A new report prepared for the Liberal Party of Canada shows that the vaccines have no benefit for those under 60
Conclusion: "The Ontario data show that vaccination currently makes little difference in terms of hospitalization and death rates for those below age 60."
A new report prepared by a group of highly qualified experts analyzed the government data in Ontario and concluded that the vaccines don’t reduce hospitalization and death in those under 60.
In other words, we’ve been lied to. Are you surprised?
Also, don’t assume the report endorses vaccination for those over 60. It doesn’t.
Here’s the full report (26-page PDF file).
It concludes:
Given the statistical evidence provided in this report, the public health policy tools such as mass vaccination campaigns, mandates, passports and travel restrictions need to be reevaluated for relevance in this phase of SARS-CoV-2. The abundance of evidence documented by Public Health Ontario (PHO), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and top-tier scientific journals demonstrates that the vaccines do not prevent infection or hospitalization. The Ontario data show that vaccination currently makes little difference in terms of hospitalization and death rates for those below age 60. Additionally, since there are known risks of adverse events and unknown long term effects, these must be considered in developing vaccine policies.
The empirical evidence investigated in this report from PHO and PHAC does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups. Rather, it may be prudent to utilize a more targeted and cost-effective approach focused on vaccinating the high-risk group, while factoring in an individual’s potential risk of vaccine-related adverse events.
That’s what you get when the people writing the report remain anonymous and are free to speak the truth without fear of retribution. Interesting, isn’t it?
I appreciate this report because it opposes the narrative demanding that we all get "vaccinated."
However, I'd argue that it's partly incorrect: statistically one is /more/ likely to be hospitalized with, and die from covid if they are jabbed. The so-called "vaccines" impair the body's natural immune system.
Steve,
Thanks for posting the report to the Cdn member of parliament. It is good as far as it goes, but it still leaves individuals over 60 years of age "EXPOSED" to the "vaccine narrative". Indeed, I believe the report, although good, is flawed in at least four respects, namely: (1) it doesn’t take a deep enough dive into vaccine injury and death, (2) to the extent it implicitly relies on pharmacovigilance databases at all, it doesn't take into account the URF multiplier effect to be applied to pharmacovigilance databases, including in relation to people over 60 (i.e., that you are so often on about, quite rightly), (3) it doesn’t take into account emergent concerns about excess mortality occurring after vaccination which represents deaths not likely to be reflected in VAERS or to be covered by virtue of VAERS adjustment factors, and (4) as long as he/she is trying to influence government policy, he does not deal with early treatment as an alternative to vaccination, including for individuals over 60.
On point (1) in particular, there is a reference to the hokey Cdn vaccine injury system (which is far worse than the passive VAERS system and that's saying a lot). Indeed, the author even recommends that the reader (i.e., the Canadian MP!) look to other pharmacovigilance databases outside Canada "to obtain a more comprehensive picture for adverse events with current COVID-19 vaccines". Moreover, the questions posed and answered in the report on vaccine adverse events (namely questions 8-10) are perfunctory at best and fail to present a proper picture of the vast array of serious vaccine harm, especially for individuals over 60. You have covered these categories of harm relentlessly in your substack.
In effect, the author is inviting the reader (i.e., the Canadian MP) to do his/her own investigation of vaccine injury/death and to derive his/her own harm/benefit analysis, when the author should be doing this in his report, by better analyzing reported vaccine harms and considering excess mortality. There is simply not sufficient analysis of vaccine death and injury, and no proper harm/benefit analysis for individuals over 60 set out in this report. In short, as you well know and often repeat, it is not enough to look only at reduced levels of COVID-related death and hospitalization for individuals over 60 as the sole rationale for taking the vaccines. You must also look at non-COVID mortality and severe morbidity outside COVID, including vaccine injury and excess mortality. I see this criticism as a very serious flaw in this report, i.e., the failure to properly investigate non-COVID death and injury, including vaccine injury in any meaningful way.
My concern is that the report leaves people over 60 (not to mention the member of Canadian Parliament) with the distinct impression that people over 60 should continue taking the vaccines because the vaccines may reduce COVID hospitalization and death. But it does little to tell them about the potential short- and long- term effects of taking repeated boosters aside from any reduction in COVID death that may exist. Again, as you have continually called for, where's the harm-benefit analysis here, ala Fraiman/P. Doshi.
So I am a little disappointed in the report, quite frankly, in that it will be given by the member of the Canadian Parliament to his house leader and ultimately to Trudeau, and will leave people 60+ in the hands of leaders improperly informed. In short, it fails to properly assist those individuals over 60 by getting into a proper harm/benefit analysis, so desperately needed.