Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines

Let's see what kind of mental gymnastics we can employ to deny this paper. 9 scientists from universities like Harvard and John Hopkins jointly published this peer reviewed study. They were able to show the vaccines cause an overwhelming net harm and provide 5 ways to show mandating them is not ethical. Forcing someone to do something that knowing causes a "net harm" actually sounds like medical assault to me. I have linked the 50 page PDF below, and it has 125 citations.

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.
This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization

The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good

But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters

1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.

2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.

3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.

4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.

5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities.

SOURCE

SOURCE STUDY

SOURCE STUDY PDF

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males,

From your own source, you just know that I'm going to use this against you in the future, right?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It's actually an article about the ethics of mandating boosters:

Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities

According to this report, if 30,000 students are vaxxed on a hypothetical campus 2-4 young men will experience mild-moderate heart palpitations, and between 1.3K and 3.3K will need to take aspirin to alleviate vax related aches and pains.

It's main argument is that this isn't really worth it because people in this age range aren't likely to be seriously sick with covid.

I'm pretty sure that we all knew this already, it's common knowledge that young people don't really benefit from covid shots, and that mandates for teens just creates bad PR that hampers other covid campaigns such as social distancing because it get's people's backs up.

You won't catch me saying that there should be vax mandates in college.

And there it is. This is exactly the dance backwards that Aaargh and his ilk will use to walk back all of their previous assertions, every step of the way back now. As more of the truth becomes irrefutable, they will claim “Oh, I never said that part about that part, yada yada yada.” and, “Oh, those Harvard doctors’ aren’t saying what you see with your own eyes..they are saying something else.” Don’t fall for it. a reply to: AaarghZombies

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Thank you for staying on top of all the latest vaccine news, v1rt! One day the whole picture will come into focus and one side will be eating crow - or crawling back under their rock, pretending they never showed their gullibility to the entire world.

a reply to: Roedeer

Well, thats their duty. It should come as no surprise.

As if the psycology of the terrorists using every form of extortion and coercion to force the ineffective injection was not enough for a critical thinker to question motives of the rich people that were to benefit from an unlimited taxpayer finded scheme.

Its free to consumers, not the agencies and departments cutting the checks.

I thought it was a given: jab bad. China virus not necessarily worse than the jab.

a reply to: nugget1

Totally agree with you.
Though the story is changing a bit. It is no longer about the known side effects and the extent to which they occur. Now it's about excess mortality. I hope that with the death of the queen, the new king doesn't throw a spanner in the works. He is a good friend of ... you know who ... And 96 of not ... the queen died by 'an unknown reason'. I hope England will continue to push for transparency in the numbers. I put all my trust in them.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: nugget1

Totally agree with you.
Though the story is changing a bit. It is no longer about the known side effects and the extent to which they occur. Now it's about excess mortality. I hope that with the death of the queen, the new king doesn't throw a spanner in the works. He is a good friend of ... you know who ... And 96 of not ... the queen died by 'an unknown reason'. I hope England will continue to push for transparency in the numbers. I put all my trust in them.

King Charles is actually the brainchild behind the great reset, not Klaus Schwab.

originally posted by: Roedeer
And there it is. This is exactly the dance backwards that Aaargh and his ilk will use to walk back all of their previous assertions, every step of the way back now. As more of the truth becomes irrefutable, they will claim “Oh, I never said that part about that part, yada yada yada.” and, “Oh, those Harvard doctors’ aren’t saying what you see with your own eyes..they are saying something else.” Don’t fall for it. a reply to: AaarghZombies

Walkback?

I'm anti mandate, and I've been pretty clear about agreeing that the primary reasons to vax under 30s is to stop transmission to older people.

I've not checked their math, but in general I don't see much here that's particularly out there.

I'm making fun of the OP because they're using a source that debunks a lot of their doom porn about the vax supposedly killing kids.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Thank you for staying on top of all the latest vaccine news, v1rt! One day the whole picture will come into focus and one side will be eating crow - or crawling back under their rock, pretending they never showed their gullibility to the entire world.

There isn't really much here that wasn't in Trump's whitehouse briefings back in 2021.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: nugget1

Totally agree with you.
Though the story is changing a bit. It is no longer about the known side effects and the extent to which they occur. Now it's about excess mortality. I hope that with the death of the queen, the new king doesn't throw a spanner in the works. He is a good friend of ... you know who ... And 96 of not ... the queen died by 'an unknown reason'. I hope England will continue to push for transparency in the numbers. I put all my trust in them.

King Charles is actually the brainchild behind the great reset, not Klaus Schwab.

Yes, his plan is to give you a string of terrible presidents, so that you'll be desperate to rejoin the British Empire.

a reply to: Nickn3

I wouldn't get too excited, it actually debunks most of the OP's doom porn about the vax killing people.

This could be my go to source to debunk them now, because they used it, it's going to be sweet.

Lol, triggered much? a reply to: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Roedeer
And there it is. This is exactly the dance backwards that Aaargh and his ilk will use to walk back all of their previous assertions, every step of the way back now. As more of the truth becomes irrefutable, they will claim “Oh, I never said that part about that part, yada yada yada.” and, “Oh, those Harvard doctors’ aren’t saying what you see with your own eyes..they are saying something else.” Don’t fall for it. a reply to: AaarghZombies

I'm anti mandate, and I've been pretty clear about agreeing that the primary reasons to vax under 30s is to stop transmission to older people.

You don't get out much, do you? The "vaccine" has never claimed to prevent transmission, ONLY lessens the severity of symptoms.

I can't believe you're still pushing that narrative that was debunked before the "vaccine" was even available.

You should be worried about the "hang time" of your propaganda. Try to keep up.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

you just know that I'm going to use this against you in the future, right?

What a nice way to disclose that you see this as a sort of fight or war. Very interesting wording too.

It's very telling, nice that you took of your mask now, though.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: AaarghZombies

you just know that I'm going to use this against you in the future, right?

What a nice way to disclose that you see this as a sort of fight or war. Very interesting wording too.

It's very telling, nice that you took of your mask now, though.

Hes definitely obsessed af, desperately commenting non stop in every thread I post. Its like infecting all my threads with monkeypox.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Probably best to ignore the dumb asses. They need peoples attention.

a reply to: thethinkingman

Starve trolls by ignoring them. Don't even grace them with a one-liner or lol. When they get no response they usually stop putting in the effort after a while.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

I'm anti mandate, and I've been pretty clear about agreeing that the primary reasons to vax under 30s is to stop transmission to older people.

This theory--that is okay to sacrifice our kids and youth to prevent grandma from going to the hospital is one of the most horrendous. And the vaxx doesn't even stop the spread so here we are sacrificing those young people for no reason.

It's a sign of a morally reprehensible society which would accept a kid sacrificing for the adults.