Table of Contents
Would New Zealanders have been better off praying, rather than vaccinating, during Covid? Some recent studies might separately suggest so.
Firstly, two Cambridge-led studies found that religious people coped with the pandemic — or, more correctly, with the draconian lockdown policies governments imposed in response better than secular people.
Cambridge University-led studies found the increase in feeling miserable was 29% lower for people who described themselves as belonging to a religion.
Prof Shaun Larcom said the pandemic was an opportunity “to measure whether religion was important… in a crisis”.
He said religion may help “people cope with adversity”.
The two studies were carried out in the USA and the UK when the lockdown mania was at its height. Their data was compared with data from before the pandemic.
The researchers also analysed the data by “religiosity” – the extent of an individual’s commitment to religious beliefs, and how central it was to their life.
Those for whom religion made “some or a great difference” in their lives experienced about half the increase in unhappiness seen in those for whom religion made “little or no difference”.
“The study suggests that it was not just being religious, but the intensity of religiosity that was important when coping with a crisis,” said Prof Larcom.
University of Cambridge economists said the studies showed that religion “may act as a bulwark against increased distress and reduced wellbeing during times of crisis, such as a global public health emergency” […]
The findings follow recently published Cambridge-led research which suggested that worsening mental health after experiencing Covid infection – either personally or in those close to you – was also ameliorated by religious belief.
BBC
If nothing else, praying at least isn’t going to kill you.
If only the same could be said for the Covid vaccines.
With considerably lower efficacy rates, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause more deaths than save lives, according to a new study whose researchers called for a “global moratorium” on the shots and “immediate removal” from childhood immunization schedule.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the Cureus journal on Jan. 24, analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. These trials led to the shots being approved under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States. The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials. It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.
Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
This is not, of course, to validate the exaggerated claims of a so-called “death shot”. Most people who had COVID-19 vaccines were perfectly fine. But no vaccine is 100% safe, just like any medical treatment. But the evidence is clear that the Covid vaccines were a lot less safe than most.
That might have been grimly acceptable, had the vaccines been effective at preventing a uniquely deadly disease. But the truth was that it isn’t, and they aren’t.
To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said. When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.
Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.
This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine. However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated. As such, for every life saved by the jab, almost 14 lives would be lost due to the mRNA vaccine, the study stated.
The Epoch Times
As I always caution readers, read the original study for yourself, especially when the media are making extraordinary claims.
The study does indeed bear out the claims.
The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
Unfortunately, just as panicked governments trampled all over well-established protocols to rush the vaccines to market, the almost religious zeal of Covid scaremongers and authoritarians means that they are still steadfastly denying the facts.
Prior to the rapid authorization process, no vaccine had been permitted for market release without undergoing a testing period of at least four years, the record set by Merck & Co., Inc. (New Jersey, US) in 1967 with the development of the world’s first mumps vaccine. Pfizer’s vaccine (BNT162b2) completed the process in seven months. Previous timeframes for phase 3 trial testing averaged 10 years. Health departments have stated that 10-15 years is the normal timeframe for evaluating vaccine safety. With the COVID-19 vaccines, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards, as numerous safety testing and toxicology protocols typically followed by the FDA were sidestepped.
And too many people paid the price.
For the vast majority of adults under the age of 50, the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well.
Cureus
So, the next time some flappy-armed, pink-haired frightbat blatherskites about “the science”, point to science like this — and demand to know why they’re ignoring it.
