The distinction between 'safe' and 'harmless' according to Bret Weinstein

Bret Weinstein defines something, such as a (new) medicine or treatment, as 'safe' when it's perfectly PROVEN to cause no harm. Until that is the case, it is to be regarded as unsafe. Said differently, it's guilty until proven innocent.

IMPORTANT: Something is not safe merely because an institution, such as FDA or WHO, says it is safe. Going forward, we should assign very little credibility to these institutions, especially when they have proven themselves time and again to be incompetent, corrupt/captured, and/or lacking common sense and pragmatism.

A HARMLESS intervention is an intervention that causes no harm.

It is possible that an intervention is both harmless and unsafe if it causes no harm, but we don't have all the required safety data (yet).

Example: Playing Russian roulette with a revolver that contains no bullets, is both harmless and unsafe if you don't know it has no bullets.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

1. The above relates to an important insight: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, merely because you are not aware that something is harmful, does not mean it is harmless. Many people, including scientists and doctors, make this mistake all the time.

2. For a NEW medicine to be proven as safe, we MUST have long-term rigorous trustworthy safety data. Additionally, we must have thoroughly researched ALL safety aspects and all raw data of these trials should be available to the public. It's absolutely clear that with the COVID injections, we have neither, so they must be regarded as unsafe.

ALL of the following safety trials were skipped with the experimental COVID inoculations:

- GENOTOXICITY: Whether it harms your genome
- CARCINOGENICITY: Whether it causes cancer
- NEUROTOXICITY: Whether it causes neurological disease
- REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY: Whether it harms fertility and unborn and lactating children
- BIODISTRIBUTION: How the lipid nanoparticles spread over the body, especially if the injection is intravenous. Also how the generated spike proteins spread over the body and if they enter the cell nucleus.
- CYTOTOXICITY: Whether it harms cells
- THROMBOGENICITY: Whether it causes blood clots

3. In contrast to the above, OLD medicines and treatments that have already proven themselves to be safe, should be regarded as SAFE until proven otherwise, even for (supposedly) new diseases. Said differently, they should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

Examples of this are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which have proven themselves to be extremely safe in normal therapeutic doses over many decades and billions of doses. It is theoretically possible that they are harmful when used in combination with a specific new condition, but we should require excellent proof before believing this to be the case, especially if those making these claims have severe conflicts of interest.

4. Medical tyranny is always bad.

4a. Regardless of whether a medicine or treatment has been perfectly proven to be safe (or effective), it may NEVER be mandated. Coercion to have a medical procedure is ALWAYS bad, regardless if it's informed or not. Where there's risk, there must be choice. No means no. Rape with an injection is still rape. No jab, no job (or other basic civil rights) is equally bad as no sex, no job.

4b. The choice should ALWAYS be up to the individual to take a medicine if they want and are willing and able to pay for it. States may NEVER ban access to a medicine such as ivermectin or HCQ regardless of the scientific proof regarding safety and efficacy for a specific condition, especially if the medicines are safe according to the above definition.

NB: The latter has some minor exceptions. For example, I think it's reasonable that if someone with a minor cold demands chemotherapy for their cold, their doctor refuses to cooperate. Also, if the availability of a treatment is scarce or society pays very high costs, I don't think doctors should necessarily comply. Also, it's absolutely reasonable if a doctor demands a patient to sign a waiver to protect themselves from harm.

5. Since the 'vaccines' have not proved themselves to be safe, they should be regarded as unsafe. In fact, they have also proven themselves to be extremely harmful for at least 0.5% to 2% of the injected.

6. It is possible to make a different distinction than Brett Weinstein makes. For example, getting a PCR swab up the nose is uncomfortable and costs time and money. This makes it harmful, even if it causes no medical harm.

CONCLUSION

The COVID jabs are unsafe and extremely harmful. Except for the high risk group, everyone would have been wise to, at a minimum, wait at least a few months for more safety data before getting injected with this experimental genetic serum based on a completely new technology.

In fact, no one, not even the very high risk group, should have gotten vaxxed. This is because already before the start of the mass inoculation campaign, there were known to be safe, effective, cheap, available alternatives for prevention and therapy.

These alternatives are: adequate ventilation (CO2 level below 1000 ppm), optimal humidity (40-60%), adequate vitamin D blood levels (>50 ng/ml), early intensive combination therapy in case of sickness, healthy diet/lifestyle, and prophylaxis and monitoring for the very high risk group.

SOURCE

Brett Weinstein's interview with UnHerd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLp9YMM7CI4

I highly recommend watching the entire interview, because it's fantastic. However, I will not be mirroring the interview on my Rumble channel yet, because I want UnHerd to receive the advertising income they deserve.