Like Madelaine Albright’s infamous statement that killing half-a-million Iraqi kids was “worth it,” there are some who will say killing 117 to prevent one death is “worth it.” From Steve Kirsch at stevekirsch.substack.com:
That’s according to a risk-benefit analysis done by risk-benefit expert Dr. Toby Rogers. His analysis has been viewed by over 22,000 readers. No mistakes were found. Nothing but praise.
In a recent article that I hope everyone will read or at least skim, he concluded: “So, to put it simply, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus. For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.”
That’s stunning. Read it again. We kill 117 kids to save one kid.
Not surprising to me. It’s consistent with the scientific peer-reviewed literature such as the Kostoff paper which concluded:
In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! This demographic is the most vulnerable to adverse effects from COVID-19. As the age demographics go below about 35 years old, the chances of death from COVID-19 become very small, and when they go below 18, become negligible.
The Walach paper found the same thing. It has now been re-published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law which is a peer-reviewed medical journal. The Walach paper appears in this issue along with a scathing editorial by the journal editor talking about how the paper authors were mistreated by the scientific community. James Lyons-Weiler wrote, “Either way, the authors of the latest paper in Science, Public Health Policy, & the Law (Walach et al.) have been caught, like grist in the mill, in a nonsensical, convoluted torture session in which their detractors have broken all logic and reason on the question of how society renders causal inference between vaccine exposure and serious illness or death.” James would love to debate anyone who disagrees with his editorial, but nobody wants to talk about it.