Safe and Effective

Spread the love


 By Joel Smalley

Of all the duplicitous narratives, the Safe and Effective™ one has to be the worst?

If truth be told, limiting the hours people could leave their homes, walking one way round supermarkets, standing behind Perspex screens, even wearing masks above 4 feet, didn’t directly kill any remotely healthy person, and nor did it contribute much to COVID’s pathogenicity.

The mass mRNA experiment, on the other hand, helped COVID in spades.

But even proving that is unnecessary.

Every time we fact check our work, I remind my fellow truthers, the bar is set much lower for us. As diligently as we strive to prove causation where there is obvious correlation, there really is no need.

If we reduce it to one main objective, I would say that the main purpose of the COVID narrative was simply to line the pockets of Big Pharma and their pawns and shills.

For the government pawns to keep stealing taxpayer money to line those pockets, the intervention has to be Safe and Effective™. Their words.

If it is either unsafe or ineffective, it fails to serve any purpose, let alone one mandated or financed by the state and its stolen funds. And that’s the end of it. That’s as high as the bar has to be for us.

Everything else is a sideshow at this point.

Defeat the Safe and Effective™ narrative and we can finally forget about COVID. And trust me, no-one wants that any more than me. I’m tired of this.

How do we do it?

In my opinion, it is actually quite simple. It’s indisputable maths. It doesn’t matter if the majority of people don’t care for facts. The facts don’t care. Facts cannot be defeated though, nor can they even be hidden for very long, not nowadays.

The funny thing is, that all this time, we have been trying to establish the whole truth by gathering and analysing as much data as we can, making things ever more complex and therefore more difficult to explain and more difficult to defend.

But, there is a very simple way to establish the truth of the Safe and Effective™ narrative.

Much has been made of official attempts to show that the unvaccinated are at greater risk (and threat to society in terms of healthcare burden and contagion) and all we’ve done is show that official datasets are unreliable at best.

To know if the unvaccinated are at greater risk of dying, you need to know who has died, you need to know their vaccination status, you need to know the unvaccinated population.

If you know all of these three metrics, you can easily demonstrate whether the unvaccinated die more than the vaccinated, simply by comparing the ratio of unvaccinated deceased to the ratio of unvaccinated population, assuming matched cohorts, i.e. the same age, health and treatment conditions of both populations.

And therein lies the problem. The public records of who has died, their vaccination status, the unvaccinated population are all incomplete.

They are all fraught with issues of erroneous or altogether missing data.

The government has not got a clue how many people are in the country. They haven’t got a clue who has died and whether or not they were really jabbed or not. Nor do they care.

Although, the technology exists to accurately collect, store and disseminate this information in real time already exists, society is years away from adopting it due to the political misfeasance and pervasive, systemic ignorance.

In the meantime, in my opinion, independent sampling is the most reliable method to establish the truth.

In my next article, I will prove it.