Dr. Steve James makes the perfect case against jab mandates, even for care workers

Consultant anesthesiologist in London, dr. Steve James, who has acquired natural immunity against COVID and strictly refuses to get the COVID jab, has recently gained a lot of attention when he schooled British Healh Secretary Sajid Javid on the medical futility of vaccine mandates. See their interaction here:Show more

https://rumble.com/vsnt6q-healh-secretary-sajid-javid-schooled-by-unvaxxed-dr.-steve-james-on-mandate.html

In the current interview with Jeremy Vine, dr. James points to the strong risk stratification for COVID. The highest risk group are old, obese, comorbid men with low vitamin D levels. Young, lean, healthy people with vitamin D blood levels above 50 ng/ml have statistically negligible risk.

A doctor pointed out that many hospitalized patients were unvaccinated, but it wasn't clear whether they were in hospital because of COVID or merely because they have a positive test result.

NB: 95 out of every 100 positive PCR tests are clinically false, because the test is hyper oversensitive. That means the person is neither sick nor infectious, even though they may or may not have some viral fragments in their nasopharynx.

Factors that would get Steve James to change his mind and get the jab anyway:

1. Proof that the jab is safe
2. Proof that it would benefit him
3. An impact assessment proving that it would benefits his patients

NB: In another interview, dr. James said that he might choose to get jabbed if the jab provided even a 1% or 2% reduced risk to his patients. However, the jab can't even do that.

Q: Wouldn't it be better to get jabbed, because it lowers the infectious pressure in the community?
A: The most recent official data from the U.K. show unequivocally that vaccination provides no benefit in terms of infection and transmission risk. The data from many months ago might have been somewhat different, but current decisions shouldn't not be based on conditions that no longer apply.

If a patient has an irrational and unscientific preference for refusing treatment by a doctor who hasn't had the COVID jab, even though that doctor poses LESS risk to her due to his acquired natural immunity, then that is HER preference. However, the doctor is entitled to his own preference. Getting the jab when he already has natural immunity brings no benefit to anyone, but does put him at risk of adverse reactions.

While some people might be critical of health care personnel refusing the jab, many others support their decision wholeheartedly. Care workers' fight for bodily autonomy and logical scientific public health policy, benefits not just themselves but the whole population. Said differently, those fighting against mandates are not only fighting for their own rights, but also for everybody else's rights, including their children and grand children.

How the government is bullying health care staff with their jab mandate in a nutshell: The government is coercing health care staff to take two doses of an inoculation that...
- is currently not reducing infection or transmission
- hasn't finished its trial period
- has a highly concerning reporting rate to the Yellow Card system (British vaccine adverse event reporting system)
... for a disease with a morbidity profile that is similar to flu. The government won't consider naturally acquired immunity, which is vastly superior to vaccine acquired immunity in every single way.

Q: Isn't the inoculation the main reason that this 'pandemic' is currently ending? Wouldn't there be 100 000 more deaths absent the vaccine?
A: The countries with the highest vaccination rates, such as France and Israel, are currently experiencing large peaks in hospital admissions for COVID (and probably also for vaccine adverse reactions, although they're unlikely to admit that these hospitalizations have been caused by the jab). These data do not square with the assertion that the jab is the savior. In contrast, countries with a low vaccination rate like South Africa, seem to be doing much better.

Q: With the benefit of hindsight, would you say that it would've been better to vaccinate no one?
A: No. Triple vaccination of the high risk group seems to reduce this group's chance of dying of COVID. However, this does not mean that it is wise to vaccinate the low risk group or those with acquired natural immunity.

NB: What dr. James does not say is whether vaccinating the high risk group confers a NET benefit, i.e. whether the benefit of reduced COVID mortality is higher than the harms of the jab. What he also doesn't talk about are alternative approaches to reducing COVID morbidity and mortality, such as vitamin D and early effective combination therapy and also a healthier diet and lifestyle. This is no criticism of him, since only so much can be discussed in 7 minutes, but it certainly is an essential part of the decision making process.

The jab might not only protect against severe COVID, but also against long COVID. Dr. James is not worried of long COVID for himself, because he's already been exposed to the disease without any issues, and now he also has acquired natural immunity, which gives even more protection.

NB: Long COVID is a serious problem for some. Early effective combination therapy is not only protective against severe COVID, but also long COVID. Also, there is safe and effective treatment for long COVID, such as FLCCC's I-RECOVER protocol.

SOURCE: https://youtu.be/iQ_NcmXpFAw