"Do you think vaccine makers want to kill half the world?"
asks Saskia Noort rhetorically in her column on November 16
Saskia does not take into account in her considerations that 'vaccine maker' is a business model in which the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the damage caused by his product. So vaccine makers do not want to 'send half the world to their deaths', but if they do, the turnover of billions of vaccines is already secured. Added to this is the dubious history of lawsuits and settlements, deception, research fraud and conflicts of interest that the vaccine makers have to their credit. In short, the assumption 'no one wants that' is a bit too trusting.
The Pfizer vaccine is 90% effective means...:
From a study with 44,000 subjects (half vaccinated, the other half placebo), the first 95 PCR-positive subjects were examined. 85 of them were not vaccinated, 10 were. From this, it was concluded that the vaccine is 90% effective. Critical questions that go with this:
- There has been NO testing among patients without symptoms. Among the subjects who feel well will be (very) contagious persons. If these people do not develop disease themselves thanks to the vaccine, they are ideal virus spreaders because they think they are healthy. In that case, the vaccine is counterproductive. [it is now clear that asymptomatic spread does not play a role]
- Nothing has been researched on improving the lethality of Covid-19 in the (relatively scarce) severe infections – and that was the problem, wasn't it?
- We know nothing about the efficacy in vulnerable groups where covid-19 is problematic.
In the very elderly (or others with dysfunctional immune systems), a vaccination may lead to just as little reaction as the real virus or perhaps to a severe reaction. After all, you must have a working immune system to respond adequately to a vaccination.
No doubt a certain group will benefit from it, presumably the 'relatively young' older vulnerable people aged 60-80, provided they withstand the injection shock well. We'll see if it makes a big difference to the total. - 100 people from a group of 44,000 is very little. Couldn't the next 100 be divided the other way around? Is there a statistician who can apply a significance test to that?
- 100 out of 44,000, that's something like 0.22%. Of these, about 4 would die (based on a recently estimated CFR). That's something like 0.001%. Do you have to inject the entire world population with a drug of which the long-term effects (years) are – and will remain – unknown?
I don't think you should inject the world's population before there is certainty about the above questions.
Research into long-term effects made impossible
The study was then stopped and the subjects who had received a placebo were still vaccinated with the real vaccine. In this way, no long-term effect can be compared between the two groups. After all, everyone has been vaccinated. If you are an anti-corona vaxxer hoping for long-term effects: unfortunately peanut butter. There is no longer a scientific comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. That will just be observational, based on voluntary reports of side effects.
I understood the above from Robert Kennedy. He has been following and criticizing the methods of the vaccine industry for years, thoroughly and scientifically substantiated. There is more reason for this in America than here, but let's hope that his message will now also be better spread in the Netherlands, so that we will understand what is going on in that snake pit of life-saving care and therefore monstrous interests.
(If you don't know him: a disorder of his larynx means that you have to get used to his voice.)
