‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease
Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines.
Reported by The Epoch Times, a 50-page study, co-authored by:
Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University;
surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins University;
Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a haematologist-oncologist professor at UCSF;
Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School;
concludes that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause up to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.
The authors provide five reasons why the “vaccines” are unethical and should not be mandated:
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. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”