It’s stupid and irrelevant
Reasons to get the Bivalent Booster
- Thread starter misterkel
- Start date
Peer reviewed paper by top doctors and medical scientists: Vaccination has a very steep negative Risk/Benefit ratio. (Harvard/Oxford/Johns Hopkins/UCSF, etc. scientists)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities
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. 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 cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 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. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070
Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities
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. 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 cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 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. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
The authors of this paper are a list of twisted anti-vaxxers including Tracy Beth Høeg. The paper published in a pay-to-play open source journal is a joke and not worth taking time to read.
Yup. Wait for hiding GWB bitch scream how the authors are ‘antivax’.
I'm sure he will as soon as he gets back from his ambulance ride for an 'unrelated to the vaccine' heart issue.
Sure hope he's okay!
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva
The Declaration of Geneva (2017), as currently published by the World Medical Association[6] reads:
AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
- I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
- THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
- I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;
- I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
- I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
- I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
- I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;
- I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;
- I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;
- I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;
- I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;
- I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
- I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
Healthcare practitioners have the obligation and licensing requirements to keep their knowledge current. Based on ethics requirements listed on top, a study based upon accepted scientific and statistical methodologies that is not otherwise credibly refuted must be considered when a healthcare practitioner offers medical advice.
The original impetus for creating vaccines was to create protection against highly dangerous viruses for the general population, not pharmaceutical company profits. Further, the early vaccines developed were intended to provide long term, often considered lifetime protection versus a temporary boost of perhaps six months against a particular Covid variant we see being pushed today. Flu vaccinations of years past were focused on older people who are at higher risks of serious outcomes than the general population.
Likely all vaccines and viruses carry possible serious risks as well as lesser adverse effects. The difference between vaccines and viruses for groups not at significant risk of serious virus outcomes is that a vaccination represents a 100% chance of exposure to adverse effects, whereas the chances of someone catching Covid is less than 100%.
Net expectation in context above is the risk times the average cost of a Covid infection for the age group in question less the risk of vaccinations (Odds of an adverse event) times the cost of vaccine adverse events. Where the net expectation is negative, it is prima fascia evidence that vaccination is contraindicated for that particular age group.
Scientific, including statistical principles and the practice of medicine are being bastardized by pharmaceutical companies in search of ever greater profits over long established ethics of medicine. Critically, pharmaceutical companies fund a great many studies and provide grants to Universities creating a structural conflict of interest. As such, the questioning of independent studies by known propagandists is rather ironic. Again, until the cited, assumed to be independent study by the OP is credibly refuted, it should be considered as valid.
People think the Hippocratic Oath is so kind of joke. So many of These fucking doctors today, those who recommended or pushed or coerced or didn’t provide informed consent to their patients, should be held liable.
Huge huge mistake.
Anyone with half a fucking brain could know this - and if you knew it but went along to get along - you are equally culpable.