Vaccine mandates throughout US colleges and workplaces are based on outdated beliefs that the current vaccines will: 1) reduce community spread of the coronavirus, 2) reduce one’s chances of being infected with coronavirus, and 3) reduce likelihood of severe COVID symptoms and death if infected with the coronavirus. However, vaccines do not appear to reduce community spread. They likely offer little, if any, lasting protection against infection, hospitalization and death, despite current misleading media and health department reports. The published clinical trials and real-world studies that support the current vaccines have issues and limitations concerning their efficacy and safety. Emerging evidence suggests vaccination may paradoxically increase the rate of spread and risk of infection, symptom severity and death both during vaccination and also after full vaccine protection has worn off. Given the much lower risks of COVID in younger adults relative to older adults and reduced efficacy of vaccines over time and against new variants, continuing the vaccine mandates may take or impair more lives than save from COVID in these groups. The protective benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the non-trivial risk of death and (small but still alarmingly higher than normal) risk of life-altering injury, especially in younger age groups and in individuals with few occupational and health COVID risk factors. There is a growing global evidence base for alternative COVID prophylactics and therapeutics, as well as new vaccines that could potentially prove safer than those currently on the market. Vaccine mandates should be lifted, and public health policies should be adjusted to better promote personalized medicine, informed consent, and individual choice regarding COVID risk management. Links to online petitions to lift the COVID-19 vaccine college and workplace mandates and vaccine mandates for NYC educators are provided.
➤ Version 15 (2021-10-24) |
Spiro Pantazatos (2021). Vaccine mandates are not based on sound science: they are harmful and should be lifted as soon as possible. Researchers.One. https://researchers.one/articles/21.08.00008v15
Gail PayneJanuary 21st, 2022 at 02:37 pm
Thank you Spiro. My daughter is a post-doc at Columbia and despite a vaccine injury as a baby, I've been unable to convince her of the real risks to the Covid vaccines. I created this petition website as I just learned of the booster mandates: https://wordpress.com/post/columbiansagainstboostermandates.wordpress.com/6
Please sign & share or just share. Thanks so much, Gail Payne
Eugene PanferovOctober 2nd, 2021 at 08:23 pm
i am afraid there is a purely mathematical argument that reveals the harm of the mandate to the point of rendering any safety analysis moot (including the critical response to the article)
When physically receiving an injection what are your means of verifying the chemical composition of the injection?
No matter the amount of arguments anyone could possibly conceive, it all ended up at PURE TRUST.
1. you do not have ANY PHYSICAL MEANS OF VERIFICATION, at all.
2. you do have some reason to justify some trust in the veracity of the claims of the person giving you the injection.
nothing else is relevant -- your only basis of the possible decision to receive the injection is game-theoretical-trust: you can conceive an optimal survival strategy for the person giving you the injection that NECESSITATES veracity of his claims (honesty with you)
if you perceive his optimal strategy as necessitating honesty, then you decide positively about the injection.
A MANDATE COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THIS TRUST.
there is no room for any trust under a mandate.
full stop.
Spiro PantazatosAugust 24th, 2021 at 01:43 am
Hi David,
Thanks for your engagement. Yes, if you can, please comment on the specifics of the analysis and the writing, as that should make for a more constructive debate and discussion. If you can also please cite the specific studies that you refer to that use economic analysis, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis etc., and how and why they contradict this article’s conclusion, I would look forward to read them and update the manuscript accordingly.
Much appreciation in advance,
Spiro
David ManheimAugust 23rd, 2021 at 01:12 pm
I should comment on the specifics of the analysis, the writing, and the attempt to bypass analysis suggest public action, all of which are embarrassing for the attempted paper. However, more importantly, this uses a mix of motivating reasoning in selecting preliminary results that highlight risks, speculating about unknown potential risks, asserting without any discussion that the future vaccines may be better, and ignoring work that shows safety as insufficient, all to attempt a policy, cost-benefit, and public health "analysis" that ignores the methods which are used by those substantive domains. As much as it is dangerous for policymakers to ignore medical science, it is also inappropriate for medical practitioners to ignore the substantive domain expertise (such as economic analysis, meta-analysis, evidence synthesis, public policy, and epidemiology) which are needed for public health analysis. This paper purports to contribute toward the debate, but it fails to do so.
© 2018–2025 Researchers.One