This is a chronology not based on the date the information was published but based on the date I received it.
Those who accuse this site of hyperbole would have thought that even suggesting the possibility of half of what’s happening today just over a year ago was hyperbolic and paranoid. The sleep of subversive reason is spawning an epidemic of monsters.
It should be clear that I am not in accord with the ideological aspects of the content of many of the articles I link to.
I should also add that there may well be some inconsistency and contradictory information here. That’s because it’s extremely difficult to sift what is valid, what is speculation and what is manipulation. However, it seems more worthwhile trying to put forward some of what appears to be the more pertinent criticisms of what’s going on than remain silent before the overwhelming propaganda machine and wait a few years in order to be “correct” but too late. “The path toward simplicity is the most complex of all, and here in particular it seemed best not to tear away from the commonplace the tangle of roots which enable us to transplant it into another region, where we can cultivate it to our own profit. ” – here
“After more than a year away from the stadiums, the ultra supporters’ movement is faced with a terrible dilemma: return to the stands… provided they accept the health pass. Ultrasupporters (inspired by the Italian tifosi) have always fought against restrictions of freedom and against the registration of fans. This population, often caricatured by the media, has been a laboratory for repression techniques. Today, the two Montpellier groups, the Butte Paillade 1991 and the Armata Ultra 2002, take a clear position: “hold on and don’t give in”!
A line that is not at all obvious, since other groups have finally accepted to bend to the constraints, such as the Indians from Toulouse or the Lingon’s Boys from Dijon. Let’s remember that in the middle of the confinement, many ultras groups, notably from Montpellier, had shown their solidarity with the medical staff by organising a collection to support them. Today, the choice of a coherent and firm position in the face of unprecedented restrictions on freedom shows the way – let’s hope that other groups will follow suit.”
Translation of communiqué:
“We, the ultras of Montpellier, have decided not to bow down before the liberticidal measures engendered by the Health Passport. As a whole, we are neither “conspiracy theorists” nor conformists, neither anti- nor pro- vaccination. Over and above the political and financial considerations connected to Covid, we simply refuse putting in place an insidious dictatorship, the dictatorship of “it’s for your own good”. As ultras we have always fought against measures that we consider to be liberticidal. The health passport alone brings together the various abuses we have fought against over the years: restrictions on freedom of movement, filing, digital identification, mass surveillance. How can we, who have never agreed to show an identity document to enter a stadium, accept such measures to identify and classify people? As citizens we refuse: to access a personal pleasure, even if passionate; to legitimise measures that amount to a form of social credit. We want to show solidarity, and not get down on our knees, even if it means depriving ourselves of places of conviviality that we cherish we cherish like the stadium at Mosson. We will not support the development of a 2-speed society, with its pariahs and its Good Pupils. We hereby send a clear message to our sympathisers: stand firm and concede nothing. Our future freedoms, those of our children, are at stake. Let’s be realistic: such measures, if endorsed by the masses, will never be questioned, and will be considered as a new normal for decades. The virus of numeric and health control of people is a lot more dangerous than any “variant”. Let’s not pay for pseudo security with our freedom. In addition, we will be regularly present on the outskirts of the stadium in order to meet up in a warm atmosphere and maintain connections which unite us. Non-digital connections, real connections, at a single speed”
The sinister Laurent WAUQUIEZ wants to experiment with facial recognition devices in trains and stations in the Auverge-Rhône-Alpes region;
He wants to install 10,000 additional cameras in the region, develop “intelligent video protection” and experiment with innovative systems (biometric technology);
He wants to deploy “video protection” (sic) inside school and intercity buses and continue equipping regional trains with “real-time video protection cameras”.
Ban on going to shopping centres, restaurants, cafés, cinemas, sports halls and any other establishment open to the public (ERP) for people who do not have a health passport;
Six months’ imprisonment and a €10,000 fine for people inspected without their health passport in establishments open to the public;
Possibility for private sector bosses and public employers to suspend treatment and then to dismiss the refractory among the millions of employees now concerned by the compulsory anti-covid vaccination and/or health passport;
Mandatory isolation of those who test positive, with random checks by the police or gendarmerie
Democracy’, as we have known it since our childhood, is gradually disappearing and dying. Political liberalism is in its death throes and, under the pretext of a health crisis, a new regime is being set up. Yet no one says it, no one sees it, everyone pretends that nothing is happening and that, once covid has been defeated, we will return to the world of before. Journalists, the self-proclaimed watchdogs of democracy, are there to reassure us and, far from denouncing the incredible brutality of the current anti-democratic regression, they are pushing it to the limit.
One day we will have to realise that journalism, as it is practised in so-called democratic countries, is not an obstacle to the rise of totalitarianism but its instrument, and that as freedom retreats and tyranny takes hold, journalists change the definition of these terms in order to make people believe that we are still in a democratic and temperate state governed by the rule of law.
Thus, the criteria for freedom are systematically lowered and those for tyranny are raised. To use a metaphor, the thermometer is changed every time the temperature rises, to suggest that the temperature remains constant and that the regime has not changed its nature.
Whatever measures the regime takes, the “thermometer of democracy” that is journalism (but also the various “control” and “defence of liberties” bodies) will tirelessly indicate “Room temperature: 20 degrees; moderate regime, any comparison with non-democratic regimes prohibited”.
Indeed, for journalists, one does not resist a “democratic” regime and one does not contest its democratic character. For them, resistance is always in the past tense, or it only applies to those who claim to conjugate it in the present tense. They are the fascists, the conspiracy theorists, the populists, the negationists, who must all be lumped together. The “duty to remember”, as applied by the media-political class, only serves to consolidate the dominant order, presented as unsurpassable, democratic by nature and preferable to anything that may have existed in the past.
In the meantime, with new laws, new decrees and new technological applications, a new Leviathan is rising, gradually swallowing up our last freedoms and giving itself an overwhelming, immense, implacable power, such as no other state in history has ever had. The covid-stage of capitalism is the end of political liberalism and the entry into a new totalitarianism with a digital face. While journalists and “democrats” look the other way, we will denounce and analyse each step of the implementation of this new iron heel, in order to help overthrow what is in reality a colossus with feet of clay, built on our renunciations and resignations.
“Bolsonaro’s government is being harshly questioned by suspicions of corruption in the purchase of vaccines, which have been uncovered by the investigations being carried out by a Senate commission and which have put even the president himself under the eye of the Attorney General’s Office. The far-right leader’s denialism in dealing with the pandemic and the alleged corruption at the expense of covid have raised calls in Brazil for his impeachment, driven by the opposition. Huge banners with the slogans “Bolsonaro out!” “Vaccine for all now!” and “Bolsonaro genocidal” were the common denominator of the protests, which only registered acts of violence in Sao Paulo. At the beginning of the night, when the marches were already dispersing in the São Paulo capital, the police fired tear gas after being attacked with stones by a group of hooded men, who also destroyed the facade of a bank.”
“During the rally, the police were also targeted. According to a source, they were targeted by projectiles including firecrackers and smoke bombs, but also by insults. The window of a pharmacy was also damaged, as well as the Covid-19 screening tent in front of it.”
Obviously it’s impossible to say how many demonstrated, but given the massive presence in the cities I’ve heard about, it’s clear that the media figure of 165,000 people demonstrating in 170 towns and cities throughout France is an absurd underestimate, even by traditional manipulative standards.
“Professor Ari Joffe of the University of Alberta in Canada describes in his study COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown – Groupthink (Joffe AR (2021) COVID-19 : Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink. Frontiers in Public Health 9:625778. doi : 10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778) , on the disastrous effects of lockdowns, several cognitive biases, including:
Anchoring bias, which consists of preferring the initial hypothesis and ignoring evidence that refutes it;
Commitment escalation in which investments in a defined course of action are maintained, even in the face of evidence of better options, thus respecting previous decisions;
Superstition bias which postulates that action is better than non-action (even in the absence of evidence), as it reduces anxiety;
The present bias, which favours immediate benefits over even greater benefits in the future (measures that would prevent more deaths in the long term seem less attractive);
And the identifiable lives bias which includes the identifiable casualty effect (neglecting invisible death statistics, such as collateral victims of measures, reported at the population level) and identifiable cause and effect (prioritising efforts to save lives from a known cause, even if more lives were saved by alternative responses).
These various biases, among many others, seem to me to explain in part not only the steps taken by various governments, but also the establishment and maintenance of a certain narrative, one that has come to captivate an overwhelming majority of the population, not sparing even those with a scientific background.
Such prohibitive measures could never have been imposed without the construction of this narrative, which finds its foundation in a serious threat, relayed and amplified by the traditional media. The latter maintained it by morbidly disseminating daily figures of COVID-19 deaths, and subsequently figures of contaminations. The narrative thus gradually took hold by means of several methods, including the dissemination of a single message through all channels of communication, spreading through society in the form of doxa (or the set of opinions received without discussion, as self-evident, in a given civilisation – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa).
It is striking that the notion of war is evoked in the context of the pandemic… For propaganda has always been a fundamental tool in warfare, and one of its practices is censorship. In our digital age, it takes the form of fact checking. On 25 November 2020, I posted an article on Facebook entitled Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence published on Swiss Policy Research (SPR) (an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organisation that investigates geopolitical propaganda)(Swiss Policy Research : https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR27ISnO9WnQQ6TRprb8WJpUwsVgSGLmCJmVSHlHbUlgMD0Di1qZP5X9iaQ#development-of-cases-after-mask-mandates). The article cited ten studies that concluded that masking is not effective against the spread of SARS-CoV-2, along with ten other aspects to be considered when assessing the effectiveness of masks. To supplement this information, the article even included and analysed seven studies that showed the proven effects of masks on the spread of the virus. This article was not just an unfounded opinion, but a position based on references, and yet Facebook labelled it as false information. The link provided by this fact-check was to the Lead News website, which claimed that several sources confirm that masks work against the spread of SARS-CoV-2 while citing only one source, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Facebook fact-checking on the site of Lead News : https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/11/fact-check-137-many-studies-find-masks-do-work-against-the-spread-of-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR0XS6ebN0gFFmVscp6QYhcwB0Ep-JyX_VW8RmV9zOH_My0es86yUDhDDLU) ! Upon further investigation, it turned out that Facebook was fighting misinformation by conducting fact-checks with the help of so-called independent source checkers. But the famous Lead News (which is funded solely by Facebook) is a branch of another group, the Credibility Coalition, which is itself funded by Facebook, Google and Twitter, among others (Credibility Coalition, to which the Lead News belongs: https://credibilitycoalition.org/).
More recently, on YouTube this time, the video of the Great Debate (https://www.kairospresse.be/grand-debat/) organised by Kairos did not even last 24 hours before being withdrawn on the grounds of medical misinformation. As a reminder, a series of scientific experts and representatives of the Belgian government had been invited to debate with six other speakers (including myself) from different scientific and medical backgrounds, but none accepted the invitation. The debate therefore took place more in the form of an exchange of views. When looking for the reason for the banning of the video, YouTube informed that it does not allow content that spreads incorrect medical information contradicting that of the local health authorities or the World Health Organisation (WHO) regarding COVID-19. Examples of prohibited content include those that claim that a specific treatment or drug guarantees a cure for COVID-19 and those that contradict the consensus of local health authorities or the WHO regarding the COVID-19 vaccine (I invite readers to read the list of prohibited content under this reference – List of forbidden content on YouTube : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785).
This phenomenon of fact-checking is not limited to social networks, as traditional media are also involved. La Libre Belgique has created a section called La Source dedicated to checking sources. In an article entitled Do PCR tests overestimate Covid-19 cases? published on 4 April 2021 (https://www.lalibre.be/planete/sante/les-tests-pcr-surevaluent-ils-les-cas-de-covid-19-6066ecff7b50a6051776bce0), La Libre Belgique analysed Prof Martin Zizi’s LinkedIn publications on two claims:
PCR positive ≠ infection
PCR positive ≠ contagiousness
Rather than presenting possible references contradicting these statements, The Source was satisfied with comments from expert Dr. L. Cornelissen. Prof Zizi, for his part, verified the sources of the La Libre Belgique article, maintaining his position and thus fact-checking La Libre’s facts (giving rise to the article PCR useless if asymptomatic – https://www.kairospresse.be/pcr-inutiles-si-on-est-asymptomatique/). It is regrettable that La Libre did not read the article COVID-19: “effet de la vaccination sur le risque de transmission” published on the Chirec Pro website (http://www.chirecpro.be/fr/news/covid-19-effet-de-la-vaccination-sur-le-risque-de-transmission), in which the supposedly beneficial effects of vaccination on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are highlighted. The article states:
The presence of virus detected by PCR is not synonymous with a risk of transmission since PCR is likely to identify low viral loads and therefore not necessarily sufficient to be responsible for possible transmission, this being confirmed by the overall reduction in viral load in vaccinated subjects.
The reference cited for this assertion is of poor (or even weak) quality to support the hypothesis that vaccination would decrease the spread. Note the three major problems with this source:
The referenced scientific article – explicitly states that this preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice,
the study does not directly compare vaccinated people with a control group, but merely assesses the efficacy of a vaccine on hypothetically vaccinated people…
The researchers compare PCR-positive data (with the methodological biases mentioned above) from one age group with another age group, thus establishing an additional methodological problem.
Thus, Chirec similarly asserts to Prof Zizi that a positive PCR is not synonymous with contagiousness… but cites much less reliable references. What would The Source say about this?
If fact-checking existed before the current health crisis (becoming a more debated topic during the term of President Trump, who is known for his controversial statements), it has become a real reference tool to suppress anything that is deemed questionable. But this raises several questions, such as:
what content can be verified and identified as established fact? Is it legitimate, for example, to censor arguments on evolving scientific subjects under the pretext of a challenge from local authorities and the WHO (who have already proven their ignorance and error about the nature of SARS-CoV-2 on several occasions)?
In a debate with French essayist Idriss Aberkane, public health doctor Martin Blachier asserted the absence of pharmaceutical industry (specifically Pfizer) interests in this crisis (Youtube – LES DÉBATS – Martin Blachier vs Idriss Aberkane at 29min : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5CtlE9ILmE ). But some quick research shows that Pfizer’s revenue for the first three months of 2021 is $3.5 billion and the estimated revenue for the year 2021 for the vaccine alone would be $26 billion (or two-thirds of their annual revenue) (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PFE/pfizer/revenue). Recall that their annual revenue in 2019 was $41.17 billion. In 2020 it was $41.9 billion (an increase of 1.79% over 2019, rather than a loss of sales) (Youtube – LES DÉBATS – op. cit.)… And there is likely to be seasonal demand for its COVID-19 vaccines in the coming years (like the seasonal flu vaccine) (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56979406?fbclid=IwAR2_b6UhBsvjAFc9lwsrqrjgNXG-9JkJf8QTbp4JAhqXRWjM8W7ff2MFh7M)…”
Video from September 30th 2020
(apparently contested here, though it seems it says only that masks do not protect against most aerosols other than the large ones – spit)
22/7/21:
Two Facebook posts from the last week about Israel.
Facebook post from 14/7/2021:
Given that most adults are vaccinated I find nothing interesting in this
statistic that Inbar Twisser presents as interesting – a reporter for N12 News, who tweeted that “this morning there are more fully vaccinated severe Covid patients in the hospitals than unvaccinated ones, 45 to 25”.
What IS interesting:
This situation where some of the population is vaccinated and some are not, is of great concern to the Ministry of Health because it creates two comparable groups: an experimental group and a control group. And that’s how easy it is to unveil the bluff. To illustrate:
When adolescents do not end up in the hospitals even though they are not vaccinated, it is clear to any reasonable person that the vaccine is unnecessary for them. On the other hand, if they do not get to the hospitals after they are vaccinated – the masters of mind-conditioning (and they are masters!) will tell us that it is thanks to the vaccine.
They are most disturbed by those who recover. These are not contagious, not sick and certainly not dead, and I fully understand why it was so important to vaccinate them in at least one dose. This is just another attempt to neutralize the control group and in this case it is a
particularly disturbing control group.
***
Facebook post from 20/7/2021:
“How they are messing with our minds.
The media has been publicizing for some time that the percentage of vaccinated tested positive is 40%.
This figure in itself raises questions about the efficacy of the vaccine. We are also told that an almost absolute majority of new critically ill patients during this period are also vaccinated.
I checked the data on the official website of the Ministry of Health and found updated data for the first week of July. The numbers there are interesting :
The left column is of people tested positive who have been vaccinated with a second vaccine over twenty days ago. The right column is of
unvaccinated who tested positive.
If you look at the total, you find that 50.2% of the positive cases are vaccinated. No longer 40% as reported in the media.
If we leave out the children up to the age of 19 (the vast majority of them without any symptoms anyway, but simply came out positive for the PCR test) we will actually find that from the age of 20 and up, the percentage of vaccinated out of the positive cases stands at 85.1%. Do you understand? 85.1% of the new positive cases are fully vaccinated!
For what reason did we rushed to get vaccinated?
So they said we would at least spare ourselves a serious illness, but even that is no longer true. After all, it is reported that most new severe patients are vaccinated.
We’re in big trouble.”
***
T writes:
I don’t know how much hard “scientific” conclusions can be drawn from all this about the efficiency of the vaccine, but it does makes things interesting. Also, the Health authorities representatives are now explicitly saying that natural immunity due to exposure to the virus is better than the immunity from the vaccine (and the data shows it as well – there are hardly any hospitalization or infections among people who were already exposed to the virus, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike) – the exact same people who explicitly lied earlier when they said that there are no reasons to believe that natural immunity will last and that the immunity from the vaccine is most probably a lot better – and this against all scientific knowledge up to 2020.
According to this, this sticker, amongst innumerable others, has been produced by an extreme right wing group, though the name “la rose blanche” (“The White Rose”) is the name of a group of students who resisted the Nazis between July 1942 and February 1943 in Germany, distributing dissident leaflets. The students wrote pacifist and anti-fascist slogans on the walls, collected bread for concentration camp inmates and looked after their families. The actions of the White Rose were taken as an example from January 1943 by intellectuals in southern Germany and Berlin. The line “A lie repeated 1000 times becomes a truth” is taken from Goebells. I suspect that most people reproducing this sticker have no knowledge of what the group “the white rose” is nor the history of where the name was taken from. If this group is, as the article states, a group of Trump QAnon supporters it’s also indicative of how recuperative the Right have become: the sticker – without the Covid references – could have been produced by anarchists in previous epochs. It’s also indicative of how this epoch is confusing to almost everyone and that trying to untangle the massively proliferating mystifications is one of the tasks of those who want to stop the movement towards totalitarianism.
Yet another video censored/removed by YouTube. Speaks about the Nuremberg Code. Also questions the idea of asymptomatic people with Covid infecting others and even the idea of being asymptomatic with Covid rather than presymptomatic (ie the few hours before symptoms kick in). And confirms coagulation of blood as significant possibility. Says that variants are almost the same as the original virus (ie 99.7% the same) and they’re not an additional health problem at all. And that the FDA and the EMA have not required the top-up vaccines for the variants to be tested because they’re so like the normal pre-top-up vaccines.
Apparently this guy’s views have been taken up by lots of right-wingers. But that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong on all counts, any more than when leftists say something that means you have to take up either their viewpoint or the opposite viewpoint. As I’ve said so often, Hitler’s scientists said tobacco caused cancer. Which, if you take the opposite viewpoint of your enemy, would mean you should support smoking tobacco. Of course, he may have significantly demagogic reasons for what he says. But it remains to be seen what is valid and what is crap in such things.
“It was in this working-class district of Fort-de-France that the clashes between the police and mobile gangs took place, with a majority being young according to witnesses. At around half past midnight, a house caught fire on Avenue Jean Jaurès, where several cars were burnt….On the night of Sunday 18 to Monday 19 July 2021, the police had a hard time repelling uncontrolled gangs at the start of the curfew introduced at 9pm. Retreating to Terres-Sainville in the middle of the evening, it was the main thoroughfare of the district, Avenue Jean Jaurès, which was the scene of new confrontations for the second consecutive night, after the city centre the day before….Beforehand, some public buildings such as the courthouse and the prefecture were secured. As a result, several projectile throwers (including fireworks mortars), always ready to fight visibly with the mobile forces, decided to set fire to at least 3 cars…Meanwhile, the security forces used stun grenades with a blast effect to try to disperse the troublemakers. A helicopter from the national gendarmerie came to reinforce the set-up, using a powerful searchlight to sweep the whole area for more than an hour, the time it took to bring the fire under control. Wheeled armoured vehicles were also deployed by the soldiers on the ground, in order to evacuate the burning cars, to avoid new fires on the boulevard…According to other testimonies, there were no victims during this very agitated night…”
After compulsory wearing of masks, social distancing, the retreat to digital-television-work, confinement, the curfews, travel with authorisations, the incitement to download tracking applications, thus to denounce, making everyone a snitch, the fines and the arrests, here is now the phase of the compulsory Health Passport!
This recent announcement, made by the experts in the zombification of the masses, imposes a Health Passport at the entrance of commercial, cultural and social establishments. Anyone who fails to comply with this rule will be punished, and will have to stay at home!
The right to rationally choose a treatment (vaccination), in conscience, is granted to us. The threat of punishment is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, which only use coercion and repression to maintain themselves. The deprivation of freedom to come and go as one pleases without control is thus imposed on all, this freedom having become a fault! The repeated injection of fear and the anaesthetisation of brains makes us the willing actors of general control.
The servility of certain cultural decision-makers, museums, theatres and festivals, more ready to obey the power on which they depend than to make a real commitment to the advent and survival of the cultural values on which true democracies are based, participate in the fracturing by bending to the demands of the Health Passport.
Connecting, gathering, sharing, exchanging through the arts are the very essence of living societies. To exclude them on the pretext of not presenting a passport, even a health one, is to go against these values, culture not being compatible with the suppression of freedom.
We can already see festival organisers coming in to reinforce the health order, turning into contamination cops, indicating in addition to the booking fees the places for “screening” and the vaccination centres nearby!
This suicidal, collaborationist turn we are witnessing tells us enough about the future of this drifting society.
One of the characteristics of dictatorships is that they claim to have values but act in the opposite way: they claim to fight against exclusion but divide and separate through more control, they claim to protect but subject everyone to the worst interferences, they claim to care about health but make real care impossible through dehumanisation, they replace solidarity with competition, they promise security but create conditions that produce insecurity, etc. Each of these successive contaminations has been the result of a different approach. Each successive contamination, whether viral or radioactive, systematically leads to restrictions on our freedoms, destroying and/or banning spaces and places. This makes us guilty victims, forcing each of us to take responsibility for the consequences of technological decisions imposed for the benefit of the powers that be, without real justice.
To resist and put a stop to the machine that crushes life, whether we are a simple customer in a bar or restaurant, a spectator or listener participating in live performances, against and before generalised facial recognition, permanent tracking in the private sphere and intrusion into the body through tracking: disobedience is a duty.
17 July 2021
SF: Obviously such appeals to “the cultural values on which true democracies are based” are meaningless crap, which anyone can see from the development of bourgeois democracy onwards has largely meant culture as a form of anaesthetisation and domestication for a democracy that means a choice between different forms of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’s commodity economy (money, wage labour, commodity consumption, etc.). Nevertheless, resistance to the attack on even bourgeois freedoms and to the fact that this is now not merely limited to your financial means but to your submission to being injected with a vaccine that is being increasingly shown to be hardly effective and resisting having to carry around a method of tracking your movements is potentially the start of a more general resistance to a world and life accelerating at ever faster speeds out of the control of the vast majority.
“…around 2,500 protesters went to the network after a larger protest outside the presidential palace against a Covid “Safe Pass” and force vaccination. Some of the protesters attacked the TV facilities…broken glass around the building, several broken windows and four Sigma-branded cars in various states of damage, one completely burned-out….cars burning in the car park and smashed up furniture apparently inside the building’s lobby, with police sirens wailing in the background.”
“During this night of confrontations between the forces of order and anti-curfew demonstrators, others took advantage of it to attack in particular jewellery shops in Fort-de-France…A jeweller’s shop in the rue Lamartine was stormed shortly after 10pm. It was opened, emptied and set on fire at around 2am on Sunday, according to our journalists on the spot. …Later, at around 4am, a group of at least four people tried to break into another jeweller’s shop on Rue Lamartine but the security system resisted…By retreating far from the prefecture, small groups who intended to fight with the forces of order caused fires that the fire brigade was able to extinguish under the protection of police and gendarmes.
♦Bin fire in Victor Sévère street
♦Car set on fire on boulevard du Général de Gaulle
♦Fire in the jewellery shop on rue Lamartine, (mentioned above)
♦Bin fire in rue Perrinon
♦Car set on fire in Victor Sévère street
♦Fire in the hall of the Edf building in Place François Mitterrand
♦Bin fire in Place François Mitterrand
♦Brush fire on the Savane Several barricades still smoking on the boulevard at 6am on Sunday morning …In addition, some videos posted on social networks show an attempt to burn down the courthouse. People can be seen in possession of incendiary devices…”
“Macron allows the poor to go through the bins for free”
“ 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.”
The media use their classical manipulative stereotyping of the demos as being “anti-vax” when it included some who’ve been vaccinated (but are opposed to such a tyrannical forcing of vaccination) and many – probably the majority – who are not anti-vaccination as such. It should be pointed out that many “revolutionaries” also use this term in order to block themselves against seeing and thinking and acting critically. Official figures say that 18,000 demonstrated in Paris. A lawyer demonstrating there said that there were more like 350,000. Who knows? There was one placard with a photo of the gates of Auschwitz and the words “Arbeit Macht Frei” changed to “Vaccins Macht Frei”. Of course one can be pedantic and say this totalitarian development is not at all like classic fascism or Nazism, which is true (for one thing, passive demos were not allowed under fascism) . However, this intellectual precision misses the emotional point: people are aware that these authoritarian developments are moving more and more towards the eradication of even bourgeois freedoms for increasing amounts of people.
Large poster of Macron, in Toulon: “Obey – get vaccinated”
“…Many medical journals now charge authors thousands of dollars to publish their research. This ensures that it is very difficult for any researcher, not supported by a university, or a pharmaceutical company, to afford to publish anything, unless they are independently wealthy. Driven by financial imperative, the research itself has also, inevitably, become biased. He who pays the paper calls the tune. Pharmaceutical companies, food manufacturers and suchlike. They can certainly afford the publication fees….”
“On the margins of the demonstration of several hundred people last night (13 to 14 July 2021), around the prefecture in Fort-de-France, slight clashes pitted a group of people against the forces of order… a dozen people threw empty bottles at police officers in front of the Fort-de-France prefecture. The police immediately retaliated by throwing tear gas, which dispersed the crowd. …Despite this intervention by the police, the people continued to throw bottles before moving away. As they withdrew, they burnt some bins in the centre of Fort-de-France. ..Many people had responded to the call launched on social networks against the new health measures. Several hundred of them gathered in front of the gates of the prefecture on Tuesday evening (13 July 2021) under the theme “Freedom – we are not guinea pigs!”.
Not that you’d know it from the link, but the station forecourt was occupied for at least 20 minutes, and the main shopping centre near the main square was closed for fear of an invasion of demonstrators.
“In the early afternoon, a thousand people gathered in front of the Haute-Savoie prefecture. This unexpected mobilisation had not been declared to the authorities. The call for the rally was spread directly on social networks. In the crowd, many signs denounced the deprivation of individual freedoms. The demonstrators chanted “Macron resign” and “No to the health pass”… the entrance gates of the prefecture were broken. About 200 demonstrators entered the courtyard and occupied the staircase, without going inside the building. ..At around 4.30pm, the crowd moved towards Annecy town hall, blocking for a long time the traffic between the prefecture, the Bonlieu centre and the town hall. “
Given that Macron announced this compulsory “health passport” some 38 hours before the demos and at the start of the summer holidays when half of France leave home for a few weeks, these demos have been organised pretty spontaneously. Nevertheless, these obviously involve a massive mix of people, including conspiracy theorists, right-wingers and anti-semites, but also anarchists, ultra-leftists, etc. Whilst purism remains aloof from any possible gropings towards some contestation, and cedes the terrain to the right, participation that’s indifferent to these significant contradictions is also dangerous (remember that in Weimar Germany, the Communists and the Nazis sometimes joined together against the cops and Social Democrats – and with what result ultimately?).
“Ivermectin could then be considered as an encouraging therapeutic agent against Covid-19, without impacting SARS-CoV-2 replication but alleviating inflammation and related symptoms. “Our results provide a significant advance and demonstrate that ivermectin belongs to a new class of anti-Covid-19 agent in an animal model. This work opens the way for the development of better treatments against Covid-19 in humans””
Israel: 25% higher death rate among women aged 40-49 than perennial average?
Translation of a Facebook post by Yaffa Shir Raz, 15/7/2021:
Why is the death rate among women aged 40-49 25% higher than the
perennial average?
This finding revealed by Yariv Hammer is based on an analysis he
conducted based on official data from the Central Bureau of Statistics
(CBS).
In absolute numbers: compared to the perennial average, which stands at
202 deaths in this group from January to early June, this year 252 women
aged 40-49 died in the corresponding period – 50 more women.
The finding is particularly interesting, since, as can be seen from the
charts, the over-mortality of women in this age group parallels the
injection operation among those aged 40-49. More than that, two waves of
mortality can be seen, corresponding to the two doses of injection, and
especially to the second one.
And it’s even more interesting because we seem to be starting to see a
phenomenon with a recurring pattern – over-mortality that parallels the
injection waves.
Yariv Hammer and Ran Israeli found that from February to April there was
a significant increase in mortality among young people aged 20-29 – 43%
more than the average of the last five years in the same period, and
this increase was also equivalent to the injection campaign in this
group (in absolute numbers – 143 deaths Compared with the average 100.2
in the last five years).
To these horrible data must be added the findings of Prof. Retzef Levy,
who showed, based on Magen David Adom [MDA – Israel’s national emergency
medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service – Tal] readings, a
25% increase in heart attacks and cardiac arrest between the ages of
16-39 – also in an amazing correlation to the injection operation.
For those who want to claim that the excess mortality among women is due
to Corona – well, no. According to the Ministry of Health’s control
panel, 33 women aged 40-49 died this year “from Corona” (or with Corona,
maybe one day we’ll know). However, 23 of them died in January-February,
while, as mentioned, the highest mortality rate was in March. According
to the control panel, 6 women died “from Corona” in March, 4 in April
and 0 in May.
Nor can you claim that the excess mortality is due to road accidents,
since according to the CBS report, two women aged 40-49 were killed in
road accidents this year. One in March and one in May.
So what is the reason?
Among young men we know that one of the reasons is myocarditis, for
which there is also a huge under-reporting and concealment of most cases
by the health authorities. But what is the reason for this significant
excess mortality among women aged 40-49? Maybe it has to do with the
many clotting / bleeding events that Dr. Josh Guetzkow wrote about in
his report?
To find out the explanation for this phenomenon we will need more
information on the serious and fatal side effects, segmented by age and
sex.
I’m reminding all my doctor, researcher and scientist colleagues –
inquiry and questioning are at the heart of science. Science is neither
an institution nor an authority, and an imaginary “consensus” does not
create such an authority. It is the questions that form the basis for
all scientific inquiry and for all scientific progress. It’s time for
you to start asking too.
“Infections other than COVID fell over the past year due to limits on socialising, improved hygiene and mask wearing. This reduced the build-up of antibodies that protect people against illness, creating what experts are calling an “immunity debt”. The UK is already beginning to see an uptick in respiratory illnesses such as RSV, a common respiratory virus that causes bronchiolitis. More than three in five children usually catch RSV by their first birthday, but public health officials believe that lockdowns and school closures meant many have escaped infection. That means fewer children are immune to RSV, which in turn has led to a rise in cases as restrictions are lifted. In the week to 4 July, RSV positivity in England increased to 3.4% from just 0.1% two months earlier…As early as May, PHE issued a warning about a potential surge in cases in the coming autumn and winter. Its modelling suggests that between 20% and 50% more cases will need hospitalisation, requiring a doubling of paediatric intensive care beds later in the year, according to reporting by the Health Service Journal. RSV is more deadly for young children than COVID. It accounts for more than 5% of global deaths in under-fives [i.e. roughly 1.28 million – SF]…A similar surge is expected in flu cases, which have been in the low single figures in England over the past year”
2 points here:
There’s an implicit idea here that Covid is deadly amongst under-fives, when in fact it’s only when children of that age have other very serious health problems that then also get Covid which allows the “health” statisticians to attribute death to Covid.
The idea that death from flu has been down to single figures indicates another statistical manipulation: in the UK in normal years flu kills 10,000 or so people. Almost certainly those who have died of flu have had their death attributed to Covid, possibly even amongst those who haven’t also had Covid.
“All healthcare and non-healthcare staff (clinics, retirement homes and establishments for the disabled) will have to be vaccinated against Covid-19. “You will have until 15 September to be vaccinated. From 15 September onwards, checks will be carried out and penalties imposed”, said the Elysée Palace President, who spoke of the need to impose vaccination on all French people. The caregivers who have not been vaccinated by 15 September will no longer be able to work and will therefore no longer be paid,.. Specific vaccination campaigns for schools will be organised at the beginning of the school year…The health pass, in force since last Friday in discotheques, will be extended “at the beginning of August” to cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, as well as to planes, trains, long-distance buses and medical establishments. ..”
“In 2017, the search engine blacklisted naturalnews.com, a natural health advocacy organization that reports on controversial health topics including vaccine safety, GMOs, and pharmaceutical experiments, de-indexing over 140,000 of their webpages.
In a 2019 article, the founder of NaturalNews, Mike Adams, had this to say about Google (emphasis in original):
Make no mistake: Google is pro-pharma, pro-Monsanto, pro-glyphosate, pro-pesticides, pro-chemotherapy, pro-fluoride, pro-5G, pro-geoengineering and fully supports every other toxic poison that endangers humankind.”
Google’s ties to Big Pharma are well-known. In 2016, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, partnered with GlaxoSmithKline to create a new company focused on research into bioelectronics – a branch of medical science aimed at fighting diseases by targeting electrical signals in the body. GSK also works directly with Google thanks to a deal between the two companies that allows GSK full control over the data that they use. What data? Whose data? That isn’t disclosed….it has recently come to light that Google’s charity arm, Google.org, provided funding for research and studies carried out by Peter Daszak and his charity, EcoHealth Alliance – the same charity that previously worked with the Wuhan lab involved in so-called ‘gain of function’ research.”
“…At the start of the coronavirus crisis, I pointed out that the authorities will never let a crisis go to waste when it can be used as an opportunity to leverage it to implement a pre-planned or even a semi-planned agenda. I naively thought that many anarchists would instinctively get this and start to ask some difficult questions regarding what was being done to and planned for us. By and large, that didn’t happen. When the crisis broke, far from any questioning as to how it was being leveraged, instead, the anarchist movement fell into lockstep with the implementation of lockdowns. Truly bizarre behaviour for a movement that’s supposed to have a revolutionary cutting edge….”
“…There have been a few eyebrows raised at my attending these #UniteForFreedom protests.The issue of elements of the far right attending these events in the hope of exploiting people’s anger at what lockdowns have done to their lives was raised. I’ve been asked, ‘do I feel comfortable with this?’ Let’s turn this around.I’ve been on more left organised marches than I care to remember to hand out anarchist propaganda. Have I felt comfortable being on the same protest as the likes of the SWP (rape apologists)? No I haven’t! …Yes, there have been a few very dodgy elements attending the #UniteForFreedom protests, I’m not going to deny that. Yes, I did take the few precautions required to avoid flagging up on their radar. By and large, when I’ve been handing out Estuary Stirrings on these protests, I’ve had a very positive reception from a very wide range of people. The point is that if there are a few iffy elements sniffing around, it’s vital that anarchists attend and engage people with their propaganda rather than dismiss the entire anti-lockdown / anti-great reset movement out of hand…”
“While capitalising on this crisis to outsource more functions of the UK state to its corporate partners, the Government has taken this opportunity to vastly increase its own powers to monitor and control the lives of British people in perpetuity. As expected of a country in which the single largest fixed monthly expenditure for most households is on the costs of accommodation, housing is at the heart of this transition to what is already the most authoritarian state in British history, the effects of which are widening the already-existing inequalities in UK society. Here we list some of the negative effects the lockdown has had on UK housing, while making some predictions about the future that awaits us.
1. The Increase in Housing Poverty and Homelessness…
On some of the contradictions of anti-lockdown protests and the reactions to them.
“…having a pop at the leadership behind today’s protest is like shooting fish in a barrel. Because of some of the questionable speakers, it’s such an easy target to hit. The problem is that some of the people having a pop at the organisers of and speakers at these protests are lumping everyone who attends in with them. Which means the legitimate concerns and fears people have end up being summarily dismissed when they should be engaged with…”
Followed by a list of articles on “The Great Reset” (not all of which I’ve read yet)
“There is a massive overlap between those behind this insidious scheme and the Climate Capitalists whom we and others have previously exposed. The scam is essentially the same: using a façade of combatting climate change, or a virus, or even social injustice, this criminal mafia intends to force us, our children, and our children’s children into a miserable future of slavery, while they install themselves as undisputed rulers of the world.”
The Great Reset can be found here: COVID-19_-The-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab, but keep a spare paper bag near you if you read this nauseously written attempt to dress up tyranny in nice “we’re so very concerned for you poor things” humanist language with its public front of exquisite social sensitivity, sustainability and exemplary altruism.
More and more people are being vaccinated, 2/3 of the adults in our country [France – SF], which should logically slow down any evolution of the epidemic. Unfortunately it seems that this is not the case, maybe the opposite. Without vaccines, last summer was more serene, with 4 months of holidays (May to end of August), less than a month this year. There are no more seasons!
In the panoply of treatments, France has chosen only one, imposing it exclusively. This is what most countries do, under pressure from powerful lobbies. We have the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 85% of which is financed by those to whom it issues marketing authorisations (!!). (This is why ivermectin has no chance, as it cannot finance the EMA because it is in the public domain, and no laboratory will apply for a marketing authorisation…), headed by the biggest laboratories, vaccine manufacturers, and the WHO, whose main financier is Bill Gates ($194M in 2019), his foundation investing heavily in vaccines. On BioNTech alone, he multiplied his stake by 10 (Don’t make me say that everything he does is wrong, on the contrary, but here he is “seriously” wrong and deceives others).
Bill Gates said: “Celebrating success is good, but it is more important to learn from failure”. I would add, especially when success is not forthcoming. This beautiful success scenario, vaccines = end of the pandemic, has unfortunately seized up. It was predicted and foreseen by the health workers, not by our “specialists-decision-makers”. The virus mutates, it is in its nature, and variants that are not sensitive to a too narrowly targeted vaccination are appearing more and more and more quickly. I had already written a few weeks ago that a good third of the vaccinated can be contaminated, plus with delta, delta plus, and tomorrow lambda and epsilon, already out. The authorities, who claimed like the labs 95% protection now recognize it without problem: the vaccine does not prevent you from catching the disease, from contaminating. The latest official speeches speak of 65% coverage. As for the unvaccinated, you must keep on with the mask and all the protective measures, be confined or even quarantined, revaccinated if in contact, and if you want to travel, for example, a test is more valuable than a vaccination certificate.
After this observation and these lamentations, being admitted that the vaccinated catch and will catch more and more of the new variants, let’s be constructive and positive: these vaccinated people who catch the covid, what do we do with them? They were promised a cure, they followed through, what do we give them now that they are sick? A third dose? A fourth? It’s planned, it’s ordered, but will they follow? They thought they would be protected the first time, what will they do the second, the third? What have our authorities planned in the face of this growing problem? Will they finally look elsewhere, open other avenues?
Today, the response of our authorities is still on the same line, with blinkers on, without looking for other ways: in the face of the epidemic, let’s increase the rate of vaccination. If we could exclude the problems of side effects, they bring some things, we cannot deny it. But very logically, in the face of this supposed drastic drop in efficiency with these variants that are increasingly insensitive to vaccines, can we keep the same line without taking this into account? We are told that at least it protects against severe forms. On this subject, this is not what all the studies say.
Some say there are more, others less. We lack a bit of hindsight and, above all, reliable statistics (which we don’t have or don’t give) to be able to say one way or the other without being mistaken. In the nursing homes in the Landes, all vaccinated, (almost) all contaminated, and some deaths. A priori, there would be neither more nor less serious forms, which the English seem to show. On the other hand, what is undeniable is that there are globally fewer serious forms of the disease with delta, but both among the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated (who remain in the majority). In France, 50% of positive cases are due to delta, and yet hospitalisations, cases of resuscitation and deaths continue to fall. Delta therefore seems more contagious, but less nasty. Under these conditions, does it make sense to vaccinate for a virus that is not very aggressive, with a vaccine that does not work very well, exposing us to side effects that are, to say the least, a bit serious, not to mention the long term ones that are not yet known?
Under these conditions, in order to obtain the famous herd immunity, would it not be better for everyone to catch the delta, which is not very serious, than to be vaccinated! Yes! This is what the study just published in Nature on 8 Julyshows. This study compares the sensitivity of the delta variant to monoclonal antibodies, to antibodies of infected and convalescent people, and to antibodies of vaccinated people. I quote: “Serums from people who received a dose of Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines barely inhibited the Delta variant.” Bamlanivimab, totally ineffective, as for the serum of infected people (up to 12 months after the disease), it is 4 times less effective on the delta than on the alpha. Better to have delta antibodies than alpha. Of course it is better with two doses, but is it between the two doses that the variants explode, confirming an old forgotten rule: you don’t vaccinate in the middle of an epidemic?
This variant will quickly contaminate everyone, it is to date the least toxic variety, and the immunity acquired by the disease is far superior to that acquired by vaccination, which cannot lead to sufficient immunity to be collective/herd. And with a little Doxy and ivermectin, it won’t even be seen, probably less than seasonal flu.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can now look at what is happening in countries that have vaccinated faster and stronger than us. The first example is England, which despite vaccination is already suffering a wave that is higher than the second one in October-November, even though there was no vaccine! At the time, there were 25,000 cases per day, today England is at 32,000 cases per day on 8 July, 35,200 yesterday, and it is still rising. Who can objectively speak of the results of vaccination? In terms of severe cases, yes, but isn’t the delta the primary cause of this result? If there are fewer hospitalizations and deaths, the 2/3 of the patients who are not vaccinated should fill the hospitals, which is not the case! (a few more days to be more affirmative).
I regularly follow the Seychelles, a small country, quite isolated and therefore relatively protected during periods of confinement and reduced transport. I follow it because it is the country that has vaccinated the most in the world and quickly, which gives some hindsight. 70% of the population has received two doses, enough to be comfortably in the zone of herd immunity. It’s nothing: quiet last year, its problems started at the beginning of January with the first vaccines (as almost always, with rare exceptions). Here’s where they are now:
You will tell me that 375 is a small number of cases. No: in relation to the population, the wave is much higher than what is happening in France, it is a very big wave. It’s as if we had 50 or 60,000 cases a day, despite 70% of people being vaccinated!
Patrice Gibertie seems to find the same thing in Malta, which he thinks is more vaccinated than the Seychelles (personally my sources give 1% less than the Seychelles). Their wave is however fresh, one week, for one month in England and 3 months in the Seychelles. Same scenario to come?
So what are these countries going to propose to their population, now that the vaccine card has been used? A third dose pushed by the laboratories? Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum (*)? I know what I would do, but it is true that I am not under any pressure. I hope I am wrong about the effectiveness of vaccines, I hope I am not wrong about the aggressiveness of the delta, but the facts and figures are there, stubborn, they are moving forward and I am only looking at them. Facts, nothing but facts.
(*) “To err is human, to persevere is diabolical” falsely attributed to Seneca. One might prefer Saint Augustine in his sermons: “Humanum fuit errare, diabolicum est per animositatem in errore manere”: “To err is human, but to persist in error through arrogance is diabolic”.
N.B. I would point out to the global anti-vaxers that there are other places to express themselves. It is one thing to oppose vaccines or covid pseudo-vaccines because of their defects, which can be serious; it is another thing to oppose vaccination in general, which takes us away from the current problems, which I do not wish to do here.
Israel – Pfizer’s third shot
Translated by T:
Yaffa Shir Raz / Eran Hildesheim, 09/07/2021:
How did Netanyahu’s seemingly innocent statement demanding that the entire population be vaccinated become within a week an official request from Pfizer submitted to the FDA?
Join Eran Hildesheim who presents an interesting and especially suspicious chain of events that took place this week:
We will start first at the end of February [2021], when Netanyahu, still as Prime Minister, surprises members of the government. “We will be required to renew the vaccine every six months” – he told them. It is not clear how Netanyahu, who is not an epidemiologist, could even then have predicted with such certainty something that even the major health bodies in Israel and around the world could not know regarding the effectiveness of a vaccine that was then barely two months in use?
About four months later, on July 1, Thursday night – Netanyahu, no longer Prime Minister and still without a PhD in medicine, comes up with a new online video. He reiterates his call to vaccinate all citizens in a third dose as early as August despite continued medical opposition from the medical community to the move. He claims he came to this conclusion after talking to the best experts in the world (on behalf of Pfizer?). In any case, he did not give their names.
Three days later – on July 4, Sunday – in almost perfect coordination with Netanyahu’s statement, Yoav Even announces in News 12 that against the background of rising “morbidity” [the inverted commas are my addition – T] in Corona in Israel, the Ministry of Health is considering removing their opposition and allowing the entire population to be vaccinated with the third dose. Then they will go back on it.
The next day, July 5 – The Ministry of Health, which until this week has been fighting anyone who doubted the effectiveness of the vaccine, crosses the line and is quick to publish a puzzling figure according to which the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection has dropped to 64%. The figure has been sharply criticized by many experts. The criticism even reached CNN where they said: “The Israeli Ministry of Health simply published the numbers and did not say how it got to them, because they simply published the data without any research, without any information, which experts said was very unprofessional.” Additional data released by the ministry the day after only increased the question marks surrounding the truth of this figure.
The next day, July 9, between Thursday and Friday – exactly one week after Netanyahu’s statement and just days after the puzzling data presented by the Ministry of Health – the ground was prepared for Pfizer’s announcement: “As we see in world evidence published by the Israeli Ministry of Health, the effectiveness of the vaccine declined six months after the vaccine, just at a time when the Delta variant is becoming dominant in the country.” [translation from Hebrew and not a direct quote – T] The company has announced that it will apply to the FDA for an emergency vaccination permit. The FDA has already announced that it sees no reason at present for a third vaccine. The request will be submitted in any case by Pfizer in the month in which Netanyahu said that vaccination should begin – in August.
So it is possible that all these events that took place within a week are the product of a coincidence and that Netanyahu is actually a prophet. On the other hand, it is possible that someone here is doing shady business deals on our backs and our health, after all, dark agreements between large corporations that want to make a profit for regulators and legislators is not something we do not see in our world. I’m not saying this is what happened here, but if one wants to dispel the cloud and understand the story one must reveal the confidential agreements with Pfizer. It is also possible to blacken trade secrets in them so that there is no excuse to prevent advertising. It is known that Netanyahu insists on not publishing them. It is not clear just why Bennett [new Prime Minister – T] and Horowitz [new Health Minister, from the Social-democratic party Meretz – T] are collaborating with him.
***
And my addition [Shir Raz ]:
Article 6: Prof. Itamar Grotto [previous Health Ministry deputy chief – T] yesterday in an interview with Radio 103: “I do not think it is worth asking the seller how long the product is valid. There are tools to check it. Of course to do so contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions is risk taking, but sometimes you have to take risks.”
8/7/21:
Some Israeli vaccine-recruitment posters aimed at kids:
A selection of Israeli children-vaccine propaganda posters, June-July 2021
Almost all of the below are produced in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, whose logo appears on most of the posters
Bney Brak
“Green Summer in Bney-Brak
Bney-Brak chooses a green summer!
Get vaccinated and enjoy to the fullest [literally it says “enjoy up to the heavens/sky” – (Bney-Brak is mostly an ultra-orthodox city) ].
Children from the age of 12 to 16 come today to the vaccination centers …
Get vaccinated and enjoy a huge and amazing amusement park
Flood of experiences up to the heavens at Biluna [the name of the amusement park] for you – free!
* [below] The campaign runs until Friday 9.7.21“
2. Clalit HMO (the largest of Israel’s four state-mandated health service organizations, charged with administering health care services and funding for its members (all Israeli citizens resident in the country must be a member of one of the four providers)
Right-side photo: “without vaccine”
Left-side photo: “with vaccine”
[clearly the vaccine gives you an instant sex change, yet another side effect they’ve kept quiet about so far]
“So that your summer vacation will go into quarantine
Getting vaccinated now, also from the age of 12″
3. Tel Aviv-Jaffa
“Municipal booths for corona vaccines
4-8 July, 17:00-23:00″
Middle, in purple: “Vaccine, ice cream and free entrance ticket to one attraction in the city”
4. Carmi’el
“Vaccination site for teenagers in Carmiel
At the bottom, in red:
“Free movie ticket for everyone vaccinated
For ages 12-18″
Other posters offer kids ice lollies, a DJ Rave [Israel’s not the only place to use this – see this video from Belgium], a lottery with prizes, multimedia games, entrance tickets to the municipal swimming pool, pizza slices and a drink for each vaccinated. Nevertheless, despite the propaganda and shoddy bribes, apparently only 13 percent of parents are willing
to vaccinate their children.
“To sum up, covid is not a threat to children. At least not more of a threat than many other risks we take for granted and happily let our children take, like riding in cars and crossing streets. …Since it is at present far from clear that vaccination is less risky to children than infection, it is deeply unethical to vaccinate them.”
According to this piece by the NY Times, “critical thinking isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation”, so just read and believe what you’re told is true and don’t worry about it.
“Overhyping and distorting what is already intrinsically dramatic does not garner more respect for the menace, it garners distrust of the message. A consistent, willful want of context that amplifies portents of doom propagates anxiety and dread among those predisposed to take the bad news seriously, and disdain among those predisposed to suspect deceit. Harm is actually done in both directions, to both camps.”
Video about research papers on medical journals and the fact that they’re often ghost-written by the drug companies, with reputable names signing the paper as theirs’ – “….It very often turns out to be the case that none of these people have actually reviewed the data – all they’ve done is read the paper and agreed to put their name on it…”.
It quotes Richard Horton, current editor of The Lancet as saying, “Medical…journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”.
Most of the anomalies in the trials and secret funding were only discovered through litigation as a result of significant adverse side effects. Also talks of how doctors and hospitals are effectively “bribed” by Big Pharma (e.g. in 2013 Big Pharma paid $3.5bn to doctors and hospitals). And also how high-ups in the FDA or the CDC who gave approval to drugs then retire from the FDA or CDC and take up high positions in the pharmaceutical industries whose drugs they’d just given approval to.
Sent by T:
Two relatively short texts by Dr. David Katz that provide more contextual reference to the pandemic (not so much of a radical critique, but in these days even the things he says here could be considered radical…).
“My own respect for the pandemic was never in question, and has been informed by a front line view, and now a new, particular intimacy. As I write this, I almost certainly have COVID. My son, two of my daughters, and my wife are all sick and have tested positive, and we all have much the same array of symptoms (none too bad, I hasten to note). I await my confirmation by test result, but you know what they say when it flaps like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck.
I respect this contagion and have from the start. I also resent the drama.
While public policy and coordinated crisis response have been wanting, the media response has been a veritable feeding frenzy, and the systematic extraction of every droplet of drama to keep it going. As the saying goes: never waste a good crisis. My contention is that a thick overlay of drama where unencumbered data ought to be is among the reasons we have so horribly wasted this one. We are mired in the dramademiology (my own neologism) of COVID. If there is to be a field of COVIDramademiology- and there should be, when this crisis is subject to its post-mortem exam- it will require us to study the impacts of pandemic distortion on human populations. They will, when we finally look back with clarity and dispassion, prove quite massive.”
Fear in its many aspects is one thing I find to be at the heart of much of this ongoing period. There was an interesting yet way too academic and philosophical text by Agamben that I read a few months ago but that I only found in French translation. Anyway, this piece from Montreal Counter-info offer some good points for reflection:
“Back in March 2020, a group of behavioural scientists penned an open letter urging the U.K. government to use evidence-based techniques to influence the public to comply with its commands. Their letter states: “those essential behaviour changes that are presently required… will receive far greater uptake the more urgent the situation is perceived to be.”
It seems so benign when they put it that way, but it would seem to me that what is being proposed is the state uses psychological manipulation to frighten the populace so that they are more compliant.
Other examples make a pattern clear. According to an article in Die Welt, headlined “The German Government Ordered Scientists to Produce Data to Scare Citizenry”: “a group of German lawyers has been pushing for the Koch Institute to disclose correspondence with the German Home Office in which the latter demanded that “scientists” create “scientific” documentation to scare the populace… The document, published just weeks later, finally identified a worst-case scenario in which more than a million people could die from the coronavirus.”
The same article goes on to note that fear-conditioning seems to be widely accepted. It notes that “on the website of one of the largest and best known institutions of higher learning in the US, Cornell University, the following study was found: “Modelling the role of media induced fear conditioning in mitigating post-lockdown COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on India”.
This study (which has not been peer-reviewed) finds that “fear conditioning via mass media (like television, community radio, internet and print media),” along with positive reinforcement, resulted in “significant decrease in the growth of infected population.”
Basically, this study advocates for the use of fear-mongering propaganda in the name of Public Health, specifically through the formation of conditioned reflexes. … Are we being conditioned to have automatic, unconscious reactions to certain stimuli as part of a propaganda campaign?
According to the study, the answer to this question is yes. It states: “Modelling studies have shown that fear has a major influence in reducing the impact of a pandemic. Fear was shown to be directly associated with increased social distancing, as well as increased security measures… Thus, reflex fear production through incoming information, combined with other techniques, can increase social distancing and cautious behaviour. Fear conditioned reflex production, a subspecies of classical conditioned reflex production, is the making of a connection between unpleasant events and a stimulus from the environment.””
Israel: The Ministry of Health vs. The Ministry of Health
A year ago myocarditis amongst the young was the great threat hanging over those inflicted with Covid, with potential very long-term effects, according to the Ministry of Health. But myocarditis resulting from the vaccines is presented by the same Ministry of Health as largely benign, with short-term effects.
From a thread on a forum, T. writes:
Rough translation of a Facebook post of an Israeli health journalist, recently fired from the lifestyle magazine in which she worked in order to “make it lighter” according to the magazine:
Basically, the question is not whether you believe independent doctors and researchers, who have nothing to gain from warning you about the serious side effects of the vaccine such as myocarditis, and putting their good name and careers at risk to do so, or the Ministry of Health officials, some of whom at least are in significant conflicts of interest and not declaring it.
The question is do you choose to believe the Ministry of Health … or the Ministry of Health?
Do you choose to believe the Ministry of Health 15.7.2020:
“Corona disease can cause long-term disabilities even in young and healthy populations, and even in those who have suffered only a mild disease … myocarditis is a complication in some corona patients … Following inflammation, myopathy of the heart muscle may develop, accompanied by some cardiac disorders … It is possible that these damages are in some cases even irreversible.”
Or the Ministry of Health 1.6.2021: “There is a likelihood of a link between receiving a second dose of vaccine and the onset of myocarditis …. The link is stronger in young people aged 16-19 relative to other ages … In most cases it is a mild disease that passes within a few days.”
Mild illness or irreversible damage ???
Anyone who still believes the information coming out of the Ministry of Health in the context of Corona or the experimental genetic therapy mistakenly called “vaccination”, or at all, is welcome to ponder this a little more.
When you lie without a break and the lies get complicated
Source for document of Ministry of Health from 15.7.7.20 (in Hebrew):
Chapter written by two doctors influenced by Ivan Illich on the topic — from the book “Science, hegemony and violence: A Requiem for Modernity” .
SK writes:
Probably the most noteworthy aspect of the text are all the examples of doctors refusing treatments for themselves, on the basis of the cure being worse than the disease, which are routinely prescribed for ignorant laypersons.
Some interesting comments from an interview with the editor of that book. Particularly noteworthy here is the proposal that not merely the context (capitalism, say) but the text of science itself is problematic, and his relation between officially sanctioned dissent (eg. most leftist criticism of unequal access to vaccines), widely tolerated, and dissent relating to the basic assumptions of the game (eg. radical critique of modern science and medicine), suppressed as lunatic.
´I became interested in the culture of science itself. The question of properly scientific creativity and the destructiveness of science…The psychology of politics had already taken me in that direction of understanding violence. And ultimately this became a kind of swing and my increasing preoccupation came to be with the sources of human creativity and destructiveness. This led to my more general investigations on the destructiveness of science and a search for a radical critique of science that would focus not only on the critique of its ‘faulty’ context but would examine the very text of science itself. I found it increasingly difficult to believe that it was merely the context that accounted for its problems and that there was some thought police guarding the borders of the text itself, as it were. That took me to different kinds of knowledge systems which had different kinds of starting points and different baselines…different points of departure…One, that in the ultimate analysis, dominance is not ensured through political economy, though it manifests itself through it; it is also not ensured through superior technology a point made in “Witches, nurses and midwives” regarding the hegemony of modern medicine. It is mainly ensured through categories. If you can generate categories which marginalize the categories of others, then you have forced them to play your game. And as long as that can be ensured, you can be pretty sure that your dominance will not be challenged, because that game is yours.
…
Take for instance, something like healing systems…We take recourse to these traditional systems all the time. But at the same time there is a healthy and robust skepticism regarding these – all healing systems – often expressed in common Sanskrit saying that circulate at a popular level, to the effect that the vaidya a traditional healer kills by the hundreds, while the doctor kills in thousands. This robust skepticism began to fascinate me because I noticed that this skepticism was absent in modern medical culture. One third of all medical reference in North America are iatrogenic – that is one third of all diseases reported are either drug induced or doctor induced.
Not that there is no skepticism in the mainstream medical culture…but that’s repressed. Ivan Illich has given some instances and Manu Kothari too has given some very telling examples…For instance, one of the instances he has given is that of surgeons who operate on intestinal ulcers. The rate of surgeons prescribing surgery to themselves or to their family members is one-third the rate they prescribe to others and these are cases of elite hospitals. In fact one survey says very explicitly that by standard medical conventions, doctors would routinely under-prescribe drugs for themselves and their kind and similar is the case also with surgical interventions. So I became interested in this…I began to think that talking of a science like medicine…It enjoys a kind of sanctity and once you say that ‘science says this’ then everybody takes it as gospel truth. So this is one kind of way in which the text is also contaminated.
…
All large, dominant systems also create a space for dissent – in a kind of ‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’ style – using the same language, same conventions, to establish that dissent is sane, normal, reasonable and well intentioned. But I don’t think that the oppressed have any obligation to follow the rules of the game – and they do not. In a society where such sanctioned forms of dissent are prevalent, there will of course, be people in large numbers who will go towards them, but there will always be people who defy these and try to subvert the given mode of dissent and of course, they will not be seen as dissenters; they will be seen as lunatics. They will be seen as being outside the ken of conventional rights granted to dissenters. So for instance, sixty percent of the Americans believe today that torture is justified, especially, say while dealing with a ‘terrorist’ who apparently knows about an impending terrorist attack. Obviously, terrorism – rightly or wrongly, that is not the point – happens to represent then a new kind of dissent. The kind that does not conform to laid out criteria and there is always a scope that such dissent also represents a search for a different kind of world and challenges the dominant in a much more radical fashion – and the real test of tolerance and democracy comes there.´
As for “All large, dominant systems also create a space for dissent – in a kind of ‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’ style – using the same language, same conventions, to establish that dissent is sane, normal, reasonable and well intentioned. But I don’t think that the oppressed have any obligation to follow the rules of the game – and they do not. In a society where such sanctioned forms of dissent are prevalent, there will of course, be people in large numbers who will go towards them, but there will always be people who defy these and try to subvert the given mode of dissent and of course, they will not be seen as dissenters; they will be seen as lunatics. They will be seen as being outside the ken of conventional rights granted to dissenters.”
See this astounding piece of scientific research: “Sociopathic traits linked to not wearing a mask or social distancing during pandemic: study” www.cnbc.com/2020/09/02/study-refusal-t…
Also, according to this piece by the NY Times, “critical thinking isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation”, so just read what you’re told is true and don’t worry about it: www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake…
SK writes:
Key sentence — “Antisocial personality disorder occurs in about 1% of the U.S. population, and is more common in men. “
When the occupy movement chanted we are the 99%, this is who they were aiming at. And this 1% are certainly not protesting against covid measures.
T. writes:
“Science can’t be seen to change (it has: but don’t tell the public) …which is why the parameters of the dialogue are so tightly controlled. If the paradigm of science changes: all other paradigms have to shift to accommodate it. That is because the principles of the scientific paradigm are the foundation of all other paradigms. And the foundational principle of control.
If all paradigms shift – as Thomas Kuhn made clear – we will be living in a new world. One with us included in it. The regimes of power and knowledge require we are excluded by scientism and historicism. You would not want love, compassion, altruism, and socialised communities of mutual aid ruining two and a half millennia of the ruling value-ethics of individual rationalisation of greed, would you now?”
(from the comments section of OffGuardian, about a year ago)
“Richard Lewontin is a prominent scientist — a geneticist who teaches at Harvard — yet he believes that we have placed science on a pedestal, treating it as an objective body of knowledge that transcends all other ways of knowing and all other endeavours.“Science is a social institution,” he writes in this collection of essays, which began their life as CBC Radio’s Massey Lectures Series for 1990. “Scientists do not begin life as scientists, after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure, and they view nature through a lens that has been molded by their social experience … Science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and vices of society at each historical epoch.” In Biology as Ideology Richard Lewontin examines the false paths down which modern scientific ideology has led us. By admitting science’s limitations, he helps us rediscover the richness of nature — and appreciate the real value of science.”
SK writes: In Biology as Ideology Richard Lewontin examines the false paths down which modern scientific ideology has led us. By admitting science’s limitations, he helps us rediscover the richness of nature — and appreciate the real value of science.
SF: Not directly related to Covid, but still pertinent. A section of his book about DNA can be found here on this site.
5/7/21:
Israel: as expiry dates on vaccines approaches, propaganda to vaccinate kids intensifies (sent by email)
T.writes:
One of the reasons (perhaps the main one) for the rush to vaccinate 12-5 year olds in Israel his last month, with the renewed obsession with PCR testing everyone (especially children) and the renewed fear campaign full of disinformation and blatant lies, is that there’s a stock of the vaccines that’s gonna expire very soon (I think they said around 9/7, although some officials claimed that the expiration date can be somehow prolonged, without really explaining it). But what do you know? They may have found a solution: giving this stock as a third shot for vaccinated adults and 16+s . This may have to do with the fact that despite the massive contradictory propaganda for vaccinating your children so they will not infect adults – with a vaccination that doesn’t prevent infection and infecting others – there wasn’t enough enthusiasm on behalf of parents to vaccinate their kids. We already saw in the Belgian documentary that I sent how before the vaccination campaign started the EMA purchased something like 1.8 billions of vaccines (maybe I don’t remember accurately), which they probably won’t want to waste either… From what I understand from the contradictory statements of different actors such as the new Prime Minister and some of the so-called Health journalists – it’s pretty obvious that Pfizer will provide more vaccines when needed. So when the Prime Minister is directly urging children in a recent video to get vaccinated “before it’s too late and the vaccines are expired and you won’t be able to” – it’s probably a maneuver to create panic and to rush people, whether the current stock of vaccines is really going to expire or not (about which I’m not really sure).
This screenshot from Israeli news says:
“A third Corona shot already in the next few days?”
“If the third vaccine is approved: Hundreds of vaccines will not be thrown away“
I’ve reproduced this article because you can only access the whole of it if you pay for it. It’s about how hospitals in the US fought hard, hiring expensive law firms, at times going to extraordinary lengths to refuse treatment using ivermectin even with dying patients who’d exhausted all other options, and even though ivermectin had been shown to be very helpful in aiding recovery in the patients who were then subsequently refused it. Also about how this potential Covid-19 treatment has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populists.
“At Edward-Elmhurst hospital in Chicago, a 68 year-old named Nurije Fype was admitted, put on a ventilator, and again, as all other treatments failed, her family got a judge to order the use of ivermectin. Lorigo claims the hospital initially refused to obey the court order, which led to the filing of a contempt motion, which in turn led to a pair of counter-motions and another confrontation before another befuddled Judge named James Orel. “Why wouldn’t this be tried if she’s not improving?” the Chicago Tribune quoted Orel as saying. “Why does the hospital object to providing this medication?” “He basically said, ‘What do you have left?’” Lorigo recounts. “No one would administer the ivermectin. It’s as safe as aspirin, for Christ’s sake. It’s been given out 3.7 billion times. I couldn’t understand it.””
English subs (man-made, not auto-generated) available if you choose it in the options.
It’s not the Society of the Spectacle or anything, and is made in the common fashion of documentaries of that sort, but still provides good insights into how different players played their role (notably the media, but also the virologists), and manages not to be hysterical or sensationalist.
SF: Although the perspective is far from being a radical critique and doesn’t say much that’s new, it brings together lots of aspects of the situation that are usually considered separately, and in doing so generates a feeling of thoughtful anger that makes it well worth watching. Most interesting bit for me was an interview with a doctor who worked in an Intensive Care Unit who was sacked merely for his critical views, just in the middle of an epidemic when hospitals apparently needed people like him the most. Amongst other things, this doctor pointed out that the immune system is very sensitive to fear. Another interesting bit was the fact that in Belgium they used young good-looking actors with make-up supposedly on ventilators in ICUs to convey the image of the virus attacking young people. It also talks about a Ministry of Health press conference and extensive headlines about a 3-year-old dying of Covid, when the child was already dying of neuromuscular disease when she caught Covid. The father’s complaints about the child being instrumentalised for propaganda purposes were ignored. Also the irony of Facebook allowing Flat Earthers to share their delerium but discussions about Covid outside of the consensus are censored. And another thing: a government adviser suggested that 50 additional cases a day should mean the continuation of Covid regulations and no “return to normal”, when very often there are 150 new cases of flu a day without any restrictions (though this is not entirely comparable as Covid is proportionally more fatal than flu, though maybe that’s because severe cases of flu are usually treated with anti-virals, whereas Covid isn’t).
“Many people must have invested such money in a small enterprise in an attempt to make some money at the end of the year in order to try to survive in the hard times that will come. These people saw such source of income disappear and were left without any alternative. For these reasons, and not because of pandemic denialism or stupidity, but out of sheer necessity, that there was a crowd of workers together with business owners in downtown Manaus on December 26 blocking traffic during the whole day in several roads and making barricades until the governor retreated….the foundation and form of the movement is that it is not made of manipulated and ignorant people, and that it has some roots among urban workers and considers itself legitimate….When the movement speaks about the “balance between economy and health” it is talking about a simple reality: it is not possible to stay at home and take care of people’s health without the proper conditions. Why was it necessary to carry out demonstrations, close highways and make barricades for the governor and the mayor to take these basic measures that minimally help people to stay at home? People need to eat and need to take care of their health. Those things cannot be in opposition to one another A lockdown without social and economic protection measures is a repressive farce. People will revolt against such a situation — and it will be a legitimate revolt.”
Many protests today, and even historically, have had an element of cross-class composition. Few movements don’t involve, in some way, elements that have interests outside of and against attempts to confront the miseries imposed by capital and the state. Which is certainly not a reason to dismiss them but is a reason to point out the dangers inherent in not challenging such contradictions. The stupidity of those who insist on lockdown across the board is that it’s a “one-size-fits-all” top-down imposition not, by any means, always applicable and an invariably hierarchical imposed constraint. No-one with any sense wants people to have to work in unhealthy conditions that could threaten their lives (even though many have done so before, and continue to do so during, the Covid epoch) but all “solutions” within the logic of this society, which itself created the health aspect of what is fundamentally a social problem and exacerbated it in the first place, not only aren’t solutions but invariably impose miseries and confused responses that have almost no possibilities of leading to going beyond the false choices imposed by capitalism, a perspective that mainly needs to be developed from critiquing equally lockdown and simplistic anti-lockdown reactions. This is not something that will come from “the Left”, of which this text wants to consider itself a part – the text says “It is up to the left to … demand social protection measures in order to reassure the protection of the health of poor people who depend on their own economic activities.”. If the state comes to offer “social protection measures” it will only be for reasons that have nothing to do with the welfare of the poor – either as a means of pacifying and recuperating revolt, or because it needs a relatively healthy workforce for other reasons such as fighting a war. If revolt is strong enough to force the state to reverse its neoliberal perspectives it would equally be strong enough to establish the basis for the development of a non-capitalist form of social life: yet again allowing the state to buy time by accepting the provision of some form of Welfare State would be to allow history to repeat itself (see “the welfare state isn’t now, and never was, a “genuine gain for the working class”). Such a mirage of victory would only be temporary and giving in to it would allow our enemies to go on to reverse it as they’ve done before.
Almost invariably “the Left” has been thoroughly abject in its inability and fear of questioning anything other than the most obvious during this Covid epoch, though perhaps this text expresses a slight exception to this general trend. But the inability and fear of questioning anything other than the most obvious has been its historic comportment for more or less a century, representing proletarian critique in lieu of actually contributing to it. And now in this Covid epoch most of the Left, “libertarian” or otherwise, don’t even begin to represent discontent: most merely echo the dominant discourse.
Also see these from earlier phases of this madness: Letter from a comrade in China (March 2020) & Social Contagion (February 2020) (I have minor qualms about what could be interpreted as some nostalgia for welfare state capitalism, but it’s not explicit and is not in any way the main aspect of this text; for a critique of welfare state capitalism see this)
Much of the following is probably pertinent more to France than to other countries. This might well be due to the fact that there seems to be marginally more skepticism amongst the French towards Covideologies than in many other countries and that France has a marginally greater history of recent resistance to the state than many other countries.
On French TV recently a man critical of the propaganda moving towards making the vaccination programme compulsory mentioned the Nuremberg Code and was immediately shouted down, and prevented from speaking, by some ignorant journalists saying how dare he compare the current situation with the Nazis. What this guy was trying to talk about was the Nuremberg Code on medical ethics, dated 1947, and not the 1945-46 trial of Nazi leaders.
A few days later on the same channel a journalist and and an economist went ballistic, suggesting that those who haven’t been vaccinated should not have the same rights as those who have been, that they should be sequestrated and even sent to prison. Meanwhile, France’s Minister of Health has threatened to contact all GPs to provide the Ministry with a list of all their patients who have not been vaccinated. So much for the Hippocratic Oath. Vaccinationavirus has clearly surpassed pandemic proportions. Even an apparently anti-state marxist – S.Artesian – is infected with it, advocating mandatory vaccination. This makes all of those infected with the Vaccinationavirus even worse than the Council of Europe that on 28th January this year at least said that there should be no social or professional discrimination against anyone refusing the available vaccines, though this clearly contradicts the introduction of France’s “passe sanitaire”– the “Health Passport”, increasingly being used for events such as concerts or other gatherings this society promotes endlessly as an apparent source of pleasure. Under the reign of the “health emergency” the state is obviously developing an unprecedented totalitarianism, not as crude as Nazism or Stalinism, but invading aspects of life that these archaic forms of capitalist social control hadn’t dared or even thought they could invade. The result is more a gulag of people’s critical capacity, the imprisonment of their ability to even marginally think and act for themselves rather than literal concentration camps. Those whom the state wish to destroy they first drive mad with confusion.
Much of these developments conflict – at least at a superficial level – with the 1947 Nuremberg Code. The court established in 1947 was American, without the participation of the three other powers whohad been a party tothe first Nuremberg trials in 1945. Previously, for example, in the second half of the 19th century hospital researchers in Lyon used abandoned orphans as guinea pigs without any misgivings. And in French Indochina Alexandre Yersin, one of the heads of the Pasteur Institute, inoculated the bacillus plague into Cochin-Chinese prisoners. About a year ago 2 high-ups in the state-run INSERM (France’s state organisation that tests and then allows or disallows medical products to be used by the general public) suggested that vaccines should be experimented with in Africa on Africans. They had to withdraw their comments a few days later after denunciations of racism but not on the basis of conflicting with the Nuremberg Code.
The code was intended to prohibit the type of medical experiments that had taken place in the Nazi camps. At least the most unsupportable onesbecause many of them were an integral part, from the end of the 18th century at least, ofexperimental medicine, including in the territory of modern nation states, such as the United States, and in theircolonies. The Nuremberg Code presented Nazi medicine as the infamous exception to the general rule of medical ethics, the famous oath attributed to Hippocrates. A falsification that misses out how defenders of the followers of Dr. Mengele* at the trial occasionally reminded people of the experiments still being carried out at the time in the United States. Such as the Tuskegee Study, which allowed dozens of black sharecroppers to die from untreated syphilis. They gave them stuff such as hot meals etc. in exchange for being guinea pigs. Similar things are happening now in places such as Israel: for example, municipalities are giving away treats for children such as ice-cream, movie tickets etc. with posters, designed to look like it’s all a bit of fun, inviting and encouraging them to be vaccinated.
Between the 1950s and 1970s, during an outbreak of hepatitis Dr. Saul Krugman deliberately infected healthy children at Willowbrook School for the “mentally retarded”, New York, with the hepatitis virus reasoning “that it was justifiable to inoculate retarded children at Willowbrook with hepatitis virus because most of them would get hepatitis anyway”.Similarly, between 1951 and 1974 Dr. Albert Kligman subjected nearly a thousand inmates of Holmsburg Prison, Pennsylvania, to toxic chemicals in order to see how skin reacted to them. He said “All I saw before me were acres of skin…It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time.” An example of how objective bourgeois science is: it sees people as objects, as mere acres of skin, as things. The thing is, people aren’t. And anyone with a bit of sense would see that the current vaccination programme is similar to these previous forms of functionalising people, and that its “one-size-fits-all” methods and mentality are utterly and dangerously indifferent to differences, that as guinea pigs they are being merely used as a means to an end totally out of their control, to the profit of capital. And acceptance of this logic makes individuals incapable of seeing, or even wanting to see, whether vaccination is pertinent for them or not, let alone capable of informing themselves of potential risks and/or benefits.
The Nuremberg Code stated that “some types of medical experiments on human beings, when they are inscribed within reasonably well-defined limits, conform to the ethics of the medical profession in general”. The judges justified their positions “on the basis that such experiences produce results for the good of society, which are impossible to obtainby other methods or means of study” [i].In addition, the code specified that such rules of ethics only applied to“the territory of the States concerned”. This amounted to authorizing thesaid States to continue to use the territories they controlled around the world, beginningwith their colonies, as fields for medical experimentation.
From such rules of commercial morality, all that was left was toquantify, as closely as possible, the degree of suffering acceptable and accepted in the name of “the progress of the human condition”. This is why the judges accepted the very idea of hierarchically-directed human experimentation, not to mention animal experimentation which obviously did not pose anyproblem of conscience. They laid down “the fundamental principles”to be observed “in order to respond to moral, ethical and legal concepts”, namely: “The experimentmust be based on the voluntary and enlightened consent of the human subject” …“The experiment should be conducted in such a way that all unnecessary suffering and all physical and mental harm is avoided” …“The level of risks to be taken should never exceed that of the humanitarian importance of the problem whichthe experiment should solve”, etc.Given that the notion of “humanitarian importance” in the context of conventional, and conventionally uncritical, medical practice is that of the state and capital, the Nuremberg Code left the door open to a lot of experiments, in laboratories and elsewhere, carried out by the wo/men in white coats and de facto contrary to the tables of bioethics law that were supposed to sanction it. As Guy Vallancien, Professor at the Descartes University, Paris, and a member of the Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine, declared at a congress in 2016, in Montpellier: “Ethics are only the mirror of the evolution of a society, it comes after, it is not the spearhead. If we put it before cold and amoral science, we would stop everything.”
In addition, the notion of “informed and voluntary consent of the subject”, posed in terms of formalistic legal terms, evades de factothat of the content. Firstly, even though the tests were, and remain, carried out by experimenters who underline its uncertain and even sometimes dangerous character, how can human guinea pigs grasp theirnuances, modalities and consequences? They can only do so in vague probabilistic terms. Ultimately, most people, lacking any intricate knowledge, can only take medical knowledge at itsword. Because where there are so-calledsubjects, there are also masters. The conventions that followed Nuremberg, such as that of Helsinki in 1964, only refined the Code further and insisted, at a formal level, on taking into account “exceptions”, in particular those concerning “voluntary consent” by introducing the idea that the experiment could be accepted by those legally responsible for the human guinea pigs, such as minors, sick or not, or those incapable of making decisions for themselves! [ii] We can see in the current epoch a development from using those at the margins or bottom of “polite society”‘s hierarchy (orphans, prostitutes, the mentally retarded, prisoners, etc.) as guinea pigs to using the whole population as guinea pigs**. That’s progress!
It is clear that the fear of dying, sometimes for people on borrowed time, often plays the role of the decisive factor in the acceptance of the proposals of the experimenters and the rules of bioethics which are supposed to frame their actions. This, in the current situation, despite the chances of the vaccine hastening the death of people with a short life expectancy, something which is kept largely unspoken of in the dominant media [iii]. “Of all the passions, fear is the one that most assures submission to laws”, as Thomas Hobbes affirmed in Leviathan[iv]. In normal, pre-Covid circumstances, individuals tested by laboratories are, as a rule, paid, which in France is legal, at least outside the hospital setting. Which explains why they have been from the poorest sections of the population. In the current Covid epoch nobody is paid – the world is a costless risk-free laboratory for the pharmaceutical companies (the various states, rather than the companies themselves, cover any potential cost of legal compensation for “adverse effects” such as death, though unscientific and purely anecdotal evidence suggests that compensation for death has not been much genuine compensation for the victim).
Aspects of all this is being made abundantly clear in the current vaccination programme, for which the 3rd stage of the trial has not been restricted to, say, 30,000 volunteers but has been spread to the whole world. In fact, the 3rd stage officially doesn’t end until 2022 for some of the vaccines and 2023 for others. Moreover, in extending the gap between first dose and the second from 3 weeks to 3 months, and in allowing different vaccines for the 2nd dose from the 1st one (eg Moderna for the first, Pfizer for the 2nd), the powers-that-be are using the world as its laboratory in ways that even go against a scientific protocol that is already suspect. And Pfizer has also gone against its own protocol in giving the vaccine to psychologically vulnerable children.
The notion of “informed consent” is now a sick joke: 99.9% of information is that which the state and capital permits. This is especially so given the current rampant censorship on Facebook, Youtube, Vimeo and elsewhere. And the rest of the 0.1% is automatically parodied as “conspiracy theory” or “anti-vaxxer”, regardless of whether it fits into these categories or not.
This French text says that France’s“Minister of Health, in a letter to the President of the CNOM [Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins – National Council of the Order of Doctors], relieves doctors of the responsibility to inform patients of the risks of vaccination. I quote: “Doctors cannot be held liable on the grounds that they have provided insufficient information to patients about adverse effects unknown at the time of vaccination”. What are we to think of doctors’ knowledge on the subject, when they are only entitled to one source of information, the official one, any other being vilified or censored. The official information? That of the only laboratories already multiply condemned for having hidden side effects in other cases. Moreover, the information is watered down by the authorities. An example: the messenger RNA remains in the deltoid muscle, according to Inserm and the authorities. What did Pfizer and Moderna write in their studies that the authorities did not mention? “We found elements of the vaccine in all organs, including reproductive ones”. So how “informed” is consent? When a vaccinator tells patients that vaccines are safe, made like others from attenuated viruses, is the person in charge who must enlighten others well informed? Our Minister, the same one, has just threatened to make vaccination compulsory for carers in nursing homes if they do not vaccinate more. In “informed consent”, there is the word “consent”. What is consent under threat, under blackmail? Is it consent? Moreover, what scientific and medical justification is there for this blackmail when 90% of the residents are vaccinated and therefore protected? (Remember that the vaccine is 98% effective…). Are we in the spirit of the Nuremberg Code? It specifies in its first article that: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person concerned must have the legal capacity to consent; that he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other underhand forms of constraint or coercion.” In the above-mentioned letter, the Minister also talks about compensation for victims of the CVI vaccine. Usually, it is the laboratory that is responsible for the consequences of what it markets, so it is careful before launching its product on the market. In this case, the state has entered into a contract with the laboratories, “taking responsibility” for liability and compensation for any consequences. The laboratories therefore have fewer precautions to respect, their portfolio will not suffer in case of shortcomings. They have already been fined billions of euros in recent years for withholding information and defects, but this does not prevent our authorities from not only trusting them with their eyes closed, but also from relieving them of their responsibilities.”
Some of this article comes from “Des souris et des gènes” (“Of mice and genes”) by André Dréan, though the wording is entirely mine.
“ 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.”
Footnotes
* In January 1937, the same year he joined the Nazi party, Mengele joined the Institute for Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene in Frankfurt, where he worked for Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a German geneticist with a particular interest in researching twins. Mengele focused on the genetic factors that result in a cleft lip and palate, or a cleft chin. His thesis on the subject earned him a cum laude doctorate in medicine (MD) from the University of Frankfurt in 1938, the same year he joined the SS. It’s generally thought, in the scientific world, that Mengele’s published works were in keeping with the scientific mainstream of the time, and would probably have been viewed as valid scientific efforts even outside Nazi Germany. Why mention this? Because there are some people who think that accuracy and correct evidence-based papers are the essential criteria for judging science, and the practical uses of such ideas are something separate.
i Here they affirmed the classic ideology ofBenthamite utilitarianism, takingas their criteria the morality and legislation of “the happiness of the greatest number”, even if this means, in case of “necessity”, the misfortune inflicted on the “smallest number possible”.He claimed to be able to calculate the ratio between joys and penalties from the perspective of statisticians (like Petty), the combination of individual interests resulting in the common interest of society, and therefore that of the State.
ii For example, currentexperiments instem cell therapy on toddlers, or experiments presented as their prerequisites, with the sometimes enormous risks that they involve, are tolerated and even encouraged within such a code.
** It’s worth pointing out that arbitrary sections of the population – not just those at the bottom of the hierarchy – have secretly been subject at times to experimentation, though not on such a grand scale, nor openly and publicly. Although not directly related to medical science at all, Operation LACin the 1950s, involved the US military spraying whole ares of the USA (and even Britain) with Zinc cadmium sulfide, whose long-term or repeated exposures have harmful effects on the kidneys, bones, and respiratory tract, resulting in kidney impairment, osteoporosis, and chronic inflammation of the respiratory tract. This was done to test dispersal patterns and the geographic range of chemical or biological weapons. Means and ends in perfect harmony!
iii https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372“People with a very short life expectancy have little to gain from being vaccinated…, noting a genuine risk that the time of death will be brought forward and that they will experience adverse reactions to the vaccine in the last days of their life. The benefits of vaccination for very frail people with very short life expectancy should therefore be carefully assessed against the associated risks, and it may often be better not to vaccinate”. Despite this, it seems that the part of the Nuremberg code which says “Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death” is mostly being ignored.
ivLeviathan , published in 1651, the year the radical tendencies (to which Hobbes was totally hostile) in the English Civil War were crushed. Hobbes defined the bases of the sovereignty of the modern state, born out of the counter-revolution.
***
The following extracts from a paper written by K, is also relevant given the context of a critique of the separation between ethics and science, even though this does not refer to medical science:
“By the late 1800’s, declining soil fertility in Europe drove both scientific research and imperialist land grabs. The search for a means of chemically fixing atmospheric Nitrogen, the main component of what would become Ammonia based fertilizer, was the holy grail of modern Chemistry. The process which broke the deadlock, and which is still in use today, was named the Haber-Bosch process after the two men who created and refined it. The former, Frtiz Haber, invented the laboratory-based method and the latter, Carl Bosch, was responsible for its engineering on an industrial scale. Both men were employees of the German chemicals company Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik, or BASF.
Within the first two years of the longer-than-expected war with France and Russia, the Deutches Heer was in desperate need of both food and munitions due to the Entente’s naval blockade of German ports. By increasing the productivity of domestic German agriculture and supplying a ready source of the Nitric Acid used in explosives, the Haber-Bosch process provided for both necessities and considerably prolonged the war. In 1932, Carl Bosch reflected, “I have often asked myself whether it would have been better if we had not succeeded. The war perhaps would have ended sooner with less misery and on better terms. Gentlemen, these questions are all useless. Progress in science and technology cannot be stopped”(Hayes 356). Not only was Bosch’s work directly responsible for the massive death toll, the shell shocked and amputated generation which resulted from the first war, but for Bosch these outcomes were of secondary importance to the progress of technology. Bosch’s motivations and intentions can be described solely in terms of scientific development, industrial and commercial efficiency, and managerial efficacy. …
Bosch’s complicity in the horror of war does not end there. Due to his success with Ammonia synthesis Bosch was promoted to chairman of BASF. His ambitions in the service of progress would lead him to play an instrumental role in the creation of the world’s first iteration of the military-industrial complex, and the largest chemical company of its time, the German conglomerate IG Farben. Under Bosch’s leadership, IG Farben developed Coal Hydrogenation, a chemical process for synthesizing gasoline similar in nature to Ammonia synthesis, as well as the means of producing synthetic rubber. …
Before the armament of the German war machine, before the industrial planning behind occupations in the Ukraine and France, before the development, production and sale of Zyklon B to the Schutzstaffel or the construction of a synthetic rubber factory next to Auschwitz, IG Farben executives Carl Bosch and his protégé Carl Krauch were intimately familiar with death and destruction. In 1921, an explosion of the BASF/IG Farben chemicals plant at Oppau killed 561, wounded 2000, and left 7,000 homeless (Hayes 358). Under the direction of Krauch, the plant was restored to full production capacity in three months’ time. This prefigurative insensitivity to the human costs of industry pales in comparison to the efficient slaughter of the holocaust. Additionally, after the incident at Oppau there was no equivalent of the Nuremberg trials to assign blame and hang the judged. And yet, this more socially acceptable collateral damage of progress exposes the moral vapidity of Bosch’s justifications precisely because of its inherency to industrial production. If progress cannot be stopped, then the pile of bodies in front of and behind it must not be accounted for.
After the conclusion of the second war, IG Farben was broken up into its constituent parts including BASF and its pharmaceutical equivalent, Bayer [v]. The global center of Ammonia synthesis moved from Germany to a former forced subsidiary of IG Farben, the Norwegian company and BASF competitor Norsk Hydro. Today, Norsk Hydro is known to the world as YARA and its North American operations produce more synthetic ammonia than any other company on the planet. Bayer, the former chemical weapons manufacturer, heroin distributor, and co-founder of IG Farben, currently owns Monsanto and is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies. The scientific, industrial, and even corporate legacy of the Haber-Bosch process lives on.
While some scholars argue for the impossibility of feeding the world’s current and projected population without the chemical synthesis of Ammonia (Smil), others warn of its compounding detrimental effects which contribute to the existential crisis of an economy and way of life based on industry and petrochemicals. The continued concentration of Nitrogen in our soil and water creates toxic, abiotic conditions, and the release of Nitrous Oxide through the denitrification of Ammonia contributes to the greenhouse effect (Duke), to say nothing of the carbon dioxide produced during the synthesis process. In addition, the improper application of anhydrous ammonia, a common form of ammonia fertilizer, can result in evaporation leading to more pollution, seed destruction, skin blistering and lung tissue damage. In light of these facts, not even the increased food production associated with Bosch’s work can be judged as historically neutral. Here we have yet another outcome, the weight of which buries the intentions of its authors and traps our imaginations between mass starvation and inevitable environmental collapse. A dissection of the arguments around the false choices of petrochemical based industrial agriculture is the subject of its own essay, but the partisan role of corporate propagandists in the public conversation is central to this one.
…Monsanto promotes itself, not as a complicit harbinger of the end of the world, but as a source of life-giving nourishment whose products are necessary in a world with an ever-increasing human population. Contrary to this public relations presentation, in 2019, Monsanto was sued in civil court for, among other things, manipulating the scientific publishing process, colluding with government regulators, and infiltrating media outlets. In an incident which calls to mind Bernays’s infamous subversion of the suffragist movement with his “torches of freedom” media stunt (Century), Monsanto paid fake reporters to spread misinformation to real reporters and thus conscript legitimate media outlets in their propaganda war (Gillam). Never mind that Monsanto products, just like cigarettes, cause cancer. … a scientific pursuit which enabled war and genocide in the last century threatens the basis of life itself in the next.
The Nuremberg trials did not ultimately convict the German executives of IG Farben for their role in the holocaust. The massive quantities of an odorless particulate marketed as pesticide and sold to the Nazi bureaucracy were insufficient to justify a hanging (Jessbenger). The purported use for the pesticide was the maintenance of Jewish ghettos with their cramped conditions. At Nuremberg, this intention was judged as somehow less intrinsic to the outcome of the genocidal process than the gassing itself. It would seem that the authors of Allied military justice agreed with Bernays, unsurprisingly, more than Marx. In yet another noteworthy contortion of history, the patent for Zyklon B was held by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung mbH (“German Corporation for Pest Control”), or Degesch for short. Degesch being controlled by IG Farben and its parent company Degussa, which in turn was chaired by none other than Nobel laureate and German nationalist Jew, Fritz Haber. Haber notoriously attempted to create gold from seawater in order to pay German reparations for the first war. This modern alchemy was an ultimately unworkable proposition, the improbability of which is tempered by Haber’s equally ambitious success in creating explosives from thin air. Haber’s former collaborator Carl Bosch escaped the judgment of tribunals altogether, dying in obscurity of alcoholism and ill health in 1940. One of Bosch’s contemporaries and fellow IG Farben board members, NSDP party member Fritz ter Meer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_ter_Meer), was sentenced to a mere seven year’s imprisonment and upon his release was re-elected as chairman of Bayer.
Nuremberg raised the question of individual responsibility for social crimes and its utilitarian answers favored the likes of Meer and NASA’s Wernher von Braun. Significant numbers of its trials ended in acquittal and shockingly brief sentences. The rising authoritarianism, mass dislocation, hunger, disease and global conflict suggested by our continued non-responsive orientation to the degradation and collapse of our biosphere provides a parallel that meets the epic tragedies of the world wars in terms of scale if not in terms of historical judgement. Will future generations convene their own tribunals? Will they find any use for the technocrats and organizers of industrial death? Or will they decide to finally halt our steady forward march over the edge of a cliff? Only time will tell, but the isolation of intention from outcome demonstrated by previous generations has surely met its expiration date as a useful measurement of responsibility and value. Indeed, the critical examination of what we produce and how we produce it is a task to be undertaken with utmost urgency.”
“But what do these averages prove ? Only that one abstracts more and more from mankind, that one dismisses more and more real life…Averages are real offenses inflicted upon real, particular individuals.”
From the outset, the management of the Covid-19 epidemic by the authorities has been logically marked in our latitudes by a predominance of economic imperatives and the preservation of the social order, which even the much-invoked medical reason of the State no longer manages to conceal.
But what is also striking is that the infinite forms of self-organisation that could have arisen from individual singularities to face the virus and continue to act in spite of it, were immediately paralysed by the quicksand of contradictory recommendations and staggering figures: mortality and lethality rates, positivity rates, incidence rates, emergency room and reanimation occupancy rates, persistent antibody rates, re-infection rates… and so on. This highlights once again that by taking the field of the politics of large numbers rather than starting from oneself – with one’s doubts as well as one’s burning desires – the rethinking generally ends up getting bogged down in a managerial logic, where productive calculation quickly takes the place of life and its dispersive excesses. There are no thirty-six solutions to break the very pattern that presides over any statistical reduction of human complexity, to make uniqueness exist beyond averages and to recreate diversity by undoing the aggregates of data. This is the very terrain in which each individual is summoned to bow to a collective higher interest that must be rejected. It is the individual’s own sensitive relationship with life, death, illness, the risks to be taken, mutual aid, the stars to be picked, that must be defended in the face of the social demand to sacrifice it on the altar of quantity. Whether this quantity is called homeland, economy, common good… or even collective immunity.
If the medical method of statistical apprehension is certainly constitutive of the contemporary relationship with epidemics, as shown by the old debate between contagionists and infectionists during the Cholera epidemic of 1832 (some advocating that the disease is transmitted by contact with the sick, others by insalubriousness), it is not surprising that the medical method of statistical apprehension is not used, The first mathematical modelling based on the plague epidemic in India (1927), this authoritarian relationship that encapsulates singularities has even more distant roots. It could perhaps even be traced back to the origins of writing in Lower Mesopotamia, where this invention was not conceived as a means of representing language, but directly for the lowly purposes of administrative and commercial accounting, intrinsically linking the first numbers engraved on tablets to the emergence of state domination (with its need to enumerate, tax, measure, classify, uniformise, manage and discount). So much so that one might even wonder whether it was not with the very notion of calculation and the desire to quantify the world that the process of domesticating our senses began.
Today, it will surprise no one that in medical matters as in many others, this statistical policy of large numbers has become a master in the administration of our lives by the powerful, as the Covid-19 epidemic has once again revealed. In the case of the public approval of vaccines (and drugs), the criterion is quietly called the benefit/risk ratio, basing the studies on small, representative samples, from which extrapolations are then projected onto all of our fellow human beings, reducing living beings to a collection of more or less standardised and functional machines. Even if it means turning the world’s population into guinea pigs in a giant experimental laboratory with mixtures based on genetic chimeras, one of the current scientific miracles of which is not to prevent those vaccinated from being contaminated or contagious, but only from developing serious forms of the disease.
By the same token, in order to sort out vital, heavy, expensive, emergency or crisis care, between who might survive and who is no longer worth it anyway, statisticians in white coats assign personal scores to patients on a daily basis. These scores are of course not related to the complexity of each individual, which the hospital factory does not bother to consider anyway, but to the average probability of potential survival at the time of this decisive selection: there is the frailty score (from 1 to 9, with the last steps attributed according to “statistical life expectancy at 6 months”), the WHO score (from 1 to 4, for example based on the fact that one remains bedridden “more or less than 50% of the day”) and the GIR score (from 1 to 6, determining the level of dependence, linked to the fact that an individual can carry out a certain number of tasks “spontaneously, totally, correctly or usually”). It is this combination of scores, which is as performative as it is arbitrarily normative, that officially determines who can live or die, here between a Covid patient and a person who has suffered a car accident or a heart attack, and there between two Covid patients. This sorting is known as selection or prioritisation, and it is better to know the evaluation grids in advance in case of concern.
Of course, it is possible to point out that these management tools, which claim to be scientific and objective, are above all the reflection of a world which has driven out quality and the individual to the benefit of efficiency and mass, after having deprived each person of all autonomy, within an environment which is increasingly degraded and which, in turn, calls for a multiplication of crisis or emergency situations. And that when fear and death loom, it is certainly more reassuring for many to take refuge behind the known of the cold state rationality than to face the experimental unknown of individuals freely associated to face it. To which one could retort with a little smile, that when one has no pretension nor will to manage the existing shit on a level as global as that of a society, including in an alternative way, one can on the other hand self-organise to try to put an end to it.
* * *
Now, this authoritarian relationship of the quantitative does not only concern the immediate clinical management of the current unstable situation – which also involves the absolute priority given to Covid-19 over other serious illnesses with heavy consequences postponed in time, but also includes another dimension whose premises are barely glimpsed: the rapid adaptation of the state apparatus to an epidemic that is not ready to stop, creating a new type of sanitary and productive order marked for a little more than a year by an acceleration of the technological artificialisation of our lives.
Leaving aside China, which is too easily made into a convenient scapegoat, the very democratic South Korea, for example, established total contact tracing of the population in March 2020 by exploiting data such as bank statements, detailed telephone bills, geolocation history, public video surveillance images or information transmitted by administrations and employers during vast health surveys. The information is collected and then integrated into a national and freely accessible register, indicating the nationality of the persons, their age, their sex, the place of their medical visit, the date of their contamination, and more precise information such as their working hours, the respect of the wearing of masks in the metro, the stations used, the bars and massage parlours frequented. This is a fine example of the coupling of computer algorithms to build an epidemiological model and allow for optimal management by the authorities, complemented by compulsory individual quarantines, implemented via a geolocation application that rings and alerts the police directly if the individuals concerned move, or if their smartphone is switched off for more than 15 minutes, to form an ‘electronic fence’ around the plague sufferers, with random police calls and SMS notification to the neighbourhood of the presence of a contagious person.
As caricatural as this real-life example is, it is perhaps no coincidence that a senatorial report released in early June in France to outline some prospects for future epidemics (or “natural or industrial disasters, and terrorist attacks”) requiring mass confinement, has also just put forward some proposals in this direction. In the age of permanent connection, when everyone is already voluntarily walking around with an electronic bug in his or her pocket, and is gradually getting used to teleworking, telemedicine and distance learning, what better way to achieve this totalitarian dream of every digital democrat than to finally be able to deactivate a person’s computer, What better way to achieve this totalitarian dream of every digital democrat than to be able to remotely deactivate transport passes, turn smartphones into electronical bracelets (with selfies to the police to prove one’s presence) or issue/withdraw all kinds of different passes in the form of QR codes thanks to a centralised Crisis Data Hub?
For those who, for example, began to disguise themselves when they saw police drones patrolling during the Great Containment; for those who froze when they saw new devices for controlling bodies in public space, such as thermal detectors, travel certificates and vaccination certificates, added to the intrusive video surveillance cameras; for those who concluded more often than not that it was better to be alone and safe than accompanied by algorithmic nets. … it is certainly high time to look up at those great copper cables stretched across the sky or to bend over all those gullies where the chains of the twenty-first century are spinning under our feet at the speed of light.
Modified 22/6/21 to include the last month’s references to India, Covid and ivermectin
Much of this is Deepl translated
21/5/21:
Taken from The victories of ivermictin (the whole of which is in the entry for 21/5//21 here; the complete text compares India with France, Mexico, the Philipines, Portugal and South Africa)
By mid 2020, Uttar Pradesh in India was the first “country” (actually a state in India but with a population of 205 million, 3 times the size of France) to treat its population extensively with Ivermectin. Chiapas in Mexico did the same at about the same time.
In 2020, Uttar Pradesh had 7,800 deaths, compared to 65,000 here, which is 25 times less than us for the same population. A younger population, you may say, but the health conditions are much poorer, as we see today. Not all declared? Not to that extent! So to be fairer, let’s compare with another Indian state, like Delhi, which is 12 times less, and 3 times less than the country’s average. Same thing for Chiapas: with ivermectin, 4 times less deaths than the country average, 10 times less than Mexico City.
No one in the West was interested. Instead of seeing what was happening on a large scale, our authorities were quibbling about 2×12 studies, wondering whether they were published or not, whether the authors thought a few more guinea pigs were needed, without even looking at the results. Foolishness? Incompetence? Manipulation? I leave it to you to judge.
While 15 days ago everyone was talking about a catastrophe in India, a situation out of control, knowing that they had to deal with their second wave, I took the opposite viewand calmed things down.
What about after 2 weeks? While our “great specialists” were still announcing a few days ago that India would not reach its peak of contamination before several weeks (repeated everywhere like here), here is the curve of the contaminations in India, up to date yesterday: it is eight days since the peak seems to have been reached.
How is this possible, so quickly, in a country where barely 3% of the population has had its two doses of vaccine so far? Many states have followed Uttar Pardesh. Goa followed (in 15 days reduction of 58% in hospitalisations), asking the whole population to take Ivermectin, then Uttarakhand and others.
What do the curves look like in these states?
But WHO and Big Pharma are watching. The WHO issued statements advising against Ivermectin, and Gilead showered the country with Remdesivir, even though it was advised against by the WHO, at a 20-fold price reduction. Some states followed the WHO, such as Tamil Nadu. Here is what it looks like: no decline. If you want all these curves day by day, type on Google “Covid India”, and you immediately have the curves of cases and deaths for all countries. For India, just to the right of the country, you can select each state. You can also find other curves on Patrice Gibertie’s website.
As far as deaths are concerned, given the 15-day lag with cases, when we were at 3000/day, I thought the peak would be between 5 and 6,000, it will be less because it seems to have plateaued at around 4,000 for the last week.
If this continues, the peak of the Indian “catastrophe” is at the level of what we have been experiencing on average for the last 6 months, and will have lasted only 10 days. Let’s remember that we had a peak of 1000 deaths in 24 hours, that is to say 20,000 in relation to their population. Having said that, let’s remember that with this virus, everything can change from one day to the next, but it seems to have taken hold in the last 8 days….
…It would seem that to stop a wave, ivermectin alone (less than 3% of those vaccinated with 2 doses in India, 1.5% in Zimbabwe, 1% in South Africa), goes much faster than vaccines alone. 15 days for the first, several months for the other. Also our vaccines seem to have problems with the Indian variant, whereas ivemectin does not.
Not treating Covid in its early stages is like an oncologist waiting for metastases before starting cancer treatment, like a surgeon waiting for sepsis and peritonitis before operating on appendicitis. This is the medicine we practice today.
This report largely explains this by the fact that in growing up people are exposed to lots of viruses and have developed a very powerful resistance to them.
India: Covid and Ivermectin, continued.
Posted on 28 May 2021 by Gérard Maudrux
A month ago, all our “Covid specialists” and the press were rushing to India, like flies to vinegar. I had immediately taken the opposite view in a post on April 27, to explain that on the one hand their epidemiological situation (I’m not talking about their sanitary situation, which is bad, that’s another problem) was not worse than ours, on the contrary, and on the other hand I was saying that we had to wait a bit to see the result of the use of Ivermectin on a large scale, in the face of a powerful wave, of which it was said in France (as here) that the peak would not be reached for several weeks, whereas it had already passed!
Who was right? The alarmists? The defenders of Ivermectin? The result is there, resounding, indisputable. Yet not a word in the press, not a word from our specialists. No one wonders how the Indians, with fewer resources, have done ten times better than us. No one is trying to find out how to copy them or be inspired by them.
Here is the curve of new Covid cases in India, last updated on 27 May. You can see the peak of cases on the date I predicted, not after several weeks as announced, and then an extremely rapid drop. This drop is faster than their first wave, which was poorly treated, which was spread out but not as strong. And yet they have the Indian variant!
INDIA
When the governments of several states began to advise, or even distribute, Ivermectin, there was an offensive by the WHO, which issued communiqués saying that it did not advise Ivermectin, and by Gilead, which sprayed the country with Remdesivir at a derisory price without the international medical community being bothered, even though it knew that this drug was ineffective and dangerous. Ivermectin had to be countered.
The result is even more obvious when we compare the states that treat and those that do not, such as Tamil Nadu, which has decided to follow the WHO guidelines.
Here are the curves in states that treat extensively with ivermectin such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi. The former went from 37,900 cases at peak to 3,100 cases, the latter from 9,600 to 2,800 cases, the latter from 28,400 to 1,500 cases. Other states such as Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh show the same scores, which are proportional to the importance of Ivermectin use.
In contrast, Tamil Nadu, which bans the treatment, was at 11,000 cases when the others were at their peak, and is now at 35,100 cases (it seems to have reached a plateau).
Even more telling is a summary curve:
It should be noted that these results concern several hundred million inhabitants (Uttar Pardesh is 3 times the size of France), and are only obtained with early treatment, in a country where only 3% of the population has received its two doses of vaccine.
In France, on the other hand, we are pleased that our second wave has ended, “thanks to vaccination”. The comparison of the curves and the decreasing slopes is eloquent: 6 months on one side versus 1 month on the other. Peak at 56,000 cases on 3 November, for 13,933 yesterday.
FRANCE
These Indian curves, their media treatment 1 month ago and now, these results, illustrate the great manipulation of the French opinion about the possible treatments for Covid.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your reactions to the previous post, which touched me, and I hope that they will also have touched the Ordre des Médecins and will make it reflect on its attitude towards those who try to treat their patients. I repeat, we have an obligation of means, not necessarily of success. Not to try to treat, and especially to prevent others from trying to treat is unworthy of the profession, a fault, especially on the part of those who give lessons in deontology. They should also look at what doctors elsewhere are doing, and what their results are, results they don’t seem to want here.
As for your offers of help, thank you too. I did not accept because nothing will happen for a year, and if you invest today and nothing happens for months, you will wonder. We will talk about it again when the opportunity arises.
SF note:
Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply, or even more rationally – since you’re likely to recover after less than 10 days, 0.16 of a centime for 10 days) .
“ It is forbidden to know what is going on with the vaccine: vaccination information “is the property of the central ministry and should not be shared with any other organization, partner agency, press agency, public online forums and offline ”.“
This article in French is mainly about ivermectin, and says this about India:
“Another miracle is the day after day confirmation of what happened in India, in the states which used Ivermectin, with very rapid resolution of a wave announced by all the media as a disaster that was going to wreak havoc, the media which has since been silent on what is happening. Total blackout. Uttar Pradesh has fallen to less than 1000 cases / day, population 3 times the size of France, which would make 300 cases here, at a time when we are happy to go below 5,000 cases / day! Ditto in states like Delhi and Goa. These 3 states have reduced the cases by 98% compared to the peak at the end of April (37,000 cases for Uttar Pradesh, 28,000 for Delhi).
Since then there has been war in this country between the various national medical authorities under pressure from the WHO and Merck, with press releases authorizing or banning ivermectin. They have gone mad to see these results, but the responsible states do not budge and maintain their position. The Ministry of Health, after authorizing in a protocol, wants to now ban all early treatment. It should be noted in passing that the Minister of Health has been President of the WHO Executive Boardsince May 2020, and that the WHO immediately issued statements to advise against Ivermectin from the start of treatment, a complaint has also been made. filed on this subject, non-assistance to a person in danger is characterized. We then received a statement from the WHO congratulating itself on having intervened in this state to reduce the epidemic, by supervising 2,000 teams and distributing treatment kits, being careful not to say what was in them. Ivermectin, of course, but this product does not exist for the WHO. And more recently, we were treated to another victory press releaseafter the supposed ban (not yet very clear). The WHO, which congratulates itself when we do not give treatment, welcomes the ban on the treatments it has distributed. Incredible !
Finally, a quick comparison between a country that uses ivermectin, and a country that refuses it so as not to interfere with its vaccination campaign.
The figures are from Johns Hopkins University, they are the daily figures averaged over 7 days to avoid weekend breaks. These figures are reported per million inhabitants, to compare 2 countries with unequal populations. We can also see that the Indian wave, as I said since the first day, is much lower in intensity than what France was experiencing. We also see that ivermectin worked well on the Indian variant. Finally, some will tell you that the Indian figures are understated; if this is the case, it is of no importance here to follow an evolution over several months, the collection conditions being the same over the entire period. “
Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply or, even more logically since the disease can be cured in considerably less than 30 days, 0.16 cents for 10 days) . Ivermectin was discovered and developed by Satoshi Omurai who received a Nobel prize for it in 2015.
Ivermectin, India and demystification.
Posted on 17 June 2021 by Gérard Maudrux
What is annoying with the press is that when there are many cases they’re made into headlines, and after having built up the suspense, nothing more, we never get the denouement. It’s the same with Covid in India: they all get into it, they build up the pressure announcing “chaos, an epidemic out of control, India brought to its knees by Covid,…”, then now that the problem is solved, nothing more. There’s no mention of it, no mention of what happened, no desire to mention what happened.
A newspaper was launched, not to say what happened, but to deny what happened, in line with the official discourse: “ivermectin doesn’t work”, we have to anticipate so that some people can’t say it, and if it works on ivermectin, it means that there is something else underneath. On 10 June 2021, it was Le Figaro that opened the ball of disinformation, not to say revisionism.
The headline: “Has ivermectin enabled India to break the epidemic wave? “The sub-heading says: “Verification. Some people credit this drug with improving the health situation in India. Yet it is not recommended by international health authorities. What about it?” No one in the press has talked about it in an investigative journalistic way, and already journalists are beginning to contradict what is being said here and there. What are their arguments for denying the evidence or, at the very least, a hint of presumed effectiveness of ivermectin?
Yet the article in Le Figaro begins well: “In mid-March the pace quickens, at the end of April, in the middle of the storm, the Ministry and the health authorities include ivermectin in the treatment, and at the beginning of May, the number of daily cases begins to decrease”. We agree.
Then they go on to say, “this temporary correlation is not proof that ivermectin is effective”. Proof? Same rhetoric last year for hydroxychloroquine, which India has never stopped recommending. Then they cite Peru. And then “ivermectin is not recommended to prevent infection, and even if it worked, it would not reduce the number of new cases. Logically, therefore, the decline in cases in India cannot be attributed to the presumed effectiveness of this drug.” What logic? Reverse logic? What faulty reasoning, what epidemiological ignorance! If you distribute to all the sick, all the contact cases, all the population (like the state of Goa), there is no more active virus to transmit and therefore the epidemic ends.
“Note that the rate of reproduction of the epidemic had begun to decline even before ivermectin was recognised as a treatment by the Indian government.” But why didn’t they say so in the first place, since they knew the epidemic would decline? Why did they panic the world, why did they write that it would take many months, when the wave had ended before it began? This is WRONG, dead wrong. Firstly, this is not to mention that many Indian states did not care about the government’s decisions, they anticipated, and the government followed, not the other way round. Then: 379,000 cases on 28 April, the date cited by Le Figaro, peaking 10 days later at 410,000 cases. It was only on 9 May that the decline really began. Finally, journalists doubt the figures given by India, but when it suits them, they do not doubt their R0 (reproduction rate)!
And then, for lack of arguments, in order not to talk about India, they go back to the “poorly done studies”, to the in vitro study dear to Castafiore and Inserm, and the French Society of Pharmacology, they just forgot to quote the magazine Prescrire, to show that it doesn’t work in India! It didn’t work, because our “scientists” said it couldn’t work.
So why were the results in India so much better than here? Le Figaro obviously has some unquestionable explanations. “Two main elements can explain it. Since April several states have confined, and India has considerably increased the pace of vaccination. “We are being taken for fools, you are really being taken for fools, by putting forward vaccination as the cause of the epidemic downfall in India, a country where 3% of the population had received two doses. With our vaccination figures, 6 times higher (3% and 17% of the population, Le Figaro speaking of absolute values, ignoring the fact that India is 20 times more populated), I don’t understand why we have so many new cases, and why we haven’t gone negative! As for confinement in a poor and overpopulated country such as India, I have some doubts about its rigour and effectiveness. France has combined these two causes put forward by the Figaro (containment and vaccination), without using ivermectin. I’ll give you the result in pictures, it’s clear, except for those who don’t want to see.
Curve: Cases/day/million inhabitants, with identical starting point at 195 cases per day. India’s position is unfavourable because the epidemic is growing, France is pseudo-stable. India lockdown + ivermectin, vaccines 3%, France lockdown + vaccines 17% (2 dose vaccines, 1 June).
The icing on the cake, the height of journalistic stupidity that thinks it is addressing other fools (us): “the ultimate proof, if any were needed, that ivermectin has nothing to do with the improvement of the health situation in India: the Indian Minister of Health published new recommendations on 7 June… without ivermectin”. No, gentlemen of the Figaro (a lady in this case), the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of ivermectin cannot be decreed. The proof? We recommend Doliprane, but that doesn’t mean it works! This is exactly what the Figaro is demonstrating. No credible argument in this article, but they affirm, and the one who argues against it is called a conspiracy theorist.
A study conducted in the Allier and Puy-de-Dôme regions of France among 90 children in the second and third grades indicates that confinement [lockdown] has had a strong impact on their weight and breath, laying the groundwork for future chronic diseases. Their cognitive abilities dropped by 40%. …. The effects of the successive confinements linked to the Covid-19 pandemic are worrying, according to a study carried out on 90 second and third graders in schools in Vichy, in the Allier region, and Riom, in the Puy-de-Dôme region, in September 2019 and September 2020. “The figures are catastrophic”, says Martine Duclos, head of the sports medicine department at the Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, who heads the National Observatory of Physical Activity and Sedentariness (Onaps) and coordinates this work, the preliminary results of which have been submitted for publication. In one year, the body mass index (BMI, weight divided by height squared), a reflection of corpulence, increased by 2 to 3 points on average. “We’ve never seen anything like this,” says the specialist. Sporty children, with no health problems or weight problems, have put on 5 to 10 kg because they stopped playing sports. The physical condition of these 7-8 year olds has deteriorated considerably. During the shuttle test, a classic test which consists of running faster and faster from one block to another (10 metres apart), “some children, already very out of breath, did not manage to reach the first block before the first beep”, describes Professor Duclos. This was also an unprecedented observation, according to her. Some of them were unable to complete the motor skills course (a timed course comprising various obstacles), while their cognitive abilities dropped by around 40%. To measure this, the team from the Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital used a test that consisted of linking letters to the corresponding numbers in alphabetical order within a given time. All the schoolchildren did so within the time limit in September 2019. A year later, many did not finish. “One year of confinement was catastrophic, at an essential moment of neuronal plasticity,” notes Martine Duclos.
These results are all the more worrying because the previous situation was already not very bright. For example, before the pandemic, 87% of French teenagers aged 11 to 17 did not respect the daily hour of physical activity recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). And during the first containment, only 0.6% of them reached this threshold, the proportion being 4.8% among 5-11 year olds (2.8% of girls and 6.5% of boys), according to the Onaps Report Card, the state of physical activity and sedentariness among children and adolescents published in January. A report by the French National Agency for Food Safety (Anses), published in November 2020, showed that 66% of young people aged 11 to 17 “present a worrying health risk”, characterised by the simultaneous exceeding of two thresholds: more than two hours of screen time and less than sixty minutes of physical activity per day. The health authorities believe that there is an urgent need to reverse the trend, especially as it is during childhood that health capital is built up. Lack of physical activity and excessive sedentary behaviour (time spent sitting or lying down) lead to a loss of cardiorespiratory fitness and are often associated with excess weight, due to unfavourable nutritional habits. A cocktail which, in the long term, favours the onset of chronic diseases such as diabetes, arterial hypertension, etc. To raise families’ awareness of these threats from nursery school onwards, the sports cardiologist François Carré has a very concrete message for them: “If your child goes to bed at 8 p.m. and you take him to school by car at the last moment, he will not start to move until the first break at 10 a.m. In fourteen hours he will not be able to get any exercise. In fourteen hours, he has only taken 50 steps! ” Arguments that hit home. “Parents understand better why teachers complain about their pupils’ nervousness, and the advantage of leaving ten minutes early in the morning, so that their child can move around a bit before going to class,” Professor Carré continues. “For better health, every movement counts”, says the WHO.
“It is clear that the state measures against the Corona virus have boosted the structural state violence. Politicians and police alike became drunken from the posibilities to increase their authoritarian policies under the COVID-19 pretext. Already in spring 2020, interior state minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, Herbert Reul, stated that he wants to get rid of the Brokdorf verdict. [1] In this sense Reul’s current law proposal to further restrict the freedom of assembly is not a surprise. The deafening silence of major parts of the left when it comes to the authoritarian Corona state measures in 2020, are not the reason that Reul is pushing new repressive assembly laws, but he surely knows that the time is ripe when the left accepted the authoritarian Corona rules. Noticeable is also the big distance between major parts of the left and the youths in the cities and parks, who are subjected to police violence on a regular basis.”
[1] During the first German Covid-19 lockdown, a decree titled “Police Measures on the Occasion of Assemblies” by the NRW state Minister of the Interior, Herbert Reul, was made public to the district police authorities, in which they were instructed, among other things, to influence the authorities responsible for the measures in accordance with infection control, not to order the wearing of face masks during assemblies, as this would contradict the ban on masking. Furthermore, the Ministry of Interior implicitly threatens to abolish (have abolished) the exemption for assemblies defined in § 11 (3) in the Corona Protection Ordinance, if any reason is found to do so. In a letter to cabinet colleagues and district governments dated April 9, 2020, Herbert Reul questioned what he considered to be the constitutional privileging of the exercise of the fundamental right to assemble under Article 8 of the constitution as a result of the Brokdorf decision, which in his opinion should be put to the test. After the debate in the Interior Committee about the text passage, Herbert Reul retracted his view and said he had been misunderstood. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versammlungsgesetz_NRW
Re. the censorship of all mention of side effects on Facebook spoken about here (see entry for 21/6 below on conversation removed by Youtube):
T. writes: Regarding Facebook, the censorship there is not just pure deletion, but for every mention of anything corona-related they add a banner with a “recommendation” that you can press and which leads to the official sources. In addition, for more “controversial” posts or links shared – for some only when you’re trying yourself to “share” that controversial post – they add a warning that tells you something like “this information could be misleading or contradict the scientific consensus concerning Covid19, are you sure you want to continue?” and then you’re offered either to press continue or press the other button that leads you to the official sources or “fact-checkers”. Today for example this popped up when I tried to share a guy’s post about the vaccine side-effect in which he discusses and shows data taken directly and only from the CDC website, providing the source…
Something similar happened to me when I shared a Lancet article from about 6 months ago that I saw recently on Sam’s site, that opinion column claiming how this is a syndemic and not a pandemic (that is, how the virus is dangerous mainly to those mostly affected by of our current way of life). So, you’re not supposed to even talk about what they themselves are talking about. Nothing but authority.
The film covers the gross exaggeration of the swine flu “pandemic” of 2009 – it killed 284,000 people worldwide over a couple of years, over 100,000 less than the absolute minimum amount of people killed by flu each year. It also covers the cover-up of the carcinogenic effects of the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and includes an account of a doctor who wrote a paper for the W.H.O. about very high cases of thyroid cancer amongst children in the region round Chernobyl and how the WHO insisted he withdraw the paper under threat of an early end to his career. Plus it informs us that the Bill Gates Foundation is the 2nd highest source of finances for the WHO (the first being the USA). At a large conference of the WHO, Bill Gates said “Our priorities are your priorities”, which is confirmation of the statement by Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO from 2006 to 2017, who in 2014 was ranked as the 30th most powerful woman in the world, that “in this the 21st century no government can provide everything for their people. So you do need to work with the industry but work in a way that there is no room for conflict of interest”. Not really a surprise since capitalist priorities – the accumulation of capital – are capitalist priorities, regardless of which section of capital any specific issue concerns.: no conflict of interest. A former worker for the WHO says “It is no longer necessary to bribe officials”. Was it ever for the top levels of the hierarchy?
France’s “Minister of Health, in a letter to the President of the CNOM [Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins – National Council of the Order of Doctors], relieves doctors of the responsibility to inform patients of the risks of vaccination. I quote: “Doctors cannot be held liable on the grounds that they have provided insufficient information to patients about adverse effects unknown at the time of vaccination”. What are we to think of doctors’ knowledge on the subject, when they are only entitled to one source of information, the official one, any other being vilified or censored. The official information? That of the only laboratories already multiply condemned for having hidden side effects in other cases. Moreover, the information is watered down by the authorities. An example: the messenger RNA remains in the deltoid muscle, according to Inserm and the authorities. What did Pfizer and Moderna write in their studies that the authorities did not mention? “We found elements of the vaccine in all organs, including reproductive ones”. So how “informed” is consent? When a vaccinator tells patients that vaccines are safe, made like others from attenuated viruses, is the person in charge who must enlighten others well informed? Our Minister, the same one, has just threatened to make vaccination compulsory for carers in nursing homes if they do not vaccinate more. In “informed consent”, there is the word “consent”. What is consent under threat, under blackmail? Is it consent? Moreover, what scientific and medical justification is there for this blackmail when 90% of the residents are vaccinated and therefore protected? (Remember that the vaccine is 98% effective…). Are we in the spirit of the Nuremberg Code? It specifies in its first article that: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person concerned must have the legal capacity to consent; that he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other underhand forms of constraint or coercion.” In the above-mentioned letter, the Minister also talks about compensation for victims of the CVI vaccine. Usually, it is the laboratory that is responsible for the consequences of what it markets, so it is careful before launching its product on the market. In this case, the state has entered into a contract with the laboratories, “taking responsibility” for liability and compensation for any consequences. The laboratories therefore have fewer precautions to respect, their portfolio will not suffer in case of shortcomings. They have already been fined billions of euros in recent years for withholding information and defects, but this does not prevent our authorities from not only trusting them with their eyes closed, but also from relieving them of their responsibilities.”
“During Biden’s five-month tenure, more than 400,000 migrants detained at or near the border have been expelled, including many Central American families and asylum seekers sent back to Mexico. Publicly, the Biden administration insists the order remains necessary to limit the spread of the coronavirus, although it has not provided scientific data to support that rationale and many public health experts have opposed it.”
Again, not yet really listened to this, but it mentions the following about France:
The official reason for the lockdown in March to May 2020 was the lack of beds in the intensive care units, which , given the massive increase in cases, risked being “saturated” (this, after 70,000 beds had been suppressed over the last 15 years by governments of left, right and centre). However between March and September the capacity of these intensive care units was not increased and those that had been opened at the time of the first lockdown were closed again. When the number of cases increased again in October, the government again indicated that due to the lack of beds it was obliged to impose confinement/lockdown to avoid too many patients arriving at the same time (again, the risk of “saturation”). Except that in six months the government could have opened new departments, hired more staff and opened new beds in anticipation of a possible “second wave”. But the opposite was done. Which means that this risk of “saturation” was really just a pretext. And all this done with the complicity of the “Lockdown Left”.
22/6/21:
France: strange statistic of Covid cases and deaths amongst hospital personnel
This shows that amongst the 81,032 cases of Covid only 19 workers died. That is, a 0.02344665% mortality rate. What to make of this? That hospitals take care of their own staff more than they take care of patients? Or that everyone in hospital is tested regularly for Covid and thus a more accurate death/case ratio can be ascertained than amongst the general population? Or maybe it’s due to the relatively young age of hospital personnel? Or that hospitals are more thorough in applying Covid rules? Or maybe something else? But it’s strange that the mortality to case rate seems to be just 2½% of the rate amongst the general population, at least according to official figures.
Added 6th July:
An email from a nurse in Paris says:
There are (were) many more Covid cases in the general population in France than is admitted (millions of paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic people did not get tested and were therefore never counted as “Covid cases”). This mechanically means that the real lethality rate is much lower than the one presented to us. Among carers in France, the Covid case fatality rate is 0.023%… However – by way of comparison only – the lethality rate of seasonal flu in the general population [relative to the case rate] is about 0.1%, i.e. four times higher [at least, officially – many people get flu but don’t report it to their doctor]!
As for testing, in nursing homes: contact case carers are systematically tested with PCR. And carers are also encouraged (but not coerced) to ask for a PCR test at the slightest suspicion of Covid. The less fortunate among them have already undergone about ten tests since March 2020 (but, in the end, that’s only about one test per month, tops).
Finally…even if it’s true that the fact that carers are tested earlier means that they know earlier (i.e. even before any symptoms) that they have Covid, this doesn’t seem to me to explain the ridiculously low lethality rate among healthcare workers. Indeed, the dogma that Covid cannot be cured (basically: once infected, you just have to cross your fingers and wait, because no treatment is likely to limit the risks of developing severe forms) has been applied as much to healthcare workers as to the rest of the population. Moreover, to my knowledge, being a health worker did not give any right to be hospitalised/treated as a priority in case of Covid contamination. On the contrary, at the height of the different “waves”, many healthcare workers who were not only contact cases but even tested positive or even symptomatic continued to work (voluntarily – to compensate for the shortage of personnel, out of a sense of public service, out of guilt at abandoning their colleagues, etc.) or were forced to do so by their managers. – or forced by their managers).
We are all too familiar with the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus that we have been hearing about for over a year. Less well known is the psittacovirus, which is nevertheless wreaking havoc anonymously. The psittacovirus is a virus transmitted to humans by parrots. It infects many people, but primarily attacks press representatives, who are high-risk patients. The virus has been deliberately disseminated by the WHO, the European Commission, most governments of industrialised countries and the experts who advise them.
It causes a highly contagious disease, psittacosis (1) , whose essential symptom is well known and easy to diagnose: the affected patient mechanically repeats ready-made phrases, presented as obvious, without necessarily understanding them.
The most common ones are the following:
Generalized vaccination is the only solution to put an end to the Covid-19 crisis;
Vaccination will allow us to live together again;
Side effects (including death from thrombosis) are extremely rare and do not call into question the favourable benefit-risk balance of vaccination.
Those who reject 5G, all-digital technology, and screen assignment, and who have doubts about the usefulness, safety, and efficacy of the vaccines currently on offer, are conspiracy theorists or cowards;
Those who question containment and social distancing measures are irresponsible or selfish.
Systematic screening is useless, the symptoms evoked are sufficient to establish a reliable diagnosis.
But one can effectively protect oneself against psittacovirus contamination by adopting simple barrier measures:
Stop watching the news and so-called objective information programmes;
Stop listening to official pundits and radio talk shows;
Avoiding commentary and analysis from leading print media editorialists.
Beyond that, strengthen your immune system by being critical and, to this end, consult serious information sites ….
In this way, it will be possible to protect ourselves and our loved ones by limiting the circulation of a virus more dangerous than SARS-COV-2.
Psittacosis – Mechanical repetition (like a parrot) of words or phrases heard without the subject understanding them (normal phenomenon in children, frequent in the mentally retarded) – Le Nouveau Petit Robert.
This is a link to a three-person conversation about the vaccines, which includes Robert Malone – the person who invented the mRNA vaccine technology – the full version of which was deleted by Youtube. It has a very silly off-putting title (“How to save the world in three easy steps”) but, despite that, it’s content is interesting. This seems to be mainly about side effects of the vaccines, as well as the beneficial effects of ivermectin. I’ve not yet watched the whole of this (it’s over 3 hours long) but in the first half an hour (you could start at 11 minutes in and not really lose anything useful), amongst other things, I learnt that:
Facebook censors all mention of adverse side effects;
the vaccines were not tested on animals, until very recently, when rats, rather than primates, have been used;
that the spike protein, unlike with other vaccines, does not stay where the needle is jabbed (say, in the shoulder) but travels throughout the body hence effecting the heart, brain etc.
even reporting of adverse side effects of the vaccine to the official US body for such reporting, get censored, withdrawn without the reporting doctors’ consent;
UK stats on “adverse effects” are at least 100 times worse than the reports of adverse effects from flu vaccines (though there may be other reasons for this: not sure if this is relative to the amount of people being vaccinated or is an absolute figure; also, adverse effects following flu vaccines may be even more under-reported than those from the Covid vaccines).
Almost everyone (pro-vaxxers, vax-sceptic and even many anti-vaxxers) agrees that there’s no proof of a connection between these deaths and miserable symptoms and the vaccine. Maybe, but, as far as I can see and from what I’ve heard, there has been no attempt to examine if there is a relation between the vast majority of these deaths and other possible “adverse effects” and the vaccine. As the evolutionary biologist in the discussion above points out, making a connection between an individual’s death by cancer and it being caused by tobacco smoking took decades in the courts before it could be proved. With the Covid vaccines there’s not even any attempt to find proof of a connection or the lack of a connection. Moreover, these are only “adverse effects” that have been reported. In the US, an official body claimed that it’s possible that as little as 1% of symptoms of illness and even deaths following vaccines are even reported. And on top of that some reports are being removed from the list of reports without even the consent of the doctors who reported them.
This, referring to the above, says “Lawrie told TrialSite the system is incredibly “opaque”, that is, not transparent. She shared that the researchers aren’t able to cross-reference safety incidents by age, gender, or other data attributes. “
Sent by email – translation of a post by Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz, 21/06/2021:
Look, a bird!
Last night, before I fell asleep, I read a bit about this rare and
life-threatening phenomenon – TTP, which Yolan suddenly tweeted about
last night, that none other by a joint research by Assaf Harofeh
hospital, Ichilov hospital and Tel Aviv University indicates that it
“may be related to the vaccine”. After all, how can there be a disease,
and a life-threatening one, that is related to the vaccine? After all,
except for a little inflammation in the heart muscle in young people,
which is really nothing and goes away very quickly with a bit of
antibiotics, none of the catastrophes we’ve seen are related to the
vaccine – that’s what the media told us.
I went and read about TTP – which is a blood disease that manifests
itself in hypercoagulability and a decrease in the number of platelets
in the blood, and as a result leads to a tendency to bleed and at the
same time may also lead to a tendency to clots – because Camilla Canepa,
a beautiful 18-year-old girl from Liguria, Italy died nine days after
being vaccinated – and her death description sounds just like TTP.
The surgeon who operated on Camila said in astonishment that it was
“something we’ve never seen before, it’s not normal!”. The Genoa
prosecutor, who is coordinating the NAS Carabinieri investigations
(which is like our 433 unit), ordered Pavia’s coroner to perform an
autopsy on Camilla’s body.
The Italian media, just like their counterparts in Israel, suddenly
shouted “what are you talking about? it’s not from the vaccine at all.
The girl was suffering from a chronic platelet deficiency – ‘familial
autoimmune thrombocytopenia’, they claimed. But Camila’s family is not
going to keep quiet about this lie. “Camilla had no illness,” their
lawyer, Angelo Fauna, made it clear. And this is also what the
pathological autopsy eventually showed – that the extensive bleeding
that led to Camilla’s death was indeed related to the vaccine.
Dr. Gianluigi Zona, the director of the neurosurgical department who
operated on her, said he had never seen a brain in such a catastrophic
condition, with such extensive and severe thrombosis. Attempts to open
the skull to drain the blood flow caused by the thrombosis and relieve
the intracranial pressure were to no avail because the bleeding was too
extensive.
“All the venous sinuses were blocked by thrombosis, a scenario I had
never seen in many years in my profession,” he said. “I’m not a
virologist nor an epidemiologist or a coroner, but given the image I saw
in the girl’s brain, it’s clear we’re dealing with something abnormal.”
Attempts to open the skull to drain the blood flow caused by the
thrombosis and relieve the intracranial pressure were to no avail
because the bleeding was too diffuse.
And indeed,
I fell asleep with the computer open on the articles about Camilla and
the TTP, and woke up in the morning with the insight – that actually
this sudden admission that there is a connection between the vaccine and
the TTP as Yolan said, is nothing more than “look, a bird!”
“Look, a bird!” of a phenomenon that is probably really related to the
vaccine, but rare enough not to harm Prof. Ash’s [Israel’s Virus Czar –
Tal] announcement yesterday that the Ministry of Health is once again
making a U-turn, and instead of “allowing” 12-15 year olds to get
vaccinated, they are now back to their original plot – “recommending”
them to get vaccinated. Because it was clear from the beginning that
this was what they would do when they will not succeed in the campaign –
they will engineer an event of positive PCR tests in some schools, and
there you go – what dread!
“Look, a bird!” to confuse us and divert our attention from myocarditis
as well, which is much much more common than TTP and occurs mainly in
young people – probably much more common than the authorities are
willing to admit, and from the number of deaths in young people and
children in Israel and around the world in recent days.
“Look, a bird!” to divert our eyes away from their real goal – to push
parents to vaccinate their children and confuse them enough not to
notice that they could be sentencing them to death. And they were not
satisfied with the “recommendation” but have already started the
campaign claiming that voila, already 1000 children have been
“registered” to get vaccinated, so come on, what are you waiting for?
you will also register soon.
Stay focused on the goal dear parents. Do not be tempted by this
campaign of fear. Take good care of your children. No one will do it for
you.
“On December 8, 2020…the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news. “We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. …Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet? Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.…”
“…In France, three members of the Senate’s “Delegation for Forward Planning” submitted a report a few days ago with very surprising contents. The elected representatives suggest creating a real surveillance society in the event of a new major crisis, by closely monitoring the actions of citizens and significantly restricting their individual freedoms.
It is not a law, nor even a bill, just a report. This document was presented on 3 June. The rapporteurs, René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde (all from the right) suggest setting up a platform that can be activated in the event of a new crisis, such as a health crisis. The politicians say that “if necessary, more intrusive measures should be taken, but also more targeted and limited in time”.
Selected excerpts from the Crisis Data Hub imagined by the three suit-wearing prospectors:
Here are a few extracts of the kind of rejoicing proposed by these senators in the event of a “new health crisis”, but also – why deprive ourselves? – in the event of a natural or industrial disaster, or a terrorist attack”. This of course represents more the fantasy of managerial efficiency of these three soft heads than the current reality in Europe. But it also says a lot about some short/medium term state possibilities (including partially or in the name of any new “state of emergency” or disaster), since many individuals are already all-acquired to voluntary technological servitude and willing to sacrifice many of their formal freedoms to Daddy-State in the name of illusory security and comfort… and that all these electronic control devices already technically exist.
(page 59)
“Finally, in the most extreme crisis situations, digital tools could make it possible to exercise effective, exhaustive and real-time control of the population’s compliance with restrictions, with dissuasive sanctions if necessary, and based on an even more derogatory use of personal data.
These tools are the most effective, but also the most intrusive on freedoms – but once again, it would be irresponsible not to at least consider them, if only to convince oneself to do everything upstream not to reach this point.
There are many possible uses, including
– Movement control: electronic bracelets to monitor compliance with quarantine, deactivation of passes for public transport, automatic detection of number plates by speed cameras, gantries in shops, thermal cameras in restaurants etc;
– Health monitoring, via connected objects whose use would be compulsory this time, and whose data would be used for monitoring purposes;
– The control of social contacts, for example visiting a vulnerable member of the family when you are contagious;
– Transaction monitoring, e.g. to impose an automatic fine, to detect a medical purchase (which may suggest either contamination or smuggling in times of shortage), or the illegal pursuit of a professional activity (trade etc.) despite restrictions. ”
(page 132-133)
“The problem can be summarised as follows: if we want to save human lives in the future and avoid putting economic and social life under a bell at each new crisis, we will inevitably have to rely on massive and derogatory data crossings. It is impossible to know a priori what data might be useful in the face of a new crisis, since this depends on its nature (an epidemic, a natural or industrial disaster, etc.), its intensity, its geographical extension (local, national, international) and the political acceptability of the measures, on a case-by-case basis. Only the data relating to the identification of individuals and their geolocation seem to constitute a common denominator for all possible cases.
However, nothing would be worse than improvisation, which is both ineffective and potentially much more detrimental to individual freedoms, which are less easy to ‘protect’ in an emergency. In these circumstances, this report therefore proposes not to collect a multitude of sensitive data of hypothetical utility, but simply to put ourselves in a position to do so, so to speak, at the touch of a button, should circumstances require it. In concrete terms, this means setting up a specific secure platform, which would only be activated in times of crisis. ”
For those who would like to read this 148-page Information Report made on behalf of the Senate’s Forward Studies Delegation, published on 3 June 2021, which studies what is being done in China or Estonia, while developing the concrete measures to be taken in France with a view to this future Crisis Data Hub, it is here:
“Health crises and digital tools: responding effectively to regain our freedoms
Covid-19: a Senate report recommends the collection of personal data to prevent health crises
Public Sénat, 3 June 2021 (extracts)
“One of the lessons to be learned from the health crisis is the complexity of developing tools without generating anxiety”. This was the observation made by Mathieu Darnaud, chairman of the Senate’s forward-looking delegation, when he presented his report on the use of digital tools in the prevention and management of pandemics. The work of the members of the High Assembly aims to anticipate the occurrence of new health crises by making more intensive use of digital tools, “assuming, if necessary, more intrusive measures, but also more targeted and limited in time”, explain the rapporteurs René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde.
This digital platform, named Crisis Data Hub, in reference to the Health Data Hub, would also allow for experimentation at the local level, for a more proportional and territorialised approach to the crisis, which was slow to be put in place at the time of the covid crisis. The rapporteurs imagine several scenarios depending on the scale of the epidemic: information and coordination tools for a “moderate” crisis, tools for calling people to order (such as sending an SMS) in the event of a more serious situation, and stronger measures for extreme cases, with, for example, the deactivation of the transport ticket or bank accounts of a person who violates the quarantine.
“We are not proposing to limit freedoms, we are looking for a way to regain them,” say the senators, who point to a “French taboo” related to the collection of personal data.
“We collect data all the time, just by using our smartphones,” said Christine Lavarde. “The idea, for citizens, is that this temporary abandonment of their personal data should allow them to recover, as soon as possible, their individual freedom. “We think that we need to be one step ahead of the crisis, to look further ahead and to be able to open this necessary debate. We need to talk about it, and once this system is organised in calm seas, we need to see how to press this or that button in order to recover this or that data”, explains Véronique Guillotin.
And René-Paul Savary concludes: “The French contradiction is that the GAFA have a certain amount of our data, we accept it, but we don’t want to entrust our data when the time comes to protect ourselves and others. Mentalities must change and this must be done in times of peace, not in times of crisis. ”
“Crisis Data Hub”: senators’ proposal for better use of digital technology in times of crisis
Le quotidien du médecin, 4 June 2021
The use of digital technologies in the management of a crisis such as the current pandemic is no longer an option for the senators of the Delegation for Forward Studies, who unveiled on 3 June the unique proposal resulting from their work: the creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” to ensure the collection of nominative data and their use.
This digital platform, which could be activated in times of crisis, would enable the centralisation of “useful data” and their redistribution to “actors who need them to fulfil their missions” (health establishments, civil security, forces of law and order, local authorities, public transport, service providers etc.). In order to “stop improvising” in an emergency, it would be necessary to have a “toolbox” that could be activated “when the time comes”, explained René-Paul Savary, member of the Delegation, during a press briefing…
The senators make a harsh assessment of the measures put in place during the health crisis in France. While they hail the “great creativity” that made it possible to create the SI-DEP, Contact-Covid and Vaccin-Covid files, they deplore the “somewhat chaotic” beginnings, but especially the lack of interconnection. “It is impossible to know, for example, whether a person’s “contact cases” have actually been contaminated, or whether they have been vaccinated,” they note, before asking: “Is it normal for a 24-year-old computer scientist, Guillaume Rozier, to do better than Santé publique France with his CovidTracker, and better than the Assurance-maladie with ViteMaDose? ”
Beyond the technical problems, the senators point out that in France there is a “deep mistrust of digital technology as soon as it involves the State or public authorities”. They deplore a paradox where “the slightest cross-referencing of files gives rise to endless controversy”, while citizens hand over their data to private actors on a daily basis. They also criticise the National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL) and its interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is “much more conservative than that of our European neighbours”.
The aim of their proposal is therefore to prepare a system capable of carrying out “massive and derogatory data crossings”. According to them, “the countries that have made the most use of these tools are also those that have, by far, had the fewest deaths”. It is therefore necessary to “resort to more intrusive technologies, but very targeted and limited in time, in exchange for a faster return to freedom”….
The creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” should thus make it possible to mobilise data useful for crisis management. In particular, it would be possible to cross-reference medical data with geolocation data, but also to mobilise data produced by private companies (telephone operators, transport companies, financial institutions, etc.).
The activation of the system will have to comply with a principle of “proportionality”, depending on the seriousness of the threat. Several cases of use are envisaged. In the case of a “moderate” crisis, where “braking” measures would be necessary to avoid overloading hospitals, the use of digital technology could be “limited to a few well thought-out information and coordination tools”. In the event of a greater threat, the system could allow “an automatic text message to be sent to any individual who wanders away from home during the curfew”. In extreme cases, “any violation of the quarantine could lead to real-time notification of the police, deactivation of the offender’s transport ticket or means of payment, or even a fine deducted automatically from the offender’s bank account, as is the case with speed cameras”.
Outside the context of an epidemic, activation could be envisaged “in the event of a natural or industrial disaster”, “in the event of a terrorist or bioterrorist attack”, for alerts inviting people to take iodine tablets or in the event of falling space debris.
In order to ensure the trust of citizens, the senators set two conditions as a guarantee of transparency: open source development of the platform and open data publication of aggregated data. They also invite a “cold” debate on this issue, allowing the CNIL “to establish a prior authorisation doctrine for each device” and the ANSSI (National Agency for Information Systems Security) to guarantee the security of the device.”
Already this report in May about masks worn outside said “scientists now agree that the possibility of contamination by SARS-CoV-2 is very limited outdoors, while enclosed spaces are more threatening. Epidemiologist Antoine Flahault even describes this risk as “extremely marginal”. “In the outdoor environment, aerosols [micro-droplets potentially containing the virus, editor’s note] exist but they dilute in the atmosphere very quickly. I don’t think there is any risk, except in the theoretical case of someone spitting on you nearby,” says the director of the Institute of Global Health at the University of Geneva. A staunch “ayatollah of the indoor mask”, he considers that imposing it outdoors is “nonsense”. In Ireland, for example, only 0.1% of positive cases originate from outdoor activities (building sites, sports, etc.), according to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), reports the Irish Times.”” So this legalisation effectively is an admission of the whole pointlessness of masks worn outside (mandatory since August 2020 in France), which various bits of research back in autumn 2020 were also saying. As for the end of curfew – this may well be because of the tourist season coming up. Of course, curfew was so obviously a means of social control (as if Covid was more dangerous after dark), that now withdrawing it is an implicit admission of its inherent function. At the same time, both outdoor mask-wearing and curfew have been increasingly flouted and the cops have been less and less interested in trying to enforce them, so these too are factors in this legalisation: a general disrespect for one law can lead to a general questioning of the function of laws, and that would never do.
“Analysis and comparison of the review document submitted by Pfizer to the US Food and Drug Administration, on the basis of which the FDA gave the green light to expand the emergency permit for vaccination also for children aged 12-15, as opposed to the study protocol in children, reveal concerning findings, including violations of the protocol established by Pfizer itself, and no less serious, designing the trial protocol in a way that will allow the company to present as positive findings as possible in terms of vaccine safety in children….According to the review document submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, four of the 1,131 children in the study arm who received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine suffered from serious adverse events (“SAEs”) – that is, events in which at least one criterion was met: caused death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity, or congenital anomaly/birth defect. Of these four children, three had such severe depression that they were hospitalized shortly after vaccination (in the first 7 days after the first dose, in the second only one day after the second dose, and in the third 15 days after the first dose, respectively)….if Pfizer were so negligent that they included subjects with a psychiatric background in the experiment – contrary to the protocol they themselves established – it means that the subjects’ well-being is not their main concern. As Pfizer itself notes in the protocol: such a background may increase the risk of study participation. And if they do not adhere to ethics in recruiting subjects, who can assure us that they adhere to ethics in other sections of the study – for example, analysis of results?”
Re. Fauci’s emails:
Apparently amongst Fauci’s emails now in the public domain, some US scientists said that HCQ was effective against Covid, but Fauci didn’t respond at all; also of interest is the fact that Delfraissy, France’s equivalent of Fauci, talks of his resistance from various doctors, who found HCQ + azythromycine effective, to allow HCQ to be used against Covid in France. This is not particularly of interest in itself but is of interest when you discover that Delfraissy pushed for the purchase and use of the truly useless and dangerous remdesivir (condemned by the W.H.O back in November 2020), which had already been held suspect during the Ebola epidemic years previously, when it caused severe heart problems, including heart attacks.
“Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities….A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person’s susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment. As our recently published NCD Countdown 2030 showed, although premature mortality from NCDs is falling, the pace of change is too slow. The total number of people living with chronic diseases is growing. Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.”
Undoubtedly a lot of these people are confused &/or right-wing, but then revolutionaries don’t feel they shouldn’t go on demos where they’re equally idiotic (but Leftist) ideologies being pushed. In fact, in the past I’ve been on at least one demo in which Piers Corbyn participated when he was a Left-wing shithead; I’d feel no different about participating on one in which he participates now he’s a Right-wing shithead. Generally speaking, the Left (including many so-called “libertarians”) has been the most servile and acquiescent in this suffocating Covid-epoch, so its ability to recuperate discontent has been handed over to the Right. Both, as ever, are part of the enemy we must confront, which is not to make an equivalence of them – they both have very different histories. But neither are – in terms of practical effect – better than the other, and amongst those who find the lies and ideologies of the dominant discourse repulsively manipulative, there are some, despite holding superficial reactive conspiracy theory ideologies, who are open to radical critique, of which there is extremely little.
11/6/21:
UK: recent statistics of deaths of those vaccinated
This is from an email from a friend who copied this from a “breaking news” clip which has not been repeated. It seems that weekly figures are given out officially but precise daily figures, which connect to who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t amongst cases and those who died don’t exist in any precise form on a daily basis. She writes:
“There have been 42 deaths from Covid in England since 7th June. About half the people were unvaccinated BUT nearly a third had had both vaccinations and yet the government is insisting that having both doses protects against the Delta variant. The remaining deaths were people who had had one dose so basically 50% died despite the vaccination. If you then take into account that 43% of the population are vaccinated, it’s not much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that it makes little or no difference.”
“Police used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people – mostly minors – who gathered on Friday night for a giant party on the Esplanade des Invalides, in central Paris. Meanwhile, 10 km to the west, tennis fans were granted a curfew reprieve to watch the end of the French Open semi-final. Images published on social media showed crowds of teenagers singing, dancing and drinking without wearing face masks – as required by French law. The revellers had been responding to call put out on social media to hold an impromptu “Project X” party, named after the American film in which teenagers throw a party that spirals out of control. “We danced, and did pogos (jumping in all directions)… There were hundreds and hundreds of people. We must have been at least 1,000 or 1,500.”Another partygoer, Emma, added: “The lawns were full. It had been a long time since we had a party because of the Covid and we really needed it.” Police intervened when the party went beyond 11pm, in violation of a nationwide curfew to stem the spread of Covid-19. Meanwhile a few kilometres west of Les Invalides, at the French Open tennis tournament, the curfew was waived for fans watching Friday night’s semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. Around 20 minutes before the 11pm deadline, Roland Garros authorities announced that spectators would be allowed to remain throughout the duration of the fiercely contested match, which was eventually won by Novak Djokovic 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4), 6-2. Tournament organisers said the decision was made as a result of the “completely exceptional circumstances”.
One law for the proles, another for the costly ticket-paying tennis spectators.
“ It is forbidden to know what is going on with the vaccine: vaccination information “is the property of the central ministry and should not be shared with any other organization, partner agency, press agency, public online forums and offline ”.“
This article in French is mainly about ivermectin, and says this about India:
“Another miracle is the day after day confirmation of what happened in India, in the states which used Ivermectin, with very rapid resolution of a wave announced by all the media as a disaster that was going to wreak havoc, the media which has since been silent on what is happening. Total blackout. Uttar Pradesh has fallen to less than 1000 cases / day, population 3 times the size of France, which would make 300 cases here, at a time when we are happy to go below 5,000 cases / day! Ditto in states like Delhi and Goa. These 3 states have reduced the cases by 98% compared to the peak at the end of April (37,000 cases for Uttar Pradesh, 28,000 for Delhi).
Since then there has been war in this country between the various national medical authorities under pressure from the WHO and Merck, with press releases authorizing or banning ivermectin. They have gone mad to see these results, but the responsible states do not budge and maintain their position. The Ministry of Health, after authorizing in a protocol, wants to now ban all early treatment. It should be noted in passing that the Minister of Health has been President of the WHO Executive Boardsince May 2020, and that the WHO immediately issued statements to advise against Ivermectin from the start of treatment, a complaint has also been made. filed on this subject, non-assistance to a person in danger is characterized. We then received a statement from the WHO congratulating itself on having intervened in this state to reduce the epidemic, by supervising 2,000 teams and distributing treatment kits, being careful not to say what was in them. Ivermectin, of course, but this product does not exist for the WHO. And more recently, we were treated to another victory press releaseafter the supposed ban (not yet very clear). The WHO, which congratulates itself when we do not give treatment, welcomes the ban on the treatments it has distributed. Incredible !
Finally, a quick comparison between a country that uses ivermectin, and a country that refuses it so as not to interfere with its vaccination campaign.
The figures are from Johns Hopkins University, they are the daily figures averaged over 7 days to avoid weekend breaks. These figures are reported per million inhabitants, to compare 2 countries with unequal populations. We can also see that the Indian wave, as I said since the first day, is much lower in intensity than what France was experiencing. We also see that ivermectin worked well on the Indian variant. Finally, some will tell you that the Indian figures are understated; if this is the case, it is of no importance here to follow an evolution over several months, the collection conditions being the same over the entire period. “
Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply or, even more logically since the disease can be cured in considerably less than 30 days, 0.16 cents for 10 days) . Ivermectin was discovered and developed by Satoshi Omurai who received a Nobel prize for it in 2015.
Gilead, the creator of the toxic and useless drug remdesivir (which the EU paid a billion euros for trying to cure 500,000 Covid-infected patients at 2000 euros per person) was fined $97million in September 2020 for paying kickbacks (though not for remdesivir). Pfizer was fined $60m. by US regulators for bribing doctors and government officials in eastern Europe, Asia and in the Middle East in the decade up until 2006. AstraZeneca paid out $5.52m in August 2016 in a foreign bribery case involving improper payments by its sales and marketing staff to state employed health officials in China and Russia. In September 2014 officials of the Chinese branch of GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to paying bribes to doctors and hospitals to promote the company’s products in China; fined 1.14 billion euros. Regardless of what you think of Raoult, he presents papers proving this.
“…let’s get to the twelve studies looking at how effective masks are in a community setting. … Seven of these studies, with a total of 5,535 participants, were looking at families in which one person had a respiratory infection. In some of them the sick person wore a mask, in some of them the other family members wore a mask, and in some of them, everybody wore masks. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to matter who was wearing the mask, none of these studies found any difference in rate of infection between those households in which people were wearing a face mask and the households in which noone was wearing a mask. One explanation could be the low rate of adherence. Only 30-50% of participants were wearing the masks as directed, which I guess is understandable. People want to be able to relax when they’re in their own homes, and they want to be intimate with sick loved ones. …these seven studies don’t tell us that much, but they suggest that there isn’t any point in anyone wearing a mask at home when a member of the household is sick. ..Of all the studies in the review, there were two that looked at healthy university students in dorm rooms during influenza season. The two studies both lasted for six weeks and included 1,683 people. 765 were directed to wear surgical masks as much as possible, and the other 918 were a control group that didn’t wear masks at all. In practice, “as much as possible” meant four hours per day in one study, and five hours per day in the other study. This isn’t great, but I guess it’s hard to get people to wear masks more than that. The reason I think these studies are “best” is because they are the ones most relevant to the covid pandemic, where healthy people in a non-hospital setting are being told to wear masks as much as possible. … so what conclusions can we draw from all these studies? First of all, when it comes to preventing the spread of respiratory infections, N-95 masks might be better than surgical face masks, and surgical face masks are probably better than cloth masks. In fact, cloth masks may not provide any protection at all! So if you’re going to wear a mask, wear a surgical mask or an N-95. Secondly, if you or someone in your household is sick, you probably don’t need to bother wearing a mask at home. The infection will spread at the same rate within the household regardless. If there is a member of a high risk group living in the household, i.e. someone over the age of 70 with serious co-morbidities (and that individual isn’t the one who is sick), then it might make sense for either that person to spend the next week somewhere else, or for the sick individual to do so. Thirdly, face masks do seem to slightly decrease the risk of spreading respiratory infections outside the household setting. However, it is questionable whether an intervention that only impacts one in 24 people, and that only decreases the relative risk of infection by 17%, is having a big enough effect to noticeably slow the speed at which a highly infectious disease like covid-19 spreads through a population. Rather than require that everyone wear a mask at all times when out in public, it might make more sense to restrict mask use to specific situations, for example when interacting with high risk groups in nursing homes (and in those situations to combine the masks with face shields to create a maximally impervious barrier), especially considering that for people below the age of 70 who are otherwise healthy, the risks connected with covid are tiny.”
The comments section of this article has this interesting post: “About 2 months ago there was a publication from an Italian M.D who worked at one of the emergency rooms in the Milano area, where he stated that the ”lesson learned” was that unfortunately there had died a lot of elderly and weak patients, due to the mask policy. The reason was that wearing a mask increases the CO2 level substantially inside the mask, thereby decreasing the O2 level, you also increase the breathing resistance by having a mask in front of your mouth, which if you’re old, weak and have preexisting conditions will be very hard on your body, potentially creating a cytokine storm, besides the Coronavirus is much smaller than the fibermask in the mask, making it like trying to keep a mosquito outside with a fence.”
“Vitamin D isn’t going to magically make you immune to respiratory infections, but it will likely decrease the frequency with which you get them by a bit if you are not deficient, and by a lot if you are deficient. “
“I am a nurse in the US. I am part of the medical establishment. I can’t begin to describe the profound sense of betrayal I feel. Medical professionals engaging in peer pressure. Suddenly if you express the slightest doubt on an issue, you are ostracized. At my hospital, people aren’t really talking about the vaccine much. It has gone silent. This of us who have concerns about the Covid vaccines text each other or only whisper in vacant rooms or supply closets. Seriously. It sounds ludicrous – it wasn’t like this two years ago. People could have different opinions. Not now”
“During the lockdown more than a third of people went hungry. Yet in that national crisis R14 billion was stolen from funds allocated to the Covid-19 emergency. At the same time the poor and the working class were severely abused by the police and the army, and sometimes killed. Our movement suffered relentless violent and illegal attacks state attacks. We got plenty of rubber bullets and some live ammunition fired at us by the state but, like freedom, the tiny R350 Covid grant didn’t reach the shacks.”
This video stayed up for a few days until Youtube decided it violated their Big Brother “community guidelines”. But there’s a podcast downloadable podcast version here
Sample quote:
Doctor: “There were four patients. We knew they were clotting to degrees that we hadn’t seen and there was so much controversy around putting someone on a blood thinner…people are put on blood thinners in hospitals for far less resons than we were promoting with this and so it was just evidence-based maniacism…bizarre…You can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do anything”
Biologist: “This is exactly the same in my field. People who are really good at evolutionary biology or ecologists…have intuition, they know how to follow a hunch, they know how to figure out when their hunches are wrong…The point is it’s an art more than a science actually and in the case of a brand-new pandemic that is spreading like wildfire this is of course exactly the mindset that you want. You want people who are capable of figuring out if there is some pattern and then deduce whether they were fooled by some sort of noise-pattern or whether it was actually something, testing a hypothesis but there is a point at which you know and you know better than a study because you’ve acted on that hunch and you’ve seen patients get better and it happens enough times that it can’t be random…Anyway, there’s something about the mindset of the moment – it’s all about peer review…and it’s all about the official guidance from the W.H.O. and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and it’s basically a kind of intellectual authoritarianism that is so bizarre in the context of a complex system like medicine especially in the context of a brand-new disease that we’re all not experts in. There are no experts that we can simply default to. Everybody’s anomalous.”
Doctor: “I like that term ‘intellectual authoritarianism’. I don’t know if it was occurring to that degree or remotely to that degree pre-Covid…I started to see all the institutions coming out with their treatment protocols – you weren’t allowed to stray from the protocol…suddenly I felt like I was being handcuffed…it was bizarre – I’ve never seen that in my life before.”
Biologist: “I have the sense that doctors have been demoted – forcibly demoted – from the position of scientific clinician to technician and the point is you’re really delivering a pre-packaged good more than you are coming to understand your patient and what they therefore need – and it’s a travesty.”
Doctor: “I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use to the best extent my experience, my judgement and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took. The oath wasn’t “Do what the Gods of Science and Knowledge say.”. We’ just little mortals and we have to listen to the Gods. I’ve never been asked that before…Many of them are just desk jockeys – I mean they’re not on the frontlines. They’re reading some papers, they think they know what the disease is, they don’t know what the disease is, they’re not sweating it out, seeing day-to-day the manifestations, the responses to therapy, the lack of responses, they don’t understand this disease and yet they’re telling everyone how to treat it. We want a seat the table, expert clinicians – where’s the expert clinician committee?”
This is illustrative of the developing proletarianisation of the medical middle class , with all the contradictions of its middle class complaints and angst, which are very valid whilst at the same time also failing to recognise how this proletarianisation is, and has long been, replicated amongst those who are lower in the hierarchy, even if often very different ways. Of course, one must add that this is not proletarianisation in any financial sense, at least as yet, nor probably in the forseeable future.
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.
Written by a former President of the Ethics Committee and of the Commission for Medical Ethics within the Belgian Department of Defence, in charge of the relations with the Order of Physicians between 1997 and 2004, former Scientific Director and Head of the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, researcher in Molecular Biology and Biophysics; he was an advisor/expert for the Belgian authorities, the EU and the UN.
A selection of quotes from this long and sometimes complex article:
“…a positive PCR does not automatically equate to an infection…To be sick with a virus, measuring a dozen or millions of viruses per measurement – and PCR does this – means nothing if you don’t understand the notion of the infection threshold. Indeed, each virus has a different threshold for making us ill; for hepatitis B this threshold is very low, but for HIV it is higher. For SARS2 we need about one million particles per millilitre in our bronchial tubes to become infected and ill…If these tests are repeated with too many cycles, the results become random and non-specific and are no longer reliable: i.e. the SAME sample could be positive once, negative once… so the test gives no valid information…A positive PCR does not equate to a contagious person…If we test NON-symptomatic people, we are therefore six times more likely to find a positive but non-contagious PCR test than a positive and contagious one. Even if we take a safety margin of a factor of two (the possible contagion period is eight days), we are still four times more likely to have a positive but non-contagious PCR test. In this case, we can say that only 25% of the tests correctly indicate a risk of contagion. The SARS-CoV 2 virus remains in our body for weeks after the disease is over – so we are no longer contagious at that time… this non-contagious period is 4-6 times longer than the contagious period! If the “window” for concluding that someone is “dangerous to others” is a few days, then the chance of getting it wrong – i.e. having a positive test while being non-contagious – is obviously much greater…With the necessary hindsight, it is difficult to estimate the proportion of correct tests compared to incorrect ones, as this would have required a systematic correlation between PCR, symptoms and serological tests [which are tests that measure antibodies in the blood of people who are actually infected] – something that was apparently not done…if the residence period of the virus in the body is 4 to 6 times shorter than the period of contagion, we could deduce that a significant proportion of these tests do not reflect a risk of contagion at all. It is therefore high time to stop the war of figures on this subject – especially when people with no symptoms are being tested en masse – and admit that we don’t know…why present these tests as the only possibility of measurement? This raises questions. … a third problem with these PCR tests: the huge financial stakes…At a rate of 600-2000 tests per day at peak for a small lab [data independently checked by telephone], and at a price of 47 Euros, this is a lot of money. How much is it? And for a large university lab or private companies? How much? We would have to analyse of course, but it would not be surprising to reach figures of several hundred million euros just for small Belgium and for PCRs. All this money for tests that help us so little and allow us to justify this medical, social and economic suicide in an ad hoc manner?… PCR is a powerful tool for diagnostic confirmation if you are ill with symptoms. But – as the WHO points out – we have to be very careful in our conclusions if we test people who are not sick or without symptoms….tracing does not give a correct picture of the spread of this virus (and outdoor contact will be safe compared to contact in a closed environment) …the vast majority of contaminations take place within family bubbles and closed environments and not outside….asymptomatic people – even if they are PCR positive – emit very little virus (which is logical because they are not ill and therefore do not cough!) and that their rate of contagiousness is almost zero. … In British Columbia, there was a pseudo-epidemic of SARS1 in 2003 measured by supposedly perfect PCR tests. In the end, this “outbreak” – which killed eight people, six of whom died of bacterial pneumonia – was due to another perfectly banal and benign corona. For the record, there are seven human coronaviruses (four that cause the common cold as well as SARS1, MERS, and SARS2). At the time, officials had the presence of mind to test for antibodies, thus avoiding panic and fear. In 2006 in New Hampshire (USA), an outbreak of pertussis (B. Pertussis) turned out to be a creation of PCRs. This false alarm problem is well known and was discussed in the Lancet in 2006…”
It should be pointed out that in the UK 2 tests – obligatory for those traveling there – cost £180, and if you’re returning to France, you need yet another one before you return, probably at a cost of £95.
“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”.
“Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them. Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use. For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets…On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin. A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence.”
This is certainly not a radical critique but I publish this as yet another example of growing totalitarianism, this time within the medical world, as an example of increased repressive actions on the part of the dominant forces of medicine in France. As Macron said, ““I think that in the country of the Enlightenment and of Pasteur, we need to stop having kinds of permanent debates on facts or scientific truth.” (here).
Order of doctors: political police?
Because of this blog, I am the subject of a complaint from the Conseil de l’Ordre [Council of Order of Doctors]- , which apparently wants to disbar me. You can find the complaint here. Having always scrupulously respected the Hippocratic oath throughout my career, it seems that this is no longer the case and they want to stigmatise me. Apparently freedom of thought, freedom of expression, defence of treatments that one thinks are better than those proposed by others, debates, legal actions with the authorities, all this is forbidden to doctors. What about the freedom of prescription, the independence of doctors, the basis of quality medicine?
When I was first summoned, I was not told precisely what I was accused of, nor was I given reasons in this letter. You know that I always base myself on facts, the Order does not. No example, no sentence, no note is cited so that I can answer and defend myself. It is an accusation without proof. It gives me the impression of an order from on high, I was asked to be silenced, the Order complies, without having found anything concrete.
Irène Frachon, the whistleblower for Mediator, who saved thousands of lives, reported a request from the Medicines Agency to the Council of the Order to shut her up – we are in the same situation. However, there is a slight difference, as my fault was less severe: she was attacking an authorised drug, whereas I am only asking that a drug be authorised, and thus that an attempt be made to treat instead of doing nothing, whereas the Hippocratic Oath does not impose on us an obligation to succeed, but rather to provide the means.
The faults they reproach me for:
They claim I would “oppose recommendations made in the interest of public health by calling for the prescription of unproven therapies”. Sorry, I am not opposing recommendations (besides, a recommendation is a recommendation, not an obligation!), I am simply asking that another drug be included in these recommendations. I’m not calling for prescribing, I’m just repeating what the ANSM has said several times: “doctors, you can prescribe, you have the right to do so, provided you respect certain legal rules”, rules that I have systematically repeated, with links to the legal texts in question. The law, nothing but the law, gentlemen of the Order. These are not therapeutics, but only one, and what competence does the Order have to say that it is unproven? It is validated by a number of specialists and approved by a number of medical associations, orders and health agencies in the world. Is all this to be condemned?
“The studies cited do not demonstrate scientific rigour with an insufficient patient panel to draw reliable statistical conclusions.” You sound like the ANSM, which only takes the smallest, most criticizable series, and which I have criticized, ignoring the others. What about Carvallo with 1200 caregivers? What about GTFoods with 12,000 subjects? What about Mexico City with 233,000 cases? What about the 56+ studies (half of them RCTs) with nearly 20,000 cases? I have read them all, I am not sure that my accusers have read any of them, knowledge cannot be decreed (Decree of December 2020 concerning the Order), it is acquired. What about the ten or so meta-analyses?
What about the studies done for Remdesivir? For Bamlanivimab? What about the Mehra/Lancet study, or the latest Jama study? Has the Order lodged a complaint against those who have put them forward? It is however more blatant than those I quote!
Yes, we can debate and it is a real debate. Yes, we can discuss, and I have done so with the ANSM to explain my opinion. Yes, we can discuss with the Minister and I did so recently, it is not only legal, but a duty. Yes, American doctors have been invited to present these same studies to the American Senate, but no, the debate for the Order is not authorized, it is a condemnable fault, and I will be condemned (only one non ordinal judge in this court of exception where one can be judge and party), and will not have the right to good faith or error, as in a justice worthy of the name.
In my posts, I always give all the sources, all the opinions so that the reader can make up his own mind. When I quote and give my opinion on the ANSM, I always give its full opinion and my own. When Prescrire gives its opinion by quoting studies, I give that opinion, I give mine (is that forbidden? a mistake?), and above all I allow the reader to make up his or her own mind having heard both sides of the argument and having access to the studies in question with links. This is called an informed debate, which the Order refuses to allow in favour of one sole thought and obscurantism. Readers are not fools!
Has the Order found a single lie, a single error, a single manipulation? It does not quote anything, because it cannot do so. These accusations are vague, not based on precise facts, on which I could discuss, respond and defend myself. There is no defence possible without precise facts that can materialise a condemnable fault. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are faults for the Order, for want of a better word.
“The blog of Le Quotidien du médecin, a medical journal, is accessible to the public?” – is this my fault? Is it a fault? Apparently the Order is blaming me. And what about the public? Don’t they have the right to debate?
Icing on the cake, finding nothing else concrete: “Considering that Doctor Maudrux, a specialist in urology, does not provide proof of his competence in infectiology”! Let’s skip the fact that I was not asked to provide this evidence, but is it only infectious disease specialists who have the right to be interested in Sars-cov-2? I point out to the College that I am also a graduate in general practice, should all doctors keep quiet, not be concerned with Sars-Cov-2? The Order seems to be unaware that Pasteur was not even a doctor, and yet…! That Véran [SF: France’s Minister of Health] is a neurologist, and yet speaks out on Sars-Cov-2. Does he also know that Mrs. Vaccine at the WHO is a psychologist, not an infectiologist or epidemiologist? As for Michel Cymes, who talks about everything on television and in magazines, why is he not prosecuted because he is not an ENT specialist [SF: the medical-surgical specialty devoted to abnormalities of the ear, nose and sinuses, throat and neck. It also deals with hearing, voice, breathing, smell and taste, balance, and facial aesthetics]?
Does the Order know that 80% of a urologist’s time is spent on consultations, which are extremely varied? I have had to treat many viral and bacterial infections, and I have fought all my career against laboratories that badly influenced general practitioners, passing off urinary antiseptics as systemic antibiotics, leading to a number of recurrent and chronic prostatitis and epididymitis. A bad anti-infectious treatment at the beginning leads to chronic complications, just as not treating Covid at the beginning leads to 20% of chronic pathologies called long Covids, we are in the same situation. I would also add that, having performed some thirty kidney transplants, with my nephrologist friends, I have acquired some notions of immunology. Finally, when I was elected President of the Caisse de Retraite des Médecins, I had no competence in pension matters, and the Order was able to see that I had succeeded better than others, and that 20 years later, the fund was cited as one of the best managed in France.
The Order is moving away from the medical debate, from the hunt for treatments for a severe disease, to a witch-hunt. We are a long way from the Hippocratic oath, which it flouts by restricting the search for the best treatment, but also from human rights. I would like to remind you of the statement made by the UN Secretary Generalat the opening of the 46th session of the Human Rights Committee, deploring the fact that the Covid-19 epidemic is being used by certain countries, which he did not name, “to silence dissenting voices, to abolish the most fundamental freedoms, to silence the independent media and to impede the work of non-governmental organisations”.Amnesty Internationalcited France as one of the countries that “in the name of the fight against the coronavirus are carrying out unprecedented attacks on freedom of expression. They take the form of relentless censorship of anything that is not the official doxa, including on social networks, but also of professional sanctions. ” The Order is openly the instrument of these actions against doctors.
“Around 600 young people gathered in Stuttgart’s city centre on Saturday evening…The revellers, who were drinking alcohol and flouting Covid-19’s restrictions on gatherings in the city, quickly attracted the attention of the police. However, they did not follow the orders of the police to disperse. The situation quickly escalated around midnight. “As a result, bottles were thrown at the paramedics,” said a police spokesman. The revellers also shouted insults at the officers, and the verbal conflict quickly escalated into violence. Large police forces were deployed as law enforcement officials decided to disperse the crowd and clear the area. Police were pelted with bottles and there were several clashes between revellers and officers. The police responded with tear gas. Five police officers were injured in the clashes and six rioters were temporarily detained, police said. The night’s events also resulted in property damage, German media reported, adding that some shop windows were smashed by the rioters. Police managed to bring the situation under control by 2am Sunday…The Stuttgart authorities and police are now considering banning rallies in several working-class areas of the city. The ban would mean that between 10pm and 6am local time, people could only move around the city centre, but could not gather or stay there, a police spokesman said. On Thursday, Stuttgart lifted the night-time curfew that is currently mandatory in all regions of Germany with high rates of Covid-19 infection. However, restrictions on gatherings and alcohol consumption are still in place. Stuttgart was not the only German city to experience riots because of Covid-19 restrictions. In the Bavarian city of Regensburg, a drunken night party involving some 500 people also ended in clashes with police. The scuffles left one police officer injured and one rioter detained, according to local media. In Hamburg, law enforcement officers broke up a large illegal party in a local park. About 1,300 people gathered in the area. The partygoers resisted the police action by throwing bottles at the officers.”
“A woman has died after being shot during violent clashes between factory workers and police in Lesotho as trade unions say they have lost control over angry protests over pay. Demonstrations spilled over into violence in what is the second week of industrial action, with looting and damage to several businesses in the capital Maseru. Lesotho’s 50,000 factory workers are demanding a 20% salary increase for the lowest paid employees, who take home the local equivalent of £113.73 a month. The employers say they can only pay a 5% increase because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their businesses.The strike started two weeks ago and workers have been fighting running battles with police and army officers, who have been blocking the protests, which they say are “in contravention of Covid-19 regulations”. Last week, workers blocked roads with rocks, logs, broken streetlamps and rubbish bins, which the police dispersed with a water cannon. The protests turned violent after the government announced that it had engaged the International Labour Organization (ILO) to mediate the standoff. Some of the protesters went on a looting spree, mainly targeting Chinese-owned businesses…Many shops and warehouses were left empty while some protesters also took gas cylinders on Tuesday evening. The looting only ended when armed police and army officers were deployed. Sam Mokhele, from the National Clothing Textile and Allied Workers Union (NACTWU), told the Guardian on Thursday: “It is unfortunate that we lost one of our members, Motselisi Manase, who worked in the packaging department at Nien Hsing textile factory. It is sad that neither the police nor the army, who were both present, are acknowledging the tragic death.”…Last month, three workers were hospitalised after police shot at demonstrators with rubber bullets. In November last year Chief Justice Sakoane Sakoane criticised the police for “state-sponsored violence” against civilians in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing their freedom from cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment. He awarded a man from Mafeteng, Tšolo Tjela, who was tortured and humiliated by police officers in 2015, the equivalent of £20,500 in claims. After the police appealed the ruling, the court of appeal changed the award to £12,800. The textile workers accuse the government, which is charged with mediating between the workers and factory owners as well as setting the minimum wage, of insincerity in its dealings. They say the move to engage the ILO was never discussed in the unions’ engagements with a ministerial subcommittee set up to look into the matter. Unions say they are no longer in control of the angry workers, who argue that their earnings can no longer sustain them as prices of goods have increased dramatically since the first Covid-19 lockdown last year. Cooking oil alone has more than doubled in price. Prime Minister Moeketsi Majoro on Wednesday evening said a new salary would be published on 16 June and encouraged the strikers to return to work. But the unions responded that workers would “stay at home until they have a concrete promise that they would get salary increments” despite the threat of having their salaries for May docked for the days that they have been out of work. According to unions, 95% of the workers are women, and low wages exacerbates their vulnerability in a country with a high prevalence of violent crimes against women.”
“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.
“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.
This report largely explains this by the fact that in growing up people are exposed to lots of viruses and have developed a very powerful resistance to them.
“…Somehow at the root of all this is some weird license with no limit to a double standard. So if the powers-that-be decide they don’t like something like ivermectin they can establish any standard up to a ridiculous degree that nothing can overcome. When it comes to the thing that they favor there’s almost no standard at all. There’s no level of danger that could be sufficient to call it into question…What you can see is a double standard that is glaring if you know how to analyse what’s being said…In light of conspicuous patterns…and in the light of the first that the drug in question has a very long extreme safety record why wouldn’t you test it, why wouldn’t you do that large scale study, why wouldn’t you deploy it somewhere to see whether it had the effect and then discover whether or not this was…effective in controlling Covid from people who’ve already contracted it and preventing contraction…What on earth is the excuse for not testing this…remarkable efficacy short term and long term – because it’s been in use so long. Given all the evidence this appears efficacious in preventing both the spread between people and the spread within a person, why on earth would you not run a very large study that would tell you for sure how good this was and how best to use it…If ivermectin were an effective treatment, the vaccines would never have gotten emergency use authorisation in the U.S. and we know that because [cites official document listing “Criteria for issuance under emergency use authorisation of medical products”]... It needs to be a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. There needs to be evidence of effectiveness. There needs to a be a risk/benefit analysis. And there need to be no alternatives. Quote: “For the FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition”…By not doing the relevant large-scale clinical studies on ivermectin and thus it not being approved by the FDA for use in Covid that opens the door for …emergency use authorisation for the vaccines that we are now all living with and among…This would have elements of malpractice, this would be gross negligence…and it verges on depraved indifference…”
Ivermectin is a vastly cheaper method of treating Covid than the vaccines. Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging, delivery costs, etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply, or even more rationally – since you’re likely to recover after less than 10 days, 0.16 of a centime for 10 days).
“You would have thought that this strong overall signal of benefit in the midst of a pandemic would have mobilized the powers that be to arrange multiple large randomized trials to confirm these results as quickly as possible, and that the major medical journals would be falling over each other to be the first to publish these studies.
That hasn’t happened.
Rather the opposite, in fact. South Africa has even gone so far as to ban doctors from using ivermectin on covid-19 patients. And as far as I can tell, most of the discussion about ivermectin in mainstream media (and in the medical press) has centred not around its relative merits, but more around how its proponents are clearly deluded tin foil hat wearing crazies who are using social media to manipulate the masses.”
See alsothis, from the same doctor, which concludes that hydroxychloroquine with azythromicine and zinc might be a bit beneficial but probably not much, although he feels the most reliable trials involve too few people to be sufficiently conclusive. Includes both in the article itself and in the comments boxes an interesting debate about how research with placebos and double blinds often cherry-picks and manipulates data, depending on things such as the age and comorbidities of those selected, the time-gap following the onset of symptoms when treatment is given, the doses involved, the effect measured and details of the measurement, distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and other treatments (anything from supplements, other medications, or other kinds of treatment like prone positioning).
Sample quote: “RCTs [randomised control trials] are considered the gold standard by corporations and academics who most benefit by them, whereas anecdotal reports based on clinical experience are ignored. In theory RCTs sound good and they do have some utility wiping out the obvious confounders of the worthless correlation studies. That does not mean they are of ultimate value – it merely points to how worthless the observational studies are. RCTs only appear good in relative comparison, but you’re comparing dumb and dumber, not right and wrong. … Note that pharma can fund an RCT, and if it does not make their new multi-million dollar drug look good, they throw it out and start a new RCT with different parameters. No one, including MDs, knows what the prior RCTs concluded. Research form Harvard’s Safra Center found that 90% of new pharma drugs did next to nothing (except give Pharma big profit) – they provided maybe a 2% improvement (probably jiggered to pass the FDA rubber-stamp approval threshold (Pharma funds half the FDA’s budget and staffs it via the revolving door). We live in a post-truth world where we are programmed from every direction. It is not easy to think for yourself since we’ve been programmed from birth with unexamined assumptions. Science (including lots of anecdotal reports) is our only hope to do an end-run around our internal confirmation and availability bases as well as both the mainstream and alt-programming. You can’t really trust anyone and can’t trust RCTs either. It’s not easy moving onward through the fog and you have to be ready to backtrack so no ego allowed. You have to do your own research and Hope for the Best. As Socrates pointed out, realizing your own ignorance (as well as that of others) is the beginning of wisdom. “It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So.” – Twain”
This very interesting video on Absolute Risk v. Relative Risk (from June 2019) indicates another way research results can give an impressive image of efficacy for drugs that in reality are almost invariably not very efficacious at all, and can result in significant adverse side effects. And thisfrom Sebastian Rushworth (the same doctor linked to above) about absolute risk v. relative risk and their confusion in scientific studies etc: “What patients care about is “clinical significance”, i.e. if they take a drug, will it have a meaningful impact for them. Clinical significance is closely tied to the concepts of absolute risk and relative risk. Let’s say we have a drug that decreases your five year risk of having a heart attack from 0,2% to 0,1% . We’ll invent a random name for the drug, say, “spatin”. Now, the absolute risk reduction when you take a spatin is 0,1% over five years (0,2 – 0,1 = 0,1). Not very impressive, right? Would you think it was worth taking that drug? Probably not. What if I told you that spatins actually decreased your risk of heart attack by 50%? Now you’d definitely want to take the drug, right? How can a spatin only decrease risk by 0,1% and yet at the same time decrease risk by 50%? Because the risk reduction depends on if we are looking at absolute risk or relative risk. Although spatins only cause a 0,1% reduction in absolute risk, they cause a 50% reduction in relative risk (0,1 / 0,2 = 50%). So, you get the absolute risk reduction by taking the risk without the drug and subtracting the risk with the drug. You get the relative risk reduction by dividing the risk with the drug from the risk without the drug. Drug companies will generally focus on relative risk, because it sound much more impressive. But the clinical significance of a drug that decreases risk from 0,2% to 0,1% is, I would argue, so small that it’s not worth taking the drug, especially if the drug has side effects which might be more common than the probability of seeing a benefit. When you look at an advertisement for a drug, always look at the fine print. Are they talking about absolute risk or relative risk?”
See also HCQ for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 245 studies and this, both of which indicate the definite positive results of HCQ with azythromicine (and zinc), though much of the meta-analysis is based on observational studies and possibly not enough RCTs.
“You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all the time.” (A. Lincoln)
Ivermectin has already saved tens of thousands of lives, and is gaining ground. The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry, the western governments, don’t want to see it, and the press refuses to show it to us. It is making progress, but how many tens, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost in one year because of this blindness? If ivermectin cures river blindness, it seems to be a failure against Covid blindness.
INDIA
By mid 2020, Uttar Pradesh in India was the first “country” (actually a state in India but with a population of 205 million, 3 times the size of France) to treat its population extensively with Ivermectin. Chiapas in Mexico did the same at about the same time.
In 2020, Uttar Pradesh had 7,800 deaths, compared to 65,000 here, which is 25 times less than us for the same population. A younger population, you may say, but the health conditions are much poorer, as we see today. Not all declared? Not to that extent! So to be fairer, let’s compare with another Indian state, like Delhi, which is 12 times less, and 3 times less than the country’s average. Same thing for Chiapas: with ivermectin, 4 times less deaths than the country average, 10 times less than Mexico City.
No one in the West was interested. Instead of seeing what was happening on a large scale, our authorities were quibbling about 2×12 studies, wondering whether they were published or not, whether the authors thought a few more guinea pigs were needed, without even looking at the results. Foolishness? Incompetence? Manipulation? I leave it to you to judge.
While 15 days ago everyone was talking about a catastrophe in India, a situation out of control, knowing that they had to deal with their second wave, I took the opposite viewand calmed things down.
What about after 2 weeks? While our “great specialists” were still announcing a few days ago that India would not reach its peak of contamination before several weeks (repeated everywhere like here), here is the curve of the contaminations in India, up to date yesterday: it is eight days since the peak seems to have been reached.
How is this possible, so quickly, in a country where barely 3% of the population has had its two doses of vaccine so far? Many states have followed Uttar Pardesh. Goa followed (in 15 days reduction of 58% in hospitalisations), asking the whole population to take Ivermectin, then Uttarakhand and others.
What do the curves look like in these states?
But WHO and Big Pharma are watching. The WHO issued statements advising against Ivermectin, and Gilead showered the country with Remdesivir, even though it was advised against by the WHO, at a 20-fold price reduction. Some states followed the WHO, such as Tamil Nadu. Here is what it looks like: no decline. If you want all these curves day by day, type on Google “Covid India”, and you immediately have the curves of cases and deaths for all countries. For India, just to the right of the country, you can select each state. You can also find other curves on Patrice Gibertie’s website.
As far as deaths are concerned, given the 15-day lag with cases, when we were at 3000/day, I thought the peak would be between 5 and 6,000, it will be less because it seems to have plateaued at around 4,000 for the last week.
If this continues, the peak of the Indian “catastrophe” is at the level of what we have been experiencing on average for the last 6 months, and will have lasted only 10 days. Let’s remember that we had a peak of 1000 deaths in 24 hours, that is to say 20,000 in relation to their population. Having said that, let’s remember that with this virus, everything can change from one day to the next, but it seems to have taken hold in the last 8 days.
MEXICO
Same thing in Mexico. Following the results of Chiapas, Mexico City has started to distribute Ivermectin on a large scale. Who told us about the results of this experiment, involving 234,000 patients, with a 2/3 reduction in hospitalisations? Nobody.
This country was remarkably followed by Enzo Lolo.
OTHER
Other countries have started using Ivermectin, but the results will not necessarily be seen. So when the Czech Republic announced it, and at the same time ordered 20,000 doses for the whole country, there is a gap between talk and practice.
Portugal does not make any noise, doctors are free and prescribe a lot (50% it seems). All this, unlike in France, with the agreement of the Order of Physicians. Result:
South Africa has also started, under pressure from doctors’ associations:
I was the first in France to tell you the story of Ivermectin in this country, which was banned and abruptly authorised after members of the government died, while others were still living thanks to Ivermectin and Jackie Stone.
By way of comparison, the curve for France, which is not treating and is struggling to get over its second wave, which will have lasted more than 6 months. The declarations of satisfaction of our leaders are increasingly difficult to find comparisons to continue to say that we are better than the others.
CONCLUSIONS
It would seem that to stop a wave, ivermectin alone (less than 3% of those vaccinated with 2 doses in India, 1.5% in Zimbabwe, 1% in South Africa), goes much faster than vaccines alone. 15 days for the first, several months for the other. Also our vaccines seem to have problems with the Indian variant, whereas ivemectin does not.
Not treating Covid in its early stages is like an oncologist waiting for metastases before starting cancer treatment, like a surgeon waiting for sepsis and peritonitis before operating on appendicitis. This is the medicine we practice today.
“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”. Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response. SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.”…One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.” Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.” One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”. Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.” Another member of SPI-B said they were “stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology” during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.
And here: “…the Government has been accused of feeding the public a continuous eating regimen of unhealthy information, corresponding to deaths and hospitalisations, with out ever placing the figures in context with information of how many individuals have recovered, or whether or not every day loss of life tolls are above or beneath seasonal averages.”
“As France celebrated the reopening of terraces on Wednesday, a new stage in the decontamination process, in Rennes and Bordeaux, some people did everything they could to ensure that the party continued beyond the 9pm curfew. In Ille-et-Vilaine, from the afternoon, images of the mythical rue de la soif and the adjacent streets showed a very dense crowd, composed of hundreds of people, without masks, crowding in front of the multiple bars that compose it. Far from the strict sanitary protocol that allowed the bars and restaurants to reopen: consumption only on the terrace, with a maximum of six per table, and a capacity of only 50%. As the curfew hour arrived, passed on Wednesday from 7pm to 9pm, some of these revellers refused to leave the premises….They even massed, nearly a thousand of them, on the nearby Place Sainte-Anne, to dance to the sound of electro music, taking off their masks, reports Ouest-France. The fire brigade, called in to help, was forced to put out a pallet fire on the square at around 10.30pm, into which… bar furniture had been thrown, while police officers used tear gas and LBD fire in response to projectiles being thrown, France Bleu said. “There was a pallet fire at around 9.45pm, with people who had returned to the church site and climbed onto the sheds, requiring police intervention. It lasted an hour,” according to a Rennes police officer…In Bordeaux too, the party never ended for some. While the terraces and squares of the city of Gironde did not empty all afternoon, some wanted to make the pleasure last after 9 pm,…The Place Lafargue continued to host hundreds of revellers, dancing without masks well after the curfew. Some were calmly evacuated by the police around 10pm, but others continued to occupy the square until late into the night…In Paris, bar terraces also had to be evacuated, without a stir, by the police once the curfew hour arrived, while in Amiens, in Picardy, at least three bars were forced by the police to close early, at 8pm, because of the influx of customers and the non-respect of sanitary rules… However, no fines were issued to either the businesses or the partygoers…”
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. www.jennifermargulis.net
“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…
“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…”
“…Social networks are not to be outdone and are participating in this desire to hide the truth about ivermectin. See this impressive regulation of YouTube on this subject. It goes beyond censorship! It is “forbidden to contradict information from local health authorities or the WHO”, “it is forbidden to recommend the use of ivermectin, to say that it is an effective treatment”…”
A liberal democratic “human rights” list of censorship of anything outside of dominant “consensus” regarding various aspects of the current totalitarian project surrounding Covid.
Sample quote: an EU communication states “…that social media will be used to track down the perpetrators of “disinformation” or “harmful influence operations” and report them to the public authorities;
that criminal provisions on disinformation will be introduced or strengthened in the Member States;
while an army of facts-checkers will restore the “official truth” via the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO)…”
“The police, after observing the gathering and making several attempts to prevent it from happening, proceeded to disperse it at around 1.30am, commissioner and spokesperson for the Brussels-Capital/Ixelles area Olivier Slosse told Belga. “Until 1.30am the means used were to maintain order, before moving on to the engagement and dispersal” in several directions of the 500 or so people who were still on site. Several vehicles and a fire engine were mobilised…The Place Sainte-Croix in Ixelles was packed on Saturday night, due to the success of the reopening of the terraces and a call on social networks from the group Le Cri to go there to celebrate the end of the curfew. At the beginning of the evening, about twenty artists and a brass band animated the place. The customers of the terraces cohabited with a crowd that grew as the night wore on, until the space between the rue de la Brasserie and the church square was filled with people…The French youtubeur Loris Giuliano entered the Place Sainte-Croix by car, in front of the terraces of the Belga café. People surrounded and banged on his car, and police officers helped the driver out of the crowd…After the Belga terraces closed at around 9.30pm, the party went on in full swing. Music could be heard in places. The young people gathered to drink and dance. No one respected the wearing of masks or social distancing. The police reported the situation to the local authority. The mayor of Ixelles, Christos Doulkeridis, came down to the scene and invited the revellers to go home at around 00.30. A message that was not followed.”
“Violent disturbances and police charges this midnight in the centre of Palma, after a concentration of groups of young denialists anti-restrictions against the maintenance of the curfew in the Balearic Islands… A night that ended with 16 protesters arrested – one of them a minor – 4 police officers injured and huge destruction. Dozens of demonstrators – most of them without masks – gathered at around 11.30 p.m. this Saturday in Plaza España in Palma. They launched proclamations calling for the resignation of the president of the Balearic Islands, Francina Armengol and staged a sit-in, during which they have questioned in a manifesto the vaccine against COVID, which they have called “experimental”; they have accused the institutions of being “dictatorial”: “They are controlling us with fear” and have rebelled against the mask: “A person who receives 20% less oxygen is risking their health”…The protests of those present progressively became louder and louder, at which point the sit-in was lifted and confrontations with the officers began to take place, with the cry “We are not afraid”… it was an unauthorised protest… repeated warnings from the police only served to heat up the crowd, who, with proclamations of “freedom”, ignored them and opted to block traffic on the Avenidas as they passed through Plaza España. They broke and threw numerous items of street furniture at the officers, as well as several glass bottles. The officers, for their part, responded with several police charges. .. four officers were injured by the throwing of cobblestones, stones and bottles by the radicals…Several demonstrators overturned containers in Carrer Eusebi Estada, trying to set them on fire and set up barricades to cut off the street, although the officers were able to clear them quickly. There was also constant stone-throwing at vehicles parked in the area….The police were repeatedly applauded from balconies and windows by neighbours, some of whom collaborated with the officers, showing them where the violent people had gone or where they were hiding. Some of them dispersed and, faced with the action of the officers, chose to hide in doorways or under cars. During the rally and the clashes with the police, there was constant criticism of the effectiveness of the vaccines against the coronavirus, and adjectives such as “farce” or “experiment” regarding the vaccination plan.” Video here
Note the knee-jerk caricature “denialist” without even a gesture towards providing evidence. For the reader who accepts this “Covid-denialist” has become a put-down endlessly repeated, as an easy way of pushing away all questioning, a soothing mantra to push away the anxiety, to go back to sleep. One can dispense with actually ‘thinking’ it – that is, with going through the complicated logical acts involved in verbal formulation of it, an examination of the contradictions of the facts, of how one selects the facts, of how they are interpreted. The concrete melts into an easy cliché and no one seems able to think of expressions that are not unearned received ideas, that are not a ready-made response to something that may well be far more nuanced than the usual either/or Manichean choices proffered by a servile media. Such mechanization is essential for the repression of critique. A phrase becomes a magic wand that waves away all arguments, a method of repeating what society has proclaimed as being as taken-for-granted as the blueness of the sky without making the effort to get your head around what someone is in fact saying so as to contest it honestly. And when criticism can’t be contested honestly it can only be utterly distorted to fit into something one has already found arguments against. This unthinking language is the ideological cage of the spectator who accepts without question being caged by the language of the consensus, the refuge of the ruling society. And acceptance of the language also becomes practical acceptance of the rules of this cage: follow the experts’ rules and you won’t get sick. When hierarchical power wants to avoid resorting to its material arms, it relies on dominant language, the language of domination, to guard the oppressive order. No need to try to think for oneself: thinking is thus reduced to the level of industrial processes, subjected to a tight schedule – a short cut which, in short, cuts off all chance of communication. As part of the reproduction of ideology, it contributes and intensifies divisions among those who potentially could contest this world, divisions reinforced because the working class has already been weakened by years and years of retreat from revolutionary perspectives.
“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…. “
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.
“By last summer, the mask had gradually made its way into public space in many municipalities. But in the meantime, knowledge has become more refined: scientists now agree that the possibility of contamination by SARS-CoV-2 is very limited outdoors, while enclosed spaces are more threatening. Epidemiologist Antoine Flahault even describes this risk as “extremely marginal”. “In the outdoor environment, aerosols [micro-droplets potentially containing the virus, editor’s note] exist but they dilute in the atmosphere very quickly. I don’t think there is any risk, except in the theoretical case of someone spitting on you nearby,” says the director of the Institute of Global Health at the University of Geneva. A staunch “ayatollah of the indoor mask”, he considers that imposing it outdoors is “nonsense”. In Ireland, for example, only 0.1% of positive cases originate from outdoor activities (building sites, sports, etc.), according to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), reports the Irish Times.”
India seems to be facing a gigantic epidemic wave. The press headlines speak of a world record. “With 300,000 infections per day, the situation seems to be out of control in India” according to France Info and Europe 1 on 26 April 2021, “India, new record of new cases in the world” according to Euronews…
We have to keep our wits about us, and seen from France, these headlines remind me a bit of the story of the mote and the beam in the eye. Are they trying to scare us (more)? Without wishing to minimise what is happening in India, and without prejudging what tomorrow will bring, which may be worse, what is the situation today, all things considered?
NEW CASES
350,000 new cases yesterday in India. Hmmm. And in France? For 1 month, in France, the average is nearly 35,000 cases / day, more than 20,000 cases / day the previous 2 months, and we had a peak of 86,850 cases on November 7, 2020. France population – 67 million, India 1,375 million, 20 times more. If they are at 350,000 cases/day, with the same population, we would be at 700,000 cases/day, i.e. twice as many as them. Worse, they have a one-day peak, we have had a daily peak for months, and we would have had a peak of 1.74 million on 7th November!
To date they have 3 times more cases than in their first wave, we have 10 times more than in our first wave (we test more, they do too). So where is this world record, the real one? This curve also shows it:
Number of cases/million inhabitants, France in black, India in red. Source: Our World in Data
DEATHS
As for deaths, what is the situation? 3,000 deaths/day there, and 350 here yesterday, 400 the day before yesterday, an average of 300/day for the last two months, i.e. twice as many as India proportionate to the population. Of course, we have to wait 15 days to have a better idea of the deaths corresponding to these 350,000 daily cases, but here again, on the one hand, we have a peak, and on the other hand, an average over the last few months. To better appreciate these averages, let’s look at the situation over 1 year, what about the mortality due to Covid in India since the beginning? 192,000 deaths in total in India, compared to 103,000 here. With the same population we would have had 1 million deaths despite much better sanitary conditions.
Why such a difference? Of course, one can doubt the field reports and the statistics, which are certainly underestimated, but not by a ratio of 1 to 10. Their population is younger, but not as much as one might think. If life expectancy is lower there, 71 years against 83, it is largely because infant mortality is 10 times higher than in France (27/1000 instead of 3) https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2383448. In proportion, we have twice as many people over 60 as they do, so it is normal that they have half as many deaths, but not 10 times less. On the other hand, we must also take into account their sanitary conditions: if India had the same conditions as us, they would probably have half as many deaths (we save half of those who go into intensive care, in India they cannot even take them into normal care). Basically these two criteria cancel each other out, one dividing by two, the other multiplying by two. So we remain in a ratio of 1 to 10. It is elsewhere that we must look for explanations. Apart from the way of processing, I can’t see it.
TREATMENTS
India has used HCQ extensively, but also ivermectin, although not validated by their health agency, which has the same attitude as ours. In India we can observe the same situation as in Mexico, with a government opposed to early treatment, and states that ignore it, which allows us to judge the effectiveness of these treatments, whereas the country by country figures show nothing. In Mexico, for example, I have already shown you (and Enzo Lolo on Médiapart) that Chiapas, which distributes ivermectin, has 4 to 5 times fewer deaths than the rest of the country, the highest being in Mexico City, where mortality is 10 times that of Chiapas. Seeing this, Mexico City started using Ivermectin two months ago. As a result, there has been a significant drop in deaths, while the overall picture for the country is not so good.
In India, Uttar Pradesh has been using Ivermectin since the end of August 2020. 200 million inhabitants, 3 times more than us, 10,000 deaths by 20 April 2021, 10 times less than us, a ratio of 1 to 30. You can see here, the cases and deaths by region (move the cursor over each one to get the details). The region most affected today by the Indian variant, which seems to be the nastiest to date, is Maharashtra, where the capital Bombay is located. 104 million inhabitants, 62,000 deaths, 12 times more than Uttar Pradesh! The situation with regard to ivermectin is strictly comparable with that in Chiapas and Mexico.
To deal with this situation, the Ministry of Health has just issued a protocol, on 22 April, with … ivermectin (and HCQ)! And Mexico has done it on 23 April for the whole country.
As far as vaccination is concerned, India is the country that has vaccinated the most in the world [SF: in numerical terms, though obviously not proportionate to the total population], mainly with AstraZeneca, and as in many places, there is a parallel with a resurgence of cases and the appearance of mutants. Is there a relationship between this massive vaccination and the new wave, as in many countries? Now, let’s make it clear that “massive” must be qualified: massive in absolute numbers compared to many countries, given the number of doses injected in one and a half months, but on the scale of the country, it’s not very significant: 100 million first doses, 22 million with two doses, that’s still low with only 1.7% of the population vaccinated with two doses.
All this is of course to be followed closely, because the wave has only just begun there, whereas in our country it has been dragging on for 4 months and is proportionally more important, although with less nasty variants. Their figure of 3,000 deaths should rise sharply, but you should know that in November we had peaks of 1,000 deaths for a fortnight, which would make 20,000 deaths/day in their country. Let’s hope they do better than France, given their current health conditions.
The results of the use of ivermectin will be interesting to follow, wit
h one reservation: the arrival of BigPharma, with Gilead managing to push its Remdesir that everyone is snatching up over there, replacing ivermectin. However, all the studies show that this product does not reduce mortality in any way, producing serious side effects, particularly of a renal nature, whereas ivermectin, which reduces mortality by a factor of 5, managed to maintain a more than respectable mortality rate in the states where it was used. Succeeding in selling a drug that is no longer wanted and which, in the best case scenario, would reduce hospitalisation by two days in a country where people can’t be hospitalised, is a great achievement!
Ivermectin is a vastly cheaper method of treating Covid than the vaccines. Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos, cost the state (admittedly before packaging, delivery costs, etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply, or even more rationally – since you’re likely to recover after less than 10 days, 0.16 of a centime for 10 days).
***
An extraordinary example of Facebook censorship:
A Facebook post from a friend about the warning from various doctors back in February about AZ vaccines, stating simply that “in February 2021, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. and a number of his colleagues warned the European Medicines Agency about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis in millions of people receiving experimental gene-based injections”, adding that “in the long term we may be creating dangerously overactive immune systems in billions of unwitting subjects” has been taken off and replaced with this:
This is not only clearly a falsification of his original post but also a censorship of something that is largely an expression of mainstream concern about the AstraZeneca vaccine.
“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.”
This happened back in January. The doctor has received 541,729€ from the pharmaceutical industry, of which 52,812€ was from Gilead, the main pharmaceutical company that has financed innumerable studies showing the apparent uselessness of hydroxychloroquine. Gilead is the manufacturer of remdesivir, which truly is useless – at best – against Covid, even according to the WHO.
“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.”
“In front of the Quinta de Olivos, in Plaza de Mayo and in the area of the Buenos Aires Obelisk, thousands of people demonstrated during Saturday afternoon against the restrictive measures promoted by the national government during the last week. The main reason for the protest was the suspension of the attendance of students in the schools of the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires (AMBA)… the Police of the city of Buenos Aires arrested six people…when a group of demonstrators tried to pull down the fences … of the Government House and threw fireworks at the police officers…In Plaza de Mayo there was also a confrontation between the PFA and the demonstrators. It happened when the latter started to move the fences and the security force moved them away from the entrance firing water at them …The largest mobilization was in the downtown area. As the afternoon went by, the Plaza de la República received the first demonstrators, and they were joined by dozens of vehicles that blocked the vicinity of Avenida 9 de Julio. ..Those who approached the concentration points -a group of people also gathered at the corner of Cabildo and Juramento- expressed their discomfort at the impossibility for the students of the initial, primary and secondary levels of the AMBA to attend schools until April 30…”We want freedom and justice,” said a man in dialogue with TN…”Face-to-face education is essential,” read one of the posters. In Olivos, a teenager consulted on this issue, said: “I won’t be able to see my friends. It’s not the same. A lot of things are lost in the virtual world. The content is similar but it is not the same”.
“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”
“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.
“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)
“The unrest came a week after similar violence when police broke up an illegal party in the city. This week the exchanges were more heated, with police at one point being attacked by a Molotov cocktail. They responded with rubber bullets and tear gas. Two young people were injured. Some 21 were arrested by police for questioning, but all have since been released”
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 – “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).
Bits and pieces about Israel:
State limits access to tests in order to increase vaccinations “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. 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, completelyundermined the informed consentgiven 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.
* 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.
“One protester was killed and at least three others were critically injured as the police opened fire on mobs agitating against anti-COVID-19 restrictions in Saltha upazila of Faridpur on Monday night. The mobs attacked the upazila administrative office, Saltha police station, office of the assistant commissioner for land and muktijoddha complex and engaged in clashes with the police, according to witnesses…locals at one stage attacked sub-inspector Mizanur Rahman…hundreds of people marched towards the local police station and set fire to government installations, including the upazila parishad building, police station, AC Land office, UNO’s residence, upazila agriculture office”
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.”
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.”
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?
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 –
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?
This 2015 article about deaths following the flu vaccine, 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.
“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.”
“Police chief Archie Gamboa assured Thursday that the police would not start shooting the troublemakers. “The president has probably put too much emphasis on law enforcement in this time of crisis,” he said. Hours before Rodrigo Duterte’s statements Wednesday evening, nearly 20 people living in slums in Manila were arrested for staging a protest against the government, accused of failing to provide food aid to the poor. …”I ordered the police and the army as well as village officials to shoot people in the event of a problem or a fight that would put your lives on the line,” the president said. “Instead of causing problems, I will send you to the grave,” he thundered before explaining that after two weeks of confinement, the epidemic was continuing to progress.”
Covid has so far killed 0.012% of the population of the Phillipines.
“We were preparing a video of an interview with a general practitioner, a most interesting point of view that we wanted to share with you.Before even publishing it, take a look at the message we received:YouTube does not allow content that explicitly calls into question the effectiveness of social distancing and self-isolation measures advocated by local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO), and which may encouragepeople not to respect them “
“Calm returned after unrest all evening in Bois de la Cambre after a fake festival … Large groups of young people played a game of cat and mouse with the police all evening. This afternoon, a multitude of people showed up for “La Boum”, a fake festival that supposedly took place there. Peace did not return until 10 p.m. Dozens were injured and 22 people were arrested. 7 police horses were also injured. … The police put it at about 2,000 participants. They had turned up for the April fishing festival [April Fools Day in French is “Poisson d’avril” – Fish April] “La Boum” announced via Facebook by an anonymous artist collective from Brussels. From the beginning of this week it was clear that it was a joke, but it all got out of hand. Young people in particular often came together to party without a mouth mask. …the atmosphere only became grim when the police arrived a little after 4 pm. “Then it started to derail…The police first tried to quietly evacuate the park, but that did not work. So they deployed the great resources: horses, dogs and the water cannon.” …A large part of the park had already been evacuated by 6.30 p.m., but a hard core of a few hundred people continues to play a game of cat and mouse with the police for hours. During the evening twilight, the party is still going on, according to these images. … Fireworks are even set off by the revelers around 9 pm. At the same time, the water cannon must also be deployed several times. At that time, two large groups with several hundred young people are running amok in the Bois de la Cambre….Minister of the Interior Annelies Verlinden (CD&V) reacts indignantly. “The April Fool’s joke that got out of hand today in the Bois de la Cambre is a blow to all those people who are doing their best to respect the corona measures,” she said in a press release. …”I am well aware that the COVID crisis is now taking a very long time for many people and especially young people and that it is not always easy to comply with the measures,” she continues. “The more consistently we show solidarity with the measures, the faster we can stop the spread of the virus together.” The Brussels mayor Philippe Close (PS) is also unhappy about what happened. Earlier this week, he had already asked the public prosecutor’s office to take action against the April Fish Festival and the police were also on standby this afternoon, he said. “We cannot tolerate thousands of people coming together while the virus is still spreading…Everyone needs a party, but we cannot accept this.” … “It is still much too early for this”, says virologist Steven Van Gucht…”We are at a stage where very few people are vaccinated and protected, so we have to keep insisting on the measures. This is not worth repeating. ” Van Gucht says he understands that many young people are tired of it, but still asks to persist. “By letting go too early you can potentially cause thousands of extra deaths that are not necessary because in a few weeks the people at risk for complications and deaths will be vaccinated. It’s too early to let go, however difficult that may be.”
More here, here and here. “Spokesperson” for the collective apparently “responsible” for the fake festival speaks here. This spokesperson says that they want to spread the idea of “wild parties” (flashmob parties?) throughout Europe, as if the idea came from them. In fact, spontaneously or organised on Facebook or wherever, such parties, in defiance of the authorities, have existed for some time (see for instance, Facebook festivals, France May 2010) . I remember towards the end of confinement in Montpellier in May last year, a party of 100 people developed in the park without having been pre-organised at all. The absurdity of this epoch is that something as simple and banal as a street or park party is now defined as a threat to people’s lives and a callous egotistical act – both by “revolutionaries” and conservatives.
This article with the title “Don’t Hope – Agitate!” rightly questions the naive optimism of those who think a court decision can seriously challenge the government [Google translate]: “It’s like telling the troops that the enemy has withdrawn. Lowering their guns and guard at the same time, they would now no longer be able to see that a rival faction is ready to assault them from an ambush. The same is likely to happen with the “big news” of the day: “State condemned to lift all covid measures within 30 days”. It’s hard to imagine that in 30 days we will be out of the state of bewilderment into which the government and its media have plunged us for a year. Of course, sometimes justice does its job, but the separation of powers is more a matter of fable than reality. As for the fine of 5,000 € per day, it will be necessary to read until the end to discover that the total amount cannot exceed 200,000 € … peanuts for the state. What if the social body, weakened by the good news, was more inclined to be fooled? Remember in the Netherlands, when the court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch government should end the curfew in force, while the riots against the covid measures were in full swing: the same day, the Dutch Court of Appeal suspended the judgment. The article in Le Soir… ends today’s article with a note that could not be clearer: “It would be surprising if the state did not appeal this decision. Note that the “pandemic” law, intended to put an end to these problems, will be debated this Wednesday afternoon in committee in the House ”. So here we are reassured: the state will not stay with this decision (it would be naive to believe, when behind these liberticidal policies, there is something other than a simple reactivity to a “pandemic”)….”
That is, approximately 0.035% of the world’s population. But 2.18% of those officially infected (127m.). I say this because most figures confuse the percentage relative to infection with the percentage relative to population. This is a significant death rate but not at all the same as the Great Plague, the Spanish flu (which killed 2.7% of the world’s population) or HIV/AIDS (which has killed 0.6% of the population from 1981 to today), nor as compared with annual child mortality rates globally. The death rate is roughly the same as the child mortality rate due to starvation globally. Hard to know the annual rate of child deaths due to easily curable diseases, but about a million kids die each year of TB, for which there are cheap cures. Estimates for a combination of malnutrition and easily curable diseases are about 8 million deaths of children annually.
“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.
Google translate (Sheba is the name for Artemis Annua in Israel):
“Is it possible that Sheba treatment can help patients Corona? Why then is there no scientific proof of this?
I will start by telling you briefly about the Sheba plant. It is a plant that has a large number of varieties all over the world, named in Latin artemisia, and in many cultures its different varieties have been used to treat epidemics in traditional medicine.
The published variety is the one that grows in China and is called artemisia annua. This plant was found by a Chinese doctor and scientist named Yu-Yo-Tu to be effective in treating malaria and this discovery also won her the Nobel Prize. Other varieties are grown in Africa, Israel and America.
In China, Corona patients have been treated from the outset by combining conventional Western medicine with traditional Chinese medicine, including the Sheba plant.
This plant is also used in Africa to prevent and treat corona patients. Even in Israel, a small study was done on a natural preparation extracted from it called artemisin C. In Germany, too, they showed interest in the plant and tested its activity on the corona virus in vitro. Ask then why not a serious double-blind study was conducted with a large number of participants to test its efficacy in corona patients? The reason for this is simple. Such research requires huge budgets and for what comes from nature it is not possible to patent and reimburse these expenses later on. This is true not only for this plant, but also for many other herbs and spices for which there are small studies that show their activity in vitro or a small number of patients. Therefore, anyone who wants to use only a treatment whose effectiveness has been proven beyond any doubt in double-blind multi-participant studies will probably never use treatments that originate in nature.
There are a number of claims that are often used by those who oppose the use of herbs and spices.
1. If it was really effective, there would have long been producers of this drug.
2. If it helps, then surely it also has side effects, because it can not be that something will affect a biological system just the way we want, without causing unexpected problems.
3. Anyone who uses herbs is opposed to science and progress.
4. Those who use herbs endanger patients because that is why they do not receive other medications that could have saved them.
5. There is no scientific proof of the effectiveness of any herb and so it is a scam to tell a patient that it can help him. I will try to answer each of the claims.
One of the things that has been understood in recent years is that not only the active ingredient is important, but also the packaging is important.
It turns out, for example, that there are differences between original drugs and generic drugs even though the active ingredient and its composition are completely identical. In addition, there are more and more people who develop sensitivity to the various inactive substances. Beyond that, most plants do not have a single active ingredient, but a large number of substances that have different bonds between them. Even if we take the best scientists in the world, they will not be able to produce even the simplest plant out of nothing.
A distinction should be made between poisonous herbs, and herbs and spices that are found in every kitchen. Most of the herbs used in folk medicine belong to the second group. These are plants that humans have probably learned to use and put into their food because of their beneficial effects on their health. They are not fundamentally different from foods that also have a biological effect. Today it is known that many foods not only have an effect in terms of being a source of energy and building blocks, but also have an effect that is a control over various processes in the body.
Anyone who uses herbs is opposed to science and progress if he thinks there is no room for any other treatment. On the other hand, those who know when it is right to use them and when it is important to give medication only increase the tools available to them. The approach of Hippocrates and Maimonides is still true today, but many other tools have been added to it, which can and should be used intelligently.
Non-toxic herbs, they usually have a slow and moderate activity and therefore in most cases are not suitable when more significant pharmacological activity is required. For example: a patient with pulmonary embolism or a blood clot in the leg will need to receive anticoagulant treatment and providing herbs in their place will indeed put him at significant risk. In contrast, in a patient with a chronic non-life-threatening inflammatory process, the use of herbs that can be obtained over time may overuse steroids or at least allow their dose to be significantly reduced.
As I explained at the beginning there is and probably never will be a possibility to conduct a controlled multi-participant study on a medicinal plant, however understanding its mechanism of action (by testing its activity in vitro or identifying the active ingredients) or testing its effectiveness on a small number of patients in a low budget study is definitely possible. Therefore, as long as the patient is explained on what the thought the plant can be based and the patient understands that it is not a drug that has undergone several phases of research and has been approved by the FDA, there is no deception. Just as a salad or orange juice can be recommended to a patient. In addition, a physician’s personal experience in treating patients, or as it is called expert opinion, is also weighty, as there is no controlled study available that can give a scientific answer to a question. (See the Pyramid of Supported Medicine Evidence in the attached illustration).
And now I will return to the question of the use of the sheba plant as a treatment for corona.
First, the sheba plant belongs to a group of herbs that are found in gardens and kitchens. That is, a plant with gentle activity that is no more at risk than any tea or food we use in our daily lives.
Second, corona treatment is not yet acceptable, so the use of Sheba is not a proven and effective drug treatment. There are studies that have examined the mechanism of action and shown activity of the plant on the coronavirus virus in vitro and there are also small and low-budget studies on humans. There is already considerable evidence (including in small controlled trials) that early treatment of corona (before severe and life-threatening symptoms develop) affects the course of the disease and the risk of developing later complications. Therefore, I see no reason not to recommend this plant as part of the treatment of corona in the early stages before life-threatening symptoms have developed, as it is quite possible in light of all the above that it will affect the course of the disease and prevent complications. (As I did in the attached short video).
I emphasize again that when I recommend the use of this plant I explicitly say that there is no scientific proof (at the level of multi-participant double-blind studies) nor is there any approval from the Ministry of Health or the FDA to use it as a corona treatment so I do not mislead them.
I also note that although these are a small number of patients who decided to take my advice and try the use of the plant, to this day from my experience it has definitely helped improve symptoms, led to an increase in stature in those whose stature began to drop to potentially dangerous values and none reached needy condition. For oxygen therapy or respiratory support. I also emphasize again the fact that the level of evidence is currently within the scope of expert opinion, combined with case series and case reports.”
It should be pointed out that last year in France the government banned the growing of Artemis Annua. Certain companies have flouted this ban and have sold it – at the exhorbitant cost of 1€ for 200 seeds.
This doctor was for 20 years president of the “Caisse autonome de retraite des medicins de la France” (Autonomous retirement fund for physicians in France). He begins by saying the government has only recommended anti-coagulants and antibiotics and goes on to talk about a doctor who has treated 850 symptomatic Covid patients with azythromycine. Of these 850 patients 2 were hospitalised and nobody died. The French state remains silent about azythromycine and ivermictin. Andrew Hill, who has studied ivermictin says “there was a 75% reduction in mortality” with its use, and apparently it reduces symptoms twice as rapidly as without its use. The study covered 2282 patients. India has distributed 150 million doses of ivermictin and has proportionately 3 times less deaths than France. Ivermictin is forbidden throughout Mexico apart from Chiapas, which has proportionately 4 times less deaths than the other states of the country. On top of all this, the doctor says that GPs throughout France have received an order from the government not allowing them to give sick notes to those who have Covid! Apparently, if people need sick notes they either do it themselves over the internet or they go to hospital. The government doesn’t want them to see their GPs for fear that they may give them azythromicine or ivermectin rather than paracetomol which the government recommends (paracetomol is not something one should take if one has a fever as it suppresses symptoms but also suppresses the body’s capacity to fight the virus). Prescription of ivermectin for Covid has been forbidden since the end of December, but they possibly fear that doctors may prescribe it claiming that the patient has another illness even if the patient has Covid.
“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…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 …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).”
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.”
Another post of hers from mid-December (rough translation):
“20 years ago I sat down with one of the scientists from the Weizmann Institute with whom I collaborated on a joint grant. I do not remember what I said that made him hurl at me: “You are not interested in science at all, what interests you is just to treat patients.” At that moment I was offended to the depths of my soul, but today in retrospect it is one of the greatest compliments I have ever received. Even, while I was sitting writing a grant about a purely scientific study, what really preoccupied me was how it could help my patients.
I was reminded of that this morning while corresponding with a young doctor who explained to me why, despite all my concerns it is clear to her that she is going to get the new vaccine and recommend it to her patients.
This is what a doctor wrote to justify her decision. “Corona is a terrible disease that threatens everyone. The vaccine means security, it is Progress, it is a belief in science and not in luck/amulets/religion/conspiracy theories and darkness.”
And that was my answer:
The phlegm of corona patients is viscous and sticky, so they have a “dry” cough. I treat patients who come to me with the help of: breathing exercises, inhalations, herbs (yes! Herbs whose effectiveness and safety have been proven in centuries of experience, without “scientific” RCT), vitamins and more. They really had a very unpleasant illness, they recovered gradually over a few weeks and none of them have so far have been admitted to a hospital. I am also doing research on other patients who have used similar methods. Out of 60 patients, one of them with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was admitted to a hospital, was on the verge of intubation and then started taking myrrh and frankincense oil and within a week went home.
This vaccine is produced with a new technology that intervenes in two super complex systems that we know about today 10 times more than 30 years ago and in 30 years we will know 10 times more than today. We have no real information (just guesses and wishful thinking about its effectiveness and safety), in an article published in NEJM there is a conflict of interest in white Kiddush letters. The FDA also does not think it can be approved anymore, because the company itself said that because it is a new technology needs a two-year follow-up, but because of the state of emergency it gives permission to give it as experimental treatment outside of research. (Similar to so-called compassionate treatments that can be routinely given by a Helsinki to a single patient or at least 29g with clear documentation in a file that explains why there is justification for giving experimental treatment that has not yet been proven effective and safe).
And you prefer to treat yourself and your patients with this thing because it is “scientific” and not dark and without conspiracy theories.
I prefer to trust nature, which is the smartest and most considerate scientist and has no conflicts of interests. It does not need status and does not need money, just wants to be allowed to live quietly and not produce more and more materials and inventions that gradually destroy it.
By the way, the reason why I have treated very few patients to this day, even though my son and I and other people built an interactive software that would allow us to treat many patients, is because it is “unacceptable treatment” so I can only treat people I contact personally with those who turn to me for help. I proposed this idea to a HMO center, but in the meantime I could barely get approval for a non-interventional study.”
The letter:
Significant flaws in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial
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.
“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. “
“Police have used water cannon and batons to disperse a crowd of several thousand anti-lockdown protesters gathered at a field in the centre of The Hague a day before elections in the Netherlands. The demonstration was broken up after the protesters flouted social distancing rules and ignored police warnings to disperse. Local media said several arrests were made during the clashes. ..The Netherlands has been under a tough lockdown since late January with gatherings of more than two people banned, restaurants and bars shut and with the first night-time curfew since World War II. Dutch authorities had on Sunday stopped train services to The Hague, the seat of government, to prevent more protesters from arriving. Police initially told people to go home and announced over loudspeakers that the event was over and warned they would break up the protest by force if necessary. …Before the protest was dispersed, several people carried a homemade banner emblazoned with the text in Dutch “Love & Freedom: No Dictatorship”. Many in the crowd, gathered at the central Maliveld field in the city, were holding yellow umbrellas in a show of opposition and chanted “love, freedom, stop dictatorship”.
“Clashes broke out Saturday between police and people who gathered in defiance of COVID-19 restrictions at an unofficial vigil for a London woman whose killing has spurred a national conversation in the U.K. about violence against women. The hundreds who gathered on Clapham Common, near where marketing executive Sarah Everard last was seen alive on March 3, defied a police request to disperse and a judge’s order to honour her to draw attention to the fear and danger many women see as a daily part of British life. Everard disappeared while walking home from a friend’s apartment and was found dead a week later. The slaying sent shockwaves across the U.K. because a police officer is charged with her kidnapping and murder. Video of the informal vigil turned rally showed officers tussling with participants. Male officers grabbed hold of several women and led them away in handcuffs to screaming and shouting from onlookers”
More here “Many said they were only more determined to come after police effectively banned the vigil. “The irony of it is so explicit – are you going to drag women off the street for protesting about a woman being dragged off the street?” said Deborah Bestwick, 62.”
There’s also an irony in the fact that these demonstrators are calling for the cops to protect them. Reclaim the Nightused to be the standard feminist tactic – demos at night which didn’t make demands off abusive and brutal cops. But reclaiming the night is now illegal, thanks to the pretext of Covid.
And another point – Cate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, turned up to tell people how she also used to be afraid walking around at night. Undoubtedly this is true but the super-rich love to parade their credentials and pretend that they’re just like everybody else with reference to their own miseries (in this case, a misery she no longer has to suffer precisely because of her privileged position). And yet another point – men alone in the streets or parks at night are also often afraid (and with good reason), though obviously less so than women.
calling for a full investigation into the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan being the origin of Covid.
That this possibility actually considered plausible — in fact highly likely — by many scientists was news to me. The interview is very long and gets into all sorts of topics, including another fact that was new to me, namely that the first genetically modified humans were recently born (spawned?), also from a lab in China. …here is a short clip on the relevant section (youtu.be/XIXKJXsiBFc)
and here is an article by the interviewee laying out his views in detail:
“The closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 is a virus sampled by Chinese researchers from six miners infected while working in a bat-infested cave in southern China in 2012. These miners developed symptoms we now associate with Covid-19. Half of them died. These viral samples were then taken to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—the only facility in China that’s a biosafety Level 4 laboratory, the highest possible safety designation. The Level 4 designation is reserved for facilities dealing with the most dangerous pathogens. Wuhan is more than 1,000 miles north of Yunnan province, where the cave is located. If the virus jumped to humans through a series of human-animal encounters in the wild or in wet markets, as Beijing has claimed, we would likely have seen evidence of people being infected elsewhere in China before the Wuhan outbreak. We have not. The alternative explanation, a lab escape, is far more plausible. We know the Wuhan Institute of Virology was using controversial ‘gain of function’ techniques to make viruses more virulent for research purposes. A confidential 2018 State Department cable released this month highlighting the lab’s alarming safety record should heighten our concern. Suggesting that an outbreak of a deadly bat coronavirus coincidentally occurred near the only level 4 virology institute in all of China—which happened to be studying the closest known relative of that exact virus—strains credulity.” (jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/)
What is not mentioned there is that the People´s Liberation Army took over the virology institute immediately after the outbreak, and that nothing was gained from any of the “gain of function” research conducted by the lab in terms of learning how to avert a pandemic caused by coronaviruses.
A short clip of another interview by two other scientists offers their take on the possibility (youtu.be/ZMGWLLDSA3c)
“Gain of function” is research that deliberately makes viruses found in nature more virulent, more infectious to humans, more contagious and potentially more deadly. There are several labs around the world conducting this research with the aim of learning how to avert or diminish damage caused by hypothetical future pandemics. Apparently, it is possible, perhaps likely, that as is the case with many other aspects of this pandemic, the “cure” inflicted on the world by that holy alliance of medical science and the state is worse than the threat from nature ever was, and the whole world has literally become an experiment gone wrong.
SF:
This confirms things hinted at some time ago – e.g. these 2 quotes:
1.
From a 10/7/20 article here: https://cn.nytimes.com/health/20200710/coronavirus-origin-china-lucey/dual/?utm_source=HRIC+Updates&utm_campaign=8dd2a87cb6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_04_11_5 4_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b537d30fde-8dd2a87cb6-259226909 “Dr. Lucey asks the W.H.O. team to learn more about China’s main influenza research lab, a high-security facility in Harbin, the capital of China’s northernmost province. In May, he notes, a Chinese paper in the journal Science reported that two virus samples from Wuhan were studied there in great detail early this year, including in a variety of animals. It reported that cats and ferrets were highly susceptible to the pathogen; dogs were only mildly susceptible; and pigs, chickens and ducks were not susceptible at all.”
2.
And this from 2/5/20 – www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/hea… – says “It can also be revealed the Australian government trained and funded a team of Chinese scientists who belong to a laboratory which went on to genetically modify deadly coronaviruses that could be transmitted from bats to humans and had no cure”.
“Cureiouser and Cureiouser.” cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). ”
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: UK reports received between 9/12/20 and 28/02/21 for mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech 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)
It lists all those things under “Reaction Name”. I would have thought this meant a reaction to the vaccine not just something that happened to those who had the vaccine which would have included things that may have happened without the vaccine: the word “reaction” implies that. Particularly as they included things like “Surgical & medical procedures” and 1 case of “verbal abuse” under the heading “criminal activity”, a subheading of “Social circumstances” (in fact, many of the things under this latter heading seem bizarre). I admit the whole report isn’t clear and is quite ambiguous. Why for instance, under the heading “Tobacco use” (within the general category “Social circumstances”) do they list 2 reactions for “Non-tobacco user”? Does this mean that 2 non-tobacco users took up smoking in reaction to the vaccine? Why under the general heading “Surgical & medical procedures” do they have “Contraceptive methods male” for which “Condom” is given for 1 person vaccinated? Does that mean he decided to wear a condom as a result of the vaccine?
Nevertheless, despite these specific peculiar “reactions” 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.
“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 that hit the headlines for 5 minutes before being buried under endless pictures of people not maintaining social distancing. It reported “The Oxford coronavirus vaccine trial is facing a “challenge”, the health secretary has admitted, after it was put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in one of its volunteers…The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened are not currently known.” However, after 4 days the trials were resumed without any official indication of what had gone wrong. But the New York Times reported that the just mentioned volunteer in the UK trial had been diagnosed with transverse myelitis: “Symptoms include weakness and numbness of the limbs, deficits in sensation and motor skills, dysfunctional urethral and anal sphincter activities, and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system that can lead to episodes of high blood pressure….sensation to pain or light touch is impaired. Motor weakness…mainly affects the muscles that flex the legs and extend the arms…Back pain can occur at the level of any inflamed segment of the spinal cord…all four limbs may be affected and there is risk of respiratory failure…Lesions of the lower cervical region (C5–T1) will cause a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the upper limbs, and exclusively upper motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Cervical lesions account for about 20% of cases…A lesion of the lumbar segment, the lower part of the spinal cord (L1–S5) often produces a combination of upper and lower motor neuron signs in the lower limbs. Lumbar lesions account for about 10% of cases.”
And a bit later a second coronavirus vaccine volunteer suffered the very same rare neurological condition – “A 37-year-old woman suffered a rare neurological condition that left her struggling to walk…” Marvelous the way they say “the two cases were unlikely to be associated with the vaccine…” A rare disease amongst 2 people volunteering for the trial of the vaccine. Pure coincidence! 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.
“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.”
“…in a sample of Israeli PCR tests, patients who take small doses of aspirin were 29 percent less likely to test positive. They cross-referenced 10,477 results with medical records covering what preventive drugs patients take….Aspirin users who are diagnosed with COVID-19 are likely to have a shorter illness — by about two days — and be less likely to suffer from aftereffects of the coronavirus”.
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”.
“On February 4 a meeting was held at the Ministry of Health, dealing with vaccines against the coronavirus. At the meeting, Prof. Galia Rahav, the head of the Infectious Diseases Unit at the Sheba Medical Center, said that unless children are vaccinated too, we cannot vanquish the epidemic, and suggested proposing to Pfizer to conduct an experiment in which it would vaccinate Israeli children…She has received payments, in exchange for counseling and lectures (not on the coronavirus). This is disclosed at the bottom of articles she publishes in medical journals, which routinely require authors to disclose their funding sources. The problem is that the public which gets her professional recommendations through newspapers and television is not privy to this information. Rahav didn’t feel the need to provide such disclosure, and it seems that her interviewers were unaware of the situation….the financial links definitely place in her a situation of potential conflict of interest. This should at least be put on the table: but in Israel, financial ties between doctors and drug companies are kept shrouded, and Rahav is not an exception. Another senior physician who spoke before a Knesset committee, arguing in favor of a vaccine against cervical cancer, did not bother telling lawmakers that he had received funding from two makers of this vaccine, MSD and GSK. When I asked him about this, he gave the following explanation: “I give full disclosure in places where it is customary to do so, such as in lectures I give to physicians. I don’t declare a conflict of interests when I go shopping at a supermarket.” That’s how a senior physician treated the debate on vaccination policies in parliament….many studies have proven that money can produce bias in doctors’ considerations, whether they are aware of it or not. No one would accept a situation in which journalists reporting on the coronavirus also work for Pfizer, for money, at the same time, without informing readers. And these are just reporters. What physicians decide and do directly impacts public health, sometimes on matters of life and death. This certainly applies to people advising the government on policies. The public has the right to know exactly how much parties with vested interests are paying the physicians. Prof. Rahav told me that the amounts involved were peanuts, but she did admit that due to the modest wages she and her colleagues receive at the hospital, they need to supplement their income. Prof. Ron Dagan, her colleague in the team advising on the vaccine, also received money from Pfizer and other companies in the past. A few years ago, when I asked exactly how much he received, he got angry: “I won’t tell you how much I get from a drug company without a law requiring me to do so.” Actually, in the United States there is a law requiring drug companies to maintain transparency, and one can find at a keystroke exactly how many dollars any doctor has received and from which company. This transparency allows one to see whether it’s a matter of trifles, or of perks that could bias one’s judiciousness. It’s time for similar legislation to be enacted in Israel.”
Amongst some of the things said, it reveals that the W.H.O. has not published any figures of 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” (Le Monde says it only contains 1,200 doctors). One should, however, maybe take with a pinch of salt some of the information they’ve gleaned from an Israeli site. 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. Maybe, but 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.
Though the media figure is 5000, more than 10,000 people came (maybe 15,000), both local residents as well as people from all over the place. It was a mixed crowd of high school students, anarchists, CP members, football hooligans from various teams, families etc. It wasn’t actually a demo – more a flowing river of anger to the police station with about 2,000 in the front, throwing molotov cocktails, sticks, stones etc. One of them pulled a cop of Delta force down from his bike and then a crowd started attacking him.
Then followed a crackdown in the neighborhood, as after the 9pm curfew those few in the streets were beaten up and arrested in revenge. The escalation of repression is not so much due to the political nature of the right-wing government (some claim that it is a “dictatorship”) as to its need to manage the pandemic crisis in a cheap and advantageous way for the capitalist state so as to keep up and actually deepen austerity and on the other hand expedite a violent restructuring as far as work relations, the privatization of the health industry, the university and education in general, environmental laws etc. are concerned. Some months ago, like in November when there were arrrests of those occupying a section of the university, there were just a few politicized people – those who were presented as “troublemakers”, “irresponsible virus transmitters” etc., who were scapegoated and repressed. Now, more and more people realize that their life has become unbearable and the police are the most obvious reason for it.
“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)
“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.” Ses also this obnoxious piece of moral blackmail (which any look at the vaccine programme would reveal its repulsive nature), typical of the utter absence of criticism of the vaccines in the UK, a country that’s been thoroughly wrecked by the repressions and defeats of the last 30-40 years, with very few moments of trying to return to the fury of the past.
“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.”
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.
“ 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.”
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 flucould kill between 5 millionand150 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 850,000people 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-March2020 nofigures 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 613people in France, considerably less than flu .
…“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”
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 theCovid1984 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.
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 equallyand 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 othersviii)
II. The side effects
Concerns about side effects and tolerance of modern COVID-19 (RNA) vaccines are frequently dismissed by staunch techno-progressives, who refer to clinical trials. While admitting that a clinical trial (like that of the Pfizer firm) carried out on 38,000 people is promising and that it would be difficult to demand more from a company, it is extremely unlikely that the results are likely to be so encouraging applied to larger figures of several orders of magnitude. If the figure of 38,000 people may seem high, it can never include a diversity of health profiles equivalent to the population for which the vaccine is intended. The epidemic being global and the percentage necessary for the acquisition of collective immunity being between, approximately, 60-70% according to the WHO ix, this would make a theoretical target of approximately five billion people, that is to say a population a million times larger than in the Pfizer trial (while admitting that the actual number of people vaccinated will likely be lower). According to data from Pfizer x, 0.6% of vaccinated subjects presented “serious adverse events” and 0.1% “life-threatening events”. But 0.1% of life-threatening side effects put on the scale of a billion people would put a million lives at risk! Any preventive measure must do less harm than the pathology in question. However, the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 (which fluctuates around 0.2% xi) is far from being comparable to that of plague or Ebola epidemics. So is it justifiable to risk all these serious adverse events?
Since RNA vaccine technology is new, it is imperative to validate it. Conventional vaccines can be certified very quickly, because their technologies are known and thus pose no problem (this is why two influenza vaccines can be produced and certified per year). For RNA vaccines, certifying without applying the same basic stringency would be incorrect. Note also that those who claim the precautionary principle with social distancing and masks are suddenly absent from the debate!
To the list of concerns already mentioned can also be added:
the ineffectiveness of such new viral vector vaccines in people who would have natural immunity to the vector itself (the vector is an “empty” human virus, filled with RNA encoding SARS-CoV antigens 2). This is a benign but real problem, but nobody seems to care (non-existent problem with conventional vaccines)
A possible recombination of the vector / SARS-CoV-2 construct with a natural virus/viruses. This is a much more serious problem. In the scientific community (and this is becoming a bit technical, but may interest some competent readers in the field), two arguments are opposed to this concern (i) gene exchanges only take place between viruses of the same type (between DNA viruses on the one hand and RNA viruses on the other hand, but not between these two categories) and (ii) any catastrophic event would be unlikely. The first argument is correct, but examples of exchanges between RNA and DNA viruses exist and cannot be overlooked xii. The second dialectic, which consists in sweeping aside fears on the pretext that even if risks exist, they are so improbable that they can be dismissed, demonstrates the carelessness of techno-progressives in the face of calculations of probabilities. Just imagine, for example, that only one hundredth of the world’s population would end up being vaccinated, twice a year. This would still represent hundreds of millions of doses per year, integrating into thousands / millions of our cells several virus vector particles of the vaccine, all potentially capable of transforming themselves… The nanoscopic adverse event that could give birth to a Frankenstein monster would have to be less than a chance in hundreds of billions.
Add to this probability an additional, more basic, but absolutely crucial condition: the fact that you cannot administer a vaccine when you are actively infected. For example, when injecting flu shots, the doctor should make sure that his patient is not carrying the virus. This would open the door wide to wild recombinations. Have governments considered in their vaccination strategies to screen people for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 (including asymptomatic) before giving them the vaccine?
Note also that those who claim the principle of taking precautions with social distancing and masks are suddenly absent from the debate!
It is for these reasons that in 2016 “the Brighton Collaboration” (a non-profit global network on vaccine safety and aimed at healthcare professionals) formulated guidelines following the recommendations of the United States Agency. Food and Drug Products FDA and the European Medicines Agency) for the design of vector vaccines. These recommendations include (i) the review of knowledge related to viral recombinations, (ii) the extent of the timeliness of these events, (iii) the review of the mechanisms leading to these events and (iv) the establishment of safety measures as well as methods of detecting these adverse events xiii. Have these principles been respected?
We are told that the advantage of modern vaccines, compared to conventional ones, is their ability to be modulated to adapt them to a changing situation. So, if a particularly virulent variant were to suddenly spread, modern vaccines would have an advantage. If this is indeed correct, these new vaccines which overstimulate and modulate immunity nevertheless have a major drawback compared to more traditional vaccines: that of interfering with the immune balances themselves. The principle of these gene vaccines is to force our own cells to produce viral fragments (rather than injecting them) against which the body will immunize. When it is our cells that produce foreign particles, the risk of an autoimmune reaction that escalates into anaphylactic shock [https://www.webmd.com/allergies/anaphylactic-shock-facts] or rejection from our own cells is higher. In practice, we do not know what will happen in a whole category of patients, starting with those who suffer from immune or endocrinological pathologies (we are thinking here, for example, of Alzheimer’s patients, type I diabetics, rheumatic diseases and joints, Cushing’s or Addison’s diseases, certain thyroid pathologies, etc.). This represents a significant fraction of the population and deserves to be investigated.
There remains one final concern regarding the science behind all these vaccines (all types combined): that of the vaccine strategy. Belgium has decided to give priority to vaccinating people at risk, including the elderly, and nursing staff. While the strategy makes sense for the latter category of people, it is less so for the elderly. The virus is only dangerous for certain people with weak immune systems. However, the principle of vaccination is to stimulate the immune system and therefore, the vaccine will never be more effective than the immune system on which it relies… In America, it is children who are vaccinated against seasonal flu, because even though this category of the population does not suffer from the disease caused by these viruses, they can transmit it. However, it responds well to the vaccine and through herd immunity it protects people who do not respond well. Establishing a vaccination strategy based on fragile people who are also the most exposed to autoimmune risks therefore seems ineffective and therefore seems to me to be more of a political communication decision than a scientific one.
As for other reasons that prompt me to consider these vaccines with caution, Paul Lannoye describes clearly in his article his critical review of the implementation of these vaccines and their links with the EU in “About the anti-covid vaccine. Neither conspiracy nor blind belief” xiv. I also invite readers to consult the report by Dr Vélot (molecular geneticist at the University of Paris-Saclay and Chairman of the Scientific Council of CRRIGEN) xv, a summary of which is also provided by Valérie Tilman in “Covid-19 : Expert report on vaccines using GMO technologies: summary of Dr Vélot’s note” xvi. This analysis, independent of mine, arrives at the same conclusions. It should also be noted that the first data from the vaccination campaign are starting to become available and reflect our concerns. Indeed, the latter do not confirm the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine three weeks after the administration of the first dose, prompting a re-examination of the schedule for the administration of the second in several countries xvii.
My training in environmental virology allowed me to study the extremely dynamic nature of viruses and their reproductive cycles. They represent the most abundant biological entity on Earth and reproduce with formidable speed and multiplicity. They are capable of both killing us and saving us. So, to protect my family and loved ones, it is obvious to me that we all need to be vaccinated with conventional vaccines. But as always, you have to know the difference between which are effective and safe and which are less so. Honest communication and a standards-abiding approach are necessary. It is curious that not only has this communication not been made, but that in forcing vaccines as the only solution – when vaccines are never curative therapies – the authorities have forgotten that medicine is there first of all to treat people… What happens with the practice of general practitioners, that is to say the first line of defense? We cannot examine patients and measure the severity of their condition just by going online and asking for COVID tests… Where are we with curative therapies?
Kaarle P., PhD in environmental virology
iThis has been a term used in France which has been applied to those who try to downplay the exaggerated fear of this epidemic inculcated by the dominant society.
iiiSome scientific articles about recombination in RNA viruses and coronaviruses :Sanjuán R, Domingo-Calap P. Mechanisms of viral mutation. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016 Dec;73(23):4433-4448. doi : 10.1007/s00018-016-2299-6. Epub 2016 Jul 8. PMID : 27392606 ; PMCID : PMC5075021.Worobey M, Holmes EC. Evolutionary aspects of recombination in RNA viruses. J Gen Virol. 1999 Oct;80 ( Pt 10):2535-2543. doi : 10.1099/0022-1317-80-10-2535. PMID : 10573145.Kumar N, Sharma S, Barua S, Tripathi BN, Rouse BT. Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Jul 5;31(4):e00111-17. doi : 10.1128/CMR.00111-17. PMID : 29976554 ; PMCID : PMC6148187.Banner LR, Lai MM. Random nature of coronavirus RNA recombination in the absence of selection pressure. Virology. 1991 Nov;185(1):441-5. doi : 10.1016/0042-6822(91)90795-d. PMID : 1656597 ; PMCID : PMC7131166.
ivhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/06/23/covid-19-ping-pong-animal-to-human-human-to-animal-animal-to-human-transmission-how-great-a-danger/?sh=19fe321f22f4 et https://www.kairospresse.be/article/lettre-ouverte-a-mes-collegues-dont-la-tache-est-de-soigner-des-personnes-et-non-des-chiffres
viGraham RL, Baric RS. Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike : mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J Virol. 2010 Apr;84(7):3134-46. doi : 10.1128/JVI.01394-09. Epub 2009 Nov 11. PMID : 19906932 ; PMCID : PMC2838128.
viiBaddal B, Cakir N. Co-infection of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in the same host : A silent threat. J Infect Public Health. 2020 Sep;13(9):1251-1252. doi : 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.017. Epub 2020 Jun 22. PMID : 32622797 ; PMCID : PMC7306724 et Banerjee A, Doxey AC, Tremblay BJ, Mansfield MJ, Subudhi S, Hirota JA, Miller MS, McArthur AG, Mubareka S, Mossman K. Predicting the recombination potential of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Gen Virol. 2020 Dec;101(12):1251-1260. doi : 10.1099/jgv.0.001491. Epub 2020 Sep 9. PMID : 32902372.
xPfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162, PF-0730208) vaccines and related biological products advisory committee briefing document. Pour les données citées : Table 8, p. 46 https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download?fbclid=IwAR3luk3uJ3zpFKwUJGHQyqvMiXXkOh7iKgNeoNFsxB_G7oxbB2vb2KxWrtg
xi Ioannidis, J.P.A. « Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data » Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Article ID : BLT.20.265892 ;https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
xiiStedman KM. Deep Recombination : RNA and ssDNA Virus Genes in DNA Virus and Host Genomes. Annu Rev Virol. 2015 Nov;2(1):203-17. doi : 10.1146/annurev-virology-100114-055127. Epub 2015 Sep 2. PMID : 26958913.
xiii Condit RC, Williamson AL, Sheets R, Seligman SJ, Monath TP, Excler JL, Gurwith M, Bok K, Robertson JS, Kim D, Michael Hendry R, Singh V, Mac LM, Chen RT ; Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG). Unique safety issues associated with virus-vectored vaccines : Potential for and theoretical consequences of recombination with wild type virus strains. Vaccine. 2016 Dec 12;34(51):6610-6616. doi : 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.060. Epub 2016 Jun 23. PMID : 27346303 ; PMCID : PMC5204448.
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
Christian Vélot, molecular geneticist , University Paris-Saclay, president of Scientific Council of Criigen (COMITÉ DE RECHERCHE ET D’INFORMATION INDÉPENDANTES SUR LE GÉNIE GÉNÉTIQUE – https://criigen.org/ )
Vaccines are not the same as medicines for those who are ill (we may generally accept side effects for those who are ill).
A virus with a “spike” of covid on the surface of an envelope capsule of protein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_protein). Protein allows virus to be anchored to the surface of cells which are infected with a virus and release its genetic material (g.m.) there.
DNA is genes and some hold the secret of protein manufacture. Proteins are large molecules that act as all biological processes that take place in our cells. DNA holds manufacturing secret of proteins.
From DNA (double helix) genes to protein is not direct – it passes through the DNA which must be converted into single strand molecule RNA. Intermediary between DNA and protein, is called the “messenger” (i.e. mRNA). DNA language conversion into RNA molecule is called TRANSCRIPTION. RNA is decoded to create protein “language” (“translation”).
So DNA → transcription to RNA → translation to PROTEIN
Virus injects itself into DNA and follows same DNA → transcription to RNA → translation to PROTEIN process and can then leave cells to infect other cells and individual cells to carry itself because it has no autonomy. It can’t create its own proteins.
Some viruses’ g.m. is NOT DNA but is directly RNA. That is, it is directly the intermediary to proteins (ie the messenger to proteins). Which is the case with COVID.
Normally a vaccine is used to stimulate the immune system – to prepare the antibodies to neutralise the infectious virus (or bacteria). Some vaccines involve injecting the whole virus – which are “inactive”: it looks the same to the antibodies but it’s “dead”. The problem with these is that they’re not very powerfully “immunogenic”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunogenicity) – “immunogenic” meaning able to stimulate the immune system. So you have to empower it with adjuvants(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjuvant) – aluminium salts, formaldehyde, etc. and you have to repeat the injections.
Attenuated (or “inactive/dead”) vaccines are NOT in fact dead, not inactivated , but weakened.
So if we get a mutant strain of a virus which has become heat-sensitive and can’t multiply at body temperature (37º) lab procedures can make the virus heat-sensitive.
Attenuated vaccines are more immunogenic than “inactive/dead” ones. But because they’re not dead they can be more dangerous because they’re not sufficiently attenuated. Especially for those who are fragile, like pregnant women.
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.
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!
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
Miller E et al. : Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A / H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis; BMJ 2013; 346-f794.
Christian Velot: Expertise note for the general public on vaccines using GMO technologies; CRIIGEN; September 2020
Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 15, 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing genetically modified organisms or consisting of such organisms and intended to treat or prevent disease coronavirus (COVID-19), as well as the supply of these drugs.
Dr Vincent Reliquet: Vaccinsanti-Covid in 2020: health, political, media and financial madness: AIMSIB; 22/11/2020.
The following text is largely inspired by the dossier published by AIMSIB: Malaria, Covid -19 and the vaccine miracle; April 19, 2020.
P.Aaby et al. : WHO’s rollout of Malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months? , January 2020.
P.Doshi, WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”, February 2020.
ii Miller E et al. : Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A / H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis; BMJ 2013; 346-f794.
iii Christian Velot: Expertise note for the general public on vaccines using GMO technologies; CRIIGEN; September 2020
iv Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 15, 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing genetically modified organisms or consisting of such organisms and intended to treat or prevent disease coronavirus (COVID-19), as well as the supply of these drugs.
v Dr Vincent Reliquet: Vaccinsanti-Covid in 2020: health, political, media and financial madness: AIMSIB; 22/11/2020.
vi The following text is largely inspired by the dossier published by AIMSIB: Malaria, Covid -19 and the vaccine miracle; April 19, 2020.
vii P.Aaby et al. : WHO’s rollout of Malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months? , January 2020.
viii P.Doshi, WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”, February 2020.
ix https://www.kairospresse.be/article/stimuler-notre-systeme-immunitaire-un-imperatif-sanitaire-urgent
(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
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
“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!!!
“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.
“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.”
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
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…
“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
“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:
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
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.
* 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.”
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?
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 –
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
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
“ 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:
“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.
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
[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.
A small clarification on the effectiveness rates of vaccines posted with
great publicity: 90, 95, 98%. I have the impression that we are abusing
public opinion, and our leaders (easy). Indeed, conventional vaccines,
which are less effective, raise the question of a second injection to
strengthen immunity, for example Astra Zeneca claims an effectiveness
rate of 70%, but which could reach 100% with two doses. However, RNA
vaccines immediately offer 2 injections. Is it to hide insufficient
efficiency? Wouldn’t they be more effective than those that show 60 to
80%? From what I’ve read on each one, it seems obvious to me, and this
display is a deception, it’s a publicity battle.
Moreover, no one knows what the terms of protection will be. We even give
the protocol to vaccinate those who have already had Covid, which is
to say the confidence we have in this period of immunity. So multiplying
the doses by 2, renewing every 6 or 12 months, is to multiply the risks
[the possible dangers from the new vaccines] by 4.
A Bad “Good and Only” Solution
We have staked everything on a single product whose positive or negative
effects we do not know beyond 2 months, knowing that it may have some.
We have ignored, despised, hid the other possibilities of struggle, we
have been wrong about many things for months, result: the French no
longer have any trust, more than 60% do not adhere to official doctrine. This is
enough to cover the elders (with more suggested than informed consent),
which will probably decrease mortality in this population, but
insufficient for herd immunity, yet everything has been bet on the
vaccine and that immunity. It won’t work.
There is also the problem of transfers. We have already seen the great
ease of mutation of Sars-Cov-2, more than 1000 mutations described,
fortunately not in a bad sense, except for the latest which is more contagious but
not more nasty, but everything is possible and feared. Laboratories and
authorities are trying to reassure on this point, but they know it very
well, this virus, like all influenza coronaviruses, is a permanent
mutant, and all vaccines will therefore be regularly obsolete like those
for winter flu.
After these disturbing remarks on these genetic vaccines, to make the
balance, never refusing adversarial debate, the only one which
advances towards the truth, here is a clear synthesis, of a learned
society, the Society of infectious pathology, aimed at reassuring
the population about the vaccine. Allow me also to underline what brings
us together, and what opposes us, each will form their own opinion,
everything is on the table: very reassuring, yes, but let us note
however that the mutations that can make the current vaccines
ineffective are not denied. , that the appearance of autoimmune
diseases is not denied, with a laconic “not observed” (after 2
months), while contesting those concerning those of neighboring proteins
that may be targeted (syncytin). The possibility of complications
after 6 months is ignored, ignoring that it sometimes takes years
to demonstrate them (see the thousands of narcolepsy from the H1N1
vaccine, and the hundreds of children who have died from Dengvaxia), and
finally, the existence of viral recombinations is not developed.
The bet might be a winner, but what if it isn’t? What consequences if it
loses? Especially when there are other alternatives, either immediate
medication (see what’s happening in nursing homes that treat), or
vaccines? In conclusion I will repeat the introduction of my colleague
quoted above, quoting Dr Ryan, Executive Director at WHO: “If there is
one thing more dangerous than a bad virus, it is a bad vaccine”.”
In Israel, there are stories from prisoners about threats of deteriorating their conditions if they don’t get vaccinated; another report about an association running night-stay shelters for homeless people who’s telling them “get the vaccine or go back on the street”; and soldiers offered different kind of perks if they get the vaccin (trips abroad etc.).
***
Vaccine as interrelation between politicians and Big pharma:
“In Europe, there have been 71 deaths reported following a Covid-19 vaccination – including from across the UK, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. Almost all were people aged 75 or over. The European Medicines Agency has so far said: “No death among these elderly people has been attributed to the [Pfizer/BioNTech] vaccination at this stage.” In total in France, 139 cases of severe or unexpected side-effects have been reported since the start of the vaccination campaign.”
“Norwegian health officials reported a small number of deaths among older people on Sunday who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and suffered side effects. While the Norwegian Medicines Agency is now investigating the deaths — estimated to be about 30 — the regulator and Australian authorities have been quick to play down any serious safety concerns. “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail,” Professor Brendan Murphy, secretary of the Department of Health… In the US, where more than 11 million people have received at least one dose of the vaccine, health authorities are beginning to see rare instances of severe (though treatable) allergic reactions to some of the COVID-19 vaccines. They’re also investigating the case of a doctor who developed an unusual blood disorder shortly after receiving the Pfizer jab, and later died. It’s not yet known whether the COVID jab is linked to his illness.”
Note the secretary of the Department of Health’s words “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail”. They were in their 80s. The King of Norway is 83. If he’d died after being vaccinated, would the secretary of the Department of Health have simply said “This man who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately died, was very, very old and frail”? Maybe Pfizer should change its name to Pfizeuthanasier or even Pfizeuthanazier and nazier.
See also thisand this. “Norway expressed increasing concern about the safety of the Pfizer Inc. vaccine on elderly people with serious underlying health conditions after raising an estimate of the number who died after receiving inoculations to 29. The latest figure adds six to the number of known fatalities in Norway, and lowers the age group thought to be affected to 75 from 80. While it’s unclear exactly when the deaths occurred, Norway has given at least one dose to about 42,000 people and focused on those considered most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly. Until Friday, the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech SE was the only one available in Norway, and “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine,” the Norwegian Medicines Agency said…“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.” Official reports of allergic reactions have been rare as governments rush to roll out vaccines”.
“In a massive blow to Spain’s Pfizer vaccination plan, more than 65 residents and ten staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the Foietes nursing home in Benidorm just days after receiving the first Covid-19 vaccine. According to official sources, the residence previously hadn’t registered any cases for months, and most residents and staff had negative PCR tests shortly before the vaccine drive began on January 4.”
“The retired Spaniard had received his first dose of the vaccine on December 29, along with the rest of the privately-run home. Within days of receiving the jab, the man ‘suffered an accident’ and was transferred to a hospital where a routine COVID-19 test detected the disease.The rest of the care home was tested and an outbreak was confirmed after several more residents and employees tested positive. The home had managed to not register a single case among its staff or residents throughout the whole pandemic. It comes after another home in Vinaros, also in Castellon, reported 21 coronavirus cases on Monday after all residents had been vaccinated on New Year’s Eve. On January 4, a general screening was carried out and all residents and workers tested negative. But after a resident presented symptoms, a new screening was carried out on January 9, revealing positive cases among 14 residents, five workers and two nuns. The first dose of the vaccine does not guarantee immunization, meaning you can still become infected and infect others until after you receive the second dose. While the first dose has suggested it can decrease the severity of symptoms in some cases, it is not guaranteed.”
Not sure whether this shows that testing is crap or that there’s something dangerous in the Pfizer vaccine.
“An association that operates a homeless shelter in Tel Aviv has
threatened those staying in the shelter that if they are not vaccinated
for Corona, they will be evicted from the place. The association: ‘We
are allowed to demand from every street dweller who wants to stay under
our roof to get vaccinated’
This week, a vaccination campaign was conducted for street dweller
staying in sheltered apartments in Tel Aviv on behalf of the Lasova
Association, which operates the apartments with the assistance of the
Ministry of Welfare and the municipality. The residents of the shelters
known as “little roofs”, claim that the association’s employees
threatened them that if they did not join the organized group that went
to the vaccination center and were vaccinated, they would be evicted
from the apartment and left without a place to live.
They shouted at me, ‘Get the vaccine and if not, go back on the
street,’” says one of the tenants. “When a friend of mine found out
about it and said everyone has to get vaccinated at six P.M., there was
an outrage at the home. People flew off the handle. Everyone was in a
storm of emotions. I don’t know anyone who agrees to this thing.”
Although this is a vaccine that has passed all the required regulatory
approvals, stipulating the residence in getting the vaccine is putting
pressure on people with no choice. In a conversation we had with one of
the tenants before the vaccination, he said that some of them left the
compound in an attempt to evade receiving the vaccine. “Some of them may
have an alternative, but there are certainly some who do not. This
apartment exists for people who cannot currently find a housing
solution,” he says. “A lot of them couldn’t find a place to live,
certainly not from one day to the next. They didn’t put a gun to our
head but they told us, ‘This apartment needs to be vaccinated. Anyone
who doesn’t get vaccinated can’t be here.’”
According to another tenant, the decision to abandon the shelter could
lead to a deterioration in their condition. “‘Some of the tenants are in
the process of rehabilitation,” he says. “Leaving the shelter back to
the street because of a refusal to be vaccinated can disrupt the
process, maybe even terminate it.”
“I was scared, so I got vaccinated”
Lasova operates 11 shelters known as “little roofs” for street dwellers
in cooperation and budget support from the Tel Aviv Municipality. The
“little roofs” are divided into different groups, including dwellers
with a background of alcohol and drug addiction, women, people with
disabilities, rehabilitated residents and street dwellers with no
background of addiction. In total, more than a hundred tenants live in
them.
The reasons why the residents of the home are not interested in
receiving the vaccine are varied. “They say they want to see how it goes
first,” says one of them. “Some say they are young and healthy and do
not need it.” Another tenant says he prefers other people to get the
vaccine before him. “I don’t see any point in it,” he explains. “I am a
young person, with no underlying illnesses.”
Tenants report that about a third of those staying at the home did not
receive the vaccine. “I do not know what this means for the continuation
of their stay in the association,” says one of the tenants. He said he
was vaccinated even though he did not want to, because he feared that
the threats would materialize and not allow him to stay in the
residence. “The principle of not getting vaccinated was not critical
enough for me,” he admits. “But the vaccine was unnecessary.”
“The vaccine is not only a matter for each individual, but also for the
health and well-being of those who live with him,” says Gilad Harish,
CEO and chairman of the Lasova association. “The dormitories are
relatively densely populated with dozens of street dwellers, whose
health and well-being must be ensured.
“These shelter are the only solution for the overnight stay of street
dwellers, and these street dwellers have no ability to choose. Now that
there is finally a safe and approved vaccine, we may demand from every
street dweller who wants to stay in the shelter to get vaccinated, and
prevent risk to the other residents.” In the same way, we do not accept
people with infectious diseases, violent people, and people who can not
live together peacefully and endanger the other tenants. At this stage,
we do not intend to keep vaccinating tenants away, but I do not rule it
out. The issue is under extensive scrutiny.”
The Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality responded: “Contrary to the claim, the
Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality and the association do not require the
residents of the shelters to be vaccinated and they may continue to stay
in the shelters even if they choose not to be vaccinated. However, the
municipality encourages its residents to get vaccinated, in accordance
with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health. It should be noted that
the Ministry of Welfare proposed to the welfare system to vaccinate
their patients. “Since the residents of the shelters are patients of the
welfare system, we were given the opportunity to vaccinate them if they
wanted to.””
Alarmed by the phenomenon, some administrators have dangled everything from free breakfasts at Waffle House to a raffle for a car to get employees to roll up their sleeves. Some states have threatened to let other people cut ahead of health care workers in the line for shots.
The following is what I have gleaned from this French text, with some additional interpretations and information :
This blog looks at the current process in France, but much of it applies to the rest of the world also. It looks at the process just in its own terms, i.e. from a conventional perspective that’s not at all critical of this society nor at all skeptical about other past vaccination programmes. It doesn’t question dominant ideas about what we mean by health – and so obviously ignores the fact that an essential aspect of health, including mental health, is to try to resist and attack this fundamentally sick society. Which, in a sense, makes his criticism of the current rush to vaccination all the more scary .
He says that with a vaccine in general, early complications are usually the least serious, whilst more serious, entrenched, problems can come later. The reason it usually take several years to develop what is considered a safe and efficacious vaccine is that the process of experimentation has to be long to be as safe and secure as possible, and even then problems, often serious problems, occur. Safety and the rush to get out a vaccine do not go together. The current process is a game of poker, full of risks – it’s a gamble whether it works and saves lives or it causes grave losses. And the loser is not just one or two individuals but also potentially the entire global population, with the possible emergence of a recombinant virus through the vaccination, a subject which is virtually never discussed.
Hundreds of millions of vaccination doses have been ordered on the basis of a press release from laboratories, and organized vaccination campaigns, without knowing anything about either the benefit or the risk.
There’s been no comparative studies of the various vaccines now being used in different countries to find out first which is the safest and which is the most effective.
In France, the state and the media claim is that it has been validated by a commission of medical authorities responsible for studying whether it could be put on the market or not. This is a total lie. The product was bought and the campaign organized, before this commission even met to discuss it. The decision was not a medical one but a political one, and this commission did not issue a medical opinion, but endorsed a political decision already made.
It’s worth knowing that these medical authorities had validated remdesivir before the WHO declared it relatively dangerous on 20th November. Last year the EU gave Gilead, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures remdesivir, a billion euros to combat Covid – at a cost of 2000 euros for a 5-day treatment for one person and had to stop ordering the stuff because it was not only ineffective but also had fairly dangerous side effects. [An aside about Gilead: despite them declaring that remdesivir, a vaccin previously used for Ebola, was “safe” and “effective”, this company has financed something close to 80% of the trials for hydroxychloroquine that “proved” that it was “unsafe”, some of these trials including azythromicine]. Gilead didn’t suffer financially at all because – either in 2018 or in 2010 (I’ve lost the date) – the EU decided that responsibility for lack of efficacy, for all side effects, or contraindications that had not been warned against, fell on the various states, with only Poland objecting. That is, compensation is paid out not by the companies but the states which are meant to verify whether a particular drug or piece of medical equipment etc., is safe or not (but in fact, they don’t do extra trials themselves, but only look at the various papers showing the companies’ research and on that basis decide whether the research meets their requirements of “scientific protocol” or not). In the US this has been the case since the 1980s. So as a result no individual is ever prosecuted – at worst the company itself has to pay compensation for deaths or whatever. Apparently Pfizer, the currently most well known of the companies producing an anti-Covid vaccine, regularly pays out billions in class action claims (which , moreover, are not easy things to pursue and can take several years even when they are pursued). In France compensation for catalepsy (a medical condition characterized by a trance or seizure with a loss of sensation and consciousness accompanied by rigidity of the body), originating from the anti-swine flu vaccine, was apparently very poorly compensated.
Re. the 2009-2010 swine flu “pandemic”. Despite a relentless propaganda programme in the media (main news item for several weeks) pushing people to get vaccinated because of the terror of swine flu, less than 10% of the population took up this manipulated ‘need’ for a vaccine. The Minister of Health at the time, Rosalyne Bachelot, whose personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry were well-known, ordered 94 million vaccines from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Baxter International at a cost of around 900 million euros to the state. Most of the vaccines were never used. As a result of the vaccine, there were 21 deaths, 4 anaphylactic shocks, 9 Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura cases, 6 multiple sclerosis cases, and 9 Guillain–Barré syndromes. The illness itself killed 310 people in France, considerably less than deaths from ordinary flu.
Back to the anti- covid vaccine and Dr. Gérard Maudrux’s blog:
“There used to be 3 types of vaccines. Those with an inactivated virus, low immunogenicity and low risk; those with a live attenuated virus, a little more efficient and more risky, and those comprising not a whole and manipulated virus, but a fragment, usually a protein.
The 2 Chinese vaccines on the market belong to the first category, the inactivated virus…it is a proven technique, widely used and without risk. Little effect in the worst case scenario… efficiency: 79.5%.
Now with Covid there are 2 new types of vaccines: DNA and mRNA vaccines.
RNA:
Like DNA, RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides, but unlike DNA, RNA is found in nature as a single strand folded onto itself, rather than a paired double strand. Cellular organisms use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information (using the nitrogenous bases of guanine, uracil, adenine, and cytosine, denoted by the letters G, U, A, and C) that directs synthesis of specific proteins. Many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome….
...These are experimental vaccines, because they are techniques never used in humans…so we know absolutely nothing about the possible long-term effects, which worries many people because they are treatments that affect the genes…so can there be a modification of our genes? This question is all the more relevant as these treatments have been developed thanks to research into gene therapy, precisely designed to modify diseased genes.
DNA vaccines …inject genetically modified viruses which don’t produce diseases but are responsible for “flu-like syndromes” into which the DNA sequences of SARS-Cov-2 are introduced. Messenger RNA vaccines directly inject a messenger RNA which will then be manufactured by our cells, against which we will then develop antibodies. …
…Can RNA fit into and modify our genes? Just to remind you, the DNA that makes up our genes is a double helix of nucleotides, RNA is a single helix of the same nucleotides (with different bonds). In theory no, the conversion is always DNA to RNA, the reverse is not normally possible with us. On the other hand, this …passage of RNA into DNA exists in nature and can integrate it into genes. This is the case with the HIV virus,. So the risk of integrating DNA vaccines is not zero. It exists in nature (and in humans), creating what are called chimeras. It was observed in a vaccine trial in children in 2002, resulting in 2 leukemias in 10 patients.
But the greatest risk seems elsewhere. You will find it very well described by Professor Velot, molecular geneticist at Paris-Saclay University and specialist in genetic engineering . Viruses often mix their genetic material together. If a viral RNA is injected into a healthy (or sick) carrier of a virus, another virus may be created by recombination (mixture of material). This recombination can give birth to something unharmful , but also to something dangerous, nastier than the SARS-Cov-2. This probability is very low statistically, but by no means zero. If it can happen in 1 in 10 million people, and you vaccinate 10,000 people, this risk is low, but if you vaccinate 500 million, 1 billion people, then the risk becomes real, and we can move from an individual risk, which happens for any vaccine, to a risk which would concern the entire planet which can then be contaminated by an incurable virus. And all this just to be ahead in the competition for the greatest boost to the pharmaceutical companies’ share values….
The French minister of health said on 7th January: “We have not yet determined, in any country in the world, whether the vaccine protects against the risk of contamination”. By “the risk of contamination” he means the risk of infecting others.
“I don’t know if you have noticed this paradox. One would have thought that our contemporaries were afraid of everything, that they were ready to accept anything for their survival, that they did not want to take any risk and did not hesitate to shut themselves up and hide their children for that reason. Except that we were wrong: the same people who are terrified of children and who wear a mask in the open air, when there is the least risk, are ready to be massively vaccinated, even though the potential risks are much higher. Doublethink: the principle of precaution is alternately made sacred, asserted above all and yet contested, trampled on where one would have some justification. We bathe in illogicality and terror.
The only explanation for me is the reign of spectacular thought. If Covid is scary and yet a potentially catastrophic therapy isn’t, it’s that the second has not been pointed out by the media and that the spectators, who do what they are told , are therefore not afraid or, in any case, less than of Covid. The media, power, by focusing attention on it, have succeeded in creating an absolute Evil, to which everything else appears to be secondary: other diseases, freedoms, happiness, friendship, love, life … A lifeless life that looks like death.
The worst part of all this sinister farce is that “revolutionaries” have also come to take their instructions from power and the media and do what they are told. ” [translated from French]
The rapid rollout combined with the country’s vast medical database is a gold mine that will serve doctors and scientists in the years to come
When it comes to the rate of COVID-19 vaccinations, Israel is leaving the rest of the world in the dust, and that’s setting the country up to become a giant laboratory for studying the vaccine’s effectiveness and side effects. […] “Israel has been producing and will continue to produce very unique assets in the future,” said Jonathan Adiri, the CEO of Healthy.io and a leading Israeli biomed entrepreneur. “The first is an operative asset – we proved that we were able to inoculate a large number of people in a short amount of time in the eye of a storm. We have a recipe for efficient vaccination of the population and have learned a lot – that’s data with tremendous value.”
Uri Shalit, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the Technion technology institute, said that the information being gathered in Israel will show how well the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine works when factors like refrigeration and the way the vaccine is injected are less ideal than in the controlled trials. Israel will also serve as a lab for researchers to discover whether the vaccine just prevents disease or also prevents contagion.
“I’m confident that the first articles coming out of Israel on the vaccine’s effect will have tremendous value and that the entire world is awaiting them,” Shalit said.
Another data asset is Israel’s diverse population containing a wide range of religions and ethnicities.”
More here: “In effect, Israel will act as a large world testing laboratory, with the results from this huge research serving to set vaccination strategies in the rest of the world and also assisting the pharmaceutical companies in continuing R&D for coronavirus vaccinations and other treatments.”
On January 8th 2020, a man in a care home who’d previously been tested negative, died 11 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. “The retired Spaniard had received his first dose of the vaccine on December 29, along with the rest of the privately-run home…The rest of the care home was tested and an outbreak was confirmed after several more residents and employees tested positive. The home had managed to not register a single case among its staff or residents throughout the whole pandemic. It comes after another home in Vinaros, also in Castellon, reported 21 coronavirus cases on Monday after all residents had been vaccinated on New Year’s Eve. On January 4, a general screening was carried out and all residents and workers tested negative. But after a resident presented symptoms, a new screening was carried out on January 9, revealing positive cases among 14 residents, five workers and two nuns. The first dose of the vaccine does not guarantee immunization, meaning you can still become infected and infect others until after you receive the second dose.” Meanwhile in Benidorm, “more than 65 residents and ten staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the Foietes nursing home …just days after receiving the first Covid-19 vaccine. According to official sources, the residence previously hadn’t registered any cases for months, and most residents and staff had negative PCR tests shortly before the vaccine drive began on January 4…residents are now confined to their rooms, and while many are asymptomatic, around half a dozen have been admitted to the Regional Hospital. Sadly, four elderly people have also lost their lives.”
**
Coward19:
As for the vaccine, SARS-Cov2 is not a moving target like the flu, because it is able to repair its DNA. That’s why antivirals unfortunately have almost no effect on it (a few elements in French – http://www.université-populaire-de-marseille.net/covid-19_2020/ ). The real problem, the Pandora’s box that has been opened no matter what happens, is that people are being used extensively as guinea pigs to fight a disease that remains, as far as we know, mostly benign. It is laughable to hear the French authorities congratulate themselves that nothing serious has happened since the start of the vaccination campaign: should we be reassured that they feel happy not to have killed anyone in FIVE days, really? ? In comparison, the newly tested (old) Lyme disease vaccine is not expected to be available until… 2025. From a scientific point of view, they CANNOT know what they are doing with this virus that emerged one year ago, and it’s just bullshit to argue otherwise.
***
As for the vaccin, there are also reports of many Israelis who live abroad coming to Israel especially to get vaccinated, as well as a report from today of 7 nurses contracting Covid19 in a vaccination center in Safed (a mostly orthodox city in the north), after masses of people were called to vaccinate quickly before a shipment of vaccin doses would go bad and unusable – a current phenomenon these days, that gives the chance for people who are not on the priority list to get the vaccin….
The mixing of vaccins from different companies for the first and second shot is now officially done in Belgium as well as Israel. The “experts” claim it’s the same technology and there’s no reason to worry etc. [See UK opts for unknown gamble of mix-and-match vaccines]
“Public health expert Dr. Bishara Basharat, who directs a national nonprofit which promotes Arab health, agreed that some in the Arab community were reluctant to be vaccinated, a phenomenon he called “concerning.” … Arab Israelis constitute a disproportionately large number of Israel’s health care workers, especially nurses and pharmacists: a 2017 study found that around 40% of nursing students were Arab Israelis, even though they constitute around 21% of the population.
To combat mistrust of the vaccine, Basharat recommended an aggressive awareness campaign among Arab family doctors.”
“Arab citizens trust their family doctors, the ones in their hometowns, whom they go to consult with on a regular basis. Once they are vaccinated, people will start to be convinced,” Basharat said.”
“In contrast, the ministry says the response to the vaccination campaign in Haredi communities has been high, especially after leading rabbis voiced support and were photographed getting the vaccine.”
T writes:
About a week ago I also saw a report on TV that said that only 4% of the Arab population want to be vaccinated.
“Israel’s heavily digitized, community-based health system — all citizens, by law, must register with one of the country’s four H.M.O.s — and its centralized government have proved adept at orchestrating a national inoculation campaign, according to Israeli health experts.
With a population of nine million, Israel’s relatively small size has played a role as well, said Professor Balicer, who is also the chief innovation officer for Clalit, the largest of the country’s four H.M.O.s.
An aggressive procurement effort helped set the stage.
The health minister, Yuli Edelstein, said in an interview on Friday that Israel had entered into negotiations with drugmakers as an “early bird,” and that the companies were interested in supplying Israel because of its H.M.O.s’ reputation for efficiency and gathering reliable data.
“We are leading the world race thanks to our early preparations,” he said.”
“Israel will be the first country to issue a “green passport” to residents who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. The passport will lift some restrictions, including mandatory quarantine following exposure to an infected person, and offer access to cultural events and restaurants, according to Israel’s Ministry of Health. A green passport will be issued by the ministry two weeks after the second of the required two vaccine shots is received by the individual. “This passport will show that a person is vaccinated and will give a number of advantages such as not needing to quarantine, entry to all kinds of culture events, restaurants, and so on,” the Ministry of Health’s Director-General Chezy Levy told Israel’s Channel 12.”
“Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said. The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.” Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.””
More on this. “Every effort should be made to give them the same vaccine, but where this is not possible it is better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all.” they say, but without even a pretense of following that eternal ode to objecivity “scientific protocol”, who knows if it’s better or worse?
“I’m not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch, but if you want to know why so many people don’t trust the government and buy into all kinds of doubt, look at the following from the article:
We all want answers, but we need to know where to look and whom to trust. Take the new Covid vaccines, for example: scientists understand very well that randomised control trials involving tens of thousands of volunteers that are run to find out whether new vaccines are safe and effective are pretty much as good as it gets. They are the gold standard of evidence-based science.
The “gold standard” in testing is double-blind with genuine placebos. Yet these studies were run where the placebo was in most cases another vaccine (MMR). In fact, vaccines are almost never tested with real placebos. The argument is that it would be unethical not to give someone a vaccine, but nonetheless, the procedure is not the “gold standard” double-blind placebo testing.
Further, regarding “gold standard,” science recognizes that tests should be reproducible and should be reproduced by independent labs. The original trials by Pfizer were not reproduced by an entirely independent research organization at any point to verify effectiveness or side affects. We only have Pfizer supervised and submitted tests–the very entity whose stocks are soaring on this product. Sure, this may be an emergency and we’re skipping that, but don’t use the words “gold standard” because that’s wrong. We are skipping steps.
And that too matters, because a large number of results submitted by companies like Pfizer to the FDA to justify production of various products over the years are NOT REPRODUCIBLE. The studies are way off base when retested by someone else. This is a ongoing problem with pharmaceuticals: the companies submit tests for approval from the FDA that turn out to be flat-out wrong or worse, never get independently verified.
Yet, articles like this just throw out words like “science” and “gold standard” like confetti. It’s like the very word “vaccine” = good science, in any context, no matter what. That in itself is not scientific.
One can believe in well established vaccine science and also believe that there are problems with the pharmaceutical industry’s products, even when they are not in a fast-track situation and not poised to have a new market that transforms their stock price. And then it gets even worse where there are articles like this that essentially pretend that it is scientific to ignore the any pharma industry factor.”
Much of this article is about Pfizer’s bribes to various medical authorities and doctors around the world, and about its grotesque manipulation of prices, but the following seems most pertinent in relation to whether or not to trust its vaccine:
“Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs. Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.”
“Those who don’t wish to be immunised against the virus will not remain anonymous and the Ministry of Health will register the names of people who refuse to have it and their reasons why“
On December 27th 2020, the first woman in France was vaccinated with a vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech. She was 78. This had been preceded by repeated speeches by France’s Prime Minister, Castex, who assured everyone that only those consenting and informed would be vaccinated. Surrounded by cameras, this woman said something like “Oh – I didn’t know I had to be vaccinated”. Probably suffering from something like Alzheimers, this woman could hardly have given her informed consent to her vaccination.
But of course, this is just anti-vaxxer propaganda. And therefore not worth mentioning in most of the media. Nor amongst most self-described “revolutionaries”.
“Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said. The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.” Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”
These are just the latest in a line of some of the more obvious reasons for being very skeptical about the latest episodes in this madness – this whole rush-to-vaccine PRopaganda, PRogramme and PRoject the world is being overwhelmingly PRessurised with – PR being the operative suffix.
Let’s look at some more of the star players in this vaccination project.
Take Pfizer. We know that they have already started to receive $2bn a month, though how much of that is profit is anybody’s guess. The head of Pfizer is already on the rich list. This much is a banality. More interesting about them are aspects of their history, such as this: “Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, in
“A lie repeated 1000 times becomes a truth”
“Macron allows the poor to go through the bins for free”
Large poster of Macron, in Toulon: “Obey – get vaccinated”
2009 article about Pfizer
Text no.1
“I’m not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch, but if you want to know why so many people don’t trust the government and buy into all kinds of doubt, look at the following from the article:
The “gold standard” in testing is double-blind with genuine placebos. Yet these studies were run where the placebo was in most cases another vaccine (MMR). In fact, vaccines are almost never tested with real placebos. The argument is that it would be unethical not to give someone a vaccine, but nonetheless, the procedure is not the “gold standard” double-blind placebo testing.
Further, regarding “gold standard,” science recognizes that tests should be reproducible and should be reproduced by independent labs. The original trials by Pfizer were not reproduced by an entirely independent research organization at any point to verify effectiveness or side affects. We only have Pfizer supervised and submitted tests–the very entity whose stocks are soaring on this product. Sure, this may be an emergency and we’re skipping that, but don’t use the words “gold standard” because that’s wrong. We are skipping steps.
And that too matters, because a large number of results submitted by companies like Pfizer to the FDA to justify production of various products over the years are NOT REPRODUCIBLE. The studies are way off base when retested by someone else. This is a ongoing problem with pharmaceuticals: the companies submit tests for approval from the FDA that turn out to be flat-out wrong or worse, never get independently verified.
Yet, articles like this just throw out words like “science” and “gold standard” like confetti. It’s like the very word “vaccine” = good science, in any context, no matter what. That in itself is not scientific.
One can believe in well established vaccine science and also believe that there are problems with the pharmaceutical industry’s products, even when they are not in a fast-track situation and not poised to have a new market that transforms their stock price. And then it gets even worse where there are articles like this that essentially pretend that it is scientific to ignore the any pharma industry factor.”
***
23/12/20:
Some interesting criticisms of Pfizer on left section of UK’s Labour Party site by ex-soldier
Much of this article is about Pfizer’s bribes to various medical authorities and doctors around the world, and about its grotesque manipulation of prices, but the following seems most pertinent in relation to whether or not to trust its vaccine:
“Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs. Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.”
22/12/20:
Spain to register everyone who refuses to be vaccinated
“Those who don’t wish to be immunised against the virus will not remain anonymous and the Ministry of Health will register the names of people who refuse to have it and their reasons why“
***