Twee onderwerpen. Naomi Wolf collationeerde het boek "The Pfizer Papers" met schokkende feiten uit -na rechterlijke dwang- vrijgegeven Pfizer/FDA documenten. Jessica Rose werd ingeschakeld om haar 'expert opinion' te geven bij een rechtszaak tegen een coronakritische arts. Allebei het lezen waard maar wie kan dat allemaal nog bijhouden, zeker nu de aandacht wordt getrokken richting de corrumpering van de media. Wat er in de VS gebeurt, is hier ook aan de hand. Reuters krijgt tonnen (?) van USAID, DPG krijgt miljoenen van de EU: geen wonder dat dat een fabeltjeskrantproducent is geworden. Het erge is dat de werknemers daar niet in de gaten te hebben (hoop ik voor ze). Die copy-pasten alleen maar van Reuters en verifiëren het bij functionarissen die uit dezelfde ruif eten. Dus spelen we zelf maar voor journalistje.
Two heroines in the spotlight.
First a brief word about The Pfizer Papers, then the defense of an accused Canadian doctor, by Jessica Rose. Still remarkable: just as the IGJ chases after doctors like a Gestapo, it is no different there. You would almost think that it is prompted from above. We know from Fleur Agema that NATO is behind health measures, while that is a medical matter. Maybe it has something to do with bioweapons or something?
The Pfizer Papers - Naomi Wolf
Vrouwenvoorvechtster Naomi Wolf maakte zich zorgen om bijwerkingen bij vrouwen door de coronavaccins. Wat begon met coronakritische media-optredens, o.m. bij Alex Jones, eindigde ermee dat ze overstelpt werd door 450.000 pagina's met schokkende feiten over het mRNA-vaccin van Pfizer/BioNTech. Advocaat Aaron Siri had namelijk een FOIA request (WOO-verzoek) ingediend. De FDA had de documenten 75 jaar geheim willen houden, maar een Amerikaanse rechter besliste dat ze onmiddellijk vrijgegeven moesten worden. Ze wist zich er geen raad mee totdat crowdsourcing de uitkomst bood: de wetenschappelijke methode van de toekomst, al weten de legacy academies dat nog niet. Onder regie van Amy Kelly werden er overzichtelijke rapporten gemaakt en Naomi Wolf bracht ze samen in het boek "The Pfizer Papers". Op Facebook deelde Christos Koptsidiskernpunten van die 450.000 pagina's in enkele tientallen bullet points.
Effectiveness and side effects
- Pfizer knew as early as November 2020 that the vaccine was not safe or effective.
- Within three months of the rollout (December 2020), it turned out that the vaccines did not work against the spread of COVID-19.
- Important side effect: COVID itself – many vaccinated people still became infected.
- Lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins spread throughout the body, instead of staying in the deltoid.
- April 2021: Pfizer knew that the injections caused heart damage in young people.
- Pfizer classification: Deaths due to the vaccine were designated as "serious adverse event".
- A 3.7x higher mortality from heart problems in vaccinated people compared to placebos.
- Other serious side effects: autoimmune diseases, aggressive cancers, blood clots, kidney damage and neurological disorders.
The role of media and governments
- The mainstream media ignored these facts and declared the vaccine safe and effective according to a centrally coordinated narrative.
- Pfizer and governments concealed information to continue the vaccine rollout.
- Doctors and critics who questioned safety were censored and vilified.
Impact on women and children
- Menstrual disorders as a result of the jab were reported early but ignored.
- Birth rates fell in countries with high vaccination rates.
- Vaccines passed into breast milk, leading to illness and death in babies.
- One baby had convulsions and died after breastfeeding a vaccinated mother.
- Left-wing movements, traditionally champions of women's rights, remained silent about this.
Future and lasting impact
- The Pfizer Papers is a historical reference work about a scandal that will have an impact for generations to come.
- Death rates in the U.S. and Western Europe are still rising, possibly in part due to "turbo-cancers" caused by the vaccinations.
- The book will become increasingly important as more truth comes to light.
- Naomi Wolf also wrote Face to Face with the Beast in 2023, in which she further explores the social consequences.
Expert Witness Dr. Jessica Rose
Dr. Jessica Rose heeft een uitgebreide deskundigenverklaring opgesteld naar aanleiding van een verzoek van de rechtbank. Het gaat om haar professionele mening aangaande de openbare verklaringen van Dr. Charles Hoffe en de tegenwerpingen van Dr. Trevor Corneil (University of British Columbia) die Hoffe's publieke uitingen en eerlijkheid naar patiënten toe schadelijk acht voor de volksgezondheid.
Dr. Hoffe is a physician who has been College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (Canada) has been subpoenaed for his critical statements about the COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Corneil has written an advisory letter refuting Dr. Hoffe's claims. In her report, Dr. Rose analyzes the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, based on scientific literature, pharmacovigilance data, and her own research.
Dr. Rose's Qualifications
Dr. Rose has a broad background in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, and molecular biology. She has spent the past four years researching the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the safety of these vaccines. She has analyzed thousands of peer-reviewed studies and has worked extensively with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, a system that records vaccine adverse events. Dr. Rose has also published in peer-reviewed journals and has presented her work to international medical and scientific conferences.
BREAKING - De aanklacht is gisteren (6 feb) ingetrokken!
Jessica vermoedt samenhang met het wegvallen van de funding dankzij de DOGE-acties van Musk en Trump. Maar haar expert report kan ook een rol hebben gespeeld want dat laat geen spaan heel van de argumenten van de tegenpartij. Die had natuurlijk geen poot om op te staan met de rotzooi die er om dat flutproduct, dat als 'vaccin' is verkocht, heen is getrapt.
SOURCE
Purpose of the report
Dr. Rose gives her professional opinion on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, based on data from VAERS and other sources. She also refutes some of the claims made by Dr. Corneil, who states in his advisory letter that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Professional opinion of Dr. Rose
Dr. Rose concludeert dat de COVID-19 vaccins niet veilig of effectief zijn, gebaseerd op de gegevens die ze heeft geanalyseerd. Ze benadrukt dat de gemodificeerde mRNA-vaccins potentieel schadelijk zijn en dat er een overvloed aan gegevens is die wijzen op ernstige bijwerkingen. Ze vindt dat Dr. Hoffe handelde in het belang van zijn patiënten door bijwerkingen te melden en zich te houden aan de eed van Hippocrates: "geen schade doen".
Statements by Dr. Corneil and rebuttal by Dr. Rose
Dr. Corneil, in his advisory letter, makes several claims about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, which are refuted by Dr. Rose:
- "COVID-19 vaccins hebben een goed veiligheidsprofiel"
Dr. Rose points out that there are thousands of reports of serious side effects in VAERS, including deaths, myocarditis, and neurological complications. She emphasizes that the vaccines were not sufficiently tested before they were put on the market and that no long-term studies have been done. - "Er is geen bewijs dat COVID-19 vaccins nadelige effecten hebben op de hersenen"
Dr. Rose cites multiple peer-reviewed studies that show that neurological side effects have been reported, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and other neurological disorders. - "COVID-19 vaccins zijn geen gentherapie"
Dr. Rose refutes this by referring to the FDA's definition of gene therapy, which states that gene therapy involves altering or manipulating gene expression. She points to the presence of DNA fragments in the vaccines, which can integrate into the human genome, which would imply gene therapy. - "COVID-19 vaccins hebben een laag risico op ernstige bijwerkingen tijdens de zwangerschap"
Dr. Rose presents data from VAERS showing that there is a significant increase in reports of miscarriages after vaccination, compared to influenza vaccines. She emphasizes that pregnant women were excluded from the original clinical trials, which raises questions about the safety of the vaccines for this group. - "COVID-19 vaccins zijn niet experimenteel"
Dr. Rose states that the mRNA vaccines are based on a new and insufficiently tested platform. She points out that the vaccines were developed in record time and that no long-term studies have been done on safety and effectiveness.
"De veiligheid van COVID-19-vaccins voor zwangere vrouwen is nooit adequaat onderzocht, en de snelle goedkeuring voor gebruik in deze groep is onverantwoord."
Dr. Rose's arguments
Dr. Rose presents several arguments to support her conclusions:
- Safety data from VAERS
Dr. Rose analyzes the data from VAERS and concludes that there has been a significant increase in reports of serious adverse events, including deaths, myocarditis, and neurological disorders, compared to other vaccines such as the flu vaccine. She emphasizes that these reports indicate a real risk, especially among young people and children. - Experimental nature of the vaccines
Dr. Rose points out that the mRNA vaccines are based on a new platform that has never been widely used before. She emphasizes that no long-term studies have been done on safety and that the vaccines were developed in record time, leaving insufficient time for thorough testing. - DNA fragments in the vaccines
Dr. Rose points to the presence of DNA fragments in the vaccines, including the SV40 promoter, which could potentially integrate into the human genome. She emphasizes that this risk has not been sufficiently researched and that there are concerns about possible genetic damage. There is a risk that these DNA fragments could be incorporated into human cells by reverse transcriptase, which could cause genetic changes. - Poor quality control: The presence of these sequences indicates flawed manufacturing standards and raises questions about the approval procedures of regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EMA.
- Neurological side effects
Dr. Rose cites multiple studies showing that neurological side effects have been reported after vaccination, including Guillain-Barré syndrome and other neurological disorders. She emphasizes that these side effects have not been sufficiently researched. - Risico's voor kinderen en jongeren
Dr. Rose benadrukt dat kinderen en jongeren een laag risico lopen op ernstige COVID-19, maar dat er wel significante risico's zijn verbonden aan de vaccins, zoals myocarditis. Ze stelt dat het onnodig is om kinderen te vaccineren, gezien het lage risico op ernstige ziekte. - Fertility and pregnancy
Dr. Rose presents data showing that there is a significant increase in reports of miscarriages after vaccination, compared to flu vaccines. She emphasizes that pregnant women were excluded from the original clinical trials, which raises questions about the safety of the vaccines for this group.
She identifies worrying findings:- Miscarriages: Data from VAERS and other sources suggest that the rate of spontaneous abortions among vaccinated women is significantly higher than the historical average.
- Placental storage of spike proteins: Studies show that spike proteins can accumulate in the placenta, potentially affecting fetal development.
- Menstrual disorders: There are thousands of reports of menstrual changes after vaccination, indicating a potential effect on hormonal balance and reproductive health.
- Reduced fertility: There are concerns about the impact of repeated vaccination on ovarian function and the quality of eggs and sperm.
- Injecting the control group
Dr. Rose points out an important detail in the Pfizer/BioNTech clinical trials: the control group was also injected with the vaccine over time, so no long-term comparison data is available. This undermines the validity of the studies and makes it difficult to assess the long-term effects of the vaccines. - Plea for preprints and criticism of peer reviews
Dr. Rose emphasizes the importance of preprints for the rapid dissemination of scientific information, especially during a pandemic. She criticizes the traditional peer review system for its long publication times and the possibility of bias. She argues that preprints can be a valuable source of information, provided they are interpreted with caution.
She points out:- The large number of preprints (non-peer-reviewed scientific articles) that were retracted without sound scientific argumentation.
- The influence of pharmaceutical companies and governments on the publication of research results.
- The lack of data transparency from vaccine manufacturers, which prevents independent scientists from accessing raw research data.
"Veel onderzoekers die kritische vragen stellen over COVID-19-vaccins krijgen te maken met censuur of intrekking van hun artikelen, vaak zonder geldige wetenschappelijke redenen."
Conclusion
Dr. Rose concludeert na analyse van een breed scala aan gegevens dat de COVID-19 vaccins niet veilig of effectief zijn. Ze benadrukt dat er een significant risico is op ernstige bijwerkingen, waaronder overlijdens, myocarditis en neurologische aandoeningen, los van de minder ernstige bijwerkingen zoals Covid-19. Ze vindt dat Dr. Hoffe handelde in het belang van zijn patiënten door bijwerkingen te melden en zich te houden aan de eed van Hippocrates: "breng geen schade toe". Dr. Rose roept op tot meer onderzoek naar de veiligheid van de vaccins en tot volledige openbaarmaking van de risico's aan het publiek.
The Dutch translation (not flawless but good enough) of the entire report can be read in this PDF. It original is on Hair Substack.
Five years ago I got the feeling that I had ended up in a very bad movie. That feeling has never gone away. Bad script that was followed in the same way in almost all countries. Worthless protagonists who hardly knew what they were talking about and who were not afraid to redo a scene with an adapted text if enough fear had not yet been sown. A few things were so illogical that I really thought that Mr. Alzheimer had announced himself. For example, the certainty that Covid did not come from the WIV (Koopmans: no association whatsoever) and could not spread through the air (Tedros after reprimand from Ryan: airborne in the military sense). And then the measures that really made no sense. All so illogical that I would have left the cinema if it had been physically possible.
And around me there was no one who questioned it. Colleagues, friends and family, all well-behaved and afraid, did not see that something was wrong. Except for a few people, Anton here and a handful of doctors who made critical comments in Medisch Contact, including Jan Bonte and Els van Veen. When the last ones of MC were banned I started following them on Twitter (X). To my great joy, I found more critical people there, often with a scientific background. Anton rightly puts two giants in the spotlight here, but fortunately there are many more and there are more and more who are starting to suspect that something has gone wrong and now perhaps dare to "come out of the closet".
The feeling of being in a bad movie doesn't go away and I don't have much hope for a good ending either. The stakes are too great. As a country, you will only be held liable for the most expensive joke of the 21st century so far. A few pawns will be sacrificed, but that will be it.
Furthermore, it seems that everything is being done to deny or downplay vaccine damage. Maybe better this way because in addition to the many real cases, there will probably be smart people who also want to get a piece of the pie. And if we want to burden the healthcare sector with finding out whether people have vax damage or long covid or are just sick or simulating, they will no longer get around to treatment.
I would be very happy if it becomes clear that the mRNA platform that seemed so promising (for cancer) is not suitable for application in healthy (young) people in this form.
The mRNA platform is the cause of many forms of cancer.
The only way mRNA can work against cancer is not to inject it into muscles, bloodstreams, or spinal cords of humans or animals.
Afraid you're right. I meant that the platform seemed to offer opportunities for cancer treatment in the beginning.
It is now clear that it does not "stay in the upper arm and be out of your body within a few days". The junk is found in the brain (Burkhardt) during an autopsy.
To my great regret, I was persuaded by our children (three doctors) at the time to get a shot, but I explicitly asked the pricker to aspirate. Fortunately, it was someone my age who had learned that in training. It felt so bad that I left it at that one.
Learned a lot later!
Not everyone seems to be equally receptive to the mRNA side effects, presumably it is something genetic. For the time being, it is a therapy that is only suitable for terminal patients with metastatic cancer, precisely because
a) the mRNA really penetrates everywhere
b) these people actually have nothing left to lose
The only reason to roll out this Russian roulette as a prophylaxis is for profit. It is just easy and quick to manufacture, there is already an awful lot of research in it that yields nothing and the fueled fear of containing the disease (read: keeping NATO research in bioweapons under wraps) had removed all barriers to the injection.
The disease categorization went to A-level, the term 'pandemic' was redefined, and a 'vaccine' only needed to produce some kind of immune response.
… aaaaand GO!!
you don't know what you say for horrific.
do you have any idea what it is like not to be able to say goodbye to your loved one because after the first CT scan it turns out to be terminal and then completely breaks down within 2 months because it is not just cancers caused by those mRNA shots, but a special type that eats around like crazy, Do you have any awareness that you will not have time to say goodbye to life, and do you know how much pain that leaves behind for the bereaved?
What do you mean "terminal cancer patients actually have nothing left to lose"?
You have clearly been on the right side of the syringes .. I'm guessing ..
I don't mean that so harshly. It was perhaps a bit simplistic. Let me put it another way:
If you are out of treatment and have a life horizon that can be expressed in weeks, you will be more inclined to accept such a risky treatment than if you are perfectly healthy and considering protection against a disease of which you have a 99.98% chance of survival. However, this is based on decent informed consent (which was not the case now), so individual risk assessment.
Does that sound more plausible?
Can you explain how you would have the time to say goodbye in one case and not in the other? I don't see that. Especially when there is little time left, more people will want to take the risk of making time.
By the way, my father (59) died of a brain tumor, my mother (84) of metastatic lung cancer, so the argument aimed at me personally that I would have no idea what it is about makes little impression.
Furthermore, I have indeed been on the right side of the syringes. I first chose not to take injections against an aerogenic virus in the spring/summer. When autumn approached, I now had enough substantiation to say no for it definitively.
It is now suggested that ivermectin helps against cancer. I now give it to my dog but don't know if I started ivermectin too late because I didn't know and didn't notice that he is actually sick. I hope that despite his age, he will benefit from this medicine. However, Hugo de Jong has banned this drug and removed it from the market during corona. This worked against, against giving the injections and that was deliberately the goal, nothing negative was allowed to come out that was detrimental to the injections.
Indeed, I forgot that one: other medication was banned to justify emergency use...
I hope your dog benefits from the IVM. Get well soon!
Recognizable, but I don't agree with your point of view that vax damage should not be investigated because it is too expensive, would burden the healthcare system too much and that people would abuse it.
If the side effects are not properly investigated, all vaccines will soon be mRNA vaccines.
Moreover, your position is very harsh. People who are still ill must be medically helped. Sick is sick. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Every sick person deserves help.
On top of that, there is evidence that some people have become walking spike protein factories. They excrete these spike proteins through their breath and skin everywhere and nowhere. You shouldn't be around that for too long. If violation occurs frequently, a remedy must also be sought for it.
I myself became seriously ill from the vaccination (a blood vessel was hit during the injection). I am not concerned with financial compensation. I would have liked to have had medical help. And I want it to be recognized.
I'm really fed up with those people who downplay the side effects or don't think it's necessary for it to be investigated.
By the way, I have recovered reasonably well with the help of self-medication.
Dear Miranda,
First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you have suffered serious damage from the vaccination. Accidental puncture of blood vessels may be the main reason why some people get very serious side effects or even die. Please read what I write above about aspiration.
Don't think I'm advocating not investigating these kinds of cases. Fortunately, more and more is coming out and I can't wait for my family and friends to finally realize how dangerous mRNA is. But it is easier to deceive a person than to convince him that he has been deceived. (I didn't think of it myself)
What I am very skeptical about, however, is that in the short term there will be a kind of confession from the government that they should not have forced the shots on us because they were more dangerous than they thought. It took 11 years for thalidomide (softenon) to be taken off the market and the effects were quite eye-catching, you could say.
Furthermore, I completely agree with you: "every sick person deserves help". But suppose Tijs vd Brink WOULD succeed in convincing the entire Dutch population tonight that they have been vaccinated with a dangerous and possibly deadly drug. (I write ZOU because they would rather think that Tijs had become out of his mind.) Then tomorrow the entire health care system would be down. And that the government is good for solving problems, we know after Groningen, the Allowance Scandal.
In summary, I can't wait for everyone to understand what kind of cart we have been run over by in the past 5 years (home language) but I don't have much confidence that the government supported by the MSM will help much with that.
I am in favor of freedom of speech, but a depressive story like the one in the above comment sets the tone in a negative way. It discourages others.
Could the editors perhaps move the input of the first writer down a few places, so that the first post is a contribution by someone who shows combativeness?
It is high time that a start is made in the Netherlands with the collection of those who DO want to go against the abuse of power of the pharmaceutical companies.
Gathering those who DO want to fight a *Nuremberg2* in order to do justice to their sick, their disabled loved ones, their chronically ill family members, their deceased loved ones and themselves.
It is for freedom of speech, but it should not be "too depressing". Hmmmm. The story should be a little less visible. That sounds familiar to me, just as it was and is with the combatants among us. I call it unobtrusive censorship. Rob clearly shows that it was a lonely time and you have my support. Each in his/her own way and with his/her qualities and the truth will emerge. Interesting article above, I already knew a lot about Naomi Wolf but this is important useful information! Clear list in Dutch that I will use a lot to "plant seeds" with the "corona deaf/corona hearing impaired and corona blind/corona visually impaired people".
I also recognize Rob's story, very well right. When I see people around me who are "going on vacation" I think to myself: we ARE already on vacation! We are suddenly in a parallel world, look around you!
I'm also in trouble with that punishment. Not so much because it would cost a lot of healthcare capacity, but because there is no line to be drawn between we/not guilty. 80% of the population is complicit, what should you do with that? Execute a few leaders as scapegoats and let the entire corrupt system continue to run? Replacements of those 'team players' are easily found, they are 1 level lower in the system; They have been aiming for that spot throughout their careers. That is the reservoir of people who will make the same mistakes in exactly the same way. The promotion system filtered them on that.
Everything has to be overhauled...
Dear Anton,
Punishing the healthcare sector for complicity is not something that we can just elaborate on in a few sentences in posts under an article.
As far as the large group of accomplices is concerned, the silent ones who saw it happen, I am thinking more of a new oath that healthcare providers should take, and the lifting of any form of confidentiality about the consequences of one's own actions.
By that 80% accomplices I don't mean 80% of the caregivers but 80% of the population. And we owe that to the media, which have played - and still play - an insidious role with their 'objective', 'neutral', 'science-based', 'uncoloured' representation of the 'truth'. They were the ones who, as 'independents', should have kicked ass at an early stage – but they are all encapsulated.
Once. Somewhere in the oath it should be stated that it is forbidden to avoid responsibility for ONE's own actions. This is what doctors do now (and have done for a very long time) by constantly referring to their superior. And since everyone in healthcare as it is now set up has a superior, ultimately NO ONE has responsibility for their actions in healthcare.
In addition to the fact that this means that patients are outlawed when something goes wrong (because no one takes responsibility, no one feels called, everyone points to their 'superior'), this makes the profession less and less interesting for doctors. Because those who do not have to take responsibility for their actions, soon no longer feel involved in those actions. So he no longer feels involved in the patient's suffering, but more like a mandatory number that has to be given a 'DBC code' in a maximum of 10 minutes of outpatient time and that is really life-threatening.
The Gordian knot can be cut by forcing the doctor to take responsibility for his actions. -How? By taking the whole idea of master-apprentice (training) out of medical school. After six studies you are a doctor and whether you want to become a general practitioner, internist, surgeon: from that moment on there is no escaping it: you are in front of it yourself and you cannot hide behind any trainer or superior.
With apologies for the 'advertising' (link below) but the system I propose I experienced in Australia, as a doctor in a place where I could not share responsibility with anyone at the time because I was the only doctor! The only place where I have REALLY practiced medicine: see my short story:
https://bvnl.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/06-Over-het-nemen-van-verantwoordelijkheid.pdf
Dear Willem,
Nice story, worthy of a summer guest evening. Just peeked where your expertise (publications) lies. The whole transmission story prompted me in April '20 to delve into the (dis)information we received from the government. On the one hand, because as a physicist I could not imagine that the aerosols that everyone produces when exhaling could not contain viruses. And I know how long the microdroplets can "stick". On the other hand, because it was said that it was "a new virus that they didn't know anything about yet" but were sure that it would spread first only and later mainly through large droplets. That "logic" is incomprehensible to me. At first you think of ignorance, but how nuanced information was fought suggested the worst.
I find your story about personal responsibility sympathetic, but at the same time, as a doctor, I would no longer dare to prescribe paracetamol. All drugs have side effects and who, to what, at what time, is sensitive, no idea. I was always happy not to have studied medicine, but after the past five years I have!
Greeting
Seal
Thanks for your response Rob, and with apologies to Anton (since the comment is almost off topic... Regarding physics versus medicine: I once worked with a physicist who said in a presentation that he thought medicine science was a 'shocker', because with all that biological variation there was actually no science possible from a physics point of view!
Ihkv responsibility: yes, it leads to conservativism where you don't even dare to prescribe paracetamol. Perhaps that is the best thing you can do as a doctor. In the (fictional) novel the house of god, the hero of the book, the internist in training Roy Bash, eventually saves 1 person's life. How? – By doing nothing! Satirical, but certainly also with a grain of truth when you realize that today 11 million Dutch people take medication on prescription (far too many)..:
My point is that it is time for those who still have a fighting spirit to come together, to start curbing the power of the pharmaceutical industry, no matter what.
And a discouraging first post below this interesting article doesn't help.
Nor do I put the emphasis on side issues.
Dear Juniper,
I'm sorry if I set a negative tone. Of course, we largely agree. Evil must be punished and I look with pleasure at the US where RFK is taking on big pharma. And Nuremberg2 should definitely be there too. And I even want to go so far as to think that in 20 years' time people may think very differently about vaccinations in general.
So I wholeheartedly join your call to gather people who DO stand up against the power of the pharmaceutical companies!
Dear Rob,
Top.
If only that had been the first post, we could now put together a posse.
(joke.)
You know Juniper, I am in the fortunate circumstance that I have personally met several corona knights (including some now "celebrities") and still see some, with some regularity.
Actually, we all disagree with each other. Yes: disagree, you read that right.
I think all kinds of things about Jan B (and he about me), from Maurice, from Herman S, from Willem Engel (whom I don't know personally by the way) and we try to help each other and sometimes correct each other. But there is a limit to that: you have to let everyone do their own thing. Every voice is strongest when it sings within its own range, even if you would have done it differently yourself and you may not even think it sounds so good sometimes.
So I completely understand your intention, but still a tip: make an addition or make it a question, try to make something constructive out of it. There is no point in flaring each other on parts. Not that you go that far, but I'm exaggerating for a moment.
(And shadowbanning is not my thing, especially not with an integer written contribution, even if it wouldn't suit me. I'm not 'left' enough for😉 that .)
Wholeheartedly agree! "Calling for ....." is even left(s) soup 😉, but peaceful is always allowed. In amazement, I walked and stood among fellow corona protesters and talked to all those different people until the police started using violence. Sad back home but with a warm heart. Proud of all those people who did not let themselves be rushed even though bricks were ready on behalf of presumably the NCTv and the so-called romeoos jumped out of police vans before my eyes to supposedly threaten their colleagues. My children lost their jobs, my grandchildren their school and my parents lost their lives (not from corona!). Being 100% on the same page with everything is not possible even in the best love relationship, I think (we have been solving that with humor ☺️ for 45 years). Willem E has called the most for peaceful "resistance" with love and patience, but I have also learned a lot from everyone else! Now I try to hold on to that patience and also be there for all those miscarriages, sick people and relatives of and through, usually the corona shots, but I have to confess that at home we say to each other "those poor suckers!" Also support initiatives that look for solutions to the damage and of course the new media. Busy, busy, busy everyone in his/her own way. There is still a lot to do! Thanks for reading. 😊
Can Pfizer be sued for deliberately lying and concealing resulting in deaths?
At what stage was talking head Agnes Kant informed of this?
Is she complicit in lying and concealing in her position?
When will Nuremberg 2.0 come to do justice to the millions of unnecessary deaths and life sentences worldwide?
Misschien al gemeld, maar in de VS was de sterfte in 2021 3 maal verhoogd in de leeftijd 25 tot 45 ten opzichte vn 2019. Rara hoe komt dat?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829783