Do 0 deaths in 2 years justify a vaccine mandate?

Guest Post by Steve kirsch

Apparently so! We live in very strange times, don’t we?

Credit to UCSF Professor Aditi Bhargava for bringing this particular UK FOIA request to my attention. I haven’t seen it anywhere else, so I thought I’d share it with you in case you missed it as well.

The request was:

​Please supply deaths caused solely by covid 19, where covid is the only cause of death listed on the death certificate, broken down by age group and gender between feb 2020 up to and including dec 2021.

Here is the most interesting part of the full response which covered nearly two years since the very start of the pandemic: the number of young people in the UK who died solely from COVID:

Your chance of being killed from COVID is basically 0 if you are under 24 years old.

Therefore, based on this data, if you were a policymaker in the US, you’d want to mandate the vaccines for anyone under 24, right?

0 deaths in 2 years, yet vaccines are mandated for young people in schools and universities.

This is how insane these mandates are.

How can 0 deaths justify a state of emergency applied to people under 24? How can it justify mandating a vaccine?

As far as I know, not a single one of the 3,143 public health officials in the US has spoken out against vaccine mandates for people under 24.

FDA math

Want to know how the FDA justifies the vaccines?

Did you ever read the risk-benefit analysis FDA did for 5 to 11 year olds?  It was based entirely on assumptions (not data), assumptions of incredible efficacy at preventing all sorts of covid-19 related harms, and on the adverse event side of the ledger, just one single AE (myocarditis). That’s it.  No other risks.

And no use of actual data, because trials provided zero data on any of all the endpoints (benefits and harms) that they thought were important.

See PDF p.39 (section 9.5) of the FDA’s EUA memo on 5-11 year olds: https://www.fda.gov/media/153947/download.

Congress totally trusts the FDA no matter how bad their analysis is.

If you want to see a more realistic risk-benefit analysis, see Dr. Toby Rogers’ analysis. Want more proof? Read this article.

A tale of two cities

In the UK now, we have: masks gone, social distancing gone, work from home gone, care home restrictions gone, travel restrictions gone, VACCINE PASSPORTS GONE and the Coronavirus Emergency Act will not be extended.

In Santa Clara County, we mandate masks, vaccines, etc. for everyone who works for the County.

Same virus, different policymakers.

Dr. Richard Pan introduces bill in California to close the personal belief exemption loophole

The very worst people in my opinion are the policymakers who actively force every last human being to take the jab by eliminating exemptions. For example, Dr. Richard Pan and his California State Senate bill to keep schools safe which is supported by:

• Los Angeles Unified Board President Kelly Gonez
• Los Angeles Unified Interim Superintendent Megan K. Reilly
• San Diego Unified Board Member Richard Barrera
• California Medical Association President Robert E. Wailes, M.D.

Nowhere in that article do you see any mention of a risk-benefit calculation. Never does he mention the number of lives he’s going to save with his bill. Never does he compute the number of deaths. It’s all fear-based policymaking with no math.

Which begs the question: Is there any policymaker with a working brain in the United States of America? Please identify yourself.

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from The Burning Platform can be found here ***