6 Double Standards Public Health Officials Used to Justify COV!D Shots
A double standard is not twice as good as a single standard.
6 Double Standards Public Health Officials Used to Justify COV!D Shots
The source of this information comes from Children’s Health Defense and is only summarized here. If you agree or disagree with the ideas presented please start a discussion by making comments to this article. For the full Children’s Health Defense article click the following link:
1. COV!D deaths are ‘presumed,’ but vaccine deaths must be ‘proven’
2. CDC uses VAERS data to investigate myocarditis yet claims VAERS data on vaccine deaths is unreliable
3. CDC pushes ‘relative risk’ for determining vaccine efficacy, but uses ‘absolute risk’ to downplay risk of adverse events
4. FDA requires randomized control studies for early treatment medications — but not for boosters (or the original shots or anything that is EUA - Emergency Use Authorization)
5. FDA uses immunobridging to justify Pfizer shots for young kids, but rejects antibodies as indicative of immune protection from COV!D
6. Causation must be proven for vaccine injuries, but correlation suffices for proving vaccine efficacy (or for deaths from COV!D)
How the pandemic could have played out differently
To summarize how devastating the use of these double standards was in crafting the “safe and effective” narrative, let’s look at how different the situation would be if we had adopted the standards the opposite way:
There would have likely been an extremely low number of deaths from COV!D. Very few, if any, autopsies have definitively confirmed that a fatality was caused by SARS-CoV-2. If confirmation by autopsy is the standard, there have been essentially zero deaths from COV!D during the pandemic. On the other hand, if we presume the deaths registered in VAERS are in fact vaccine-induced fatalities — similar to how the CDC presumed many deaths from COV!D — we can affirm there have been more than 26,000 vaccine deaths.
Using absolute risk reduction as a measure of efficacy, vaccines would have been widely rejected as ineffective, providing only a 0.038% risk reduction for contracting severe COV!D.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would have been readily available for people who got COV!D. And for those who got the vaccine but got COV!D anyway, these medicines would have been a great alternative to boosters, which shouldn’t have been approved due to the lack of a single randomized control study proving they work.
No children between the ages of 5 and 11 would have received this risky, experimental shot as it wouldn’t have been authorized for this age group — because Pfizer’s pediatric trials did not demonstrate any meaningful outcomes in children ages 5 to 11.
The Pfizer vaccine would no longer be in use because interim data demonstrated that all-cause mortality is higher in the vaccinated.
