Article by Scott Armstrong
Clip from The Daily Wrap-Up with Ryan Cristián: As The COVID Vaccine Narrative Is Exposed By Peer Reviewed Science, THE SCIENCE™ Disagrees (12/19/2022)
For more, please visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com
Net Harm
Not only are the COVID-19 injections failing to prevent the spread of whatever the medical cartel is continuing to refer to as COVID-19, but there seems to be an increasing amount of evidence suggesting that these injections are causing a net harm in those who receive them.
A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics/British Medical Journal entitled COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities looked at the effectiveness of a third booster dose of the COVID-19 injection among young adults (18-29) to decide whether or not University mandates were a necessary pandemic response.
From the paper:
To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31,207–42,836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine.
This suggests that upwards of 42,000 people would need to receive a third injection before one person was saved from hospitalization. They didn’t even go into evaluating how many would have been needed to prevent a single death.
What we know is that people have a wide range of adverse reactions post-injection, many of them permanent, debilitating, life-threatening or deadly. The paper goes on to illuminate how many estimated adverse reactions would occur in pursuit of preventing that one single hospitalization:
18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including;
1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation)
1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation)
Reactogenicity is defined as the “physical manifestation of the inflammatory response to vaccination.”
Social Harm
The paper also does a great job of discussing the social harm caused by injection mandates, beyond the associated health risks. The paper discusses how a University age person is the least at-risk of any negative outcome from a COVID infection, therefore the measures taken to coerce them to undergo an unwanted medical procedure is unfounded. From the paper:
Strong coercion may create significant social harms. COVID-19 vaccine mandates have generally involved a high degree of coercion, effectively ostracising unvaccinated individuals from society. University mandates involve significant coercion in that they exclude unvaccinated people from the benefits of university education (or employment) and thereby entail major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association. When such mandates are not supported by a compelling public health justification and where exemptions are not easily available, the likelihood of reactance and negative social effects are increased. The social harms of university COVID-19 mandates have not been formally studied, but there is reason to think that they will be significant.
Those of us who stood up to these mandates can surely resonate with this sentiment.
Conclusions
The BMJ paper mentioned that they anticipate 18.5 serious adverse reactions for each person who would supposedly be saved from having to go to the hospital. They talk about how some of those would be from myocarditis, but don’t go into what those other adverse events would include.
Another study, issued as a pre-print titled Serious harms of the COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review details some of the adverse events that occur post-injection:
[A systematic review] found significantly more SAEs (Severe Adverse Events) of special interest with the vaccines than with placebo, and the excess risk was considerably larger than the benefit, measured as the risk of hospitalisation. The adenovirus vector vaccines increased the risk of venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, and the mRNA-based vaccines increased the risk of myocarditis, with a mortality of about 1-2 per 200 cases. We also found evidence of serious neurological harms, including Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myasthenic disorder and stroke, which are likely due to an autoimmune reaction, as has been suggested also for the HPV vaccines. Severe harms, i.e. those that prevent daily activities, were hugely underreported in the randomised trials. These harms were very common in studies of booster doses after a full vaccination and in a study of vaccination of previously infected people.
Also mentioned in the clip is the summary drawn from this peer-reviewed study published in Science Direct entitled Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs which details the following adverse outcomes from the COVID injections:
mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.
The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.
Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.
The paper published in the British Medical Journal regarding mandates among university populations, discussed earlier, reaches some very profound conclusions:
University booster mandates are unethical because they:
(1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group
(2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults
(3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission
(4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes
(5) may result in wider social harms.
One cannot just simply ignore this information. It needs to at least be a part of the discussion, or if nothing else, should be provided to people in order for them to have full informed consent prior to choosing whether or not to take the injection.
Prior Conditions Rule Out COVID-19 Injection Benefit
A recent Substack article by Dr. Peter McCullough outlines some very clear contraindications and conditions that should automatically disqualify a person from being considered eligible for a COVID injection:
From Dr. McCullough’s article:
If you have a neurologic disorder shown in the figure that is new or worsened after COVID-19 vaccination, pay a visit to your doctor, and point it out. Tell them it wasn’t worth it. That for you the risks of the vaccine did not outweigh the failed theoretical benefits for an easily treatable upper respiratory illness.
Also, if you are still deciding whether or not to take the injection and you have any of the above conditions, please make sure you have all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Please make sure you share this article far and wide to make sure everyone has access to this vital information
Note to the Readers:
Thank you for your ongoing support of The Last American Vagabond. TLAV is a Value-For-Value experience. We want to invite you to subscribe to our Substack for as little as $5/month to join the discussion, comment on posts, join the TLAV Roundtable Discussions and feel good about supporting alternative media that you value. Upgrade to the Founding Member Level for the opportunity to have a monthly Q&A with Ryan as well. Thank you to all of you who already support TLAV in all the various ways that you do with your time, talent and treasure.
Share this post