A survey by the most cited epidemiologist alive is not a forecast for one. It is the best appeal to authority one can make. I've seen it shown that h1n1 in england in 2009 had a IFR of 0.05% which is greater than the revised figure for covid.
Amazing how all the proof in the world makes such little difference to the average Luddite who will just defer to authority regardless. Stanley Milgram was clearly right about everything he said.
VAERS includes thousands of reports of death including broad anaphylaxis following their vaccination for CV. So what are you saying? Those lives are an acceptable cost for the convenience of skipping failsafes?
You're essentially giving full confidence to an industry - so why stop at covid? Shouldn't you prophylactically vaccinate yourself against all the viruses on earth?
The risk: benefit analysis that supports vaccination is considering the earliest standards of care we had which were criminally misguided - no steroids allowed, plug patient respiration up with a machine to not spread the virus ,
These protocols are what killed people mostly and ultimately they are what is being used to justify universal recommendations for a vaccine.
Did their stances actually contribute to public health policy, if so then they bare responsibility unfortunately. Armchair biosecurity advocates should be left off the hook.
But wait 15 minutes to see if your child gets anaphylaxis from them. We could have tested for allergy before giving the vaccine but its more convenient to have you wait around after.
Don't worry if you experience allergic shock we have epinephrine on standby. It might not work and its use is associated with Alzheimer's onset but don't worry! Safe and effective!
Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science
"Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, quotes an infection fatality rate (IFR) for Covid of 0.00-0.57% (0.05% for under 70s), far lower than originally feared and no different to severe flu" -March 2020
Pfizer's clinical trial showed 95% efficacy as a "relative risk reduction" when researchers checked the clinical trial data (which FDA wanted to withhold for 55 years but a Texas judge ordered its release) , for the actual risk reduction it was shown to be a negative value. Here is one resource on the subject https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reductio... I tried to find a better reference but can not find the exact one I'm looking for which came from a Canadian university (ryerson I believe)
And young male athletes with the greatest development of blood supply in the deltoid represent the most common demographic affected by acute cardiovascular injury post vaccine. Coincidence?
The vaccines were not built to be aspirated, once the plunger is up they can not be reset. It represents a fundamental lapse in standard harm reduction.
Also "wait 15 mins to see if emergency care is needed" could well have been replaced by allergy screening given before the injection. Many thousands of cases of anaphylaxis from the shot have been documented some of which were fatal, all avoidable with allergy screening which is practically free.