Cutting more to the chase, I think the people who claim many millions of deaths from the mRNA vaccines are probably wrong. But I also think that the people claiming negligible deaths from those same vaccines, to the point that the risk/reward ratio is still favorable even in healthy young people, are also probably wrong.
Cutting more to the chase, I think the people who claim many millions of deaths from the mRNA vaccines are probably wrong. But I also think that the people claiming negligible deaths from those same vaccines, to the point that the risk/reward ratio is still favorable even in healthy young people, are also probably wrong.
I think a lot of the world's health authorities have reached this same conclusion, such that the following statement
> presumably every health authority in every country has just decided to ignore it
is inaccurate. Look up the official policies of European countries with respect to these specific vaccines and you will find that many of them have stopped recommending them below some age threshold. Denmark was the first, which stopped recommending the vaccines for healthy people under 50 in 2022. Why would they do that other than an estimation that in this cohort the vaccine posed a potentially higher risk than the infection it was intended to prevent?
An analysis of Pfizer's own clinical trial data published by Peter Doshi et al in 2022 [1] found an excess rate of 1 in 800 for "severe adverse events of special interest" (read: disability, chronic conditions, things you definitely do not want to have) in the treatment arm of the trial. This was around the time that European countries started curtailing their recommendations. I would argue they have done their job, and it is the US FDA and CDC, now outliers on the world stage on this issue, who are in dereliction of duty.
Cutting more to the chase, I think the people who claim many millions of deaths from the mRNA vaccines are probably wrong. But I also think that the people claiming negligible deaths from those same vaccines, to the point that the risk/reward ratio is still favorable even in healthy young people, are also probably wrong.
I think a lot of the world's health authorities have reached this same conclusion, such that the following statement
> presumably every health authority in every country has just decided to ignore it
is inaccurate. Look up the official policies of European countries with respect to these specific vaccines and you will find that many of them have stopped recommending them below some age threshold. Denmark was the first, which stopped recommending the vaccines for healthy people under 50 in 2022. Why would they do that other than an estimation that in this cohort the vaccine posed a potentially higher risk than the infection it was intended to prevent?
An analysis of Pfizer's own clinical trial data published by Peter Doshi et al in 2022 [1] found an excess rate of 1 in 800 for "severe adverse events of special interest" (read: disability, chronic conditions, things you definitely do not want to have) in the treatment arm of the trial. This was around the time that European countries started curtailing their recommendations. I would argue they have done their job, and it is the US FDA and CDC, now outliers on the world stage on this issue, who are in dereliction of duty.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/