…“deus ex vaccina” and other texts on the vaccination programme…
published February 16th 2021
“If science was put to the service of capital, the recalcitrant worker’s docility would be assured”
— Andrew Ure, Philosophie des Manufactures, 1835
“It was thenceforth no longer a question whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful or harmful to capital, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic”
– Karl Marx, Preface II of Capital
“Scientists expose themselves as ideologists until, at the end of a long chain of prize-fighting, eclecticism, syncretism, evil apologetic and so on, sham-science appears … and the scientific “ideal” is presented in the image of the stock-market, where gambling decides our fate”
– Josef Weber, The Problem of Social Consciousness In Our Time
Above: a vaccination information video
Below: a vaccination information poster
This comprises 4 translations (one of which is a Google Translate version) from French of texts about the current vaccination programme, followed by some further quotes on capital and science, plus some links to relevant material. Most of this has been put on the Covid1984 part of this site, but has been put here in one place because people have expressed difficulties in trying to find relevant material. The ideological aspects of some of these texts are obviously not something I agree with, but my disagreements will have to be left till later.
Another reason I’ve put them here is with the aim of implicitly dismantling the knee-jerk Newspeak-type reactive insults spat out at those who have the “arrogance” to question the vaccination programme, or the ad hominem amalgam techniques which automatically associate such criticisms with the Right, both of which were the kind of vile categorisations propagated by Stalin and his “useful idiots” in the 1930s. Then there were no more Trotskyists but only “Hitlero-Trotskyists”, nowadays there are no more critics but only “conspiraloons” and “anti-vaxxers”. A put-down endlessly repeated becomes like a mantra you mumble in your sleep. One can dispense with actually ‘thinking’ it – that is, with going through the complicated logical acts involved in verbal formulation of it. The concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not clichés and unearned received ideas. Such mechanization is essential for the repression of critique and in this “reason” itself is instrumentalized, taking on a kind of blind positive obviousness, becoming a fetish, a magic entity that is accepted rather than intellectually experienced. Such language is the prison of hierarchical power, the refuge of its police violence. Any dialogue with power is violence, whether passively suffered or actively provoked. When power wants to avoid resorting to its material arms, it relies on language to guard the oppressive order. Concepts like “conspiracy theorist/conspiraloon” become ‘streamlined’, rationalized, labor-saving manipulative tools. Thinking itself is thus reduced to the level of industrial processes, subjected to a tight schedule – in short, made part and parcel of the production of ideology.
Doubting the almost overwhelming propaganda, and the manner in which the vast majority of people seem to accept it, tends to induce such high levels of anxiety that people more than ever prefer to bury their heads even deeper into the sand than they’ve ever done up till now. As if speaking, hearing and seeing no evil provides them with some sense of security.
All this is symptomatic of what a friend referred to as “The deterioration of the attitude towards life and its meanings; towards what’s essential for oneself and others around you; towards knowledge in general and especially one’s own ability to know; the relation between knowledge (or rationality in general) and feeling; the attitude towards science as method vs. “Science” as institutional representation of knowledge; towards institutions in general; and how media- and politically-manipulated fear and illusion of managing and controlling is taking over all other possibilities of feeling, knowing and acting, and how this fear compensates for dealing with other kinds of fears that are denied expression and thus remain stronger than ever…”
None of the 4 initial translated texts comprise a radical critique in themselves, but they are a contribution to seriously questioning the race to vaccination. Some people will justify, to themselves at least, their being vaccinated because “it’s better to be safe than sorry”. The following shows that not taking it is almost certainly the safer bet.
Note added 17/2/21:
“According to data from Pfizer, 0.6% of vaccinated subjects presented “serious adverse events” and 0.1% “life-threatening events” (here). So far, official statistics say that 2.22% of those who have Covid die. On that basis you could say that Covid is roughly 22 times more lethal than the potential effect of the vaccine on the 109 million people (roughly 1.4% of the world’s population) who officially have had Covid. However, 2.22% of 1.4% = 0.0311%. That is, 0.0311% of the world’s population has died from Covid. On that basis Pfizer’s vaccine could potentially kill a bit over 3 times more people than Covid has killed for the moment, but Pfizer would have to vaccinate the whole world, and Covid would have to stop infecting people totally, for the comparison to be valid. Make of that what you will.
(translated from here):
Deus ex vaccina
(pubd. 16th January 2021)
After a much-talked-about year of pandemic management, the long-awaited and announced vaccine is finally here. Note that the term “vaccine” has been used more in the singular than in the plural, which is reminiscent of the deus ex machina of Greek tragedies: a divine intervention that suddenly resolves a desperate situation. Advocates of technology (under the banner of progressivism) obviously welcome the arrival of the miracle solution that would end the epidemic shaking the planet. Any deviation from this framework of thought gives rise to the use of a vocabulary with a propagandist overtone: “conspiracy theorists”, “covidiot” or “reassurance ideologist” i (the latter being particularly violent in my opinion, because it implies that the simple act of reassuring those around you is already ethically questionable; since when has it been deplorable to simply reassure people in psychological distress?).
The pharmaceutical industry as a whole offers us four types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
Two are based on “classic” technologies that have been in use for nearly a century and consist of:
1) attenuated viruses (e.g. from companies: Sinopharm, Sinovac), polyclonal vaccine (i.e. targeting several components of SARS-CoV-2).
2) virus fragments (e.g. from different companies: Novavax), monoclonal vaccine (targeting only one component of the virus).
The other two are built with new “gene” technologies and are composed of:
3) viral genetic material in the form of RNA, never before applied to humans (e.g. companies: Pfizer / BioNTech, Moderna), monoclonal vaccine.
4) a viral vector which delivers viral genetic material (RNA) of interest (in this case, that of SARS-CoV-2) (eg from companies: AstraZeneca / Oxford, Johnson & Johnson), monoclonal vaccine.
All of these vaccines should not be treated equally and rejecting them as a whole without considering them separately would be just as narrow-minded as viewing the COVID-19 vaccination as a deus ex machina to our pandemic (or rather deus ex vaccina). Although the result of different technologies, these vaccines have some things in common. Their development was extremely rapid, bearing in mind that the development of a new vaccine can take years (sometimes more than 10 years, according to the WHO) ii. In fact, when developing new vaccines, part of the time is wasted waiting for various authorizations, regulations and funding and another part is devoted to the development of vaccine technology. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, these two phases could be shortened, because on the one hand the usual administrative delays were accelerated and on the other hand studies on these new technologies had already started before the arrival of the pandemic. But making vaccines in a rush is never ideal, especially when it comes to assessing their effectiveness and the extent of side effects of new technologies. This is all the more true for this virus which has peculiarities that make the design of a vaccine complicated.
Two main fears: the effectiveness and side effects of vaccines
Vaccine efficacy does not depend solely on biotechnology, but on the nature of the target: the virus itself. One reason for the lack of durable vaccines against the viruses that cause colds or the flu is that these viruses evolve rapidly. This is typically the case with RNA viruses (of which coronaviruses are a part). In addition to mutations (that is, the transformation of the genetic code by “mistake”), they also frequently recombine (which is the equivalent of genetic “exchanges” between viruses) iii. If coronaviruses are able to perform “ping-pong between animal species (including humans)” iv, it is thanks to this power of transformation.
A monoclonal vaccine (which therefore targets only one part of the virus) will most likely only have short-lived efficacy, limited in time by the appearance of any variant of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, a polyclonal vaccine offers the vaccinees the possibility of developing defenses against different parts of the virus, making it possible to reduce the risk of the virus escaping (after evolution) from herd immunity.
In the case of monoclonal vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the target component is the “spike” protein (those famous button-shaped surface proteins that are represented on the surface of the virus when it is drawn). The strategic choice of this target is based on its nature of stimulating our immunity. However, this protein is used by the virus to recognize its host and is subject to mutations, several of which have already been documented v. Thus, the hope of eradicating this virus overlooks the following possibilities:
• the virus spike protein mutates and the vaccine becomes ineffective. The new variant is as dangerous as the previous one, if not worse;
• Darwinian selection pressure favors virus transmission independent of the spike protein (a less frequent mechanism, but documented vi);
• the virus recombines with another virus and changes so as to escape the vaccine (a scenario which is all the more dangerous if there is another epidemic of the coronavirus virus, such as MERS-CoV vii);
• the virus disappears from the human host (ideal scenario) and “takes refuge” in animal reservoirs, where they continue to evolve. The return of a variant escaping the vaccine would therefore not be excluded. It should be noted as such that it is impossible to eradicate a zoonosis (that is to say an infection shared between humans and other animals) unless all host animals are vaccinated or eliminated.
The pharmaceutical industry obviously offers a solution: that of renewing the vaccines and providing the doses according to a vaccine strategy that consists of administering a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 several times a year. For a price of 20 euros a dose, twice a year for a market targeting a large part of the planetary population, this is indeed very attractive for the industry and for stock market investment funds. This is a market strengthened by the political decision of providing 300 to 500 billion euros per year with negotiated financial guarantees (with the European Union amongst othersviii)
II. The side effects
Concerns about side effects and tolerance of modern COVID-19 (RNA) vaccines are frequently dismissed by staunch techno-progressives, who refer to clinical trials. While admitting that a clinical trial (like that of the Pfizer firm) carried out on 38,000 people is promising and that it would be difficult to demand more from a company, it is extremely unlikely that the results are likely to be so encouraging applied to larger figures of several orders of magnitude. If the figure of 38,000 people may seem high, it can never include a diversity of health profiles equivalent to the population for which the vaccine is intended. The epidemic being global and the percentage necessary for the acquisition of collective immunity being between, approximately, 60-70% according to the WHO ix, this would make a theoretical target of approximately five billion people, that is to say a population a million times larger than in the Pfizer trial (while admitting that the actual number of people vaccinated will likely be lower). According to data from Pfizer x, 0.6% of vaccinated subjects presented “serious adverse events” and 0.1% “life-threatening events”. But 0.1% of life-threatening side effects put on the scale of a billion people would put a million lives at risk! Any preventive measure must do less harm than the pathology in question. However, the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 (which fluctuates around 0.2% xi) is far from being comparable to that of plague or Ebola epidemics. So is it justifiable to risk all these serious adverse events?
Since RNA vaccine technology is new, it is imperative to validate it. Conventional vaccines can be certified very quickly, because their technologies are known and thus pose no problem (this is why two influenza vaccines can be produced and certified per year). For RNA vaccines, certifying without applying the same basic stringency would be incorrect. Note also that those who claim the precautionary principle with social distancing and masks are suddenly absent from the debate!
To the list of concerns already mentioned can also be added:
the ineffectiveness of such new viral vector vaccines in people who would have natural immunity to the vector itself (the vector is an “empty” human virus, filled with RNA encoding SARS-CoV antigens 2). This is a benign but real problem, but nobody seems to care (non-existent problem with conventional vaccines)
A possible recombination of the vector / SARS-CoV-2 construct with a natural virus/viruses. This is a much more serious problem. In the scientific community (and this is becoming a bit technical, but may interest some competent readers in the field), two arguments are opposed to this concern (i) gene exchanges only take place between viruses of the same type (between DNA viruses on the one hand and RNA viruses on the other hand, but not between these two categories) and (ii) any catastrophic event would be unlikely. The first argument is correct, but examples of exchanges between RNA and DNA viruses exist and cannot be overlooked xii. The second dialectic, which consists in sweeping aside fears on the pretext that even if risks exist, they are so improbable that they can be dismissed, demonstrates the carelessness of techno-progressives in the face of calculations of probabilities. Just imagine, for example, that only one hundredth of the world’s population would end up being vaccinated, twice a year. This would still represent hundreds of millions of doses per year, integrating into thousands / millions of our cells several virus vector particles of the vaccine, all potentially capable of transforming themselves… The nanoscopic adverse event that could give birth to a Frankenstein monster would have to be less than a chance in hundreds of billions.
Add to this probability an additional, more basic, but absolutely crucial condition: the fact that you cannot administer a vaccine when you are actively infected. For example, when injecting flu shots, the doctor should make sure that his patient is not carrying the virus. This would open the door wide to wild recombinations. Have governments considered in their vaccination strategies to screen people for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 (including asymptomatic) before giving them the vaccine?
Note also that those who claim the principle of taking precautions with social distancing and masks are suddenly absent from the debate!
It is for these reasons that in 2016 “the Brighton Collaboration” (a non-profit global network on vaccine safety and aimed at healthcare professionals) formulated guidelines following the recommendations of the United States Agency. Food and Drug Products FDA and the European Medicines Agency) for the design of vector vaccines. These recommendations include (i) the review of knowledge related to viral recombinations, (ii) the extent of the timeliness of these events, (iii) the review of the mechanisms leading to these events and (iv) the establishment of safety measures as well as methods of detecting these adverse events xiii. Have these principles been respected?
We are told that the advantage of modern vaccines, compared to conventional ones, is their ability to be modulated to adapt them to a changing situation. So, if a particularly virulent variant were to suddenly spread, modern vaccines would have an advantage. If this is indeed correct, these new vaccines which overstimulate and modulate immunity nevertheless have a major drawback compared to more traditional vaccines: that of interfering with the immune balances themselves. The principle of these gene vaccines is to force our own cells to produce viral fragments (rather than injecting them) against which the body will immunize. When it is our cells that produce foreign particles, the risk of an autoimmune reaction that escalates into anaphylactic shock [https://www.webmd.com/allergies/anaphylactic-shock-facts] or rejection from our own cells is higher. In practice, we do not know what will happen in a whole category of patients, starting with those who suffer from immune or endocrinological pathologies (we are thinking here, for example, of Alzheimer’s patients, type I diabetics, rheumatic diseases and joints, Cushing’s or Addison’s diseases, certain thyroid pathologies, etc.). This represents a significant fraction of the population and deserves to be investigated.
There remains one final concern regarding the science behind all these vaccines (all types combined): that of the vaccine strategy. Belgium has decided to give priority to vaccinating people at risk, including the elderly, and nursing staff. While the strategy makes sense for the latter category of people, it is less so for the elderly. The virus is only dangerous for certain people with weak immune systems. However, the principle of vaccination is to stimulate the immune system and therefore, the vaccine will never be more effective than the immune system on which it relies… In America, it is children who are vaccinated against seasonal flu, because even though this category of the population does not suffer from the disease caused by these viruses, they can transmit it. However, it responds well to the vaccine and through herd immunity it protects people who do not respond well. Establishing a vaccination strategy based on fragile people who are also the most exposed to autoimmune risks therefore seems ineffective and therefore seems to me to be more of a political communication decision than a scientific one.
As for other reasons that prompt me to consider these vaccines with caution, Paul Lannoye describes clearly in his article his critical review of the implementation of these vaccines and their links with the EU in “About the anti-covid vaccine. Neither conspiracy nor blind belief” xiv. I also invite readers to consult the report by Dr Vélot (molecular geneticist at the University of Paris-Saclay and Chairman of the Scientific Council of CRRIGEN) xv, a summary of which is also provided by Valérie Tilman in “Covid-19 : Expert report on vaccines using GMO technologies: summary of Dr Vélot’s note” xvi. This analysis, independent of mine, arrives at the same conclusions. It should also be noted that the first data from the vaccination campaign are starting to become available and reflect our concerns. Indeed, the latter do not confirm the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine three weeks after the administration of the first dose, prompting a re-examination of the schedule for the administration of the second in several countries xvii.
My training in environmental virology allowed me to study the extremely dynamic nature of viruses and their reproductive cycles. They represent the most abundant biological entity on Earth and reproduce with formidable speed and multiplicity. They are capable of both killing us and saving us. So, to protect my family and loved ones, it is obvious to me that we all need to be vaccinated with conventional vaccines. But as always, you have to know the difference between which are effective and safe and which are less so. Honest communication and a standards-abiding approach are necessary. It is curious that not only has this communication not been made, but that in forcing vaccines as the only solution – when vaccines are never curative therapies – the authorities have forgotten that medicine is there first of all to treat people… What happens with the practice of general practitioners, that is to say the first line of defense? We cannot examine patients and measure the severity of their condition just by going online and asking for COVID tests… Where are we with curative therapies?
Kaarle P., PhD in environmental virology
iThis has been a term used in France which has been applied to those who try to downplay the exaggerated fear of this epidemic inculcated by the dominant society.
- iiiSome scientific articles about recombination in RNA viruses and coronaviruses :Sanjuán R, Domingo-Calap P. Mechanisms of viral mutation. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016 Dec;73(23):4433-4448. doi : 10.1007/s00018-016-2299-6. Epub 2016 Jul 8. PMID : 27392606 ; PMCID : PMC5075021.Worobey M, Holmes EC. Evolutionary aspects of recombination in RNA viruses. J Gen Virol. 1999 Oct;80 ( Pt 10):2535-2543. doi : 10.1099/0022-1317-80-10-2535. PMID : 10573145.Kumar N, Sharma S, Barua S, Tripathi BN, Rouse BT. Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Jul 5;31(4):e00111-17. doi : 10.1128/CMR.00111-17. PMID : 29976554 ; PMCID : PMC6148187.Banner LR, Lai MM. Random nature of coronavirus RNA recombination in the absence of selection pressure. Virology. 1991 Nov;185(1):441-5. doi : 10.1016/0042-6822(91)90795-d. PMID : 1656597 ; PMCID : PMC7131166.
- ivhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/06/23/covid-19-ping-pong-animal-to-human-human-to-animal-animal-to-human-transmission-how-great-a-danger/?sh=19fe321f22f4 et https://www.kairospresse.be/article/lettre-ouverte-a-mes-collegues-dont-la-tache-est-de-soigner-des-personnes-et-non-des-chiffres
- vhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6 etLi Q, Wu J, Nie J, Zhang L, Hao H, Liu S, Zhao C, Zhang Q, Liu H, Nie L, Qin H, Wang M, Lu Q, Li X, Sun Q, Liu J, Zhang L, Li X, Huang W, Wang Y. The Impact of Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Spike on Viral Infectivity and Antigenicity. Cell. 2020 Sep 3;182(5):1284-1294.e9. doi : 10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.012. Epub 2020 Jul 17. PMID : 32730807 ; PMCID : PMC7366990.Et https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/south-african-sars-cov-2-variant-alarms-scientists-68317?utm_content=buffer4885d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- viGraham RL, Baric RS. Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike : mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J Virol. 2010 Apr;84(7):3134-46. doi : 10.1128/JVI.01394-09. Epub 2009 Nov 11. PMID : 19906932 ; PMCID : PMC2838128.
- viiBaddal B, Cakir N. Co-infection of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in the same host : A silent threat. J Infect Public Health. 2020 Sep;13(9):1251-1252. doi : 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.017. Epub 2020 Jun 22. PMID : 32622797 ; PMCID : PMC7306724 et Banerjee A, Doxey AC, Tremblay BJ, Mansfield MJ, Subudhi S, Hirota JA, Miller MS, McArthur AG, Mubareka S, Mossman K. Predicting the recombination potential of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Gen Virol. 2020 Dec;101(12):1251-1260. doi : 10.1099/jgv.0.001491. Epub 2020 Sep 9. PMID : 32902372.
- xPfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162, PF-0730208) vaccines and related biological products advisory committee briefing document. Pour les données citées : Table 8, p. 46 https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download?fbclid=IwAR3luk3uJ3zpFKwUJGHQyqvMiXXkOh7iKgNeoNFsxB_G7oxbB2vb2KxWrtg
- xi Ioannidis, J.P.A. « Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data » Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Article ID : BLT.20.265892 ;https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
- xiiStedman KM. Deep Recombination : RNA and ssDNA Virus Genes in DNA Virus and Host Genomes. Annu Rev Virol. 2015 Nov;2(1):203-17. doi : 10.1146/annurev-virology-100114-055127. Epub 2015 Sep 2. PMID : 26958913.
- xiii Condit RC, Williamson AL, Sheets R, Seligman SJ, Monath TP, Excler JL, Gurwith M, Bok K, Robertson JS, Kim D, Michael Hendry R, Singh V, Mac LM, Chen RT ; Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG). Unique safety issues associated with virus-vectored vaccines : Potential for and theoretical consequences of recombination with wild type virus strains. Vaccine. 2016 Dec 12;34(51):6610-6616. doi : 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.060. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID : 27346303 ; PMCID : PMC5204448.
Text no 2
(translated from here)
Does the Pfizer vaccine increase the risk of contamination and death from Covid19?
Published on 01/16/2021 at 19:12 – Updated on 01/17/2021 at 08:48
Does the Pfizer vaccine increase the risk of contamination and death from Covid19? © Sameer Al-DOUMY / AFP SHARE: Author (s): Dr Gerard Delepine for FranceSoir
This can be feared by recent developments in the epidemic in the countries currently most vaccinated, according to data provided by the WHO.
Evolution in Israel since vaccination
The media crown Israel, the champion of the anticovid fight by the Pfizer vaccine . Excellent operation for Pfizer who obtained a price increase of 40% for this priority given to Israel. Since December 20, in 24 days, more than 20% of Israelis (two million people) have been vaccinated.
But, since that date, according to WHO figures, the daily numbers of contaminations and deaths attributed to Covid19 have exploded. Daily contaminations thus went from 1886 cases on December 21 to 8094 on January 10.
“In Israel vaccination began on 20th December and was followed by an increase of 400% in contaminations“
And the daily mortality went from 18 on December 20th to 53 on January 10th.
“In Israel vaccination began on 20th December and was followed by an increase of 300% in deaths“
These data led the government to extend the third confinement of the country for an indefinite period.
Evolution in Great Britain since vaccination
Great Britain is the second country in the vaccination race which began on December 4 with the vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech. Since that date, the number of daily contaminations has exploded from 14,898 on December 4 to 68,063 on January 9, 2021.
Does the vaccination facilitate contaminations from Covid19?
“In Great Britain vaccination began on 4th December and was followed by an increase of 300% in contaminations”
Unfortunately also the Covid19 mortality, which after an increase of almost 300% (414 on December 4 to 1564 on January 14) exceeds by 27% that observed in March-April 2020 (maximum peak 1224 on April 22, 2020).
Does vaccination increase deaths from Covid19?
“In Great Britain vaccination began on 4th December and was followed by a clear increase of daily deaths which is now above those observed in March and April 2020 “
These considerable and simultaneous increases in the daily incidences of contaminations and deaths after vaccination are very worrying and confirm that the marketing authorizations for vaccines were premature. Evolution in France not vaccinated during this period In France, both the number of new cases and the number of daily deaths remained stable during this period and at a much lower level (per million) than in countries that are champions of vaccination.
In France, without the vaccine, the death rate has gone slowly down since mid-November
[SF note: this was a month ago; today, 15th February, the official statistic of Covid-related deaths is
We are therefore struck by the evolving differences of the Covid19 epidemic between the countries, which are the first in the vaccination race, and France, which is slower to vaccinate.
Since the widespread administration of the Pfizer vaccine, the number of infections and daily deaths has risen sharply in Israel and Great Britain, while among die-hard Gauls the epidemic has slowly receded.
This praise for slowness is a reminder that there are no safe drugs or vaccines and that paradoxically they can increase the severity of the disease they are meant to fight.
This has been observed with the supposedly anticancer vaccines (the anti-hepatitis B vaccines supposed to prevent liver cancer  and the anti-papillomavirus vaccines supposedly anti-cancer of the cervix  and more recently with the health scandal of the dengue vaccine in the Philippines which has resulted in several hundred deaths and a cascade of ongoing trials.
The lessons of the Dengvaxia disaster have not been learned and endanger the victims of the current frenzied propaganda, those who are vaccinated against Covid19.
Neither pro nor anti-vaccine, but firmly opposed for the moment to the generalization of an insufficiently evaluated vaccine
Contrary to what decoders linked to the pharmaceutical industry claim, I am not against vaccination. I am pro-vaccine when a vaccine is effective, safe and prevents serious illness. I am against a vaccine when it is unnecessary, as is the case for diseases transmitted only by water (polio, typhoid, cholera) in countries with public hygiene having drinking water and treatment of waste. I am against the vaccine, when it has not been properly studied and evaluated: vaccine against dengue (which has caused hundreds of deaths in the Philippines), Gardasil vaccine (which paradoxically increases the risk of cervical cancer).
The indication of any treatment or vaccine should be based on an assessment of its benefit / risk balance.
No individual benefit can be expected from vaccinating those under 65 against covid, since the disease is milder in them than the flu; this population can therefore hope for nothing from anticovid vaccines except for complications.
And the societal argument: “we vaccinate ourselves to protect others” is also irrelevant, since it is far from being demonstrated that the vaccine is able to prevent or slow down viral transmission.
In the current state of knowledge, the vaccination of older people with risk factors (population where an effective and safe vaccine could be useful) has not been properly evaluated, because the trials refuse to include this population at risk. .
The precautionary principle therefore justifies not systematically vaccinating them, as long as there is not a sufficient number of transparent data confirming the effectiveness and the absence of toxicity in a real population.
Norway has just issued an alert on January 15 after the observation of 23 deaths possibly linked to the Pfizer vaccine  , in elderly people in nursing homes. Of those deaths, 13 were autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to serious reactions in frail elderly people. According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health: “For the most fragile people, even relatively mild side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining lifespan anyway, the benefits of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant ”and the National Institute of Public Health has amended the coronavirus vaccination guide, adding new advice from caution on the vaccination of frail elderly people.
Peter Doshi  had warned in November “let’s wait until we have full test data” because the industry’s victory announcements are imprecise and incomplete. He also recalled that the trials did not study the only relevant criterion, mortality  but only the number of cases based on often false tests: “the world has bet everything on vaccines to provide a solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on demonstrating that they will be ”.
In conclusion, the government should be congratulated for its slowness in generalizing anti-covid vaccination. The current results of the Pfizer vaccine in the Israeli and British populations indeed raise fears of a vaccine health catastrophe in these countries and the Norwegian alert increases the concern.
Let us thank in advance the French volunteers to be vaccinated: they will constitute the guinea pigs of the phase 3 trial that the laboratory did not take the time to do before marketing. Thanks to them and the risks they take, in a few months we will be able to have a better idea of the advantages and disadvantages in real people.
 Frédéric Métézeau: Israel, model country for vaccination but still confined, France info, 1/14/2021
 The anti-hepatic B vaccination has been followed in the West by a 2-4 increase in the incidence of liver cancer.
 HPV vaccines have been followed by a 30-200% increase in the incidence of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated age groups.
 Norway launches alert after discovery of 23 deaths linked to Pfizer vaccine, Businessman 1/15/2021
 Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80
 Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines — let’s be cautious and first see the full data November 26, 2020
 Peter Doshi associate editor Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? BMJ 27 10 2020 Current trials aren’t designed to tell us: BMJ 2020; 371: m 4037
Author (s): Dr Gerard Delepine for FranceSoir
A rough précis of this video
(you can get English subtitles on this video)
Christian Vélot, molecular geneticist , University Paris-Saclay, president of Scientific Council of Criigen (COMITÉ DE RECHERCHE ET D’INFORMATION INDÉPENDANTES SUR LE GÉNIE GÉNÉTIQUE – https://criigen.org/ )
Vaccines are not the same as medicines for those who are ill (we may generally accept side effects for those who are ill).
A virus with a “spike” of covid on the surface of an envelope capsule of protein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_protein). Protein allows virus to be anchored to the surface of cells which are infected with a virus and release its genetic material (g.m.) there.
DNA is genes and some hold the secret of protein manufacture. Proteins are large molecules that act as all biological processes that take place in our cells. DNA holds manufacturing secret of proteins.
From DNA (double helix) genes to protein is not direct – it passes through the DNA which must be converted into single strand molecule RNA. Intermediary between DNA and protein, is called the “messenger” (i.e. mRNA). DNA language conversion into RNA molecule is called TRANSCRIPTION. RNA is decoded to create protein “language” (“translation”).
So DNA → transcription to RNA → translation to PROTEIN
Virus injects itself into DNA and follows same DNA → transcription to RNA → translation to PROTEIN process and can then leave cells to infect other cells and individual cells to carry itself because it has no autonomy. It can’t create its own proteins.
Some viruses’ g.m. is NOT DNA but is directly RNA. That is, it is directly the intermediary to proteins (ie the messenger to proteins). Which is the case with COVID.
Normally a vaccine is used to stimulate the immune system – to prepare the antibodies to neutralise the infectious virus (or bacteria). Some vaccines involve injecting the whole virus – which are “inactive”: it looks the same to the antibodies but it’s “dead”. The problem with these is that they’re not very powerfully “immunogenic”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunogenicity) – “immunogenic” meaning able to stimulate the immune system. So you have to empower it with adjuvants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjuvant) – aluminium salts, formaldehyde, etc. and you have to repeat the injections.
Attenuated (or “inactive/dead”) vaccines are NOT in fact dead, not inactivated , but weakened.
So if we get a mutant strain of a virus which has become heat-sensitive and can’t multiply at body temperature (37º) lab procedures can make the virus heat-sensitive.
Attenuated vaccines are more immunogenic than “inactive/dead” ones. But because they’re not dead they can be more dangerous because they’re not sufficiently attenuated. Especially for those who are fragile, like pregnant women.
The new “recombinant protein” (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prot%C3%A9ine_recombinante) vaccines:
These proteins are manufactured differently from those that naturally make it in real life – such a vaccine can inject NOT the whole virus but a surface protein of the virus, a surface protein that triggers production of the anti-bodies – ie it becomes immunogenic. So it’s less dangerous as a method of stimulating the immune system than the whole virus. This method is used in the vaccine against Hepatitis B. Also against Papillomavirus against cervical cancer.
For Hepatitis B – a DNA virus – what is searched for in order to produce the vaccine is the gene holding the manufacturing secret of the surface protein.
“Recombinant” vaccines are manufactured in cells (e.g. in yeast) that are not those which synthesise it in real life. This recombinant cell is purified from the cells that produce it, then combined with adjuvants and injected into people to be vaccinated. The protein is the vaccinating agent.
There are more than 230 vaccines in the race and (at Christmas 2020) 20 were ready to be released on the market. Some are inactiviated (ie widely used already for other diseases). The China vaccine used methods previously developed. They were applied already back in July, though they’re not very immunogenic and repeated vaccines are required. They need adjutants.
Others are based on the recombinant method (eg the one proposed by Novavax).
The Canadian “Medicago” bets on capsid [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsid ] protein (inside the envelope – not visible on the outside surface of the envelope. It’s produced in plant cells (transgenic cells), put into empty capsid called a “virus-like particle”(VLP) – it seems like a virus but isn’t.
NEW VACCINES FOR COVID
These are “genetic vaccines” .
They inject a part of the g.m. of the virus , which holds the manufacturing secret of, for example, the spike protein, the surface immunogenic protein. This protein will be synthesised directly by the cells of the person we are trying to vaccinate. These cells will manage the g.m. – decode it and synthesise the spike protein themselves. These are RNA – a bit of the viral RNA – messenger RNA. This method is the one chosen notably by PfizerBioNTech and Moderna.
The gm we want to introduce into cells – either RNA or DNA can’t enter into the cells alone – it needs a vehicle – called a “vector” – a nanoparticle of “fat” (a billionth of a meter in length) in which COVID g.m. is enclosed.
What limits our cells – the plasma membrane – “lipid bilayer” [https://www.lexico.com/definition/lipid ] – a layer of fat that fuses with the layers of fat from our cells.
Others are DNA vaccines.
They use a vector which is not a nanoparticle of fat but which is a virus (NOT Covid) to be used for its natural virus properties – an ability to inject g.m. into cells. AstraZeneca and Sputnik use a recombinant virus as a vector – called Adenovirus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenoviridae ] – a DNA virus notably responsible for a flu-like state (like a bad cold) – not a very aggressive virus, but the virus has been disarmed – ie made inoperative by eliminating some of its g.m. responsible for its virulence. The eliminated part is replaced by COVID g.m. Thus it delivers into our DNA hybrid g.m. which is partly its own g.m. and partly the g.m. of Covid. It’s called a recombinant virus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_virus]. Adenovirus is a DNA virus. Covid is an RNA virus. But it’s impossible to insert RNA into DNA. Covid RNA has been converted into a Covid DNA and DNA→ RNA is possible. But not normally – normally it’s the contrary. But now, thanks to a viral enzyme, it is possible.
AIDS went from RNA to DNA. This enzyme is called “Reverse Transcriptase” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase]
This delivers some recombinant DNA which will include a recombinant vector.
THESE VACCINES HAVE NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE – or hardly ever. There’s a risk of the vaccinating DNA getting inserted into our chromosomes. And we have no control over where – in what chromosomes they can fit in. These recombinant vectors have already been used in some clinical trials, including gene therapy – e.g introduced into the cells of a sick child, a child who has a mutated gene that makes him/her very sick. So a “repairing gene” – a normal gene – is introduced. It’s a human gene – not foreign DNA, and done consciously, wilfully. But there’s not “will” in the case of the vaccine. 2 out of 10 kids who had this method had major problems because the repairing DNA had been inserted in an “unfortunate place – oncogenes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncogene] – genes with the capacity to produce cancer. If you leave them alone there’s no problem, but if you disturb them, modify their function, their expressions, they will lead to a cell proliferation – possibly cancer – these 2 kids developed leukaemia (2003 report). This is called “insertional mutagenesis” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertional_mutagenesis] – mutations of the genes, where the gene structure gets modified.
Another risk related to vaccines using a virus as a vector, like the Adenovirus, which is foreign to our body, is that it can trigger unwanted immune reactions than can disturb the desired vaccine response. The body, not knowing what it is dealing with, feels overwhelmed and can attack anything and everything.
Some immunotherapy has led to immunotoxicity – ie unwanted immune responses which can range from auto-immune disease to far worse – e.g. a fatal systemic inflammatory response. In a trial of 18 people 1 died.
RNA cannot reach/integrate into the chromosomes.
So there are 2 risks: the risk of insertion for the DNA vaccine and of immunotoxicity.
With PfizerBioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Sputnik vaccines there’s a risk of viral recombination, where viruses of the same kind share/exchange g.m. (which is the reason that normally RNA cannot be inserted into DNA and vice versa). So the question is of 2 RNA viruses or 2 DNA viruses . Recombination (exchange of g.m.) is most common amongst viruses of the same type/family, though not exclusively. It’s less frequent, but such recombination (not of same type or family) can make the virus either more dangerous or less dangerous – but unpredictably. Swine flu (H1N1) was a triple recombinant. For this to happen, a cell must be infected by 2 viruses at the same time – which is very unlikely. But this – the vaccinating g.m. and the infecting gm = a recombinant virus. The frequency is extremely low. 1 in 10 million to 1 in 100 million. For an individual the risk is so low as to be negligible. But at the level of the population of the whole world it’s a significant risk when you vaccinate a billion people. So 10 people could have this recombinant virus that intrudes into the DNA from the RNA – and thence infect others with a potentially more virulent virus. The consequences could be global! Since this is new and not been tried on a general global population it only makes sense to use the tried and tested vaccine methods. The Chinese at least used technology previously tested over years and years even if they didn’t complete phase 3 of the clinical trials before putting it on the market. 3 people in the same area and the same age can have very different symptoms. So add to that a new unpredictable virus with a new unpredictable vaccine method and…???
So why not use technology that’s long been used if the cure is possibly worse than the disease. Security is not compatible with urgency (financial and political). Safety first!
A propos the anti-Covid-19 vaccine.
Neither conspiracy theory nor blind belief
Paul Lannoye 17/12/2020
Google translated from here: https://www.kairospresse.be/article/a-propos-du-vaccin-anti-covid-19-ni-complotisme-ni-croyance-aveugle/
In Belgium, as in all European countries which have adopted containment measures that are difficult for all to live with, the end of the tunnel is announced very soon thanks to anti-Covid vaccines. Several vaccines will be available in a few weeks; their advertised effectiveness is around 95% … according to the producers. All that remains is to obtain marketing authorizations from the European Medicines Agency: a formality considering the very short deadlines provided.
The spokesperson for the Security Council, Doctor Yves Van Laethem, has repeatedly insisted that collective immunity can only be ensured by vaccines, provided that vaccination coverage of at least 70% is acquired. .
But for that, it will be necessary to reassure and convince the reluctant not only of their effectiveness but especially of their harmlessness. Anyone who takes issue with this rhetoric or cites the long-term risks or side effects of hastily made and licensed vaccines are classified at best as anti-vaccine ideologues, at worst as conspirators. Brushed aside the most founded objections and reluctance in the face of uncertainties, ignored the yet proven facts which undermine the vaccinalist doxa of Mr Van Laethem.
Yet the facts are the facts; we can ignore them but we cannot deny them: they are more valuable than beliefs.
I submit them here to a critical examination:
It is generally accepted that the development of a new vaccine takes an average of 10 years, which is confirmed by both the scientific literature and data from the World Health Organization (WHO). It can be noted, moreover, by consulting these same WHO data i that no vaccine is operational to fight against the most devastating viruses that have appeared in recent decades; no vaccine is cited as available for the deadly diseases of AIDS, Ebola fever, severe dengue or Chikungunya. With the Covid-19, we will have in less than a year of vaccines presented as effective thanks to a fast-track procedure and following clinical trials carried out by the manufacturers whom we are asked to trust. It is hard to believe that the same guarantees of safety can be obtained from clinical trials conducted at a few sites for a few months as with trials conducted at many different sites for several years. We will remember the episode of the vaccine developed in emergency by GlaxoSmithKline during the H1N1 epidemic in 2009. After two years of widespread use of this vaccine in Finland, the vaccine vigilance system had highlighted a risk of narcolepsy for 6 months after injection in children and adolescents. A study published by the British Medical Journal in 2013 confirmed these results for the UK. There are a total of 1,500 cases of narcolepsy in Europe and 80% of the victims are children. ii As a reminder, narcolepsy is a chronic and incurable neurological disease which manifests itself in the form of sudden and acute drowsiness appearing n ‘ anytime during the day and anywhere. It damages mental function and memory and can only be cured with expensive drug treatments.
The vaccines that will be available very soon, produced by Pfizer / BioNTech and Modern respectively, to which must be added Curevac, are of a new type. They use biotechnology by injecting the RNA encoding the viral protein to make the infectious virus antigen produced by the cells of the vaccinated person. This is a first for which risks of a specific nature are to be feared. As the molecular geneticist Christian Velot points out in a recent expert report carried out as Chairman of the Scientific Council of CRIIGEN, the risks of the appearance of recombinant viruses and insertional mutagenesis are real. But he insists that anti-viral vector immunity can also directly interfere with the desired vaccine efficacy, concluding that current vaccine candidates require in-depth health and environmental assessment incompatible with urgency. iii This evaluation did not take place and will not take place if nothing changes. In order to speed up the marketing of this type of vaccine, the Council of Ministers of the European Union and the European Parliament iv adopted on July 15, under an urgent procedure, without debate or amendments, a regulation allowing producers of vaccines against Covid-19 to escape the requirement to carry out an environmental impact and biosafety study beforehand. This derogation from GMO legislation completely violates the precautionary principle, the basic principle of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. * Only a small minority of MPs dared to oppose this decision. Added here is the risk of not taking into account the side effects as a consequence of the little hindsight available, the ecological risk and ultimately health related to the possible spread of recombinant viruses potentially more dangerous than the virus than the we pretend to fight. An action for annulment of this new European regulation with the General Court of the European Union has been brought by six associations (the CNMSE, Terra SOS Tenible, LNPLV, EFVV, AIMSIB and Children’s Health Defense Europe) considering that nothing justifies the abandonment of the precautionary principle under the pretext of urgency.
The negotiations carried out by the European Commission with pharmaceutical companies took place in the greatest opacity, which MEP Michèle Rivasi denounced on several occasions: neither the pre-purchase agreements negotiated in secret, nor the raw data of clinical trials, nor the selected efficacy criteria, are available. What seems certain, at the very least, is the clause, according to which the responsibility for defective products will fall on the producers but not for damages resulting from undesirable side effects, which will be borne by the States! It is quite obvious that the big winners in this agreement are anyway the vaccine producers who are guaranteed a captive market without financial risks.
The basic premise, when negotiations are initiated between two parties, is that of good faith that is attributed to its interlocutors. In this regard, one is entitled to question the trust that should be placed in the statements of pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines. With regard to Pfizer more specifically, it has been established that there have been multiple convictions against this company over the past 15 years v. It should be noted in particular that Pfizer pleaded guilty in a case of false advertising relating to several drugs in the USA in 2009 and paid a fine of $ 2.3 billion to avoid any judgment. It’s fair to say that Pfizer is not the black sheep of the pharmaceutical industry; most of its competitors have a record that is hardly more flattering. We’re looking for a white sheep.
You have to be wary of announcement effects. This is the obvious conclusion when we look at the long list of dashed hopes after premature claims about the efficacy of vaccines on the market. Two particularly dramatic episodes have taken place recently. They are indicative of the inherently dangerous nature of a vaccine race that ends up forgetting the basic ethical principles of medical research.
The case of dengue haemorrhagic fever: botched clinical trials
In 2015, a vaccine developed by Sanofi was shaping up to be a miracle of planetary magnitude. It was a world first, after twenty years of research and 1.5 billion euros of investment. From this announcement, voices were raised in the scientific community to warn about the inconclusive results of the first clinical trials. The enthusiastic Philippine government launched a disastrous vaccination campaign: 500 children died and several thousand suffered severe hemorrhages. It was found that the risk of severe dengue was 7 times higher in vaccinated children under 5 years old than in unvaccinated ones. Clinical trials in phase 3 after reanalysis showed that the history of dengue was not taken into account. The program was eventually terminated.
A vaccine against malaria currently being tested in Africa vi
In January 2020, an article published in British Medical viiand signed by several experienced epidemiologists and experts in the African context, revealed the adverse effects of GSK’s vaccine, Mosquirix, which has been being tested in Africa for several years. After relentlessly researching the adverse effects in the reports exchanged between the manufacturer and the health authorities (WHO and the European Medicines Agency), the authors concluded as follows: “the toxicity data are catastrophic: no more meningitis, more cerebral malarias and doubling of female mortality among vaccinated persons ”. It would have made sense to stop the experiment immediately, given these disastrous results. But the decision was quite different: launch a new study to see if the vaccine really increased the risk of cerebral malaria (often fatal) and the mortality of baby girls vaccinated. Worse, this new study was scheduled without the informed consent of parents, with the spurious argument that handing over your baby to caregivers was implied consent. This manifest violation of the rules of medical ethics was denounced in a new article from the BMJ on February 24, 2020 viii.
As a conclusion
All the facts mentioned above agree to raise legitimate questions about the relevance of a vaccination campaign in a context where information relating to the effectiveness of vaccines is strictly advertising and not very explicit and where the possible risks for the vaccinated people. are ignored. Even more serious is the leap into the unknown in the large-scale use of RNA vaccines.
Strengthening everyone’s immune system is a risk-free choice: reducing the pollution that weakens immunity, ensuring everyone has access to a healthy and balanced diet, encouraging the use of useful vitamin supplements (vitamin D) and in the form of trace elements (zinc), encouraging a healthy lifestyle (regular physical exercises, and outings in the fresh air) constitute a plan for immunity where everyone wins… except the multinational drug companies and the polluters of all categories
Remember that vaccination is a medical act. In this regard, it requires rigorous and objective information about the possible risks that each patient runs in relation to the expected benefits. In addition, it is a preventive medical act. In the absence of reliable data on the effectiveness of the vaccine for each individual, at a minimum, it would be necessary to be able to justify its benefits to society as a whole, given the high cost of the operation and the lack of reliable forecasts available. We are asked to believe in the merits of a choice by remaining blind and deaf to all the signals which warn us.
Yet another prevention policy is within our reach. Strengthening everyone’s immune system is a risk-free choice: reducing the pollution that weakens immunity, ensuring everyone has access to a healthy and balanced diet, encouraging the use of useful vitamin supplements (vitamin D) and in the form of trace elements (zinc), encouraging a healthy lifestyle (regular physical exercises, and outings in the fresh air) constitute a plan for immunity where everyone wins ix… except the multinationals of drugs and polluters of all categories. Oddly enough, all of this is missing from the discourse of politicians and experts.
One final word: The seasonal influenza virus vaccine has been available and widely recommended for decades. It has never eradicated the virus or prevented the thousands of annual deaths from the flu.
Paul Lannoye, Member of the Bureau of the ASBL Cluster. Former president of the Green Group in the European Parliament.
Article originally published on the GRAPPE website, grappebelgique.be
World Health Organization: “available vaccine”; https://www.who.int/fr/home
Miller E et al. : Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A / H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis; BMJ 2013; 346-f794.
Christian Velot: Expertise note for the general public on vaccines using GMO technologies; CRIIGEN; September 2020
Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 15, 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing genetically modified organisms or consisting of such organisms and intended to treat or prevent disease coronavirus (COVID-19), as well as the supply of these drugs.
Dr Vincent Reliquet: Vaccinsanti-Covid in 2020: health, political, media and financial madness: AIMSIB; 22/11/2020.
The following text is largely inspired by the dossier published by AIMSIB: Malaria, Covid -19 and the vaccine miracle; April 19, 2020.
P.Aaby et al. : WHO’s rollout of Malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months? , January 2020.
P.Doshi, WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”, February 2020.
ii Miller E et al. : Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A / H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis; BMJ 2013; 346-f794.
iii Christian Velot: Expertise note for the general public on vaccines using GMO technologies; CRIIGEN; September 2020
iv Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 15, 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing genetically modified organisms or consisting of such organisms and intended to treat or prevent disease coronavirus (COVID-19), as well as the supply of these drugs.
v Dr Vincent Reliquet: Vaccinsanti-Covid in 2020: health, political, media and financial madness: AIMSIB; 22/11/2020.
vi The following text is largely inspired by the dossier published by AIMSIB: Malaria, Covid -19 and the vaccine miracle; April 19, 2020.
vii P.Aaby et al. : WHO’s rollout of Malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months? , January 2020.
viii P.Doshi, WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”, February 2020.
Some further quotes about science from Weber’s The Problem of Social Consciousness In Our Time (1957):
(while the tendency to an excessive emphasis on the dialectical method is criticisable, he at least applied it to many concrete aspects of the society of his epoch)
“That scientific observations and calculations have nothing to do with false consciousness is absolutely right. Scientific data are in themselves innocent and betray no sign of the “capitalist mode of production.” Correct facts are to be found in the most corrupted ideologies and will remain correct facts under any form of society. It is never this or that correct or false detail, it is always the basic attitude we take, the special form and meaning things receive at our hands, in which the influence of our social existence (again: not simply economy) and its reflection as ideology must be detected. Only if Marx’s thesis itself is taken correctly and attention is turned from innumerable details (which can be argued back and forth to no avail for eternities) to the general character of the processes of life — only then can the all-pervasive influence of our social existence be properly traced in whatever field one may choose for investigation.”
“The age of decaying bourgeois society, the age of science par excellence, is the most unscientific through which mankind has ever passed, and the law of the dwindling force of cognition is accompanied by the law of diminishing quality in all branches of material and spiritual production, characteristically enough with the exception of production for war.”
“Nowadays scientists responsible for or involved (objectively speaking) in production-crimes have rightly been accused in public for their distortion of scientific facts, for their outright lying and concealment with respect to the far-reaching consequences which modern production processes have for us, for their lack of courage to protest and to tell the truth — which they know.”
“What about scientists who have raised their voices and have protested against the insanities propelled by their colleagues, by business and government? Analysis of such protests shows that they are (valuable as they may be in other connections) nearly always characterized by inconsistency and confusion. Even in the few exceptional cases where the correct slogan is adopted and a clear, unconditional stop is demanded, consciousness about the source of the insanity and the only remedy against it is again completely lacking or at least not manifested. There is not one scientist who, after having relieved his conscience, has used his authority to call upon the people and to engage in a real fight. Inconsistency and moral cowardice dominate the field — each scientist approached with the demand to go beyond mere oral protest (which, of course, must remain ineffective if not driven farther) has answered with evasions or a clear-cut decline. One was just writing a book or an article in which he would “speak” about the subject; another had anyway “so much to do” and could not go along; a third waited for a conference and a fourth perhaps for a genuine American spring. At all events: Those who had knowledge and authority and with it the power and the responsibility for action fell back and left the disquieted people in the lurch.
Then there is the mass of those scientists, scientific workers, laboratory technicians, teachers, etc., who may or may not “know what is going on” but are, like the masses themselves, not responsible for our social existence and its course towards a catastrophe. Concerning this category it must be pointed out that the consciousness of masses, classes and social groups in bourgeois society is subject to the law of ignorance and isolation as the most general and powerful law of our social existence. The material basis for this law is furnished by the national and international division of labor and the extreme specialization both of the sciences and within the sciences in the framework of competition and the fetish-character of commodities. Modern man is an isolated atom rather than a fully developed social being; a little screw in a tremendous mechanism alien to him rather than a self-asserting individual in a community clearly recognizable in its structure. The slave in ancient society, ignorant as he may have been, had more knowledge about social relations than today’s most learned specialists; he, like the serf, knew exactly who oppressed him, what the nature and the product of his labor was, what quality it had and how it was used.”
“Up to 1848 (roughly speaking) the general trend of thought was that man had come to master his social existence with the help of reason and science. This was in line with the revolution in which man seemed to take destiny in his own hands; it was also in line with the development of the productive forces and the progress of technology, which seemed to provide him with all he would need in the future. Now, with the stabilization of bourgeois rule, it turned out that social existence had mastered man and isolated him hopelessly from all others with whom he saw himself entangled, in one way or another and even as worker against worker, in the merciless struggle of competition. Industry and science benefited the rich, not society as a whole, and both became instruments of oppression and enslavement. Simple human and social relations, simple regardless of what could otherwise be said against them, had imperceptibly changed into a most horrible plague: relations between things. Money and Capital, the abstract expression of the new relations, emerged as the sole regulating and connecting factors in a totally reified society under which the common human ground had vanished.”
“A kind of social schizophrenia overwhelms the consciousness of man, manifesting itself first of all in splitting off enthusiasm for science from its political side, namely the social obligations of science. One has to be scientific and to behave rationally in order to make a living and to survive in the competitive struggle, but for the very same reason one has to shun passionate feeling, conviction, humaneness and responsibility towards the whole. In a word: One has to behave unscientifically and irrationally as a human being and thus affirm the irrationality of the system. This social schizophrenia establishes itself as a veritable impersonal institution which enforces onesidedness, human indifference and hypocrisy in every sphere of life. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie furthers, protects and recognizes only those sciences, ideas, methods, teachings, arts and so forth which are useful or indispensable for its own existence, for industry, business and political rule. On the other hand, much apologetic, confusion, distortion and sham-opposition is needed for the deception of the people. The bourgeoisie therefore assigns thousands of specialists to a fixed task, throws thousands of petty and obedient scholars into the social-economic web, buys off thousands of “oppositional” politicians, turns thousands of “rebellious” artists and ideologists into respectable citizens, looks benevolently upon thousands of apostles, cranks, sect-founders, bohemians, scribblers, reformers and “radical” fools living like criminals at the verge of society and cementing its crevices.”
” Scientific “detachment,” further, reveals itself to be fierce political partisanship, objectivity to consist of subjective selection of facts fitting preconceived simplifications”
“The self-appointed “elite” man is the one who closes the circle in the decline of cognition, for he is the first vulgar person who turns science into ideology, who abuses science and in whose hands it becomes deadly. Leonardo da Vinci destroyed his design for a submarine out of fear that it would be misused. Einstein, in contrast, induced Roosevelt to produce A-bombs, with which he unchained the deadliest force ever put in the service of capitalist competition in war and peace. Was it fear, naïveté, hope or something else which moved Einstein? It was, in any case, his social existence, the logic of the system which pushed him in a disastrous direction. It was thus false consciousness, ignorance of political science, blindness with regard to social implications and the connection between all sciences if he could not even calculate the first consequence of his step and believed that the bomb would not be used without the “utmost necessity” in the sense in which the bourgeoisie itself understands this term. One has to grasp the dialectical nature of things, which imbued the production of the bomb with its own logic — the bomb was actually used wantonly, with political deception of the people, and the horrible new branch of production had to be pushed further and further. Let it be repeated: The bourgeois character of the “abstract” sciences (which “as such” contain no ideological material) cannot be detected in themselves but in their theoretical interpretation. Let it be repeated, too: In bourgeois society, science cannot benefit the people, it benefits the system and its parasites (general assertion of its bourgeois character) and remains a potential, not an actual friend of mankind. The alienation of man from his work is reproduced in the alienation of science from its social purpose, and both harden the antagonism between physical and intellectual labor in which reason has no place. ”
“A letter by Einstein to the editor of The Reporter sums up the point in a rather tragic manner. Having been instrumental in what was to follow from the construction of the A-bomb (secrecy; restriction of scientific communication, freedom and conscience; deception of the people and political persecution) he commented on a series of articles by Theodore H. White under the title “U.S. Science: The Troubled Quest.” In these articles it was said “that centers of intellectual life were troubled by recent Federal actions concerning scientists.” The New York Times of Nov. 10, 1954, from which the story is taken, noted: “Dr. Einstein has been an outspoken critic of these actions. When Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer was denied security clearance by the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Einstein said: ‘The systematic, widespread attempt to destroy mutual trust and confidence constitutes the severest possible blow against society.’ ” Then followed Einstein’s letter to the editor of The Reporter:
You have asked me what I thought about your articles concerning the situation of the scientists in America. Instead of trying to analyze the problem, I may express my feeling in a short remark: If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still available under present circumstances.
After the letter, the New York Times wrote:
In Princeton, Dr. Einstein’s secretary declined to elaborate on this comment. In publishing the letter, Max Ascoli, the editor of The Reporter, said that it was an honor but “hardly a pleasure to publish this letter from Albert Einstein.” The comment will be freely used by enemies of the United States, he said. [This is divine: As if it were the fault of the “enemies” that “something” is utterly rotten in the United States!] But he added that the freedom to protest, which Dr. Einstein used in making his comment [this is divine again: Einstein was asked for it, but Ascoli surely expected him to be a “good boy” who never uses any “freedom”!], can still [!] be afforded here. Our country must maintain a good record on this score, not just a better record than do the totalitarian nations, Mr. Ascoli said in an editorial comment.
That is all that came out of a vital issue, and the story confirms what we already know. You can, especially if you are Einstein, still express your feeling and become a “protester” who audaciously uses such freedom, but you will not attempt to analyze the problem, let alone with full documentation and in its full social and scientific impact. It is an “honor” to print a statement by a great man, but hardly a “pleasure” because it reveals a little of that truth which it should be the highest honor and pleasure for any non-totalitarian or honest paper to publish.”
“Business is going on in science as in all other spheres of production! 100 different kinds of toilet-paper are produced because people must go into business, must stay in it and expand — scientists, lecturers and students produce for the same purpose en masse. Three or four kinds of toilet-paper would represent a rational production and be sufficient for any need — three or four scientific papers among each thousand would provide for all that is required in the field. The rest is useless duplication and sham-production which has nothing to do with human or scientific needs, but much with business, competition (also among the universities, which are run as business institutions) and a totally crazy system maintaining itself through tremendous waste. Wherever we look there is the dialectical unity of opposites and transformation of opposites into opposites. Material production progresses and incites scientific work as science progresses and incites material production, yet one is simultaneously as rational and irrational as the other. Material production cannot find its general purpose and science cannot define its own subject-matter — both are separated from their human end; both are driven on by blind, external laws; both are governed by false consciousness. Rationality is thus achieved through irrationality and irrationality through rationality, both turning wildly into each other and finally leaving rationality chiefly in scientific methods, laboratories, computers, generators and the means of production, while irrationality appears chiefly in production as a whole, in H-bombs, guided missiles, gases and bacteria for warfare, jet-fighters, insecticides, chemicals and so on down to 100 different kinds of toilet-paper.”
“The theoretical thinking of each epoch, thus also that of ours, is a historical product which assumes at different times a very different form and therewith a very different content. The science of thinking is thus, like any other, a historical science, the science of the historical development of human thinking. And this is also of importance for the practical application of thinking to empirical fields. For the theory of the laws of thinking is, firstly, by no means a once and for all established “eternal truth,” as the common sense of the philistine imagines with the word logic. Formal logic itself has remained, from Aristotle till today, the field of vehement debates. And dialectics even has till now been more exactly investigated only by two thinkers, by Aristotle and Hegel. But just the dialectic is for today’s natural science the most important form of thinking, because it alone offers the analogon and therewith the method of explanation for the processes of development occurring in nature, for the connections in general, for the transition from one field of investigation to another.”
Some other relevant, but badly organised, material about vaccinations from the Covid1984 pages, some of which has not been sifted through much critical vigilance on my part:
Translation of part of this (from 31 December 2020):
A small clarification on the effectiveness rates of vaccines posted with
great publicity: 90, 95, 98%. I have the impression that we are abusing
public opinion, and our leaders (easy). Indeed, conventional vaccines,
which are less effective, raise the question of a second injection to
strengthen immunity, for example Astra Zeneca claims an effectiveness
rate of 70%, but which could reach 100% with two doses. However, RNA
vaccines immediately offer 2 injections. Is it to hide insufficient
efficiency? Wouldn’t they be more effective than those that show 60 to
80%? From what I’ve read on each one, it seems obvious to me, and this
display is a deception, it’s a publicity battle.
Moreover, no one knows what the terms of protection will be. We even give
the protocol to vaccinate those who have already had Covid, which is
to say the confidence we have in this period of immunity. So multiplying
the doses by 2, renewing every 6 or 12 months, is to multiply the risks
[the possible dangers from the new vaccines] by 4.
A Bad “Good and Only” Solution
We have staked everything on a single product whose positive or negative
effects we do not know beyond 2 months, knowing that it may have some.
We have ignored, despised, hid the other possibilities of struggle, we
have been wrong about many things for months, result: the French no
longer have any trust, more than 60% do not adhere to official doctrine. This is
enough to cover the elders (with more suggested than informed consent),
which will probably decrease mortality in this population, but
insufficient for herd immunity, yet everything has been bet on the
vaccine and that immunity. It won’t work.
There is also the problem of transfers. We have already seen the great
ease of mutation of Sars-Cov-2, more than 1000 mutations described,
fortunately not in a bad sense, except for the latest which is more contagious but
not more nasty, but everything is possible and feared. Laboratories and
authorities are trying to reassure on this point, but they know it very
well, this virus, like all influenza coronaviruses, is a permanent
mutant, and all vaccines will therefore be regularly obsolete like those
for winter flu.
After these disturbing remarks on these genetic vaccines, to make the
balance, never refusing adversarial debate, the only one which
advances towards the truth, here is a clear synthesis, of a learned
society, the Society of infectious pathology, aimed at reassuring
the population about the vaccine. Allow me also to underline what brings
us together, and what opposes us, each will form their own opinion,
everything is on the table: very reassuring, yes, but let us note
however that the mutations that can make the current vaccines
ineffective are not denied. , that the appearance of autoimmune
diseases is not denied, with a laconic “not observed” (after 2
months), while contesting those concerning those of neighboring proteins
that may be targeted (syncytin). The possibility of complications
after 6 months is ignored, ignoring that it sometimes takes years
to demonstrate them (see the thousands of narcolepsy from the H1N1
vaccine, and the hundreds of children who have died from Dengvaxia), and
finally, the existence of viral recombinations is not developed.
The bet might be a winner, but what if it isn’t? What consequences if it
loses? Especially when there are other alternatives, either immediate
medication (see what’s happening in nursing homes that treat), or
vaccines? In conclusion I will repeat the introduction of my colleague
quoted above, quoting Dr Ryan, Executive Director at WHO: “If there is
one thing more dangerous than a bad virus, it is a bad vaccine”.”
Delaying second dose of Pfizer jab may leave elderly at risk of catching South African variant…or worse
In Israel, there are stories from prisoners about threats of deteriorating their conditions if they don’t get vaccinated; another report about an association running night-stay shelters for homeless people who’s telling them “get the vaccine or go back on the street”; and soldiers offered different kind of perks if they get the vaccin (trips abroad etc.).
Vaccine as interrelation between politicians and Big pharma:
“In Europe, there have been 71 deaths reported following a Covid-19 vaccination – including from across the UK, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. Almost all were people aged 75 or over. The European Medicines Agency has so far said: “No death among these elderly people has been attributed to the [Pfizer/BioNTech] vaccination at this stage.” In total in France, 139 cases of severe or unexpected side-effects have been reported since the start of the vaccination campaign.”
“Norwegian health officials reported a small number of deaths among older people on Sunday who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and suffered side effects. While the Norwegian Medicines Agency is now investigating the deaths — estimated to be about 30 — the regulator and Australian authorities have been quick to play down any serious safety concerns. “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail,” Professor Brendan Murphy, secretary of the Department of Health… In the US, where more than 11 million people have received at least one dose of the vaccine, health authorities are beginning to see rare instances of severe (though treatable) allergic reactions to some of the COVID-19 vaccines. They’re also investigating the case of a doctor who developed an unusual blood disorder shortly after receiving the Pfizer jab, and later died. It’s not yet known whether the COVID jab is linked to his illness.”
Note the secretary of the Department of Health’s words “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail”. They were in their 80s. The King of Norway is 83. If he’d died after being vaccinated, would the secretary of the Department of Health have simply said “This man who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately died, was very, very old and frail”? Maybe Pfizer should change its name to Pfizeuthanasier or even Pfizeuthanazier and nazier.
See also thisand this. “Norway expressed increasing concern about the safety of the Pfizer Inc. vaccine on elderly people with serious underlying health conditions after raising an estimate of the number who died after receiving inoculations to 29. The latest figure adds six to the number of known fatalities in Norway, and lowers the age group thought to be affected to 75 from 80. While it’s unclear exactly when the deaths occurred, Norway has given at least one dose to about 42,000 people and focused on those considered most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly. Until Friday, the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech SE was the only one available in Norway, and “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine,” the Norwegian Medicines Agency said…“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.” Official reports of allergic reactions have been rare as governments rush to roll out vaccines”.
“In a massive blow to Spain’s Pfizer vaccination plan, more than 65 residents and ten staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the Foietes nursing home in Benidorm just days after receiving the first Covid-19 vaccine. According to official sources, the residence previously hadn’t registered any cases for months, and most residents and staff had negative PCR tests shortly before the vaccine drive began on January 4.”
“The retired Spaniard had received his first dose of the vaccine on December 29, along with the rest of the privately-run home. Within days of receiving the jab, the man ‘suffered an accident’ and was transferred to a hospital where a routine COVID-19 test detected the disease.The rest of the care home was tested and an outbreak was confirmed after several more residents and employees tested positive. The home had managed to not register a single case among its staff or residents throughout the whole pandemic. It comes after another home in Vinaros, also in Castellon, reported 21 coronavirus cases on Monday after all residents had been vaccinated on New Year’s Eve. On January 4, a general screening was carried out and all residents and workers tested negative. But after a resident presented symptoms, a new screening was carried out on January 9, revealing positive cases among 14 residents, five workers and two nuns. The first dose of the vaccine does not guarantee immunization, meaning you can still become infected and infect others until after you receive the second dose. While the first dose has suggested it can decrease the severity of symptoms in some cases, it is not guaranteed.”
Not sure whether this shows that testing is crap or that there’s something dangerous in the Pfizer vaccine.
“An association that operates a homeless shelter in Tel Aviv has
threatened those staying in the shelter that if they are not vaccinated
for Corona, they will be evicted from the place. The association: ‘We
are allowed to demand from every street dweller who wants to stay under
our roof to get vaccinated’
This week, a vaccination campaign was conducted for street dweller
staying in sheltered apartments in Tel Aviv on behalf of the Lasova
Association, which operates the apartments with the assistance of the
Ministry of Welfare and the municipality. The residents of the shelters
known as “little roofs”, claim that the association’s employees
threatened them that if they did not join the organized group that went
to the vaccination center and were vaccinated, they would be evicted
from the apartment and left without a place to live.
They shouted at me, ‘Get the vaccine and if not, go back on the
street,’” says one of the tenants. “When a friend of mine found out
about it and said everyone has to get vaccinated at six P.M., there was
an outrage at the home. People flew off the handle. Everyone was in a
storm of emotions. I don’t know anyone who agrees to this thing.”
Although this is a vaccine that has passed all the required regulatory
approvals, stipulating the residence in getting the vaccine is putting
pressure on people with no choice. In a conversation we had with one of
the tenants before the vaccination, he said that some of them left the
compound in an attempt to evade receiving the vaccine. “Some of them may
have an alternative, but there are certainly some who do not. This
apartment exists for people who cannot currently find a housing
solution,” he says. “A lot of them couldn’t find a place to live,
certainly not from one day to the next. They didn’t put a gun to our
head but they told us, ‘This apartment needs to be vaccinated. Anyone
who doesn’t get vaccinated can’t be here.’”
According to another tenant, the decision to abandon the shelter could
lead to a deterioration in their condition. “‘Some of the tenants are in
the process of rehabilitation,” he says. “Leaving the shelter back to
the street because of a refusal to be vaccinated can disrupt the
process, maybe even terminate it.”
“I was scared, so I got vaccinated”
Lasova operates 11 shelters known as “little roofs” for street dwellers
in cooperation and budget support from the Tel Aviv Municipality. The
“little roofs” are divided into different groups, including dwellers
with a background of alcohol and drug addiction, women, people with
disabilities, rehabilitated residents and street dwellers with no
background of addiction. In total, more than a hundred tenants live in
The reasons why the residents of the home are not interested in
receiving the vaccine are varied. “They say they want to see how it goes
first,” says one of them. “Some say they are young and healthy and do
not need it.” Another tenant says he prefers other people to get the
vaccine before him. “I don’t see any point in it,” he explains. “I am a
young person, with no underlying illnesses.”
Tenants report that about a third of those staying at the home did not
receive the vaccine. “I do not know what this means for the continuation
of their stay in the association,” says one of the tenants. He said he
was vaccinated even though he did not want to, because he feared that
the threats would materialize and not allow him to stay in the
residence. “The principle of not getting vaccinated was not critical
enough for me,” he admits. “But the vaccine was unnecessary.”
“The vaccine is not only a matter for each individual, but also for the
health and well-being of those who live with him,” says Gilad Harish,
CEO and chairman of the Lasova association. “The dormitories are
relatively densely populated with dozens of street dwellers, whose
health and well-being must be ensured.
“These shelter are the only solution for the overnight stay of street
dwellers, and these street dwellers have no ability to choose. Now that
there is finally a safe and approved vaccine, we may demand from every
street dweller who wants to stay in the shelter to get vaccinated, and
prevent risk to the other residents.” In the same way, we do not accept
people with infectious diseases, violent people, and people who can not
live together peacefully and endanger the other tenants. At this stage,
we do not intend to keep vaccinating tenants away, but I do not rule it
out. The issue is under extensive scrutiny.”
The Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality responded: “Contrary to the claim, the
Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality and the association do not require the
residents of the shelters to be vaccinated and they may continue to stay
in the shelters even if they choose not to be vaccinated. However, the
municipality encourages its residents to get vaccinated, in accordance
with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health. It should be noted that
the Ministry of Welfare proposed to the welfare system to vaccinate
their patients. “Since the residents of the shelters are patients of the
welfare system, we were given the opportunity to vaccinate them if they
Alarmed by the phenomenon, some administrators have dangled everything from free breakfasts at Waffle House to a raffle for a car to get employees to roll up their sleeves. Some states have threatened to let other people cut ahead of health care workers in the line for shots.
Significant critique of current vaccination programme by French doctor; potentially insufficiently tested vaccines could create a super-virus worse than Covid
The following is what I have gleaned from this French text, with some additional interpretations and information :
This blog looks at the current process in France, but much of it applies to the rest of the world also. It looks at the process just in its own terms, i.e. from a conventional perspective that’s not at all critical of this society nor at all skeptical about other past vaccination programmes. It doesn’t question dominant ideas about what we mean by health – and so obviously ignores the fact that an essential aspect of health, including mental health, is to try to resist and attack this fundamentally sick society. Which, in a sense, makes his criticism of the current rush to vaccination all the more scary .
He says that with a vaccine in general, early complications are usually the least serious, whilst more serious, entrenched, problems can come later. The reason it usually take several years to develop what is considered a safe and efficacious vaccine is that the process of experimentation has to be long to be as safe and secure as possible, and even then problems, often serious problems, occur. Safety and the rush to get out a vaccine do not go together. The current process is a game of poker, full of risks – it’s a gamble whether it works and saves lives or it causes grave losses. And the loser is not just one or two individuals but also potentially the entire global population, with the possible emergence of a recombinant virus through the vaccination, a subject which is virtually never discussed.
Hundreds of millions of vaccination doses have been ordered on the basis of a press release from laboratories, and organized vaccination campaigns, without knowing anything about either the benefit or the risk.
There’s been no comparative studies of the various vaccines now being used in different countries to find out first which is the safest and which is the most effective.
In France, the state and the media claim is that it has been validated by a commission of medical authorities responsible for studying whether it could be put on the market or not. This is a total lie. The product was bought and the campaign organized, before this commission even met to discuss it. The decision was not a medical one but a political one, and this commission did not issue a medical opinion, but endorsed a political decision already made.
It’s worth knowing that these medical authorities had validated remdesivir before the WHO declared it relatively dangerous on 20th November. Last year the EU gave Gilead, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures remdesivir, a billion euros to combat Covid – at a cost of 2000 euros for a 5-day treatment for one person and had to stop ordering the stuff because it was not only ineffective but also had fairly dangerous side effects. [An aside about Gilead: despite them declaring that remdesivir, a vaccin previously used for Ebola, was “safe” and “effective”, this company has financed something close to 80% of the trials for hydroxychloroquine that “proved” that it was “unsafe”, some of these trials including azythromicine]. Gilead didn’t suffer financially at all because – either in 2018 or in 2010 (I’ve lost the date) – the EU decided that responsibility for lack of efficacy, for all side effects, or contraindications that had not been warned against, fell on the various states, with only Poland objecting. That is, compensation is paid out not by the companies but the states which are meant to verify whether a particular drug or piece of medical equipment etc., is safe or not (but in fact, they don’t do extra trials themselves, but only look at the various papers showing the companies’ research and on that basis decide whether the research meets their requirements of “scientific protocol” or not). In the US this has been the case since the 1980s. So as a result no individual is ever prosecuted – at worst the company itself has to pay compensation for deaths or whatever. Apparently Pfizer, the currently most well known of the companies producing an anti-Covid vaccine, regularly pays out billions in class action claims (which , moreover, are not easy things to pursue and can take several years even when they are pursued). In France compensation for catalepsy (a medical condition characterized by a trance or seizure with a loss of sensation and consciousness accompanied by rigidity of the body), originating from the anti-swine flu vaccine, was apparently very poorly compensated.
Re. the 2009-2010 swine flu “pandemic”. Despite a relentless propaganda programme in the media (main news item for several weeks) pushing people to get vaccinated because of the terror of swine flu, less than 10% of the population took up this manipulated ‘need’ for a vaccine. The Minister of Health at the time, Rosalyne Bachelot, whose personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry were well-known, ordered 94 million vaccines from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Baxter International at a cost of around 900 million euros to the state. Most of the vaccines were never used. As a result of the vaccine, there were 21 deaths, 4 anaphylactic shocks, 9 Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura cases, 6 multiple sclerosis cases, and 9 Guillain–Barré syndromes. The illness itself killed 310 people in France, considerably less than deaths from ordinary flu.
Back to the anti- covid vaccine and Dr. Gérard Maudrux’s blog:
“There used to be 3 types of vaccines. Those with an inactivated virus, low immunogenicity and low risk; those with a live attenuated virus, a little more efficient and more risky, and those comprising not a whole and manipulated virus, but a fragment, usually a protein.
The 2 Chinese vaccines on the market belong to the first category, the inactivated virus…it is a proven technique, widely used and without risk. Little effect in the worst case scenario… efficiency: 79.5%.
Now with Covid there are 2 new types of vaccines: DNA and mRNA vaccines.
Like DNA, RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides, but unlike DNA, RNA is found in nature as a single strand folded onto itself, rather than a paired double strand. Cellular organisms use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information (using the nitrogenous bases of guanine, uracil, adenine, and cytosine, denoted by the letters G, U, A, and C) that directs synthesis of specific proteins. Many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome….
...These are experimental vaccines, because they are techniques never used in humans…so we know absolutely nothing about the possible long-term effects, which worries many people because they are treatments that affect the genes…so can there be a modification of our genes? This question is all the more relevant as these treatments have been developed thanks to research into gene therapy, precisely designed to modify diseased genes.
DNA vaccines …inject genetically modified viruses which don’t produce diseases but are responsible for “flu-like syndromes” into which the DNA sequences of SARS-Cov-2 are introduced. Messenger RNA vaccines directly inject a messenger RNA which will then be manufactured by our cells, against which we will then develop antibodies. …
…Can RNA fit into and modify our genes? Just to remind you, the DNA that makes up our genes is a double helix of nucleotides, RNA is a single helix of the same nucleotides (with different bonds). In theory no, the conversion is always DNA to RNA, the reverse is not normally possible with us. On the other hand, this …passage of RNA into DNA exists in nature and can integrate it into genes. This is the case with the HIV virus,. So the risk of integrating DNA vaccines is not zero. It exists in nature (and in humans), creating what are called chimeras. It was observed in a vaccine trial in children in 2002, resulting in 2 leukemias in 10 patients.
But the greatest risk seems elsewhere. You will find it very well described by Professor Velot, molecular geneticist at Paris-Saclay University and specialist in genetic engineering . Viruses often mix their genetic material together. If a viral RNA is injected into a healthy (or sick) carrier of a virus, another virus may be created by recombination (mixture of material). This recombination can give birth to something unharmful , but also to something dangerous, nastier than the SARS-Cov-2. This probability is very low statistically, but by no means zero. If it can happen in 1 in 10 million people, and you vaccinate 10,000 people, this risk is low, but if you vaccinate 500 million, 1 billion people, then the risk becomes real, and we can move from an individual risk, which happens for any vaccine, to a risk which would concern the entire planet which can then be contaminated by an incurable virus. And all this just to be ahead in the competition for the greatest boost to the pharmaceutical companies’ share values….
The French minister of health said on 7th January: “We have not yet determined, in any country in the world, whether the vaccine protects against the risk of contamination”. By “the risk of contamination” he means the risk of infecting others.
“I don’t know if you have noticed this paradox. One would have thought that our contemporaries were afraid of everything, that they were ready to accept anything for their survival, that they did not want to take any risk and did not hesitate to shut themselves up and hide their children for that reason. Except that we were wrong: the same people who are terrified of children and who wear a mask in the open air, when there is the least risk, are ready to be massively vaccinated, even though the potential risks are much higher. Doublethink: the principle of precaution is alternately made sacred, asserted above all and yet contested, trampled on where one would have some justification. We bathe in illogicality and terror.
The only explanation for me is the reign of spectacular thought. If Covid is scary and yet a potentially catastrophic therapy isn’t, it’s that the second has not been pointed out by the media and that the spectators, who do what they are told , are therefore not afraid or, in any case, less than of Covid. The media, power, by focusing attention on it, have succeeded in creating an absolute Evil, to which everything else appears to be secondary: other diseases, freedoms, happiness, friendship, love, life … A lifeless life that looks like death.
The worst part of all this sinister farce is that “revolutionaries” have also come to take their instructions from power and the media and do what they are told. ” [translated from French]
The rapid rollout combined with the country’s vast medical database
a gold mine that will serve doctors and scientists in the years to come
When it comes to the rate of COVID-19 vaccinations, Israel is leaving
the rest of the world in the dust, and that’s setting the country up to
become a giant laboratory for studying the vaccine’s effectiveness and
“Israel has been producing and will continue to produce very unique
assets in the future,” said Jonathan Adiri, the CEO of Healthy.io and a
leading Israeli biomed entrepreneur. “The first is an operative asset –
we proved that we were able to inoculate a large number of people in a
short amount of time in the eye of a storm. We have a recipe for
efficient vaccination of the population and have learned a lot – that’s
data with tremendous value.”
Uri Shalit, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the Technion
technology institute, said that the information being gathered in Israel
will show how well the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine works when factors like
refrigeration and the way the vaccine is injected are less ideal than in
the controlled trials. Israel will also serve as a lab for researchers
to discover whether the vaccine just prevents disease or also prevents
“I’m confident that the first articles coming out of Israel on the
vaccine’s effect will have tremendous value and that the entire world is
awaiting them,” Shalit said.
Another data asset is Israel’s diverse population containing a wide
range of religions and ethnicities.”
More here: “In effect, Israel will act as a large world testing laboratory, with the results from this huge research serving to set vaccination strategies in the rest of the world and also assisting the pharmaceutical companies in continuing R&D for coronavirus vaccinations and other treatments.”
On January 8th 2020, a man in a care home who’d previously been tested negative, died 11 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. “The retired Spaniard had received his first dose of the vaccine on December 29, along with the rest of the privately-run home…The rest of the care home was tested and an outbreak was confirmed after several more residents and employees tested positive. The home had managed to not register a single case among its staff or residents throughout the whole pandemic. It comes after another home in Vinaros, also in Castellon, reported 21 coronavirus cases on Monday after all residents had been vaccinated on New Year’s Eve. On January 4, a general screening was carried out and all residents and workers tested negative. But after a resident presented symptoms, a new screening was carried out on January 9, revealing positive cases among 14 residents, five workers and two nuns. The first dose of the vaccine does not guarantee immunization, meaning you can still become infected and infect others until after you receive the second dose.” Meanwhile in Benidorm, “more than 65 residents and ten staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the Foietes nursing home …just days after receiving the first Covid-19 vaccine. According to official sources, the residence previously hadn’t registered any cases for months, and most residents and staff had negative PCR tests shortly before the vaccine drive began on January 4…residents are now confined to their rooms, and while many are asymptomatic, around half a dozen have been admitted to the Regional Hospital. Sadly, four elderly people have also lost their lives.”
As for the vaccine, SARS-Cov2 is not a moving target like the flu, because it is able to repair its DNA. That’s why antivirals unfortunately have almost no effect on it (a few elements in French – http://www.université-populaire-de-marseille.net/covid-19_2020/ ). The real problem, the Pandora’s box that has been opened no matter what happens, is that people are being used extensively as guinea pigs to fight a disease that remains, as far as we know, mostly benign. It is laughable to hear the French authorities congratulate themselves that nothing serious has happened since the start of the vaccination campaign: should we be reassured that they feel happy not to have killed anyone in FIVE days, really? ? In comparison, the newly tested (old) Lyme disease vaccine is not expected to be available until… 2025. From a scientific point of view, they CANNOT know what they are doing with this virus that emerged one year ago, and it’s just bullshit to argue otherwise.
As for the vaccin, there are also reports of many Israelis who live abroad coming to Israel especially to get vaccinated, as well as a report from today of 7 nurses contracting Covid19 in a vaccination center in Safed (a mostly orthodox city in the north), after masses of people were called to vaccinate quickly before a shipment of vaccin doses would go bad and unusable – a current phenomenon these days, that gives the chance for people who are not on the priority list to get the vaccin….
The mixing of vaccins from different companies for the first and second shot is now officially done in Belgium as well as Israel. The “experts” claim it’s the same technology and there’s no reason to worry etc. [See UK opts for unknown gamble of mix-and-match vaccines]
“Public health expert Dr. Bishara Basharat, who directs a national
nonprofit which promotes Arab health, agreed that some in the Arab
community were reluctant to be vaccinated, a phenomenon he called
“concerning.” … Arab Israelis constitute a disproportionately large
number of Israel’s health care workers, especially nurses and
pharmacists: a 2017 study found that around 40% of nursing students were
Arab Israelis, even though they constitute around 21% of the population.
To combat mistrust of the vaccine, Basharat recommended an aggressive
awareness campaign among Arab family doctors.”
“Arab citizens trust their family doctors, the ones in their hometowns,
whom they go to consult with on a regular basis. Once they are
vaccinated, people will start to be convinced,” Basharat said.”
“In contrast, the ministry says the response to the vaccination campaign
in Haredi communities has been high, especially after leading rabbis
voiced support and were photographed getting the vaccine.”
About a week ago I also saw a report on TV that said that only 4% of the Arab population want to be vaccinated.
“Israel’s heavily digitized, community-based health system — all citizens, by law, must register with one of the country’s four H.M.O.s — and its centralized government have proved adept at orchestrating a national inoculation campaign, according to Israeli health experts.
With a population of nine million, Israel’s relatively small size has played a role as well, said Professor Balicer, who is also the chief innovation officer for Clalit, the largest of the country’s four H.M.O.s.
An aggressive procurement effort helped set the stage.
The health minister, Yuli Edelstein, said in an interview on Friday that Israel had entered into negotiations with drugmakers as an “early bird,” and that the companies were interested in supplying Israel because of its H.M.O.s’ reputation for efficiency and gathering reliable data.
“We are leading the world race thanks to our early preparations,” he said.”
“Israel will be the first country to issue a “green passport” to residents who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. The passport will lift some restrictions, including mandatory quarantine following exposure to an infected person, and offer access to cultural events and restaurants, according to Israel’s Ministry of Health. A green passport will be issued by the ministry two weeks after the second of the required two vaccine shots is received by the individual. “This passport will show that a person is vaccinated and will give a number of advantages such as not needing to quarantine, entry to all kinds of culture events, restaurants, and so on,” the Ministry of Health’s Director-General Chezy Levy told Israel’s Channel 12.”
“Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said. The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.” Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.””
More on this. “Every effort should be made to give them the same vaccine, but where this is not possible it is better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all.” they say, but without even a pretense of following that eternal ode to objecivity “scientific protocol”, who knows if it’s better or worse?
“I’m not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch, but if you want to know why so many people don’t trust the government and buy into all kinds of doubt, look at the following from the article:
We all want answers, but we need to know where to look and whom to trust. Take the new Covid vaccines, for example: scientists understand very well that randomised control trials involving tens of thousands of volunteers that are run to find out whether new vaccines are safe and effective are pretty much as good as it gets. They are the gold standard of evidence-based science.
The “gold standard” in testing is double-blind with genuine placebos. Yet these studies were run where the placebo was in most cases another vaccine (MMR). In fact, vaccines are almost never tested with real placebos. The argument is that it would be unethical not to give someone a vaccine, but nonetheless, the procedure is not the “gold standard” double-blind placebo testing.
Further, regarding “gold standard,” science recognizes that tests should be reproducible and should be reproduced by independent labs. The original trials by Pfizer were not reproduced by an entirely independent research organization at any point to verify effectiveness or side affects. We only have Pfizer supervised and submitted tests–the very entity whose stocks are soaring on this product. Sure, this may be an emergency and we’re skipping that, but don’t use the words “gold standard” because that’s wrong. We are skipping steps.
And that too matters, because a large number of results submitted by companies like Pfizer to the FDA to justify production of various products over the years are NOT REPRODUCIBLE. The studies are way off base when retested by someone else. This is a ongoing problem with pharmaceuticals: the companies submit tests for approval from the FDA that turn out to be flat-out wrong or worse, never get independently verified.
Yet, articles like this just throw out words like “science” and “gold standard” like confetti. It’s like the very word “vaccine” = good science, in any context, no matter what. That in itself is not scientific.
One can believe in well established vaccine science and also believe that there are problems with the pharmaceutical industry’s products, even when they are not in a fast-track situation and not poised to have a new market that transforms their stock price. And then it gets even worse where there are articles like this that essentially pretend that it is scientific to ignore the any pharma industry factor.”
Much of this article is about Pfizer’s bribes to various medical authorities and doctors around the world, and about its grotesque manipulation of prices, but the following seems most pertinent in relation to whether or not to trust its vaccine:
“Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs. Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.”
“Those who don’t wish to be immunised against the virus will not remain anonymous and the Ministry of Health will register the names of people who refuse to have it and their reasons why“
It’s undoubtedly obvious that the rush to vaccinate against Covid is very dangerous – see, for instance, this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html
And there’s this about vaccines in general:
On December 27th 2020, the first woman in France was vaccinated with a vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech. She was 78. This had been preceded by repeated speeches by France’s Prime Minister, Castex, who assured everyone that only those consenting and informed would be vaccinated. Surrounded by cameras, this woman said something like “Oh – I didn’t know I had to be vaccinated”. Probably suffering from something like Alzheimers, this woman could hardly have given her informed consent to her vaccination.
But of course, this is just anti-vaxxer propaganda. And therefore not worth mentioning in most of the media. Nor amongst most self-described “revolutionaries”.
After all, In Science We Trust. And In Progress We Trust.
“Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said. The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.” Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”
These are just the latest in a line of some of the more obvious reasons for being very skeptical about the latest episodes in this madness – this whole rush-to-vaccine PRopaganda, PRogramme and PRoject the world is being overwhelmingly PRessurised with – PR being the operative suffix.
Let’s look at some more of the star players in this vaccination project.
Take Pfizer. We know that they have already started to receive $2bn a month, though how much of that is profit is anybody’s guess. The head of Pfizer is already on the rich list. This much is a banality. More interesting about them are aspects of their history, such as this: “Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs. Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.”
Much of the rest of this article is about Pfizer’s bribes to various medical authorities and doctors around the world, and about its grotesque manipulation of prices, and the fact that even when fined millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, this is just water off a duck’s back for a massively multi-billion dollar company, ranked 57 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue. Moreover, since 2018 changes in European laws governing responsibility for side effects or lack of efficacy of any drug is now shouldered by the various states, not the companies themselves (which was already the case for the USA long before this).
Or take the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. On 23/11/20 the Oxford vaccine trials announced 90% efficacy. as they trust repression of past evidence and the spectators’ goldfish memory will allow them to rake in billions
Back in mid-September I wrote about this story that hit the headlines for 5 minutes before being buried under endless pictures of people not maintaining social distancing. It reported “The Oxford coronavirus vaccine trial is facing a “challenge”, the health secretary has admitted, after it was put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in one of its volunteers…The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened are not currently known.” However, after 4 days the trials were resumed without any official indication of what had gone wrong. But the New York Times reported that the just mentioned volunteer in the UK trial had been diagnosed with transverse myelitis: “Symptoms include weakness and numbness of the limbs, deficits in sensation and motor skills, dysfunctional urethral and anal sphincter activities, and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system that can lead to episodes of high blood pressure….sensation to pain or light touch is impaired. Motor weakness…mainly affects the muscles that flex the legs and extend the arms…Back pain can occur at the level of any inflamed segment of the spinal cord…all four limbs may be affected and there is risk of respiratory failure…Lesions of the lower cervical region (C5–T1) will cause a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the upper limbs, and exclusively upper motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Cervical lesions account for about 20% of cases…A lesion of the lumbar segment, the lower part of the spinal cord (L1–S5) often produces a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Lumbar lesions account for about 10% of cases.”
And a bit later a second coronavirus vaccine volunteer suffered the very same rare neurological condition – “A 37-year-old woman suffered a rare neurological condition that left her struggling to walk…”
Marvelous the way they say “the two cases were unlikely to be associated with the vaccine…” A rare disease amongst 2 people volunteering for the trial of the vaccine. Pure coincidence! Like the melting of the icecaps being just something that happens naturally every few thousand years – nothing to do with commodity-induced rich-man-made climate change, nothing to do with the car economy and capitalist industry in general.
This article also says that only one third make a full or near full recovery from this ‘transverse myelitis’ “with most of their symptoms gone” after 2 years. Nothing to worry about then.
This, from a Green EU politician, states that the European Union, on 10th July 2020, gave the go-ahead for the production of Genetically Modified vaccines without verifying, through experiments, any environmental or health safeguard!!! This means the whole world – or at least EU countries – have been explicitly transformed into involuntary guinea pigs. Not hard to recognise what might happen if GM vaccines are permitted without even standard trials which are not even a guarantee of much safety anyway (eg the hundred thousand or so people each year who die in the US from totally “safe” – ho ho – drugs, drugs that have passed these standard tests). And these scum complain Dr.Raoult’s specific mix of hydroxychloraquine and the antibiotic azithromycine has not been subjected to any “scientific” health experiments . Certainly further proof that this crisis is an opportunity for the maniacs who rule us to do things that they think they could not do before. Whilst anti-vaxxers can often be simplistic and dogmatic and selectively ignore some of the positive effects of vaccines (just as pro-vaxxers ignore the negative effects), there’s a fundamental basis for such fears. The problem of this Covid1984 epoch is that people fall into the most horrnedous manichean splits between pro-XYZ and anti-XYZ that represses all struggle for recognising what is true and what is false in such dogmatic positions, a divid e and rule that appears to be purely upo to individual choie when it shows above all how such choices are thoroughly colonised by the various manipulations of external authorities.
“Self-spreading vaccines could indeed entail serious risks, and the prospect of using them raises challenging questions. Who decides, for instance, where and when a vaccine should be released? Once released, scientists will no longer be in control of the virus. It could mutate, as viruses naturally do. It may jump species. It will cross borders. There will be unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences. There always are. While it may turn out to be technically feasible to fight emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19, AIDS, Ebola, and Zika with self-spreading viruses, and while the benefits may be significant, how does one weigh those benefits against what may be even greater risks?”
Cons like snake oil at least had the advantage of not usually having an adverse effect on those seeking a quick cure; whilst some died the majority were just swallowing a largely harmless mix of innocuous substances. As forgenuine snake oil – it can have genuinely beneficial results: “Snake oil really is a cure for what ails you, if that happens to be arthritis, heart disease or maybe even depression”
“The end of social distancing and a return to some kind of “normality” can only happen through mass vaccination. If you don’t vaccinate yourself you’re not only endangering yourself but others as well and helping to perpetuate the misery that’s destroying the economy and social life in general…” goes the line.
This is an article, from a year ago, from LCI, a mainstream French TV news channel and online news site. And is probably the basis for the conspiracy theories being put out. Whether or not this is something they’re planning to do, and whether or not they could pass a law to make it legal and/or compulsory is another question, and it’s certainly not the only reason to be worried about vaccinations. But if there’s any truth to this article, it potentially makes Orwell’s “1984” seem like child’s play in comparison. I emphasise “if”, because journalists, mainstream or not, often copy and paste other people’s texts, changing a word or two to make it seem it’s like theirs’. And they often don’t verify much the content of what they plagiarise, so maybe this article should be taken with a pinch of salt. However, I reproduce here the salient points, which , for the moment, I too haven’t checked:
“TOMORROW’S WORLD – Researchers have developed a technology which, thanks to an invisible tattoo embedded under the skin, makes it possible to display a person’s health record via the camera of a smartphone. Enough to provide doctors, especially in developing countries, with proof that the person has been vaccinated…Subcutaneous technological implants, used all over the world for livestock and pets, are starting to spread to humans, as in Sweden where several thousand people already use them as a key, train ticket or bank card. In the field of health, this time, a team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced that they had developed a revolutionary process: instead of implanting an electronic chip between the index finger and the thumb, nanoparticles are injected under the skin via a special syringe. These nanoparticles have the particularity of emitting a fluorescent light imperceptible to the naked eye, but visible from the screen of a smartphone. Concretely, the idea is to establish the proof of the vaccine in the body itself, especially in developing countries where paper vaccination cards are often incorrect or incomplete and where electronic medical records do not exist. So far, the technology has only been tested in rats, but researchers hope to test it on humans in Africa within the next two years….Scientists have spent a lot of time finding components that are safe for the body, stable and able to last for years. The final recipe is composed of copper-based nanocrystals, called “quantum dots”, measuring 3.7 nanometers in diameter. These nanocrystals are then encapsulated in microparticles of 16 micrometers (1 micrometer equals one millionth of a meter…)…. The implantation, which is done with a special syringe with a patch of microneedles 1.5 millimeters in length, is almost painless. Once applied to the skin for two minutes, the microneedles dissolve and leave small points under the skin, distributed for example in the shape of a circle or a cross. They appear under the effect of a part of the light spectrum invisible to us, close to infrared. Through the camera of a modified smartphone, pointed at the skin, the circle or the cross appears fluorescent on the screen. This symbol fluoresces on the screen when you point the smartphone camera…Researchers want the measles vaccine to be injected at the same time as these small dots. Because of this, a doctor could check if the person has been vaccinated years later. The technique is believed to be more durable than permanent felt markers. In the report of their work, the scientists indicate that they simulated five years of exposure to the Sun during laboratory tests. Another advantage of this device is that it requires less technology than an iris scan or the maintenance of medical databases. …The limitation of the concept is that the technique will only be useful in identifying unvaccinated children if it becomes the exclusive tool used. Also, will people accept multiple markings under the skin for each vaccine? And what will happen to the dots when children’s bodies grow older? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds this project, is currently conducting opinion polls in Kenya, Malawi and Bangladesh to determine whether people will be ready to embrace these microscopic quantum dots or prefer to stick to old vaccination cards.”
Note added 10/12/20:
The MIT research is confirmed by thismainstream media as well as this one and the development in Africa confirmed by Le Monde (all in French). And the information about Sweden is confirmed here and here (also in French and also mainstream). However, the chance of the state or private interests putting a tracking device or nanotechnological softeware into people’s bodies without their consent or knowledge would be a very dangerous game to play, given the chances of them being found out. And besides, the technological means of totalitarian social control do not necessitate such crudely underhand methods. Conspiracy theories at that level take a truth and develop it into an absurdity that makes the true situation also seem absurd. Like with individuals who persistently exaggerate and blow out of all proportion something true, one ends up thinking everything they say is bullshit, even if it’s not. “In a world which really is upside down, the true is a moment of the false.” said Debord in relation to dominant ideology, but it’s also true of much of supposed oppositional ideology also.
“This is the integrated spectacle, which has since tended to impose itself globally. Whereas Russia and Germany were largely responsible for the formation of the concentrated spectacle, and the United States for the diffuse form, the integrated spectacle has been pioneered by France and Italy. The emergence of this new form is attributable to a number of shared historical features, namely, the important role of the Stalinist party and unions in political and intellectual life, a weak democratic tradition, the long monopoly of power enjoyed by a single party of government, and the need to eliminate an unexpected upsurge in revolutionary activity. The integrated spectacle shows itself to be simultaneously concentrated and diffuse, and ever since the fruitful union of the two has learnt to employ both these qualities on a grander scale. Their former mode of application has changed considerably. As regards concentration, the controlling center has now become occult never to be occupied by a known leader, or clear ideology. And on the diffuse side, the spectacle has never before put its mark to such a degree on almost the full range of socially produced behavior and objects. For the final sense of the integrated spectacle is this — that it has integrated itself into reality to the same extent as it was describing it, and that it was reconstructing it as it was describing it. As a result, this reality no longer confronts the integrated spectacle as something alien. When the spectacle was concentrated, the greater part of surrounding society escaped it; when diffuse, a small part; today, no part. The spectacle has spread itself to the point where it now permeates all reality. It was easy to predict in theory what has been quickly and universally demonstrated by practical experience of economic reason’s relentless accomplishments: that the globalisation of the false was also the falsification of the globe. Beyond a legacy of old books and old buildings, still of some significance but destined to continual reduction and, moreover, increasingly highlighted and classified to suit the spectacle’s requirements, there remains nothing, in culture or in nature, which has not been transformed, and polluted, according to the means and interests of modern industry. Even genetics has become readily accessible to the dominant social forces.
Spectacular government, which now possesses all the means necessary to falsify the whole of production and perception, is the absolute master of memories just as it is the unfettered master of plans which will shape the most distant future. It reigns unchecked; it executes its summary judgments.” – Guy Debord, “Commentaries on Society of the Spectacle” (1988)
An intelligible “anti-vaxx” position (Long article from June 2019)
“I am not an “anti-vaxxer”. This is *not* my pet issue. I am not against the promotion of vaccination as one element of a good overall public health policy. I am not against their sensible use, especially considering the variety of circumstances people find themselves in worldwide. I do not think that they “don’t work.” Do pesticides “work”? Sure — they do what they say they’re gonna do, more or less. Does that, in itself, justify using them?…I…noticed that recently, in short succession, all of the following prominent online entities publicly changed their policies on “anti-vaxx” content: Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, GoFundMe. (As well as more recently the Huffington Post, and even MailChimp.) They claimed to be “cracking-down” on the spread of harmful misinformation — all within a few weeks of each other, as I recall. What they did was remove, downregulate, or demonetize content; “blacklist” search terms (i.e. block *any* results for such terms as “vaccine”); and even ban books (!). Online opinion on this — and even reporting — tended to be laudatory and untroubled, as far as I could tell, conveying a sense of “Finally…”, and downplaying accusations of censorship or bias…”
In 1976 in the USA there was a swine flu scare. There was a mass vaccination programme, encouraged by TV clips like this. Just one person died from the flu but it is possible that 3 people died from the vaccine. Certainly lots of people got Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) from the vaccine. GBS “is a rapid-onset muscle weakness caused by the immune system damaging the peripheral nervous system. Typically both sides are involved and the initial symptoms are changes in sensation or pain often in the back along with muscle weakness, beginning in the feet and hands, often spreading to the arms and upper body. The symptoms may develop over hours to a few weeks. During the acute phase, the disorder can be life-threatening, with about 15 percent of people developing weakness of the breathing muscles and, therefore, requiring mechanical ventilation. Some are affected by changes in the function of the autonomic nervous system, which can lead to dangerous abnormalities in heart rate and blood pressure” (here)
Wikipedia writes about the 1976 swine flue scare: “The House Appropriations Committee reported out a special appropriations bill, including $135 million for the swine flu immunization program, which was approved on April 5. ..on July 1, 1976. T. Lawrence Jones, president of the American Insurance Association, informed the Office of Management and Budget that the insurance industry would not cover liability for the vaccine unless the government extended liability protection. … Assistant Secretary Theodore Cooper (HEW) informed the White House on June 2 that indemnity legislation would be needed to secure Merrell’s cooperation. In June, other vaccine manufacturers requested the same legislation. A little more than two weeks later, the Ford administration submitted a proposal to Congress that offered indemnity to vaccine manufacturers….J. Anthony Morris, a researcher in the Food and Drug Administration‘s Bureau of Biologics (BoB), was dismissed for insubordination and went public with findings that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. Three days later, several manufacturers announced that they had ceased production of the vaccine. …Merrill became the first company to submit samples to the FDA’s Bureau of Biologics for safety testing, which approved it on September 2. Merck made the first shipment of vaccines to state health departments by September 22. …In October, three people died of heart attacks after they had received the vaccine at the same Pittsburgh clinic, which sparked an investigation and the recall of that batch of vaccine. The investigation showed that the deaths were not related to the immunization….cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome affecting vaccinated patients were reported in several states, including Minnesota, Maryland, and Alabama. Three more cases of Guillain-Barré were reported in early December, and the investigation into cases of it spread to eleven states. …William Foege of the CDC estimated that the incidence of Guillain-Barré was four times higher in vaccinated people than in those not receiving the swine flu vaccine. …”
“Leaked documents revealed soldiers are already monitoring cyberspace…The British Army’s Information Warfare Unit will tackle anti-virus propaganda…The defence cultural specialist unit was launched in Afghanistan in 2010 and is tied to the army’s 77th Brigade, which often works with psycological operations teams, reported The Sunday Times. A probe into vaccine disinformation from hostile states, including Russia, will be launched. The team will start recruiting professional and reserve soldiers to help in its mammoth task as the Government prepares the country for mass vaccinations as soon as next month. At least 155 anti-lockdown protesters were arrested in central London yesterday after hundreds of people gathered at Hyde Park before heading towards Oxford Street. “
Crazy ideas are being mixed with sane ones: Piers Corbyn, the ex-Trot who used to try to impose his authority on independently-organised squatters, going on about Satanism or conspiracy ideologists “claiming vaccines were a cover to plant trackable microchips into people “ which completely distracts from perfectly valid fears – see entry for 23/11/20 below. I guess that’s how the propaganda unit of the army, involved in cover-ups of war crimes in Afghanistan will play it – use the dumb semi-religious bullshit and the over-the-top conspiracy ideologies to parody opposition to the vaccine whilst ignoring, and possibly censoring information about, the obvious dangers. Or say the risk is necessary. Doubtless they’ll assert the “objectivity” of science despite the fact that the pharmaceutical industry kills up to 100,000 people in the USA every year and is the third cause of death there after cancer and heart disease. Sure, vaccines have been useful against tetanus and smallpox amongst other things. But even if you accept that they may in certain circumstances be vital, the rush to grab hold of those trillions of dollars means that everyone who takes up this vaccine is in fact being used as a guinea pig, starting with the old and, for capital, dispensable because they no longer help in the process of capital accumulation. According to a twitter post in the above article, “vaccine development is typically a long and complex process that can take up to 15 years “. Though more usually it takes 10 years. According to some accounts which I’ve yet verified , 4 healthy people to date have apparently had a serious adverse reaction to the UK vaccine and 1 person has died. The sample size was 24,000, including those who had a placebo. 5 out of the 24,000 equates to about 30,000 out of a population of 70 million. So people are right to be super-cautious.
In France, the state strategy seems to take on a more intelligent form of manipulation. The man appointed by the government in charge of all this admitted ignorance of the efficacy of curently available vaccines, and didn’t seem to know much about things such as how available the vaccine would be, nor which one they were choosing. This sets up the government with an appearance of transparency all the better to convince people when they later say “We’ve worked it all out after thorough research taking into account people’s anxieties” and then recommend what may well turn out, long-term, to be something as destructive of humans as pesticide is destructive of plants. For the moment in France, they’re going to target nursing homes for the first use of the vaccine. Is Dr.Mengele alive and well-financed by the democratic state? Are the spin doctors giving eugenics the appearance of helping the old to become healthy?