In keeping with a cost-benefit evaluation by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and impartial researcher Kathy Dopp, the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anybody beneath the age of 80. The fee-benefit evaluation1 checked out publicly accessible official information from the U.S. and U.Ok. for all age teams, and in contrast all-cause mortality to the chance of dying from COVID-19.

“All age teams beneath 50 years previous are at higher danger of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated individual is prone to a COVID-19 dying,” Seneff and Dopp conclude. For youthful adults and kids, there’s no profit, solely danger.

“This evaluation is conservative,” the authors notice, “as a result of it ignores the truth that inoculation-induced hostile occasions similar to thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and different vaccine-induced accidents can result in shortened life span.

When one takes into consideration the truth that there may be roughly a 90% lower in danger of COVID-19 dying if early therapy is offered to all symptomatic high-risk individuals, one can solely conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.

Contemplating the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for many age teams COVID-19 vaccine inoculations end in greater dying charges than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated.”

Actual-Life Threat Discount Is Negligible

The evaluation can also be conservative within the sense that it solely considers COVID jab fatalities that happen inside one month of injection. Trying on the U.S. Vaccine Opposed Occasions Reporting System (VAERS), we’re now seeing that lots of those that are dying bought the jab round April 2021 or earlier, so we all know the photographs can considerably reduce your life quick even when they don’t kill you within the first month. As detailed in Seneff’s and Dopp’s paper:

“Absolute real-life danger reductions (ARRs) … from COVID inoculations differ from a low of unfavourable 0.00007% (an elevated danger of a COVID dying from inoculation) for youngsters beneath age 18 to a constructive 0.183% (0.00183) danger discount of a COVID dying for individuals over age 80 …

COVID vaccine inoculations improve danger of dying and produce a web unfavourable profit, aka elevated danger of dying … for all age teams youthful than 60 years previous. In different phrases, the COVID inoculations trigger a web improve, relatively than lower, within the chance of dying for all individuals beneath 60 years previous.

For these over 60 years previous, the advantage of COVID inoculations is negligible, starting from a 0.0016% discount in chance of dying for a 60- to 69-year-old individuals to a 0.125% discount in chance of dying for these over 80 years previous. As a result of preventative remedies are sometimes given to properly individuals, a vaccine is meant to offer very small danger in comparison with profit.

Thus, such excessive fatality dangers (VFRs) versus low good thing about danger discount (ARRs) from the COVID inoculations aren’t acceptable, particularly contemplating that low-cost, efficient remedies can be found that may moreover scale back COVID-19 dying charges by as a lot as 90% or extra if offered as quickly as signs seem in high-risk individuals.”

In the meantime, information from an evaluation2 by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann counsel U.S. deaths reported to VAERS are underreported by an element of 20. Their evaluation was used to calculate vaccine fatality charges (VFR), the quantity wanted to deal with/vaccinate (NNT) to forestall one COVID dying, the anticipated variety of vaccine fatalities to forestall one COVID dying, and the anticipated variety of vaccine fatalities in comparison with COVID fatalities by age group:3

Age group VFR — Vaccine fatality charge NNT to forestall one COVID dying Anticipated vaccine fatalities to forestall one COVID dying Anticipated variety of vaccine fatalities in comparison with COVID fatalities
Beneath 18 0.004% Vaccine causes greater COVID dying charge Vaccine causes greater COVID dying charge 51
18 to 29 0.005% 318,497 16 8
30 to 39 0.009% 164,538 15 7
40 to 49 0.017% 55,516 9 5
50 to 59 0.016% 11,760 2 1
60 to 69 0.026% 3,624 1 1
70 to 79 0.048% 1,300 1 0
80 to 89 0.057% 547 0 0

Abstract Findings

In abstract, key findings on this paper embrace the next:

  • For these beneath 18, the COVID jab will increase their danger of dying from COVID-19; these beneath 18 are 51 occasions extra prone to die from the jab than they’re to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • In these aged 18 to 29, the COVID jab is 16 occasions extra prone to kill an individual than save their life in the event that they get COVID. They’re additionally eight occasions extra prone to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • These aged 30 to 39 are 15 occasions extra prone to die from the COVID jab than stop their dying, and so they’re seven occasions extra prone to die from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • These aged 40 to 49 are 9 occasions extra prone to die from the COVID jab than having it stop their dying, and so they’re 5 occasions extra prone to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
  • These aged 50 to 59 are twice (2 occasions) extra prone to die from the COVID inoculation than to forestall one COVID dying, whereas their danger of dying from the jab or dying from COVID if unvaccinated is about the identical.

Solely while you get into the 60 and older classes do the dangers between the jab and COVID an infection even out. Within the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one individual for each individual it saves from dying of COVID, so it’s a tossup as as to whether it could be price it for any given individual.

Value-Profit Evaluation Should Drive Public Well being Coverage

Widespread sense tells us that COVID-19 vaccination coverage should be rooted in a rational analysis of the true prices and advantages, and to try this, we have to assess whether or not the jabs are useful or dangerous, and to what extent. Up to now, governments have fully ignored the price of this mass injection marketing campaign, focusing solely on perceived or imagined (not confirmed) profit.

Because of this, we’re wanting on the worst public well being catastrophe in identified historical past. The best tragedy of all is that none of our public well being officers has bothered to guard even the youngest amongst us.

The OpenVAERS workforce lately began taking a look at harm studies in kids aged 17 and youthful, and to their shock, they discovered 34,223 U.S. studies involving this age group by February 11, 2022. You could find the Child’s Report here.4 It is a staggering quantity, contemplating the 12- to 17-year-olds have solely been eligible for the shot since Could 2021, and 5- to 11-year-olds since October 2021.5

Pfizer Withdraws EUA Utility for Kids Beneath 5

Apparently, February 11, 2022, Pfizer abruptly withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) utility for youngsters beneath 5.6,7 The query is why? In keeping with the U.S. Meals and Drug Administration and Pfizer, they need to accumulate extra information on the results of a 3rd dose, as two doses didn’t produce anticipated immunity in 2- to 5-year-olds.8

Three days later, former FDA Commissioner and present Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb instructed CNBC9 the EUA utility was pulled as a result of COVID circumstances are so low amongst younger kids that the shot couldn’t be proven to offer a lot of a profit.

However in accordance in an electronic mail discover to subscribers, OpenVAERS acknowledged, “None of those explanations suffice as a result of all of that info was identified previous to Pfizer submitting this EUA to the FDA on February 1 [2022]. It makes one ponder whether hostile occasions within the therapy group could be the issue that neither Pfizer nor the FDA need to speak about?”

These Who Ought to Be within the Know Don’t Know a Factor

In associated information, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a analysis fellow on the Institute for Pure and Utilized Data in Israel, highlighted a February 5, 2022, Freedom of Data Request despatched to the Therapeutic Items Administration (TGA), the Australian equal of the FDA.10 The inquiry requested for paperwork regarding the TGA’s evaluation of:

  • The presence and danger of micro-RNA sequences inside the Comirnaty mRNA lively ingredient (the mRNA genomic sequence)
  • The presence and danger of oncomirs (cancer-causing micro-RNA) in Comirnaty
  • The presence and danger of cease codon read-through (suppression of codon exercise) arising because of using pseudouridine in Comirnaty
  • The composition of the ultimate protein product (molecular weight and amino acid sequence) produced following injection of the Comirnaty mRNA product in human topics
  • The danger of using AES-mtRNR1 3’ untranslated area of the Comirnaty mRNA product in human topics

Because it seems, the TGA has none of those paperwork, as a result of they’ve not assessed any of those dangers. Why does this matter? Effectively, as defined by Rose:

“Micro-RNA (miRNAs) are small (20-22 nucleotides) single-stranded non-coding RNA molecules that operate to interrupt or suppress gene expression at transcriptional or translational ranges to control gene expression.”

Contemplating micro-RNA can alter gene expression, wouldn’t we need to know if micro-RNAs are current within the shot, contemplating we’re injecting tons of of thousands and thousands of individuals, together with youngsters and kids? The identical goes for oncomirs, the suppression of codon exercise, protein merchandise and the remaining.

“Stephanie Seneff has warned11 of two miRNAs that disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, together with immune cells: miR-148a and miR-590,” Rose continues.

“I don’t know what potential connections there are right here but, however it’s secure to say that any tech that entails the introduction of overseas mRNA to be mass-produced by human cells should be totally security examined.

The truth that none of those paperwork ‘exist’ is proof constructive that they both do not know what the potential results of what they made are as a result of they did no bench work/investigations/research, or, that they know and are hiding the outcomes. Both alternative is past legal.”

The Vital Design Flaw

In an August 2021 Substack article,12 British cybersecurity researcher Ehden Biber homed in on the potential dangers of utilizing pseudouridine to optimize the codon.

The COVID photographs don’t comprise the similar mRNA discovered within the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The mRNA has been genetically manipulated in a course of known as “codon optimization,” and this course of is definitely identified to create surprising and detrimental uncomfortable side effects.

“How come Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen and so forth. are utilizing a expertise that each they and the regulators know will trigger unknown outcomes?” Biber requested. The explanation codon optimization was used is as a result of it’s fairly troublesome to get your physique to supply a given protein by injecting mRNA.

It’s a gradual and usually inefficient course of. To ensure that the injection to work, they want greater ranges of protein expression than is of course doable. Scientists bypass this downside by making substitutions within the genetic directions. They’ve found that you could swap out sure nucleotides (three nucleotides make up a codon) and nonetheless find yourself with the identical protein ultimately. However the elevated effectivity comes at a horrible price.

When substituting components of the code on this manner, the ensuing protein can simply get misfolded, and this has been linked to quite a lot of persistent ailments,13 together with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s illness and coronary heart failure.14 As defined by Biber:15

“Seems the protein which was manufactured when codon optimization has other ways it folds and a distinct 3D form, and it ‘may trigger immunogenicity, for instance, which wouldn’t be seen till late-stage medical trials and even after approval.’ This assertion pertains to the NORMAL approval cycle. The COVID vaccines went by way of an accelerated one.”

Now, the FDA has been totally conscious of those issues since 2011, when Chava Kimchi Sarfaty, Ph.D., a principal investigator on the FDA, acknowledged that “We don’t imagine that you could optimize codons and have the protein behave because it did in its native type.”

She went on to warn, “The modified type may trigger immunogenicity, for instance, which wouldn’t be seen till late-stage medical trials and even after approval.”16

If the FDA knew all this again in 2011, why have they not raised objections towards codon optimization getting used within the making of the COVID jabs? The identical query must be requested of the Australian TGA.

The FOIA requester was possible considering of the March 2021 paper, “BNT162b2 Vaccine: Potential Codons Misreading, Errors in Protein Synthesis and Various Splicing Anomalies”17 after they put collectively that inquiry, as a result of that paper highlights Pfizer’s in depth codon optimization utilizing pseudouridine, which has identified hostile results, in addition to using 3’-UTR sequence, the implications of that are nonetheless unknown.

The truth that the TGA has no information on the dangers of those modifications simply goes to indicate that they, just like the U.S. FDA, aren’t really working to make sure these jabs are secure. They’re defending the earnings of the drug firms.

Pfizer even admits, in its BNT162b2/Comirnaty Threat Administration Plan submitted to the FDA to get EUA, that the codon optimization they did resulted in elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT),18 which is an early marker of coronary heart failure. Elevated GGT can also be an indicator of insulin resistance, cardiometabolic illness,19 liver illness20 and persistent kidney illness.21

That alone ought to have raised some questions, have been the FDA really looking for public well being. All in all, there’s extra purpose than ever to query the COVID jab mandates and using these photographs in kids.