Nostr Web Client

“infecting people with cowpox reduced the likelihood of being infected and reduced the severity if you were”

Take a look at the Leicester data. It flies right in the face of this assumption. They never had smallpox/cowpox vaccine mandates and their death and case outcomes were far better than any of the other cities in England.

H 2y ago

> They never had a mandate

Untrue. Leicester removed the mandate after protests. You can look it up, there were thousands of prosecutions. They had previously had mandates and even after it was removed the majority still vaccinated. Having said that, the Leicester method was absoutely, provably better than vaccination even if you don't take into account deaths from vaccination itself.

With all that in mind, vaccination did reduce the risk of infection and the risk of death from smallpox (assuming you survived vaccination). That doesn't mean vaccination was a good idea considering the high death rate, but my original statement is still true.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mrclownworld 2y ago

I don’t have time to go find my book and debate the facts, but let’s just point to the most important thing you said - the very first vaccination caused more deaths than it prevented

This simple possibility, which is present for every vaccine, necessitates all-cause mortality studies against placebos, which are never done.

That these studies are never done, along with the fact that vaccine manufacturers petitioned the government saying that the free market had determined their product created more downstream liability than profit, leads me to believe these products are not inherently safe nor effective.

H 2y ago

I didn't say that, but it's probably true. Vaccination causing deaths then or now, doesn't mean viruses aren't real.