I trust science when it wants to falsify hypotheses, not when it wants to declare them true.
That’s been the drama of this whole Covid-19 pandemic-related thing: expecting the truth from science and asking it for ethical directions accordingly.
A well-educated scientific mind will not focus on demonstrating that a serum is a universal panacea, but will struggle to understand when it does not work, then why. This is why there are processes and protocols before marketing a product, especially a medical care related one: this is why it is anti-scientific, and against any known ethics, to want to promote, or, worse, to impose, on a large scale, products which mechanisms are not fully understood, yet.
There is a very interesting article submitted for peer-review on the Lancet, dated October the 25th, 2021, accessible and downloadable here, approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (number 495/2021), and written by Peter Nordström, Marcel Ballin, and Anna Nordström of the University of Umea, Sweden. The final recommendation of the article is perfectly aligned on the present politically correct discourse on that matter, i.e. the need to provide a third jab as soon as possible to the population.
What makes this paper extremely interesting is the data it provides very candidly: basically, nine months of statistics of two otherwise similar populations, apart from the fact of having been vaccinated or not.
Let us have a look at this first graph showing the effectiveness in % of the vaccine in front of symptomatic Covid-19 infection. Surprise: not only does the effectiveness of the vaccine start to decrease dramatically after only 90 days, but it becomes NEGATIVE roughly six months after “vaccination”. In other words, compared to a population of unvaccinated people, the vaccinated one can have till 15-40% more chance to contract the sickness!
The second graph shows the effectiveness in % of the vaccine in front of severe Covid-19 infection: we could indeed hope that, though the general effectiveness of getting symptomatic Covid decreases fast, nonetheless, the severity of the cases could still span on a longer period which is roughly true for the first five months, but might also become strongly negative beyond, i.e. that someone who has been vaccinated, beyond six months can even have 80% more chances than an unvaccinated to get something very severe at the ninth month!
Let us see what is the medical definition of Abstinence syndrome: “a constellation of physiologic changes undergone by people or animals who have become physically dependent on a drug or chemical who are abruptly deprived of that substance. The intensity of the syndrome varies with the drug or chemical. Generally, the effects observed are in an opposite direction from those produced by the drug; for example, the withdrawal syndrome from CNS depressants (for example, barbiturates) consists of insomnia, restlessness, tremulousness, hallucinations, and, in the extreme, potentially fatal tonic-clonic convulsions. Onset time and severity of the syndrome depend on the rate at which the drug disappears from the body.“
What these two graphs show, is that after 6 to 9 months if a person, who has already been inoculated, does not get the third jab, he or she has more chances than never-vaccinated people to get symptomatic Covid-19 and even to get a very severe infection: this is precisely what an Abstinence Syndrom is. What is shocking, it is to recommend new inoculations instead of asking for prudence, limiting the jabs only to very specific categories of patients.
Returning to our analysis about the Card Ejick conference (here) and about Feser’s standpoint (here), we can be even more forceful in our denunciation of the immorality of the use of a drug not well tested beforehand and that forces a certain form of dependence ending up with results that are even worse than if one had never used it: a dependence that is no longer only physical, but, now, also social and financial because of the senseless will of the political power in our countries to enforce the taking of these experimental sera.
Moreover, we can now be even more precise in the evaluation of the worthiness of jabbing the whole population we did in the second part of our Card. Ejick’s conference’s analysis, having to consider a very specific 5 months of effectiveness before getting non-real advantages or even entering into the realm of abstinence syndrome.