Tripling Down

Will they ever admit they screwed up?

I have to confess, I am astounded that governments and educational institutions are still pushing COVID vaccines.

To my mind, the obvious solution for governments would have been to declare victory several months ago, and move on. Proclaim that vaccines had protected the population against the earlier, more serious COVID variants, but that Omicron was so mild it was best to treat it like a seasonal flu. No need to admit out loud that the vaccines were virtually useless against Omicron.

I suppose those in charge screwed themselves by pushing vaccine passports, job terminations, and travel restrictions for months after it was clear that the vaccines provided only minimal protection against Omicron, and that Omicron was so mild it hardly mattered.

By that point, they couldn't back off from pushing vaccines without admitting that vaccines had been useless and unnecessary for months.

Humans hate to admit having made a mistake - politicians more than most. So they've tripled-down.

With the media now so tightly controlled, I suppose they are able to get away with the pretense that the vaccines somehow were useful and/or necessary against Omicron, at least with that large chunk of the population that gets all their news from the CBC. (I can think of a number of pro-vaccine friends who have expressed amazement that so many of their vaccinated friends had been infected with Omicron - like it was a super-amazing coincidence that that had happened - rather than the more obvious explanation that the vaccines offered only minimal protection against Omicron.)

But I have to suspect that the truth will come out eventually, and a whole lot of people will feel angry and betrayed when that finally happens.

I noticed a TIME magazine article last week gave two stats that I had previously only seen in alternative media.

First, that infection with Omicron offered 75% to 79% protection against re-infection. (Which would greatly strengthen the argument that natural immunity should be recognized as offering immune protection equivalent to vaccination!)

Second, that 56% of those who were infected with Omicron didn't know they had been infected. (That's a very telling stat about how mild Omicron is for most people.)

I suspect that in the weeks and months ahead more and more of that kind of contrary information will leak out in the mainstream media. (When/if information on the now widespread pattern of excess deaths hits the mainstream - that's when the sh*t will really hit the fan.)

So far, however, it hasn't prevented governments and public institutions from tripling down on vaccines.

My wife has been getting annoying follow-up calls at work from Arrive-Can because our 11-year-old unvaccinated son entered Canada with her 10 days ago. They wanted to know the date she was vaccinated. (It was more than a year ago, so that vaccination would offer her zero protection now.) The whole family had Omicron months ago - which would offer far better immune protection - but our ideologically-blinded government doesn't care about that!

Universities and Colleges across North America are still demanding new students get vaccinated and/or boosted. Why? It won't protect that student from getting infected with Omicron and spreading COVID, so there's no public health argument that it offers any protection to other students.

They are demanding vaccination only because they can. It is bullying, plain and simple.

For any student who finds themselves pressured to get vaccinated, I would suggest you have your college newspaper report on this excellent study from ten highly-credentialed academics. Better yet, submit it directly to your University's Board of Governors.

Here are its most relevant conclusions: "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 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."

The study presents useful data about how unnecessary the vaccines are for young people: "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."

It also presents data that vaccination offers a negative net benefit in this age group: "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."

It is ludicrous for governments and public institutions to be still pushing such flawed and ineffective vaccines at this late date. We need to stand up to them. NOW.

Finally, let me express my appreciation to the medical doctors who authored this paper: Euzebiusz Jamrozik, Salmaan Keshavjee, Martin Makary, Stefan Baral, Tracy Beth Høeg, and Vinay Prasad. At a time when so many medical professionals have been cowed into silence, it is wonderful that these brave doctors are willing to speak truth to power.

Most particularly, I wish to commend my fellow Substacker Vinay Prasad, who has been eloquent and relentless in speaking out against the irrationality of those in power. I always enjoy the clarity and carefully reasoned arguments of his writing. Thank you, Vinay.