Safetyism Kills
I argued in a previous post that the vaccine rollout was based on safetyism, not science. Safetyism led to the belief that everyone should get vaccinated, regardless of age or natural immunity. It led to the belief that booster shots are needed. And it led to the belief that people have to be strong-armed, rather than persuaded.
A vaccine rollout based on science would have prioritised the elderly and clinically vulnerable, while recognising that young healthy people, and those with natural immunity, didn’t need to get vaccinated.
It would have also recognised that far more lives could be saved by allocating vaccines to vulnerable people in poor countries than by allocating them to young healthy people in rich countries. Unfortunately, however, safetyism prevailed.
Rich countries ended up buying nearly all the vaccines, and then wasted millions of doses on people who didn’t need them. Not only that, but they did so by means of coercive passports and mandates, which undermine trust in the health system.
The vast majority of people affected by these passports and mandates did not need to be vaccinated, and many of them already had natural immunity.
The Government could have said: ‘We’ve bought enough vaccines for everyone who’s over 50 or clinically vulnerable. If you’re in one of those groups, we strongly recommend you get vaccinated. Otherwise, you’ll have to wait, since vulnerable people in poor countries need vaccines more than you.’ But apparently that was too difficult.
The scale of rich countries’ vaccine-hoarding is laid bare in a recent chart published by the Financial Times. It shows that rich countries have administered more booster doses in the last three months than poor countries have administered total doses since their rollouts began.
The FT’s chart was retweeted thousands of times on Twitter. Ironically, many of the people who retweeted it were probably in favour of vaccinating the young. Newsflash: when vaccine production is limited, allocating doses is a zero-sum game.
By 1st June, around 90% of over 50s in England had been fully vaccinated (I’m using the original definition of that term, i.e., ‘received two vaccine doses’). Millions more people in their 30s and 40s had received at least one dose.
Yet between then and now, we’ve given out another 40 million doses, the vast majority to people who are young and healthy, who have prior immunity, or who’ve already been fully vaccinated! And the same is true of most other large, rich countries.
If all these countries had donated their surplus vaccines, or simply not bought them in the first place, there would have been many more available for poor countries. As a result, tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. There’s a lesson here: safetyism kills.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Re the last paragraph. Initially doubts about vaccines were about whether they would work.
Evidence now points to them being positively dangerous or relatively so for young people so why would donating overstocks to the Third World necessarily be a good thing?
Perhaps he means it would be a good thing in terms of the depopulation agenda?
Or this is exactly the point.
Bilderberg 2012 document meets CRT.
BAME hesitancy and its acceptance also fits in then.
In a nutshell: deliberately killing off whites and Jews.
I am not saying I petsonally believe that (yet), but it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
But the elite are Jewish, so we are told. Why are they killing their own people?
Hmmm. Careful here. The ‘elite’ are not Jewish. Some of them – including some banking families – might be culturally Jewish but their Jewishness has nothing to do with their wealth or status.
We call many societies christian, muslim, jewish, hindi, bhuddist etc, even if the minority are practising. Yes, it is cultural. Do you know why so many old banking institutions are Jewish? Because Christians were not supposed to lend money. I believe in Islam it is not a thing either. “We” created it.
Moslems do borrow and lend money, they just do it in a different way.
Gates, Fauci, Vallance … are they Jewish? Huh?
Rothschild. I am not a conspiracy nut, so not sure what other names are always mentioned. Schwab’s wife is a Rothschild.
How would they have predicted BAME
hesitancyhostility?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8546144/
Evidence the jabs harm the immune system
Perhaps I could have said above “vaccines f*ck you up so don’t dump them on the Third World” but thought that might have been rude to Noah, the author so toned it down a bit.
I just thought it may be handy if someone mentioned it to back up the assertion that the jabs are dangerous
😂 😂 😂 😂
The vaccines are certainly not any more dangerous to young people than an infection is – that’s what the evidence says. They are useless for the young, but there are also some old people in the Third World – who could sensibly use them. That is what the author is pointing out.
Initial reports seem to indicate that vaccines are X2 likely to cause death or damage for the young than Covid itself but that’s just in the very short term and only those vaccine deaths that have been sort of acknowledged.
Travelling to the jab station to get vaxxed is probably less dangerous.
Not my downtick btw.
They still still kill and maim people young, old, rich,poor, black, white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. Buddhist whoever and whatever. 42,000 deaths in the Western Hemisphere with millions of adverse reactions and that’s vastly underestimated.
Agreed. The poorest countries have been the least hit by SARS-CoV-2 because life expectancy in most is years below the countries most hit. This is more concerning and was published last year by the WHO and the situation may only have become worse.
https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2020-who-and-unicef-warn-of-a-decline-in-vaccinations-during-covid-19
Safetyism is the new Socialism.
Yawn
I’ll raise you 13 ‘Likes’ over one ‘Yawn’.
So the DS publishes evidence that covid ‘vaccines’ might actually have a negative impact protecting against coronaviruses and evidence of the enormous collateral damage they create while at the same time complaining that the poor in the developing world aren’t getting enough jabs.
Strange. Very strange.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that the clinically vulnerable are still likely to receive a benefit from the shot.
Its the rollout across the entire population that is highly questionable.
We were initially told that they were to be provided for the vulnerable only, people who demanded to be vaxxed who were not ‘vulnerable’ were told to go away and accused of being selfish and greedy.
I’m not sure what that argument is based on other than it being repeated a lot.
Have these shots been proven to have a positive effect?
If they haven’t why would you give them to anyone?
Generally, you don’t test something on the most vulnerable, do you? I know Pfizer, Moderna and AZ agree with that, because they deliberately excluded old and vulnerable from their Phase 3 tests and used only healthy, fit individuals.
And the risk-reward argument is completely speculative. The risk of coronaviruses (and flu and pretty much everything) is bigger for the “vulnerable” but still far better than even odds. Medical punts are typically taken when there is literally nothing to lose and death is certain and imminent.
I fear that the “it makes sense for the vulnerable” line is what is said by those who don’t believe in the value of these new jabs but don’t want to come across as anti-vax or anti-science. Or maybe aren’t quite ready to accept that pharmaceutical companies are cesspools of evil.
These are the articles that expose DS for what it is – CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. Toby Young gets gigs on Newsnight. Its obviously controlled opposition. In the face of all the horrifying actions Bojo has taken – literally destroying the UK and committing genocide and acts of biological and psychological warfare against the British people, both of which are completely illegal – he still pens articles defending his genocidal amoral lying chum. Here we get all the lies about how the vaccines should have been given to the elderly (no mention of early treatment prophylaxis and safe and effective drugs though) and to the “poor people” in the Thrid World. In one of these interviews Anna De Buisseret confirms that the psychological warfare carried out by the British government on its own subjects is illegal and banned – EVEN IN WARTIME AGAINST FOREIGN ENEMIES!!!!! Anna De Buisseret: Every Lawyer I’ve Spoken To Says This Is Crimes Against Humanity https://www.bitchute.com/video/c49JAylNEMdX/ Anna De Buisseret Legal Cases Against Those Committing Crimes Against Humanity With the Jabs https://www.bitchute.com/video/74e6FFFwh4kR/ Maybe theyre not being sent to the Thrid World because this is a deliberate blatant war against the West. Here is a very intertesting analysis as to… Read more »
“As a result, tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.” Has Noah Carl any evidence that these injections save lives? The last time I looked whenever a country starts injecting its people, the death rate rapidly rises. As Luc Montagnier said, the curve of injection is always followed by the curve of death.
In the UK at least: no significant year-on-year excess mortality and age-mortality distribution for C19 is same as for all-cause. So even a 100% effective/0% side effect vaccine (as if …) cannot save lives. People would just die of something else.
That is the same for any medical intervention, a conversation I’ve had with many clinicians who agree but only ‘off the record’.
Medicine does not save life, it postpones death.
True, but this one does not even postpone death, because Covid19 does not advance death. There is nothing to “save”.
Well it does, it kills you shortly before the comorbidities that were going to kill you anyway.
ONS, 3rd week June 2020 London all cause deaths lower than 5 year average brought this out clearly and should have ended the bullshit there and then
Meanwhile in ERs everywhere… we get this germ theory as to now what’s going on…
https://khn.org/news/article/hospital-emergency-rooms-swamped-seriously-ill-non-covid-patients/
“Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks….”
No surely not?
Perhaps because the pro-vaxxer is a friend or relative that you care about?
I love my wife, it doesn’t stop me calling her an idiot when she does idiotic things.
Oh, Roger, this is true! My husband has relentlessly tried to wake his parents up, over and over. He’s sent them information and videos, tried to talk to them, argued with them, even pleaded with them to try and see the bigger picture…but they refuse. They blatantly wind him up, pretend not to be getting the jabs them get them (they proudly told him they’ve had all three plus their flu jab!) I keep telling him to let them be, it’s their choice but he is terrified he’s going to lose them through this, in more ways than one!
So true
It’s a cult
Thankfully all my nearest and dearest are on the same page
Many of my nearest and dearest are not on the same page.
Oh well.
They also believe in climate change.
So where do you start.
‘Each man’s duty is to the King, but each mans soul is his own’ (Henry V)
We all have a free will.
Ultimately people will die from the ‘vaccines’ because they chose to take it
Put all the propaganda etc aside, despite the warnings they chose to do it
Infection
Injection
It’s all a Confection
Tick up for ‘confection’
My nearest and dearest are all on the same page, unfortunately it is a different page to me.
That meshes very well with this excellent article The Vaccines Cannot Do What Is Asked of Them which starts with this statement
So if we put your point together with that we get a form of national universalism: each country believes there is one and only one answer to the problem that needs to be applied to everyone at home. But they don’t care about foreigners (so long as they are not traveling into their country).
The cause of such universalistic – one solution answer to a problem – has its roots I believe in the misunderstood distinction between physics and biology, ie between sciences of the entropic and those of the negentropic. In physics one has universal laws. In biology since Aristotle we know that we always have exceptions, indeed Darwin taught us that evolution via exceptions is the norm. These it turns out are mathematical duals. And there is recent mathematics that tries to tease out that duality.
https://twitter.com/bblfish/status/1455484945384841223
Such a deep philosophical problem will explain how one side cannot see their blindness.
The idea of science vs safetyism is a good way to frame the argument. Because the goal all along should have been to balance overall health for the nation (as represented by age-rates excess death rates). But instead as of January it became vaccinate all. I understand why Boris ended up there. First, he’s just scientifically illiterate. But second, if vaccines can save lives then in his mind, more vaccines saves move lives. But that simply isn’t how health science works, no more than if we force isolated everyone last March until the pandemic ended we would have seen no deaths. For the vast majority of Brits Covid never represented any major risk. If we had simply created early treatment packs, then even those outside the high risk profile they died unexpectedly would have been saved. But with vaccines we became obsessed by the new goal of 100% vaccination. That goal created an incentive to do actions that were creating less and less benefit, but we pursued them as if we were still jabbing 75 year old cancer survivors. and in the process not just vaccines for the global poor were thrown by the wayside, but tackling the longterm health… Read more »
The reason Johnson got there was because if they had acted on the basis of age or prior infection, and left it otherwise to people’s good sense, they could not have ensured the market for the the manufacturers – hence Johnson is seen to be vaccinated twice even though infected a year before. Now if we believe in variants we are vaccinating pointlessly against the defunct Alpha variant when everyone is supposed to be getting Delta. Even Johnson admits the vaccine does not stop you catching or passing it on. Also this is exactly what the editor of BMJ forecast in oddly prescient moment last year. What we do of course know is that having these hazardous, ineffective products is becoming linked to citizenship and the ability to work. Why is this? It is because of ID 2020 which still no one has heard of but was set up by various Gates connected enterprises and the UN in 2016.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2021/11/id-2020-re-visited.html
I agree with your main points – but wasn’t Johnson jabbed 3 times? I’m not the only person who recalls 3 jabs!
I am sure since he is trying to promote the booster that there would have been shown having it.
If a staged photo is ‘evidence’, then he was ‘jabbed’.
Johnson is a liar. He wasn’t jabbed.
‘Safetyism led to the belief that everyone should get vaccinated, regardless of age or natural immunity.’
Sorry, no. Croneyism, corporatism, totalitarianism, even anarcho-capitalism led to this decision, not belief.
It’s not about what they say it’s about.
I think the term you are looking for is rent-seeking, i.e making state coercion provide your profits instead of customer choice.
As lockdown came and went before morphing into Tiers and Xmas lockdown it took a long time for it to sink in that Big Pharma profit (alongside social control) was the endgame.
Before that I was just confused why it was going on and on and on.
It was the push for safetyism that enabled those though. You could argue that some conspired to push the safetyism buttons, knowing full well that they would profit from the panic.
The laughable thing is that the centre left intelligencia on the BBC/Guardian/Twitter are the people who want more children vaccinated and for restrictions to be tightened. And yet at the same time will be up in arms that we have not vaccinated the poor countries. As usual the hypocrisy and irony is strong!!
“Over 50” is too low. If you’re 50 and unfit to run for a bus etc, but if not I’d advise jabbing only the retired.
But this just highlights how “our” NHS shifts costs of treatment from the prudent to the feckless.
Noah, chap. The “coercive passports and mandates” are the point.
Davos created the “virus” to impose the “vaccines”.
Davos imposed the “vaccines” to inflict the “vaccine passports”.
The social credit score apps have always been the goal.
They’ve already been mandated in the Celtic Fringe.
Do you imagine for one second that they won’t be inflicted on England as well, to Save Our Christmas?
I really can’t agree with any of this. None of us need vaccines. The ‘third world’ is fortunate not to have been overwhelmed by vaccines which are failing, let’s face it. We know that there are better and much safer treatments, most of which are very inexpensive and therefore more accessible for the third world.
I have just listened to a podcast with Omar Khan and a doctor in South Africa, Dr Chetty. He has treated over 7000 covid patients, none of whom have died thanks to his treatment protocol. This has also been used in India and Sri Lanka. Why vaccines are still seen as the most effective treatment for covid by any intelligent person completely defeats me.
https://www.uncommonwisdom.online/post/covid-19-and-the-8th-day-protocol-it-deserves-urgent-global-attention
Dr Chetty’s treatment protocol doesn’t increase Pfizers share value.
This line of reasoning only works if the ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe and effective’. Increasingly, the data suggest they aren’t!
In addition, I would argue that a genuine scientific approach would have seen the jabs go through the usual 7-10 years of trial research prior to their roll-out and, even then, had a similar number of adverse effects been reported as has been, that they immediately be withdrawn from use.
That’s why they had to give the vaccines emergency approval which is one reason they have to keep the lockdown laws in place for yet another 6 months to maintain that we remain in an emergency which kind of begs the question, will those laws stay in place until trials are completed?
Yes and why they can’t repeal the corona act, no special act, no pandemic, no pandemic, no special (vaccines) measures. This may never end, which is why it was so important MPs voted (against) corona act renewal.
Now we have molnupiravir, the emergency use approval for jabs is over.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/merck-ridgeback-covid-19-pill-cleared-for-use-in-u-k-11636023388
All this is based on the assumption that the snake oils work.
They don’t.
Quite so: the poor countries have been spared!
Not really. A point that isn’t covered here, is how the mass vaccination, lockdowns and general collapse in supply, negatively affected aid efforts in developing countries, including some medicines that are actually life saving.
The sentiment is all very well, but let’s not forget that these are not vaccines. Their safety and efficacy is yet to be determined and the short clinical trials have already been subject.to whistleblower claims that the data is fraudulent. Most people I know taking these products do so, because everyone else is, to combat the worst ‘pandemic’ without.a.critical though or analysis of the data. Yes, we all want a miracle to turn back to complete normality, but science is pulling white rabbits out of hats, but rather a process of years and decades. Liberty and freedoms should never be bargained with on the false premise of pseudo or incomplete knowledge.
They are ‘vaccines’ but only on the basis that the WHO have redefined that word to suit the producers.
Look it up in any paper dictionary, dunno how long it will take the online ones to toe the line.
Merriam Webster have already changed, modified, updated their definition of “vaccine” at Pfizer’s request.
Brownosing creeps
By their new-definition of vaccine Lemsip is a vaccine. Total joke redefining words to mean things yet knowing the terminology means something very different to the public hearing the word.
Bit like “racism”.
Attached is an up to date online version. It’s a bit beyond me but seems very different to my paper Dictionary definition which reads
“Any preparation used to confer immunity to a disease by inoculation”
Chambers 20 Century Dictionary, 1983.
Compare and contrast, someone who knows?
That should read ‘not’ pulling white rabbits out of hats. I’m sure any readers guessed that.
Vaccination is an ideological belief system. It’s a kind of insurance policy against fear of perhaps maybe you might get sick! It takes away personal responsibility for your own health, i.e. good natural biologically appropriate diet, exercise & reduction of stress often caused by societal conformity & government pressure. Vaccinating is simply a corporate marketing tool to increase shareholder dividends, Annual, biannual, quarterly vaccination is a business model, well practised in animal husbandry! You can argue the benefits of vaccination, I’m not convinced as a general rule it has huge public health benefits, I’m not convinced many of the vaccines are little better than harmful placebos. There are two sides to every story, the truth usually lays somewhere in the middle. People quote small pox & polio as an example of the wonders of vaccines, but it is highly contested. What you find when the “scientific” evidence is challenged with facts, the vaccine worshippers with play the man not the ball. Even tetanus is questionable. Yes you can offer your statistics & hypnotic graphics, but applied science is & will always be subjective & emotive, & that isn’t science! I’m not against modern medicine, though the older I become, the… Read more »
I have no idea whether vaccines are safe or not but it was easy to spot the clear and obvious LIE when they said there are no long term dangers given there has been no long term to test.
I probably don’t have much of a long term to go but the youngsters do.
The basis for the “no long term dangers” claim is understanding of human physiology and experiments done (oh yes, long term) on animals.
According to your flawed logic you would have to claim that anything new (let’s say, a new beverage or food product) produces long term dangers just because there was no long term to test this very particular item.
It comes down to likelihood, doesn’t? A new food or beverage composed of known safe ingredients is very, very unlikely to pose any risk (although of course it’s not completely out of the question).
Medicines are a totally different matter as they are specifically designed to have biological impacts – and in the case of these “vaccines”, most are using a method never approved for use before, and with clear and known potential risks.
Really not the same, is it?
Firstly I don’t eat anything before knowing the ingredients, secondly I don’t inject my food directly into my immune system.
On the contrary, they claimed a proof that they could not possibly substantiate.
.
Patients who are at deaths door can be offered a new experimental drug but only on the basis of them knowing that it is untested, that they themselves are the test.
So if drilling and filling teeth is helpful to patients with bad teeth, everybody should have their teeth drilled and filled, eh?
I am happy to donate both my doses to the more vulnerable in the third world
Once or twice I said that to my mum when expressing dissatisfaction with whatever food she had put on the table, she would sternly say
“There are plenty of starving children in Africa who would be pleased to eat that”
‘well send it to Africa then’
before stropping off.
You might have been scheduled for three. Or four 😀
“the vaccine rollout was based on safetyism, not science”
Not really. The general public believed it was a good thing because of an increased tendency to safetyism, which was exploited by the fear propaganda war waged on us by the government, but I cannot believe many of those pushing the vaxxes believe the rollout is actually needed from a medical/public health point of view. Chris Whitty more or less admitted this when he gave his reasons for supporting vaxxing of kids.
The general public thought vaccines were a good thing because they were promised to be excused from wearing masks and be allowed out to niteclubs and music venues again in return for ‘vulnerable people’ being given them; not knowing that they would also have to become sacrificial lambs if they wanted to get back to a fortnight in Ibeza.
That this would not necessarily be the case was predicted here at lockdownsceptics (as was) and elsewhere as soon as vaccines began to be talked about.
Yup. Article is bollox. It was not safetyism, it was insane levels of profit.
Boosters Could Mean Regular Injections are Part of Your Life Forever ~ The McCullough Report the corporate wet dream
Are we surprised?
8 billion people worldwide at the last count,
×£/€/¥/$50-100? a pop to Big Pharma, loverly jubberly. 💵 💶 💷 💸 💰
Safetyism? No, death cult.
Covidism
I went to the cinema last night ( Dune ) and amongst the ads, was probably one of the most puke inducing commercials I’ve seen ( I’ve worked on a number of ads, so seen my far share of bullshit that didn’t get screened ).
It was for the FT. It used the speeches of all the leaders who are guilty of the above, in vomit inducing BBB, let’s create a better world bullshit. Maybe they could start by practicing what they preach.
Dune was crap too.
Everything is crap now.
I loved it, but can get now why it’s so Marmite
special effects were good but it was so slow and i may be old but my hearing is fine and Timothy whatsit spoke so badly, i could barely hear what he was saying! Hadn’t realised it was only part 1. We will probably not go to part 2!
Slow is an understatement.
One of my favourites on YouTube is a montage of news anchorpersons from around the English speaking world all spouting ‘Build Back Better’ in the same tone of voice; some as individual segments, others in multi-split screen saying it in harmony.
It’s so obvious that their editors had got the same memo at the same time but if you were sat at home watching telly you would think it was just the BBC, Channel 4 or whatever.
As each day passes, parody becomes even more difficult to detect
A land fit for heroes, coming soon
I saw that advert and just wanted to shout out at the audience: open your eyes!
These people are not doing policies for you, but for themselves!
And then I wanted to throw up!
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Vaccine Secrets
Don’t know much about this site.
MNRA ‘vaccines’, the new Kool Aid
Drink it up
When you realise that this vaccine isn’t about health, it ALL suddenly makes absolute sense!
Still peddling nonsense? Noah the true believer with a few agnostic agnostic views.
“A vaccine rollout based on science would have prioritised the elderly and clinically vulnerable”
Why? – that’s religious safetyism, essentially following government guff.
“If all these countries had donated their surplus vaccines, or simply not bought them in the first place, there would have been many more available for poor countries. As a result, tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.”
Hey, folks – vaccines work! – and here’s some ideas for using them on other populations that don’t need them!
What utter guff.
From the Daily Sceptic back in March this year … These Great Untruths are the seedbed of a raft of regressive and even self-destructive thought-processes: catastrophising; overgeneralising; negative filtering; discounting positives, and simplistic, dichotomous thinking to name but a few. They also lead to a retreat into what Lukianoff and Haidt term “safetyism” – with ‘harm’ reinterpreted to include mere speech and to a need for Big Brother to step-in to make things better. Fragility underpins the Government’s approach to Covid. The disease is of course sadly fatal to many elderly and clinically-vulnerable people, but the overwhelming majority of healthy young and middle-aged people who catch Covid show either symptoms similar to a common cold or no symptoms at all. That the former should ‘shield’ until vaccinated is common sense, but that the latter should be legally prevented from living a normal life is unnatural and a clear overreaction. Perhaps the most important insight that Lukianoff and Haidt identify is the connection between their Untruths and what could be termed a totalitarian mindset, namely that a sense of fragility, adherence to safetyism, and an emotional desire to be protected from imagined ‘evil’ people leads to the suppression of free speech… Read more »
It is easier to rob stupid people in rich countries than stupid people in poor countries, for the simple reason that poor people don’t have as much to give away to the robber.
Sutton’s law”[edit]Main article: Sutton’s law
A famous apocryphal story is that Sutton was asked by reporter Mitch Ohnstad why he robbed banks. According to Ohnstad, he replied, “Because that’s where the money is”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Sutton
Basta Berlin this Thursday had a good look at why Western Countries cannot easily donate “spare” fluid to poorer countries. They are referring to a German state TV programme, Kontraste. According to them, the contracts with Pfizer and Moderna disallow richer countries to donate the fluid, and the Western Government has to pay the pharma companies extra for each dose of fluid they “give away”, as then these poor countries will not buy any fluid from the pharma directly, and the pharma looses out on sales and profit. For example, the EU bought a dose of fluid for €19.00. For every dose they donate, they have to pay, lets say €25.00, extra to pharma.
Whoever came up with these contracts is very fiendish, and what made the EU and other counties sign such horrendous terms and conditions?
Apparently – was it Peru? – promised state owned buildings, land etc as collateral if they cannot pay for the fluid they ordered.