Brownstone Institute – 21 Essential Studies that Raise Grave Doubts about COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER

Source: https://brownstone.org/articles/20-essential-studies-that-raise-grave-doubts-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/

The following research papers and studies raise doubts that Covid vaccine mandates are backed by science and good public-health practice. Anyone seeking to challenge these mandates should consult these carefully. They demonstrate that these mandates provide no overall health benefit to the community and can even be harmful. Instead, the decision to accept the vaccine should be made by individuals according to their own assessment of risks in consultation with informed medical professionals. 

The model of Marek’s disease (‘leaky’ non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing vaccines that reduce symptoms but do not stop infection or transmission) and the concept of the Original antigenic sin (the initial priming of the immune system prejudices the immune response to the pathogen or similar pathogen life-long) may explain what we are potentially facing now with these mass mandates of COVID vaccines (immune escape, increased transmission, faster transmission, and potentially more ‘hotter’ variants).

In addition, such mandates result in the forced separation and segregation of society. They create hazards for people in their professional lives. For example, why would governments impose punitive career altering vaccine mandates on an unvaccinated nurse who is most likely already immune due to natural exposure? Mandates also represent an encroachment on freedom and liberties, and call into question the motives behind these mandates when the science shows no public benefit compared with the costs. 

Brownstone Institute – A Review and Autopsy of Two COVID Immunity Studies

Concerning the Covid recovered, there are two key public health issues. 1. Would the Covid recovered benefit from also being vaccinated? 2. Should there be vaccine passports and mandates that require them to be vaccinated in order to work and participate in society? 

The CDC study did not address the first question, while the Israeli study showed a small but not statistically significant benefit in reducing symptomatic Covid disease. Future studies will hopefully shed more light on this issue. 

Based on the solid evidence from the Israeli study, the Covid recovered have stronger and longer-lasting immunity against Covid disease than the vaccinated. Hence, there is no reason to prevent them from activities that are permitted to the vaccinated. In fact, it is discriminatory. 

Many of the Covid recovered were exposed to the virus as essential workers during the height of the pandemic before vaccines were available. They kept the rest of society afloat, processing food, delivering goods, unloading ships, picking up garbage, policing the streets, maintaining the electricity network, putting out fires, and caring for the old and sick, to name a few. 

They are now being fired and excluded despite having stronger immunity than the vaccinated work-from-home administrators that are firing them. 

Martin Kulldorff, Senior Scientific Director of Brownstone Institute, is an epidemiologist and biostatistician specializing in infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety. He is the developer of Free SaTScan, TreeScan, and RSequential software. Most recently, he was professor at the Harvard Medical School for ten years. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration. kulldorff@brownstone.org

Source: https://brownstone-org.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/amp/