It was last year already that a researcher predicted that for every child “saved” by the Covid “vaccines,” 117 would be killed by them. Such warnings not only fell on deaf establishment ears, but also often meant censorship for those echoing them. But now nine researchers from establishment institutions, such as Harvard University, are essentially sounding the same alarm.
In fact, they assert that Covid “vaccines” are for college students up to 98 times as dangerous as the disease itself.
Thus is forcing the shots upon these young people “ethically unjustifiable,” these experts say.
Titled “Covid-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities” and published September 12, the study was conducted by researchers from eight different establishment institutions, including Harvard, Oxford, and Johns Hopkins universities. Opening their “abstract” (summary) by noting that students “at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates,” the experts then state, “We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates.”
“We estimate that 22,000—30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one Covid-19 hospitalisation,” the researchers explain. Moreover, given “the fact that this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by prior infection nor a risk-adjustment for comorbidity status, this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit,” the scientists write later, in their conclusion.
Continuing with their abstract, they also tell us, “Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per Covid-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis [heart-muscle inflammation] cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.”
Note that the picture could be even worse than these experts contend because CDC data is apparently incomplete. As internationally renowned Covid physician Peter McCullough, a highly published expert in his field, has stated, his contacts within the CDC had confirmed that “the real [adverse-event] number is ten-fold.”
The researchers then go on to point out that given “the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.” They’re speaking of natural immunity, of course, which even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted in March was a reality with Covid — after being party for two years to the lie that it wasn’t.
The researchers then go on to explain why university booster mandates are unethical, writing that
1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.
Note here that The New American and other reputable information sources have been making arguments and providing evidence to the above effect from the very moment the relevant Covid mandates were instituted. So insofar as the above is revelatory to some, it’s because the establishment and its media have been suppressing the Truth.
As to the researchers’ expression of Truth, they conclude their assessment by writing:
Serious Covid-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty are ethically unjustifiable.
Worse still, mandates are associated with wider social harms. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making.
These findings have implications for mandates in other settings such as schools, corporations, healthcare systems and the military. Policymakers should repeal booster mandates for young adults immediately, ensure pathways to compensation to those who have suffered negative consequences from these policies, provide open access to participant-level clinical trial data to allow risk- and age-stratified harm-benefit analyses of any new vaccines prior to issuing recommendations, and begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.
Unfortunately, the only thing in question about the establishment Covid response is if it was driven more by wickedness or buffoonery. Just consider Dr. Leana Wen, immigrant from China and CNN medical analyst. She was a strong advocate of Covid restrictions and a mask-mandate zealot, and even went so far as to say that the “unvaccinated” shouldn’t be allowed to leave their homes (video below).
But now Wen has backtracked somewhat. Why?
“Masking has harmed our son’s language development,” she wrote in a recent Washington Post article. So she has soured on mask mandates.
Of course, had Wen read The New American and taken our reporting to heart (instead of being busy encouraging our censorship), she wouldn’t have harmed her son. We warned long ago about the perils of masking children.
We’re being governed by knaves and fools — and nothing will change until people stop empowering them with votes and media clicks, and instead seek accountability for the Covidian tyrants.
