Universal vaccination vs targeted vaccination – PANDA’s Nick Hudson

by

Universal vaccination – an objective never pushed for prior to the Covid-19 pandemic era – is now fiercely being pursued by the implementation of mandatory vaccination policies and vaccine passports. Mass vaccination programs, which have ubiquitously been underway across the globe since the beginning of 2021, have now reached South Africa – with vaccinations opening to all those aged 18 and older on 20 August. Putting aside any and all questions of vaccine efficacy and safety, the objective of mandatory or universal vaccination necessarily entails coercion. In this article by Nick Hudson of PANDA, it is put forth that ‘coercion has no place in medicine or public health, violating the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Principles, both put in place to avoid situations like this.’ Hudson looks at the fervent pursuit of universal vaccination, arguing that ‘instead of pursuing a maximal approach to vaccination, we should pursue a targeted one. We should offer the vaccine to the 10 or 20% of the population who are in the vulnerable minority and who have not recovered from Covid, and desist from coercing anyone to submit to one.’ – Nadya Swart

Welcome to Clown World: Part 2 — Vaccine zealots

By Nick Hudson, PANDA

Over the last year and a half, the gamut of public health officialdom has brought us a false narrative of lockdowns and mask efficacy; universal susceptibility; droplet and fomite transmission as dominant; test-and-trace, curfew and border closure efficacy; asymptomatic transmission as driver of the epidemic; PCR testing as diagnostic of Covid infectiousness; healthy people as ‘cases’ of a disease; the lack of disease-mitigating treatments and prophylaxis; deadly reinfections; and repeated denial of the highly focused nature of risk. These were all lies, and deadly ones at that.

Purposeful fear-mongering has fed the maintenance of wholly ineffective to harmful measures that cause extensive collateral damage. More than a hundred million people have been cast into abject poverty by the response, not by the disease. This has cost the lives of many citizens and will cut short a great many more in years to come. That is now a certainty, occuring by way of worse Covid mortality, economy-mediated health consequences and denial of essential public services. The Covid policy response will go down in history as the worst set of public health policies ever pursued.

Yet our conflicted public health officials continue in this vein, spurred on by a fawning media that has forsaken its role as a check on government malfeasance and overreach, and responsive to the preferences of large corporations and high-net-worth individuals over the dictates of established public health principles of care and response. This is now manifested in the form of universal vaccination and its attendant unprecedented policy of vaccine passports, mirroring the social control and enforced divisions of past and present totalitarian regimes.

From the start, PANDA has maintained that vaccination should be approached from the same risk-benefit perspective that forms the basis of all good public health policies and animates our other perspectives on the pandemic.

Yet everywhere we hear that 60% or 80% of the population must be vaccinated. Or ‘all’, from Bill Gates and the Zero Covid club. This is anti-scientific nonsense of a most extreme sort:

  • As PANDA’s Marc Girardot explained, in a copiously referenced article that has been widely praised the world over, vaccination is contraindicated in recovered people.
  • On a risk-benefit basis, children and healthy young people face more hazard getting vaccinated than they do from contracting a disease that presents them with negligible risk.
  • To the extent that the vaccines are effective, they reduce disease severity and the probability of death in people vulnerable to severe disease, but they do not generate the “sterilising immunity” that would stop transmission. By their very mechanisms of action, they should never have been represented as likely to do so. Because of this, a vaccinated person does not contribute to “herd immunity” to the extent that a recovered person does. Vaccinated people can and do continue to transmit the virus to others, possibly at somewhat lower rates.

The zealous pursuit of a needle in every arm is motivated by a cocktail of corporate interests, a cult-like belief that any vaccine is an unalloyed good, a neo-colonialist top-down approach to global health, a widespread ideology of centralism and surveillance technocracy, and misperception of risk as a result of deliberate misinformation by governments globally.

Followers of supplicant mainstream media will have missed a few facts:

  • These Covid vaccines have given rise to an unprecedented level of adverse event reports. The US VAERS (vaccine adverse events reporting system) is designed as a signalling system, not as an exhaustive counting mechanism. It now contains more reports of Covid vaccine events than recorded in thirty years for all other vaccines collectively. The European EudraVigilance and UK Yellow Card systems show similar trends. These data present a strong signal of concern.

  • A single source of risk—myocarditis—is sufficient to tilt the risk-benefit equation away from vaccination for healthy young people.
  • Though it was originally thought that the mRNA vaccine contents would remain sequestered in the deltoid muscle, this seems to be incorrect. In animal studies required of manufacturers, particles have been found to move into every organ of the body including the brain and the ovaries.
  • There is concern that the spike proteins that the mRNA vaccines cause the human body to produce are binding with organs rich in ACE2 receptors, including the endometrium and the testes. Combined with a slew of reports about menstrual irregularities, including resumption of menses in postmenstrual women, many physicians have sounded the alarm about potential infertility. None of the manufacturers’ trials covered pregnant women, and none lasted for the nine months or more required to investigate this concern. Authorities who normally require biotoxicity studies covering fertility issues for gene therapies gave the mRNA vaccines a free pass by not categorising them in an entirely new therapeutic category, which, given their mechanism of changing cell function to produce a non-host substance, they should have done.
  • Suppression of the immune system for twelve days after the initial dose and eight days after the second has been demonstrated (see footnotes below this article for sources supporting this assertion). Many people fall ill with severe Covid immediately after vaccination, in all likelihood because of this temporary immune suppression, yet none of these are being recorded as vaccine adverse events. Public health messaging on this has been non-existent, no doubt resulting in many unnecessary deaths. All over the world we see resurgences of Covid deaths associated with the inception of mass vaccination strategies. It is unclear whether these are predominantly due to Covid, perhaps enhanced by temporary immune suppression, or direct vaccine side-effects. The association and presence of plausible mechanisms would normally demand an urgent pause and review.
  • In a move that regulators should never have permitted, all vaccine manufacturers excluded Covid cases from their trials within 14 (in some cases 7 or 21) days of a dose, even though this resulted in an obvious bias to the removal of more susceptible participants from the vaccination arms of the trials, and excluded any severe disease or deaths caused by vaccine-related immune suppression. By removing these individuals from the vaccine group, this bias caused efficacy to be overstated. Manufacturers have refused to furnish data on this, despite demands in reputable journals that they should do so. It is not unreasonable to be concerned that the data might conceal facts that do not support the stated vaccine efficacy.

Coercion has no place in medicine or public health, violating the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Principles, both put in place to avoid situations like this. Yet a thinly-veiled programme of mandating has propagated all over the world, as governments offer inducements, lie about safety, press corporations into requiring vaccines and inhibit rights based on vaccine status. This is wrong.

PANDA’s journey into analysing the Covid response started with the simple observation that governments everywhere were failing to conduct cost-benefit analyses before implementing lockdowns. This turns out not to have been entirely correct, because freedom of information applications have revealed that some governments did conduct such analyses, but buried the adverse findings. By continuing to lie about the risks of vaccination and acting to conceal adverse events, governments are now going a step further, and making it difficult for anyone else to conduct an age-based risk-benefit analysis for the vaccines.

PANDA has pointed out the extreme misallocation of healthcare resources that Covid myopia is leading to, in particular in low-income countries. Far graver health problems are going unaddressed, and existing programmes addressing far larger disease burdens have been neglected.

In light of all of this, PANDA maintains its voluntary focused protection stance. Instead of pursuing a maximal approach to vaccination, we should pursue a targeted one.

We should offer the vaccine to the 10 or 20% of the population who are in the vulnerable minority and who have not recovered from Covid, and desist from coercing anyone to submit to one. If the vaccines are even moderately effective, this would reduce Covid mortality to modest levels, while minimising potential harm through adverse events and through diversion of resources. This is standard good public health practice, and the way vaccines are designed to be used—targeted to gain maximal impact on the vulnerable within a wider health context. We should offer people options based on sound, established immunological and public health principles on vaccine use and deployment, and move on from this shameful mania.

Within minutes of this article hitting the wires, there will be allegations that PANDA is “anti-vaxx” or “vaccine hesitant”. This should be seen as part of the constant programme of misinformation and propaganda that has been at the heart of this hysteria. It should also be ignored, but for the extent to which it reveals crazed dogmatism and Covid-myopia on behalf of the utterers. PANDA is pro-science, pro-public health, and pro-common sense.

Footnotes:

  1. Pfizer, Inc. , on behalf of Pfizer and BioNTech. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum. (2020).
  2. Hunter, P. R. & Brainard, J. Estimating the effectiveness of the Pfizer COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine after a single dose. A reanalysis of a study of ‘real-world’ vaccination outcomes from Israel. bioRxiv (2021) doi:10.1101/2021.02.01.21250957
  3. Moustsen-Helms, I. R. et al. Vaccine effectiveness after 1st and 2nd dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in long-term care facility residents and healthcare workers – a Danish cohort study. bioRxiv (2021) doi:10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200.
  4. Lopez Bernal, J. et al. Early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in England. bioRxiv (2021) doi:10.1101/2021.03.01.21252652.
  5. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab608/6314286
  6. Dvir Aran’s twitter. https://twitter.com/dvir_a/status/1363760980736565252?s=20 (2021).
  7. Furer, V. et al. Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology (2021) doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab345.
  8. Shingles surveillance, trends, deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html (2021).

Read Also:

Visited 9,636 times, 3 visit(s) today

BizNews