Marcel Levi: would you rather have chicken vaccine than malaria pellet?

Marcel Levi was director of a number of London hospitals during the corona crisis and has recently come into the picture because he is coming back to the Netherlands. As of April 2021, he will become chairman of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). An amiable, charismatic, intelligent man. Everyone would wish for such a doctor. However, I have my doubts about a doctor as chairman of the NWO, given the scientific frolic of the RIVM/OMT/government. This has not done the reputation of physicians as scientists and policymakers any good.

Marcel Levi, like any good doctor, wants the best for his patients. He will go through fire for that. Making someone better, preventing a death – everything has to give way to that. This focus can have dangerous consequences for public health and society. (There I have a year ago). Marcel Levi has also been shaped and grown up in and thanks to medical systems and hierarchies – and the pharmaceutical industry is an important and indispensable part of this. If you don't fully rely on that system, you won't be in this kind of position. So I have every understanding.

Back to the column.

According to Marcel Levi, we need to learn from how we treat tens of thousands of chickens packed together. At the same time, a drug such as ivermectin is banned in the fight against corona because it was originally intended for our pet. Or for people who go to Africa, for example.

In his column in Het Parool, Levi gives the impression that the efficacy of the corona vaccines is disputed by critics and he does his best to rectify that. Alternative solutions (ivermectin, budesonide or IVM puff, promising nasal sprays, let alone HCQ/Zinc) are not discussed. So there is nothing to weigh, there is only one option. Is that a deliberate distraction or does he really not realize where the shoe is pinches? I think the latter. Let me list some objections.

What is the sensible approach?

Professor Jeroen van der Hilst, internist-infectiologist in Jessa Hasselt, expresses why it is wise to follow the normal course of events and only vaccinate all vulnerable people plus everyone who wants to, just like with the regular flu shot.

https://www.despecialist.eu/nl/opinies/ldquo-vaccineer-juist-niet-iedereen-rdquo-jeroen-van-der-hilst.html

So what are the problems with the mRNA vaccines?

• have to vaccinate the entire world population every year in connection with vaccination passports and the associated apartheid policy
• Under the age of 50, with a mortality risk of 0.0015%* (much lower than flu), should be vaccinated while older people are already safe because vaccinated (that's how well the vaccine works, right?)
• Intervention in the immune system without long-term research with a 'novel vaccine'
• cause side effects and fatalities in healthy people in age groups that have no problem at all with the disease itself. This is at least with AstraZeneca and in VAERS in particular Pfizer/Moderna side effects are reported, including deaths
• Very specific defenses, no broad protection, so less mutation-proof than infection or weakened virus
• 'teach' the immune system something that may cause it to overreact in the future
• Vaccination during lockdowns makes more dangerous variants more likely
• blocking effective medication and research, so that vaccines remain necessary
• Violating bodily integrity under social and economic coercion by means of injections of genetically modified material – isn't that an ethical problem?
• A government that promises individuals back a share of their confiscated fundamental rights in exchange for having something injected by the government – that sounds like a problem
• onbalans tussen het Covid-sterftepercentage en de paniekzaaiende teneur van WHO/overheden ter ondersteuning van de vaccinatiebereidheid => disproportionele wereldwijde bevolkingsdekkende vaccinatiecampagnes worden doorgedrukt
• censorship, banishment and defamation of critics who can mess up the deals between governments and pharmaceutical companies (or any other narrative for that matter)
• Healthy people do not need to take medicine, but they do need to be vaccinated. That alternative is cut off. (You can also dose or stop a medication if undesirable reactions occur.)
• precedent for any future nasty flu (or less common, after all, nothing has been quantified)
• Saskia Middelkoop, Radboud University Medical Center: "Thrombosis reports are lower than what you would expect based on background noise". She, too, is slipping up in her vaccine promotion. After all, it means that not all side effects are reported.

If I forget anything, please let me know.

* Of those infected dies in US and Europe approx. 0.15%. 1% of them are under the age of fifty, which leads to an IFR of 0.0015%. = 0.0015 per hundred = 0.015 per thousand = 0.15 per ten thousand = 1.5 per hundred thousand = 15 deaths per million infected under 50 years of age. English data shows a VACCINE Fatality Rate of about 2 deaths per million vaccinated people under the age of 50. (estimate, exact dates are again not available)
The choice is then 15 virus deaths or 2 vaccine deaths per million.

• Who is going to weigh up whether it is worth a million vaccinations every year to sacrifice 2 lives in order to save 15 others? [I don't know]
• Aren't there standards for that? [no, hopefully they won't rely on models]
• The vaccine deaths may be teenagers with decades of life ahead of them. The average number of virus deaths is around 80. [In years of life it may already be even]
• Will corona become even more manageable? [yes, halving/decimating mortality is conceivable]
• Does the virus weaken our immune system? [yes, halving/decimation/nihilization of mortality is likely]

Well, this is still about people under 50. What about under-30s? At what age does the cure become deadlier than the disease?

In response to the Parool column by Marcel Levi Why chickens don't get covid and we can learn from it