…“deus ex vaccina” and other texts on the vaccination programme…

published February 16th 2021

Followed by a chronology of information and opinions on vaccination after this date

Big Pharma

wants

YOU!

“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
(1957)

 

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.

Text no.1

(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

I. Effectiveness

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 others^viii)

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

***

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 [1]. 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.

Does the vaccination facilitate contaminations from Covid19?

“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.

Does vaccination increase deaths from Covid19?

“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 81,814]

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 [2] and the anti-papillomavirus vaccines supposedly anti-cancer of the cervix [3] 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.

Norwegian alert

Norway has just issued an alert on January 15 after the observation of 23 deaths possibly linked to the Pfizer vaccine [4] [5], 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 [6] 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 [7] 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.

[1] Frédéric Métézeau: Israel, model country for vaccination but still confined, France info, 1/14/2021

[2] The anti-hepatic B vaccination has been followed in the West by a 2-4 increase in the incidence of liver cancer.

[3] HPV vaccines have been followed by a 30-200% increase in the incidence of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated age groups.

[4] Norway launches alert after discovery of 23 deaths linked to Pfizer vaccine, Businessman 1/15/2021

[5] Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80

[6] Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines — let’s be cautious and first see the full data November 26, 2020

[7] 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

Text no.3:

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/ )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2166&v=tYwCxe9gvQY

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!

***

Text no.4:

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:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

https://www.kairospresse.be/article/stimuler-notre-systeme-immunitaire-un-imperatif-sanitaire-urgent

***

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.”

***

Chronology

of 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:

3/6/21:
Professor of immunology interview reveals scary aspects of messenger RNA

https://vimeo.com/557172132

He says that a large majority of mRNA spike proteins, which have now been shown to be toxic, get into the bloodstream and can infect various parts of the body (brain, heart, etc) but also can be passed onto others through blood transfusions, and even through breastfeeding, potentially causing bleeding in babies, and, through infection in the ovaries, possibly causing infertility.

1/6/21:
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely responsible for deaths of at least 10% of elderly patients of those who died following vaccination

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372

“The expert group was established at the end of February 2021 to look into the cause of the first 100 reported deaths of nursing home residents who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. …Although the mortality rate in nursing homes is generally very high and the deaths of some nursing home residents after vaccination was anticipated, the Norwegian Medicines Agency wanted to determine whether the vaccine had possibly hastened any deaths and to gain a clearer understanding of the risks and benefits of its use in frail elderly people. The review reported on 19 May and concluded that a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered “likely” in 10 of the 100 cases, “possible” in 26 cases, and “unlikely” in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed “unclassifiable.””
In other words, probably at least 10% and possibly as many as 36% of elderly people who died after having been vaccinated were killed (or had their deaths “hastened”) by the Pfizer vaccine. This report is already almost 2 weeks old and yet has been given virtually NO publicity in the media. Imagine how this might be replicated on a global scale. And yet any critique of this by the holocaust deniers is put down as being “anti-vaxxer”.

26/5/21:
Because of unusual death from vaccine, Belgium stops giving Johnson & Johnson vaccine to under-41s…unless they’re homeless!!!

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/170976/belgium-stops-giving-johnson-johnson-vaccine-to-under-41s-vaccination-taskforce-famhp-death-ema-risk-benefits-analysis/

“The vaccine will continue to be used for the home vaccination of the elderly, and those in precarious situations such as the homeless, which is an important priority in the campaign. On Tuesday, Beke already stated in the Flemish parliament that the aim of giving every adult their first dose by 11 July could be in jeopardy. “If we cannot count on those vaccines, we will only achieve 85% vaccination coverage by 11 July,” he said. On 20 April, the EMA’s safety committee (PRAC) already announced that a “possible link” between rare blood clots and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was found. While it stated that the blood clots should be listed as “very rare side effects” of the vaccine, the Agency confirmed that the overall benefit-risk analysis remained positive, and did not recommend an age limit. Now, Belgium’s health ministers asked the EMA to carry out a new benefit-risk analysis for the vaccine, in function of age.”

Another report in Flemish apparently says it’ll continue to be given to undocumented people as well.

25/5/21:

The Israeli People’s Committtee report on adverse side-effects of Covid, April-May2021
https://dialectical-delinquents.com/covid1984-latest/2021-2/may-2021-covid1984/english-report-side-effects-april-may2021/

“The silencing mechanisms of the Israeli health system regarding the adverse events related to the corona vaccine, and the denial of their severity and worrisome scope, combined with the fact that the mainstream media in Israel have ignored adverse events and avoided reporting them, have created a situation whereby the Israeli public is almost completely unaware of the existence, nature and prevalence of the post-vaccination adverse events….From our inquiry a disturbing image has emerged of the high rate of serious adverse events, observed in proximity to receiving the vaccine, even among young people. Many adverse events are life-threatening, and regretfully more than a few ended in death….here are our main findings:

We received 330 reports of deaths occurring in proximity after the vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination). 64% are men. According to the ministry of health’s statement: only 45 deaths occurred in proximity after the vaccination.

 According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), during January-March 2021, in the midst of the vaccination operation, there was a 18% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared to the tri-monthly average mortality in the previous year. In fact, the period of January-March 2021 is the deadliest one in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates, when compared to the corresponding months over the last 10 years.

Among the age group of 20-29, the increase in overall mortality rate is even more dramatic. In this group, during the same vaccination period, January-March 2021, there has been a 30% increase in overall mortality compared to the tri-monthly average mortality in 2020.

A statistical analysis of data from the CBS combined with information from the ministry of health leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at 1:3000 (1:18000 for ages 20-49, 1:5000 for ages 50-69, 1:1100 for ages 70+). According to this assessment, it is possible to estimate that the number of deaths in Israel, which have occurred in proximity after the vaccination, currently stands at about 1600-1700 people.

There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days post vaccination, in all age groups. For ages 20-49 – a range of 8 days from the date of vaccination to death; for ages 50-69 – 5 days from the date of vaccination to death; for ages 70 and up – 3 days from the date of vaccination to death.

The risk of death after the second vaccination is higher than the risk of death after the first vaccination.

Up until the publication date of this report, a total of 2646 reports of adverse events have been recorded by The Israeli People`s Committee, and the reports continue to flow in. These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. They also highlight the incomprehensible gap between official Israeli media reports and what is really happening, enabling a “two worlds” situation due to journalistic failure to sense, identify and report on what is actually happening in citizens` real-life.

The accumulated post-vaccination adverse events in our database is the outcome of our work with very limited resources and despite many kinds of government’s pressures aimed at concealing this critical information from the public eye. Therefore, we believe that our database of vaccine-related adverse events reflects a very small fraction of the real picture, which is about 1% of the actual number of cases according to our assessment.

This assessment is added to the fact that around 250000 people did not show up to get the second dose of vaccine, despite all massive social and occupational pressure of the green passport. We believe that the majority of them decided so due to experiencing adverse effects following the first vaccine dose.

There are close similarities in the reports of adverse events from countries with relatively high vaccination rates, with hundreds of death reports, as well as reports of damage to many human body systems.

In our analysis, we have found a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 25% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.

Additionally, a high prevalence of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological, skeletal and skin damages have been observed.

It should be noted that a significant number of adverse events reported are related, directly or indirectly, to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism).

The reporting of adverse events from hospitals and HMO clinics has been very low, and there is a tendency for a diagnostic bias that excludes the possibility of a link between the adverse events and the vaccination. There are probably many thousands of unreported cases. We get growing numbers of reports about this phenomenon from medical staff within hospitals. The general impression is that hospitals seem to be dealing with a chaos and confusion regarding the way to handle growing numbers of vaccine injured patients while at the same time to keep them out of records. Many doctors in emergency rooms nowadays begin their anamnestic inquiry by the question: “When were you vaccinated?” yet write nothing about it in discharge letters.

The general policy regarding adverse effects seems to be “over-protective” of the idea of continuing the vaccinations at all costs. In this atmosphere, and in stark contrast to the accepted medical codes according to which mortality and morbidity caused after any medical treatment should be attributed to the treatment itself unless proven otherwise, most Israeli doctors avoid raising reasonable medical suspicions about the potential contribution of the vaccine to new adverse effects. Instead, doctors, hospitals and media all talk in one voice that says: “It has nothing to do with the vaccine, until you prove it completely”. This is, of course, just a smoke screen aimed at preventing the truth, which ruins the essential foundations of differential diagnosis and brainstorming based medicine, and whose consequence is a breakdown of normal and scientific medicine.

In light of the extent and severity of post-vaccination adverse events we are witnessing, we would like to express the committee’s definite position that vaccinating children is both dangerous and lacking any medical basis. It may lead to adverse events, similar to those observed in adults (including young adults from age of 16), which could result in the death of completely healthy children. The committee believes that the intention to vaccinate children, while putting in danger their lives, their health, and their future development, has no medical justification since the coronavirus does not endanger children at all.

According to US VAERS system 7 deaths in ages 0-17 were reported in relation to Covid 19 vaccination during 2021, 6 of them of Pfizer Biontec. We hope that the radical idea of vaccinating children against the coronavirus will soon be taken off the table; and if not, that it will be completely rejected by most of the parents around the world.

Never has a vaccine injured so many! The American VAERS system reveals 3409 reports of mortality amongst vaccinated people in the United States in the first 4 months of 2021. This datum reflects a rise of thousands of percent from the annual average, which stood at 108 reports of post-vaccination mortality per year, whilst the difference in vaccination rate (in comparison to influenza vaccination) is less than 40%. In other words, more post-vaccination deaths have been recorded in the VAERS system during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over the preceding three decades. See the chart below.

In light of all the above and the detailed information ahead and for the sake of the good, reliable and advanced medicine, for all people and from the pure intention, we would like to hereby declare the statement that all branches of medicine should agree about: “Once you apply new medication of all sorts to mass people and have insufficient knowledge about its true safety, all adverse effects that follow must be regarded as related to this medication until proven otherwise. This is the only way to obtain the true information, to ensure maximal safety surveillance and to make sure that non-medical motives will have no influence on the process of evaluating and learning the true nature of this medication and its influence on people.”

Not yet read the whole of this 36-page report. Their site is this: https://www.the-people-committee.com/english

22/5/21:
UK government advisers say current vaccines unlikely to protect against new variants in future
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-current-coronavirus-vaccines-unlikely-to-protect-against-new-variants-in-future-sage-warns-12312976

Now there’s a surprise!

19/5/21:

Belgium: appeal by doctors against use of children as guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry

https://www.kairospresse.be/nos-enfants-ne-peuvent-pas-etre-les-cobayes-de-lindustrie-pharmaceutique/

The campaign to promote widespread vaccination against Covid-19 is intensifying at the cost of the most basic caution about its potential consequences for public health.

There are more and more insistent messages in favour of vaccinating children. For example, the German Medical Association is recommending compulsory vaccination for children from kindergarten onwards from the start of the school year 2021-2022.

We believe that it is time to appeal to reason to the Belgian Health Authorities and the government.

First of all, it should be remembered that the vaccines currently administered to adults are experimental vaccines for which phase 3 clinical trials are underway. This explains why these vaccines currently only have a provisional marketing authorisation. In other words, all those who are vaccinated today are, for the most part, unknowingly participating in a world-class trial campaign.

The reality today is that many questions remain unanswered and unsupported by scientific evidence about the safety, efficacy and even usefulness of vaccines as they are now being widely used.

…The risks of potentially fatal coagulopathy, already listed in the United States in the VAERS adverse event reporting system and in its European equivalent, Eudravigilance, have been wrongly minimised by the health authorities.
As early as 10 March, the association “Doctors for covid ethics” called on the EMA (European Medicines Agency) to withdraw approval for the use of genetic vaccines, all of which are implicated(1).
Furthermore, there are credible reasons to believe that these same vaccines are likely to alter fertility, gestation and reproduction. A thorough investigation of this issue should at least be conducted before taking the risk of sterilising an entire generation(2).
Finally, there is another potentially devastating effect of vaccination, immune evasion, which leads to the creation of mutants that have two potential effects, that of infecting a younger population and that of causing more deaths than in the absence of vaccination(3),(4)

…It is known that, at least for the initial strain of the virus and the first variants to appear, the risk of serious covid for young people and even more so for children is very low. The essential criterion of effectiveness would therefore be that of reducing the transmission of the virus by contaminated people.

However, the trials carried out by vaccine producers were not designed to measure the reduction in transmission risk(5). It is therefore not known whether vaccines prevent or significantly reduce transmission.

Furthermore, while it is hoped that the majority of those vaccinated will recover without consequences, it is not possible to predict how many will develop delayed immune disease.

Contrary to the optimistic statements of many of the most highly publicised experts, there is no certainty that current vaccines are truly effective.

…The risk of mortality from Covid 19 for children is around 0.002%. It is therefore totally unjustified to vaccinate children and even adolescents against a disease that does not threaten them.

Unless we consider that it is morally acceptable to make children play the role of guinea pigs, without them being able to expect any benefit for their health, we declare that the vaccination of children against Covid 19 must be prohibited and that it is the duty of parents to refuse it

For the Grappe
Pierre Stein, President
Paul Lannoye, doctor of physical sciences

https://dortors4covidethics.medium.com Urgent open letter from doctors and scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding safety issues with Covid-19 vaccines – 10 March 2021.
Dr Janci Chunn Lindsay, molecular and toxicological biologist. Hearing before the CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee in Atlanta. http://www.jennifermargulis.net
Idem.
Vanden Bossche, G https://dryburgh.com/wp-356content/uploads/2021/03/GeertVandenBosscheOuvertLettreOMSMars62021.pdf
Idem.

18/5/21:
Just received: Belgium: Pfizer announces that people will probably be invited
for a third vaccine shot “to protect from the new variants”

https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_vaccin-anti-coronavirus-vers-une-troisieme-injection-pour-pfizer-tout-depend-de-l-efficacite-du-vaccin?id=10742423

Pfizer forecasts $26bn of Covid-19 vaccine revenue after first-quarter success

 

10/5/21:

Israel: vaccine-resistant strains may force yet another lockdown
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/305595

An Israeli friend writes:

“I doubt each and every new declaration concerning “new and dangerous” variants, basing myself on nothing other than the insanity of it all and the fact that the Israeli health authorities lie continuously… The fear mongering is just so over the top, especially now with the fear-mongering campaign for vaccinating children (and infants in the near future) that includes blatant lies about children-hospitalisations from Covid etc. (easily contextualized and debunked bet alternative voices from the medical and scientific profession), that you can’t
believe anything they say…

They already had to apologize and retract the existence of a new Chilean
variant, a fact which the report you sent doesn’t mention, as well as most of the Israeli media…

https://www.latercera.com/nacional/noticia/descartan-existencia-de-variante-chilena-del-covid-19-que-se-habia-reportado-en-israel/75GH45ENOFEOPIWRV2D6M636HU/

https://www.world-today-news.com/israel-discards-chilean-variable-of-the-covid-and-recognizes-a-regrettable-error-in-the-information-that-was-disseminated/”

I replied:

“But what do they get from saying this? Surely saying the vaccine is possibly useless against new variants makes a mockery of the whole vaccination programme? They’d have more to gain from covering it up, no?”

He replied:

“You’re right, I guess, although it seems to me that they want to maintain a fear from the virus even after “everyone” is vaccinated, so I’m not sure what their strategy is, if there is one. So far they have been reassuring the public that the vaccines are “probably”, or to this-or-that extent, good for the other existing variants (when in fact they don’t really know), while at the same time alarming continuously through the media about new people arriving to Israel with the Indian or Mongolian or Utopian variant…”

A brief summary of the Israeli People`s Committee Report of Adverse Events Related to the Corona Vaccine, April 2021

https://4a1b9d73-4c47-4f3b-bb08-e515be8958ca.filesusr.com/ugd/3db409_3c4b29f97a7b4e2fb1d8d178ab138b91.pdf

“Never has a vaccine injured so many….While the Prime Minister of Israel and senior officials of the Ministry of Health brag that Israel serves as a global model for nationwide vaccination, and while they boast that Pfizer has chosen us to be the experimental country thanks to the advanced technological systems of our HMOs [Health Maintenance Organizations], the state has systematically shut down all monitoring and tracking systems, which are designed to identify and alert of adverse events that occur in proximity of receiving the vaccine. This irresponsible conduct by the Ministry of Health during this mass operation providing an experimental treatment to millions of people, regardless of whether such conduct is negligent or intentional, has led to an unprecedented flood of thousands of serious adverse event reports after the vaccine on social media, which seems to be the only forum that still allows people to share their experiences. Surprisingly, such widespread phenomena have not received any media coverage or attention from public officials….

*We received 288 reports of deaths occurring in proximity to the vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination). 64% are men. According to the Ministry of Health’s figures: only 45 deaths occurred in proximity to the vaccination.

*According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), during January-February 2021, in the midst of the vaccination operation, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared to the bi-monthly average mortality in the previous year. In fact, the period of January-February 2021 is the deadliest one in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates, when compared to the corresponding months over the last 10 years.

*Among the age group of 20-29, the increase in overall mortality rate is even more dramatic. In this group, during the same vaccination period, January-February 2021, there has been a 32% increase in overall mortality compared to the bi-monthly average mortality in 2020…. “
Summary of the Israeli People’s Committee’s database regarding adverse events
https://4a1b9d73-4c47-4f3b-bb08-e515be8958ca.filesusr.com/ugd/3db409_3797613566a14bf29a3479b6b2fe0753.pdf

Of course, these do not necessarily automatically indicate a link between the vaccine and the “adverse events”, but the fact that there seems to be no mechanism for reporting, when reports are easily available for the UK (for instance), is indicative of the extremely cavalier attitude of the Israeli state. This, on top of the comparison with deaths for previous years, seems, in the absence of any other explanation, like a cover-up.

23/4/21:
Israel: Pfizer’s CEO gives national broadcast just before the official Israeli Independence Day ceremony (April 14th)

In the meantime, on the other side of reality, other more profound Israeli sicknesses prevail:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-jerusalem-palestinians-and-jews-see-a-night-of-rage-hate/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/dozens-hurt-at-old-city-clash-as-extremist-jews-march-chanting-death-to-arabs/

22/4/21:
2nd report from The Israeli People’s Committee on the barriers to reporting side effects of the vaccines (in Hebrew)
file:///tmp/mozilla_nick0/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97%20%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%20%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9C%202021-1.pdf

Translation of part of it:

“From the many testimonies brought to our attention by doctors and
medical staff, we will give here as examples selected quotations from a
letter sent to the committee by a medical staff member in the internal
medicine department of one of the largest hospitals in the country,
which describes a collection of hospitalization cases in his department,
which indicate consistent problematic conduct, suffering from
carelessness and lack of professionalism, and which largely stems from the fact
that the Ministry of Health has never issued clear guidelines on what
should be reported and what should not. The descriptions include a
variety of pathologies that led to hospitalization, and which appeared
in close proximity to Pfizer vaccine, including ITP, neutropenia, chest
pain, vasculitis, fever, speech disorder, high blood pressure, acute
renal failure and bradycardia. In all cases, physicians refrained from
linking the vaccine to the phenomenon that led to hospitalization, did
not even mention the vaccine in the patient’s medical file, and did not
report the case to any external party – a fact that impairs differential
diagnoses and is an obstacle to establishing accurate information. For
example, the letter said: “It was not reported to any external party and
if the issue arose from the family, they were simply told that there was
no connection between the things because bradycardia takes a long time
to develop.” In the context of another case, the letter stated: “Even
chest pain near the vaccine with an increase in troponin in a patient
without a cardiac background was not treated as possible results of the
vaccine and of course was not reported to the Ministry and was not
discussed with the patient.” Another example: “I took the patient to the
ward and asked him about the reason for his hospitalization. He did not
address the vaccine at all and only after I asked did he mention that
the speech disorder appeared a few hours after the vaccination. Then the
doctor on duty came to question him, where the patient did not mention
the vaccine. Even after I gently hinted to the doctor that it might be
worthwhile to check if there was a connection to the vaccine he did not
address my words.An intensive care consultation was called, the on-call
doctor examined the patient and told the doctor on duty that she should
consult the senior doctor about differential diagnoses. I gently hinted
to her that it might also be worthwhile to check if there was a
connection to the vaccine, but she rejected me with the words ‘OK, okay,
there could be a thousand reasons for this’ …”. Another example:
“Although the diagnosis of vasculitis is abnormal, as well as following
it with chemotherapy, the doctors did not think that the diagnosis
should be linked to the vaccine, despite the strange coincidence of the
two patients without similar background diseases with the same
diagnosis, bed by bed, both about 10 Days after the vaccine (the patient
with myocarditis was released and then returned after a few days). I
asked a senior doctor how he knows it is not related to the vaccine and
he simply replied that ‘it is a disease that develops over a long period
of time, so it may not come from the vaccine’ …”.
According to him, what makes the situation even worse is the fact that
doctors, who are based on the principle of evidence-based medicine,
refrain from reporting a phenomenon that is not known in the medical
literature, and in his words “even if he (the doctor) thinks
independently, in the end in order to give a diagnosis in the patient’s
case it must be backed up in the professional literature. If there is no
literature that talks about it (or if the literature is not written in
the textbook accepted by the internal medicine doctor) he simply will
not write it. If it has not been investigated, then it does not exist.”
This evidence indicates a diagnostic tendency, which outright rejects
any connection between the side effect and the vaccine, and thus causes
a significant under-reporting of vaccine-related side effects from
hospitals and clinics.”

21/4/21:

Interview with doctor critiquing not just AZ but also Pfizer and all the mRNA vaccines, explaining the complexity of the mRNA vaccines

18/4/21:
Vaccines seem unable to deal with mutations/variants
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/300279451/fears-covid19-variants-are-escaping-vaccines-in-uk-as-cases-of-south-african-strain-double

“New Covid-19 variants appear to be escaping vaccines, with the latest figures showing a doubling in cases of the South African mutation in the UK in the last month. Meanwhile, 77 cases of a separate variant from India – which it is also feared may resist vaccines – have now been found in the UK.”

16/4/21:
‘Double mutant’ Covid from India found in UK

“Concerns have been raised that in combination, these two mutations make the strain more infectious and better at evading antibodies gained from prior infections or vaccinations”

15/4/21:
Over 18,000 Italian health workers refuse compulsory vaccination, ready to strike and demonstrate
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/vaccino-gruppo-privato-su-fb-18mila-sanitari-no-vax-1937382.html

“A private group on Facebook. There are more than 18 thousand members and they are no vax health workers… the number is rising by the minute. Half of the followers have joined in the last week.
…The group and its followers are also organizing a demonstration in Rome for next April 21. In the group you can find doctors, nurses, health workers, psychologists from all over Italy, all united in the fight, not against Covid-19, but against the vaccine. Bound … by the desire to oppose the decree law that imposes on these categories the obligation to undergo the inoculation of the serum. … ” the group was born mainly to unite and undertake something all together, the legal ways as I see have already been undertaken by many of you so now it’s time to move in another direction. Enough talk, let’s take back our freedom by demonstrating peacefully in Rome on April 21 at 3 pm”….A few days ago another very disturbing post warned: “It’s not with lawyers that you win, but with our absence. Entire departments with a sudden shortage of staff, are worth more than 100 wasteful lawsuits!”. …As stated in paragraph 1 of Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 44 of April 1, “Vaccination is an essential requirement for the exercise of the profession and for the performance of work services rendered by those obliged.” …Those who demonstrate that making the vaccine subjects them to a health risk can refuse to do so. Without consequence to their job. The only thing needed is a simple medical certificate. …” This follows threats by the state not to pay them if they refuse the vaccination – https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-health-workers-coronavirus-vaccinations/

13/4/21:
US: Johnson & Johnson vaccine halted over blood clot fears…EU follows
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-calls-halt-johnson-johnson-vaccination-blood-clot/story?id=77040882

10/4/21:
France to use the Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s largely untried mix-dose vaccines after AstraZeneca increasingly avoided
https://www.ft.com/content/db295bb9-d1fe-47f8-bc0f-eb40dfaf545f

“France has become the second country after Germany to recommend that younger people who have had a first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine be given a different jab for their follow-up shot. The mixed-dose approach has been recommended by health experts in both countries — despite there being little clinical trial data to support it …The World Health Organization reiterated its position on Friday that there was “no data on interchangeability of vaccine platforms”, noting further research was needed. The move comes as the European Medicines Agency said it is also probing a possible link between the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and four serious cases of unusual blood clots in the US, where it is currently being rolled out. It is not yet being distributed in the EU or UK…. … Élisabeth Bouvet, a vaccine expert and member of the HAS, said…“It is really a choice based on safety. …Given that the protection of the Covid-19 vaccines begins to diminish after three months, these people need an additional dose,” she added. “The idea is to give mRNA vaccine as a second dose for this population in a ‘prime-boost’ strategy.” Even in the absence of clinical data, Bouvet said that they believed the approach carried low risks of side effects and was likely to offer people additional protection given that the Covid-19 vaccines all aim at the same spike protein on the coronavirus. “We think that this approach will work,” she said. “There is no reason to expect any particular side effects with mixed dosing but it would be good to study the immune response it creates.” Peter English, a retired Public Health England consultant in communicable disease control, said it was “reasonable” to use other vaccines…”

Note: “the protection of the Covid-19 vaccines begins to diminish after three months“. Also note how they say “they believed the approach carried low risks of side effects “. Isn’t “science” wonderful! Having originally based it’s criteria of “objectivity” on clinical trials, science has now become no better than “belief” regardless of evidence. Touching wood is about as scientific.

As curfew and massively repressed social life depressingly continues in France, it may be worth being reminded of similar things amongst the slave states of the USA before the official abolition of slavery: “If the planters [slaveholders in the United States] did not always agree on practices for maintaining discipline, they all considered certain police and surveillance measures to be indispensable in the closed world of their property. Thus … the foreman was not to leave the plantation without permission, but was to keep a constant watch on the work in the fields, periodically search the cabins of the Negroes for weapons or stolen goods, and carry with him the keys to the various buildings on the farm. Curfew began around eight or nine o’clock in the evening and no slave was to leave the “quarters” where rounds were made to ensure his presence. No slave was to leave the plantation without a pass specifying the reason and probable duration of his absence, and most planters only exceptionally allowed their Blacks to visit their relatives living on other estates on Sundays. On the contrary, they were careful to limit their contact with the outside world.” (Michel Fabre, Esclaves et planteurs, Julliard, 1970, p. 201-202)

Belgium: interview (in French) with pathologist who lodged legal complaint against the medical order and the directive sent to all doctors in Belgium in January 2021 that vaccination is an obligation and that doctors must promote the vaccination programme or risk facing severe sanctions

« TOUT EST FAUX » L’ordre des médecins au service du politique

Amongst other things, he points out that there have been virtually no autopsies for those who have died (as compared with those who died from AIDS-related illnesses in the past), so it’s impossible to say whether someone died either because of Covid or died of something else whilst having Covid. See also this[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341392038_No_Autopsies_on_COVID-19_Deaths_A_Missed_Opportunity_and_the_Lockdown_of_Science] – “Despite the increasing number of published studies on COVID-19, in all the examined studies the lack of a well-defined pathophysiology of death among patients who died following COVID-19 infection is evident. Autopsy should be considered mandatory to define the exact cause of death, thus providing useful clinical and epidemiologic information as well as pathophysiological insights to further provide therapeutic tools.” However, the doctor’s claim that this comes from an order from the WHO is not true (see this: http://www.scientifique-en-chef.gouv.qc.ca/en/impacts-of-research-cat/covid-19-who-prohibits-autopsies-false-french-version-only/).

Bits and pieces about Israel:

State limits access to tests in order to increase vaccinations
https://www.timesofisrael.com/serology-tests-scaled-down-to-encourage-vaccination-report/

“Responding to an increase in demand for serology tests, which detect antibodies in the blood of people who have recovered from the disease or been vaccinated, the Health Ministry has decided to restrict access in an effort to encourage vaccination, Channel 12 reported Tuesday. Formerly, serology tests, which are administered by health providers or in hospitals, were available to anyone.…Since the policy was announced, there has been an increase in demand for the test, especially among young people in Arab and ultra-Orthodox communities, who are reluctant to get vaccinated, the report said. Health providers have struggled to meet increased demand for the tests, and the Health Ministry also wishes to limit tests in order to encourage vaccination.”

***

The Director General of the Ministry of Health (Hezi Levi), responsible for the vaccination programme, and Israel’s “Corona Project Manager” (Nahman Ash) were almost certainly involved in a vaccination scandal in the 1990s involving illegal anthrax experiments on Israel’s young soldiers[ https://www.972mag.com/why-did-the-israeli-army-conduct-anthrax-experiments-on-its-soldiers/]. Hezi Levi was the Chief Medical Officer for the IDF at the time and Nahman Ash was his second-in-command. “The trial’s organizers exploited the high motivation and innocence of the soldiers, most of whom were attending courses or were at the start of their military service, and whom they approached to participate in secret experiments. Crucial information was hidden from the soldiers during the recruitment process; they were forbidden from informing their unit doctor about their participation, and most of them didn’t even tell their parents. All this, along with the exploitation of troops that occurs within a hierarchy, completely undermined the informed consent [http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/ethicist-asa-kasher-idf-can-conduct-medical-experiments-on-soldiers-under-certain-conditions-1.467928] given by the soldiers. The process was so tainted by defects that it’s doubtful whether the soldiers’ signatures can even be considered as agreement.”

***

Israel’s Ministry of Health has published totally incorrect information about the Pfizer vaccine, saying it is FDA APPROVED ( the FDA is the USA’s Food and Drug Agency). The People’s (sic*) Committee says it has filed a motion in the High Court regarding a request for the Ministry of Health for a corrective publication regarding the deception involved in FDA APPROVED, to open a criminal investigation against those responsible for the misleading publication and to take disciplinary action against those responsible. This is a very significant document.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DCa5YXQXdA3jlDa0t2wGV23CJajjG-cj/view

The High Court has ordered the state to respond within a week to the petition.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1krWdAmQppgTdnjwFSWI67swC0oFVgPBB/view

Committee website: https://www.the-people-committee.com/

Long report from this committee (not all of which I’ve read yet): The Israeli People Committee – Interim Conclusion Report – April 2021

The Israeli People Committee – Interim Conclusion Report – April 2021

* I am generally wary of expressions like “The People”, which tends to be another form of representation. As with all expressions, it depends on context, how it’s used: by “The People” some people mean “the working class” or even “proletariat”, both of which phrases have their own history of being used in a manipulative manner. For the misuse of the phrase “The People” see this: https://dialectical-delinquents.com/articles-chronologically-2/war-politics/why-should-we-belong-to-the-people/

4/4/21:
UK: official report on adverse side effects of vaccines – 704 fatalities
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-print

It seems to me that the massive publicity given to the couple of deaths from blood clots of the AstraZeneca vaccine is possibly a cover for something far worse.

As usual they have their get-out clause – that the vaccine did not necessarily cause the reactions

“When viewing the vaccine analysis print you should remember that:

Reporters are asked to submit Yellow Card reports even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine may have caused the adverse reaction. The existence of an adverse reaction report in the print does not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused the suspected reaction.
It may be difficult to tell the difference between something that has occurred naturally and a suspected adverse reaction. Sometimes these events can be part of the condition being treated rather than being caused by the vaccine.
Many factors have to be considered when assessing whether the vaccine has caused a reported adverse reaction. When monitoring the safety of vaccines and medicines, MHRA staff carry out careful analysis of these factors.

For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions. It is important to note that most people take medicines and vaccines without having any serious side effects.”

Pfizer side effects – 283 fatalities
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975808/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

This includes:

3204 blood disorders (1 fatal)

1462 cardiac disorders (39 fatal)

10 congenital disorders (0 fatal)

1108 ear disorders (0 fatal)

23 Endocrine disorders (0 fatal)

1758 Eye disorders (0 fatal but 17 cases of blindness)

12682 Gastrointestinal disorders (14 fatal)

34688 General disorders (126 fatal)

26 Hepatic disorders (0 fatal)

652 Immune system disorders (1 fatal)

2653 Infections (51 fatal)

669 injuries (2 fatal)

741 Metabolic disorders (1 fatal)

15714 Muscle and Tissue disorders (0 fatal)

43 Neoplasms (0 fatal)

22156 Nervous system disorders (19 fatal)

294 Renal and urinary disorders (2 fatal)

4932 Respiratory disorders (19 fatal)

83 problems from surgical & medical procedures (0 fatal)

1462 Vascular disorders (4 fatal)

AstraZeneca side effects – 421 fatalities
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975786/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

This includes:

2411 blood disorders (2 fatal)

3768 cardiac disorders (51 fatal)

29 congenital disorders (0 fatal)

2574 ear disorders (0 fatal)

60 Endocrine disorders (0 fatal)

4566 Eye disorders (0 fatal but 59 cases of blindness)

39988 Gastrointestinal disorders (6 fatal)

131533 General disorders (196 fatal)

87 Hepatic disorders (0 fatal)

1109 Immune system disorders (1 fatal)

7375 Infections (47 fatal)

2201 injuries (1 fatal)

4679 Metabolic disorders (2 fatal)

47015 Muscle and Tissue disorders (1 fatal)

63 Neoplasms (1 fatal)

81702 Nervous system disorders (49 fatal)

1044 Renal and urinary disorders (1 fatal)

10643 Respiratory disorders (40 fatal)

279 problems from surgical & medical procedures (1 fatal)

3362 Vascular disorders (22 fatal)

Even if the qualifier “Reporters are asked to submit Yellow Card reports even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine may have caused the adverse reaction” means excessive over-reporting and that just 10% of the adverse reactions were caused by the vaccine that’s still a hell of a lot of deaths that have not had publicity, as compared with the 2 that have. Why are the deaths by blood clots considered to be definitely associated with the AZ vaccine whereas the other 702 including those from Pfizer (or 711 if you add on the 9 deaths possibly associated with unspecified brands of vaccine) are not definitely associated with the vaccines of AZ and Pfizer? Another thing that seems to indicate at least shoddiness on the part of this report is that it was published on April 1st and talks of 2 deaths from AZ, yet the next day the newspapers reported 7 deaths ( https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/02/covid-further-rare-blood-clot-cases-found-in-oxford-astrazeneca-recipients ). Certainly not deliberate, but indicative of the need to be very wary of the facts and figures given about all this considering they not only seem to have got it considerably wrong but don’t even bother to mention the fact that they got it wrong.

My suspicion following the publication of the list that the focus on blood clots covers up other deaths possibly caused by the vaccine stems from my lack of comprehension of why they should only focus on blood clots as an anomaly. It doesn’t seem any more anomalous than the other deaths, and in fact is proportionally less so than many of the other deaths. Look at this (deaths from various years around 2013 because I couldn’t be bothered to dig further to get the same year for each of these deaths…some of those medical sites you have to read half the report until you get to what you’re looking for, so, Mr. Impatient that I am, I chose the ones that focused on what I wanted pretty quickly). I presumed that deaths from blood clots meant deaths from venous thromboembolism (though in the list they say the deaths were caused by Immune thrombocytopenia and Thrombocytopeni, but venous thromboembolism is not mentioned), but I may be wrong.

Number of deaths from blood clots in UK 2013 –

“Over the 3-year period of 2013–15, the average number of deaths from venous thromboembolism in England was 12640 per annum.”

– https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanres/PIIS2213-2600(19)30448-5.pdf

2 (or 7) following AZ vaccine

1 following Pfizer vaccine

Number from cardiac disorders 2013 – 64,000

https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2014/october/heart-disease-deaths

Deaths from Cardiac disorders:

51 following AZ vaccine

39 following Pfizer vaccine

64,000 is roughly 5 times the amount of 12640. But 51 is significantly over 5 times the amount of 7. So why focus on the 7? (originally 2). Why are blood clots more of an anomaly relative to normal illness-specific fatalities?

Gastrointestinal disorders (2012) – 1,646 deaths –

– https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingclostridiumdifficileenglandandwales/2013-08-22

14 following Pfizer vaccine

6 following AZ vaccine

1645 is roughly an 8th the amount of 12640. But 6 (for AZ) is almost the same as 7 for blood clots. So why focus on the 7 for blood clots? Why are blood clots more of an anomaly relative to normal illness-specific fatalities?

Deaths from Nervous system disorders – 31,925 in 2014 –

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683860/Deaths_associated_with_neurological_conditions_data_analysis_report.pdf

49 following AZ

19 following Pfizer

31,925 is roughly 2.5 times the amount of 12640. But 49 (for AZ) is well over 2.5 times the amount of 7. So why focus on the 7? Why are blood clots more of an anomaly relative to normal illness-specific fatalities?

3/4/21:
UK reports 7 blood clot deaths and 30 cases of rare blood clots among recipients of AstraZeneca jab; 9 deaths in Germany

“While many countries have resumed use of the vaccine after pausing their programmes, others have remained nervous. Among them, Canada has suspended use of the jab for people under the age of 55, while Germany has suspended routine use of the jab in the under-60s. The latter has noted 31 cases of CVST after giving 2.7m doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, 19 of which were associated with low platelets, and nine deaths. At present, most of these rare clotting events appear to be occurring in women under the age of 65 – but quite why this is remains unclear.”

This 2015 article about deaths following the flu vaccine [https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/death-after-a-flu-shot-a-viewpoint], finishes with “At worst (unsuitable vaccine and unsuitable recipient), vaccination may result in the collapse of immunity, severe exacerbation of existing health conditions, and rapid development of fatal complications. The above considerations do not call for utopic ‘personal’ flu vaccines, but they do emphasize the critical importance of evaluating individual PEI status prior to vaccination, and using this parameter as a novel stratification/fitness index. This index should be thoroughly refined, and key parameters of pre-existing humoral and cellular immunity having the greatest impact on the immune response to vaccination should be extensively examined. Novel national infrastructures, including banks of regularly updated personal serum and medical histories should be created, and novel methodology should be developed to ensure fast computerized individual evaluations, which is critical in a pandemic period. This approach will inevitably cause criticism as complicating an already complex problem. However, it may help break the deadlock of the current policy of influenza vaccination, maintain human health and save lives. “The race is on, the stakes are high, and the world is nervously watching”. With the Covid vaccines there is NO EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL PEI STATUS PRIOR TO VACCINATION (I’m presuming – hopefully rightly – that PEI here stands for “Personal Experience Inventory”). Moreover, the ‘experts’ advising the continued use of the AZ vaccine are using the justification that Covid itself carries a greater risk of blood clotting than the vaccination without acknowledging that the introduction of the same disease through direct vaccination injection into previously healthy people must carry a similar risk.

Israel: 29 page document criticising the Pfizer-Natanyahu vaccination programme [file:///tmp/mozilla_nick0/The%20Israeli%20People%20Committee%20-%20Interim%20Conclusion%20Report%20-%20April%202021.pdf]

“The Israeli People’s Committee has uncovered a multitude of malfunctions and failures at the administrative, ethical and legal levels during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign at the beginning of 2021 in Israel. In this document, we aim at presenting and elaborating the main features of these malfunctions, which have led to severe damages in many Israelis in the short term, and sadly to possible future damages. It seems that the entire country got caught up in a medical-social chaos, where the leadership has enabled a situation of fear and uncertainty to run its course out of control, and even contributed to its further enhancement. But most of all, we cannot ignore severe suspicions shared by all the committee members, that the fundamental sin, which led to the chaos and its casualties, is the way in which two very powerful personages, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla, agreed upon a massive vaccination campaign in Israel that is unprecedented in scale and nature. A vaccination campaign that lacks effective safeguards for public safety, that is devoid of any concern for people who may be harmed by the vaccine, and that has allegedly guaranteed to encompass populations, for which the safety of the vaccine has not been tested (pregnant women and their fetuses), and later also children, for whom the need to be vaccinated is totally unclear, while pushing aside any safety considerations. From this exact episode, where both parties came to an agreement regarding the vaccination campaign, which involved a wide variety of ethical and safety violations, an unrestrained drama was initiated that has revealed itself to be impulsive, neglectful and reckless. The agreed upon vaccination campaign concerns matters of life and death, yet is being conducted in an amateurish, irresponsible and aggressive manner, and it led to the political arena taking over the medical arena and bending it to its needs, while paralyzing all alarm systems, monitoring measures and open scientific discussion. Unfortunately, most of the medical system collaborated with this unsupervised process, starting with the higher ranks, and ending with field doctors – some actively, some by keeping quiet from fear of reprisal.”

28/3/21:
Israel to purchase 3.5 billion Shekels worth of more vaccines
https://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemid=102824&

“The Ministry of Health demands that the government convene to discuss the purchase of vaccines – in secret. The ministry demanded to discuss the transfer of seven billion shekels to the health system. In addition, the ministry wants the ministers to sign a secret partner form that will prohibit them from discussing the
issue in public”. 3.5bn shekels= just under 900 million euros.

22/3/21:
Significant flaws in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial – letter sent to The Lancet but never published

האם החיסון של פייזר אכן יעיל ובטוח?

T. writes:

The following letter was sent to The Lancet at the end of last December, by Michal Haran, M.D., Yitshal Berner, M.D. MPH, Moshe Royburt, MD, MHA:

Michal Haran is an Israeli Hematologist (with an immune-deficiency disease – or something similar, I’m not 100% sure – due to which she’s wheel-chair ridden) who I just recently heard about, following her involvement in the Corona debate in general and the debate about the Pfizer vaccine specifically. I respect her very much, especially her delicate and emphatic way of debating and the simple and down-to-earth way in which she presents her thoughts (mostly in Hebrew-language platforms). Needless to say, she’s ostracized by many of her colleagues and presented by most of the mainstream media as a “Corona denier” and “anti-vaxxer”…

About her:
“I am a senior hematologist. My areas of interest are: Thrombosis and hemostasis; Malignant and non-malignant abnormalities of the immune system with emphasis on CLL; Mitochondrial dysfunction in hematological malignancies; Environmental exposure and nutritional interventions in both hematological and neurological disorders. I am also interested in the humanistic aspects of medicine and the way in which we can preserve them in the face of the growing complexity of medical systems.”

The letter:

Significant flaws in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial

Michal Haran, M.D., Yitshal Berner, M.D. MPH, Moshe Royburt, MD, MHA.

The global Covid-19 pandemic has not only led to a harsh medical reality, more so in some countries than others, but has also devastated the economies of multiple parts of the world. It is therefore not surprising that a rush to develop vaccines for the disease has engulfed the world. Pfizer was the first to complete a (shortened) phase 2/3 trial, the results of which were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine 1. Unfortunately, this article reveals significant flaws in the conduction, analysis and reporting of the data and departs significantly from the usually high standards of this prestigious journal.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge it is unprecedented that the corresponding author of this paper is an employee of the sponsoring company. This immediately casts a long shadow on the objectivity of reporting in the paper and the editorial decision to publish it 2. Indeed, a careful reading of the work reveals multiple problems.

First, the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing the spreading of the virus and reducing infectivity, which is the most important factor in its ability to ameliorate the devastating effects of the pandemic, was not tested. Quite surprisingly, the effect of vaccination on overall number of virus-shedding individuals was not assessed, even though it is established that a significant fraction of the infected population capable of transmitting the disease are asymptomatic 3. Only a very narrow endpoint, of patients who meet both being symptomatic and having a positive PCR test was chosen. This does not take into account the significant inaccuracies of the PCR test 4. In fact, even the large group of patients with symptoms compatible with Covid-19 but PCR-negative (not mentioned in the paper but reported in the Pfizer FDA briefing document (www.fda.gov/media/144245/download), with very minor differences between the vaccine and placebo groups) was ignored. Thus, we are presented in this paper with a seemingly very impressive relative efficacy of 95%, which in fact gives us no information regarding absolute risk (blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-dosh…, nor infectivity of the patients and very limited data regarding clinically significant end-points of severe disease, ICU admission or mortality. There is also no data regarding immunological studies in the various groups of patients. This data was only provided on a very small group of young and healthy patients in the phase I paper 5. This is important not only for efficacy, but also for assessment of the risk of unintended immunological sequelae. One cannot assume, based on such a small and selected group of patients, that there will be a good titer of virus-neutralizing antibodies and a favorable Th1/Th2 response in elderly patients or those with comorbidities known to have an effect on immune function.

The adverse effect section of the paper conspicuously lacks any laboratory studies, which is surprising based on the fact that in the phase I group there were abnormalities of blood counts 5. It is also known that mRNA vaccines can be transferred to the liver 6, thus one would expect that all blood chemistries including liver and renal function tests would be evaluated to ensure that indeed there is no risk of end-organ damage.

Understandably, the brief period of this clinical trial, two months, was an outcome of the general urgency caused by the pandemic. However, to conclude that “Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines” is highly misleading. The mRNA vaccine technology is novel and as opposed to other vaccines, involves the transfection of cells with genetic material , and only phase I studies of such vaccines have been reported prior to this work. One significant and recognized risk of the expression of a foreign protein on self-cells is the induction of severe auto-immune reactions 7. Since there is no information on the distribution of the vaccine in different cell types and organs following intramuscular injection (in contrast, for example, to another vaccine candidate, for which such detailed information has been published 6), it is very difficult to assess the relevant risk. Certainly, a very short follow-up period does not provide a long enough time window to conclude that the risk for auto-immune reactions does not exist. The paper totally ignores this aspect.

The paper only briefly mentions the highly recognized risk of vaccine-mediated disease enhancement, which the authors are fully aware. They wave this risk off as “theoretical”, and assess it to be unlikely based on data from 10 patients over a very short period of time. Clearly, this significant risk should have been much more fully addressed.

Finally, the fast pace of the publication of this work has led to multiple inaccuracies. For example, it is unclear how two patients in the vaccine group who, as reported in the FDA briefing document (www.fda.gov/media/144245/download), were hospitalized with respiratory symptoms and findings in imaging studies, are not reported in the paper as severe adverse events. Also, there is an unexplained discrepancy between the number of patients with AIDS that are reported as participating in the study and the number of such patients for whom there is available safety data (only one). This is very important, as the inclusion of a significant number of HIV-positive patients purportedly alleviates the concerns of the potential risks in this patient population. These risks stem from with the significant immune dysregulation in these patients, as well as the potential reverse transcriptase activity that could inadvertently lead to the unwanted incorporation of the genetic material of the vaccine into the genome.

In Summary, the way in which the data is presented in the paper creates a false sense of security regarding the efficacy and safety of the mRNA vaccine. This is extremely concerning, as the publication of this paper is important in promoting the rapid approval of the vaccine in numerous countries. I believe that due to the enormous effect the results of this trial have on the entire population world-wide, steps should be urgently taken to clarify all those issues. …

References

1. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020.

2. Haque W, Minhajuddin A, Gupta A, Agrawal D. Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals. PloS one 2018;13:e0197141.

3. Moghadas SM, Fitzpatrick MC, Sah P, et al. The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:17513-5.

4. Woloshin S, Patel N, Kesselheim AS. False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection – Challenges and Implications. N Engl J Med 2020;383:e38.

5. Walsh EE, FrenckFrench video of March 6th conference of dissident doctors RW, Jr., Falsey AR, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2439-50.

6. Zhang NN, Li XF, Deng YQ, et al. A Thermostable mRNA Vaccine against COVID-19. Cell 2020;182:1271-83 e16.

7. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, Weissman D. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018;17:261-79.

20/3/21:

Israel to vaccinate 600,000 Teens Under 16
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-faces-its-next-major-covid-challenge-vaccinating-600-000-teens-1.9629261?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=haaretz-news&utm_content=d3a11cfb8d

16/3/21:
Israeli vaccination law stalls…most fines handed out to Arabs depite lower infection rate…
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-coronavirus-czar-says-vaccine-probably-effective-for-more-than-six-months-1.9619673?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=haaretz-news&utm_content=ac77665ed0

“The passing of a bill that would allow obligating employees to get vaccinated against the coronavirus or undergo an occasional COVID test has stalled for two weeks due to opposition from the education and finance ministries. Health Minister Yuli Edelstein announced a month ago that he plans to enshrine this into law, but after the ministries expressed their opposition and legal challenges raised by the attorney general, there were no further attempts to advance the bill. The bill would obligate employers, including the state, to condition the arrival of an employee to the workplace on receiving a vaccine or presenting a negative test for the coronavirus. The bill would also apply to the Education Ministry and therefore to teaching staff as well.

Police handed out the most coronavirus fines in Arab localities in February, even though per capita infection rates in these localities were lower than they were elsewhere, according to data from the Enforcement and Collection Authority, which enforces police fines. An analysis of the data indicates that 37 Arab localities lead the top 40 localities list, with only three Jewish localities making the cut, and that there seems to be little connection between the per capita infection rate in these localities and the number of fines distributed. For example, in Modi’in Illit, where there were 46 patients for every 1,000 people, only 1.7 reports were given for the same number of residents as they were in Tamra, where 22 reports were given to the same number of citizens even though there were 10 patients for every 1,000 people. “

12/3/21:
Official (possibly) UK government report on side effects of Pfizer vaccine lists 227 deaths amongst other horrors –
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968413/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print__2_.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0KmcN1rx9rCW9snE9ip2PhAp0BQPFLjoKSnqp5iy3MKRh-I326zynJ74c

Not absolutely sure that this is a genuine report from 9/3/21 (61 pages long ) or a fake one, as it’s not easy to check. But it’s the first thing that comes up if you type: <em>UK reports received between 9/12/20 and 28/02/21 for mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech</em> into Google. It’s been there for 3 days; given that Google seems to be vigilant about anything they consider is fake news, I’d have to say that this is genuine. Even more so given that this claims to be a government report, preceded by a standard government https: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ . If it was fake, given that it pretends to be an official government report, you’d have thought that Google would have pretty quickly taken it off. But I’m obviously not 100% sure.

It claims to cover all UK reports received between 9/12/20 and 28/02/21. Here are the essential results:

Blood disorders – 1 death, 2294 having various listed problems.

Cardiac disorders: 26 deaths, 1153 having various listed problems.

Congenital disorders: 0 deaths, 5 having various listed problems.

Ear disorder: 0 deaths, 819 having various listed problems.

Endocrine disorders; 0 deaths, 12 having various listed problems.

Eye disorders: 0 deaths, 1398 having various listed problems, including 15 becoming blind.

Gastrointestinal disorders: 12 deaths, 10,534 having various listed problems.

General disorders: 114 deaths, 28,195 having various listed problems.

Hepatic disorders: 0 deaths, 18 having various listed problems.

Immune system disorders: 0 deaths, 528 having various listed problems.

Infections: 38 deaths, 2059 having various listed problems.

Injuries: 1 death, 458 having various listed problems.

Investigations (not sure what this means): 0 deaths, 1073 having various listed problems.

Metabolic disorders: 1 death, 587 having various listed problems.

Muscle and tissue disorders: 0 deaths, 12,823 having various listed problems.

Neoplasms: 0 deaths, 24 having various listed problems.

Nervous system disorders: 17 deaths, 18,059 having various listed problems.

Pregnancy conditions: 1 death, 34 having various listed problems, including 18 spontaneous abortions.

Product issues: 0 deaths, 14 having various listed problems.

Psychiatric disorders: 0 deaths, 1409 having various listed problems.

Renal and urinary disorders: 0 deaths, 212 having various listed problems.

Reproductive and breast disorders: 0 deaths, 389 having various listed problems.

Respiratory problems: 14 deaths, 3986 having various listed problems.

Skin disorders: 1 death, 6809 having various listed problems.

Social circumstances (not sure why this is listed): 0 deaths, 20 having various listed problems.

Surgical and medical procedures (not sure why this is treated as a specific category): 0 deaths, 58 having various listed problems.

Vascular disorders: 1 death, 1119 having various listed problems.

Total: 94,809 non-lethal side effects of drug; 227 deaths (these are out of 33,207 reports)
And – remember – this is only the results after almost 3 months, short-term immediate effects. According to Pfizer itself their trials only officially finish in 2022.

Spain, Galicia: vaccines to become compulsory; fines up to 60,000 euros for non-compliance. https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/03/01/spains-galicia-makes-covid-19-vaccine-compulsory-with-fines-of-up-to-e60k-for-those-who-refuse-it/amp/

More here https://www.thelocal.es/20210223/spains-galicia-to-make-covid-vaccine-compulsory-and-fine-those-who-refuse-it-up-to-60k/

11/3/21:
Denmark suspends use of AstraZeneca vaccines after blood clots and death https://www.thelocal.dk/20210311/denmark-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine/…followed by Norway, Italy, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Lithuania
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/11/denmark-pauses-astrazeneca-vaccines-to-investigate-blood-clot-reports

“AstraZeneca, which developed the vaccine with the University of Oxford, said the safety of its shot had been extensively studied in human trials and that peer-reviewed data had confirmed the vaccine was generally well tolerated. Its vaccines were subject to strict and rigorous quality controls and there had been “no confirmed serious adverse events associated with the vaccine”, it said. The British government defended the vaccine and said it would continue its rollout. “We’ve been clear that it’s both safe and effective … and when people are asked to come forward and take it, they should do so in confidence,” Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson told reporters.”

Lies as usual. Back in mid-September I wrote about this story (https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-oxford-vaccine-trial-put-on-hold-as-volunteer-suffers-suspected-serious-adverse-reaction-12066991 ) 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 ( https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54132066 ) without any official indication of what had gone wrong. But the New York Times reported ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/health/coronavirus-astrazeneca-vaccine-safety.html ) that the just mentioned volunteer in the UK trial had been diagnosed with transverse myelitis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ( https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/09/21/second-coronavirus-vaccine-volunteer-suffers-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! 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. And now there’s a death from blood clots. But of course, anybody saying this has anything to do with the vaccine is clearly a conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer.

Norway doesn’t alter its policy towards Pfizer vaccine despite deaths (from end of January – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/19/norway-says-policy-on-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-use-unchanged ) More here (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-26/norway-may-refine-vaccine-strategy-after-elderly-deaths-pm-says – Norway May Refine Vaccine Strategy After Elderly Deaths, PM Says)

“Having weathered the pandemic better than most, Norway suddenly made international headlines this month after revealing that more than 30 people — all over 70 and all already sick — died not long after being vaccinated against Covid-19. Solberg says the intense global interest in the news was “exaggerated” as she tries to ensure the development doesn’t put people off inoculation. “We don’t believe there’s any problem with the safety of the vaccines,” Solberg said in an interview with Bloomberg Live that aired on Tuesday. “But we will maybe not give them to the most vulnerable of the elderly, because that might speed up a process where they were what we would say at the end of life phase anyway,” so, “that probably is not what we will continue to do.”

Finland: regulatory authority reports 11 vaccine-related deaths due to underlying conditions ( https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18639-regulatory-authority-reports-11-vaccine-related-deaths-due-to-underlying-conditions.html )

The development of “Health” passports
https://www.timesofisrael.com/cleared-for-takeoff-world-eyes-health-passports-to-facilitate-travel/

Apparent proof that you’re “Covid-free” is that you’ve had the vaccine, when there’s a great deal of evidence that the vaccine, even if it protects you against severe symptoms, doesn’t by any means automatically make you incapable of infecting others. Yet another lie that, constantly repeated, becomes a “truth”.

10/3/21:
French video of March 6th conference of dissident doctors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hCo3vY9bNo

Amongst some of the things said, it reveals that the W.H.O. has not published any deaths from the vaccine (this seems peculiar since, for instance, deaths from vaccines against swine fever back in 2009-10 were published). It has however published the fact that 177,763 people have had seriously bad side effects from the various vaccines over the previous 2 months, and it compares it with the serious side effects from Ivermictin over 40 years – just 4,603 recorded cases of serious side effects in 480 months. The French state has banned doctors from prescribing Ivermictin. It also points out that on March 1st, Israel, following its massive vaccination campaign, has about the same proportion of fatalities from Covid as Sweden, which was never confined and has had far less of a take-up of the vaccine so far than Israel. And the same goes for South Africa.

This organisation consists of (officially, at least) 30,000 doctors, 30,000 careworkers and 100,000 “citizens”. One should, however, maybe take with a pinch of salt some of the information they’ve gleaned from an Israeli site.(http://www.nakim.org/israel-forums/viewtopic.php?t=270873 ). There will be some who’ll take this as meaning that both the conference of doctors and the Israeli site are cavalier with the truth. That should not be an automatic reaction: the site they reference, whilst having some dubious takes on things, will also have some things that are valid, and some of these should be confirmed (or not) by further research, rather than ignored.

7/3/21:
Israel: new rules for what is called the “return to normal”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reopens-all-the-new-rules-from-march-7/

“The Green Pass will be valid for participants in the trial of the vaccine being developed by Israel’s Institute for Biological Research….Higher education institutions can open, as can vocational training institutes and post-high school Torah studies, for Green Pass holders only (on the condition that such institutions will enable distanced learning for students without Green Passes) under the following conditions: Up to 300 people [in a single space] at no more than 75% capacity; at least four meters separation between the teacher/lecturer and the students; clear signage declaring the facility is operating under the Green Pass. The fine for allowing the entry of a non-Green Pass carrier is NIS 5,000 ($1,500)…Indoor seating for Green Pass holders only, with a limitation of up to 75% capacity and up to 100 people. Outdoor seating does not require a Green Pass, with a limitation of up to 100 people.”

Since part of the participants in the trial naturally received a placebo, it means that the whole “green pass” thing is meaningless even in its own terms. The absence of logic in the whole Covideological onslaught mounts up by the hour. “Ideological expressions have never been pure fictions; they represent a distorted consciousness of realities, and as such they have been real factors that have in turn produced real distorting effects….The despotism of a fragment imposing itself as pseudo-knowledge of a frozen totality, as a totalitarian worldview — has reached its culmination in the immobilized spectacle of nonhistory…presenting illusory escapes from a universal autism.” (here)

6/3/21:
UK: Ve haf vays of making you healthy

“Ministers are reportedly considering making vaccination mandatory for health and care staff because of evidence that a minority of them, particularly among those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, are choosing not to have a jab…Last week Care UK said it only wanted to hire new staff who had had the vaccine, while another care provider, Barchester, said it wanted all of its staff, including current workers, to have had the jab by 23 April, adding that if they did not they would not be considered for shifts…Yvonne Coghill, a British NHS manager who currently serves on the NHS Equality and Diversity Council…who sits on the advisory board of the Health Foundation’s Covid-19 impact inquiry, which explores the pandemic’s implications for health inequalities in the UK, said she could not envisage a scenario where NHS staff would quit in disproportionate numbers due to being forced to take the vaccine. “Most people are pragmatic and will weigh up the pros and cons of any decision to leave the service in terms of how it would ultimately impact them and their families. People have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed,” she said. “I believe healthcare workers are very sensible people. Of course a few people might have strong views about the vaccine being made mandatory and leave, but do I envisage a mass walkout because of it? Definitely not,” she added.”
5/3/21:
October study states vaccines “may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated”

“COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”
Interview in French with genetician/geneticist

She says, amongst other things, that – according to Pfizer’s scientific protocol itself – the trials of their vaccine will finish in 2022, ie at least 18 months from the beginning of the trials, making explicit the fact that the whole world has been transformed into guinea pigs and making explicit the fact that to talk of “success” now has no meaning since we have at least 9 months to wait before the words “brilliant success” or “miserable failure” could be used. So the “95%” efficaciousness broadcast everywhere by the brainwashing media has no validity, especially as amongst those who have been vaccinated there have been some of who have had severe Covid symptoms, showing that it’s not intrinsically a protection against severe infection.
4/3/21:
France: increase in Covid clusters in nursing homes following vaccination… state backs away from weekend confinements/lockdowns in all departments apart from Pas-de-Calais (for the moment)…but maintains partial confinements in Nice and elsewhere…but the sale of alcohol is forbidden for 2 weeks in Bordeaux

“Prohibition has made nothing but trouble” – Al Capone
Austria: vaccination experiment on population

need to reinvent the wheel ?
3/3/21:
Indonesia threatens 1 year in prison plus a $7,000 fine for those who don’t get vaccinated

Google translate:

“ While in most countries of the world the criterion for receiving corona vaccines is old age or background diseases, in Indonesia these days the picture is the opposite. The huge country, which has a population of 267 million people on a vast area of ​​thousands of islands, has decided that one of the first groups in line for vaccines will be … everyone over the age of 18 to 59. The rationale behind this approach is that this group is the “engine” of the corona plague – many asymptomatic patients, who have multiple social connections …36,000 residents have died so far in the epidemic in Indonesia, out of 1.3 million residents infected with Corona. As in Europe, in Indonesia the second wave recorded during December-January was much larger than that recorded at the beginning of the epidemic, but morbidity has been declining in recent weeks. Indonesia has acquired most of its vaccines from China, which was the first country to develop a vaccine for corona, although it has not yet been approved for use by medical authorities in the West. The vaccine was developed by SinoVac and is widely used in China itself. The vaccination campaign in Indonesia began on January 13, and since then aims to vaccinate about 1.3 million health care workers as well as a group of police officers, public servants, teachers, athletes, journalists and more (estimated at 17 million people). Everyone will get the vaccine for free, subsidized by the authorities. But one of the significant differences compared to other countries is that the vaccine is defined as “mandatory”, although it is not yet clear what sanctions will be imposed on those who do not get vaccinated. A government minister said the penalty to be fixed by law for those who do not get vaccinated is a year in prison and a $ 7,000 fine, but the government still needs to offer the vaccine in adequate quantities to make sure residents get the chance to get vaccinated. Amnesty International has criticized the government’s statements, saying the vaccination was “contrary to human rights”. … it is possible that in the coming weeks young people and adults without background diseases are also expected to start receiving the vaccines. This group numbers about 150 million people, and the country hopes to end their vaccinations by the end of 2021. Vaccinate first those who are important to the economy … Critics said the government decided to do so in an attempt to preserve the economy by first vaccinating the most efficient, working-age workers.”
Israel Launches Pilot Program to Monitor Arrivals’ Home Quarantine With E-bracelets
Belgium: how press conference with minister of “health” is manipulated when the one dissident journalist is censored, either through having his microphone cut off, or it being put up inordinately loud or by being refused 2 questions even though other journalists’ 2 questions have been allowed and answered
France: the state is considering the renewal of lockdown in 20 departments on top of 6pm – 6am curfew (four hours longer than the curfew in Myanmar!)

This includes the regions known as PACA (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur). There were 4543 deaths from Covid there from 2020 up until February 2021 (there don’t seem to be precise figures since then). In the 13 weeks of the flu epidemic (caused internationally by predicting the wrong mutation and therefore getting the vaccine wrong) of the flu season of 2017-2018 there were 13,166 deaths in PACA. This flu epidemic was never called a “pandemic” despite the fact that it was something that spread globally. I’d guess the reason why is that calling it a pandemic would devalue the term “pandemic” in people’s minds since it would be associated with a banal illness they’ve known about since an early age (subliminally the term for some evokes the notion of “panic”, though it’s linguistic base has nothing to do with it). The definition of pandemic was changed in 2009, excluding the notion of “dangerous” or “severity”, reducing it simply to its spread (redefined as a new virus, regardless of its severity, that travelled over national borders, for which there were no vaccines), the W.H.O. putting in place favorable conditions to make it possible to declare the planet in a state of perpetual pandemic. At that time swine flu was defined as a pandemic. Swine flu killed 284,000 people worldwide, over 100,000 less than the minimum amount of people killed by flu each year. Yet flu has only been called a pandemic with the Asian flu (1957-58) and the Hong Kong flu (1968-69), officially because it’s a virus that has been known about for a very long time for which there are vaccines.

The common cold can, in certain cases, lead to pneumonia: in 2017 pneumonia killed more than 808,000 children under the age of 5! I suspect this is as much news to you as it was to me when I just recently read about it. Of course, these kids were mostly from the “Third World”, so they are regarded as nothing unless they’re used as a photo opportunity for some super-rich princess or whoever. Likewise, globally 7 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution (about 10,000 of them in London, less than the 14,416 who have died from Covid there). Of course, Covid is more dangerous globally than the flu or the common cold (though less dangerous than air pollution). But I put all this here to give a sense of proportion to this so-called “health” crisis and to show that in certain parts of the world it has shown itself to be less dangerous than the flu. Many say that Covid symptoms are intrinsically more painful and more lingering that those of flu. But is this seriously the case? A bad bout of flu can lead to severe respiratory problems which, even amongst survivors, can go on for several months. Without having researched it much, which would require looking at innumerable anecdotes of accounts from flu sufferers, I suspect, though Covid has many varying symptoms, that dying of either is pretty much equally miserable in terms of a painful death.

A few words about other flues:

In 2005 in France the avian flu “pandemic” was the first item of the evening news for about 6 weeks. At the end of September 2005, David Nabarro, the newly appointed Senior United Nations System Coordinator for Avian and Human Influenza, warned that an outbreak of avian flu could kill between 5 million and 150 million people. Nobody in France died, and globally there were just 214 deaths of human beings over the 4 year period 2005-2008. This is vastly smaller than of deaths from ordinary flu annually which are estimated at, on average, between 389,000 and 850,000 people annually – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/ – “a 2017 study indicated…290,000 – 650,000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99,000 – 200,000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza”. Taking the lower figure of 5 million, this WHO prediction was at best 0.0043% of the actual figure. And the actual figure was at best 0.055% of the actual figures for flu. In fact, avian flu in France was used as a pretext for the development of agribusiness, shutting down small farms on the pretext that the chickens were running around freely and could contaminate not only each other but all birds and humans visiting the farms (for some basic critique of agribusiness see this).

Note the imprecision of this “between 389,000 and 850,000” figure for the annual flu deaths as compared with the apparently very precise figures for Covid. Also worth noting is the fact that never have we had daily figures broadcast repeatedly in the media for flu-related deaths. And since mid-March 2020 no figures for flu-related deaths have been published in France (I don’t know about other countries).

In France in 2009 swine flu became the pretext for an exercise in social control – with doctors forced by the state to vaccinate everybody fearing the disease who wanted to be vaccinated. Despite massive and continual state and media propaganda, 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 (about 1½ vaccines per man woman, child & baby) 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 613 people in France, considerably less than flu .

Posted on March 3, 2021 by Sam FantoSamotnaf — No Response ↓
Edit
Leave a Reply

Logged in as Sam FantoSamotnaf. Log out?

Comment

6/3/21:
UK: Ve haf vays of making you healthy –
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/03/i-dont-want-to-be-bullied-nhs-and-care-workers-on-mandatory-covid-jabs

“Ministers are reportedly considering making vaccination mandatory for health and care staff because of evidence that a minority of them, particularly among those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, are choosing not to have a jab…Last week Care UK said it only wanted to hire new staff who had had the vaccine, while another care provider, Barchester, said it wanted all of its staff, including current workers, to have had the jab by 23 April, adding that if they did not they would not be considered for shifts…Yvonne Coghill, a British NHS manager who currently serves on the NHS Equality and Diversity Council…who sits on the advisory board of the Health Foundation’s Covid-19 impact inquiry, which explores the pandemic’s implications for health inequalities in the UK, said she could not envisage a scenario where NHS staff would quit in disproportionate numbers due to being forced to take the vaccine. “Most people are pragmatic and will weigh up the pros and cons of any decision to leave the service in terms of how it would ultimately impact them and their families. People have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed,” she said. “I believe healthcare workers are very sensible people. Of course a few people might have strong views about the vaccine being made mandatory and leave, but do I envisage a mass walkout because of it? Definitely not,” she added.”

5/3/21:
October study states vaccines “may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated” – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13795

“COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”

Interview in French with genetician/geneticist – https://vimeo.com/500933141

She says, amongst other things, that – according to Pfizer’s scientific protocol itself – the trials of their vaccine will finish in 2022, ie at least 18 months from the beginning of the trials, making explicit the fact that the whole world has been transformed into guinea pigs and making explicit the fact that to talk of “success” now has no meaning since we have at least 9 months to wait before the words “brilliant success” or “miserable failure” could be used. So the “95%” efficaciousness broadcast everywhere by the brainwashing media has no validity, especially as amongst those who have been vaccinated there have been some of who have had severe Covid symptoms, showing that it’s not intrinsically a protection against severe infection.

4/3/21:
France: increase in Covid clusters in nursing homes following vaccination –
https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/societe/coronavirus-malgre-la-vaccination-qui-avance-des-clusters-se-forment-dans-les-ehpad-1614078741

Austria: vaccination experiment on population

3/3/21:
Indonesia threatens 1 year in prison plus a $7,000 fine for those who don’t get vaccinated

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001362688

Google translate:

“ While in most countries of the world the criterion for receiving corona vaccines is old age or background diseases, in Indonesia these days the picture is the opposite. The huge country, which has a population of 267 million people on a vast area of ​​thousands of islands, has decided that one of the first groups in line for vaccines will be … everyone over the age of 18 to 59. The rationale behind this approach is that this group is the “engine” of the corona plague – many asymptomatic patients, who have multiple social connections …36,000 residents have died so far in the epidemic in Indonesia, out of 1.3 million residents infected with Corona. As in Europe, in Indonesia the second wave recorded during December-January was much larger than that recorded at the beginning of the epidemic, but morbidity has been declining in recent weeks. Indonesia has acquired most of its vaccines from China, which was the first country to develop a vaccine for corona, although it has not yet been approved for use by medical authorities in the West. The vaccine was developed by SinoVac and is widely used in China itself. The vaccination campaign in Indonesia began on January 13, and since then aims to vaccinate about 1.3 million health care workers as well as a group of police officers, public servants, teachers, athletes, journalists and more (estimated at 17 million people). Everyone will get the vaccine for free, subsidized by the authorities. But one of the significant differences compared to other countries is that the vaccine is defined as “mandatory”, although it is not yet clear what sanctions will be imposed on those who do not get vaccinated. A government minister said the penalty to be fixed by law for those who do not get vaccinated is a year in prison and a $ 7,000 fine, but the government still needs to offer the vaccine in adequate quantities to make sure residents get the chance to get vaccinated. Amnesty International has criticized the government’s statements, saying the vaccination was “contrary to human rights”. … it is possible that in the coming weeks young people and adults without background diseases are also expected to start receiving the vaccines. This group numbers about 150 million people, and the country hopes to end their vaccinations by the end of 2021. Vaccinate first those who are important to the economy … Critics said the government decided to do so in an attempt to preserve the economy by first vaccinating the most efficient, working-age workers.”

24/2/21:
Israel: medical license of vaccine opponent permanently revoked
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001361720
SF:

This Israeli doctor publicly said he’d forge vaccine passports. Without doubt, this was very silly on his part: if his intention had been serious he would (and certainly should) have kept this quiet. If it was just to make a name for himself as a martyr to social control, he succeeded but not very convincingly. It would have been more convincing if he’d seriously started to fake these passports. Some have condemned him for being corrupt. It may have been potentially corrupt if he’d tried to make a business out of it, but even then hardly something to totally condemn without nuance. Helping people avoid such social control seems admirable. Especially since it may well become mandatory for playing sport or whatever.

About the same issue, see also this report in English:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/covid-denying-antivaxxer-doctor-permanently-loses-medical-license/

“Vaccine HESITANCY and SKEPTICISM have become a growing concern in recent weeks as Israel’s world-leading inoculation campaign has slowed [my emphasis – T]. Dozens attended a protest in Tel Aviv last week against “coercion,” a label widely used by anti-vaxxers. The protest featured a number of people not wearing masks, as well as comparisons between Israel’s vaccination campaign and Nazi laws, with some wearing yellow Stars of David saying “not vaccinated” meant to resemble the ones that Nazis forced Jews to wear during the Holocaust.”

“Vaccins, brevets et biens communs à l’ère du Covid-19” [17 November 2020] –
https://www.kairospresse.be/article/vaccins-brevets-et-biens-communs-a-lere-du-covid-19/
About “intellectual property rights” in science and its impact on our health, in relation to the race for the vaccine.

Interesting story about smallpox in Moscow 1960

moscow small pox

Apparently the epidemiologists etc. are now considered heroes because they rapidly introduced anti-epidemic measures on a huge scale, isolated thousands of people who were considered to have possibly been infected, closed Moscow, and even returned trains with potential carriers of infection to Moscow. Then they quickly organized the importation of 10 million doses of the vaccine from other cities, mobilized all the resources of the country for the immediate vaccination of Muscovites. The Communist Party obeyed – for the first time in history — by doing what the epidemiologists said. They saved a huge city, only three people died. The vaccine was one that had been tried and tested for 150 years or so – not like the mRNA ones of today. And the method was targeted restrictions, not one-size-fits-all blanket lockdowns – only those who could have had contact with people who might have developed smallpox. And the quarantine followed typical methods of quarantining people that had been used for centuries – ie block a whole city but let those in the city carry on as normal (not that “as normal” in 1960 USSR was something to be recommended obviously), except those who may have got the smallpox. Now track and trace in China is obviously being used for ulterior motives and lockdowns generally are not at all targeted. But almost every class society has elements of “reason” in the way they deal with crises or potential crises even if these reasonable elements are fairly marginal (Khrushchev’s state obviously didn’t care about how many people died in the gulags), methods that a free society would probably develop fairly spontaneously and voluntarily insofar as no-one would be so narrowly egotistical as to want to either possibly die an unnecessary death or spread this possibility to other people. A critique of track and trace applies to this society but I imagine that if there were those who refused to abide by certain necessary restrictions in a free society (assuming we ever get there) that they’d be forced to abide by what the majority in that particular area demanded of them, just as in your house you and who you’re living with wouldn’t allow anybody – either amongst you or from outside – to endanger those living in it

In French: a doctor in Guadeloupe has developed a natural plant-based vaccine against Covid:

Israel:

Various articles from Israel, Guinea Pig Capital of the world (it seems that there’s been virtually no news outside of Israeli Health Ministry propaganda over the last 2 weeks, and even the Ministry of Truth hasn’t supplied much “information”]:

4/2/21:

Covid-19: Israel sees new infections plummet following vaccinations

A couple of quotes:
“In the period before the protection took effect, over 7000 infections were recorded, with just under 700 cases of moderate to critical illness and 307 deaths. No time scale or age group for these figures was given.”

“the country is not vaccinating certified recovered covid-19 patients, although the Ministry of Health website does not provide information on how someone is certified to have recovered.”

I wonder what these gaps in information mean?

Also – speaking more generally – as a friend said, there’s not much discussion about global case numbers falling very rapidly in many parts of the world this year (India being a good example), far outpacing vaccination.

Re. India – according to a French Deputy (Wonner), in India people are given immune-boosting kits that include zinc and Vitamin D, which may well be the reason for the decline in Covid infections.

2/2/21:

Covid vaccine side effects in Israel match trials

“So far, 3.1 million people in Israel have received the first dose of the vaccine, and 1.87 million have received both doses. The side effects that have appeared are more or less as expected from the clinical trials by Pfizer, maker of the vaccine that most Israelis who have been vaccinated have received. The side effects have mostly been light and transient, but there have also been some more severe cases. 6,575 people reported some kind of side effect, including local effects at the site of the vaccination, after receiving the first dose of vaccine. 3,592 people have reported side effects following the second dose. Side effects were more common among young people than old people, and slightly more common among women than among men. One possible effect that caused concern in relation to the vaccine was an allergic reaction. 1.4 people in a million [SF: 1.4 x 3.1= 4.34. 0.34 of a person…?] suffered anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, but not at the level of life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Another 2.9 in a million [SF: i.e. 9 ] experienced respiratory difficulties. All were treated with no long-term injury. None of these effects was reported after the second vaccine dose. Other reported allergic reactions are recognized as light reactions, such as swelling in the respiratory tracts, runny nose, redness, an accelerated pulse rate, tingling sensations, and so on. A further concern was over possible neurological effects. A total of 180 people out of all those vaccinated felt paresthesia (pins and needles) in various parts of the body after the first dose, and 69 after the second. 30 people suffered from partial or total facial nerve paralysis, but most of them have recovered. One person suffered facial nerve paralysis only after the second dose. It should be noted that facial nerve paralysis occurs among the population even without vaccination, and with similar frequency (15-30 cases per 100,000), but the phenomenon is being monitored because in both Pfizer and Moderna’s trials there were more instances in the trial group than in the control group. In addition, eleven people reported attacks of herpes (and another four after the second dose), eleven reported a metallic taste in the mouth (and another eight after the second dose), eleven reported convulsions (these people were not given the second dose), four reported a transient ischemic event (probably not caused by the vaccine, but there is no way of knowing), and two people reported having lost consciousness. Fewer side effects of all kinds were reported after the second dose. One reason could be that people who experienced the same reaction for a second time did not report it again. The main transient systemic effects were headaches, reported by 328.8 people in a million (it is likely that many more people experienced headaches but not with a severity that made them report them as a side effect), 93.2 in a million felt dizziness, 60 in a million suffered muscular aches, and 59 in a million reported a fever. Other less common effects were pains in the joints, nausea, stomachaches, tremors, sore throat, runny nose, and coughing. As mentioned, these are symptoms that appeared close in time to the vaccination, not necessarily because of the vaccination. As far as local effects are concerned, 883 people in a million reported pain at the site of the vaccination (many more people probably experienced pain but not at a level that would justify reporting it). 129.3 in a million reported swelling, and 124.6 in a million reported restricted movement in the days following vaccination. 22.8 in a million reported a change in skin color at the vaccination site, 11.5 in a million reported swollen lymph nodes. Other effects with a lower incidence were subcutaneous nodules, subcutaneous inflammation, rash, itch, and abscesses. Some of these effects were the result of the needle not being inserted properly, and were not from the vaccine itself. At any rate, they disappeared within a few days. After examining the data, the Ministry of Health has not seen fit to change its recommendations on which groups to vaccinate; the recommendation to become vaccinated applies to the vast majority of the population.”

It must be noted that this was after a relatively short period of time; longer term effects have yet to be reported. And though this was published the day after the following incident, it doesn’t mention it, presumably because there was no proof of a link between the vaccine and the illness (how many other incidents have been left out because of this lack of proof? and what would proof look like? are they, in most cases, even capable of proving direct links?):

01/2/21:

Today (Monday) a 19-year-old boy was reported to have contracted myocarditis just five days after receiving the second dose of the vaccine for corona

The doctors who treated him noted that without treatment, his condition could have worsened and led to heart failure. Referring to the case, Dr. Abdulhadi Peruji, a pre-emergency medical director who treated the young man, noted that it could not be determined with certainty that myocarditis developed as a secondary result of the vaccine, as coronary heart disease can also cause the disease. …This case may cause panic in the public, due to the fear that the corona vaccine may lead to myocarditis in other vaccinators as well. We checked with Prof. Yehuda Adler, a cardiology expert and dean of the School of Health Professions, the Academic Center for Law and Business in Ramat Gan and a corona consultant to municipalities, whether this might indeed be a possible response to the vaccine. “I do not know the details of the case in question, but as far as I understand it is a case of myocarditis, a few days after the second vaccination. First, it is not certain that the vaccine is the cause in this case. There may be that another viral infection or corona infection, are the ones that caused the inflammation – since five days is a short period of time for the vaccine to start working. However, it is not impossible that the inflammation was caused as a result of an immunological response to the vaccine itself”

15/1/21:

COVID-19 vaccine: 13 out of nearly 2 mil. Israelis suffer facial paralysis

“Some 13 people have experienced mild facial paralysis as an adverse after taking the COVID-19 vaccine, the Health Ministry reported, and estimates are that the number of cases could be higher. Health officials have raised questions about whether or not to administer the second dose to these individuals, but the Health Ministry is recommending that the second dose be given. “For at least 28 hours I walked around with it [facial paralysis],” one person who had the adverse effect told Ynet. “I can’t say it was completely gone afterwards, but other than that I had no other pains, except a minor pain where the injection was, but there was nothing beyond that.”As for receiving the second dose, he admits he is undecided, but says that “it is important to note that this is something rare, and I don’t want people to avoid getting vaccinated – it’s important.””I recently came across, for example, someone vaccinated who was dealing with paralysis, and decided not to give her a second dose,” Prof. Galia Rahav, director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at Sheba Medical Center told Ynet. “It is true that it can be given according to the Health Ministry, but I did not feel comfortable with it.”She added that, “No one knows if this is connected to the vaccine or not. That’s why I would refrain from giving a second dose to someone who suffered from paralysis after the first dose.”The Health Ministry stated, however, that the second dose should of course be only provided if and when the paralysis passes”

More about this

“The Israel Medical Association today (Thursday) addressed an urgent letter to the Epidemiology Division of the Ministry of Health in which it demanded that the second dose of vaccine not be given to vaccinators who experienced the side effect of paralysis in their face [SF: ie contradicting the Health Ministry’s advice that the 2nd dose should be given once the paralysis has passed] . Dr. Zion Hagai, and the director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at Shamir-Assaf Medical Center, Dr. Miriam Weinberger, demanded to receive the cumulative data on the side effect, claiming that the mechanism of development of paralysis [medical term: Patsialis] is not yet known. Another similar matter “We will have to vaccinate the children as well, otherwise we will not reach herd immunity” More than 29 million people have been vaccinated against the coronavirus worldwide – a drop in the number of vaccinated alongside a sharp increase in the number of new infections. A letter sent to the director of the Department of Epidemiology at the Ministry of Health, Dr. Emilia Anis, reads: “We are trying to understand on what basis the recommendation to continue vaccinating with a second vaccine is also based on those who suffered from an allergic reaction or facial nerve paralysis. Concern has been expressed that since the mechanism of the development of paralysis is unknown, how can we be sure that it will not return or worsen? “. Earlier it was learned that 13 Israelis, as far as is known so far, who were vaccinated with the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine against the corona virus developed shortly afterwards the “Bell’s paralysis” – paralysis of the facial nerve also known as patialis. According to a report this morning (Thursday) by Adir Janko in Yedioth Ahronoth, doctors in the health system estimate that there have been more such cases in practice. It has also been reported that as a result, there are disagreements among doctors as to whether those vaccinated should receive the second dose of vaccine or temporarily avoid it. The position of the Ministry of Health is: “A vaccinator who suffers from paralysis can receive the second dose. In general, those who suffer from a new disease should delay receiving the vaccine until after recovery. The cause of the appearance of paralysis, in most cases, is unknown. Also in a study conducted by Pfizer prior to obtaining approval for the use of its vaccine, the phenomenon was documented among several vaccinated experimenters. The report quoted Dr. Miriam Weinberger, director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at Assaf Harofeh-Shamir: “We do not know what the mechanism of this paralysis is and whether it is related to the vaccine or not. Some experts are debating whether it is really right to give a second dose after Patsialis and on what basis the recommendation is based. Routine treatment for psoriasis is by steroids, but when steroids are given, it is not possible to give the second dose of vaccine on time and it should be delayed until the end of steroid treatment. In addition, we ask ourselves whether it is right to give a second dose if the patient has developed a complication of paralysis when we do not know what is the mechanism that caused it to appear. We are asking for more information and we will contact the Ministry of Health and Pfizer in this matter. ” Prof. Galia Rahav, director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at Sheba Medical Center, added: “I believe that the conditions for recommending a second dose to those who have suffered this type of reaction have not yet matured. “According to the Ministry of Health, it can be given, but I did not feel comfortable with it. No one knows whether the complication is related to the vaccine or not. It is not yet clear whether this is really a more common complication.” In addition, last night (Wednesday) it was reported in the Channel 12 news that four people aged 80-70 and over in Israel who were vaccinated, all with complex background diseases – died after receiving the vaccine. Yesterday, according to the same report, a 75-year-old woman from Lod who suffered from many and complex background illnesses was found lifeless in her home for about two hours that she was vaccinated with the second dose. The Ministry of Health is investigating the incident as well as its three predecessors and no connection has yet been found between the death and the administration of the vaccine. About two weeks ago, a 75-year-old from Beit She’an died of a heart attack at his home, two hours after receiving the first vaccine dose for Corona at the HMO. The Ministry of Health investigated this incident and reported that it was known that the vaccinator had a history of previous heart attacks and it is estimated that there was no connection to the vaccine he received. Another case is of an 88-year-old from Jerusalem who was vaccinated and died two hours later. Hadassah Mount Scopus reports that he suffered from complex and severe long-term background illnesses.”

It should be pointed out that trials of Pfizer’s vaccine did not include the over 70s or pregnant women.

“Trust me – I’m a doctor”

10/01/2021:

A young man who was vaccinated against corona developed a rare inflammatory syndrome

“The 23-year-old suffered from multiple systemic inflammatory syndrome in response to a corona vaccine. Khaled Abu Sabitan from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was vaccinated two and a half weeks ago and the next day he began to suffer from various symptoms. Within a short time, his condition deteriorated and he was taken to a clinic and then transferred
to Hadassah Ein Kerem. Prof. Dror Mevorach, director of the internal medicine department and director of the corona department at the hospital: “Khaled arrived in a very difficult situation, in real life danger. We diagnosed him with a multi-systemic inflammatory syndrome, a rare syndrome known so far only after coronary heart disease, and now for the first time it has appeared after vaccination.” “This is an immediate harm to some of the body’s systems: heart failure, kidney failure and the hemodynamic market,” said Prof. Mevorach. “The guy came to us with low blood pressure and was in mortal danger. The signs were obvious and we suspected the syndrome, which we confirmed in various tests we performed immediately.”
An interview with Abu Sabitan, a social worker at the Jerusalem municipality, revealed that less than 24 hours after the vaccination, he developed symptoms of fever, vomiting, swelling of the neck and general weakness. He was vaccinated as part of his role in a vaccination campaign for welfare workers in the city. Prof. Mevorach emphasized: “At this stage, after Khaled’s release from the hospital, we will continue to monitor his condition at Hadassah every week and ask him to wait upon receiving the second dose.”

7/1/21:

Everything they forgot to check and tell about the vaccine for corona

דעה: כל מה ששכחו לבדוק ולספר על החיסון לקורונה

[SF: I have not included the references provided in the footnotes]

“Dr. Michal Haran, an expert in hematology and internal medicine, a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University School of Medicine, raises significant questions about the results of the Pfizer coronary research published by NEJM and points out the “holes” in the data on vaccine efficacy and safety…

The global pandemic, in all its aspects, has created an urgent need in the countries of the world for an effective and safe vaccine. Pfizer was the first to reach the finish line and summarize the results of a 2-3 phase trial within a few months. These results were presented to the FDA and received emergency approval. The decision was that despite the short time (the study was designed to last two years), there is enough information to decide with a reasonable degree of certainty that the efficacy significantly outweighs the risk. The material submitted to the FDA as well as its discussions were open to the general public. The results were also published in the prestigious medical journal New England Journal of Medicine. This combination of facts – the FDA’s stamp along with publication in such a leading newspaper – has made health authorities around the world feel confident about the vaccine. It is important to remember that this is a new technology that has not been used today in routine vaccines. …”This is the first time to the best of my knowledge where it has been openly stated that the study was planned, carried out and published by the pharmaceutical company, with the lead author being an employee of the pharmaceutical company” Reading the article published in NEJM reveals significant issues that are difficult to ignore and that can not help but raise significant question marks about the study. First, although for many years there has been an unhealthy relationship between physicians who publish results of clinical trials in leading journals and pharmaceutical companies (2), this is the first time to the best of my knowledge that the study was openly planned, conducted and published by the pharmaceutical company. … One of the topics that has received wide publicity is the effectiveness of the vaccine, of 95%. However, it is important to ask what is behind this number. Everyone agrees that the most important thing in eradicating the plague is to prevent infection. Well, it’s surprising to find that this has not been tested at all. Most surprisingly no test was done on the amount of people who have an active respiratory virus, not even a PCR test was done for the presence of the virus, although the main problem in this epidemic is infection by people who have no symptoms (3) and this is the main reason for masks, closures and frequent Tests. Instead, a very narrow end point was chosen for people who also have symptoms that are suitable for Corona and their PCR test is positive. This, without taking into account the level of accuracy of the test which can also vary from laboratory to laboratory.

The impressive figure for 95% efficiency is not an expression but a relative risk. Using the absolute risk index would reveal that this is an efficiency of 1% ” When you are not satisfied with the data in the article but go to examine the information in the report submitted to the FDA, it turns out that there was a large group of people with symptoms that fit Corona, when the difference between the groups was not very significant (about 1,800 in the placebo group compared to about 1,500 in the group This group was given the title suspected covid and even when two people who received the vaccine came to the hospital with chest X-ray findings, they were not reported to have coronary blues in a severe condition (since their PCR test was negative) nor as a grade side effect. 4 (as would be required in a person who has been hospitalized after receiving the vaccine). That is, the impressive 95% efficacy figure expresses nothing but relative risk, or in other words the ratio between the number of patients diagnosed (and we will mention again that these are people who had both symptoms and a positive PCR test) in the two groups. Using a more accurate absolute risk index would have revealed that it was an efficiency of 1% (see details in Peter Dushi’s article on BMJ’s blog). That is, the impressive 95% gives us no relevant information about the effect of the vaccine on the rate of infection (remember that this was the main goal of vaccine development in the first place, in order to achieve an effective herd vaccine in a short time) and presents very limited information on clinically significant indices such as Intensive Care – a simple calculation reveals that the vaccine should be given to 7,000 people to prevent one such event – or mortality.

Well, it can be argued that antibody formation in the general population is also important. But even with regard to this important figure, there is a worrying and conspicuous shortcoming. Surprisingly there is information about the immunological profile of only a very small number of volunteers in the first phase (5) and it should be remembered that this is a selective group of relatively healthy and young people. This information is important not only for evaluating efficacy (i.e., developing antibodies at the level required to confer protection) but no less important for possible vaccine risks. “It is known that mRNA may reach liver cells, so we would expect to have a liver function test, as well as other laboratory parameters (blood count with differentiator, kidney function, electrolytes, inflammatory indices, etc.). Neither in the article nor in the material submitted to the FDA is given Find the results of such tests ” These important indices were examined only in a selective population. Or in other words, we have no information as to whether a nursing senior living in a nursing home will have an immunological profile that ensures efficacy and safety. We also do not have such information about people with background diseases that are known to have an effect on the immune system. Vaccine safety, missing data and forgotten side effects Regarding the safety of the vaccine, one of the most notable data is the results of laboratory tests. This is particularly surprising in light of the fact that already in the selective group in the first phase, mild disturbances in the blood count were found (5). In addition, it is known that mRNA may reach liver cells, so we would expect there to be a test of liver function as well as other laboratory parameters (blood count with differentiator, kidney function, electrolytes, inflammation indices and more). Neither in the article nor in the material submitted to the FDA can such test results be found. It is also unclear how the authors of the article decide based on a follow-up period of about two months that “the safety of the vaccine is the same as the safety of other vaccines.” This is a new technology, which in contrast to existing vaccines to date involves the transfection of muscle cells by a genetic material. This technology has been tested to date in a very small number of participants and has so far not reached Phase 3. One of the dangers known and reported in the literature in such a situation is the development of severe autoimmune diseases (7) that cannot be ruled out in such a short follow-up period. Surprisingly, there is no reference at all to this problem in the article. The authors of the article recognize another significant danger which is vaccine mediated disease enhancement which is of great concern due to the fact that to date there has been no success in the development of vaccines against corona (including in pets) due to this problem. This is a very serious phenomenon because paradoxically, the person who is immunized develops a much more serious disease (with a very high risk of mortality) when he is exposed to the virus.

AIDS patients are more likely not to develop antibodies against the virus and are also at higher risk of developing autoimmune diseases or tumors of immune cells. Creating a misrepresentation of their inclusion in the study creates confidence about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine ” This problem is particularly worrying when it comes to a population of young and healthy people whose risk of getting seriously ill if they become infected with corona is almost negligible. The authors of the article refer to this danger as a “theoretical” problem that they believe has been proven to be non-existent based on the study data, which included ten patients defined as having a serious illness, with only one reaching a respiratory condition and none dying from the disease. It is also unclear the difference between the number of AIDS patients reported in the article and the number of AIDS patients listed in the safety tables submitted to the U.S. Drug Administration (160 vs. 1). There is a great deal of significance to this issue because AIDS patients are at high risk in several respects. First, they have reverse transcriptase that can lead to the conversion of RNA into DNA and thus cause unwanted and unplanned genetic changes. It should be remembered that this is a synthetic RNA that has been engineered and it is difficult to predict what will happen if its base sequence undergoes incorporation into the DNA. In addition, these are patients who suffer from severe dysregulation of the immune system. That is, they are more likely not to develop antibodies against the virus and are also at higher risk for developing autoimmune diseases or tumors of immune cells. Creating a misrepresentation of their inclusion in the study creates confidence about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. In conclusion, the way in which the data in the article was brought to the attention of the medical public creates a false sense of security regarding the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. This is extremely worrying because this article is not intended for experts in the field but for the general medical public, including those who are in senior positions in various health ministries around the world. In view of the importance of the matter, letters were also sent to the newspaper as well as to other parties to warn of this.”

17/2/21:

From here – https://www.kairospresse.be/article/deux-ex-vaccina/ – “According to data from Pfizer , 0.6% of vaccinated subjects presented “serious adverse events” and 0.1% “life-threatening events”. 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, so far just over 0.03% 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.

4/2/21:

Report on deaths related to new forms of vaccine

13/4/20:

Technologists developing a virus “immunity passport” …follow up to “Gates suggests people be made to have a digital ID showing their vaccination status, and that people without this “digital immunity proof” would not be allowed to travel”

***

Further reading:

ethics in medical science (october 2019)