As I recently mentioned it certainly appears that the information embargo on the vaccines has been clearly sidelined, at least when it comes to studies, especially those that are not favourable towards it.

Latest case in point, is a brand-new peer-reviewed Harvard / John’s Hopkins study of vaccination risks versus vaccinated rewards for young people. Harvard / John’s Hopkins censors, you might have heard of them? Bottom line, the study explicitly concluded that the injections CAUSE more illness than they purport to prevent. I’ll repeat it for the Branch Covidians as they have a force-field that protects them against digesting actual science & reality, the study concluded that the injections CAUSE more illness than they purport to prevent. This is nothing short of a game changer, folks!

The 50-page study, posted to SSRN Monday, is titled “COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities.” Significantly the researchers concluded that, for each covid-related hospitalization theoretically prevented in young people, the injections may cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, now before you get your red markers out censors, those are not my words but those of researchers from Harvard & John’s Hopkins.

The researchers explained:

"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, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable."

Going further and extrapolating from this data-driven conclusion, the researchers made five arguments why university booster mandates are medically UNETHICAL:

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;
5) mandates create wider social harms.

Now bear with me Harvard / John’s Hopkin researchers as English is my second language, but it seems to me like you are saying, that the injections are not a good bet for young people, huh!

Now if that’s the case for US college and university kids, I’m guessing that the same would go for Canadian kids eh? So parents, grand-parents, aunts and uncles if you have loved ones in College or University, I’m thinking this study might be useful to forward to your kid’s injection happy university and or college administrators. After all they extoll themselves to be “institutions of higher learning” that “follow science”, right?

The hits just keep coming!

Here is the link: https://papers.ssrn.comsol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070