WHAT PATIENTS ARE NOT BEING TOLD
Despite the hype created with relative risk reduction (RRR), the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) for COVID Vaccines is around 1%. The ARR for Pfizer-BioNTech is only 0.84% (THAT IS CLOSE TO ZERO!)
Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines. Lancet Microbe-July 1, 2021 National Institutes of Health – April 20, 2021
Risk Benefit for Males ages 16-29
The incidence of myocarditis increased after the receipt of the Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, particularly after the second dose among young male recipients.
The largest difference among male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (difference, 13.73 per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.11 to 19.46), highest after the second dose in male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (13.60; 95% CI, 9.30 to 19.20).
Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel October 6, 2021
The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. October 6, 2021
CDC Leaked July 29, 2021 Slide Questions Rational Basis For Discriminatory Burden Placed Upon Unvaccinated or Those Asserting Medical Privacy
Comparing the COVID Jab to other vaccines.
Significantly – the risk of injury is substantially higher than other vaccines
COVID jab – does not guarantee a person will not become infected by COVID-19 – “Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated Health Care Workers” – New England Journal of Medicine – July 28, 2021 DOI:10.1056/NE/Moa2109072. Many had symptoms lingering beyond 6 weeks. (Personal Note – I personally know several vaccinated persons suffering from “rare” COVID-19 breakthrough infections) As more time goes by, the intentional deception will become more apparent.
Failure to Provide Informed Consent
The COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to prevent infection and instead intended to reduce the severity of symptoms. With a 99.7-99.9 percent probability of recovery from COVID-19, if the mRNA Vaccines increase the risk of immune enhancement death or illness (antibody-dependent enhancement – “ADE”) are patients not receiving necessary information to obtain “informed consent”? The VAERS site continues to report significant adverse reactions and a higher percentage of fatalities and serious injuries than any other “vaccine” in American history.
Common Law Battery
A physician or medical practitioner who intentionally fails to adequately inform the patient of the risks in order to obtain an “informed consent” may be liable for malpractice or common law battery!
“The law is so jealous of the sanctity of the person that the slightest touching of another, . . . if done in a rude, insolent or angry manner, constitutes a battery for which the law affords redress. . . .” Crosswhite v. Barnes, 139 Va. 471, 477, 124 S.E. 242, 244 (1924). It is well established that, given the proper factual conditions and circumstances, a patient can maintain against a physician an action based on assault and battery for acts arising out of the physician’s professional conduct. The relationship between physician and patient is a consensual one and “[a] surgical operation on the body of a person is a technical battery or trespass unless he or some authorized person consented to it.” 61 Am. Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc. § 155 (1972). An unauthorized operation is a wrongful and unlawful act for which the surgeon will be liable in damages. Consent to an operation may be express, and under some circumstances may be implied or presumed. See 61 Am. Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, Etc. § 158 (1972). Such consent to an operation may also be withdrawn, if timely and unequivocally done, thereby subjecting the surgeon to liability for battery if the operation is continued. See Mims v. Boland, 110 Ga. App. 477, 138 S.E.2d 902 (1964).
Pugsley v. Privette, 220 Va. 892, 899-900, 263 S.E.2d 69, 74 (1980)
If you suffered a severe adverse consequence within hours of the COVID Jab - contact us.
Information you should have when you contact us:
- Date of jab
- All paperwork you signed before jab
- All paperwork given to you before jab
- Medical Records related to your severe adverse reaction to jab
- You ability to cover the costs of required experts & court costs — litigation is expensive, especially in cases requiring medical experts and national panic.
Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C.
105 S 1st Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 783-2105 fax