The data above come from the Centers for Disease Control, according to a peer-reviewed paper archived by the National Institutes of Health in September.
Please see,
Why are we vaccinating children?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437699/
If link fails, try:
https://notwsite.blogspot.com/p/mirror-of-vaccine-critics-peer-reviewed.html
Also, you can try the Wayback Machine:
https://archive.ph/9Swwn
We might also ask, why are we forcing lower-risk adults to put an unknown substance into their bloodstreams, a substance which the paper's authors say is more dangerous than is generally understood. But even if it isn't dangerous, why force low-risk people to be inoculated?
And further, why force high-risk people to be inoculated? The government isn't their mother.
Well, it may be said, by forcing nearly everyone to be inoculated, our less healthy co-workers and not-so healthy teachers will be protected. What next, will the government mandate that each healthy person donate one kidney to the transplant pool in order to save those on dialysis?
Here are some sad but true facts:
The current vaccines have lost potency because they only counteract the original strain, not the Delta variant. The more people who become vaccinated, especially with regard to rhinoviruses, the more Natural Selection is likely to "select" and promote a nasty mutation. One doesn't take last year's flu vaccine for this year's flu. So why force people to take vaccines that don't much affect the Delta or Omicron strains, which are increasingly "the problem"?
In addition, the sicker/older a person is, the less effective vaccines tend to be. That is because a vaccine works by stimulating the immune system to produce virus-fighting antibodies. But weakened immune systems are either less robust at producing antibodies or too out of kilter, producing massive amounts of antibodies that unleash deadly levels of inflammation. That is why there are high-dose flu shots available for seniors and other immune-weak persons.
According to Ronald N. Kostoff, RN, and his co-authors [1],
If the authors are right, that would mean you getting vaccinated would not protect a co-worker from the virus, since you would be a hotbed of the pathogen until the body's innate germ fighters best it.
They may not be correct. But I don't know that it has been well-established that they are wrong, meaning vaccine mandates are being justified by iffy scientific studies.
Another point: What is so terrible about letting Nature immunize nearly all healthy people against covid strains? A fairly healthy person catches a case of covid, his or her immune system shakes it off rather easily and, voila!, that person has natural immunity to that strain. That's the usual way it works for many other viruses. Why is covid to be an exception?
When that happens, "herd immunity" may be reached, thus creating a massive natural barrier that shields the unhealthy and the aged.
Now that process works quite well for a Biosafety Level 2 pathogen, which was covid's level before the Centers for Disease Control upgraded it to Level 3 in June 2021. (It's hard to see why the risk was upticked, unless there are quite a few old or sickly people working in pathogen labs.)
In contrast, a Biosafety Level 4 pathogen, such as ebola, that had escaped into the population and was spreading rapidly would very likely have required massive lockdowns and other economy-killing emergency measures. But covid assuredly does not justify that level of emergency. A Level 4 pathogen outbreak might present a "clear and present danger" to the Republic. But the covid problem does not fit that high standard.
Schools could have vulnerable teachers teach classes from home or from a relatively biosecure location on school district property. Children would go to school, where they attend some classes that are taught by remote teachers. The kids are monitored for behavior and other matters by healthy teacher aides.
Other employers could do their best to make similar arrangements for their employees, though it is understood that such arrangements would often be untenable.
But even if such arrangements cannot be made, why force any employees to accept vaccination with drugs of questionable value?
The Biden "solution" does not work and his argument that we are shielding fellow workers is simply not substantiated.
Even Antony Fauci, MD, has conceded that the vaccines seem to have lost a lot of potency. Fauci has clearly stated that his argument that "booster shots" might help has no scientific underpinning, other than his intuition. But before pushing mandates, we need more than one doctor's intuition about the current and future value of covid vaccines.
1. Ronald N. Kostoff, RN, is an independent consultant in Gainesville, VA. Daniela Calina, is associated with the clinical phrarmacy department of the University of Pharmacy and Medicine of Craiova in Romania. Darja Kanduc is associated with the department of biosciences, biotechnology and biopharmacy at the University of Bari, Italy. Michael B. Briggs, MB (equivalent to MD), is an independent consultant in Roscommon, MI. Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos is associated with the pathophysiology department of the Medical School at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece. Andrey A. Svistunov is associated with the pharmacology department of Sechenov University in Moscow. Aristidis Tsatsakisg is on the medical faculty of the department of forensic sciences and toxicology at the University of Crete (Greece).
These authors represent no big name U.S. medical schools or institutions, thus tending to inoculate them from National Science Foundation grant intimidation and big pharma coercion and data skewing.
Please see,
Why are we vaccinating children?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437699/
If link fails, try:
https://notwsite.blogspot.com/p/mirror-of-vaccine-critics-peer-reviewed.html
Also, you can try the Wayback Machine:
https://archive.ph/9Swwn
We might also ask, why are we forcing lower-risk adults to put an unknown substance into their bloodstreams, a substance which the paper's authors say is more dangerous than is generally understood. But even if it isn't dangerous, why force low-risk people to be inoculated?
And further, why force high-risk people to be inoculated? The government isn't their mother.
Well, it may be said, by forcing nearly everyone to be inoculated, our less healthy co-workers and not-so healthy teachers will be protected. What next, will the government mandate that each healthy person donate one kidney to the transplant pool in order to save those on dialysis?
Here are some sad but true facts:
The current vaccines have lost potency because they only counteract the original strain, not the Delta variant. The more people who become vaccinated, especially with regard to rhinoviruses, the more Natural Selection is likely to "select" and promote a nasty mutation. One doesn't take last year's flu vaccine for this year's flu. So why force people to take vaccines that don't much affect the Delta or Omicron strains, which are increasingly "the problem"?
In addition, the sicker/older a person is, the less effective vaccines tend to be. That is because a vaccine works by stimulating the immune system to produce virus-fighting antibodies. But weakened immune systems are either less robust at producing antibodies or too out of kilter, producing massive amounts of antibodies that unleash deadly levels of inflammation. That is why there are high-dose flu shots available for seniors and other immune-weak persons.
According to Ronald N. Kostoff, RN, and his co-authors [1],
[Data] in this paper indicate that the frail injection recipients receive minimal benefit from the inoculation. Their basic problem is a dysfunctional immune system, resulting in part or in whole from a lifetime of toxic exposures and toxic behaviors. They are susceptible to either the wild virus triggering the dysfunctional immune system into over-reacting or under-reacting, leading to poor outcomes or the injection doing the same.Further, these authors argue that the covid "vaccines" do not fight the virus, but rather they fight the symptoms. That would still be good news, because that means the drug stifles the horrific "cytokine storm" in the lungs, which is covid's main weapon against human life.
If the authors are right, that would mean you getting vaccinated would not protect a co-worker from the virus, since you would be a hotbed of the pathogen until the body's innate germ fighters best it.
They may not be correct. But I don't know that it has been well-established that they are wrong, meaning vaccine mandates are being justified by iffy scientific studies.
Another point: What is so terrible about letting Nature immunize nearly all healthy people against covid strains? A fairly healthy person catches a case of covid, his or her immune system shakes it off rather easily and, voila!, that person has natural immunity to that strain. That's the usual way it works for many other viruses. Why is covid to be an exception?
When that happens, "herd immunity" may be reached, thus creating a massive natural barrier that shields the unhealthy and the aged.
Now that process works quite well for a Biosafety Level 2 pathogen, which was covid's level before the Centers for Disease Control upgraded it to Level 3 in June 2021. (It's hard to see why the risk was upticked, unless there are quite a few old or sickly people working in pathogen labs.)
In contrast, a Biosafety Level 4 pathogen, such as ebola, that had escaped into the population and was spreading rapidly would very likely have required massive lockdowns and other economy-killing emergency measures. But covid assuredly does not justify that level of emergency. A Level 4 pathogen outbreak might present a "clear and present danger" to the Republic. But the covid problem does not fit that high standard.
Schools could have vulnerable teachers teach classes from home or from a relatively biosecure location on school district property. Children would go to school, where they attend some classes that are taught by remote teachers. The kids are monitored for behavior and other matters by healthy teacher aides.
Other employers could do their best to make similar arrangements for their employees, though it is understood that such arrangements would often be untenable.
But even if such arrangements cannot be made, why force any employees to accept vaccination with drugs of questionable value?
The Biden "solution" does not work and his argument that we are shielding fellow workers is simply not substantiated.
Even Antony Fauci, MD, has conceded that the vaccines seem to have lost a lot of potency. Fauci has clearly stated that his argument that "booster shots" might help has no scientific underpinning, other than his intuition. But before pushing mandates, we need more than one doctor's intuition about the current and future value of covid vaccines.
1. Ronald N. Kostoff, RN, is an independent consultant in Gainesville, VA. Daniela Calina, is associated with the clinical phrarmacy department of the University of Pharmacy and Medicine of Craiova in Romania. Darja Kanduc is associated with the department of biosciences, biotechnology and biopharmacy at the University of Bari, Italy. Michael B. Briggs, MB (equivalent to MD), is an independent consultant in Roscommon, MI. Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos is associated with the pathophysiology department of the Medical School at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in Greece. Andrey A. Svistunov is associated with the pharmacology department of Sechenov University in Moscow. Aristidis Tsatsakisg is on the medical faculty of the department of forensic sciences and toxicology at the University of Crete (Greece).
These authors represent no big name U.S. medical schools or institutions, thus tending to inoculate them from National Science Foundation grant intimidation and big pharma coercion and data skewing.
No comments:
Post a Comment