According to a cost-benefit analysis by
Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, the
COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of
80. The cost-benefit analysis1
looked at publicly available official data from the U.S. and U.K. for
all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying
from COVID-19.
“All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality
after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at
risk of a COVID-19 death,” Seneff and Dopp conclude. For younger adults
and children, there’s no benefit, only risk.
“This analysis is conservative,” the authors note, “because
it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as
thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other vaccine-induced
injuries can lead to shortened life span.
When one takes into consideration the fact that there
is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early
treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only
conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.
Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant
variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine
inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the
unvaccinated.”
Real-Life Risk Reduction Is Negligible
The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only considers
COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of injection. Looking
at the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), we’re now
seeing that many of those who are dying got the jab around April 2021 or
earlier, so we know the shots can significantly cut your life short
even if they don’t kill you in the first month. As detailed in Seneff’s
and Dopp’s paper:
“Absolute real-life
risk reductions (ARRs) ... from COVID inoculations vary from a low of
negative 0.00007% (an increased risk of a COVID death from inoculation)
for children under age 18 to a positive 0.183% (0.00183) risk reduction
of a COVID death for persons over age 80 ...
COVID vaccine inoculations increase risk of death and
produce a net negative benefit, aka increased risk of death ... for all
age groups younger than 60 years old. In other words, the COVID
inoculations cause a net increase, rather than decrease, in the
likelihood of death for all persons under 60 years old.
For those over 60 years old, the benefit of COVID
inoculations is negligible, ranging from a 0.0016% reduction in
likelihood of death for a 60- to 69-year-old persons to a 0.125%
reduction in likelihood of death for those over 80 years old. Because
preventative treatments are often given to well persons, a vaccine is
supposed to provide very small risk compared to benefit.
Thus, such high fatality risks (VFRs) versus low
benefit of risk reduction (ARRs) from the COVID inoculations are not
acceptable, especially considering that low-cost, effective treatments
are available that would additionally reduce COVID-19 death rates by as
much as 90% or more if provided as soon as symptoms appear in high-risk
persons.”
Meanwhile, data from an analysis2
by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann suggest U.S. deaths
reported to VAERS are underreported by a factor of 20. Their analysis
was used to calculate vaccine fatality rates (VFR), the number needed to
treat/vaccinate (NNT) to prevent one COVID death, the expected number
of vaccine fatalities to prevent one COVID death, and the expected
number of vaccine fatalities compared to COVID fatalities by age group:3
Age group |
VFR — Vaccine fatality rate |
NNT to prevent one COVID death |
Expected vaccine fatalities to prevent one COVID death |
Expected number of vaccine fatalities compared to COVID fatalities |
Under 18 |
0.004% |
Vaccine causes higher COVID death rate |
Vaccine causes higher COVID death rate |
51 |
18 to 29 |
0.005% |
318,497 |
16 |
8 |
30 to 39 |
0.009% |
164,538 |
15 |
7 |
40 to 49 |
0.017% |
55,516 |
9 |
5 |
50 to 59 |
0.016% |
11,760 |
2 |
1 |
60 to 69 |
0.026% |
3,624 |
1 |
1 |
70 to 79 |
0.048% |
1,300 |
1 |
0 |
80 to 89 |
0.057% |
547 |
0 |
0 |
Summary Findings
In summary, key findings in this paper include the following:
- For those under 18, the COVID jab increases their risk of dying from
COVID-19; those under 18 are 51 times more likely to die from the jab
than they are to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
- In those aged 18 to 29, the COVID jab is 16 times more likely to
kill a person than save their life if they get COVID. They’re also eight
times more likely to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not
vaccinated.
- Those aged 30 to 39 are 15 times more likely to die from the COVID
jab than prevent their death, and they’re seven times more likely to die
from the inoculation than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
- Those aged 40 to 49 are nine times more likely to die from the COVID
jab than having it prevent their death, and they’re five times more
likely to die from the jab than to die from COVID if not vaccinated.
- Those aged 50 to 59 are twice (2 times) more likely to die from the
COVID inoculation than to prevent one COVID death, while their risk of
dying from the jab or dying from COVID if unvaccinated is about the
same.
Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks
between the jab and COVID infection even out. In the 60 to 69 age group,
the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from dying of
COVID, so it’s a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any given
person.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Must Drive Public Health Policy
Common sense tells us that COVID-19 vaccination policy ought to be
rooted in a rational evaluation of the true costs and benefits, and to
do that, we need to assess whether the jabs are beneficial or harmful,
and to what extent. So far, governments have completely ignored the cost
of this mass injection campaign, focusing solely on perceived or
imagined (not proven) benefit.
As a result, we’re looking at the worst public health disaster in
known history. The greatest tragedy of all is that none of our public
health officials has bothered to protect even the youngest among us.
The OpenVAERS team recently started looking at injury reports in
children aged 17 and younger, and to their shock, they found 34,223 U.S.
reports involving this age group through February 11, 2022. You can
find the Child’s Report here.4
This is a staggering number, considering the 12- to 17-year-olds have
only been eligible for the shot since May 2021, and 5- to 11-year-olds
since October 2021.5
Pfizer Withdraws EUA Application for Children Under 5
Interestingly, February 11, 2022, Pfizer abruptly withdrew its
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application for children under 5.6,7
The question is why? According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and Pfizer, they want to collect more data on the effects of a third
dose, as two doses did not produce expected immunity in 2- to
5-year-olds.8
Three days later, former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC9
the EUA application was pulled because COVID cases are so low among
young children that the shot couldn’t be shown to provide much of a
benefit.
But according in an email notice to subscribers, OpenVAERS stated,
“None of these explanations suffice because all of that information was
known prior to Pfizer submitting this EUA to the FDA on February 1
[2022]. It makes one wonder whether adverse events in the treatment
group might be the factor that neither Pfizer nor the FDA want to talk
about?”
Those Who Should Be in the Know Don’t Know a Thing
In related news, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the
Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, highlighted a
February 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Request sent to the Therapeutic
Goods Administration (TGA), the Australian equivalent of the FDA.10 The inquiry asked for documents relating to the TGA’s assessment of:
- The presence and risk of micro-RNA sequences within the Comirnaty mRNA active ingredient (the mRNA genomic sequence)
- The presence and risk of oncomirs (cancer-causing micro-RNA) in Comirnaty
- The presence and risk of stop codon read-through (suppression of
codon activity) arising as a result of the use of pseudouridine in
Comirnaty
- The composition of the final protein product (molecular weight and
amino acid sequence) produced following injection of the Comirnaty mRNA
product in human subjects
- The risk of the use of AES-mtRNR1 3’ untranslated region of the Comirnaty mRNA product in human subjects
As it turns out, the TGA has none of these documents, because they’ve
not assessed any of these risks. Why does this matter? Well, as
explained by Rose:
“Micro-RNA (miRNAs) are small (20-22 nucleotides)
single-stranded non-coding RNA molecules that function to interrupt or
suppress gene expression at transcriptional or translational levels to
regulate gene expression.”
Considering micro-RNA can alter gene expression, wouldn’t we want to
know if micro-RNAs are present in the shot, considering we’re injecting
hundreds of millions of people, including teenagers and children? The
same goes for oncomirs, the suppression of codon activity, protein
products and the rest.
“Stephanie Seneff has warned11 of two miRNAs that disrupt the type-1 interferon response in any cell, including immune cells: miR-148a and miR-590,” Rose continues.
“I don’t know what potential connections there are
here yet, but it is safe to say that any tech that involves the
introduction of foreign mRNA to be mass-produced by human cells must be
thoroughly safety tested.
The fact that none of these documents ‘exist’ is
proof positive that they either have no idea what the potential effects
of what they made are because they did no bench
work/investigations/studies, or, that they know and are hiding the
results. Either choice is beyond criminal.”
The Critical Design Flaw
In an August 2021 Substack article,12 British cybersecurity researcher Ehden Biber homed in on the potential risks of using pseudouridine to optimize the codon.
The COVID shots do not contain the identical mRNA found in the
SARS-CoV-2 virus. The mRNA has been genetically manipulated in a process
called “codon optimization,” and this process is actually known to
create unexpected and detrimental side effects.
“How come Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen etc. are using a
technology that both they and the regulators know will cause unknown
results?” Biber asked. The reason codon optimization was used is because
it’s pretty difficult to get your body to produce a given protein by
injecting mRNA.
It’s a slow and generally inefficient process. In order for the
injection to work, they need higher levels of protein expression than is
naturally possible. Scientists bypass this problem by making
substitutions in the genetic instructions. They’ve discovered that you
can swap out certain nucleotides (three nucleotides make up a codon) and
still end up with the same protein in the end. But the increased
efficiency comes at a terrible cost.
When substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting
protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety
of chronic diseases,13 including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and heart failure.14 As explained by Biber:15
“Turns out the protein which was manufactured when
codon optimization has different ways it folds and a different 3D shape,
and it ‘could cause immunogenicity, for example, which wouldn’t be seen
until late-stage clinical trials or even after approval.’ This
statement relates to the NORMAL approval cycle. The COVID vaccines went
via an accelerated one.”
Now, the FDA has been fully aware of these problems since 2011, when
Chava Kimchi Sarfaty, Ph.D., a principal investigator at the FDA, stated
that “We do not believe that you can optimize codons and have the
protein behave as it did in its native form.”
She went on to warn, “The changed form could cause immunogenicity,
for example, which wouldn’t be seen until late-stage clinical trials or
even after approval."16
If the FDA knew all this back in 2011, why have they not raised
objections against codon optimization being used in the making of the
COVID jabs? The same question needs to be asked of the Australian TGA.
The FOIA requester was likely thinking of the March 2021 paper,
“BNT162b2 Vaccine: Possible Codons Misreading, Errors in Protein
Synthesis and Alternative Splicing Anomalies”17
when they put together that inquiry, because that paper highlights
Pfizer’s extensive codon optimization using pseudouridine, which has
known adverse effects, as well as the use of 3’-UTR sequence, the
consequences of which are still unknown.
The fact that the TGA has no data on the risks of these modifications
just goes to show that they, like the U.S. FDA, are not actually
working to ensure these jabs are safe. They’re protecting the profits of
the drug companies.
Pfizer even admits, in its BNT162b2/Comirnaty Risk Management Plan
submitted to the FDA to get EUA, that the codon optimization they did
resulted in elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT),18 which is an early marker of heart failure. Elevated GGT is also an indicator of insulin resistance, cardiometabolic disease,19 liver disease20 and chronic kidney disease.21
That alone should have raised some questions, were the FDA actually
looking out for public health. All in all, there’s more reason than ever
to question the COVID jab mandates and the use of these shots in
children.