|
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 01,
2022
from
Mercola Website
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
-
Recent data analysis shows the COVID jab is deadlier
than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80. For
younger adults and children, there's no benefit, only
risk
-
All
age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of
dying after receiving a COVID jab than an unvaccinated
person is at risk of dying from COVID-19
-
For
those under 18, the COVID jab increases their risk of
dying from COVID-19. They're also 51 times more likely
to die from the jab than they are to die from COVID if
not vaccinated
-
Only
when you get into the 60 and older categories do the
risks between the jab and COVID infection become about
even. In the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one
person for every person it saves from dying of COVID, so
it's a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any
given person
-
Data
suggest U.S. deaths reported to VAERS are underreported
by a factor of 20
According to a cost-benefit analysis by Stephanie Seneff,
Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, the
COVID jab
is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.
The cost-benefit analysis
1 looked at publicly available official data from the
U.S. and U.K. for all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality
to the risk of dying from
COVID-19.
"All age groups under
50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a
COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a
COVID-19 death, Seneff and Dopp conclude.
For younger adults
and children, there's no benefit, only risk.
"This analysis is conservative," the authors note, "because it
ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as
thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell's palsy, and other vaccine-induced
injuries can lead to shortened life span.
When one takes into consideration the fact that there is
approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early
treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one
can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are
ill-advised.
Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like
Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine
inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for
the unvaccinated."
Real-Life Risk
Reduction Is Negligible
The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only
considers COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of
injection.
Looking at the U.S.
Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), we're now seeing
that many of those who are dying got the jab around April 2021 or
earlier, so we know the shots can significantly cut your life short
even if they don't kill you in the first month.
As detailed in Seneff's
and Dopp's paper:
"Absolute real-life
risk reductions (ARRs)... from COVID inoculations vary from a
low of negative 0.00007% (an increased risk of a COVID death
from inoculation) for children under age 18 to a positive 0.183%
(0.00183) risk reduction of a COVID death for persons over age
80 …
COVID vaccine inoculations increase risk of death and produce a
net negative benefit, aka increased risk of death... for all age
groups younger than 60 years old. In other words, the COVID
inoculations cause a net increase, rather than decrease, in the
likelihood of death for all persons under 60 years old.
For those over 60 years old, the benefit of COVID inoculations
is negligible, ranging from a 0.0016% reduction in likelihood of
death for a 60- to 69-year-old persons to a 0.125% reduction in
likelihood of death for those over 80 years old.
Because preventative
treatments are often given to well persons, a vaccine is
supposed to provide very small risk compared to benefit.
Thus, such high fatality risks (VFRs) versus low benefit of risk
reduction (ARRs) from the COVID inoculations are not acceptable,
especially considering that low-cost, effective treatments are
available that would additionally reduce COVID-19 death rates by
as much as 90% or more if provided as soon as symptoms appear in
high-risk persons."
Meanwhile, data from an
analysis 2 by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve
Seligmann suggest U.S. deaths reported to VAERS are underreported by
a factor of 20.
Their analysis was used
to calculate vaccine fatality rates (VFR), the number needed to
treat/vaccinate (NNT) to prevent one COVID death, the expected
number of vaccine fatalities to prevent one COVID death, and the
expected number of vaccine fatalities compared to COVID fatalities
by age group: 3
Summary
Findings
In summary, key findings in this paper include the following:
-
For those under
18, the COVID jab increases their risk of dying from
COVID-19; those under 18 are 51 times more likely to die
from the jab than they are to die from COVID if not
vaccinated.
-
In those aged 18
to 29, the COVID jab is 16 times more likely to kill a
person than save their life if they get COVID. They're also
eight times more likely to die from the jab than to die from
COVID if not vaccinated.
-
Those aged 30 to
39 are 15 times more likely to die from the COVID jab than
prevent their death, and they're seven times more likely to
die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not
vaccinated.
-
Those aged 40 to
49 are nine times more likely to die from the COVID jab than
having it prevent their death, and they're five times more
likely to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not
vaccinated.
-
Those aged 50 to
59 are twice (2 times) more likely to die from the COVID
inoculation than to prevent one COVID death, while their
risk of dying from the jab or dying from COVID if
unvaccinated is about the same.
Only when you get into
the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID
infection even out.
In the 60 to 69 age
group, the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from
dying of COVID, so it's a tossup as to whether it might be worth it
for any given person.
Cost-Benefit
Analysis Must Drive Public Health Policy
Common sense tells us that COVID-19 vaccination policy ought to be
rooted in a rational evaluation of the true costs and benefits, and
to do that, we need to assess whether the jabs are beneficial or
harmful, and to what extent.
So far, governments have
completely ignored the cost of this mass injection campaign,
focusing solely on perceived or imagined (not proven) benefit.
As a result, we're looking at the worst public health disaster in
known history.
The greatest tragedy of all is that none of our
public health officials has bothered to protect even the youngest
among us.
As of February 11, 2022, there were 34,223 COVID jab injury reports
in the U.S. involving children under the age of 17.
The OpenVAERS team recently started looking at injury reports in
children aged 17 and younger, and to their shock, they found 34,223
U.S. reports involving this age group through February 11, 2022.
You can find the Child's
Report
here. 4
This is a staggering
number, considering the 12- to 17-year-olds have only been eligible
for the shot since May 2021, and 5- to 11-year-olds since October
2021. 5
Pfizer
Withdraws EUA Application for Children Under 5
Interestingly, February 11, 2022, Pfizer abruptly withdrew its
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application for children under 5.
6,7
The question is why...?
According to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer, they want to collect more
data on the effects of a third dose, as two doses did not produce
expected immunity in 2- to 5-year-olds. 8
Three days later, former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board
member Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC 9 the EUA
application was pulled because COVID cases are so low among young
children that the shot couldn't be shown to provide much of a
benefit.
But according in an email notice to subscribers, OpenVAERS stated,
"None of these
explanations suffice because all of that information was known
prior to Pfizer submitting this EUA to the FDA on February 1
[2022].
It makes one wonder
whether adverse events in the treatment group might be the
factor that neither Pfizer nor the FDA want to talk about?"
Those Who
Should Be in the Know Don't Know a Thing
In related news, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the
Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, highlighted a
February 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Request sent to the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian equivalent of
the FDA. 10
The inquiry asked for
documents relating to the TGA's assessment of:
-
The presence and
risk of micro-RNA sequences within the Comirnaty mRNA active
ingredient (the mRNA genomic sequence)
-
The presence and
risk of oncomirs (cancer-causing micro-RNA) in Comirnaty
-
The presence and
risk of stop codon read-through (suppression of codon
activity) arising as a result of the use of pseudouridine in
Comirnaty
-
The composition
of the final protein product (molecular weight and amino
acid sequence) produced following injection of the Comirnaty
mRNA product in human subjects
-
The risk of the
use of AES-mtRNR1 3' untranslated region of the Comirnaty
mRNA product in human subjects
As it turns out, the TGA
has none of these documents, because they've not assessed any of
these risks.
Why does this matter?
Well, as explained by
Rose:
"Micro-RNA (miRNAs)
are small (20-22 nucleotides) single-stranded non-coding RNA
molecules that function to interrupt or suppress gene expression
at transcriptional or translational levels to regulate gene
expression."
Considering micro-RNA can
alter gene expression,
wouldn't we want to know if micro-RNAs are
present in the shot, considering we're injecting hundreds of
millions of people, including teenagers and children?
The same goes for
oncomirs, the suppression of codon activity, protein products and
the rest.
"Stephanie Seneff has
warned 11 of two miRNAs that disrupt the type-1
interferon response in any cell, including immune cells:
miR-148a and miR-590," Rose continues.
"I don't know what potential connections there are here yet, but
it is safe to say that any tech that involves the introduction
of foreign mRNA to be mass-produced by human cells must be
thoroughly safety tested.
The fact that none of these documents 'exist' is proof positive
that they either have no idea what the potential effects of what
they made are because they did no bench
work/investigations/studies, or, that they know and are hiding
the results.
Either choice is
beyond criminal."
The
Critical Design Flaw
In an August 2021 Substack article, 12 British
cybersecurity researcher Ehden Biber homed in on the potential risks
of using pseudouridine to optimize the codon.
The COVID shots do not contain the identical mRNA found in the
SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The mRNA has been genetically manipulated in a
process called "codon optimization," and this process is actually
known to create unexpected and detrimental side effects.
"How come Pfizer,
Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen etc. are using a technology that
both they and the regulators know will cause unknown results?"
Biber asked.
The reason codon
optimization was used is because it's pretty difficult to get your
body to produce a given protein by injecting mRNA.
It's a slow and generally inefficient process. In order for the
injection to work, they need higher levels of protein expression
than is naturally possible. Scientists bypass this problem by making
substitutions in the genetic instructions.
They've discovered that
you can swap out certain nucleotides (three nucleotides make up a
codon) and still end up with the same protein in the end.
But the increased
efficiency comes at a terrible cost.
When substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting
protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a
variety of chronic diseases, 13 including,
Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's disease and heart failure. 14
As explained by Biber:
15
"Turns out the
protein which was manufactured when codon optimization has
different ways it folds and a different 3D shape, and it,
'could cause
immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn't be seen until
late-stage clinical trials or even after approval.'
This statement
relates to the NORMAL approval cycle. The COVID vaccines went
via an accelerated one."
Now, the FDA has been
fully aware of these problems since 2011, when Chava Kimchi Sarfaty,
Ph.D., a principal investigator at the FDA, stated that,
"We do not believe
that you can optimize codons and have the protein behave as it
did in its native form."
She went on to warn,
"The changed form
could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn't be seen
until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval."
16
If
the FDA knew all this
back in 2011,
why have they not raised objections against
codon
optimization being used in the making of the COVID jabs...?
The same question needs
to be asked of the Australian TGA.
The FOIA requester was likely thinking of the March 2021 paper,
"BNT162b2 Vaccine
- Possible Codons Misreading, Errors in Protein Synthesis and
Alternative Splicing Anomalies" 17...
...when they put together
that inquiry, because that paper highlights Pfizer's extensive codon
optimization using pseudouridine, which has known adverse effects,
as well as the use of 3'-UTR sequence, the consequences of which are
still unknown.
The fact that the TGA has no data on the risks of these
modifications just goes to show that they, like the U.S. FDA, are
not actually working to ensure these jabs are safe. They're
protecting the profits of the drug companies.
Pfizer even admits, in its BNT162b2/Comirnaty Risk Management Plan
submitted to the FDA to get EUA, that the codon optimization they
did resulted in elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), 18
which is an early marker of heart failure.
Elevated GGT is also an
indicator of,
That alone should have raised some questions, were the FDA actually
looking out for public health.
All in all, there's more
reason than ever to question the COVID jab mandates and the use of
these shots in children...
Sources and References
1 COVID-19
and All-Cause Mortality Data Analysis by Kathy Dopp and
Stephanie Seneff (PDF)
2 COVID
Vaccination and Age-Stratified All-Cause Mortality Risk (PDF)
3 COVID-19
and All-Cause Mortality Data Analysis by Kathy Dopp and
Stephanie Seneff (PDF), Page 8, Table 2
4 OpenVAERS
Child's Report
5 Yale
Medicine October 25, 2021, Updated February 11, 2022
6 New
York Times February 12, 2022
7 USA
Today February 11, 2022
8 CNN
December 17, 2021
9 CNBC
February 14, 2022
10 Jessica
Rose Substack February 20, 2022
11 Extremely
American August 1, 2021
12, 15, 16 Ehden
Substack August 20, 2021
13 Nature
Medicine December 6, 2011; 17: 1536-1538
14 Autophagy
August 2008; 4(6): 821-823
17 Authorea
March 25, 2021 DOI: 10.22541/au.161668243.35142344/v1
18 Nutr
Metab. 2016;13:37
19 European
Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2014 Dec;21(12):1541-8
20 Disease
Markers October 12, 2015; 2015: 818570
21 Disease
Markers 2017; 2017:9765259
|
