top of page
  • Writer's pictureLT

Our Overview of Vaccine Data

This article was first published on the website of the Advocacy for Health and Social Care Professionals Union, of which the editor-in-chief of Logica Tribune was executive chair. The union is no longer in operation but the statement has been republished as a blog post here for the informational benefit of our readers.

Proportionality of Government Response ​ At the time of writing (15.01.22), UK statistics indicate that 15.1 million people have been infected with covid-19, of which 152,000 died. This me

ans that the death rate for covid-19 is currently only 1% with a survival rate of 99%. Death is most likely to occur amongst the elderly and/or those with comorbidity. Notably, a Freedom of Information request fulfilled by the Office of National Statistics on 16 December 2021 states that throughout 2020 and 2021 only 17,371 people died solely from covid-19, meaning that these individuals did not have any comorbidities; 78% of those individuals were over 65 years old. There are concerns that the rate of 1% is even higher than it should be. As far back as April 2020, the World Economic Forum raised concerns that the rate of death in the US may have been exaggerated because the calculation of infections were based solely on hospitalisations. These calculations did not include those infected but recovering at home. The rate of death therefore appeared greater than it was because it was calculated against hospitalisations only, not the entire figure of infections both in hospital and at home. It is safe to assume that such anomalies have occurred with UK data, too. In August 2020, the UK Health Security Agency published 'Behind the Headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths.' The article admits that counting covid-19 deaths is 'complex' and that even counting deaths following a positive test is 'an approximation of the number of people who die from covid-19 because other causes of death are included...' In addition, pandemic death certificate guidance from the Office of National Statistics states that during the spread of communicable disease such as covid-19, it is a matter of 'clinical judgement' as to whether the virus is noted on the certificate as the cause of death. We can therefore conclude that there is a risk this may contribute to the reporting of covid-19 as the cause of death where it is not conclusive. Based on the complexity of death calculation, it can be argued that the death rate could actually be higher rather than lower. However, this is unlikely based on a BBC report in January 2022 which states that those in the UK who die 'with' covid-19 are being included in the data of those who die 'from' the virus. This would suggest that the actual death rate may be lower than the official UK death rate of 1%. Barts Health Trust has stated that many of their hospitalisations were of people with covid-19 but who were actually admitted for another reason. This pattern is also seen elsewhere. In California, research showed that the number of child hospitalisations from covid-19 were exaggerated. It is understood that hospital transmission of covid-19 is a big driver in UK infection rates and it could be argued that this justifies mandatory vaccination. However, we do not consider this to be a proportionate response given the extremely low death rate, the above data concerns, and the fact that vaccination does not actually stop transmission, as evidenced below. We agree with NHS Dr Clare Craig​, who believes that controlling transmission between inpatients, and measures such as ventilation, appropriate use of negative and positive pressure rooms, and proper PPE, would be a far more reasonable and evidence-based approach. ​ For a highly comprehensive overview of data on the international impact of government response to covid-19, please watch 'The SARS2 Pandemic: Will Truth Prevail?'.Concerns About Vaccine Efficacy The US Center for Disease Control published research in July 2021 which states that transmission and infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is the same. (This belies the repeated false assertion by UK and other governments that covid-19 is fuelled by the unvaccinated.) The ineffectiveness of the vaccine against transmission has been demonstrated on multiple occasions. A notable example is the Canadian hockey team the Ottawa Senators, the team members of whom are fully vaccinated but have been plagued with covid-19 outbreaks which forced them to cancel games in November 2021. In another example, a Royal Caribbean Symphony of the Seas cruise ship of 6,000 fully vaccinated passengers suffered a covid-19 outbreak. ​ In October 2021, the July research findings were reiterated in a Lancet (Infectious Diseases) publication, which also indicated that vaccine immunity wanes 2 - 3 months after the second vaccine. This is the reason why boosters have been introduced into the double vaccination regime and they would have to be repeated continuously for vaccine efficacy to be permanent. However, in January 2022, European Union vaccine regulators announced that repeated booster shots could impair the immune system and lead to system 'overload'. While the government pressured the public to take the booster in order to fight Omicron in December 2021, research now indicates that the booster did nothing to prevent Omicron infection. ​ We now know from a September 2021 Public Health England report that vaccination effectiveness can be as high as 99% but as low as 60%. It should be noted that The Seychelles has been deemed 'the most vaccinated country on earth', with vaccination rates higher than Israel and the UK. Yet, in May 2021 more than one third of its new covid-19 cases were among the vaccinated. In August 2021, Israel's vaccination rate was considered one of the highest in the world, with 78% of the population over age 12 vaccinated. Yet, at the time Israel was also suffering one of the highest rates of infection in the world with vaccinated patients making up 60% of its covid-19 hospitalisations. Furthermore, there is strong evidence published in November 2021 (conducted at America's Johns Hopkins University) based on data from 185 countries which indicates that the highest covid-19 death rates are in the most vaccinated countries. In January 2022, covid-19 data from Scotland indicated that Omicron infections were lowest in the unvaccinated and that the highest rate of infection was amongst the double-vaccinated elderly. There is too much variability in data here to conclude that vaccination is highly efficacious. ​ We are concerned that there has been no government emphasis on impact of natural immunity against infection. MedRxiv reports that 'natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.' This was based on a 700,000 person study in Israel which showed that those with natural antibodies against the infection were 27 times less likely to be re-infected than those vaccinated. There are those who solely credit the vaccine for the reduction of covid-19 hospitalisations over time. However, it can be strongly argued based on the Israeli data that natural immunity has played a significant role in this. There is evidence that those with natural antibodies combined with vaccination enjoy even stronger immunity. However, we believe that it should be down to the individual to determine for themselves whether any such benefit outweighs the potential risks associated with vaccination. ​ It has been indicated in multiple studies, as outlined in Frontiers in Public Health, that Vitamin D insufficiency plays a significant role in increasing the severity of covid-19 symptoms and the likelihood of hospitalisation. It stands to reason that boosting the body's natural response to infection with Vitamin D, while trusting the lasting effect of natural antibodies further to infection, is a more reasonable response to covid-19 than forcing people to uptake a vaccination that does not prevent transmission or infection, is effective only in the short-term and may not be effective at all up to 40% of the time. ​ (Separately, of note there is also robust research which seriously questions the efficacy of the public wearing masks.) ​ Concerns About Vaccine Safety The government has repeatedly asserted that the vaccinations are safe. We do not wish to outright deny this claim but we do want to examine the data which may contradict it. It is scientific fact that however safe vaccines are, all vaccinations have a risk of side effects. The covid-19 vaccines are no different. We are concerned that there has been virtually no public discussion around covid-19 vaccine injury, which on the contrary has been widely reported outside of the public domain. These injuries include: ​ Over 30,000 women reporting problems with menstrual bleeding25% increased risk of developing cardiac problems ​ Risk of neurological problems: studies published February 2021 and July 2021 US-based report on risk of post-vaccine death Evaluation of UK-based post-vaccine deaths Vaccine injury statistics in India Sample of personal stories: ​ Dr Gregory Michael MD (56 years old at vaccination; died)BBC presenter Lisa Shaw (44 years old at vaccination: died)Maggie de Garay (12 years old at vaccination) Kyle (29 years old at vaccination) US news footage of vaccine injured mRNA expert and vaccine injured share their experiences ​ Given that this is the first time that mRNA vaccines are being used against widespread viral infection, and that they were approved for this purpose for the first time in only 2020, the full scale of vaccine injury remains to be seen over time. Vaccines usually take about 10 years to be developed. It is therefore impossible at such an early stage for the government to have enough data and evidence to attest so assuredly to covid-19 vaccination safety. This also poses moral and ethical questions about the mandating of an effectively unproven method of treatment. ​ Censorship Absolutely everyone should be seriously concerned about the censorship, vilification and possible harm of reputable individuals who present views which contradict their government's narrative. Science has long enjoyed the tradition of open debate amongst peers to arrive at evidence-based conclusions. However, this tradition was abandoned throughout the pandemic, with universal attempts by governments and their agents to silence voices opposed to their decisions. ​ In October 2020, an open letter signed by thousands of infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists was posted online to the US government. This Great Barrington Declaration shared their 'grave concerns' about the government's response to the pandemic. Following a Freedom of Information request from the American Institute for Economic Research, it emerged that Dr Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, colluded with Dr Anthony Fauci (Chief Medical Advisor to the President), to orchestrate a 'quick and devastating published take down of its premises.' The focus on silencing opposing views rather than engaging with them is concerning. The other behaviour by Dr Fauci has been equally concerning. To learn more, please visit our discussion on Dr Fauci on our 'Mandatory vaccination' page. In a more recent example, Dr Robert Malone, a highly-experienced American clinician and one of the inventors of the mRNA technology used in the covid-19 vaccine, spoke out on US podcaster Joe Rogan's show against mRNA vaccine use for covid-19 treatment. After going viral, the show was taken down off of YouTube for 'misinformation' and Dr Malone was permanently banned from Twitter for the same alleged reason. Please see Dr Malone's full Joe Rogan interview here. Given Dr Malone's authority and expertise in this subject, it is completely illogical - and highly suspicious - that he has been accused of 'misinformation'. ​ There are other concerning examples: ​ Chemist Dr Andreas Noack possibly murderedPaypal threatens doctor researchMyocarditis paper pulled before publication The bullying and professional ostracization of those who speak out, or the threat of it, is evident on a more local level. The body language of the nurses in the video clip with Sajid Javid and Dr James speaks volumes. The nurses clearly did not feel comfortable publicly sharing views which may contradict that of their employer or the government. We must question the culture in which these nurses work and become concerned about any health and social care worker who may feel they are being forced to silently choose between their bodies and their livelihood. Dr James has unfortunately been vilified in the mainstream press for speaking out against mandatory vaccination. This is despite that in January 2022, the same month of his interview, Dr Clive Dix (ex-head of the UK vaccine taskforce) called for an end to 'mass jabs' and stated that we should learn to live with covid-19 like the flu. In a similar vein, Dr Mike Yeadon (former Pfizer chief scientist) has openly challenged the government's response to covid-19 and its questionable statements asserted as scientific fact. It would seem that Dr James is far from being a crazed 'conspiracy theorist' or 'anti-vaxxer' and is in fact in the good company of reputable scientists. ​ Coercion ​ At the time of writing, the UK government and Boris Johnson (Prime Minister) are engulfed in controversy about parties held at No. 10 during lockdown. While many are rightfully offended by the government's blatant breach of the rules while Britons were forced to adhere at risk of penalty, another important point has been largely overlooked. The fact that so many No. 10 staff interacted without social distancing indicates a clear lack of fear about covid-19 transmission and infection. It is highly unlikely that they would willingly risk infection to themselves and thus to their friends/families. Disconcertingly, their conduct suggests they understood that the virus posed a far less threat than has been told to the public. This has all but been confirmed in the days following the worst of the party scandal, in which behavioural scientist Simon Ruda (co-founder of No. 10's Behavioural Insights Team or 'Nudge Unit') admits that propaganda and fear was used to enforce public compliance during the first lockdown and thereafter. Furthermore, the Office of Statistics Regulation blasted the UK Health Security Agency over exaggerated claims about Omicron infection. We can only assume the claims were made to justify implementation of the Plan B restrictions. All of this demonstrates an obscene lack of integrity and profound abuse by the government of the public's trust. We must subsequently ask ourselves if we should blindly trust the government with its interpretation of covid-19 data, its motives, and its assertions about the safety and necessity of vaccinations. ​ Conclusion We do not believe the data supports mandatory vaccination for anyone. The vaccine does not provide long-term protection against covid-19 and there is evidence of significant associated injury. We do not believe that vaccination is an absolute necessity for anyone healthy under the age of 65. The data suggests that vaccination could be recommended to people over 65 with comorbidities. People in this category should seriously consider the benefits of taking the vaccine given the high risk of severe symptoms and death from covid-19 infection against the possibility of vaccine injury. It appears that those who are under 65, fit, without comorbidities and with high levels of Vitamin D are statistically very likely to become part of the 99% who survive infection. It is for those in this category to decide whether to trust the evidence of natural immunity or whether to risk side effects for the benefits of mRNA vaccination. We hope that this information helps health and social care workers to understand the risks and benefits of the vaccination, and thusly to decide whether or not to observe the vaccine mandate in order to remain employed.

bottom of page