Name: Health Secretary Sajid Javid schooled on mandates by unvaxxed dr. Steve James in awkward exchange
Uploaded: 2022-01-15T19:31:08+00:00
Duration: 2 min 19 s
Description: British Healh Secretary Sajid Javid asked the female NHS employees about their opinions on vaccine mandates for all NHS (National Health Service) staff. Notice how nobody wants to answer. If their opi

2 years ago

235

#COVID19 #vaccine #VaxInjury #VaxSafety #VaccineMandate #NHS

British Healh Secretary Sajid Javid asked the female NHS employees about their opinions on vaccine mandates for all NHS (National Health Service) staff. Notice how nobody wants to answer. If their opinion had been in line with the socially desirable stance ― that vaccine mandates are fantastic ― they would not have hesitated. Their silence speaks volumes.

Consultant anesthesiologist in London, dr. Steve James, volunteers to have a go at Javid's question. James shares that he has already recovered from COVID and demonstrably has antibodies. He's not been vaxxed and doesn't want to get vaxxed either. Why would he?

NB: 'Consultant' is the term the British use for doctor'

The jabs MAY reduce transmission with the omicron variant for significantly less than 8 weeks. Why would you take the risk with such an experimental genetically engineerd injection for a reward that is zero for people who have acquired natural immunity and minimal for people who have not yet acquired natural immunity.

Instead of engaging with dr. James, Javid dismisses his FACTS and airtight REASONING as just an OPINION: "That's your view". He turns to the women again, probably in the hope of finding allies.

Javid adds, "There will always be a debate about it". But if the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission and certainly not for more than a few weeks at best, then a facts-based debate with public health as priority number 1, can only lead to one conclusion: that vaccines must NEVER be mandated, because they provide no benefit to others. (There are many more valid reasons why mandates are absolutely out of the question.)

The only difference of opinion can be with people who are either not fact-based and/or have conflicting priorities, such as protecting a dogma or the profits of pharmaceutical companies. The insight is real simple: artificially acquired 'immunity' is INFERIOR to naturally acquired immunity in each and every way.

For these discussions, no vaccine experts are required. If the jabs don't significantly reduce transmission (which they don't) and they also don't provide significant and durable protection against severe disease (which they don't), then no argument can be made for protecting others and the system respectively.

Javid says that natural immunity will wane at some point. First of all, in immune competent people, the ANTIBODIES will wane, but the IMMUNITY won't wane significantly. Immune memory will almost certainly be lifelong. Notice also the double standard. People like Javid doubt the duration of natural immunity and first demand proof, but don't doubt vaccine immunity and don't require proof of that.

Dr. James explains that mass vaccination has no exit strategy. You'd have to vaccinate every NHS staff member every month until eternity, whereas natural immunity is one and done. With naturally acquired immunity, you may get some very mild 're-disease', but your risk of severe disease and severe infection risk is almost zero as long as you're immune competent. This re-exposure will be a natural booster, making your immunity even better than it was. (If you're severely immune suppressed, you're susceptible to severe disease regardless of natural immunity or vaxx status.)

Sajid Javid says, "we take the very best advice that we can from the people who are vaccine experts". There are at least two pitfalls with this line of reasoning.

First of all, vaccine experts tend to regard vaccines as the only solution. ("If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.") This is simply the nature of experts: they tend to only seek solutions in their area of expertise. They're not likely to think in terms of measures to significantly reduce infection risk (such as ventilation and optimal humidity), measures to strengthen the immune system (such as a healthier diet and lifestyle, vitamin D) and/or early treatment.

Second of all, these experts almost certainly have massive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies. They profit personally if the pharmaceutical companies profit, so they're likely to advise whatever is most profitable for pharmaceutical companies as long (as they can get away with it), even if it's not necessary, not safe and ineffective or even counter-effective.