I started to read this as the claims in the Abstract were rather startling. In retrospect, I should have stopped reading and returned to egg poaching as soon as it became evident that somehow deaths from inoculation had got jumbled up with post inoculation deaths from Covid-19 and post inoculation deaths from only god knows what?
I did wonder, when I first pulled up the paper, which promised to be quite interesting -- and it didn't disappoint in that regard! -- why the two U.S. "authors" were both listed as "independent consultants" with no institutional affiliations given? In all my nearly 40 years of reading primary journal articles I had never seen that. Do these, ahem, "consultants" have laboratories in their kitchens? Well, at least access to a technical library is no longer essential now that we have Bing. The other authors are from Romania, Greece, Italy, and Russia. Heartening to see such broad international participation, but how is it that somehow there was no participation from Nigeria ?
Considering the gravity of the Article's revelation, doesn't it seem that
Toxicology Reports isn't quite the right venue for such troubling news on the Vaccine Front? Wouldn't
Nature have been more appropriate?
I see that the majority of papers being submitted to
Toxicology Reports -- apparently a relatively new journal -- are coming from India, the U.S., and Nigeria??? By placing question marks, as I have, I wouldn't want to suggest that Nigeria isn't an absolute hot spot of cutting edge Virology, Epidemiology and Molecular Biology. I mean, how would I know? I have never been there.
I almost put the paper down and went back to poaching my egg when I read:
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+demographic.
But then I realized I hadn't given the authors enough credit for correct use of the word "
Novel". And I didn't want to be unreasonable, so I read further until in the first paragraph under Figure 1, I read:
When designing a trial for the efficacy and safety of a potential treatment, the focus should be on the target population who could benefit from that treatment. There is little rationale for including participants in a trial for whom the treatment would not be relevant or warranted.
At first this sounded reasonable enough. But then I wondered how does one know in the case of a newly discovered human virus that's only been around a matter of months which "participants" could not benefit? There was no question that the participants the authors had in mind were children. Certainly if they had been paying attention to the news they would have known that in some school districts unvaccinated kids were clogging the intensive care wards because of Covid infections. So I looked to see when the article was submitted. Oh, it was August 11, 2021. Well, that at least explains the authors naivety -- Why didn't those "consultants" warn them?
I stopped reading and returned to egg poaching.