[FRIAM] The case for and the case against Covid vaccinations

Wed Jun 16 06:15:51 EDT 2021

Just a disclaimer - this is about Covid vaccines and not vaccinations in
general. Vaccinations against viral infections are absolutely great and
have saved many lives the last half-century or so. And in addition to the
conventional vaccination technology, the mRNA vaccination technology can
make significant further progress against viral infections in that it might
be possible in future to roll vaccines out very soon after a harmful virus
is first detected. I personally am very excited about the potential
benefits of mRNA technology.

There are exceptions though, and there are voices arguing that the Covid
vaccines (all of them) could have serious potential long term health risks.
Especially worrisome for girls and women planning to have kids in future
because some of the risks are specifically associated with ovaries. In this
post I present such a case.

Covid is a nasty virus, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope. After
Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed in May 2020, the private
partners responded well with the gift of billions of dollars to develop
vaccines against Covid and they did what they are supposed to do - making
money for their shareholders. Under Biden the initial roll-out of the
vaccine was a bit wobbly, but after a while it got going and the US is now
well under way to get vaccinated and just maybe Covid will, if not
eradicated at least manageable. There were mixed experiences in other
countries, for example it's understandable that with all their bureaucracy
Europe initially fumbled a bit and under Boris Johnson the UK quickly got
their act together and the vaccination roll-out happened relatively fast
there. It hurts me to talk about South Africa.

So, it's a no-brainer that we should all just get vaccinated because that's
the way to win this battle against Covid. But it seems like some humans are
just plain upstream and difficult and there are many conspiracy theories
with outlandish messages that the vaccines are for some or other reason
evil. Fortunately governments of the world are working with Big Tech to
sensor all these false narratives. If someone posts something on social
media that is conducive to people not taking the vaccine, surely it's in
society's interest to censor those messages? This is after all the natural
way things are supposed to work, like the Catholic church who owned the
truth acted against Galileo Galilei. It's just that in that case Galilei
happened to get it right, but today's scientists obviously own the truth,
it's science after all, so it's perfectly honourable to censor false
narrative today. Right?

I, for one, don't buy it that the narratives that go against the scientific
consensu should be censored. The problem with that is it creates a culture
of groupthink; those voices that are against the narratives get to be
silenced. We humans have evolved a trait where hormones are secreted when
we think people like us, we then feel good, and vice versa ; so if you say
something that you think people will  like, you tend to feel good. Welcome
to the world of Dale Carnegie, How To Make Friends and Influence People.
IMO we must recognize this human trait and support structures where the
voices of contrarians are both welcomed and listened to.

Okay, let's get back to Covid. I think there is a valid case to be made
against vaccination and it should be given a fair hearing. I want now to
first make a case for and then a case against Covid vaccinations.

*The Case For Covid Vaccination*

To make the case for Covid Vaccinations is really simple and I can't
believe that there are people so stupid that they don't get it, just study
the evidence. Where Covid vaccines have been rolled out, the new Covid
cases and especially the Covid deaths have dropped significantly. Sure,
there are rare cases of serious side effects, but in total the statistics
on the results are very clear; Covid vaccines are very effective and the
risks are very small. I really don't think it's required to give
references, just google it for yourself and you'll find tons of published
references. It's a slam dunk case.
Sure there are wankers distributing conspiracy theories against the
vaccines, but they have been debunked so thoroughly that any reasonable
person must reject them.

We just have one potential problem, enough people must be vaccinated for
Covid to be eradicated and it seems like there are just too many conspiracy
theories going around. Fortunately the governments of the world seem to
have their act together and are working with big tech to censor those
conspiracy theories and it seems to work. Let's all work together on this
one, if you find someone going against the narrative, just cancel him
(surely it can't be a "her"). It's in society's best interest, not?

*The Case Against Covid Vaccination*

Einstein apparently said one must make everything as simple as possible but
not too simple. Maybe the case for Covid vaccines are too simple and if you
delve a bit deeper there might be a good case against vaccines? I think so
and will present that case here. I will go deeper into it, but in summary
it goes as follows:
* Covid is a nasty virus, but so is the Covid vaccine protein.
* There are nasty side effects to the Covid vaccine. Because the nasty
spiked vaccine protein does not, like most other vaccines, stay in the
upper arm area where it is applied, it goes to the rest of the body and
especially alarming to the ovaries of woman and bone marrow, with potential
serious long term risks involved
* There are safe and drugs available that are as good in preventing Covid
infections than vaccination, but important, without the long term health
risks.
* Humans are only human. When it's in the interest of a group of humans,
they will, on average, be biased towards those actions that benefit
themselves. With all the tax-payers money around and the possibility to get
research grants working on expensive medical solutions, it benefits those
in the medical research sectors to favor expensive solutions over cheap
ones. For Big Pharma, it goes without saying, they will obviously move the
world to get taxpayers money to develop expensive drugs. For politicians,
they get to be the heroes in the minds of voters if they sponsored
effective solutions and obviously to get financial (all above board of
course) campaign and other support from big pharma does not hurt either.

I'm not saying those involved in promoting expensive solutions are evil or
crooked, they probably are all good people, but I think we must all
recognize that the system is such that there are ample opportunities for
the outcome not to be 100% aligned with the interest of the normal people.

All this is dependent on two crucial questions:
Is it valid to say there are long term health risks in taking the vaccines?
Is it valid to say that there are cheap alternatives to vaccines that are
as effective as vaccines without the risks?
If any of these questions is false, the argument against Covid vaccinations
fall flat.

Let me address these two questions
1 Are there long term health risks associated with Covid vaccines?
Please note this argument is only valid for Covid vaccines, not for
vaccines against viral infections in general
In an interview in a podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY,
from 2:22 to 2:28 ) dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccination
technology and a current vaccination consultant, there are reasons to be
concerned about the long term risks to especially the ovaries of human and
bone marrow of everyone.

Maybe you're not concerned, but if the inventor of mRNA technology (
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/ ) and whose current bread is to a reasonable
amount buttered by consulting on vaccination technology warns against Covid
vaccines, it certainly makes me worried. His current advice goes headlong
against his financial and career interests. He recommends against Covid
vaccination because of potential long term health benefits and because
there are lower-risk alternatives with similar benefits available.

2  Are there cheap alternatives to vaccines that are as effective as
vaccines without the risks?
a) It is reported in
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/is-ivermectin-the-new-penicillin/article_b6b7afd8-bd77-11eb-8259-af11e3c83aea.html
that
"Cases in Delhi, where Ivermectin was begun on April 20, dropped from
28,395 to just 2,260 on May 22. This represents an astounding 92% drop.
Likewise, cases in Uttar Pradesh have dropped from 37,944 on April 24 to
5,964 on May 22 - a decline of 84%.
b) The second argument that I present is indirect evidence.
The businessman Steve Kirsch has researched the space and is convinced that
both NIH and WHO are wrong about not recommending cheap alternative
remedies. Now, I hear you laugh, it's just ridiculous to take a lay
person's word against science. The clincher is -  he is offering $2m of his
own money to be proven wrong on this. Why is his $2m not claimed? Does this
say something?  I quote from his website (
https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-prove-that-the-nih-and-who-got-their-treatment-guidelines-right-you-could-win-2m
):

*"This is the second in a series of articles arguing that obeisance to
constrictive evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatment protocols in a
pandemic is causing an unnecessary loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.*

*In my previous article, I showed that the current NIH and WHO treatment
guidelines for fluvoxamine and ivermectin don’t fit the evidence at all. A
FOR recommendation for both these drugs is a near-perfect fit to all the
data.In this article, I will make it clear to everyone that their
recommendations are so indefensible that no qualifying enabler (see list
below) will be able to come forward to support these recommendations even
if I offer a million dollar incentive for them to do so.Any drug protocol
used for treating COVID early must fall into one of three
categories:helpful,neutral,or harmful.I claim that there has been abundant
evidence on the table for at least the past 7 months, all in plain sight,
that both fluvoxamine and ivermectin when given early at an effective dose
are helpful because a HELPFUL hypothesis is a near perfect fit to all the
evidence and that the other two alternatives, neutral or harmful, don’t fit
the evidence at all.To win the $1M prize, all you have to do is to provide
a convincing argument that the NIH or WHO NEUTRAL and AGAINST
recommendations on fluvoxamine or ivermectin (existing on May 21, 2021 when
I am making this offer) are:more likely to fit the evidence than
recommendations FOR these drugs, ormore likely to save more lives than
recommending FOR these drugs.Either method of proof is fine: fit the facts
or superior cost-benefit. You have two completely independent ways to win
each prize. What could be easier?"*

Maybe for you it does not have much weight, but for me if a person feels so
strongly about something that he offers two $1m prices to provide
convincing evidence to prove him wrong, and the money is not claimed, it
does say something very loud and clear. Especially in the light of humans
being humans and it's in the relevant Covid vaccine role players' interest
to ignore cheap remedies.

The end
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210616/4c1397b2/attachment.html>