How the “Unvaccinated” Got It Right

 The COVID “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing

• The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass vaccination was only able to stand if the safety of the vaccine had been established
• Given the lack of proof, the mass vaccination policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones
• Policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions
• This was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it
• Data and data-supported analyses showed no evidence of the efficacy of the COVID vaccine, and the only way to know for sure was to actively seek it out and test it

Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force

• In the case of the COVID pandemic, almost all people who acted as if the "vaccine" was safe and effective had no physical or informational evidence for the claims of safety and efficacy beyond the supposed authority of other people who made them
• How do the people who are generating the data that we saw on the news every night and were being used to justify the mass "vaccination" policy handle the uncertainty around PCR-based diagnoses?

Keep an eye out for published safety and efficacy data as the pandemic progresses

• Pfizer’s Six-month Safety and Efficacy Study was notable
• The data in the paper showed more deaths per head in the "vaccinated" group than the “unvaccinated” group
• This difference does not statistically establish that the virus is dangerous or ineffective, the generated data were clearly compatible with the incomplete safety of the vaccine
• As time went on, it became very clear that some of the informational claims that had been made to convince people to get “vaccinated,” especially by politicians and media commentators, were false

The overall political and cultural context in which the entire discourse on "vaccination" was being conducted was such that the evidential bar for the safety and efficacy of the "vaccine" was raised yet further while our ability to determine whether that bar had been met was reduced.

• In such a context, accurate determination of facts is almost impossible: moral judgment always inhibits objective empirical analysis. When dispassionate discussion of an issue is impossible because judgment has saturated discourse, drawing conclusions of sufficient accuracy and with sufficient certainty to promote rights violations and the coercion of medical treatment is next to impossible.

Precision is not accuracy

• Under great uncertainty and complexity, model outputs are dominated by the uncertainties on the input variables that have very wide (and unknown) ranges and the multiple assumptions that themselves warrant only low confidence.
• Any claimed precision of a model's output is bogus and the apparent accuracy is only and entirely that - apparent.

An honest approach to COVID and policy development would have driven the urgent development of a system to collect accurate data on COVID infections and the outcomes of COVID patients

• Instead, the powers that be did the very opposite, making policy decisions that knowingly reduced the accuracy of collected data in a way that would serve their political purposes
• They stopped distinguishing between dying with and without COVID, incentivized medical institutions to identify deaths as caused by COVID when there was no clinical data to support that conclusion, etc.
• The dishonesty of the pro-"vaccine" side was revealed by the repeated changes of official definitions of clinical terms like "vaccine".

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-the-unvaccinated-got-it-right/