Source: Journal of Clinical & Experimental Immunology.
With the worst of the Covid pandemic behind us we are beginning to see assessment or lessons learned reports in the technical literature. I reproduce below two paragraphs from such a report prepared by two Australian researchers and published in a journal of the Oxford University Press.
This paper is a fairly easy read for a layman, such as myself. It is receiving a lot of attention in some Internet venues I visit due to its citation of one study which found that “COVID-19 gene therapy (mRNA vaccine) causes more COVID-19 cases per million and more non-Covid deaths per million than are associated with COVID-19.”
Separately:
Children under 18 are 51 times more likely to die from the mRNA vaccines than from COVID-19 if unvaccinated. Young adults in the age range of 18 to 29 are eight times more likely to die from vaccination than from COVID-19. Adults from 30 to 39 are 7 times more likely to die from vaccination and those aged 40 to 49 are 5 times more likely to die after vaccination. People in the group aged 50 to 59 are still twice as likely to die after vaccination than after COVID-19. Only when over 60 years of age is the chance of death equal for both causes. Even when over 80 years old the likelihood of dying from Covid inoculation is just 0.13% lower than the risk of dying from the infection. The authors concluded that the protection from COVID-19 death falls far short of the risk of dying from the vaccine for people below 50 years old.
…
Never in Vaccine history have 57 leading scientists and policy experts released a report questioning the safety and efficacy of a vaccine. They not only questioned the safety of the current Covid-19 injections, but were calling for an immediate end to all vaccination. Many doctors and scientists around the world have voiced similar misgivings and warned of consequences due to long-term side effects. Yet there is no discussion or even mention of studies that do not follow the narrative on safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccination.
It is surprising to hear scientists talk about the Covid vaccines in the way this paper does. To be sure, this is only one paper in a vast literature and it neither offers nor should be construed as offering medical advice, but I expect as time goes by we will hear more negative vaccine assessments and they will become increasingly difficult to dismiss.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
There are some new technical details I did not know, and my opinion has evolved over the last 2 years, but it remains, to me, an individual choice based on the person’s risk profile.
For the elderly(over 60) the vaccines were a lifesaver early on. I have had the original series, 2 boosters and the bivalent, but so long as Paxlovid remains effective, I will not be taking another bivalent containing the extinct strain. Further stimulation of antigenic original sin with the extinct strain outweighs the benefits of the updated vaccine. I would take a monovalent vaccine against the current dominant strain.
However, for those under 30, and under 50 with no risk factors, natural immunity acquired by riding out an infection is a superior strategy.
Vaccinating anyone under 18(absent immune defect) is child abuse, as the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of the disease.
LikeLike
“Vaccinating anyone under 18(absent immune defect) is child abuse, as the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of the disease.”
Did you mean to say “corrupt child abuse” when writing this baloney?
I will continue to follow Johns Hopkins and the CDC and not a bunch of internet crackpots.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parents-need-to-know
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/18/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-not-linked-deaths-children/8584681002/
LikeLike
USA Today is not a medical journal and in any case the article is almost 2 years old. The JH article is over a year old.
The CDC is, well, the CDC, which recommended distributing the vaccine based on social justice rather than medical science.
Basing your views on articles from before we knew of antigenic original sin and that the vaccine does not prevent transmission is a really crackpot idea.
As I pointed out, my opinion evolves with new knowledge, but if you want to rely on outdated and politicized opinion in advising parents in your family, I certainly can’t stop you, but I strongly suggest you rethink that.
LikeLike
RE: “I will continue to follow Johns Hopkins and the CDC and not a bunch of internet crackpots.”
Do you mean to suggest the Journal of Clinical & Experimental Immunology and Oxford University are crackpots?
LikeLike
I am afraid that for Paul. political loyalty trumps both real scientific opinion and his own reason.
Less than 1 in10,000 people under 25 clinically infected with CVOID will die. Counting asymptomatic cases that would fall to under 1 in 100,000.
That is about the same as the risk from the vaccine but remember that many more people are vaccinated than have been infected.
And that doesn’t count the added risk from Antigenic Original Sin as new variant’s emerge.
So, I will stick with my risk evaluation, Vaccinating a child is abuse, and vaccination of healthy people under 30 is foolish,
For older people you have to weigh risk factors
LikeLike
Uh, my reason is just fine. Unlike you I am not constricted by the need to somehow support MAGA, Trump, “Christian,” and Anti-Vax nonsense.
“Less than 1 in 10,000 people under 25 clinically infected with CVOID will die. Counting asymptomatic cases that would fall to under 1 in 100,000.”
I will accept that fact and relate it to the fact that as of the end of last year there had been zero deaths caused by hundreds of millions of mRNA Covid vaccinations administered in this country. That is ZERO.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-cdc-covid-vaccine-deaths-910677348223
Do the math and apply you superior reason to your silly claim that vaccinating a child is “abuse.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That is ZERO.”
Your own source: “The CDC has confirmed just nine deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines.”
But so what? The AP is not a science journal, and credible scientists may provide different statistics from the CDC.
You really should shut up.
LikeLike
“Your own source: “The CDC has confirmed just nine deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines.”
LOL! How about you reading more carefully? My comment was about mRNA Covid vaccines. The 9 deaths the CDC attribute to clotting following a vaccination ALL related to the J&J vaccine which uses traditional vaccine technology and NOT mRNA.
“You really should shut up.”
Things people say when their bullshit has been called out.
Based on the evidence it is NOT rational to avoid vaccination at any age. Claims that the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease are LIES. I grant you that for young children the benefit of vaccination FOR THE CHILD may be small but there are benefits for those who live with the child – less chance of them becoming infected and bringing the virus home. And your silly assertion that getting your child vaccinated is “child abuse” is just plain ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your AP article doesn’t say the vaccine caused no deaths, it says it didn’t cause 16,000, which is undoubtedly true,
The best numbers I have seen put the risk of death from the vaccine at between 1/100,000 and 1/120,000, slightly higher for children than for adults.
That is not high as vaccines go, but it is not zero either. But it is in the same range as deaths from COVID. And it makes death from a later COVID infection MORE likely in children due to the original sin problem.
BTW, number of vaccinations is not important, number of people vaccinated is, If you don’t have serious effects the first time, it’s not likely you will from subsequent vaccinations either.
I’ve been vaccinated 5 times, but I am just one person.
LikeLike
“The best numbers I have seen put the risk of death from the vaccine at between 1/100,000 and 1/120,000, slightly higher for children than for adults.”
And yet the CDC reports ZERO deaths for mRNA vaccines after hundreds of millions of shots. I do not know where you get your “best numbers” from, but in this country the CDC is an authoritative source with no reason to make stuff up. And your numbers are absurd. If that were the actual risk, it would not remain a deep dark secret.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The CDC has become a political vehicle for radical ideology and has no remaining credibility.
LikeLike
“The CDC has become a political vehicle for radical ideology and has no remaining credibility.”
Yeah, advocating that people protect themselves, their families, their colleagues, and their neighbors by getting safe and effective vaccines during a dangerous pandemic could not be more radical.
In case the irony went over your head, your accusation is just plain dopey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was the CDC that made the recommendations for using the early batches of vaccine to achieve equity instead of to protect those most at risk.
After that, it would take a century to earn back the trust of the public. Better to start over with an actual science based agency.
LikeLike
“It was the CDC that made the recommendations for using the early batches of vaccine to achieve equity instead of to protect those most at risk.”
More whiny white grievance from a man who could not wait his turn for the vaccines when they were scarce but drove to NC to jump the queue. And was proud of it.
You argued that Trump did not do such a bad job on Covid compared to other countries because we have a large share of African-American people who – you argued – were more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. But let the CDC reflect that reality for a few weeks in a very minor way and out comes this whiny racist bullshit. Sad but totally in character.
LikeLike
An opinion with ZERO bias in fact. You and your tribe are very good at that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “best numbers” . . .
I said your “best numbers” were absurd. I invite you to reconsider your “best numbers” and whatever source gave them to you.
There have been – in very round figures – 600,000,000 vaccinations. If your “best number” is right then there would be 6,000 deaths attributable to being vaccinated. The CDC has identified 9 – all from the traditional J&J vaccine and none from the mRNA doses.
But wait, you protest, if you survive the first shot, the second shot or booster is not likely to kill you. Okay, good point. Currently, about 230,000,000 Americans have been fully vaccinated. If your “best numbers” are accurate, then the deaths attributable to the shot would be 2,300. Not 9.
If you want to come back with a conspiracy theory saying the CDC is “corrupt” and hiding the real danger of vaccination, don’t bother. I, for one, have heard enough nonsense on this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “For older people you have to weigh risk factors.”
That’s my view. Also, I don’t think the paper contradicts that idea in any way. It is just a survey of literature the authors want to draw attention to.
If I had collected the citations myself and presented them on this web site, then the criticism that I cherry-picked data or was trying to concoct a narrative I am unqualified to concoct would be valid. As it is, the authors are unquestionably qualified to cherry-pick as they wish for whatever message they wish to convey, and their paper is backed by the world’s oldest publisher of scientific knowledge.
So there is no question of authoritative sources. Rather, the issue is evolving perspectives.
LikeLike
“Do you mean to suggest the Journal of Clinical & Experimental Immunology and Oxford University are crackpots?”
By their works shall you know them. The article you linked to is not a scientific paper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the dumbest thing you have ever said.
LikeLike
This is not a sciece paper. It is a poltical polemic by a pair of anti-vax cranks.
In this podcast organized by someone who lost their job because they would not get vaccinated, one of the authors states explicitly that they are an “anti-vaxxer.” Well, alrighty then.
https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/dr-conny-turni-dr-astrid-lefringhausen-part-1-on-the-malcolm-roberts-show-12-november-2022/
An early example of the unscientific bias in the writing can be found on the first page . . .
“During an autopsy of a vaccinated person that had died after mRNA vaccination it was found that the vaccine disperses rapidly from the injection site and can be found in nearly all parts of the body.”
Gee, that sounds bad. Somebody got vaccinated and then they died. I went on-line to find out more. The autopsy was performed on an 86 year-old man suffering from systemic arterial hypertension, chronic venous insufficiency, dementia and prostate carcinoma who had died of renal and respiratory failure a month after the vaccination with zero indication that the vaccine had anything to do with his death.
Also on the first page a nonsensical falsehood . . . “It is an amazing fact that natural immunity is completely disregarded by health authorities around the world. ” That is NOT a fact.
It goes on in similar vein regurgitating doubious and debunked studies and exaggerated claims of unproven risks. And generally ignores the millions of lives saved and hospitalizations avoided.
In the section about short term side effects they emphasize DEATH as a possibility. Nonsense. As of July 23,2021 there had been 339,000,000 vaccinations with just 3 deaths where the vaccine MAY have triggered deadly clotting. That is a 1 in 113,000,000 chance of dying from the shot. The is almost nothing you can do or ingest that is much safer than that. And those three deaths were all connected to the J&J vaccine which is not an mRNA vaccine that this paper is supposedly about.
In short, a complete waste of space. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Gee, that sounds bad. Somebody got vaccinated and then they died.”
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. The point of the autopsy citation was to show that the vaccine disperses throughout the body, not that the person died of vaccination.
Since, like me, you lack qualifications to judge the technical merits of the paper, it is irresponsible of you to comment on them.
LikeLike
“You really need to work on your reading comprehension”
I read just fine. The sentence quoted was designed to leave the impression that it was the vaccine that caused the death.
There are no “technical merits” to evaluate. It is a polemic cherry-picking and distorting other studies to make an anti-vax point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The sentence quoted was designed to leave the impression that it was the vaccine that caused the death.”
OMG. Now we have to take you seriously because you can read minds!
LikeLike
You keep trying the “mind reading”baloney” when all that is actually needed is some critical thinking. English is a complex and subtle language full of nuance and connotation. What is left out can be just as significant as what is left in. An honest writer would have made clear that the autopsy was on a very old and sick man who happened to die of natural causes a month after being vaccinated. They chose not to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “An honest writer would have made clear that the autopsy was on a very old and sick man who happened to die of natural causes a month after being vaccinated.”
An honest critic would recognize that the cause of death is irrelevant to the observation. I’d say you are not honest.
LikeLike
I saw nothing to indicate the vaccine was the cause of death.
We were assured that the vaccine remains in the location of the vaccination and breaks down very quickly.
That autopsy told us that neither of those things was true.
That does not negate the usefulness of vaccine in appropriate cases, but the FDA should have picked up on that much sooner.
LikeLike
RE: “the FDA should have picked up on that much sooner.”
Yes. Pfizer had provided data suggesting this very possibility. I think I even posted about it once — specifically, reports Pfizer provided to the Japanese government concerning the distribution of vaccine-related nanoparticles in study participants.
LikeLike