Tag Archive for: Vaccines

Not a Single U.S. State Is Requiring Kids to Get Vaccinated to Attend Public School. Why?

Economics may offer a clue as to why not one state is mandating vaccination to attend school in the 2022-2023 school year, even though many government officials support coercive vaccination policies.


September has arrived and many children are back in public schools (though fewer than previous years).

At a recent event, one parent joked to me we’re now officially in “vaccine season.” The comment made me laugh, but there’s at least a kernel of truth to it. It’s not unusual for states to require that children receive an array of vaccinations—from polio, diphtheria, and chickenpox to measles, mumps, and meningitis—to be enrolled in a public school system.

One vaccine that parents will not find on any state’s required list in 2022 are the Covid-19 shots, which have been a source of great debate in the US and other countries.

While a few US cities continue to push vaccine mandates to attend, Pew Charitable Trusts pointed out earlier this year that states have been surprisingly wary of mandating Covid shots for children.

“[Only] two states—California and Louisiana—have added COVID-19 vaccines to the list of immunizations mandated for schoolchildren,” Michael Ollove pointed out in January. “Both requirements would be enforced next school year, and then only if the vaccines receive full authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

Things have changed since then.

In May, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced the Louisiana Department of Health would not require children attending the state’s daycares or K-12 schools to provide proof of vaccination. California, which in October 2021 became the first state to announce Covid vaccine requirements for school, announced in April that it would not require vaccination, noting the vaccines had not at that time been approved by the FDA for all school-age children. (They are now.)

The fact that not a single US state is requiring students to be vaccinated against Covid to attend K-12 school is probably a bit surprising to readers. (It was to this author.)

I’d like to think that policymakers and politicians finally woke up to the fact that vaccine mandates are immoral, inhumane, and a clear violation of bodily integrity. But that seems unlikely considering that many vaccine mandates remain in place, particularly at the federal and municipal levels.

It’s also possible that lawmakers have realized vaccinated individuals can still get sick and spread the virus, and therefore concluded vaccinations are a matter of personal health, not public health. Yet once again this theory is undermined by the presence of other vaccine mandates that remain in place. Some may contend that we’ve simply beaten the virus and mandates are no longer necessary, but official statistics show Covid deaths and cases remain stubbornly high.

So what’s the answer?

What’s most likely is that political considerations are at play. Yet this thesis too, at first blush, appears to be undermined by the reality that polls show Americans support Covid vaccine mandates in schools.

Some basic economics, however, can help us see that the politics are more complicated than that.

Public Choice Theory is a field of economics pioneered by the Nobel Prize-winning economist James M. Buchanan and economist Gordon Tullock. It rests on a simple assumption: politicians and bureaucrats make decisions primarily based on self-interest and incentives just like everyone else, not out of an altruistic goal of serving “the public good.” (This is why public choice economists have dubbed it “politics without romance.”)

I’ve previously pointed out that politicians were incentivized during the pandemic to embrace Covid restrictions even if they didn’t work because of the political climate in 2020. The absence of government regulations was viewed as actual violence by some public health experts, and those who didn’t embrace strict interventions were accused of genocide.

Moreover, the costs of these regulations tended to be dispersed, delayed, and hidden from view. Depression, drug overdoses, lost learning, and speech impediments were among the consequences of NPIs (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions) imposed by governments. But the results of these policies were relatively “unseen” (to use a term from the 19th century economist Frederic Bastiat), at least compared to Covid deaths, which public health officials, the media, and even ordinary citizens tracked obsessively.

The costs of NPIs were quite serious, but they were quite low politically for the reasons stated above. The political costs of keeping a state open were much higher. No politician wants to explain why Mrs. Jackson, the 60-year-old math teacher, died from Covid while schools in your state remained open. (It would be just as tragic if Mrs. Jackson had died at home when schools were closed, but at least no politician would be blamed for her death in this case.)

In other words, the incentive structure early in the pandemic encouraged interventions, even if those interventions were ineffective and ultimately ended up doing more harm than good.

The incentive structure for vaccines is very different, particularly for young people.

Children can and do die from Covid, of course, but their risk is extremely low compared to other age groups. Even more important, perhaps, is that the costs of mandatory vaccination are not delayed, dispersed, or hidden from view. They are immediate, concentrated, and highly visible.

The sad reality is that vaccine injuries, though rare, do occur, as the CDC notes. And when they occur, they are the opposite of “unseen,” which means the political repercussions have the potential to be swift—and severe.

After all, when a young person dies after taking a vaccine designed to protect him, it’s a tragedy. When a young person dies of myocarditis after taking a vaccine he was forced to take to attend school, it’s a tragic event and a political disaster with a wide radius, even if some studies show the risk of myocarditis is greater after Covid infection than after Covid vaccination.

All of this analysis is dark and a bit troubling, of course. Now you see why they call public choice theory “politics without romance.”

But it might help explain why even state leaders comfortable with mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports have been reluctant to compel children to get the shot, even if they truly believe it could save lives.

Whether mandatory vaccination would have done more harm than good is a question we’ll never know, though it’s a debate that will likely continue for years to come. But because vaccines have the power to both save lives and claim lives, the decision to accept or refuse them can only morally be made by one person: the individual (or parents, if the decision concerns a child).

So at least state leaders are getting it right this time, even if they are doing so for the wrong reasons.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Dr. Naomi Wolf on Pfizer Documents from April 5th, ‘They hid, they concealed, they redacted.’ Its bad

Still waiting for an authoritative analysis of the most recent massive data dump from Pfizer. But lets have a look at what the last batch of 55,000 pages had. Naomi breaks some of it down.

And yes, we have posted this before. But to get a sense of scale of how much and easily these agencies tell massive lies, its good to be reminded. Especially when you hear people say, “They never said the vaccines would stop the spread or stop you from getting sick! They always said it would reduce the number of hospitalizations!”

UPDATE: There IS some analysis on the newest data dump. Please check this link. A small fraction is below.

Happy Cinco de Mayo kids! You might wanna grab a margarita or a Corona with a lime before you read this one.

This drop had 80,000 pages of data.  So I had to prioritize what needed to be read first.  Interesting findings.

OK first.  Remember how we discussed the vaccine likes to congregate in the liver?  Like, within HOURS of getting vaccinated?  I thought those poor Wistar Rats probably met their fate at the 48 hour mark.  But here we find a crumb of data that says nope, they now produced 300 hour post vaccine data comparing the lipid nano particles from the vaccine in the blood plasma versus in the liver.  THIS IS HORRID. Plasma levels peaked and dropped.  The liver?  Not so much.  It is still SEVERELY ELEVATED with mass nano particles at the 300 hour mark hanging out in the liver.  What does the liver do?  Metabolizes and excretes body waste.  Metabolizes medications.  Wonder if THIS is why we are seeing autoimmune hepatitis happening in kids right now?  You don’t suppose breastfeeding babies with moms full of lipid nano particles and spike proteins could possibly cause baby to have issues with THIER liver now, do you?

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

England Ends Mask and Vaccine Mandate, Czech Republic Does Too, But US Democrats WANT MORE HARSH MANDATES

England ends mask mandates, working from home and vaccine passports. But in many countries, draconian restrictions still apply. So we must continue to campaign to end the mandates, restrictions and vaccine passports in other countries.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson ends mask and vaccine requirements in England

By Karen Curtis | WFTL January 19, 2022

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has scrapped his Covid-19 Plan B in England, no longer requiring face masks in school or working from home, signaling the beginning of the end of coronavirus.

Johnson also ended the use of Covid-19 passports.

Boris Johnson’s announcement followed a “welcome decrease” in the number of coronavirus infections throughout the UK.

“The numbers in intensive care not only remain low but are actually also falling.”

England will go to “Plan A”, on January 26th and the PM told the House of Commons that soon, self-isolation rules for people who test positive will be scrapped as well.

Will President Biden follow suit in the US? The president will speak today and take questions from the press about the COVID surge on this one year anniversary of his presidency.

England’s Covid Plan B restrictions including work-from-home guidance will be scrapped, the Prime Minister has announced.

Boris Johnson told MPs that people are no longer being asked to work from home and, from Thursday next week when Plan B measures lapse, mandatory Covid certification will end.

The Government will also no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere from next Thursday and they will be scrapped in classrooms from tomorrow.

The Prime Minister also confirmed the intention to end the legal requirement to self-isolate when the regulations expire on March 24 and said the Government may move that date forward. (The Independent)

And in the Czech Republic:

Meanwhile, in barking mad left-wing America:

England ends mask mandates, working from home and vaccine passports. But Democrat America wants harsher measures still, including taking away your children…

RELATED ARTICLES:

CDC Finally Admits Cloth Masks Don’t Work

INSANE: Poll Shows 45% Of Dems Approve Sending Unvaccinated To ‘Designated Facilities’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Studies Proving Generic Drugs Can Fight COVID Are Being Suppressed

Treatment is never discussed but these failed vaccines with Gd knows what in them are mandated.

Studies Proving Generic Drugs Can Fight COVID Are Being Suppressed

Why do repurposed drugs require numerous trials prior to an agency recommendation, while high-profit, novel, patented drugs get routinely approved after only a single trial?

By Pierre Kory, The Federalist, December 16, 2021:

Omicron emerging in the United States and news of the first reported death in the United Kingdom remind us how little we understand the novel coronavirus, and with vaccines less effective against the new variant, how much we are in need of additional ways to fight it. To broaden our knowledge of COVID-19 and identify the best ways to treat and prevent it, doctors should be able to use every possible safe means at their disposal to help patients. Unfortunately, that is impossible in our current political climate.

Since the summer of 2020, U.S. public health agencies have continually shut down the use or even discussion of generic treatments that are minimally profitable. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded 20 large research studies of patented pharmaceutical industry drugs before only recently (and slowly) agreeing to study repurposed generic medicines.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control have recommended next to none. Instead, the Biden administration has thrown its political weight almost solely behind mass vaccinations, and hospitals and pharmacies have dogmatically followed suit. But this approach is proving insufficient to arrest COVID-19.

Repurposed Generic Medicines That Help Fight COVID

Just look at the evidence on, a widely used generic antidepressant. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in November 2020 showed that the drug led to far less clinical deterioration in treated patients. Another, larger, double-blind RCT, published in The Lancet in October of this year, found fluvoxamine reduced COVID-19 mortality rates by up to 91 percent and hospitalizations by two-thirds. This is an FDA-approved drug. Dosed correctly and for such short periods, it is safe. And it costs about a dollar a pill.

These findings have since been further reinforced by another study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in November, which showed a strong “class effect” of benefits from anti-depressants very similar to fluvoxamine against COVID-19. Yet, despite the large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, neither the NIH nor the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has arrived at a recommendation for routine use of these drugs to treat COVID-19.

The NIH to date has ignored the study. Its last update on fluvoxamine dates back to April, more than seven months ago. More disturbing is the fact that the IDSA recently reviewed this high-quality trial, yet still held fast to its recommendation of “do not use outside of a clinical trial.” Why do repurposed drugs require numerous trials prior to an agency recommendation, while high-profit, novel, patented drugs get routinely approved after only a single trial?

A recent and most brazen example is Merck’s expensive new anti-viral COVID-19 drug, molnupiravir. The FDA rapidly approved it based on a single study of modest benefits in mildly ill outpatients, and the Biden administration swiftly agreed to pay $700 per course of treatment. That was all despite the fact the medicine costs about $20 per course to manufacture, according to a World Health Organization consultant, and may prove less effective or even harmful in practice.

With our national debt registering at $2.77 trillion and inflation rampant, building the capacity in our federal government to study cheap, generic medicines would be a smart economic move. But there appears to be no appetite for fiscal prudence or scientific inquiry beyond the expensive, newly minted solutions churned out by our nation’s pharmaceutical industry.

Hospital Bans Proven Treatment

Doctors who don’t toe the line are subjected to censorship and threatened with the loss of their livelihood, regardless of their clinical experience. My colleague Dr. Paul Marik, a scientist-physician practicing in Norfolk, Virginia, is among them. He has treated patients throughout the COVID outbreak and was an early advocate for the use of steroids to treat COVID patients — a practice initially discouraged by federal health officials that has since proven effective.

When evidence first emerged about fluvoxamine, we began studying the medicine and sharing clinical data with physicians in the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a non-profit physician group we run together. We added it to our FLCCC protocol seven months ago. Marik began treating his patients with the medicine in addition to steroids and a number of repurposed generic medicines, which contributed to halving deaths in his hospital.

That progress is now in jeopardy: Marik’s employer, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, has forbidden the use of fluvoxamine as well as several other FDA-approved generic drugs to treat COVID-19 — and mortality rates are already rising.

What is the hospital’s justification for denying patients a treatment that’s proving effective in clinical trials? It sounds a lot like the NIH’s website, and rings equally hollow: “Many [of these medicines] do not have published peer-reviewed, RCT [randomized controlled trial] available to assess both efficacy and safety in COVID-19.”

Over the last two years, our political and public health authorities have talked often of trusting science to guide an effective response to this terrible virus, but their actions have more often been dictated by tribalism and greed.

We will surely face new COVID-19 variants after Omicron, and other infectious disease outbreaks in the future. We can prepare by building the capacity in our government to study cost-effective treatments quickly and efficiently, and by empowering doctors to pursue every possible treatment that can help patients.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden to Introduce New COVID Measures, Issue ‘Stark Warning’ to Unvaccinated

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Stanford Epidemiologist Says COVID Vaccination Is Primarily a Matter of Personal Health, Not Public Health

An abundance of scientific data undermine justifications for COVID vaccination mandates, which violate long-standing principles of bodily autonomy and individual rights.


As one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandates sweep government, academia, and corporate America, new data are emerging that undermine the public health justifications for these policies. Studies from multiple countries now indicate that vaccination alone is less effective than the acquired immunity many already possess and unable to prevent transmission in the medium-to-long term.

Since the pandemic began, more than 100 million Americans have recovered from the virus. Many are workers deemed “essential” just last year. While the government paid others to sit at home, essential workers were required to continue working, exposing themselves to the coronavirus in a pre-vaccine world.

One of these individuals is my friend, Adam, an occupational therapist and rehabilitation director treating patients at a small nursing home in Aroostook County, Maine. He never worked from home. His patients needed him there in person. Like many healthcare workers on the frontlines, Adam was infected by the coronavirus while on the job, stayed home until he tested negative, and then went back to work.

As far as COVID is concerned, Adam is among the safest people in America to be around. Multiple studies (including one out of Israel that has received global attention) now indicate that those who have recovered from infection possess a natural immunity more robust than what current vaccines provide. Further, three epidemiologists at Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford have specifically recommended in the Great Barrington Declaration (now co-signed by nearly 15,000 medical and public health scientists, as well as 44,000 medical practitioners) that “nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity” to protect patients.

So why have both President Joe Biden and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) issued mandates threatening Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to all healthcare providers unless they fire people like Adam? Mandates that make no exception for those with demonstrated acquired immunity make little sense for public health.

Additionally, in light of recent studies and documented “breakthrough infections,” the public health basis for mandatory vaccination is increasingly shaky for even those without any degree of natural immunity.

During my four years as Senate Chairman for Maine’s Health and Human Services Committee, mandatory vaccination policies in schools were a regular source of heated debate. The arguments for robust enforcement often rested on the need for “herd immunity”—the point at which one person transmits a virus to one or fewer people due to pre-existing immunity within a population.

Before the advent of vaccination, herd immunity relied on the development of natural immunity through widespread exposure to a virus. Since vaccination became common, many viruses once plaguing society are now virtually eradicated. To maintain herd immunity for subsequent generations and prevent the return of our old viral enemies, widespread vaccination is widely regarded as essential. For COVID vaccination, however, this does not appear to be the case.

According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine who studies epidemiology at Stanford University, recent studies indicate that the mRNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer do not contribute to herd immunity.

During a September 2021 interview with New York Times best-selling author Tom Woods, Bhattacharya, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, cited a study from Qatar with important findings on vaccine effectiveness. While vaccinated individuals were up to 95 percent safer from severe disease six months after vaccination, protection against infection and transmission was fleeting. Immunity began to diminish after five weeks. At 20 weeks, the vaccinated were as likely to become infected and transmit the virus as those unvaccinated.

This failure to confer a lasting immunity that protects the public does not negate the demonstrated positive effects for the individual. Battacharya hails the vaccine as “a wonderful achievement” that has “protected so many people from severe outcomes of the disease.” He credits the vaccine with aiding his own recovery from a COVID infection and strongly recommends it to others, especially the “older and vulnerable.”

“It’s better to have the vaccines first and then get the disease than the other way around,” he says.

At the same time, Bhattacharya concludes that, without contributing to herd immunity, COVID vaccination is a matter of personal health, not public health. As the benefits rest primarily with the individual, not society, government officials have no greater moral authority to prescribe vaccination than they do to prescribe chemotherapy. These are decisions for the individual to decide in consultation with their own physician.

Unlike pre-existing requirements in schools for traditional vaccinations, existing data undermines herd immunity justifications for universal COVID vaccination mandates. Further, these mandates push many with robust acquired immunity out of the workplace and society to the detriment of public health, increasing the likelihood of transmission to the vulnerable.

Mandatory COVID vaccination oversteps the bounds of public health, violating long-standing Western principles of bodily autonomy and individual rights. Lacking even the clear positive externalities often used to justify past vaccination requirements, these mandates should be opposed at all levels of policymaking.

COLUMN BY

Eric Brakey

Eric Brakey is the senior spokesperson for Young Americans for Liberty. As a state senator from 2014 to 2018, Brakey served as senate chairman for the Maine Health and Human Services Committee.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lockdowns Coincided With Record-Breaking Drug Overdose Fatalities, New CDC Data Show

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.