By While authorities, world bodies, the mainstream media and stakeholders on the internet are weeding out criticism of the experimental Covid-19 jab, critical-thinking experts are continuing to flag the shot’s disturbing faults, one after another.
One such undeniable argument has been tossed at the vaccine’s blind supporters by Dr Amitav Banerjee, who is a senior epidemiologist and head of the epidemiology department at Dr DY Patil Medical College in Pune, India.
Dr Banerjee has posed a simple question to the powers-that-be who are hell-bent on mass vaccinating the entire world’s population against Covid-19. He asks – if we give the shot to all 7.9 billion people, then we will not have a ‘control group’ – the set of people in a comparative vaccine impact study who are tactically not given the shot or given only a placebo.
In any research or experiment, especially in sensitive situations like the one involving the untested Covid-19 vaccine, it is vital to have a control group (unjabbed group) because that helps in conducting a study of the contrasting impact of the jab on those who took it and those who didn’t.
Similarly, as Dr Banerjee argues, if we decide to vaccinate all the people who had Covid-19 without leaving out a control group from among them, we will face the same problem – there will be no way to study the contrasting impact of the vaccine on those who recovered from the flu and took the shot, and those who recovered from the disease but didn’t take the jab.
Simply put, the epidemiologist points out that by hastily jabbing the whole planet, the scientific community will not be in a position at all, ever, to know the net impact of this experimental vaccine. As a result, as we are already seeing, we will not be able to scientifically know whether excess deaths and adverse effects in the post-jab era are caused by the shot.
“If we vaccinate everyone, including the people who got Covid, then how will you see the long-term impact of the disease, and the effects of the vaccine?” Dr Banerjee told Empire Diaries.
“In any medicinal experiment, it is common practice to separate two groups. You give medicine to one group and keep the other group away from the medicine. Here you are applying the medicine to both the groups. So, how the hell can you judge the effect of the vaccine or the efficacy of it?” argued the doctor who was a field epidemiologist with the Indian army.
The fear is, as many of the jab’s critics feel, the move to not have control groups is designed to protect the vaccine industry from being implicated with the general health situation slowly but surely getting out of hand.
From cerebral attacks to heart-related ailments to mysterious deaths among kids to unexplained illnesses to rising cases of fatigue to anomalous excess deaths data – we are getting to hear about all sorts of problems. But having no control group stunts the scientific community’s ability to pin-point the blame on the vaccine, which very well could be triggering all these problems.
“This is how epidemiology has progressed. This is how science has progressed fast,” said Dr Banerjee, pointing to the historical standard practice of having control groups in researches and human experiments.
“Through mass vaccination, you are losing data, you are losing evidence [of the vaccine’s impact, good or bad]. You are mass-vaccinating means you are trying to erase important data. It means you don’t want to keep important data. They are intentionally camouflaging data through mass vaccination. In criminal court of law, tampering with evidence is a criminal offence. In the scientific court of law also, it is a criminal offence if you tamper with medical data,” he explained.
REPUBLISH! Feel free to repost this article/video on the following terms: (1) Use the writer’s credit/byline at the start, (2) Hyperlink this post, (3) Mention our website EmpireDiaries.com with a hyperlink.
So true ! Maybe we should let those who choose to be vaccinated get vaccinated and leave the anti vaccine group alone and provide them standardised medical care at designated government hospitals and shut down the covid wards in hospitals.
What happens to the population that are incidentally covid positive, relatively asymptomatic and who are in hospital for procedures?
This is one of the things I’ve been worrying about. It happens a lot in other fields. For example, at my old workplace a new administrator came in and changed a lot of things, making a big mess and tossing 25 years of our work in the trash with no replacement. We ended up unable to access the information we needed, unable to make necessary changes, etc. The administrator then proclaimed that her changes had made everything much better. The higher-ups believed her and she flitted away to a new job to ruin another business.
My work was not life-and-death critical, but vaccines certainly can be. I suspect that they’ll claim that not vaccinating everyone would be “unethical”. Maybe they even believe it.
Very true, the case you cited falls in that same template of reform without leaving scope for comparative study.