Skip to main content

How the “Unvaccinated” Got It Right

 The COVID “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing

  • The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass vaccination was only able to stand if the safety of the vaccine had been established
  • Given the lack of proof, the mass vaccination policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones
  • Policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions
  • This was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it
  • Data and data-supported analyses showed no evidence of the efficacy of the COVID vaccine, and the only way to know for sure was to actively seek it out and test it

Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force

  • In the case of the COVID pandemic, almost all people who acted as if the "vaccine" was safe and effective had no physical or informational evidence for the claims of safety and efficacy beyond the supposed authority of other people who made them
  • How do the people who are generating the data that we saw on the news every night and were being used to justify the mass "vaccination" policy handle the uncertainty around PCR-based diagnoses?

Keep an eye out for published safety and efficacy data as the pandemic progresses

  • Pfizer’s Six-month Safety and Efficacy Study was notable
  • The data in the paper showed more deaths per head in the "vaccinated" group than the “unvaccinated” group
  • This difference does not statistically establish that the virus is dangerous or ineffective, the generated data were clearly compatible with the incomplete safety of the vaccine
  • As time went on, it became very clear that some of the informational claims that had been made to convince people to get “vaccinated,” especially by politicians and media commentators, were false

The overall political and cultural context in which the entire discourse on "vaccination" was being conducted was such that the evidential bar for the safety and efficacy of the "vaccine" was raised yet further while our ability to determine whether that bar had been met was reduced.

  • In such a context, accurate determination of facts is almost impossible: moral judgment always inhibits objective empirical analysis. When dispassionate discussion of an issue is impossible because judgment has saturated discourse, drawing conclusions of sufficient accuracy and with sufficient certainty to promote rights violations and the coercion of medical treatment is next to impossible.

Precision is not accuracy

  • Under great uncertainty and complexity, model outputs are dominated by the uncertainties on the input variables that have very wide (and unknown) ranges and the multiple assumptions that themselves warrant only low confidence.
  • Any claimed precision of a model's output is bogus and the apparent accuracy is only and entirely that - apparent.

An honest approach to COVID and policy development would have driven the urgent development of a system to collect accurate data on COVID infections and the outcomes of COVID patients

  • Instead, the powers that be did the very opposite, making policy decisions that knowingly reduced the accuracy of collected data in a way that would serve their political purposes
  • They stopped distinguishing between dying with and without COVID, incentivized medical institutions to identify deaths as caused by COVID when there was no clinical data to support that conclusion, etc.
  • The dishonesty of the pro-"vaccine" side was revealed by the repeated changes of official definitions of clinical terms like "vaccine".

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-unvaccinated-got-it-right/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fauci Files Reveal Pfizer Helped Biden Rig 2020 Election

 Pfizer secretly colluded with Joe Biden's team to help him rig the 2020 election against Trump, according to new Fauci documents. In his new book, "On Call," Fauci admits that Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, called him the night after Biden was declared the winner of the election, to inform him of Pfizer's "Game-changing results" from the rigged mRNA trial. "On November 7, after the absentee ballots were counted, Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election. It was the very next night that Albert Bourla, Pfizer's CEO, called me away from my neighbors' fire pit to inform me about the game-changing results from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trial. I finally thought we had truly turned a corner in defeating this terrible disease." Today reports: In another interesting tidbit, Fauci discusses Trump's FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn declaring that he would not go along with the Trump Administration's plan to roll out the vac...

Republicans Withdraw $1 Billion From BlackRock Due To Its ESG Policies

  Multiple U.S. states governed by Republicans are withdrawing state funds from BlackRock's management, as they disapprove of the ESG investment policies of the world's top asset manager, the Financial Times reports. In recent weeks, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Arkansas have announced they would divest funds from... For months now, Republican states have said they would not do business anymore with asset managers who have ESG-aligned investment policies, which, the states say, show that those financial firms are boycotting the oil and gas industry. Texas is leading the campaign against this movement The Lone Star State published a list of financial firms that could be banned from doing business with Texas, its state pension funds, and local governments. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Republicans-Withdraw-1-Billion-From-BlackRock-Due-To-Its-ESG-Policies.html

The Biden-Harris White House Has An Iranian Spy Leaking U.S. Intelligence In It

 The question is, how did classified intelligence from the United States, showing Israeli military movements that suggest broader action against Iran, get to Tehran? The answer raises uncomfortable questions for the Biden-Harris White House, which has opposed Israel every step of the way in responding to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Defying Biden got Israel the entire leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas, with the ultimate threat still looming: Iran and its nuclear program. Operations against Iran are being assessed also because Iran has started firing ballistic missiles into Israel, targeting civilian centers across the country. If Israel is close to launching a broader offensive against Iran, leaking U.S. intelligence would be a way to both try and deter Israel and give more warning to Iran. In 2012, similar allegations were made against the Obama administration when U.S. intelligence leaks showed that Israel was working towards using "Azerbaijan as a base of operations in the event...