Good health advice has always been about balancing risk against benefit. Since the great COVID reset, this principle has been turned on its head. It seems a simple equation – if the benefit from some action is limited then it’s not worth risking much to secure it. But making this judgement depends on the nature of the risk and the value of the benefit, and that may depend on one’s perceptions. To take a simple example – placing a small bet to have the chance of winning a large sum of money would be seen by most people as a large benefit outweighing a small risk, even though the history of gambling demonstrates the opposite – people will risk huge sums of money trying to win the jackpot but finally end up losing it all. Conversely most people will at some time take a huge risk to overtake another vehicle simply to gain a little time, which is then lost at the next traffic lights. In both those examples there is a positive benefit from taking the risk, but benefits may also include avoiding a penalty or damage. One may be forced to take a risk to avoid worse damage – running off the road to avoid an accident, or placing another bet to avoid losing even more. Benefits may also be intangible, or just hard to quantify. How should we assess the “benefit to the community” that we are told will accrue if we do as instructed? How do we quantify the damage to our well-being and social status that may result from our refusal to “do the right thing”? And while we can at least make a personal assessment of these benefits and damages, the same cannot be said of the risks around the vaccination question – which is of course what this review is about. Strikingly this subject is treated quite differently from all other health questions one can imagine. Weighing risks against benefits is always the question, and one in which the advice of a doctor or specialist is regarded as crucial. Such advice is also always expected to be “impartial” and never influenced by commercial interests, even when it is patently clear that it may be. There is no more glaring example of this than the banning of cheap and safe anti-virals HCQ and IVM, where the minimal risks from these drugs were blown out of all proportion while the benefits were made out to be insignificant and unproven. In fact it could be said quite clearly that a double standard has operated in the presentation of the risks and benefits of opposing approaches to the Coronavirus “pandemic”. It is one that is entirely unjustifiable, while also being indicative of an agenda to deceive the public while favouring the interests of the health and security machine. Let’s put it quite simply. The crux of the current debate is centred around a choice – getting sick or getting immune to the Virus. Authorities tell us that by getting immunity through vaccination we can avoid getting sick or dying from the COVID. They also tell us that our own immune system will not protect us from getting sick and will not give us good immunity if we are infected, so we will still need vaccination once we have recovered from the infection. This is quite simply all a lie. Authorities also tell us that the vaccines are safe and are effective, meaning that even if the benefit of vaccination is small it is still worth doing. This is also a lie, but not a simple one. Whether the vaccine is safe or not – and we are really only talking about the novel mRNA gene therapy “vaccines” now dominating the market – depends entirely on the age, sex and health status of the recipient. These drugs are remarkably unsafe, particularly to healthy young men, and would long have been banned in "normal circumstances" had risk-benefit been assessed impartially. Such dangers could be justified if the benefit – avoiding death or serious injury – was substantial. But for most of the population the benefit is barely measurable or non-existent, simply because the disease is not very serious for normally healthy people. How do you measure the efficacy of a treatment where those getting the placebo – no treatment – do not get sick? It is an idiotic question. Bizarrely we must even invent the concept of “negative efficacy”, where those given the treatment show more signs of illness than those untreated. This must apply to all the children now being administered the recommended poison and suffering inflammatory damage to their organs, as young children do not get sick from the infection. In young adults up to 40, “zero efficacy” is the case, as serious disease is rare and preventable in this group while myocarditis and other serious side effects are not uncommon, as well as underdiagnosed. The playing down of this extremely serious “side effect” and what appears to be a conspiracy to conceal it has been a crime in plain sight. A year ago the dangers were already evident, and many countries advised against vaccinating anyone under 30. The UK’s chief advisory body the JCVI noted that the incidence of myocarditis in 16-17 yr-old boys was as high as 1 in 6000, but politics over-ruled them. Even when sportsmen have heart attacks during televised football matches the link with their obligatory vaccination is rarely made, and never investigated or acknowledged. Rather the weight of proof is on the patient or relatives to show that any injury is a consequence of vaccination, unless the condition is diagnostic and cannot be ignored – like VITT. (Vaccine induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following AZ vaccination.) The arguments used on the risks versus benefits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are however reversed when it comes to natural infection and immunity. According to the very same authorities who advise that mRNA therapies are a safe and effective treatment for children, allowing them to be exposed to the virus at school and thereby gain natural immunity is a risky strategy with minimal benefit. This delinquent advice is epitomised by the recommendation that parents should wait for a month or so after their child catches COVID before having them vaccinated or given their second dose. It is impossible to overstate the sheer criminality of this supposed “health advice”, which defies all principles of health care as well as lacking any scientifically sound justification. The whole basis of human health throughout history has been in the proper functioning of the immune system, itself developed over millennia through natural selection. Even with the advent of antibiotics and vaccines, populations would still not survive without having resistance to infection and disease from a myriad of agents – as HIV sufferers could attest. The proper development of a healthy immune system in children depends on their being exposed to the range of pathogens in their environment at a low level – with the possible exception of those serious childhood killers for which vaccination remains a saviour. Administering a dose of one of these novel “vaccines” to a healthy child still developing its immune system runs the risk of compromising that development as well as exposing the child to unnecessary risk from known and quantifiable adverse side effects, but is also without any conceivable benefit. This is even more the case because vaccination does not prevent transmission of the virus – which is one of the excuses made for giving it to children. There is a phrase beloved of the commanders of this health autocracy – “out of an abundance of caution”. This has been used to back up perfectly unreasonable advice – on mask wearing for instance – but quite forgotten in the one place where such caution is merited - “Following the death from heart attack of a young girl shortly after her second Moderna injection, and given the minimal apparent advantage of vaccination now that the majority of the population has gained broad-based natural immunity to the SARS-2 virus, acting out of an abundance of caution we have resolved to cancel the vaccination programme at this stage.” Rather we have this: “Acting out of an abundance of caution, we recommend that despite a low risk of hospitalisation and death from COVID in children, parents would be advised to keep their children from returning to school until they can receive their second dose of vaccine.” As the reports of serious adverse events following vaccination continue to mount, while the millions who have "survived" an infection become increasingly emboldened by the evidence of their enduring immunity, it might be an idea for those who have created and embraced this great medical and humanitarian scandal to delete their personal histories, out of an abundance of caution, or just fess up and tell us why they did it. DM 27th January 2022