American study indicates COVID vaccine risks outweigh benefits

I’ve noted in publications such as the BMJ that it looks like what we’re learning about myocarditis alone, combined with UK government data, means that the risks of COVID-19 outweighs the benefits in the young and healthy. Then this was pretty much confirmed with a huge UK study indicating that the jabs didn’t seem to save any British children’s lives, but sure did cause a bunch of problems like myocarditis. Now, an American pre-print study seems to find the same in the US.

Since we now know more about the seriousness (or lack thereof) of COVID-19, and about the risks of the jabs, Bourdon et al. thought a reanalysis of the FDA’s claim that the benefits of the Moderna jab outweighed the risks was merited, finding: “a net harm: vaccine risks outweighed benefits for 18–25-year-old males, except in scenarios projecting implausibly high Omicron-infection prevalence”. Their “assessment suggests that mRNA-1273 vaccination of 18–25-year-old males generated between 16% and 63% more hospitalizations from vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis alone compared to COVID hospitalizations prevented (over a five-month period of vaccine protection assumed by the FDA)”. They suggested that “the FDA’s benefit-risk ratio, 43.33, is over 60 times more favorable than ours, 0.67”. Source.

Okay then.

Extra: Call the risks rare if you want, even if we still don’t fully understand the long-term implications. But if the benefit is zero, as it seems to be for the young and healthy at least, then any risk is too high a price to pay - to say nothing of the wasted money and pointless discrimination of the unjabbed like myself. This is also consistent with other reanalyses of the trials and big post-trial studies, finding that the benefits of the jabs were/are highly exaggerated, and they might even be negatively effective. Slowly but surely, the science is catching up with us ‘conspiracy theorists’.