As everyone knows by now, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted for adding the Covid-19 vaccine to the CDC’s child and adolescent immunization schedule. While that move does not mandate the mRNA jabs for children, placing them on the schedule encourages states to do exactly that as a requirement for school attendance. More than a dozen states follow the CDC’s guidance to set vaccination requirements for school, including Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
The committee voted 15-0 in favor of adding the vaccines to the schedule. During a question period, one member of the committee raised questions over the vaccine being included on the schedule when it’s only been recommended for use under an Emergency Use Authorization. The reply was that the Office of General Counsel had said that it would be okay to add regardless.
Of course, it is fair to ask – what emergency? Parents certainly don’t see one. Barely 2 percent of children under 5 and fewer than 1 in 3 from 5 to 11 are fully “vaccinated”, despite a massive marketing push by Big Pharma and the Public Health establishment. Parents just aren’t feeling the need, nor should they.
The COVID risk to children birth to 17 years is so small as to be inconsequential. Pediatric deaths make up just 0.1% of total COVID-19 deaths, and only 0.01% of pediatric cases have resulted in death, according to the AAP. The CDC reports a total number of deaths in 2020 and 2021 from COVID-19 in this age group as 668 as of Dec. 23, 2021. One study posted July 7, 2021, looked at deaths in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic and found that 99.995% of children survived. The estimate is a 2-in-1 million absolute mortality rate for children.
Since the jabs do not stop transmission, it is very difficult to find any logical rationale for jabbing children. It is especially puzzling that the CDC would make this recommendation, even as other developed countries and American states are going in the opposite direction. The State of Florida discourages the jabs in younger people and especially children. Denmark curtailed its vaccine program for adults under 50. Norway announced that no one under 65 should receive additional shots, unless at underlying risk of a severe disease. Meanwhile, back home in America, the CDC wants to jab infants with mRNA.
Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) October 29, 2022
While benefits may be tough to find, the risks are very plain for all to see. Moderna’s own study indicated that serious side effects occur after the mRNA jabs in as many as 1 in 200 children. A study published in the JAMA indicated that 1 in every 500 children under five years receiving the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine were hospitalized with a vaccine injury. Same study, which included 7,806 children aged five and younger, also found that 1 in 200 had symptoms ongoing for weeks or months afterwards.
The mRNA jabs do not remain local to the injection site. We now know they spread all over the body, and even pool in organs. Chemical modifications made to the mRNA in the shots appear to make it harder for the immune system to destroy it. At this point, no one is sure how long the zombie-like mRNA will last in the bodies of those injected with it. That is a huge potential problem for young children. They have decades of future life to develop and suffer side effects. This is especially frightening as more and more jabbed patients are reporting serious autoimmune disorders (even Type 1 Diabetes) shortly following vaccination. In addition, the mRNA shots are known to cause disruption in menstrual cycles and declines in sperm counts that can last for several months. Are we willing to risk making a whole generation of children infertile?
A recent study in Thailand found that 1 in 28 boys who got the vaccine will have subclinical or overt myocarditis. It appears that most of the rest are still having heart damage, just at a level that is below the threshold to be classified as subclinical myocarditis. These data show the jabs are causing some amount of heart damage in nearly everyone who gets them. Doctors and public health authorities are simply ignoring this inconvenient data.
For those interested in learning more about the potential mRNA side effects in children, I highly recommend this video from Dr. Robert Malone explaining the risks of COVID “vaccines” to Australian politicians. In only 18 minutes, Dr. Malone explains to every parent and policy maker exactly why children should never be jabbed.
Many, many more children will be harmed by the mRNA jabs than could ever benefit from them. So why did the CDC do this, if not for the benefit of the children? Money, of course. The federal “public health emergency” declaration protects Pfizer, and the other vaccine companies, from being sued over any side effects from their shots. Continuing this protection is probably why the declaration was extended again into early 2023, even as the most brain dead among us can see there is no strain on our health care system from COVID. The Federal Government can’t keep extending this state of emergency forever. Biden already looks bad extending it to 2023. If he keeps extending it, he will look completely ridiculous. But that creates a serious problem. How can the government shield the Big Pharma mRNA companies from liability indefinitely? Adding the mRNA vaccines to the childhood schedule does just that. Any vaccine on the schedule is immune from individual liability as it becomes part of the federal vaccine injury compensation program. The companies are let off the hook, and all financial liability is transferred to the American taxpayers.
Reminder:
Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine business model: government gives them billions, grants them immunity for any injuries or for product failure, promotes their products for free, and mandates their products.
Sounds crazy? Yes, but it is our current reality.
— Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) October 24, 2022
As of this writing, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming have said they will not require COVID-19 vaccines for children to attend school, despite the CDC’s recommended “immunization” schedule. Will they stick to their guns on this? How many more states will follow them in making the jabs voluntary? How many states will use the CDC guidance as justification for mandating the COVID jabs? As Dr. Robert Malone explains, the future depends on the motives of the US Federal Government, and how it behaves going forward:
As discussed above, we all know Florida will reject the CDC recommendation that these unlicensed COVID-19 injections be required for participation in publicly funded education. They already have. But what about other states? I believe the answer for this one will be state by state, unless the Federal government ties other monies to a requirement that school children to get the jab. Then lots of states will mandate these vaccines for children. There are a lot of unknowns and unknowables at this point in time.
If the real agenda here is to provide an additional mechanism to protect Moderna and Pfizer from legal liability for the safety of their products, or to force congress to fund the purchase of the mRNA products via the automatic funding provisions of the VFC, then maybe the Biden Administration will not choose to leverage Education and Head Start funding, as the CDC and its “independent” Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has already achieved these objectives. But if the objective is to force all of us to bend the knee and have all of our children accept these products which are neither safe nor effective at preventing infection and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, then we may well see more federal overreach using the usual methods.
No informed parents will ever voluntarily inject these poisons into their children. Unfortunately, depending on what the government does, where families live, and how future elections turn out – the jabs could easily become mandatory. The time for parents to think about their options to protect their children is right now before the crisis is upon them.
Homeschool or Private School
Homeschooling is exploding in the United States. The above map shows how difficult it is to homeschool in all 50 states. The Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HLDA) website lets you look up the specific rules and regulations for homeschooling in your state. Once considered “fringe”, the implosion of the US public school system and the COVID school closures have made homeschooling mainstream. The graphic below illustrates just how rapidly homeschooling is spreading. It would not be surprising to see new figures in 2023 indicating that 15% or more of households with children are now homeschooling.
In most states, homeschoolers do not have to comply with mandatory vaccination requirements and parents get to set their own curriculum. Homeschooling saves the health, sanity, and Christian Faith of the children. No need to inject poison into their bodies to get an “education”. Also, no requirements for your precious children to be subjected to bullying, violence, drug use, transgenderism, anti-Christian propaganda, political indoctrination, woke indoctrination, politically correct speech codes, Critical Race Theory, alternative sexual lifestyles, homosexuality, pornography, atheism, substandard academic curricula, and the constant threat of closures / masking when the next “pandemic” hits.
Even if your state never threatens your kids with the COVID jab, there are many, many other good reasons to homeschool your children. Dr. Robert Malone has a great article on why you should homeschool. His research into the horror show that is the National Education Association (America’s largest teacher labor union) will have you running to disenroll your kids from public school. If you have never thought about homeschooling before, now is the time to do so. Learn the requirements in your state. Find a local homeschooling group. The other parents will be thrilled to help you. You will be pleasantly surprised how many resources, many of which are free or inexpensive, exist to help you homeschool.
If you are a priest, now is the time to start planning the launch of your homeschool co-op. The children in your parish need you to lead this movement out of public schools. Your parish hall and classrooms sit largely empty most days. Bring in your homeschoolers to learn and socialize with other Orthodox Christians. Teach the next generation a regular class on Orthodoxy and Christian history. Now, dear Fathers, is the time for the Orthodox parish to become the village center again.
Not every family can homeschool. If you can’t, and there many reasons why, then private schools can be an option. In many states, private schools can set their own vaccination requirements. That can be a double-edged sword, as we have heard that some private schools are requiring the jabs even though the local public schools do not. However, depending on state laws, you should be able to find a private school, particularly a Christian one, that will not require the COVID poison shots.
Private school can be expensive, but your children are worth every penny. There are often “blended” options available. Some homeschooling co-ops provide one or more days a week of private school instruction to help out the parents. These types of co-ops are usually treated as private schools under most state laws, and can be very reasonably priced.
Now, none of that may be an option for your family. Or, your state may require homeschool and private school students to conform to the public school vaccine requirements. In either case, lets talk about vaccine exemptions.
Religious and Philosophical Exemptions
The map below shows you which states allow for Medical, Religious, and Philosophical objections to mandatory vaccines.
States that allow for philosophical objections are obviously the easiest. As mandatory vaccinations are a violation of your God-given free will, the case for an exemption writes itself. If your state only allows for medical exemptions, you are in the worst possible position. Based on our experience helping health care and public sector workers avoid the jabs, a medical exemption can be tough to get.
If you are in a state allowing for religious exemptions, you should be just fine. All of the COVID jabs have links to aborted fetal cell lines, at least in terms of testing. See here for a guide to the use of aborted fetal cell usage in the COVID jabs. Orthodox Reflections has helped thousands of professionals successfully get religious exemptions from the jabs. This page is a guide to all of our resources, which include answers to commonly asked questions, sample exemption letters, quotes from Orthodox clergy, sample clergy letters, and more.
For convenience, see a sample exemption request below from our guide to HR questions page:
My sincere, deeply held religious objections to COVID vaccines are multi-faceted. Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would violate my sincerely held religious beliefs. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. According to the unwavering, almost two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Orthodox Church, abortion is an abominable act before God’s eyes that I cannot condone nor in any way participate. Eastern Orthodox Christianity condemns the harvesting of biological materials from an individual without their informed consent. Further, The Social Life Document of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the largest Orthodox Jurisdiction on Earth, defines the absolute inadmissibility of medicines prepared using fetal cell therapy.
The same Social Life Document also states “The transplantation of organs from a living donor can be based only on the voluntary self-sacrifice for the sake of another’s life. In this case, the consent to removal of an organ becomes a manifestation of love and compassion. However, a potential donor should be fully informed about possible consequences for his health. If the procedure presents an immediate threat to the life of a donor, it is morally inadmissible.”By definition, removal and use of the organs of a murdered child can never involve ethical consent. This is immoral in the eyes of a righteous God and absolutely prohibited.
Further, the Holy Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church on abortion contain ecclesiastical rules according to Holy Apostles, the ancient Ecumenical Councils of the Church, and the testimony of revered theologians and bishops:
“A woman that aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess.”
(Canon 2 of St. Basil the Great’s 92 Canons)
Anyone who assists her or participates in an abortion in any way would also bear her sin, and would also be considered a murderer.
All COVID-19 vaccines are produced using biological material and developed and/or tested using aborted fetal cells that date back to 1973 (the HEK-293 kidney cell line) and 1985 (the PER.C6 retinal cell line). Research confirming this can be provided upon request.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, because of my sincere belief derived from my Church’s teaching on abortion, the use of fetal therapy, and the use of bodily organs / cells without valid consent, I cannot receive these COVID-19 vaccines. By taking these COVID-19 vaccines, I would be an accomplice to the original acts of abortion and bodily violations (without consent) of the innocent the same as if I had perpetrated those acts myself. Taking any of these vaccines would violate my sincerely held religious beliefs.
Also, my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. I have been warned by many spiritual mentors that the COVID vaccines contain multiple impurities which are violations of my temple. These include: graphene oxide, metallic flecks, iridescent wafers, gelatinous material, live parasites resembling the Hydra vulgaris, HIV 1, Chromosome 8, a synthetic amino acid called “Pseudouridylyl,” and Hydrogel which composes the nanolipid particles that envelope the mRNA and which is used in Transhumanist experiments.
NOTE: Archpriest Alexander Webster (a former seminary dean) gives a great explanation of the morally unacceptable nature of the vaccines starting at 17:00 minutes in this Webinar. You are free to quote him as needed.
If you read the original, much longer version, you may find you do not agree with everything written in it (Orthodox prophecies, links to the Mark of the Beast, testimony of demons). That is perfectly fine. It was written to be all-encompassing for health care workers who needed to bury HR in a plethora of hard-to-refute moral reasons. Write your exemption request in your own words and to reflect your own beliefs. Treat what we publish as helpful guidelines, nothing more. If you run into any problems, reach out to the Liberty Counsel. They can be very helpful, and are often looking for court cases to set positive precedents.
Keep in mind something very important – it is your belief system that matters when applying for a religious exemption, not the beliefs of your priest or your hierarchy.
Your Hierarchy Does Not Matter for Exemptions
To our shame, many Orthodox hierarchs and priests were all-in for the jabs. Quite a few even went so far as to publish pictures of themselves getting the jabs.
Orthodox institutions such as Holy Cross required the jabs for students and faculty. Priests were pressured by bishops and chancellors to take the jabs, encourage the jabs, or to at least be silent about the jabs. While there were Orthodox heroes in this fight, there should have been many, many more.
The worst offender would have to be Archbishop Elpidophoros. He not only pushed the jabs as a moral obligation (despite the fact they do not stop transmission), he went so far as to pro-actively deny the possibility of Orthodox Christians qualifying for religious exemptions.
Elpi is so pro-vax that he participated in giving Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, the Athenagoras Human Rights Award in 2021. Despite the avalanche of bad news about the jabs, Elpi stands by them as if they were dogma. This will not change, of course. Elpi never learns, and never apologizes. Fortunately, what clergy believe about the jabs does not matter in the slightest to anyone seeking a religious exemption.
What matters is your deeply held, sincere interpretation of your religious beliefs concerning the jabs, regardless of what your official hierarchy thinks. This is from the Petrie Flom Center at Harvard Law:
Additionally, states cannot refuse an exemption to those whose interpretation differs from their religion’s doctrine regarding vaccination. It’s not the state job to enforce a religion’s rules on its believers, the state is tasked simply with assessing whether the religious objection is sincere. This too makes sense, but again, makes it harder to challenge religious exemption claims by members of religions that support vaccines. Assessing sincerity is tricky grounds.
If you are ever asked about pro-jab hierarchs or priests in the Orthodox Church, rest assured that under American law you are not required to submit to their mistaken beliefs.
You Are Playing for Time
Regardless of what you and your children come up against, do not give up and take these shots. The tide is turning against them. Be patient, and play for time. Even some of the worst states / nations for COVID jab mandates are changing as a result of elections and legal challenges. In Canada, the new Premier of Alberta apologized to those harmed by past COVID policies, and even offered the unvaccinated their jobs back.
BREAKING: Rebel News’s Selene Galas (@selenecxliv) asked Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith when we can expect a promised apology for those prosecuted during the lockdowns. Smith replied “I can apologize right now.”
SIGN THE PETITION: https://t.co/VT5lpGuaV4 pic.twitter.com/qc2U470kBz
— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) October 22, 2022
In an even more shocking turn of events, a judge threw out the NYC vax mandate for city workers and ordered that those previously fired be rehired. The city seems to be ignoring the order so far, but the precedent has now been established. It is unlikely any municipality other than NYC would be so pigheaded as to ignore a court order.
#BREAKING Judge Strikes Down NYC Vaccine Mandate for City Workers. “It’s null and void,” says attorney @ChadLaveglia. “We just defeated the vaccine mandate for every single city employee.” pic.twitter.com/PqqjhfNNCq
— NYCforYourself (@nycforyourself) October 24, 2022
Keep praying. Keep resisting. The truth is coming out at a rapid pace. However, there are still people who refuse to see the truth. They might criticize you and your children for remaining unvaxxed. Before we close, let’s review a few more health impacts of the COVID jabs.
Additional Health Impacts of the COVID Jabs
Below is summary of some of the health impacts uncovered in recent studies. It is a good image to share on social media.
Do you get the feeling that many athletes and healthy young people are just suddenly dropping dead? That is not just your impression. Even with “aggressive” counting, less than 1 percent of deaths worldwide are being attributed to COVID. Those deaths are almost always the old and seriously ill. However, overall deaths have spiked since 2021 in many countries with high mRNA vaccination rates.
A report from the Society of Actuaries Research Institute confirms that there is a staggering amount of Excess Mortality among Millennials and younger Gen Xers. Pro-vaxxers are trying mightily to deflect away from linking these numbers to the jabs. That is getting harder as the phenomenon continues unabated.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a British Cardiologist and former supporter of the jabs. He recently published a paper in the Journal of Insulin Resistance called Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine Below is an excerpt from this paper:
Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.
Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.
Dr. Mahlhotra did the video below as a review of his own paper. It is well worth your time to watch.
The risk of myocarditis was mentioned earlier. The more we learn about the impact of the mRNA shots on the heart, the more frightening the situation becomes.
https://twitter.com/45Jbama/status/1584033232651452417
A recent British report found that “boosters” increased the likelihood of being hospitalized. In June 2022, people aged 40 to 74 who received an mRNA booster within the last three months had a 1-in-3,600 risk of being hospitalized with Covid. That figure was double the 1-in-7,200 risk for people who had received their last Covid jab more than six months ago.
Multiple countries around the world have seen large, “unexplained” drops in fertility. Yet another reason for children and adults of child bearing age to avoid these jabs.
Updated mRNA booster shots from Pfizer and Moderna were approved for human use on the basis of data from a few mice. The new “boosters” appear to be worthless. A paper from Dr. David Ho, one of the world’s top virologists, indicates that newer Omicron variants easily evade boosters. That is why CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky was infected again with Sars-Cov-2 just a month after receiving her newest booster. The booster dose appears to offer ZERO protection against the new variants.
The quote below is from journalist Alex Berenson and indicates what many of us knew from the beginning, the effectiveness of the jabs was way oversold:
But a peer-reviewed British study covering 9.1 million people and almost 600,000 Covid infections in 2021 shows vaccine advocates badly overstated the effectiveness of the shots even last year, at the peak of their effectiveness.
By mid-2021, fully vaccinated people had a higher risk of being infected with Covid, the study shows. They had only about 65 percent protection against hospitalization and death – after accounting for age, sex, and other risk factors.
Sixty-five percent protection is still better than nothing, of course. But it is far below the claims Murthy and others made – and continue to make.
Further, the period the researchers examined represented the peak of vaccine protection, which declined over time and declined further with the Omicron variant, which evades vaccine-generated antibodies within months.
And the sixty-five percent figure likely substantially overstates the actual protection from the shots, because of an epidemiological phenomenon called “healthy vaccine user bias.”
Put simply, physicians often withhold shots from people who are extremely frail or near death. They fear that vaccine side effects might kill those patients and that the vaccines will be pointless in any case.
Irene is an Orthodox Christian and a clinical educator with decades of experience. In cooperation with her husband, she is able to work part time and homeschool her children.
Readers made us aware that this organization exists. We are not affiliated, but it looks fantastic. Link is here.
Our Vision is to promote, support, and unite homeschooling families throughout Orthodox North America. Our Mission is to provide inspiring and informative resources and experiences that equip homeschooling families to educate the next generation of Orthodox faithful in North America.
Evil always goes after the children. Going too far down that rabbit hole, may leave one emotionally disturbed for days. What we are seeing is a resurgence of things past in even more vile ways. In the ancient pagan customs, to ritually kill a child was to receive his/her life force perpetuating a fallacy of immortality. Child sacrifice was/is also used to open portals to hell and its all back, just under the surface of what looks legitimate.
During Roman times, children were chattel in the estate until given son-ship. Many times a baby was not named until around puberty—when they really start eating. At which point their fate was often decided; a good child may be held onto if an heir was needed. Among the Romans, any unwanted child could be discarded; they even had a name for this practice: “Expositio”. The child would be taken out of town and left alongside the road, to either be picked up by slave traders (sex groomers) or eaten by wild animals. This was perfectly acceptable. (see: When Children Became People: O.M. Bakke)
However, the Church changed all of that, for the most part—even in St John Chrysostom’s time children could be sold to pay debts (Not everything in Constantinople was so grand). Might have brought their downfall, something did, there is always moral failure before a civilization gets leveled (read St John Chrysostom sermon series “Richman and Lazarus.”), including the Russian revolution, nothing happens in a vacuum.
Whenever God forsook His people, the abuse of children was one of the main reasons. While no Orthodox would take their child out of town to be dumped on the curb, too many Orthodox parents are “expositio” their children by exposing them to the public school system. Bad stuff. Nothing angers God faster than what we are doing with the next generation (Malachi 4: 5,6). To mask a child is to desecrate the image of God.
Under ancient Hebrew—tribal— customs, the new born was rubbed down with salt. This did two things: first it was covenant expression that the child was received as a member, having a place at the family table. What was assumed—a new family member—during pregnancy, was publically demonstrated; the child was on board and in the covenant, they belonged. As was discussed by St John Chrysostom, to “take salt” was the covenant act of eating together. Rubbing salt on the child bound the parents—especially the father—to the child for life. (mothers are bound to the child organically, and the fathers covenantally)
Salt is still used in many baptismal rites because of its covenant implications.
Second, salt was what the amniotic fluid was—salt water, same as the ocean. Not only did this sooth but it also fended off bacterial.
It’s usually not wise to share one’s apparitions, but I’ll share this one. Two years ago, I was flying to the east coast for a family visit. Sitting still for 3 hours is tormenting, so I channeled all my energies toward hesychia, sitting still, stilling the mind, and elevating the heart. Opening my eyes briefly, I noticed a young couple seated in front of me holding a baby, not yet old enough to walk. The mother was holding the child up on her lap on both feet. Noticing the child looking the mother square in the eyes, she was smiling. For a second, I could see the glory of God on this child. So bright this was to me, I had to look away because it was like starring into the midday sun. In a minute, it stopped, and viewing the child was as usual, but I was changed forever.
The shot is a cocktail of many things, and is different in different places. Spanish scientists try to stay on top of that (see: La Quinta Columna on bitchut).
Keep in mind the shots do not stand alone, they are meant to “do their thing” (maim, kill, disable) in the presence of certain radio signals; your cell phone and other emitters of RF energy. I have seen the graphene, know how to make it replicate in a bucket, and am still looking for its weaknesses. Getting it out of the body, amounts to making something attach to it, that the body can grab onto and filter it out. Naturally, the body works to get all toxins out but with so much coming through all sources, detox becomes a must. And some people seem to be fortunate that their body can handle it better than others.
Because my house is within a 1000 ft of two 5g antennas–a full tower to the north and on a tall building to the west and a (3rd) street antenna to the south–I am installing RF blocking materials to stop much that was running right through my house. The difference is huge! Less brain fog (now I can really get sarcastic!), better sleep. No longer do I use wifi–all my computers are hardwired–and the microwave oven never gets used, and sometimes I just put the phone in airplane mode. Yeah, I am hard to get a hold of sometimes. Having a meter, there used to be an unseen “river” of RF running right through my bedroom next to the mirror (old mirrors actually deflect RF). Graphenes take the RF and either replecate itself and or retransmit to another higher frequency. This is the same thing you see in fosfloresce were something recieve light energy, the sends it back out at a visible frequency. So, in short-the graphene makes your body not just a reciever, but also a transmitter to infect others.
It all works on the same principle as a MRI that blasts the body, then reads it as it glows in the dark back in a frequency the machine can read. If you get an MRI, they tell you to avoid other people for a day or so because it will make others sick.
All of the technology of 5g as a direct energy weapon was discovered and proven by Nicola Tesla over a century ago. Little of this stuff is new, they are only building Tesla’s plans for dispensing energy. If fact, it was probably Tesla who leveled hundreds of acres of forests in Siberia in 1908, and he did it from America. That is why he build all those large towers–including in Colorado Springs–to use the entire earth as a dischargin capacitor unloading vast stores of energy in a single moment.
You body is an electronic wonder. When a pathogen enters the body, the body identifies it as a pathogen because the pathogen has its own RF frequency that it emits. In fact, all they have to do is locate the frequency for whatever pathogen, recreate that frequency on your cell phone or the local cell tower and your body thinks its being assaulted by that pathogen. BTW: DNA can be altered by RF radiation. Avoiding the jab is half the battle, avoiding RF microwaves is the other half. Our technology is killing us.
6g is on the way–will incorporate light–so all in hazardous areas, need to take action. While most of us cannot just move out into the country, there are many things we can do–some cheaply–to defend ourselves from powerful RF waves.
Take a look at this documentary from 2014. Although it is primarily about water, see how they actually can read the RF signals of DNA, then send that data hundreds of miles away and in a lab reproduce that exact same DNA. Fundamentally, the technology for transhumanism and cloning has been around a long time. Bottom line: your DNA can be read, replicated anywhere in the world. and even altered in your body by RF signals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8VyUsVOic0
In St Daniel’s colossus, the feet–the last kingdoms to exist–are a mixture of clay (human flesh) and iron (machines). While the two really do not mix, they are working it anyway and at some point, of course, it all breaks down. But if it is in that vision which spans many generations, then it might be around a long time before it finally runs out its course. Indeed, we are in the Brave New World order and many things not seen in a few millienia will be making a new appearance, but in even more bizarre fashion. Expect a more robust evil to roam the world as in the “days of Noah.”
Truth is the ark that God is now building to preserve His people. Those who ignore it, do so at their own peril.
There will come a day when these people will leave this earth to meet their maker
and will have a rude awakening, but, it will be too late with no turning back.
Jon says, “Most of the claims in this article are misinterpretions of the linked papers, cherry-picked papers that have been rebuked by 10x as much data in the other direction, or just outright fabricated.” Yes, welcome back, Jonathon. Now defend your attack on this article and author/s, which includes the accusation of deliberate falsifications, i.e., “lies” (“or just outright fabricated”). The search for truth is always a bumpy road which is made worse by those experiencing a psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously – namely: cognitive dissonance. The data world-wide absolutely trumps your defense of the real false narrative, Jon.
Examples:1) “Wilst you were distracted by Boris resigning, the UK Gov. quietly published a report confirming the Vaccinated account for 94% of all COVID-19 Deaths since April, 90% of which were Triple/Quadruple Jabbed – A report that was quietly published by the UK Government, just hours before Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his resignation, reveals that Covid-19 deaths have risen dramatically among the triple vaccinated population in England over the past couple of months whilst declining drastically among the unvaccinated population.
With the most recent figures showing the vaccinated population in England accounted for a shocking 94% of all Covid-19 Deaths in April and May, and 90% of those deaths were among the triple/quadruple vaccinated population.”By The Exposé on July 11, 2022 • ( 15 Comments )
2) “A study published by The BMJ today finds a gradual increase in the risk of covid-19 infection from 90 days after receiving a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The study was carried out by the Research Institute of Leumit Health Services in Israel. Israel was one of the first countries to roll out a large scale covid-19 vaccination campaign in December 2020, but which has seen a resurgence of infections since June 2021.” – BMI, 11-24-21
3) “U.S. data show rising ‘breakthrough’ infections among fully vaccinated – U.S. data show rising ‘breakthrough’ infecti,ons among fully vaccinated – Some 25% of SARS-CoV-2 infections among Los Angeles County residents occurred in fully vaccinated residents from May through July 25, a period that includes the impact of the highly transmissible Delta variant, U.S. officials reported on Tuesday.
The data, published in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly report on death and disease, shows an increase in so-called “breakthrough” infections among fully vaccinated individuals.” – REUTERS By Julie Steenhuysen, August 25, 2021.
These are only three of many similar reports from multiple countries; and, they just keep coming in 2022. Somebody “just outright fabricated” the data? People familiar with the interpretation of statistical data are well aware that one can twist the the axis of the data to produce a desired result. None-the-less, as Fox Mulder famously held: “The Truth is out there.”
At this juncture, and with these initial results, why would anyone want to risk these inoculations on our children? By what what rational justification?
Interesting discussion with Robert Kennedy, particularly over excess deaths and the desire to blame Red States. https://youtu.be/njCTipPEMEU
I’m confused what you think your data points show. Breakthrough infections definitely occur (as in most vaccines), but literally every study has shown survival rates far higher for vaccinated persons than for unvaccinated persons. Your three studies quoted don’t dispute that – the information you neglected to include was what the vaccination rate was for each group. For example, you didn’t post that 94% of persons over 12 in the UK are vaccinated, and this is closer to 100% among vulnerable seniors. And by April 2022, due to the high spread of the Omicron waves in winter 2021/22 nearly all of the unvaccinated people had either died or already gotten infected recently. It’s tough for unvaccinated deaths to be high when the unvaccinated population is miniscule, but the UK’s relatively higher vaccination rate meant that it didn’t suffer the dramatic Covid death spikes in 2021 that much of the less-vaccinated regions of the USA experienced.
For obvious reasons, your linked blog post ignores over 40,000 previous unvaccinated deaths in that UK report, as well as ignoring the actual death rates for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated for each age group. And you had the gall to say “one can twist the axis of the data to produce a desire result”. How fitting.
“Dwell Together in Unity”: Starting a Homeschool Workshop
https://form.jotform.com/222704500272040
What a brilliant suggestion to priests to make their parish a haven and resource for homeschooling families, and to teach also!
Also, the previous comment questioned the veracity of the information in this post, I am looking forward to seeing Jon’s facts roll in.
No jab, no public education all Soli Deo Gloria!
Did you see the announcement on the group doing the homeschool co-op workshop? Help us let all the priests you know about it. Not our initiative, but we love it!
https://form.jotform.com/222704500272040
Creating mechanisms to enhance home schooling is moving in the right direction. God bless you for doing so.
We homeschooled all the way up until high school with absolute remarkable results. Now, things are much more egregious, and public high school would be out of the question unless a charter or Christian school. We were part of a very strong Protestant homeschool group at the time, and we all shared the same piano teachers, same ballet teacher, and even had a professor from the USAFA come to our home and teach college grade physics (nearly blew the place up as I understand it). My oldest daughter even had her own piano studio teaching other home schoolers when she was high school age. The bonds, the friendships, the interdependence it created was remarkable by any standard, what Church should be but cannot be because everyone lives “in the world.”
When St Paul said, “Come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6), these are the things that it applies to.
Curriculum is always a big issue—often very expensive—and we often shared used stuff to others. As Orthodox, we should be creating our own on certain subjects.
If we are to follow St Paul’s admonition, we must take birth, death, health care, dining, education, and especially wealth creation and bring it back into the home. Because we are too much dependent upon the world rather than each other, Satan has us over a barrel. Time to create community among the Orthodox for life.
What do you think of round one?
OR Staff claimed, with no evidence or link, ” Australia banned the shots for people under 30″, even putting “banned” in italics.
As support for that claim, they have now posted an advisory group recommendation telling Australians under 30 to get a booster shot. And they didn’t even post that as a mea culpa admitting they had lied, they posted that link to SUPPORT their false position.
If you can’t even trust them to admit their false claim on something as simple and obvious as that, why trust them on anything else? Below you can see they’re also recalling an earlier conversation on ARR vs. RRR, where a guest author badly botched the use of the terms by trying to directly extrapolate ARR for a vaccine trial population into the entire American population for the entire length of the pandemic, not realizing that only RRR is meant to be used for extrapolation, ARR cannot be extrapolated into other populations of different sizes and trial lengths because it is specifically limited to the length and size of the trial. Not only did OR staff not realize this error inititially, but they doubled down over and over again even after multiple people pointed it out.
In the same discussion, they also sadly posted their own April 2021 claim that herd immunity had been reached and now Covid was over on its own. And when I pointed that out, they deflected and mocked the idea of vaccine boosters instead of being able to admit they were wrong about Covid being over.
https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-real-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines-a-medical-researcher-debunks-the-claims/
So after having looked into it, and pulled the PDF from the Australian group, we agree that Berenson oversold the Australian position. With Irene’s permission, we replaced reference to Australia with the State of Florida. We also updated, again with Irene’s permission, the list of states that have said they will not require child jabs. So the paragraph now reads:
And is followed by a Tweet from the Florida Surgeon General. Here is the list of states added:
Now, do any of those changes make the case of the CDC in any way look better? Do any of those changes in any way negate the thrust of the article? We responded to your ARR / RRR nonsense. Again.
https://orthodoxreflections.com/saving-children-facing-covid-vaccine-mandates/#comment-4546
Dr. Williams did not say we had reached herd immunity in 4/2021. Below is the exact quote from the article:
Much sooner is not saying we had reached herd immunity on the publication date of this article.
So now, let’s move on from Australia and ARR / RRR. Do you take issue with anything else in the article? Do you support mRNA jabs for children?
* “Norway announced that no one under 65 should receive additional shots, unless at underlying risk of a severe disease.”
And you strike out again. Norway recommends that all children 5-17 get a two-shot vaccination series and that all adults 18-65 get a booster shot. You can read it right now on the Norwegian Institute of Public Health page “Coronavirus vaccine – information for the public”, updated October 28, 2022. The 65+ limitation was for getting a SECOND booster shot, or 4th total shot. But even that limitation is likely to get lifted, as stated in an October 13 article by Norwegian online newspaper The Local: “Norwegian authorities may recommend a fourth Covid jab to more groups”.* Denmark has repeatedly said the vaccines are safe and effective for children and have never taken back their statement. They continued to push vaccinations for all young adults and children over 12 through the end of summer 2022. Their statement where they’ve chosen not to pursue younger-adult vaccinations this fall included the statement: “People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.” However, they still recommended vaccinations for health-care workers, those who work with vunerable adults, and children who live with at-risk adults, as well as any child who got a doctor’s recommendation.
* The Florida Surgeon General (Dr. Joseph Lapoda) was chosen by Desantis just a year ago specifically because he was a prominent Covid conspiracy theorist. He wasn’t even from Florida, he was from California, though he had gotten national attention for writing op eds in support of Covid conspiracy theories. His own medical director refused to recommend him for the surgeon general position. Even before becoming Florida Surgeon General, he had been caught lying about treating Covid patients (hospital schedules and his own collegues’ statements prove he didn’t have Covid patients on his rotation) and making unsupported recommendations about HCQ and Ivermectin. He replaced Dr. Scott Rivkees, the Desantis-appointed Surgeon General who had angered Desantis by making medically sound recommendations for Covid that contradict the conspiracy theories promoted here. And the Lapoda action you’re supporting, his recommendation not to vaccinate kids, was contradicted by the exact researchers whose papers he quoted, who said he misrepresented their research.
It’s a circular “argument from authority” – you’re quoting someone as the “Florida Surgeon General” as if that gives them authority when their own medical director said they weren’t qualified and they were chosen for the position solely because they supported the conspiracy theory.
So you support injecting children with mRNA vaccines?
So you support injecting children with mRNA vaccines? And the Norway statement is accurate as it says “additional” shots, which of course is talking about boosters. Hence “additional”. And you clearly don’t like the government of Florida much, nor the Harvard trained surgeon general. If we were leftists we’d attribute your attitude to racism. But we aren’t, so we recognize you simply don’t like what he says. The fact that Florida is growing and doing really well probably sticks in your craw.
Curiously, while clearly you don’t much value the Surgeon General’s opinion, the article that this whole discussion is appended to is about jabbing children. Something, Jonathan, you have not commented on that we see. We agree with Surgeon General Lapado on many topics. He is in a powerful position for the 3rd largest state in America. His opinion matters. Not enough to outweigh truth, obviously. He is not a dispenser of dogma, but he does have good takes on a variety of topics.
You don’t agree with him. Ducky. But the topic at hand is the addition of previously EUA vaccines to the childhood vaccination schedule. This topic you seem to avoid. Why is that?
I haven’t avoided it at all. I have been focused on making statements of data and evidence, as my opinion is meaningless to the discussion. There are plenty of other more expert opinions that you’re ignoring. I’m only here to point out all the outright lies.
But my daughter is certainly vaccinated, and I had no more issue giving her this vaccination than I did giving her any of her other vaccinations.
There are plenty of more expert opinions on the topic of childhood COVID vax we published in this article. Which you are ignoring. You injected your kid to maybe prevent negative outcomes for a disease she is at no statistical risk for? Do you support mandates for children?
But Norway HAS recommended that all adults under 65 get a booster. And their health ministry is publicly talking about even recommending a second booster soon. So even with your weaselly, pathetic attempt to not admit yet another misrepresentation, you continue to make more false claims.
Also, “I’m going to accuse you of racism and then pretend I didn’t” is a pathetic move. Florida didn’t do well, their results were terrible, as I already proved to you with the data you ignored (after having repeatedly doubled-down on false data then suddenly dropping the conversation once you finally realized your error was undeniable.)
Not really. We can disagree over Norway. Yeah, just pointing out how the double standards work. Florida did so horribly the Governor is the most popular one in America. Actual citizens of Florida are going to re-elect him in droves. Our population is increasing. Our tourism is though the roof. DeSantis is running on the slogan “Keep Florida Free”. Everyone from the national media to the public health establishment has had it in for DeSantis. Yet, the citizenry is about to reward him with another 4 years. The result is not even in doubt. So keep going with the stats trying to tell Floridians, and those who envy them, how horrible their outcomes were. No one is listening.
Having great poll numbers with a right-wing base and seeing your tourism finally rebound makes up for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths?
You lied about the actual scientific numbers over and over, and when called out, instead of reevaluating your stance you deflect to….polls. Anyone with integrity would be embarrassed.
Public Health should be about total societal outcomes. We have been arguing over this for what, a year now? Jonathan, your focus is obsessive over what? Reducing deaths and infections from COVID? Your side of this argument is willing to sacrifice anything to meet those two goals. For a virus that is highly age stratified and poses low or no risk to the vast majority of the population. Even in the most at-risk groups, millions of seniors have had COVID and recovered. The mitigation strategies are massively unpopular for a reason. Their impact fell disproportionately on the poor and working classes. They lost their businesses and their paychecks. Their kids were thrown out of school. They had to cancel their weddings. They could not hold their dying relatives’ hands.
At the same time, as the NYC case makes plan, public health carved out exemptions to the lockdowns for privileged classes. Disparate impact was a key holding in that case. The entire response was riddled with it.
And there was a giant funneling up of money. The billionaires literally got richer, which the rest of the country slid. At the same time, politicians and grifters of all stripes lined up to steal Paycheck Protection Money, additional unemployment compensation, and other funds from the trillions created to keep the economy on life support.
Public Health is supposed to serve the public, not the reverse. So polls numbers, public sentiment, and the outcomes of these elections matter because they illustrate that the perceptions of the public are that these mitigations were not cost effective. If you are going to execute policies in the name of the governed, then the governed need to actually have given their consent. In the state of Florida, DeSantis has an 11 point lead, with 66% of respondents believing he will re-elected. That is not indicative of a politician who presided over a massive die off of his constituents.
If you want to make a case for these policies, then you need to make a better one than you have. We published this in another comment, but will repeat here:
Now, could a calculation be done effectively on total response, including lockdowns, masking, and social distancing? That gets way harder. The pro-vax side claims that the vaccines reduce death. There should be some way to get a commitment to some level of NNT that would prevent a death.
But what level of lockdowns prevent a death? What level of masking prevents one death? What level of social distancing prevents one death? What you will end up with is comparing results from different states, which is what Jonathan continues to do. This is imperfect to say the least. There are major differences between states in the number of elderly, the rates of obesity, the poverty level, lack of medical resources, etc. that can also account for differences as the older, sicker, more obese people were much more susceptible to negative outcomes. So which deaths were “avoidable” and which were not, when there is more than one variable to compare at one time? Also, since the mitigation policies ran conterminously in many places with the vax, what is the relationship of deaths avoided by the vax versus the masking, lockdowns, school closures, quarantine, and social distancing?
The mitigation strategies employed for the COVID pandemic were wholly novel, and extremely expensive in terms of direct and indirect costs. No one had ever shut down an economy before. No one had ever locked people in their homes before. No one had ever mandated society-wide masking before. No one had ever closed schools for long periods of time before. It should not be up to the people opposing novel approaches that impinge on liberty and cause societal harm to just NOT pursing the strategies. That is reversing the responsibility. It is, instead, incumbent upon those arguing for curtailment of liberty and substantial societal costs to justify that the policies are, in fact, worth it on an aggregate cost basis.
This has not been done. We can calculate the costs lockdowns, for example, imposed on the economy via the amount of government expenditure to counter their impacts, the lost business revenue, business closures, etc. But how many lives were saved by lockdowns, which lives (older, younger), and were there other alternatives that would have been less costly, but achieved the same result? If there is a case to be made, then it needs to be made with authority by the side favoring novel disease mitigation strategies, not those who support the status quo.
I also want to add how hypocritical your Norway stance is. In other comments you have mocked countries that require a 4th shot and claim that is evidence the shot doesn’t work. But in Norway, which says that boosted adults under 65 don’t need a 4th shot, you’re using THAT as evidence that the shot doesn’t work.
If they require a 4th shot you claim it as evidence of the shot’s ineffectiveness, but if they don’t require a 4th shot you claim it as evidence of the shot’s ineffectiveness.
This is typical of your arguments – reality is irrelevant, no matter what happens you’ll lie about what happened and then spin it into supporting your position.
Is the requirement of a 4th shot indicative of effectiveness? We can start with the boosters and the tendency of whatever benefit the vaxxes have to fade that quickly. Was this disclosed originally? Did people really know they were buying into a multi-shot process? We talked about boosters as soon as April / May of 2021, and we were told that we were conspiracy theorists. It was “two and done”. But now what? Boosters forever?
Norway was used as an example of what we see as a trend. COVID is highly age stratified. The older, the sicker, and especially the obese are at greater risk. If there is any benefit to anyone, then it is to the older, the sicker, and the obese. So why keep trying to jab everyone – both with an initial does and with boosters? The trend seems to be recognition that the jabs are not of equal benefit to all. Since the article was about children, who are at the lowest risk of all, recognizing this trend would have caused the FDA to not add these jabs to the schedule. It is about a trend, which we think is going to continue and accelerate. The net result of which is going to cause the FDA to look more and more out of step with the rest of the world.
Of course, our FDA is a textbook case of regulatory capture, and many public health institutions globally are not nearly so corrupt.
I did not say Dr. Williams claimed that, I said that YOU had claimed that. And here are your exact quotes as posted in that conversation:
and later:
That was ridiculously off-base. But as with all your other false claims and wrong predictions, you’re not willing to evaluate your errors in order to correct future behavior.
Those were quotes from this article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731?reflink=desktopwebshare_twitter
And that was the information we had at the time. Do you plan to address jabbing children at some point?
You left out what we had to say here in the same thread:
Over and over again, cost / benefit analysis has been our primary focus.
You claimed it was YOUR prediction, now you’re deflecting blame for the false prediction to an opinion article? An article that straight up says the “experts” have a different opinion?
You’re once again demonstrating that you won’t take responsibility for your repeat wrong predictions, nor do you have any idea how to discern which “expert advice” to follow. Probably should stop getting your medical information from right-wing opinion pages that are purposely publishing contrarians.
In terms of cost-benefit, the data continues to show that the “cheaper drugs” you were pushing have literally no benefit. And that’s not just USA – they didn’t work in Brazil (by the largest study undertaken by Brazilian doctors throughout the country), they didn’t work in India (by the government’s own declaration), they didn’t work anywhere, even in the countries that were pushing them the strongest.
Everyone knows that paying a few dollars for a preventative shot is easily going to win the cost-benefit over millions of additional emergency room visits and hospitalizations plus hundreds of thousands of additional long-term disability and death, before you even add in costs of the useless drugs. But since you believe so strongly otherwise, then show it. Using the best studies available, the ones you think are absolute A-1 and most surely defensible, please tell us what you believe the vaccination campaign has cost, and what the # of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and long-term disabilities would cost, along with the differences in death. Since you are trying to move the goalposts there, you could at least show your work.
Or will you respond with another Gish Gallop of obviously bad studies or false, easily disprovable claims, as you’ve done so far?
No author ever claimed that as a prediction.
If we were approaching this as a business question, then we would calculate the value of the net value of the vaccination program, in terms of lives, in the following way.
Value Life Saved + Cost Final Hospital Expenses – Total Cost Govt Expenditures – Total Cost Adverse Reactions = Economic Value of Vaccine Program
Value Life Saved – To calculate, need a Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to save one life for each actuarial age band. The NNT is going to vary with age, as COVID is highly age stratified in mortality. While saving younger lives is more valuable than older, the NNT for older should be lower if the vaccines have efficacy, so there should be a higher number of people “saved”. As of now, we have had difficulty finding NNT values that are commonly accepted for the vaccines (estimates vary widely), but definitely having serious issues finding NNT by age band. Optimally, for each age band, divide total vaxxed population by NNT to calculate the anticipated number of saved individuals. For each total in each actuarial age band, multiple by the number of anticipated remaining life years (can average by age band just to make the numbers easier, rather than trying to do each age separately) and the average anticipated annual earnings. People live longer and shorter lives, earn more and less money. However, when modeling assumptions of some kind are always made. If NNT by age band not available, then estimate can be provided given a single NNT. The adjustments by actuarial life expectancy will still provide differences in value by age band, even if a single NNT is used.
Cost Final Hospital Expenses – For each life saved, assume that a specific amount of final hospital expenses will be saved. Everyone dies eventually, but we can assume that if the vaccines saved lives over the course of the pandemic, that these expenses would be shifted into the future and provide better outcomes societally at the present.
Total Cost Govt Expenditures – Governments have no productive revenue. All govt expenditures are either current tax revenue or future tax revenue (borrowing). Citizens are forced to participate in govt expenditures through the threat of force. This value represents the entire outlays for all levels of govt for the period 2020 through end 2022 for developing the vaccines (Operation Warp Speed), purchasing the vaccines from manufacturers, promote the vaccines (marketing / advertising), and administer the vaccine program. This total should contain the costs for the ongoing booster programs over this timeframe.
Total Cost Adverse Reactions – In a better system, we would know who had been injured by the vaccine, the extent of the injuries, and the direct costs associated with them. However, VAERS is incomplete, and the situation is complicated in that pro-vaxxers refuse to admit any ADRs at all. So we have VAERS reports, which are incomplete, and some growing body of studies indicating various rates of ADRs of different types in different population groups. While this calculation is probably the most controversial, it should be included because severe ADRs such as myocarditis appear correlated with younger people, so the loss of lifetime earnings can be substantial and is not properly understood at this time. Therefore, significant work should be done to estimate the loss of economic earnings and the medical expenses of those impacted by ADRs. The Economic Value of Vaccine Program can be evaluated with and without to provide a comparison for those who question the existence of ADRs, or wish to argue over the rates of occurrence.
After all inputs are calculated and summed, the result will be a positive or negative number. A positive number indicates that the estimated value of lives saved in monetary terms is greater than the societal resources expended to save those lives. A negative value indicates the reverse.
This looks only at the vaxxes. Other estimates could be done for monoclonal antibodies or other proposed courses of action, as vaccines are not the only potential treatment. Also note that the Value Life Saved and the Cost Final Hospital Expenses can be considered the “Cost of Doing Nothing”. Assume that untreated individuals will die. This then provides a benchmark “worst case” scenario for not having done the vaccines at all.
Now, could a calculation be done effectively on total response, including lockdowns, masking, and social distancing? That gets way harder. The pro-vax side claims that the vaccines reduce death. There should be some way to get a commitment to some level of NNT that would prevent a death.
But what level of lockdowns prevent a death? What level of masking prevents one death? What level of social distancing prevents one death? What you will end up with is comparing results from different states, which is what Jonathan continues to do. This is imperfect to say the least. There are major differences between states in the number of elderly, the rates of obesity, the poverty level, lack of medical resources, etc. that can also account for differences as the older, sicker, more obese people were much more susceptible to negative outcomes. So which deaths were “avoidable” and which were not, when there is more than one variable to compare at one time? Also, since the mitigation policies ran conterminously in many places with the vax, what is the relationship of deaths avoided by the vax versus the masking, lockdowns, school closures, quarantine, and social distancing?
The mitigation strategies employed for the COVID pandemic were wholly novel, and extremely expensive in terms of direct and indirect costs. No one had ever shut down an economy before. No one had ever locked people in their homes before. No one had ever mandated society-wide masking before. No one had ever closed schools for long periods of time before. It should not be up to the people opposing novel approaches that impinge on liberty and cause societal harm to just NOT pursing the strategies. That is reversing the responsibility. It is, instead, incumbent upon those arguing for curtailment of liberty and substantial societal costs to justify that the policies are, in fact, worth it on an aggregate cost basis.
This has not been done. We can calculate the costs lockdowns, for example, imposed on the economy via the amount of government expenditure to counter their impacts, the lost business revenue, business closures, etc. But how many lives were saved by lockdowns, which lives (older, younger), and were there other alternatives that would have been less costly, but achieved the same result? If there is a case to be made, then it needs to be made with authority by the side favoring novel disease mitigation strategies, not those who support the status quo.
Also, I find it amusing that you keep pushing Florida as the cost-benefit king, when Florida actually prioritized extremely expensive Monoclonal Antibody treatments, which have the amazing triple impact of being far more expensive than vaccines, far less effective, AND an increased burden on the health care system. Despite the Florida Surgeon General being picked because of how much he loved hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which you push as the real solutions, Florida found both to be rather ineffective.
Irene, the clinical educator who wrote this article, ran a monoclonal antibody center within her hospital in an area that is primarily senior citizens. She has commented on this elsewhere. She ran it for five months. Somewhere around 60 percent of her patients were fully vaxxed at the time. They came in frequently extremely sick. After the treatments, the success rate was excellent. These results were repeated all over the state. Now, if she had to do it again, then she would not. The monoclonal antibody she was dispensing is tied to “humanized mice”, which means mice injected with aborted fetal cells. She did not know that at the time, and in fact, did not know about it until Dr. Paisios notified us. It was not something put in the marketing literature.
It’s funny that you would be anti-monoclonal when Fauci said this in 8/2021:
Of course, that was after the vaccine “approval” by the FDA, so he might have felt it was safe to have another treatment as the EUA was not under so much threat. We discussed that here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/pfizer-vaccine-approval-is-a-symptom-of-a-corrupt-system/
As for the other, inexpensive drugs, many MDs disagree with you. Dr. Paisios for example. See here for his Omicron and Delta treatment plans that include drugs you would disparage:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/webinar-resources/#omicron
Or Dr. Peter McCullough:
Great testimony on this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM
Of course, there are many other doctors who have spoken out in favor of other treatments. Here’s a novel idea – let doctors treat their patients the way they see fit. The CDC was always a resource, not a dictator. Somehow, the CDC in the pandemic was able to dictate to doctors how they treat their patients. There was a standard of medical orthodoxy, and the doctors were not allowed to deviate.
How about we let doctors use their judgment and expertise to treat their patients, and we quite punishing medical heretics with deplatforming and attacking their medical licenses? It will become readily apparent who is using evidence-based medicine and who is not.
Why are you opposed, Jonathan, to doctors being allowed to make their own medical judgments in the best interests of their patients?
Most of the claims in this article are misinterpretions of the linked papers, cherry-picked papers that have been rebuked by 10x as much data in the other direction, or just outright fabricated.
Let’s go one at a time, to avoid the Gish Gallops and paragraphs of defections so common here:
#1: The claim “Australia banned the shots for people under 30, unless they have severe chronic illnesses” is outright false. I can go to the main Australia government health website and on the top of the page saying “Who is eligible for the shot?” it says in a huge, highlighted statement: “Everyone in Australia aged 5 years and over is eligible for a free COVID-19 vaccination. Find out more.”
Printing such an obviously false claim as if it were just a statement of fact is indicative of the level of comprehension that went into this post.
Now Australia has – quietly – all-but given up on Covid vaccines for most adults. In a late August report, the Australian government-run group that advises the government on vaccinations said healthy adults under 50 do not need a second Covid booster.
According to the group, “adults aged 30 to 49 years can [emphasis added] receive a second booster (fourth dose) of a COVID-19 vaccine; however the benefit for people in this age group is less certain.”
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-worldwide-flight-from-mrna-shots
Welcome back, Jonathan.
So your claim was that Australia has banned the shot for people under 30, and your support is a link from an advisory group recommending that everyone under 30 get a booster? You do realize those claims are polar opposites, right?
Why didn’t you just admit your claim was wrong and take it back?
Whenever you have to quote Alex Berenson’s substack on Covid, instead of the actual government agency Berenson is supposedly talking about, it’s because Berenson is lying. He turned an advisory recommendation with no legal force saying, “People under 30 should get their booster, but not a second booster” into “THE GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED THE SHOT FOR PEOPLE UNDER 30!”
That’s the kind of disinformation you constantly peddle.
As noted elsewhere, we deleted Australia and replaced it with the State of Florida.
https://twitter.com/FLSurgeonGen/status/1586327074578497536
https://twitter.com/FLSurgeonGen/status/1584664821404151808 – Referencing a piece he did for the WSJ
and while looking at the Surgeon General’s timeline, saw this interesting nugget:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
No discernible relationship. Interesting. Should we jab kids, Jonathan? Because that is what the article was about. Now that we have dispensed with Australia and answered your ARR / RRR nonsense, what else do you have?
Gov. Desantis of Florida fired his surgeon general in 2021 because he was promoting actual science on Covid, and replaced him with a conspiracy theorist from California who had lied about treating Covid patients (as exposed by hospital records and his own colleagues) and whose own medical director refused to recommend him for the position due to his false claims about Covid. Trying to use him in an Argument from Authority is pure circular reasoning – he was given the position by a non-expert solely because he was pushing the conspiracies that the non-expert wanted to hear, thus citing his position as if it validates his argument is worthless. And the researchers who wrote the research referenced by that Surgeon General have already publicly called him out for misrepresenting their findings.
That “last 7 days” quote above is based on a “correspondence” letter, not a full paper, and one of the two authors of the letter seems to be a high school teacher. Its conclusions were quickly rebuked in a published response letter by Andreas Backhaus in the same journal, showing that the authors cherry-picked one particular time frame and failed to take other variables into account. And in fact, the other (non-high school) author of the paper published a statement that people like you were misusing his letter.
These are his own words:
So a Governor fired an employee with whom he did not agree, and replaced him with one he did. Now, he is the most popular governor in the United States, after having pursued policies you profoundly disagree with. And, in fact, is more popular than governors whose policies you think are superior. But those governors are fighting for their political lives, while DeSantis is cruising to victory, and being positioned for 2024 as a presidential contender. It is easy to see why this drives you to distraction, Jonathan. DeSantis should be punished for what he did, but instead, Florida is doing great and DeSantis is reaping the rewards for his pro-freedom policies. Population is shifting to Florida, and away from the states that pursued your preferred policies.
Yes, that must be frustrating. Florida is the 3rd largest state in the nation, and along with multiple other states, will not be dosing children. The state also allows workers to easily evade any vax mandates. The state should be a kill zone. But tourism is through the roof, and it isn’t. Things are great, the Surgeon General is popular and so is the governor that hired him.
Apparently having death rates that more than double the outcomes of similar states who chose other measures is just fine so long as you are popular with your right-wing base. Why should 80,000+ deaths matter if your tourism numbers have rebounded, amiright?
Incredible that you’re deflecting from having made outright lies about scientific issues and government policies by trying to cite tourism and poll numbers.
Now, could a calculation be done effectively on total response, including lockdowns, masking, and social distancing? That gets way harder. The pro-vax side claims that the vaccines reduce death. There should be some way to get a commitment to some level of NNT that would prevent a death.
But what level of lockdowns prevent a death? What level of masking prevents one death? What level of social distancing prevents one death? What you will end up with is comparing results from different states, which is what Jonathan continues to do. This is imperfect to say the least. There are major differences between states in the number of elderly, the rates of obesity, the poverty level, lack of medical resources, etc. that can also account for differences as the older, sicker, more obese people were much more susceptible to negative outcomes. So which deaths were “avoidable” and which were not, when there is more than one variable to compare at one time between different places?
Also, since the mitigation policies ran coterminously in many places with the vax, what is the relationship of deaths avoided by the vax versus the masking, lockdowns, school closures, quarantine, and social distancing?
The mitigation strategies employed for the COVID pandemic were wholly novel, and extremely expensive in terms of direct and indirect costs. No one had ever shut down an economy before. No one had ever locked people in their homes before. No one had ever mandated society-wide masking before. No one had ever closed schools for long periods of time before. It should not be up to the people opposing novel approaches that impinge on liberty and cause societal harm to just NOT pursing the strategies. That is reversing the responsibility. It is, instead, incumbent upon those arguing for curtailment of liberty and substantial societal costs to justify that the policies are, in fact, worth it on an aggregate cost basis.
This has not been done. We can calculate the costs lockdowns, for example, imposed on the economy via the amount of government expenditure to counter their impacts, the lost business revenue, business closures, etc. But how many lives were saved by lockdowns, which lives (older, younger), and were there other alternatives that would have been less costly, but achieved the same result? If there is a case to be made, then it needs to be made with authority by the side favoring novel disease mitigation strategies, not those who support the status quo.
Which papers are misinterpreted? Which papers have been rebuked?
By the way, almost forgot. Do you remember last time you were here, Jonathan, that you kept saying we didn’t understand ARR versus RRR? We posted several articles from other doctors and researchers who came to the same conclusions as Dr. Williams did on his contribution to our site? Remember how you didn’t bother to notice that information was posted from other sources? Instead you accused us of just republishing and republishing our own article excerpts? Remember also that when we pointed this out, you just let it drop? And you never actually explained how we were using ARR wrongly? You just kept asserting we were.
Good times.
You can link back to that discussion so people can see it. I was not the only one who called you out, multiple other people did as well. And it’s not even remotely controversial, it was pure mathematical ignorance.
I asked you to get counsel from someone outside the issue, from any objective university medical researcher who regularly does scientific research and isn’t a Covid conspiracy theorist. Did you? Because it wasn’t even debatable.
Let me try one more time to explain RRR / ARR to you.
Let’s say you do a 3-month vaccine trial, with 20,000 people in the control group and 20,000 people in the vaccinated group. Because the trial takes place outside an epidemic surge, let’s say that just 2,000 people in each group are exposed. 20 of them die in the control group and 1 of them dies in the vaccinated group.
The RRR for death of that trial is 95%, because vaccination resulted in 95% fewer deaths. But the ARR of that trial is 19/20,000 (0.095%), because the vaccine prevented 19 deaths out of the 20,000 people that recieved it.
Now, let’s imagine over the next three months, a surge hits and now 12,000 people in each group are exposed instead of just 2,000. 120 people in the control group die. Since the vaccine is 95% effective, it should prevent 114 deaths, so only 6 people in the vaccinated group die. That’s RRR. And that’s been borne out by every study – the RRR of 90-95% for death stayed consistent during Alpha and Delta surges, and for boosted persons was also maintained during the Omicron surges.
You, instead, want us to believe that we should extrapolate with ARR no matter how the conditions change, which means that in a group of 20,000 people there will ALWAYS be exactly 19 deaths prevented, no matter how many people are exposed or how long a time period is looked at. So if 19 deaths are prevented among the first 2,000 exposed, there will be zero deaths prevented among the next 10,000 exposed. Or if 19 deaths are prevented in the first 3 months, there will be zero deaths prevented ever again.
That’s how dumb it would be to extrapolate ARR to a different time period or different exposure rate. ARR is solely meant to apply to specific exposure conditions of the study. If the exposure rates change, if the study length changes, you have to use RRR to extrapolate or your results will be meaningless.
This isn’t difficult. This isn’t controversial. It’s completely basic science, which is why I’m sure that if you ask ANY research scientist at random who actually uses ARR/RRR in their work, and don’t just cherry-picked disingenuous covid conspiracy theorists, you’ll have it explained to the the same way I’ve done.
We have said this multiple times. If Dr. Williams got the math wrong, then correct his math. You can find the article right here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-real-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines-a-medical-researcher-debunks-the-claims/
So fix the math for us, don’t give us another hypothetical. And no, nothing you said above actually reflects the arguments put forward. If you do a really impressive job at preventing something relatively rare at the expense of billions of dollars and the risk of side effects – is it worth doing? Worse, is it worth ruining people’s lives and careers over? Also, does it make sense to jab everyone for an age stratified virus? The 95% number was touted for an entire population cohort, even though younger people were at much less risk. Your NNT would be way higher the younger the population you examine. Not to mention the fact the original trial was 2 months, and what booster are we on? 5th?
This is cost/benefit analysis, something you don’t seem to excel at. We posted this before, we will again. The article below from Ivan Iriarte MD and Simon Phoenix PhD perfectly summarize what Dr. Williams was driving at. Emphasis added. Here’s the link:
https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reduction-and-absolute-risk-reduction-in-vaccine-trials/
The same question is asked over and over again of the jabs, the lockdowns, the masks, the mandates – were they worth it? You constantly come on this site and never debate or acknowledge, that we can tell, the economic impacts, the massive spending, the inflation, supply chain disruptions, academic impacts, etc. You single-mindedly focus on how we need more mitigations, as if they were cost free, and you seem to favor vax mandates, possibly even for kids who are at statistically zero risk. All polices are tradeoffs, and the billions spent and lost over COVID were not, in our estimation, worth it.
If you really want his math fixed step by step, his errors were incredibly simple:
His NNT is based on a control trial where less than 1% of the control group (0.884%) caught Covid. Thus the NNT (calculated directly from the ARR) cannot be extrapolated to the US population, for it replies on the assumption that less than 1% of the population would catch Covid even if nothing was done.
So when he quotes that over 10% of the USA has had confirmed Covid cases, yet calculates reduced risk based on an ARR that relied on less than 1% of a control group being affected, the entire exercise becomes nonsense.
Once you are in a situation where over 0.884% of the control will catch Covid, then the ARR can no longer be applied. It’s that simple. You can’t directly transfer ARR unless the base rate of infection likelihood remains the same. Once infection exposure goes up, like it did dramatically in winter 2020/21, you have to recalculate a new ARR by applied the RRR to the new “control” infection rate.
As I pointed out before, a complete nonsense statement. Once he admits that Covid cases are higher than the baseline assumed by his ARR, then he’s admitted that ARR cannot be applied to the new situation. He needs to apply the RRR of 95% to the control population in order to calculate a new ARR based on an exposure rate over ten times higher than the exposure rate in the trial.
Also, 49,472 is obviously not 1.78% of 593,282, that would be over 8%. Such a simple error as getting a % caculation wrong, even when the result is the #1 product you are proving with your calculation, shows how bad he is at this.
If I proceeded to make the rest of the calculations in the same manner he did, then I would get an actual result of 563,618 deaths prevented as of May 29,2021. Now, this wouldn’t be fully accurate due to several other errors and shortcuts he took that invalidate his calculations (such as the fact that he would need to know total vaccination #’s and separate out vaccinated/unvaccinated deaths before making the recalculations, as well as incorporate new calculations for the impact of reduced infections due to vaccine prevention of secondary spread as vaccination rates had now become too high a % of the population to ignore this factor). However, as a ballpark # it would be far closer than the author’s calculation.
Agreed. The Pfizer trial was deeply flawed, and the results were unreliable. The timeframe of two months was too short. The data were too low. Which is actually the whole point. Thanks for agreeing. The ARR of 1% should have been an enormous red flag. As soon as that was seen, it should have been obvious to everyone that you did not know what was going to really happen in the real world. The trial should have been extended and more data gathered. The trial did not tell you whether or not this vax campaign was going to be worth it, particularly with the adverse effects uncovered in trial.
That is, in fact, the whole point. Instead, however, the ARR was ignored. The trial design was ignored. The products went to market despite the questions. And the pro-vax side lied. “Take this injection. It will reduce your chances of getting COVID 95%. It will save lives because it will stop transmission. It will reduce your chances of having a bad outcome from COVID.”
All misrepresentations of the actual Pfizer trial. What if you told the truth, “We did a quick trial, engineered for success, and got limited data. On the basis of that data, we don’t really know if this vaccine is worth it or not. Actually, it’s novel technology that really isn’t a classic “vaccine” per se, and the safety results over the two month trial does indicate a troubling level of adverse reactions. We don’t know if it will stop transmission. We aren’t sure about a lot of things. COVID is highly age stratified, so we aren’t sure what the benefits really are for younger and healthier people. But, we want every single person in America to take two of these. Oh, by the way, whatever benefits are conferred rapidly fade, so plan to take an unlimited number of future injections the effect of which we are not sure of.”
If the Pfizer and the CDC had been honest with the American people, what do you think the uptake of this vaccine would have been? But they weren’t, were they? What Dr. Williams did was take the numbers from the trial and try to put them into context for lay readers. The point stands – the trials did not tell you whether or not the cost / benefits of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were worth the other risks. A fact you confirm in your comment. Too little was known. These should never have gone to market, and should never have been pitched the way they were.
Our lack of real knowledge about the real world behavior of the vax is why the claims about the vax kept changing. At first you wouldn’t get sick, and it would stop transmission. Then you could get sick, and it wouldn’t stop transmission, but you were protected from adverse outcomes. Then it turns out you can get sick repeatedly, and you need to keep getting jabs because the benefits, whatever they are, fade really quickly.
That is the critical point – too many unanswered questions, too little study. We linked to estimates in this article itself that the NNT for the healthy, non-elderly population runs into the thousands. And yes, we blame President Trump for this is originally. Warp Speed was his idea and it was one of the worst.
The Pfizer study design is fine, the Pfizer data is fine, and there is no issue with having an ARR that low during a trial. The trial worked perfectly and its results were proven to be true in real life once the vaccines were distributed and the outcomes studied. All you have to do is use the RRR to project instead of the ARR, which is what you have to do for EVERY trial.
You posted an article based entirely on ignorant misunderstanding of basic scientific terms, argued with half-a-dozen people who pointed out the error, and doubled-down on it for over a year. Now that you appear to finally begin to realize your mistake you choose to deflect with false misrepresentations of my position and more bad misinterpretations of science. No surprise.
You will never actually admit you’re wrong, every time your claims get proven false (which I’ve done a dozen times this week alone), you just shift the goalposts to new claims while maintaining the same position.
Nice loss you took there. The Pfizer trial is not fine. Too short, too limited. You understood everything written here. The ARR should have been a major signal, but it was ignored. Thanks for admitting the issues with the Pfizer trial. We can close the book on this now.
That makes no sense. The results of the Pfizer study were validated perfectly by the real-life data that came in afterwards. Your claims that it had issues are based on wish-fulfillment, not reality.
This looks like a desperate attempt to cope for having published a post that completely botched the science and then trying to defend it for over a year without even understanding the massive errors.
Validated? The study results were pushed to the public in exactly the way we said, and which you ignore.
The Pfizer study of 2 months with its low data points shows nothing of that kind. You know that the mandates were set and the push to vaccinate everyone at every age was based on those lies. In the real world, the vaccine did not stop infection. It does not even stop repeated infection. In the real world, the vaccine does not stop transmission. In the real world, the vaccine’s protective effects, whatever they are, fade quickly. Hence, 4th booster, the 5th booster, etc. The Pfizer trial itself showed there are ADRs. Yet, the pro-vaxx side seems to do everything it can to pretend that these shots have zero downside. How much downside do they really have? Well, you need pharmacovigilance studies to determine that, which is why doctors all over the world are asking for a pause in administering the jabs while those studies are done to determine exactly what is happening.
So really, what has been proven in the real world? If the study had been properly presented, then there would not have been mandates and there would have not been much uptake outside, perhaps, the very old and the very sick. Which was the whole point from the beginning. The hysteria which underlay the eventual push for the vax in every arm was itself unnecessary.
The original post (whose blatant scientific errors you still ignore) was based on whether or not the shot would reduce mortality by 95%.
The original shot DID reduce infection and transmission substantially, especially among Alpha, and fully demonstrated reduced mortality by about 95%. You’re trying to move the goalposts to other arguments without acknowledging that THAT was was the debate in the original post, and the author’s claim to disprove it was based on ridiculous and ignorant errors.
Boosters were recommended the next year after mutations in the virus reached America. Those weren’t part of the original trial because you can’t make a vaccine trial for varients that don’t even exist. But among boosted persons mortality prevention remained over 90% and even among non-boosted persons mortality prevention remained over 70% even among the varients.
The fact that you are trying to play around the edges (less protection against infection/transmission a year later and with a different varient, while still maintaining protection against hospitalization/death) is an admission that you lost the original argument as well as are conceeding that the vaccines work.
The shot did not reduce the likelihood of getting sick with COVID by 95%. In fact, people still frequently get sick with COVID. The real effectiveness in reducing COVID infections is how much, Jonathan?
The shots did not stop transmission. The shots did not last, necessitating boosters. The original shots already had indications of ADRs, which were covered up and ignored.
Not at all changing the debate. The original post indicated that the shots would be substantially less effective than “95%” and that is the truth as born out in reality. Even at their most “effective”, you got nowhere near that level by any measure. In fact, were they even worth it?
We are conceding nothing, though we do agree that the original Pfizer trial was too short and too narrowly focused.
“But among boosted persons mortality prevention remained over 90% and even among non-boosted persons mortality prevention remained over 70% even among the varients.” How many actual people and in what age ranges do you say were saved, among other questions.
What are the raw numbers that were used to calculate that? And boosters were being rolled out at the end of 2021, not the following year.
And as for variants, we noted in 2020 that the tendency of coronviruses to mutate made developing vaccines difficult. Dr. Williams noted in the same article you love to criticize:
Everyone should have seen this coming, but MDs were blocked from social media for speculating about oncoming boosters.
The propaganda on the rollout was incredibly misleading. And you know it. The jabs are also linked to abortion, which is immoral, but you still injected it into yourself and your daughter. Really, you should be incredibly ashamed of yourself.
You keep claiming that impacts of the pandemic were impacts of the shots, it’s hilarious. This discussion was solely about the shots which had no role in creating all those “costs” you’re trying to conflate with them – in fact, vaccination mitigated many of those costs and universal vaccination would have done so even more.
I’ve asked you four times now – if you want to stress the cost-benefit analysis so much, then tell us how much money you’d be willing to spend per saved life (as ALL public health cost-benefit analyses require) and then demonstrate how the shots somehow caused greater costs than that.
Show your work.
We already told you how we would calculate it. Not all lives are of equal value. Saving a 10 year old with an estimate 60 years of productive work ahead versus saving an 80 year that is already above mortality. That should be obvious. If you want to reduce this to dollars and cents, then we can reduce it. How many were saved, in what age ranges? If you can start from there, then you can at least talk realistically about overall societal value.
You support these interventions, can’t you justify them quantitatively?
Value Life Saved + Cost Final Hospital Expenses – Total Cost Govt Expenditures – Total Cost Adverse Reactions = Economic Value of Vaccine Program
Value Life Saved – To calculate, need a Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to save one life for each actuarial age band. The NNT is going to vary with age, as COVID is highly age stratified in mortality. While saving younger lives is more valuable than older, the NNT for older should be lower if the vaccines have efficacy, so there should be a higher number of people “saved”. As of now, we have had difficulty finding NNT values that are commonly accepted for the vaccines (estimates vary widely), but definitely having serious issues finding NNT by age band. Optimally, for each age band, divide total vaxxed population by NNT to calculate the anticipated number of saved individuals. For each total in each actuarial age band, multiple by the number of anticipated remaining life years (can average by age band just to make the numbers easier, rather than trying to do each age separately) and the average anticipated annual earnings. People live longer and shorter lives, earn more and less money. However, when modeling assumptions of some kind are always made. If NNT by age band not available, then estimate can be provided given a single NNT. The adjustments by actuarial life expectancy will still provide differences in value by age band, even if a single NNT is used.
Cost Final Hospital Expenses – For each life saved, assume that a specific amount of final hospital expenses will be saved. Everyone dies eventually, but we can assume that if the vaccines saved lives over the course of the pandemic, that these expenses would be shifted into the future and provide better outcomes societally at the present.
Total Cost Govt Expenditures – Governments have no productive revenue. All govt expenditures are either current tax revenue or future tax revenue (borrowing). Citizens are forced to participate in govt expenditures through the threat of force. This value represents the entire outlays for all levels of govt for the period 2020 through end 2022 for developing the vaccines (Operation Warp Speed), purchasing the vaccines from manufacturers, promote the vaccines (marketing / advertising), and administer the vaccine program. This total should contain the costs for the ongoing booster programs over this timeframe.
Total Cost Adverse Reactions – In a better system, we would know who had been injured by the vaccine, the extent of the injuries, and the direct costs associated with them. However, VAERS is incomplete, and the situation is complicated in that pro-vaxxers refuse to admit any ADRs at all. So we have VAERS reports, which are incomplete, and some growing body of studies indicating various rates of ADRs of different types in different population groups. While this calculation is probably the most controversial, it should be included because severe ADRs such as myocarditis appear correlated with younger people, so the loss of lifetime earnings can be substantial and is not properly understood at this time. Therefore, significant work should be done to estimate the loss of economic earnings and the medical expenses of those impacted by ADRs. The Economic Value of Vaccine Program can be evaluated with and without to provide a comparison for those who question the existence of ADRs, or wish to argue over the rates of occurrence.
After all inputs are calculated and summed, the result will be a positive or negative number. A positive number indicates that the estimated value of lives saved in monetary terms is greater than the societal resources expended to save those lives. A negative value indicates the reverse.
This looks only at the vaxxes. Other estimates could be done for monoclonal antibodies or other proposed courses of action, as vaccines are not the only potential treatment. Also note that the Value Life Saved and the Cost Final Hospital Expenses can be considered the “Cost of Doing Nothing”. Assume that untreated individuals will die. This then provides a benchmark “worst case” scenario for not having done the vaccines at all.
So what does this study mean to you, in light of the $5 billion dollars spent developing the bivalent boosters?
Immunogenicity of the BA.5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Boosters
https://substack.com/redirect/5d28022b-e168-450d-b84f-874068139970?r=1en0vf