Back to Basics- Even Dr Fauci is criticising UK Vaccine Policy

By The Truth Reporter:

When a debate descends into a slanging match I tend to walk away from it, I just don’t have the energy for tirades and chest beating. Sadly though, anyone trying to make an informed decision on whether the new COVID vaccine is a good idea and if they should accept it is confronted with walls of government sponsored talking heads saying that it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread or people who are trying to convince you the vaccine contains tracking devices that can modify your thought processes. 

In cases like these it is time to turn away from the babble and use the power of deductive reasoning to perform your own analysis. I use only the most basic and fundamental theoretical tools since these are the ones that are not subject to change in the prevailing winds of public opinion. 

I thought people might be interested in the ideas I have come up with, this is not a pro or anti vaccination opinion piece, it is simply the result of logical analysis.

Economics.

Vaccines, like any other drug exist in a marketplace. Pharmaceutical companies are not godlike altruists, they want to make money and therefore if product A treats an illness better than product B then clinicians will choose product A. There are obviously more factors in play like cost and efficacy to be considered but these are all forces of the market – and markets are one of the fundamental forces that help to point to where you are being told the truth and when you’re being propagandised.

The UK government recently approved the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for use in the UK. Interestingly this vaccine must be stored at minus 70 degrees centigrade almost until the point of delivery. This might seem quite a minor issue but in reality this poses a series of logistical issues in its delivery. Essentially you either pack the vaccine in dry ice temporarily or use very expensive cryogenic freezers.  This is why ‘vaccine centres’ are being hastily constructed since the vaccine is essentially not at all portable – it must remain in those closely controlled conditions until just before it is given. 

This evidence points to the haste in which this vaccine has been produced. In any normal drug market a drug which requires such complex logistics would not be regarded as viable as the cost of administration rises massively if you have to put all these special measures in place.  The cost for each dose is one thing but if you have to install special freezers in all your hospitals then that is another issue. There is also the requirement that each patient be monitored for adverse reactions continuously for 15 minutes post injections, another ‘feature’ of the new vaccine which few others display. 

I would also question the sudden introduction of the hoards of ‘vaccinators’ drawn from the ranks of the unemployed. Administration of medicines is not a trifle, although not rocket science it is not something you do after a brief training session. Nurses train for 3 years and learn these techniques under close supervision and crucially they are constantly told that they are accountable for their practice and governed by a professional body who oversee standards.  It is not sufficient to just be able to plunge a needle into someone’s arm, you need some idea of the anatomy of the injection site, you must also know how to spot those who may not be able to receive the vaccine or how to deal with any sudden onset of side effects and what those warning signs are. 

So now we have a pharmaceutical company who are granted immunity from litigation for vaccine damage, and that vaccine administered by people who have are also granted immunity from liability and furthermore have no professional status to be put at risk by any litigation or professional scrutiny from a governing body. 

I have little faith in this government – Mr Hancock lied to the house when he said that vitamin D has no beneficial prophylactic effect, he has continually misrepresented statistics, used them selectively or in the most emotive ways to push his narrative. In that context the people who have ingested these lines are essentially functioning irrationally since the data they are using to make their decisions has been pre-edited to ensure only one course of action is indicated. To place people such as these in ‘vaccine centres’ and then propagandise the public that there are no safety issues and this vaccine is unquestionably effective is tantamount to abuse. 

I seriously doubt whether anyone could reasonably say that they are giving informed consent to this vaccination when the information base available to them has been skewed in one way only. Any debate of the validity of the data in the clinical trials has been suppressed, the sample sizes in the clinical trials are very small in the context of a vaccine that is going to be offered to the entire population.

Even US Dr, Anthony Fauci, has criticised the speed at which UK regulators approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.

Fauci told Fox News: “If you go quickly and you do it superficially, people are not going to want to get vaccinated. We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA [Food and Drug Administration].

All medicines are considered for their suitability by comparing their risks to their benefits, the most compelling of these discussions are around cancer medications where the risk of the disease is immense and therefore people are quite prepared to tolerate risky treatments because the alternative is death.  In the case of COVID the risk of death is measured at 0.3% for the entire infected population – compare that with pancreatic cancer where 91% of people are dead 5 years post diagnosis. 

Let the facts guide your decisions.