COVID vaccinations: Ineffective, repressive and dangerous

 

 

 

There is no moral, legal, or logical argument for compulsory vaccination. The only logical argument from a public health perspective would be to either reduce the spread of the infection or use some other mechanism to reduce the health care impact.

We will examine the evidence showing that the alleged COVID-19 “vaccines” cannot achieve either one or the other.

That hasn’t stopped the UK Parliament from allowing the government to mandate vaccination for NHS workers. In doing so, they paved the way for a broader, national duty.

Before the vote, the British Medical Journal published protests from concerned medical professionals , who indicated that there was insufficient evidence of a duty.

British MPs appeared to believe that the doctors and nurses did not know what they were talking about and were not interested in the scientific evidence they cited. While this shows that decision-making is not led by science, it may not be the main concern.

Whatever the political or popular opinion, to insist that an individual must undergo an injection against their will is to deny them their inalienable right to physical integrity .

This right was described by Professor David Feldman in “Civil Liberties and Human Rights In England and Wales” :

The right to be free from physical interference. [This] includes negative freedoms: freedom from physical assault, torture, medical or other experimentation, vaccination, and eugenic or social forced sterilization, as well as cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. It also includes some positive duties of the state to protect people from abuse by others.

Both the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1 and 3) supposedly guarantee the integrity of the person.

However, these are “human rights” written on a piece of paper by politicians and lawyers. As such, they can be overridden by governments and other politicians and lawyers. Human rights are not rights, they are government permits and permits can be revoked.

More importantly, there is a clear legal precedent in the UK for the concept of physical integrity. In the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board case , the Supreme Court ruled:

An adult sane person has the right to choose whether and which of the available treatments to undergo, and their consent must be obtained prior to any treatment that would affect their physical integrity.

When society decides that the population no longer has the right to physical integrity, people become slaves of that society. A society that advocates mandatory vaccination also advocates slavery. Forced vaccination advocates basically support slavery. None of the justifications they have put forward changes this fact.

The legal definition of property is the “exclusive right to possession”. A vaccination requirement means that the individual can no longer legally dispose of his own body. It deprives the individual of the right to ownership of his body and hands it over to the state. This represents slavery.

Slavery is defined as :

The state of being legally owned by another person and being compelled to work or obey them.

There are those who claim that the “common good” justifies slavery. They claim, based on assumptions and ignorance, that a person who refuses to receive the COVID-19 vaccination is putting others at risk and behaving in ways that endanger the common good.

They claim that society should have the right to violate the physical integrity of its slaves.

As noted by many, a duty is different from a law . A state duty, however, is something the state uses to claim the non-existent right to force people to obey. Those who fail to adhere to a state mandate can be punished – with fines or even imprisonment. The right to physical integrity is denied by duty and all citizens are thereby turned into slaves.

Some anti-rationalists have argued that a duty is not “violence”. This is a ridiculous claim.

The threat of fines is coercion and the threat of jail time is the threat of violence. This is the literal definition of the use of force:

Coercion or coercion, in particular through the use or threat of violence.

Violence is defined as:

Extremely violent acts aimed at injuring people or capable of causing harm.

Those who believe in the concept of the common good and debate the point at which it nullifies individual sovereignty accept that any group they wish to empower has the right to force others to obey.

Regardless of the justification they put forward, by demanding that no citizen has the right to physical integrity, they are promoting slavery – including their own.

Some people are a little squeamish about admitting their support for slavery and prefer to pretend that obedience by other means is not slavery.

Ryan Air chief Michael O’Leary apparently believes that denial of access to society, employment, food and health care is not a “compulsion” and therefore it does not amount to slavery to be Forcing people to take the vaccine this way.

O’Leary suggests that those who reject the vaccine should be punished for their disobedience. He believes that the threat of poverty, hunger and a shorter life expectancy is perfectly acceptable to force people to do what he wants. He believes that while not officially mandated, this will somehow protect their rights:

[A duty] is an encroachment on your civil liberties. But you just make life difficult. Or there are a lot of things you can’t do if you’re not vaccinated.

The advocates of the “common good” who insist that it is “right” to be vaccinated , and therefore wrong not to do so, cannot at the same time proclaim the supposed authority of society over the inalienable right to ignoring physical integrity while pretending to be against slavery.

If, as a society, we allow the government to mandate vaccinations, or if, like O’Leary, we choose to enforce vaccinations by other means, then we have collectively agreed to live in a slave state where we are all slaves.

If we take this path, we will condemn future generations to slavery. Yet somehow those who reject the offer of slavery, who they reject on principle, are viewed as selfish by broader society.

Proponents of slavery justify this to themselves because they believe that the extremely minor public health impact of respiratory disease with low mortality is more important than human freedom.

This opinion is based on the flawed and irrelevant assumption that vaccinations protect others. The effectiveness and safety of the vaccines are immaterial. Denying a person their right to physical integrity is slavery. It does not matter what justification is given for it.

There are already many slaves trafficked, exploited and abused in the UK . While the experiences of those suffering the daily hell of modern slavery are in no way comparable to being forcibly injected with a drug once or twice a year, the principle of slavery is the same. It seems strange that the suggested “common good” does not demand freedom for those who are currently living as slaves. Maybe society doesn’t care anymore.

Aside from the lack of moral and legal legitimacy, there are other reasons why we should reject the idea of ​​mandatory vaccination. First and foremost because the so-called vaccines don’t work and are dangerous.

The vaccine basics

The word “infection” is defined as :

The condition that results from the settlement of one or more pathogens (such as bacteria, protozoa or viruses).

If you had looked at the medical definition of “vaccine” in 2019 , you would have understood the following:

A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to induce or artificially enhance immunity to a particular disease.

Immunity was defined as:

The quality or condition of being immune; in particular: a state in which one is able to withstand a certain disease, in particular by preventing the development of a pathogenic microorganism or counteracting the effects of its products.

A vaccine was a drug that “especially” reduced the infection. Theoretically, it could prevent pathogens such as bacteria, protozoa or viruses from establishing themselves in a biological system. This reduces the incidence of diseases and the subsequent transmission of the pathogen.

In the wake of the pseudopandemic , however, this is not what the changed definition of “vaccine” means today. The only thing that an alleged so-called vaccine has to prove is immunogenicity:

A preparation that is given (e.g. by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response to a specific infectious agent or disease.

Just by changing the definition, a “vaccine” is now a drug that triggers an immune response. It says nothing about how effective or safe this immune response is. Inflammation is an immune reaction and it can be fatal.

Without the ability to protect against infection, most people would consider a drug that only reduces the severity of an illness as a treatment , not a vaccine.

While it is true that language is constantly evolving and definitions are constantly changing, if that change fundamentally redefines the commonly accepted meaning of a word, everyone must be aware of the new interpretation. Otherwise, they could take on an implicit meaning that no longer exists.

For example, it is easy to fool people into thinking that a COVID-19 “vaccine” is preventing infection. To distinguish between what most people think of the term “vaccine” and what it means now, we will refer to the alleged COVID-19 “vaccines” as injections.

The “vaccines” have not completed any clinical studies and do not need to complete them

Unlike all previous vaccines, the vaccines did not go through clinical trials before being given to more people than any other vaccine in history.

At the time of this writing, there are no results from the NCT04614948 study for Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine, no results from the NCT04516746 study from Astrazeneca, no results from the NCT04470427 study from Moderna, and no results from the NCT04368728 study from J&J for the Jansen vaccine.

When the UK Medicines Agency (MHRA) stated that it had “carried out a rigorous scientific assessment of all available evidence of quality, safety and efficacy” before granting the vaccines the Emergency Authorization (EEA), it did not mean that they had examined the results of clinical trials . They couldn’t because there weren’t any.

What was meant was that the MHRA had received interim reports from the manufacturers and their sponsors (UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, etc.) . MHRA, like other regulators around the world, based its decision to issue the EEA on these interim reports rather than on the results of clinical studies.

This enables the mainstream media to publish statements from news agencies that are misleading the public:

Massive coronavirus vaccination attempts with tens of thousands of participants have so far shown no signs of serious side effects.

Time and again it is felt that the vaccinations are clinically proven to be safe and effective. In reality, few side effects were reported in the studies because no study results were published.

The studies were designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted blind. Since this was the trial of the first proposed vaccine for a novel disease, the standard approach for RCTs to determine the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations was to compare the long-term health outcomes of those vaccinated with those of a placebo group. This was done “blindly”, ie the study participants did not find out whether they had been vaccinated or received a placebo.

The secondary results of the studies were intended to evaluate the effects of the vaccines. This also includes the assessment of any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) up to two or more years after the last dose. So far, none of the secondary results have been measured because the minimum study period has not expired for more than a year.

There is no longer any chance that these clinical trials will ever produce meaningful results. As reported in the British Medical Journal , both J&J and Moderna have “unblinded” their studies by giving their vaccine to their placebo groups. They abandoned the secondary results years before the studies were completed. When asked, neither Astrazeneca nor Pfizer-BioNTech denied that they did the same.

In any case, their studies were evidently poorly designed and scientifically not credible. There is a strong suspicion that Pfizer-BioNTech at least falsified data, conducted the study openly, inadequately trained staff, and was reluctant to follow up on reported adverse events.

When independent researchers asked the UK Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), as part of a Freedom of Information Request (FoIR), why Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical study NCT04614948 did not investigate the vaccine’s effects on pregnant women , declared the MHRA :

The above study was not conducted in the UK, the MHRA has not assessed its content and is therefore unable to answer any specific questions related to this study.

Failure to bother to consider the primary clinical trial doesn’t seem like exactly “rigorous scientific evaluation.” Rather, it seems as if the MHRA belongs to a group of regulatory authorities that unquestionably accept everything the manufacturers claim without actually questioning anything.

The MHRA has now officially adopted this laissez-faire approach for the future regulation of vaccinations. The MHRA has joined the Access consortium of regulators (Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland) and is one of those who see no reason for further regulatory review prior to the approval of new vaccines.

The consortium believes that new iterations that respond to supposedly new variants of COVID-19 can be waved through practically automatically. This is based on an impossibility.

The MHRA claims that their original EEA reflected their assessment of “critical clinical trials” for which no results are available. After approving the launch of the vaccine without substantive evidence, the MHRA is now claiming that this will apply to any revised future versions:

Clinical efficacy studies prior to approval are not required. The regulatory authorities require bridging immunogenicity data from a sufficient number of people.

This moves vaccines out of corporate laboratories and into the arms of a largely misinformed public more quickly. Whatever changes the manufacturers make, they are simply approved by the consortium, as long as the pharmaceutical companies provide the relevant information on immunogenicity.

The issuing of an EUA is not the same as the official approval of a medicinal product. As the US regulatory authority, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , explains, an EUA is a temporary approval for an investigational drug:

An EEA for a COVID-19 vaccine could enable rapid and widespread administration of the investigational vaccine to millions of people.

The FDA also states that a drug that is still in the testing phase is an experimental drug :

An investigational drug can also be referred to as an experimental drug.

The current COVID-19 vaccines are still being tested and are “experimental drugs”. So-called fact checkers were sent out to trick the public into believing that this was not the case.

For example, “Full Fact”, comprised of UK-based political activists working with policy makers to promote their own business, claimed :

The three Covid vaccines currently approved in the UK have already been shown to be safe and effective in clinical studies.

This was a factually incorrect statement. With regard to the issuing of EUAs, only the interim results were known from the phase 3 studies .

These reported on the little data that were available from the first two months of phase 1. This was simply a claim that the vaccinations were relatively safe for a small group of fitter and healthy, mostly younger people. We shall shortly discuss why even this claim is false.

All we can say at this point is that there is no discernible regulation of vaccinations. They are practically unregulated.

The studies have not yet proven that the vaccinations are safe or effective. The exclusion criteria for all studies excluded testing of the vaccines in those most at risk for COVID-19. Phase 1 interim reports only claim efficacy and safety in those least susceptible to the obvious COVID-19 risks. Now these studies will never be completed.

In the interim reports on the studies, the effectiveness was given in the form of a relative rather than an absolute risk reduction. This allowed manufacturers to claim a greater than 95% reduction in mortality (effectiveness). This was then communicated to the public, who were influenced by this bias in reporting .

The claimed absolute risk reduction (effectiveness) was usually less than 1%. Had this been communicated to the public, people would have been less enthusiastic and perhaps more skeptical about the vaccinations, which is why this did not happen.

The EUAs were also linked to impunity for manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United Kingdom, the 2020 Regulation on Medicinal Products for Human Use (Coronavirus and Influenza) (amendment) extended liability protection for the administering physicians to the pharmaceutical companies .

Impunity is an obvious deal breaker for the pharmaceutical companies. In early 2021, World Bank Executive Director David Malpass reported that some vaccine manufacturers would not distribute their vaccines to countries that do not fully protect them from law enforcement :

The immediate problem is compensation. Pfizer has been reluctant to go to some of the countries because there is no guarantee of liability. So we are working with the countries to achieve this.

There is no doubt that the vaccinations are experimental drugs that have not yet gone through clinical trials. The population that received them is thus part of a worldwide medical experiment. In collaboration with the government, this experiment is being carried out by global pharmaceutical companies that cannot be held responsible for the damage they have caused.

That fact is then covered up by the global media corporations and appointed fact-checkers who also work with the government .

Statements by the NHS such as “The COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect yourself and others” or “Any side effects are usually minor and should not last more than a week” are not based on clinical studies. The allegations are speculative, misleading, and potentially dangerous.

Unless recipients were specifically made aware of these facts prior to the injection, there is no way they could have given informed consent.

In every single case, despite the fact-free denials of the funnily so-called “fact checkers ”, it is a violation of the Nuremberg Code .

Blame the unvaccinated

According to Health Secretary Sajid Javid, the media dutifully reported that there are around 5 million “unvaccinated” people in the UK . That number seems only partially correct.

According to the British Health Authority (UKHSA) , by mid-December 2021, when the booster vaccination was already in full swing, around 38.6 million of the approximately 44.6 million adults in England had received at least two doses and were therefore temporarily regarded as ” fully vaccinated ”.

This means that there are currently around 6 million adults officially “unvaccinated” in England alone. England represents about 84% of the UK population. Given a similar vaccine distribution across the UK, this means that at least 6.9 million adults are officially unvaccinated. That’s almost 13% of the UK adult population.

The proportion of the unvaccinated population will continue to increase. The UK government has already stated that the NHS COVID passport (certificate) will require a refresher for international travel .

The UK government initially stated that it did not intend to extend this to the national vaccination record, but it has repeatedly denied that it would introduce vaccination records .

Later statements by the Minister of Health made clear the government’s intention to keep changing its definition of “fully vaccinated”. To be fully vaccinated, the slave must always agree to the next vaccination.

Since vaccine vendors insist that booster vaccinations will be needed for years to come, the “fully vaccinated” status appears to only last about 6 months.

The media, on behalf of the government that funds it , has led the nation to believe that it is the unvaccinated who “overwhelm” health services. With headlines like “ICU is Full Of The unvaccinated – My Patience With Them Is Wearing Thin” [ "The intensive care unit is full of unvaccinated - my patience with them is the end," editor's note.. Translator] it is no wonder that the vaccinated majority direct their hatred at those who do not want the vaccinations. Often you can read comments on social media such as:

Unvaccinated people take beds away from other sick people, some of whom get sicker as a result. Not getting vaccinated during a pandemic is an act of selfishness that hides behind the facade of individual freedom.

The Guardian article “ICU is Full” came from an anonymous source. Nobody was willing to give his name for it. It was primarily an appeal to the emotions and offered no evidence to support its claims. That’s because the evidence doesn’t support a single aspect of the published story. The only obvious reason for the article was incitement to hatred.

Real journalists like Kit Knightly from OffGuardian , who is censored by the social media platforms, were willing to use their names to cover the facts .

As he shows, the intensive care units are by no means overloaded. They are busy as usual, but by no means overcrowded with COVID-19 “cases”, as the “Guardian” and others have falsely claimed.

There are currently 4,330 intensive care beds in England. On December 14, 2021 , 925 were occupied by so-called COVID-19 patients, which corresponds to a COVID-19 intensive care bed occupancy rate of 21.4%. There were 775 (17.9%) unoccupied beds in the intensive care units, with 2,657 beds (61.4%) being occupied by patients who had not tested positive for the selected COVID-19 nucleotide sequences.

In its report on vaccination monitoring at week 50 , the UKHSA states that in the previous four weeks, 2965 alleged adult COVID-19 hospital patients were not vaccinated and 4557 had received at least one vaccination. The UKHSA therefore claims that the unvaccinated patients account for 39.4% of total COVID-19 hospital admissions.

For the same four-week period, the UKHSA also reported that 715 of the total of 3,083 adult deaths within 28 days of testing positive were from people who were not vaccinated. This corresponds to 23.2% of the suspected COVID-19 deaths. Of the 28 deaths attributable to people with unknown vaccination status, the remaining 2,340 were vaccinated. The vaccinated account for 76% of all suspected COVID-19 deaths.

Similar data for Wales also refutes the false claim that the unvaccinated “overwhelms” health services. In November 2021, 12.8% of inpatients were “unvaccinated”. The “vaccinated” made up 84.5% of the inpatients in the hospital, 2.7% had an unknown vaccination status.

The anonymous claims reported in the Guardian were not even remotely accurate. The story was a propaganda disinformation. It was “fake news”.

Yet politicians are desperately trying to use their compliant media to spread the same lie. Once again, the Guardian has reproduced the Minister of Health’s comments as if they were realistic. Speaking of the people who considered the evidence and decided not to get vaccinated, Javid said:

You really need to think about the harm they are doing to society. They occupy hospital beds that could be used for someone with a heart problem or someone waiting for surgery.

At no point did the fearless Guardian journalists inform the public that what he was saying was utter nonsense. Instead, they doubled the lies with additional own disinformation, claiming that “nine out of ten of those who need the most care in the hospital, not vaccinated are” . Another example of absolute fake news intended to deceive the public.

As we shall discuss shortly, the seeming call for “armament” pushed by the media and politicians, disrupting primary health care, poses a far greater threat to public health. The mendacity of Javid’s disinformation was breathtaking.

The people standing in line for their vaccinations are not selfish, just misinformed. But the 13% of the adult population who do not want to be vaccinated are not selfish either.

The media and politicians keep trying to drive a wedge between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated . They try to create divisions based on disinformation, lies and propaganda.

The reason for this is clear. Like all tyrannical regimes throughout history, the current British dictatorship seeks to scapegoat a minority group to keep the public from drawing attention to them. In doing so, they want to prevent the people from questioning the tyrants who enslave them. This is nothing more than “divide and rule”.

The vaccinations don’t work

In October , current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that the vaccinations are not “vaccines”. They don’t work like the vaccines we know. Obviously, they’re more like a treatment:

Double vaccination offers good protection against serious illness and death, but it does not protect against infection or the transmission of the disease.

Johnson’s observation was partially correct. Recent research from the US has shown that there is no difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These results appear to be corroborated by a study from Singapore, which strongly endorses the vaccinations for their supposed ability to reduce mortality, but also states:

The PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) were similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but the viral load decreased more rapidly in the vaccinated […] the viral load indicated by the PCR Ct values ​​was similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients .

For vaccination to work as a vaccine in the traditional sense, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the disease prevalence. This is an obvious point, but it apparently needs to be highlighted as the general public does not seem to be aware of it.

There is no statistical relationship between the vaccination rates of the population, the infection rates and the prevalence of diseases. A joint study by the United States and Canada, which analyzed statistical reports from 68 countries and 2947 US counties , came to this conclusion:

At the country level, there does not appear to be any discernible association between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new cases of COVID-19 in the past 7 days. Rather, the trendline suggests a slightly positive association, such that countries with a higher percentage of fully vaccinated people in the population have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million inhabitants.

However, contradicting their own results, the researchers touted the vaccinations as part of a broader approach to disease control through non-pharmaceutical measures such as wearing face masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. As we will discuss shortly, the promotion of the official narrative is now a requirement for peer reviews and publications.

Presumably to stay within the allowable limits of the official scientific consensus , the researchers have retained the new definition of “vaccine”, which describes a drug that is unable to lower infection rates but how a treatment works:

Vaccinations protect individuals from severe hospitalization and death.

The Gibraltar peninsula with around 34,000 inhabitants was delighted that it had achieved a vaccination rate of 100%. After that, there was a sharp increase in the number of reported cases.

In the Republic of Ireland, Waterford City has a vaccination rate of 99.7% and the highest number of cases in Ireland .

In Israel, where the definition of “fully vaccinated” means that someone received two primary vaccinations and a booster vaccination (3 vaccinations) , 67 cases of the Omicron variant have been reported. Of these, 54 (almost 81%) were fully vaccinated . We do not know whether the other 13 cases were really not vaccinated. You may have had a vaccination or two and still be classified as “not fully vaccinated”.

Ein Blick auf eine kürzlich von CNN erstellte Karte der Durchimpfungsrate zeigt einige interessante Vergleiche.

In Brasilien mit einer Impfrate von 150 Impfungen pro 100 Personen gibt es mehr als 103.000 COVID-Fälle pro Million Menschen (CPM). Das benachbarte Bolivien hat mit 77 Impfungen pro 100 Personen eine Fallrate von knapp 47.000 Fällen pro Million Einwohner. Paraguay hat eine etwas höhere Impfrate von 88 und eine etwas höhere Fallzahl von 64.000 CPM. Argentinien hat mit 220 Impfungen pro 100 Personen die höchste Impfquote und mit etwas mehr als 117.000 Fällen auch die höchste Fallzahl von allen.

Das auffälligste Merkmal der CNN-Karte sind die sehr niedrigen Impfraten in Afrika. In Nigeria, Tansania und Sambia beispielsweise sind weniger als 10 von 100 Personen geimpft. Sie gehören zu den Ländern mit den niedrigsten Fallzahlen der Welt. Sambia hat nur etwas mehr als 11.000 CPM und Nigeria und Tansania noch viel weniger. Im Gegensatz dazu hat Botswana, mit einer relativ hohen afrikanischen Impfrate von 62 pro 100 Personen, eine CPM von fast 82.000.

Einige Wissenschaftler sind offenbar verwundert über die niedrigen COVID-19-Raten in Afrika insgesamt. Sie bieten eine Reihe von möglichen Erklärungen an. Sie weisen auf eine jüngere Bevölkerung oder frühe Grenzschließungen hin, einige vermuten eine geringere städtische Dichte oder vielleicht mehr Aktivitäten im Freien, um die offensichtliche Anomalie zu erklären.

Prof. Wafaa El-Sadr, Leiter der Abteilung für globale Gesundheit an der Columbia University, nannte es ein „Rätsel“:

Afrika verfügt nicht über die Impfstoffe und die Mittel zur Bekämpfung von COVID-19, die in Europa und den USA zur Verfügung stehen, aber irgendwie scheint es ihnen besser zu gehen.

Die afrikanischen Länder schneiden sicherlich besser ab als die USA. Mit etwa 4 % der Weltbevölkerung und einer Impfrate von 147 pro 100 Menschen sind die USA für mehr als 36 % der derzeit 27.586.743 aktiven Fälle weltweit verantwortlich.

Die Liste der 20 Länder mit den höchsten Erkrankungsraten weltweit setzt sich überwiegend aus den Ländern mit den höchsten Impfquoten zusammen.

Die Wissenschaftler untersuchen alle Variablen, um herauszufinden, was das afrikanische Rätsel erklären könnte. Der einzige Faktor, den sie nicht in Betracht ziehen, ist der offensichtlichste.

Obwohl es in den meisten afrikanischen Ländern keine erste Welle gab, sind die wissenschaftlichen und medizinischen Behörden weltweit wild entschlossen, die zweite Welle durch Impfungen zu verhindern. Prof. Salim Abdool Karim von der südafrikanischen Universität von KwaZulu-Natal sagte:

Wir müssen alle impfen, um uns auf die nächste Welle vorzubereiten.

Professor Karim wurde eingeladen, im April 2020 dem Wissenschaftsrat der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) beizutreten. Die WHO hat die Impfung der afrikanischen Bevölkerung zu ihrer nächsten Priorität erklärt.

Es gibt zahlreiche Studien, die zeigen, dass die natürliche Immunität nach einer Infektion wesentlich besser ist als die durch Impfungen vermittelte. Eine neuere israelische Untersuchung legt nahe, dass die natürliche Immunität nach einer Infektion bis zu 27 Mal stärker ist als die durch Impfungen vermittelte.

Ungeachtet der wissenschaftlichen Debatten über Antigene, T-Zellen und Immunogenität usw., die sich alle auf die angebliche Funktionsweise der Impfstoffe beziehen, reicht eine einfache statistische Analyse aus, um eindeutig nachzuweisen, dass sie nicht als Impfstoffe funktionieren.

Die einzige verbleibende Behauptung über die Wirksamkeit der Impfungen ist, dass sie die Zahl der Krankenhausaufenthalte und Todesfälle verringern. Leider gibt es viele Beweise, die auch diese Behauptung in Zweifel ziehen.

Wenn die Impfungen nicht in der Lage sind, die Infektion und die Übertragung zu stoppen, sondern nur dazu dienen, die natürliche Immunität zu verringern, gibt es keinen Grund für eine Impfpflicht im Bereich der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Für eine nicht infizierte Person ist es nicht wahrscheinlicher, sich bei einer nicht geimpften Person mit COVID-19 anzustecken als bei einem geimpften Bürger. Nach der offiziellen Definition eines COVID-19-Falls zeigen die Statistiken, dass die Impfungen keinerlei Einfluss auf die Verbreitung der Krankheit haben.

In seiner jüngsten Ansprache an die Nation, in der er die unregulierten Auffrischungsimpfungen anpries, sagte Boris Johnson:

Im vergangenen Jahr haben wir gezeigt, dass die Impfung der Schlüssel zum Sieg über Covid ist und dass sie funktioniert […] Es ist jetzt klar, dass zwei Impfdosen einfach nicht ausreichen, um den Schutz zu bieten, den wir alle brauchen […] wir müssen dringend unseren Impfschutz verstärken, damit unsere Freunde und Angehörigen sicher sind […] Wenn wir uns auf die Auffrischungsimpfungen konzentrieren […], bedeutet das, dass einige andere Termine bis zum neuen Jahr verschoben werden müssen […] Wenn wir das jetzt nicht tun, könnte die Omicron-Welle so groß sein, dass die Stornierungen und Störungen, wie der Ausfall von Krebsterminen, im nächsten Jahr noch größer wären.

Johnsons Rede war völlig inkohärent. Einerseits funktionieren die Impfstoffe, andererseits aber auch nicht und eine Auffrischung ist erforderlich. Um eine Welle von Fällen abzuwehren, die durch einen Test definiert werden, der die Fälle nicht identifizieren kann, müssen scheinbar triviale Gesundheitsmaßnahmen wie Krebsvorsorgeuntersuchungen zum Wohle der Gesundheit der Nation und des Gemeinwohls abgesagt werden.

Kurz nach Johnsons Appell, „sich jetzt anzustrengen“, stellte die britische Regierung klar, dass sich die Hausarztpraxen im ganzen Land nur noch auf Impfungen und Notfalltermine konzentrieren würden.

Durch die Ausrufung einer „nationalen Mission“, so viele Menschen wie möglich zu impfen, wurde die Primärversorgung im Vereinigten Königreich praktisch ausgesetzt. Dies geschah im Winter, mitten in einer angeblichen Pandemie von Atemwegserkrankungen. Die Folgen für die Gesundheit werden katastrophal sein.

Die „British Medical Association“ hat bereits davor gewarnt, dass die Umstrukturierung des NHS, zunächst in einen reinen COVID-19-Dienst und jetzt in einen reinen Impfdienst, schreckliche Folgen für die öffentliche Gesundheit hat.

Allein in den drei Monaten nach dem ersten Lockdown gab es bis zu 1.5 Millionen weniger elektive Krankenhauseinweisungen; die Zahl der Erstpatienten ging bei allen Erkrankungen um 2,6 Mio. zurück; dringende Krebseinweisungen gingen um alarmierende 280.000 zurück, wobei bis zu 26.000 Patienten weniger eine Behandlung begannen, von denen 15.000 normalerweise erst durch eine Überweisung des Hausarztes ans Licht gekommen wären.

Trotz all dieser Tatsachen möchte die Regierung glauben machen, dass es ihr darum geht, Leben zu retten. Diese Behauptung ist nicht glaubwürdig.

Die Spritzen sind gefährlich

Additional evidence from Israel suggests that the period between the first and second vaccinations and shortly thereafter increases the risk of COVID-19 death. The susceptibility to the disease is significantly greater in this period of 3 to 5 weeks.

Prof. Dr. Seligmann and his research partner calculated the basic probability of COVID-19 mortality for different age groups before vaccination. For those over 60, for example, it was 0.00022631% per day. He then compared this with the official Israeli data on mortality immediately after vaccination.

For 13 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the daily risk of COVID-19 death in those over 60 was 14.5 times higher at 0.003303% per day. After 13 days, this risk increased to 0.005484% per day, i.e. 24.2 times. Up to 6 days after the second dose it increased further to 0.006076% per day, which corresponds to a 26.85-fold increased risk of COVID-19 death for the vaccinated.

Prof. Seligmann found a similarly strong increase in the COVID-19 mortality risk for all vaccinations during what he called the “vaccination phase”. Once the recipients were “fully vaccinated”, Seligmann found some benefit to the vaccinated, as it caused a slight reduction in the risk of COVID-19 mortality compared to the unvaccinated.

He calculated that vaccinations would have to provide near 100% protection for more than two years to offset the initial health care costs of vaccination in order for those benefits to outweigh the massive increase in risk during the “vaccination period”. This benefit is not evident from the data.

A recent Swedish study is one of many showing that once vaccination is complete, any potential benefit from COVID-19 wears off quickly. Unable to protect those most at risk for COVID-19 after six months, research by Dr. Seligmann points out that the vaccination has no health benefit for COVID-19.

Official risk-benefit analyzes suggest that full vaccination offers some protection against hospitalization. There is also a barely discernible statistical signal suggesting that they are also reducing mortality, albeit to a very limited extent.

Prof. Seligmann came to the same conclusion. However, this only related to the COVID-19 statistics, which are based on non-diagnostic RT-PCR test results. The official information does not take into account the additional risk identified by Seligmann in the “time after vaccination”.

Prof. Selligman and Dr. Spiro P. Pantazatos, Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology at Columbia University, then performed another post-vaccination risk assessment .

Their research found an estimated US vaccine fatality rate (VFR) of 0.04%, suggesting that the CDC’s VFR of 0.002% underestimates vaccine mortality by a factor of 20. The scientists found that for the period from February to August 2021, data suggests between 146,000 and 187,000 vaccination-related deaths in the United States.

Pantazatos and Seligmann also found a significant increase in the overall mortality risk in the first 5-6 weeks after the first vaccination. Here, too, it can be seen that the initial risk of vaccination is not offset by the short-term benefit after the “full vaccination”.

There is little reason to accept the officially reported statistics.

The association of COVID-19 with mortality is incorrect . Death within 28 or 60 days of a positive RT-PCR test is used, depending on whose statistics you are looking at. This is not “evidence” that COVID-19 was the cause of death.

The association of COVID-19 with hospital admissions is also weak. Research by independent auditors shows that people with a range of non-COVID-related symptoms, such as limb or head injuries, are often hospitalized as alleged COVID-19 patients.

The researchers found that more than 90% of alleged COVID-19 admissions had no clinical reason to label them as such.

All of the supposed benefits of vaccination are based on these vague definitions and questionable statistical claims. So, if we are to really understand the potential benefits of vaccinations, we need to look at all-cause mortality.

This is considered to be more reliable because it is simply an analysis of all recorded deaths, regardless of the cause.

If the vaccinations work and are safe, there should be a difference in all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The vaccinated are not protected from other causes of death, but they are protected from COVID-19, and this should be demonstrable in the data.

A team of statisticians from Queen Mary University London conducted a study of all causes of death in England . They examined the vaccine surveillance reports issued by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

They noted that, as we discussed earlier, these official reports initially seem to demonstrate a benefit from the vaccinations. However, they found a number of anomalies in the data.

They found that the non-COVID-19 mortality patterns in the supposedly unvaccinated showed peaks that correlated with the introduction of vaccination. After the “period of vaccination”, non-COVID-19 mortality remained similar and relatively stable in both the vaccinated and allegedly non-vaccinated cohorts. In addition, the non-COVID-19 mortality appeared to be abnormally high in the unvaccinated, while it appeared to be abnormally low in the vaccinated.

The researchers also looked at the different categories of people who were vaccinated. These were “within 21 days of the first dose”, “at least 21 days after the first dose” and “second dose”.

They found that the death rates were consistent but very different between these groups. The non-COVID-19 mortality for the “second dose” was consistently below the initial mortality, while the mortality for the “within 21 days” was always well above the initial mortality.

Most noticeable were the different mortality patterns in the three age groups examined. Historical data show that in the age groups 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ the mortality from all causes increases with age, but the three groups always show the same distribution pattern of mortality, typically with a peak in the winter months. This is often referred to as “excessive winter mortality”.

But in 2021 there were not only separate periods with peak mortality for the three groups, which were atypically distributed over the year, but also for those who were not vaccinated, this mortality corresponded directly to the introduction of vaccination in each age group. Also, these peaks in unvaccinated mortality did not correspond to the alleged COVID-19 waves. They followed the introductions of vaccinations.

The researchers concluded:

Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that they are both unreliable and misleading [...] we believe that the most likely explanations are a systematic mis-categorization of deaths between different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated; a delay or failure to report vaccinations; a systematic underestimation of the proportion of the unvaccinated [and] an incorrect population selection for Covid deaths. With these considerations in mind, we adjusted the ONS data to show that these adjustments lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not decrease all-cause mortality, but rather result in a real increase in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.

The head of the research team, Prof. Dr. Norman Fenton, gave a radio interview in which he explained why his work had not been peer-reviewed or submitted to a journal for publication:

once we submitted it for publication, it was rejected without review. I have never experienced something like that.

The rejection of science because it does not match the official narrative is not a new problem , but it is “anti-science” and suggests a coordinated deception. The work of Prof. Seligmann and others studying both COVID-19 and all-cause mortality seem to independently confirm the Queen Mary team’s findings.

There is no doubt that the vaccinations can be fatal. A number of studies found that death was caused by complications after the vaccinations.

Causes of death included venous infarction thrombosis, intracerebral haemorrhage, anaphylaxis, vaccine-related thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, and “unrecognized consequences of COVID-19 vaccination,” to name a few. The only question is the level of death caused by the vaccinations.

US researchers found a 19-fold increase in myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) among 12–15 year olds that was directly correlated with the introduction of the vaccination. The study was peer-reviewed and then published before it was withdrawn without explanation by the journal’s editors .

Myocarditis is extremely serious for young people and often requires a heart transplant later in life, which significantly reduces their life expectancy.

Just as some scientists are amazed at the near perfect correlation between vaccination and COVID-19 “fall” rates, medical professionals are amazed at the sharp increase in cardiac emergencies in Scotland. These too followed the introduction of vaccination for the affected age groups.

Apparently the doctors have absolutely no idea what the cause is. They don’t ask whether it could be because of the vaccinations.

Why they don’t might be considered another mystery, as the statistics show that the vaccinations are fatal. A look at the statistics of the ONS shows that between January and October 2021, vaccinated under 60-year-olds in England died around twice as often as those who were not vaccinated.

This is not an insignificant fact, but it does come with important limitations. Prof. Fenton and his team did not analyze this age group because it is too broad. Depending on progress in the introduction of vaccination, with the elderly being vaccinated first, the vaccinated cohort is likely to have a higher initial mortality risk than the vaccinated.

Taken in isolation, this statistic is not very meaningful. It is much more informative in connection with a German study , which also found a clear connection between vaccinations and mortality.

Together they support the other statistical results that we have already discussed. The German scientists Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler came to the conclusion:

The higher the vaccination coverage, the higher the excess mortality. Given the upcoming policy action to contain the virus, this figure is worrying and needs to be explained if further policy action is to be taken to increase the vaccination rate.

The only explanation for how the ONS, MHRA, EMA, FDA, and other official bodies around the world uphold the lie that vaccinations save lives is that they have chosen or been directed to spread disinformation, knowingly endanger public health. The clinical studies have provided even more evidence that this is the case.

The FDA, MHRA, EMA, and other alleged regulators have granted the EEA for Pfizer / BioNTech’s vaccine based on two months of extremely limited, preliminary study data. Research by the Canadian “COVID Care Alliance” has uncovered this completely untrustworthy process. The original preliminary study data provided by Pfizer did not mention the extent of the undesirable side effects caused by their product.

Using the relative risk, they claimed their vaccinations were amazing and almost everyone, including regulators, simply took them at their word. Those who did not were denigrated as “Covid deniers” or “vaccination opponents”.

Six months after the vaccine was launched, Pfizer published additional data in another interim study . They made other claims about the effectiveness and safety of their BNT162b2 vaccination:

BNT162b2 continued to be safe and had an acceptable side effect profile. Few participants had adverse events that led to their withdrawal from the study.

However, this was not the case at all. In their report, published in “respected journals” like the Lancet, they forgot to analyze the additional evidence of side effects that was also included in their results.

This shows that the risk of adverse events is consistently increased in the vaccinated people. For example, “related events” are adverse health events that are believed to have been caused by vaccination. The risk ratio for vaccinated people was 23.9 and for unvaccinated people it was 6. This means that the risk of damage to health when taking the Pfizer vaccine increases by almost 300%.

Serious adverse events can lead to hospitalization. In the vaccinated people the risk was 0.6, in the non-vaccinated it was 0.5. In other words, vaccination increases the risk of hospitalization by 10%.

A drug that increases the number of illnesses in the population is not an “effective vaccine”. Reducing the “number of cases” for an illness is a completely pointless undertaking if it increases the number of illnesses and hospital stays in the population. It gets worse.

Before unblinding their own studies, thereby ending the supposed RCTs years before they graduated, the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts were the same size. 15 people died in the cohort with the syringe and 14 in the cohort without the syringe. After unblinding, another 5 vaccinated people died, including 2 who had not previously been vaccinated.

The injection increases the risk of death. This is exactly what Seligmann, Fenton, Steyer, Kappler, Pantazatos, and many other scientists and statisticians have observed.

Pfizer eagerly reported the 100% reduction in COVID-19 mortality in the main body of their study. Of the 21,926 people in the vaccinated cohort, only 1 person died with a positive COVID-19 “case” confirmed by RT-PCR. In contrast, 2 of the 21,921 people in the placebo group died. Hence, Pfizer claims a 100% improvement in effectiveness.

They didn’t mention that their product doubled the chances of suffering a cardiovascular event, and they definitely dodged the most unimpeachable reality of all. There were 4 deaths from heart attacks in the vaccinated subjects compared to 1 death in the placebo group. The risk of fatal heart failure was increased by 300% after vaccination.

If the goal of vaccinations is to “save lives” then it is incomprehensible how they ever got EUA approval .

Completely exempt from law enforcement and given charter by regulators to do what they want, the drug companies are determined to vaccinate all of our children, including infants .

This is something our governments and the majority of the population wholeheartedly approve of. Anyone who questions this is selfish.

Regulators seem to want to hide the truth about the vaccinations

Often one reads from regulators and any other proponent of vaccination that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.

This claim is based on the alleged risk of COVID-19, which is virtually impossible to estimate due to the massive falsification of the data, and on the apparent refusal to consider the risks of the vaccines.

At first glance, the safety profiles for the vaccinations look terrifying. To date, 1,822 potential vaccination-related deaths have been recorded through the MHRA yellow card system in the UK alone .

In response to a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) , the MHRA announced that it had received it:

[…] A total of 404 British reports of spontaneous suspected adverse effects of a vaccine between 01/01/2001 and 08/25/2021, which were associated with a fatal outcome.

With more than 1,800 suspected deaths already reported related to the COVID vaccinations, these vaccines are currently potentially responsible for three and a half times as many deaths as all other vaccines combined over the past two decades. This is a statistical pattern that is repeated in all countries that have introduced these vaccinations.

We also know that the vast majority of possible side effects go unreported. A 2018 survey of pediatric health professionals found that 64% of respondents had no known adverse effects reported. Of those surveyed, 16% did not even know the Yellow Card system existed and 26% did not know how to use it, with only 18% having received appropriate training.

So it is by no means surprising that the MHRA found :

It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.

There is no evidence that the MHRA did anything to improve yellow card reporting. Apparently she promoted the yellow card system, but nobody noticed. With nearly 400,000 reports of COVID vaccination side effects in the system, the real number is likely over 10 million and the number of deaths from vaccinations in the UK could certainly exceed 18,000.

This is, of course, speculative to some extent as the MHRA has not investigated any of the reported side effects. She has no idea how many people were killed by the vaccinations and has shown no interest in finding out.

While the MHRA claims that its job is to investigate potential undesirable side effects in order to set up an “early warning system” for possible vaccine damage, it also says that it is unable to detect them:

The suspected side effects described in this report should not be considered as proven side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

It is sensible if these reports are then examined as well. But the MHRA does not do that. Your point of view and your explanations are completely unreasonable.

To date, they have provided nothing to show that these reports are not evidence of any undesirable side effects. Your interpretation that these reports provide no evidence is meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven without taking the effort to examine the evidence.

The MHRA has not undertaken to investigate reports of vaccination yellow cards . It will only point out possible safety issues, take note of the reports and possibly discuss them with other national regulatory authorities. It is expressly not intended to challenge the manufacturer’s claims about the vaccinations.

The UK MHRA claims that a special team is looking for “signals” in the data and if a signal is found it will discuss this with a few selected experts.

Given that the MHRA recognizes both the inadequate reporting and the fact that current surveillance suggests that the death rate from the vaccinations is orders of magnitude higher than any other vaccine, one might assume that the MHRA is a very a worrying “signal” . In fact, they admit that:

Yellow cards are sufficient in and of themselves to enable signal detection.

However, they choose not to use the yellow cards as an “early warning”. There is no record of them investigating yellow card reports. Instead, they first apply a series of relative risk calculations to determine if the signal is worth further discussion.

In particular, they use the MaxSPRT (Sequential Probability Ratio Test). The reported adverse effects are compared with the risk of the general population or the background risk for the same adverse event. If the likelihood ratio test (LRT) shows that the risk is higher after vaccination, a signal has been detected. However, there is a certain amount of dishonesty about this approach.

The MaxSPRT is based on a number of assumptions about the data. In particular, it is assumed that the data are constantly monitored in real time and that vaccination and non-vaccination participants are exposed in the same way in order to compare the incidence rates.

When we speak of 40 million vaccinated versus 7 million unvaccinated adults, the inequality and size of the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts makes this methodology obsolete.

Many biostatisticians have pointed out the limitations of using MaxSPRT for analyzing large amounts of data:

This special LRT, which depends on the total number of events, is designed for the case of rare events, in which only one event per exposure can be expected […] However, if events are not extremely rare or if the probability that more within a shift when an event occurs is not minor, the assumptions of this LRT are violated.

In other words, the MHRA rating is very sensitive to extremely rare adverse effects, but will hide rather than reveal the more common side effects that people die from. The MHRA uses a system that will mask serious problems with the vaccines. The only signals that your particular team can discuss with the experts are “extremely rare”.

You won’t see signals of more frequent adverse events, so you may miss the obvious and ignore the danger.

This is probably the reason why the MHRA decided not to use the “yellow cards” in isolation. Clearly, the raw data is a major cause for concern. They need to be reworked and redesigned to ignore the obvious. This, too, is a common feature of all drug safety monitoring systems (pharmacovigilance), which scientists have described as “totally inadequate” .

Correlation does not prove causality, but if the correlation is sustained and strong, the probability that it does not prove causality decreases rapidly. Wherever we look, the vaccinations seem to be causing serious side effects on an alarming scale.

COVID syringes: Ineffective, repressive and dangerous

There is no evidence to support official or mainstream media claims about the effectiveness or safety of COVID-19 vaccinations. They are experimental drugs with an unknown risk profile that are forced on people without giving them the opportunity to give their informed consent. The introduction of vaccination violates numerous international conventions, including the Nuremberg Code.

The data available is alarming to say the least, and everything indicates that the vaccinations are extremely dangerous. There is no doubt that they can be fatal. Those who support compulsory vaccination advocate that people should be forced to receive a potentially fatal injection. Those who are aware of this understandably do not want to be vaccinated.

For this they are demonized by the government, the media and a large part of those who have chosen to vaccinate. If they try to raise their concerns, they will be dismissed as vaccination opponents, conspiracy theorists, vaccination objectors, or dangerous objectors and accused of being selfish. It is precisely the compulsory vaccination that destroys public health and medical care.

There is strong evidence of concealment and denial to hide the dangers of vaccinations from the public. This seems to have crossed the threshold of crime in almost all of the nation states where the vaccines are used. The national peoples are clearly being attacked by their own governments and their partners .

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of vaccination, however, is its central role within a new system of state authority that enslaves humanity. Our vaccination status is the required license to participate in a technocratic, behavioral control and surveillance network. Our vaccination record (app) will not only monitor and report where we are going, who we are meeting and what we are allowed to do, but it will also determine which services we can use.

Those who believe that vaccinations are essential to protecting themselves and others from a low-mortality respiratory virus have either not received the information necessary to make such an assessment or they prefer to ignore it. They believe they are free because they can now register to use the services that were previously freely available to all. They have resigned themselves to needing government approval for normal, everyday activities.

They commit to taking the medication they are given for the rest of their lives. If they want to keep their social license this is non-negotiable. Their imaginary freedom depends on their continued adherence to it.

They do not own their own bodies and are no longer free in any way. They are electoral slaves and seem content to doom future generations, including their own children, to the same fate.