notable anti-vaxxers who have died from COVID-19" (Savulescu and Giubilini, 2021). Political leaders have singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures.
Political rhetoric has descended into moralizing, scapegoating, blaming and condescending language using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination."
The next point is a strong one, the authors state,
"This has become socially acceptable among many vaccinated individuals and pro-vaccine groups as well as the public at large. The effect is to further polarize society - physically and psychologically - with limited discussion as to the reasons why people remain unvaccinated."
The key here is "limited discussion as to the reasons why people remain unvaccinated." These legitimate reasons, some of which are discussed in the article, have not been addressed within the mainstream, instead they've been largely unacknowledged and name calling such as "anti vaxx conspiracy theorist" has been used. This is not healthy.
Why wouldn't government health authorities, politicians and legacy media simply address the concerns being made by those who are hesitant in a proper manner? Is it because these concerns are too legitimate to be countered and crumble the idea of vaccine mandates?
The authors state,
"Oversimplified public announcements, downplaying uncertainties and potential adverse events, and misleading information communicated from health authorities regarding vaccine efficacy and disease risk, have helped facilitate various layers of cognitive dissonance (a psychological stress precipitated by the perception of contradictory information)"
The paper goes on and in-depth regarding the negative impacts mandates and other COVID measures like lockdowns (which have been ineffective and may have already killed more people tan COVID) have had on behavioral psychology, politics and law, socioeconomics and the integrity of science and public health.
One interesting point made with regards to passports was the financial incentive and future harms they may cause beyond segregating society,
"There are also significant privacy issues with passports, which involve sharing medical information with strangers. Having set these population-wide passport precedents, it is conceivable that they could be expanded in the near future to include other personal health data including genetic tests and mental health records, which would create additional rights violations and discrimination based on biological states for employers, law enforcement, insurance companies, governments, and tech companies. Technology companies interested in biosurveillance using artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology have obtained large contracts to implement vaccine passports and now have a financial interest in maintaining and expanding them (Levine, 2022). "
Mandates and other restrictions, in a nutshell, have destroyed people's lives, taken many lives, ruined people's ability to put food on the table and have turned society against one another. All of this, in my opinion, was known prior to implementation of these measures and yet done anyway by politicians. Why? It's hard to say, but many corrupt politicians and corporations have been using COVID to acquire more power and control over the human race. And obviously, this idea alone is difficult to discuss without it being labelled a "conspiracy theory."
"Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science."
Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal
Vaccine mandates have also caused a tremendous strain on the healthcare system. Many countries are losing frontline staff due to mandates.
"Despite these considerations, many countries may lose frontline staff due to mandates. As of 31 December 2021, despite the forthcoming imposition of a vaccine mandate for patient-facing NHS workers, 8 % of medical practitioners in the UK (73,000 people remained unvaccinated (Faragher, 2021). In late 2021, Quebec (Canada) dropped its proposed mandate for healthcare workers, citing the devastating labor shortage it would cause on hospital systems (3% of staff, or 14,000, were unvaccinated (Maratta, 2021)"
Since this paper was published, English Health secretary Sajid Javid has announced that the government will revoke mandatory vaccination requirements for frontline NHS staff in England. Unvaccinated staff have faced dismissal which in turn have prompted protests against the policy from the citizenry as well as many NHS workers.
Exclusion from work and social life, lives being uprooted, the eroding of the basic principle of informed consent, erosion of trust in public health policy and the medical industry in general, erosion of regulatory oversight and more are all points the authors discuss beyond what is presented in this article.
What's positive about what's happened with COVID is the fact that many people have had a large shift in consciousness with regards to how things function in our society. More people are starting to question how big decisions are made and what the motivations are behind them.
Should we really give governments the authority to take away our basic rights and freedoms when so many people on the planet do not agree? These basic fundamental rights and freedoms are in place for a reason, and to give governments the ability remove them is a path to tyranny and dictatorship.