Anti-fear messaging is important to clinicians like me who attempt to help patients put risks in perspective. As a doctor who has both studied outbreaks and also the impact they have had on the human psyche, I feel it is important to provide context at all times.
Do you now? Well then where's the context of these shots and reports in VAERS compared with the seasonal flu vaccine, which I remind you distributed 170 million doses last flu season?
On that data the Covid shots are one hundred times more likely to be associated with death than the flu shot was over a reasonably-comparable number of delivered doses, and like the flu shot, Covid shots were and are preferentially advised for older, more-morbid people.
Association is not proof of causation. But it is certainly a safety signal and claiming it is not is a lie.
The CDC's death data also backs this up. In addition it makes quite clear that the elevation in stroke and heart attack risk from Covid-19 is very real. This is especially nasty because strokes and heart attacks kill a lot of people in any ordinary year; indeed, they are two of the leading causes of death, taking about 750,000 lives between them and putting another million or more into the ranks of the permanently disabled. The roughly 8% elevation of that risk over 2020 compared to 2019 is very serious.
Emerging science says that the spike protein alone is likely pathogenic and causes those events. Indeed that specific pathogenic behavior is likely why Covid-19 kills virtually everyone who succumbs. We did not know that in March and April of 2020; we simply took the spike configuration offered from the Chinese and presumed that without the "N" component of the virus it was harmless in the body. We had exactly zero evidence for that belief. The science is now emerging, which I remind you always takes time, that this was ruinously wrong; the spike alone causes coagulation disorders and obviously, in the blood vessels, that can lead directly to strokes and heart attacks along with severe organ damage leading directly to death.
We presume that the shots will stop the Covid-19 "infection" deaths and perhaps they will. But dead is dead and why does not matter; if they stop Covid-19 deaths but potentiate strokes and heart attacks they may well kill more people over a few years than Covid-19 ever did while natural infection deaths may have already pretty much run their course!
We do not know at the present time but the signal in the data indicating trouble is there and is very significant.
This issue is not just in the J&J and AZ shots; it is also showing up in the mRNA shots. So says VAERS, not me; go look it up. The death elevation risk from heart attacks and strokes is likely to large degree due to serious infections with Covid-19 that become systemic and ultimately fatal. But deliberately causing a pathogenic part of the virus to be produced by cells involved in the circulation, if indeed the spike protein alone is pathogenic as the science is now demonstrating, is criminally stupid for someone who is not already at high risk.
All of the current vaccines do this.
In addition people love to mix relative and absolute risk to deceive people on a regular basis and in every case doing so is a fraud. This was repeatedly done in "selling" the vaccines to the public. You must compare like with like or you're lying. For example if the risk of death if you do not get the vaccine is 1/50 (2%) and the risk if you DO get the vaccine is 1/500 (0.2%) then while it is true that your risk of dying has been cut by 90% you only had a 2% risk of dying if infected in the first place. That is, you were going to survive 98% of the time; now you will survive 99.8%. That sounds like a fabulous improvement except if only 10% of the people got the infection in a year with no vaccine to start with then your base survival rate was not 98% since that presumes you got infected -- it was in fact 99.8% like you would survive the year without dying from Covid to start with! That is there's only an 0.2% risk of death that can possibly be improved upon! Thus you must now rate the risk of the vaccine doing evil things to you against the 2/1,000 chance of death, not 2/100 since if you get stabbed that risk is certain where infection is not.
But for those who are not morbid isn't 2/100 -- in fact the absolute risk if you are infected and not particularly morbid is, by the CDC, 1/50,000. This is confirmed by the NY Coroner data, which when back-computed winds up in approximately the same place; for statistical purposes they are the same, and that is good because independent confirmation from actual "boots on the ground" in confirmation of a theoretical framework provides assurance that the "best guess" is likely close to reality. Thus I am quite comfortable with that number.
The CDC also says that about 10% of the population (~33 million, approximately) people got Covid-19 in that they "tested positive" for it. I do not believe that number because it is based on PCR testing with extremely high Ct values and we know that results in lots of false positives. But assuming it is correct this means that the actual risk across one year is not 1/50,000 it is 1/500,000 since you're only 10% likely to have gotten the infection. Again, this is by the CDC data, not my data. Note that if 2/3rds of those "positives" are false then the risk of death for a non-morbid person over a year would be approximately 1/1,250,000. These are vanishingly small odds.
The CDC and so-called "experts" are all started out saying that the blood clot risk was 1-in-1,000,000. Well, that appears to have been blatantly false too as the data on the mRNA shots says it's far more-likely than that and that it is not confined to the J&J vaccine. As more data comes in it appears that risk is more like 1 in 100,000-250,000.
That's a huge change and until it stabilizes, which will take several more months, I have no confidence in any of these figures whatsoever.
I remind you that the difference between the jab and infection is that the risk from the jab is assured if you take it while the risk from infection it only occurs if you get the virus, which by the CDC again was 10% over the first year and will fall each year thereafter with successive reductions in those who are not immune either by vaccination or infection.
Further, most of the deaths from clotting disorders caused by the shots are almost-certainly not going to be considered "possibly vaccine related"; a heart attack that results from thrombosis is not unusual and determining that the vaccine caused it with medical certainty may be impossible. But we can certainly see an increase in heart attacks as a whole exactly as we did last year, nearly all of which are in fact caused by stenosis, that is, narrowing or blocking of the blood flow to the heart.
If that risk does not return to materially below the 2019 baseline when the data settles out through April we will have a screaming safety signal but there will be nothing we can do about it for those who already took the jab. Why below? Because many of those who had existing coronary artery disease had it potentiated by Covid-19 and are now dead; you can only die once. Therefore that excess death should not only go away there should be a material dip below the previous rate until a new crop of people with coronary artery disease "mature" in their condition to take the former dead peoples' place. The bad news is that we likely will not have a reasonably complete data set on the first quarter until sometime toward the end of June although I'll bet I have a decent if incomplete read on it by Memorial Day.
For people who are at materially elevated risk from Covid-19, especially if they're at serious risk of heart attack, stroke or are diabetic the determination of whether the shot is a "good bargain" gets much more complicated because we don't know if that elevation of risk also makes the bad reaction from the shot more-likely. It might. It also might not and be related only to natural infection. But what is clear, even on the admitted data that Siegel cites, is that for someone not at particular risk the shot is more dangerous than the disease itself when adjusted for your risk of getting Covid over a year's time, and given that it is expected you need to take the shot again every year this will not be a "one time" risk either. There is exactly zero evidence on whether if you get no bad reaction the first time that means the shot is safe for you or whether each jab is a new, unrelated trial on a body of one.
The bottom line is that you have to be crazy to accept a "therapy", no matter what it is, that is equally or more-dangerous as what it allegedly protects against. Indeed the entire premise of vaccines is that they are much safer than getting the disease. Let's compare with a common one that is also relatively new: Chicken Pox (varicella.) Virtually every kid gets that stab nowadays.
Chicken pox kills about as many kids (IFR), on a risk basis, as does Covid-19. Yet last year the Chicken Pox (Varicella) vaccine was associated with (not proved caused) ONE death and we stabbed about 4 million kids with it. That is wildly (by a factor of about 100) less-dangerous than Chicken Pox is in a child and 2,500 times less dangerous than Chicken Pox is in an adult.
This is an example of a very safe vaccine against which there is little or no argument available on the data. I will take a vaccine that reduces my risk of death or serious disease by a factor of 100 compared with the risk of infection adjusted for its risk of being contracted every day and twice on Sunday. Indeed that's why both myself and my daughter have had accepted all of those common vaccines.
This is definitely not the case for any of the Covdi-19 vaccines when it comes to healthy persons; at best the vaccine is equally dangerous and it might be much more dangerous than natural infection since we have no data on intermediate and longer-term risk at all and it appears the clot risk is much higher than originally stated. In fact on the evidence everyone involved lied about how "rare" these events really are.
These Covid-19 vaccines -- all of them -- must have their EUA's immediately modified by the FDA so as to prohibit their use in healthy persons as on the data admitted by people such as Siegel they are at least as dangerous as natural infection and on a risk-adjusted basis appear to be more dangerous, by a wide margin and perhaps as much as 10x so for non-morbid people.
To not do so right now, today, until further data is developed to fully understand said risks and scientifically prove they are much lower than the risk of natural infection in a non-morbid person is criminally insane.