The government wants to do something again. We don't know why. Show decisiveness? Omikron instills less fear than the flu; a virus that could have suddenly mutated into a terribly deadly attack on humanity for decades. Under that threat, we've held up pretty well, compared to how we're behaving now under Omikron, which now looks more like a cold.
What the government now knows is that it is no longer supported by, say: three-quarters of the population. Their policy is met not only with popular resistance but also with alarming noises from scientists. The House of Representatives is no longer functioning properly, degenerating in the good times, so they will come along with some wheeling and dealing. These plans are then rejected by the Senate. It is not legally correct, it is not proportionate, human rights are at stake – there are plenty of reasons. "If you disapprove of this, I will be empty-handed," Kuipers told the Senate. So that was the intention. A single minister should not walk around with weapons that can destroy society. That's what democratic processes are for...
If I were the cabinet, I would say, with so much opposition: go back to the drawing board with those plans. On the contrary: detours are being created to be able to implement the plans, such as hastily drafted laws and the use of a like-minded advisory body behind which one can entrench oneself, should accountability be required. I can't get to that with my naïve apolitical cap. Surely a politician is supposed to serve the people? What are they doing?
Not, but still
Take the vaccination campaigns for people aged 12 and over. Including children. Both the European Medical Agency and the Health Council explicitly state that these cannot be advised for people under 60. These are repeat jabs. For the time being, the same jabs as the previous ones, although they hope for hand-wringing jabs that protect against both Wuhan and the Omikron variant(?), the so-called bivalent vaccines.
Once again, there is boundless trust in the pharmaceutical companies that are working hard to be able to ship their goods on time.
Suppose a nice 60% protection, then no more than 5% of the current unexplained excess mortality should have been caused by the vaccines. If that is the case, it will at least go wrong for the 60-somethings if we get a kind of Omikron again.
On the other hand, for every human sacrifice, 2 lives are saved for the 60-79 year olds. In the group 80+ this is higher, each fallen person has given his life for 3 to 4 peers. This immediately reflects how people think about the statement "The Benefits Outweigh The Risks".
If the vaccine has caused 10% of unexplained excess mortality, then the tipping point is already in the 70s.
In the State Newspaper of 28 June (and on Youtube) minister Kuipers shows that he is aware of the guidelines.
See below screenshots from the current (9 Aug '22) reports on the websites of EMA and the Health Council of the Netherlands: under 60 is NOT advised to prick. The government's notice dated June 28 confirms this.
screenshots of EMA, Health Council of the Netherlands and the State Newspaper
On the website of the national government, the reservation is made that the new vaccines must first be registered by the EMA.
Because Kuipers himself would be held responsible in the event of any injection damage, the vaccination of 60-year-olds could not take place, despite the loving urging of Kuiper's party colleague Paulusma. (See also Kuipers, Milgram and the hot potato of responsibility). In the YouTube video, he first refers to the communication in order to come out on his personal responsibility.
What has changed?
Clear, you might say. If something is done to the country, fine, as long as I am not held accountable. But to my surprise, Kuipers reports less than a month later, on July 29, via the Staatskrant that everyone from the age of 12 can get a repeat jab.
So what has changed in the meantime? Is he suddenly no longer responsible for vaccine damage? No: a workaround has been created. After a set-up with Paulusma, he has the OMT-v an opinion had it written (after all, the Chamber asked for it, was not his idea) and the OMT-v wrote down a number of reflections. Completely independent, without pressure from the government.
The reflections of the experts of the OMT-v
The advisors of the OMT-v also bear no personal responsibility for the accuracy or consequences of their "advice" so they feel free to brainstorm. There is therefore no numerical substantiation in the advice and no considerations are made. What the message from the experts boils down to is that viruses can play out in the winter. The reduced mortality and ICU admissions due to immunity and weakening viruses are attributed to the boosters. In that view, the virus remains equally dangerous and the jab necessary.
So no figures, no substantiated risk assessment per age. It doesn't even give advice, but it does produce three scenarios. In scenario 2, the repeat jab is also offered to 12-year-olds. The reason is that that reduces infections (Really, I thought we were really past that stage after all!)
The benefits/risks therefore still have to be weighed, according to the experts. They themselves really have no idea how things compare:
Should the Minister consider that himself? That was not the intention, but the experts clearly do not want to do it either. Is this really an advice? So how does that trade-off work out?
So the EMA has to take over that responsibility from the experts – but we've seen above that hasn't happened yet. EMA says no, Health Council says no, Kuipers does yes after a report by a committee under his auspices and is and remains responsible.
On the website of the national government, the reservation is made that the new vaccines must first be registered by the EMA. If that doesn't happen, will the old vaccines be used?
The third scenario is the same as the second scenario. The experts advise in this scenario that if there are not enough vaccines, groups should not be jabbed at the same time. A better idea seems to them than to plan it one after the other, in order of vulnerability.
That's all I can get out of those documents.
In short: a story based on suspicions, fears, beliefs and hopes.
Does Kuipers already have prior knowledge that EMA will give approval? And to what extent is that legitimate; If you commit a speeding offence just before the speed limit is increased, your fine will not expire, will it? Even if you were in a hurry?
On the website of the central government, two reservations are made: the new vaccines must work better than the existing ones and they must first be registered by the EMA. Otherwise, the old vaccines will be used (after all, there are none).
That will work better because the existing vaccines actually do nothing anymore. Or the absolute risk The question is therefore taken into account.
Minister Kuipers apparently sees this approval as a matter of course, a formality perhaps. Maybe it's time to take that EMA out?
In any case, he seems to think that this has enough scientific backing to deflect his responsibility. Is that true...?
I don't know. Certainly not when I hear how a New Zealand father feels about this, when he calls the Pharmacist who injected his son into the hospital.
At high and low, it is claimed around me that a vaccinated person, who despite the great vaccine, still gets sick, does NOT become seriously ill anymore because the Vaccine protects.
I think this is a monkey sandwich. First of all, you get sick anyway, that has already been proven by millions. And secondly, where are the studies that make you less seriously ill with a vaccine?
An acquaintance (66) of mine was in hospital with covid in May 2021. Vaccinated and well. He is convinced that he has been milder ill because of the vaccination. He was in the hospital for 7 days. Well shoot me. I had 1 vaccination in 2020 and after reading the side effects immediately stopped this suicide attempt. Never had covid, but did have flu during covid waves. Will the vaccine continue to work for me for 3 years?
I wouldn't be surprised if Kuipers shifts the responsibility to doctors who have them pricked. They now have to pay extra attention to informed consent!
In the official leaflet of Astra Senica it is mentioned as the first ingredient that it comes from chimpanzees. So monkeys. Monkeys that caused AIDS. Monkeys associated with smallpox monkeys.
Seems good to know what you're getting into.
As far as I know, Monkeys have nothing to do with monkey smallpox, other than that they have been laboratory animals, and that will also apply to AIDS. Originating from Chimpanzees, I don't think anything but monkeys has been used as laboratory animals and breeding objects. So what you're warning about isn't clear to me. Almost everything that could possibly be dangerous is first tested on laboratory animals and the chimpanzee is very popular because of its similarities with humans. And this certainly applies to all the vaccines that you will have had as a child.
It doesn't come from the monkeys. Anyway, looking at ingredients makes little sense to laymen like us.
In Denmark, they think differently.
Perhaps that will soon be the new Scandinavian pariah:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/denmark-ends-covid-vaccinations-for/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozMDY3NTIwNSwicG9zdF9pZCI6Njc5MDY0NjgsImlhdCI6MTY2MDA2NjYwOCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTM2MzA4MCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.9BHmxOiPJSmSDKjG5cIcuPsApyJT4hJ2fmiE7bhGtMQ&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks! Made a post about it yesterday. https://virusvaria.nl/denemarken-verbiedt-als-eerste-land-coronavaccins/
Of course I am not a doctor, nor a chemist or pharmacist, but read a leaflet as it is written. Here's what it says:
One dose (0.5 ml) contains:
Chimpanzee Adenovirus encoding the spike glycoprotein ChAdOx1-S of SARS-CoV-2*, not less than 2,5 × 108 infectious units.
This product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The other excipients are L-histidine, L-histidine hydrochloride monohydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, polysorbate 80 (E 433), ethanol, sucrose, sodium chloride, disodium edetate (dihydrate), water for injections (see section 2 'Vaxzevria contains sodium and alcohol').
The second paragraph states that it contains modified organisms.
As far as I know, an organism is living matter.
If it is true that a user does not understand the contents of a leaflet, then I do not understand why every leaflet asks that it be read carefully.
I don't have to be right, but I can explain the composition anyway.
After all, because I didn't want a vaccine, I was partly excluded from participating in society.
That's what it's all about. I am also not claiming that this is why AIDS or monkey smallpox is transmitted, but on what basis is it excluded and if a Chimpanzee ingredient is not ape-like what is it??
The ministry, GGD and RIVM refuse to answer.
I do look at the contraindications in leaflets. As for those ingredients, I really don't know anything about...