Fully Vaccinated Just as Likely to Spread Virus as Unvaccinated but Vaccine Passports Still Coming


A new study by researchers at Oxford University rubbishes plans to introduce vaccine passports as it shows that Covid vaccines do not significantly reduce transmission of the most common variant but the new results will have no impact on the implementation of passports government sources says.


The study found that those who supposedly get Covid have a similar peak viral load as the unvaccinated. This means infected people ‘shed’ the same amount of virus when they cough or sneeze, regardless of whether or not they have been jabbed. What the findings should have prompted is 'experts' scrapping the vaccine passport programme but what it actually did was prompt them to say the findings strengthened their argument for a ‘booster’ jab in the autumn.

At this point any findings are quickly 'spinned' by Government pandemic advisors as they repeatedly make the data fit the narrative. If Vaccine Passports were so critical to stop the spread of a virus then why wait for three months between unlocking and implementation? Could it be that they're fuck-all to do with viruses or vaccines after all?


Researchers concluded two doses reduce the chance of getting the Covid by about 82% for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca. This mysteriously dropped from the much trumpeted 95% and 96% claimed when the media were paying attention and ignores entirely the fact that vaccines kill one person for every three they save.


The researchers compared results from December 2020 to May 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant, with those from May to August 2021, after the Indian [Delta] variant drove a summer wave. According to scientists The Delta variant has 'blunted' the efficacy of vaccines as fully vaccinated people who do get Covid now have a similar peak ‘viral load’ as the unvaccinated. This means they are just as likely to spread the virus onwards, and to develop mild symptoms such as a cough or temperature. So the findings, showing that vaccine passports are a farce, have no scientific basis for their implementation and should be scrapped, immediately. But what the findings will be used for is to turbo-charge the booster-jab programme and pave the way for repeated vaccines being needed. All that experts need to do now is rearrange the sequence of DNA numbers, claim they've discovered a 'new variant' and that prompts the need for another jab. It's a scam.


Related Article:

"Covid Vaccines Kill One Person for Every Three Lives They Save" - Peer-Reviewed Study

but Sahawi neglected to mention that in his speech.


A review of efficacy and safety data for the COVID-19 vaccines by three scientists has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines and comes to the disturbing conclusion that for every three deaths the vaccines prevent, one person dies from an adverse reaction, while another four suffer serious side effects.


The authors conclude:

“This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

Here is the abstract:


Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.


Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.


Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination.


Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy. The authors note this conclusion is based on the reported adverse reactions, whereas the true number of adverse reactions may be considerably more.


Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases. The median underreporting can be as high as 95%. Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

They note that the “risks and benefits” of the vaccines are “on the same order of magnitude” and suggest: “Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?”

The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects. Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.


The full study can be found here.


Meanwhile, Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi claimed that extending the lockdown had 'saved many thousands of lives' but there is no scientific proof that is true, it appears little more than superstition. However, what is provable by contrast is the thousands of deaths and life changing events vaccines are causing.


The public have a right to know the truth, but Vision News has been banned from sharing the facts on Facebook and Youtube, so we're now asking our readers to share this with as many people as they can, it may just save a life.

46 views0 comments