Ethically Unjustifiable

After two years of pushing unscientific health propaganda, research scientists are now publicly disclosing the truth about the COVID-19 vaccines.

What they are revealing is an indictment on our medical, media and political fraternity.

Rather than 'safe and effective' as they tried to brainwash people into believing, these experimental mRNA jabs are a non-cure worse than the actual disease.

The data is damning and a recent study concludes that booster mandates actually do more harm than good.

Nine scientists from top research universities including Harvard and Johns Hopkins, found that for every hospitalisation prevented by boosters, multiple adverse events occurred.

"Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events."

The study went on to identify that University booster mandates are unethical, detailing five key rationales.

1. no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;

2. vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people

3. mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;

4. US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and

5. mandates create wider social harms.

You can download the study through the link below.

While tackling the ethical concerns surrounding these vaccines, the researchers also found "a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making."

This ties in with our pre-vaccine release expose of the ethical failure of clinicians to disclose the risk of Antibody Dependency Enhancement (ADE) from mRNA treatments.

Aside from the compelling medical data, one of the most interesting aspects of this report is the discussion surrounding the importance of proportionality in public policy.

Proportionality is a key principle in public health ethics. To be proportionate, a policy must be expected to produce public health benefits that outweigh relevant harms, including harms related to coercion, undue pressure, and other forms of liberty restriction.

To me, this overreach is just as dangerous as the physical damage done by these medical experiments.

The pandemic allowed a new liberty limiting precedent to be set by government. It was justified by their quest to 'flatten the curve.'

Like so much else attached to this time, it was an absurd proposition and whatever their original optimism, it didn't take long for anyone looking to see the futility of this policy approach.

However, rather than backdown in the face of failure, governments (and their allies) doubled-down with increasingly outrageous rhetoric to keep the public scared and compliant.

Even now, the authorities are still pushing booster jabs through public funded media campaigns. They are even promoting needles for young children despite them having next to no risk from this flu like illness.

It's simply appalling.

While many will now claim it is time to move on, I certainly don't advocate putting this stain on our freedoms behind us.

We need more exposure of the dreadful calumny that was imposed upon the people by the triumvirate of our institutions.

Only then is there any possibility, albeit a minuscule one, of those behind it actually being held to account.