Flawed Fiat 8

The latest evidence that Discovery is on the wrong side of history

Flawed Fiat 8: Updating Adrian

Dear Adrian

It has been a while. I have compiled and summarised the findings of several of the latest pieces of quality evidence that I suggest demonstrate that your vaccine mandate at Discovery is a very bad thing.

In this edition:

• Vaccines are of limited benefit;

• Any benefit is short-lived;

• Vaccines come at a cost;

• Natural immunity is decent;

• The burden of proof is on you.

*See the first seven letters in this series here.

Here goes.

1.       Let’s start with an eyeball test. Rough, but useful. The charts below are strong prima facie evidence that we cannot control this virus, not matter how hard we lock down or how many vaccines we pump into arms.

I’ll remind you of the published analysis from the European Journal of Epidemiology that confirms what the above suggests. Across 68 countries and 2947 US counties, vaccinations are not stopping cases. They may be causing them.

2.       Dr. Deborah Birx has made an astonishing admission under questioning by Congressman Jim Jordan. She conceded that her claims on vaccine effectiveness were based on “hope”. In her words, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way". She referenced South Africa for our early evidence that vaccines were not preventing infection.

Like the physician who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, have you also been relying on hope?

3.       Our own National Institute For Communicable Diseases (NICD) posted the following chart on the sacoronavirus site a few weeks ago. Then they removed it from the slide deck. Ominously. They won’t say why. I submit it is because it defies their narrative.

Have a peep at the slide below. Vaccines are at best pathetic. Your early data showed a different picture. Will you share your latest data? Has it changed? If not, why do you think it still differs from the latest government data? If it has changed, why persist with pressuring people to take a medicine only allowed under an emergency use exemption?  

Below is a slide not deleted from the deck. South Africans just aren’t into these vaccines. This is strong evidence that plenty of the people you are coercing to take this drug do not want it. Have you jettisoned the principle of freedom of medical treatment?

4.       Everything has a cost. Vaccines are no exception. The latest data out of Nature shows this. This study examined the vaccination status of all 1,612 hospital cases of myocarditis and 1,613 hospital cases of pericarditis in France between May 12th and October 31st 2021. It found the risk of being hospitalised with myocarditis was 8.1 times higher in the week following a Pfizer second dose and 30 times higher following a Moderna second dose.

Have you incorporated this thinking into your policy? If not, why not? If, so how has it contributed to your stance?

5.       Work recently out from the US also found serious risks associated with vaccines. This preprint study found “the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9).”

The authors say, “The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.” Have you done this harm-benefit analysis? Do you agree you ought to share with this the people you are coercing to take this drug?

6.       A new study out of Qatar, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, casts further doubt about vaccine effectiveness. Researchers were interested in longevity. They found vaccine effectiveness against Omicron drops to zero within six months. Natural immunity remains robust for at least a year.

This backs other studies that have found some benefit of vaccines, but it is short lived and gets beaten by natural immunity on every measure. Can you justify coerced vaccination against this backdrop? At an absolute minimum, why are you forcing vaccination on people who have already recovered from the virus. I’ve argued earlier in this series of letters that vaccination on top of natural immunity does seem to provide some extra benefit, but also appears to hinder natural immunity.

Here’s a piece in The Lancet that explores the issue with balance. In their words, “Specific to SARS-CoV-2, some results suggest that vaccine-induced immunity is more effective, other results suggest that natural immunity is more effective, and some findings estimate both options as roughly equal.” They link to the evidence.
This speaks to burden of proof. It is on you to show not only that vaccination is right for every person you are pressuring, but that mandating it is right. I don’t think you’ve done that.

What is your long game? Vaccinations enforced every few months, monitored all the time until… Well, until what? Zero Covid? Have you set criteria for what will prompt the removal of your policy? What are those? If you haven’t set them, I argue that you haven’t got a reason to impose them in the first place?

9.       Finally, one more from the New England Journal of Medicine. They found, as captured by a medical news site:

“The results showed that all the study cohorts had waning immunity accompanied by a steady decline in protection over time. The adjusted rate of confirmed COVID-19 infections among the recovered and unvaccinated cohort four to six months after infection diagnosis was 10.5 per 100,000 person-days at risk, which increased 12 months or more post-infection to 30.2. In the two-dose group, the rate of confirmed infection was 21.1 among the individuals vaccinated two months prior to the study, which increased to 88.9 among persons vaccinated six to eight months previously. Among the recovered, single-dose vaccinated cohort, the rates were 3.7 and 11.6 four to six and 12 months and more since vaccination.”

Put simply, the longer the lines, and the earlier they appear in each cohort, the worse. How does this make you feel?

Solutioning

I’m not just breaking down your approach. I propose a solution.

Science is about ruthlessly and bravely questioning everything. Discovery is a place that I have long thought to be scientific. This provides what I reckon is an irresistible way forward:

1. Review the science and the arguments;

2. Conclude that a vaccine mandate is wrong;

3. Scrap your mandate;

4. Be bold about it. You are following science;  

5. Reap the rewards of brave leadership.

Regards,

Ian

Read my first 7 editions of Flawed Fiat: https://morningshot.co.za/2022/01/27/flawed-fiat-7-just-one-question-for-adrian-gore/

PS. If I haven’t convinced you, Nick Hudson has a shot. Here’s a talk of his that I attended in London last month.