Are COVID-19 Injection Mandates Scientifically Sound?
The Greater Good (GG) argument is at the core of policies that mandate COVID-19 injections. GG three major parts: 1) Religion, 2) Freedom, and 3) Science.
It’s too much to cover all these in one commentary, so there are three separate pieces. (See below for links to the other two.) Let’s briefly discuss the third.
Like a lot of Left-wing ideology (wind energy, climate change, etc.), GG is a presented as having the blessing of Science. This strategy continues to be used as it has proven to be politically effective, as it’s like getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. But is the GG claim scientifically sound?
Before answering that, we need to be clear what the GG belief really says. In a nutshell it is: the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the community.
In other words government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. that ascribe to GG are saying: if the general society may possibly benefit, the individual can be forced to give up their free will choice, their financial well being, their health, and even their life.
In America, those personal sacrifices are appreciated as being HUGE, so we better be sure that the benefits are commensurately enormous. We do this by seeing if any scientific assessment has been made that supports the societal benefits assertions.
But what is a “scientific assessment”? Briefly it is an evaluation of a technical matter that has four elements. Such an assessment is: a) comprehensive, b) objective, c) transparent, and d) empirical.
So the fundamental question is: has there been a Scientific Assessment that has concluded that: COVID-19 injection mandates are a net societal benefit? NO!
Not only that, but there have been numerous scientific studies that have concluded the opposite. Let’s briefly consider the underlying scientific claims utilized by those who insist that injection mandates are for the GG…
GG Argument #1: If you have the injection, you will be less likely to catch COVID-19. That will be a societal benefit as you won’t be taxing healthcare system (like doctors and hospitals) and you will not be a transmitter (also a healthcare system benefit).
Contradiction A: The current COVID-19 variant is XBB.1.5, and there are zero injections that have been formulated and thoroughly tested for XBB.1.5. Therefore there is no scientific evidence that an injection will materially reduce your likelihood of catching COVID-19.
Contradiction B: Experts have concluded that COVID-19 injections may well be increasing the number of COVID-19 variants, thereby not only quickly making formulated injections outdated, but also increasing the load on our health system.
Contradiction C: Experts have concluded (regarding prior versions of the COVID-19 injections) that there is no scientific basis for claiming that infected injected people will transmit COVID-19 less than non-injected infected people. Pfizer admitted that since it was in a hurry to bring its injections to market, that no scientific tests were made about transmissibility of injection recipients.
Contradiction D: If the GG proponents wanted to minimize the load on healthcare system, then they would be advocating legitimate prevention measures — like citizens’ optimizing their immune system. There is zero downside to doing this, yet nary a word about optimizing immune systems is said by public health officials. Optimizing would reduce chances of a COVID-19 infection, plus lower symptoms (and improving outcomes) if it does happen — all healthcare system benefits.
Contradiction E: If the GG proponents wanted to minimize the load on healthcare systems, then they would be advocating an aggressive, scientific early treatment protocol with Ivermectin [~100 studies], HCQ [375+ studies], Vitamin D [100+ studies], etc. As indicated, all of these have numerous scientific studies supporting their efficacy and safety. The fact that GG espousers do not advocate any of these scientifically legitimate options puts a harsh light on their hypocrisy.
GG Argument #2: If you have the injection, and subsequently get COVID-19, you will have less severe symptoms. That will be a societal benefit as you won’t be taxing the healthcare system as much.
Contradiction B: See above
Contradiction C: See above.
Contradiction D: See above.
Contradiction E: See above.
GG Argument #3: If you have the injection, and subsequently get COVID-19, you will less likely transmit COVID-19 to others. That will be a societal benefit as those others won’t be taxing the healthcare system as much.
Contradiction B: See above
Contradiction C: See above.
Contradiction D: See above.
Contradiction E: See above.
Additionally, if the GG proponents were truly pushing a Science narrative they would:
i) Not be calling the COVID-19 bio-chemical injections “vaccines,” as mRNA and vector injections are profoundly different from any other common type of vaccine the public is familiar with (e.g., shingles, polio, etc.). As an acknowledgement of this reality, CDC quietly changed is longtime definition of “vaccine.” It would have been more honest of them to instead use a different word.
ii) Publicly acknowledge that in the short studies of the COVID-19 injections, that there was not scientific testing about the injection effects on people with dozens of diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s, Cancer, Diabetes, etc.).
iii) Publicly acknowledge that there has been no long term studies of mRNA and vector COVID-19 injections.
iv) Publicly acknowledge that some COVID-19 injection recipients will get ADE, or VAED, which can result in more serious adverse consequences in future infections. Here is a good layperson explanation. And then there is this related study.
Etc, etc.
The clear conclusion is that: a) GG proponents have not followed Scientific protocol, b) there is no legitimate scientific basis for the GG claims, and c) if the GG acolytes were sincere about their societal interests, they would be taking other scientifically sound actions, which they are not.
In other words: COVID-19 policies are based on political science, not real Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment