Go directly to Gideon Tuschinski – CDC cover-up – Travel agency VWS – Lableak misbunk
About Pfizer's FOIA documents I posted earlier excerpts from Dr. John Campbell's video. What mainly caused confusion for him were two things.
First: that a judge had to be involved to force science to be transparent.
The other point was that a number had been redacted, namely the number of doses that were reported. So we were still not allowed to know how many injections were at the basis of the registered side effects, including deaths.
This led to more confusion and dismay in the medical world, as can also be seen on Twitter, for example. Below, a doctor describes how he became nauseous when reading the Pfizer documents.
Perhaps a bit exaggerated because we don't know the sample size from which the cases originated. For example, another major communication error has been made with the blackening of key figures. They paint themselves further and further into the corner. Typical of the amateurish communication in the past two years.
Objections
This worrisome cry of panic was followed by support but also counterarguments from other twitter users: that it would involve 40 million doses, 80 million, 120 million doses, estimates in which the percentages became so small that it was actually not that bad and the number of deaths would even be below the expected mortality according to some. The latter would then mean that the vaccines would also fight other deadly diseases. I think we would have heard that earlier, if that were really the case.
As long as the underlying data is not fully available and essential figures remain glossed over, it will be a matter of guessing and puzzling with all kinds of different interpretations and further breakdown of trust in everything that has to do with doctors and governments.
That things are not right in the Pfizer papers is undeniable given the haste, the shadowiness, the interests and entanglements, the orchestrated mendacious propaganda, the unwillingness to publish and all those other things that should not be necessary to promote a sound drug.
The stakeholders knew from each other that they would all keep their mouths shut. The stronghold was hermetically sealed until they realized that everything would actually be on the street because of the verdict by a stubborn Texan judge, Mark Pittnam, who forced publication.
A counterreport from CDC to combat the disinformation
The timing may of course be a coincidence, but the CDC has just produced an independent report on how safe the mRNA vaccines are. This independent report was written by CDC researchers and was triumphantly tweeted around by van Ranst and Koop-/Keulemans, among others, after publication by The Lancet(!).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext
As we have also seen in the Netherlands, judges like to adopt judgments from government agencies and advisors. For the CDC, the safety report is therefore important as legal cover, in black and white. They may need that coverage because the pharmaceutical companies have shifted liability to the authorizing authorities. Governments have undoubtedly insisted on this themselves, just to persuade the manufacturers. So it is precisely the most powerful parties that want the vaccines to be safe. Because imagine that Minister de Jonge also turns out to have been wrong when it comes to safety.
Key takeaway, according to the report:
“Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the U.S. vaccination program show that most of the side effects reported were mild and short-lived."
In other words:
"A significant proportion of the reported adverse events were serious and/or long-term or permanent."
Not really a firm conclusion when it comes to demonstrating safety. I have to assume that it is meant to be reassuring. The reports were drawn from VAERS and V-Safe, a reporting system set up only for Covid.
Rough calculation
In anticipation of serious analysis, I grabbed a beer mat to better estimate the VAERS data mentioned in the report. I look at mortality. Remarkably, this time CDC does not use the argument that the reported VAERS deaths all had nothing to do with the prior vaccination. I suspect that this statement can no longer be maintained.
It concerns the results after 298,792,852 doses administered, which amounts to approximately 150,000,000 people (two injections pp).
4,471 deaths have been reported: 0.003% of the vaccinated. Previous VAERS underreporting turned out to be a factor of 40: then you come to 0.12%. Some say a factor of 100, but that applies to minor side effects. We can assume that these are reported relatively less often than serious conditions, because otherwise you end up with the unbelievably high 0.3%.
The reality will be somewhere in between, maybe 0.05% or close to 0.1%...? That is also unbelievably high.
Especially when you consider that it is an average across all age groups. Covid deaths have overwhelmingly occurred in the older age groups. This means that in the younger groups (under 60, for example) there have probably been more deaths per duo vaccination than per Covid infection. It is quite conceivable that the balance will be favorable for the over-60s, but for the younger group, with the most years of life to go, that will be a difficult story.
And then again: Is a vaccine acceptable if just a little less people die from it than from the disease? I have not been able to find any criteria for the much-used 'the benefits outweigh the risks'. It seems as if they are just counting body bags: The possible deaths from the bizarrely negative models of RIVM justified the many, many vaccination sacrifices. Young people are weighed just as much as old people; lost QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) are not considered.
[Addition 15 March: Also read the review of Robert Malone. He also finds the data worrying.]
… And another study – to contradict the LabLeak disinformation...?
Then there was also the puzzling report full of detective and hiring work to prove that the pandemic started on... the market in Wuhan. Went viral via, among others, rivm and its subcontractors (see Tweet).
One of the virus researchers still knew which animals were sold where, the report says. Apparently he knew the market like the back of his hand, and my imagination runs wild when I hear of a virus researcher who is a regular customer at an animal market.
What do they think they are proving with that? How did the virus get to that market, that's the real question. Former laboratory animals traded by a waste processor? Who knows.
One of the authors of the piece is Marion Koopmans herself and she knows all about it. Then it's really right...
A little more about Travel Agency MinVWS
My daughter was the only one in our corona-positive family who had had an antigen test instead of a PCR test. (detailed report here). A national ankle bracelet because she was not allowed to cross the border without daily testing. When I complained about this, the GGD invoked its right to arbitrariness. I understood that in a totalitarian system it is normal for the tester to choose a test on the spot, on opaque grounds, without consulting the person being tested and without having to be accountable. Thumbs up or thumbs down.
As a result, we could not go abroad as a family and her class has just returned from a few days in Paris, without her. I also presented that consequence to the spokeswoman of the GGD at the time. Her answer:
"The GGD is there for public health, not to ensure that you can go on holiday with your family".
spokeswoman of the GGD
Look at what they do now:
Forcing injections without medical necessity, this is not justifiable. They are really detached from God there. I trusted the GP of the past completely. I no longer trust the medical system that has been set up since then.
Premiere documentary "Gideon" cancelled by Tuschinski
The video "Gideon" can be seen on blckbx.tv and (if you want to be able to maximize your image) on Rumble. Yesterday there was a one-off screening planned in Tuschinski, a kind of in-crowd party. Premiere and therefore immediately dernière.
Tuschinski called it off at the last minute. This is prompted by Forum opponents, who want to kill every voice from the FvD corner because they find it anti-democratic. They misuse references to the Second World War and have drawn Tuschinski's attention to the shocking anti-Semitism that FvD is said to propagate.
The anti-Semitic consternation can hardly have escaped the notice of the Tuschinski leadership. Fortunately, they remembered just in time that their founder and namesake, Abraham Tuschinski, was murdered during the Holocaust. When the hall was booked, they lost it for a while.
Whether it was ultimately social media rascals or influential agencies that caused this sudden turnaround, we will probably never know.
Gideon responds to this in video below. And watch the documentary below again, in which the (for us) usual suspects Theo Schetters, Carla Peters, Geert Vandenbossche, among others, have their say. And many others.
See for yourself what is hateful, insincere, unreal or incorrect about the search of politician Gideon van Meijeren. I sincerely hope that left-wing politicians will also get something like this off the ground, then they can show how it should be done. First they will have to solve how they can connect with each other despite the common far-right ideology that would actually have to cancel them. They simply do not want to proclaim the same thing as the extreme right. Big dilemma! How should you relate to ideas from a detested corner with which you actually agree?
Emrani's twitter thread is misleading. He seems to think that 42000 vaccinations will lead to 1200 deaths. Instead of 42000 infections.
That's because there is no transparent data, I also tried to indicate that in the text. The total sample size is painted black. Your reaction is also incorrect: it is not about 42,000 infections. It concerns 42,000 reports of side effects. I understand the mistake, but you could also call the result 'misleading'. With incomplete data, it's easier to make a mistake than when you have the picture complete in your head.
On June 4, 2021, not everyone who had been vaccinated had been vaccinated twice.
So that number of 150 million people is too low.
That's a good point. There are three weeks between the first and second shot. From mid-May to 4 June, this would involve ankle prickers. Jan-Feb-March-April-until mid-May are double jabs.
According to Ourworldindata, 149.2 million Americans had had both shots as of June 4. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/people-fully-vaccinated-covid?time=2021-06-04
It's close by anyway.
between the first and second shot is AT LEAST 3 weeks.
And those figures from Ourworldindata?
There is just no: "Presented to you by Pfizer" yet.....
CDC: "You should get your second shot as close to the recommended 3-week (Pfizer) or 4-week (Moderna) interval as possible. You should not get the second dose early."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/second-shot.html
How many people do you think it would make a difference, suppose you take 4 weeks?
And if you know of a different/better source than Ourworldindata to compare the data, let me know!
Dear Anton,
Thanks for your piece again. I always read them with a lot of thanks, approval and afterwards newly gained insights.
However, a request for 2 clarifications if possible:
1) You write:
" 4,471 deaths have been reported: 0.003% of the vaccinated. Previous VAERS underreporting turned out to be a factor of 40: then you come to 0.12%. Some say a factor of 100, but that applies to minor side effects. We can assume that these are reported relatively less often than serious conditions, because otherwise you end up with the unbelievably high 0.3%.
The reality will be somewhere in between, maybe 0.5% or close to 1%...? That is also unbelievably high."
Is it perhaps (where exactly?) in between or is it now above it? And where do you suddenly get that 0.5-1% from? What do you want to say with this?
2) You write:
"I sincerely hope that left-wing politicians will also get something like this off the ground, then they can show how it should be done. First they will have to solve how they can connect with each other despite the common far-right ideology that would actually have to cancel them. They simply do not want to proclaim the same thing as the extreme right. Big dilemma!"
I can't make out what you mean by this (exactly). Can you please clarify that? Are they left-wing or extreme right-wing (because ideas imo determine someone's political signature)?
In good faith & thank you in advance.
Mvg,
Arnoud
Hi Arnoud:
1) You're absolutely right. It should of course be 0.05% and 0.1% (I have adjusted it). Sorry about that. They are just estimates, I look for a reasonable multiplication factor and then quickly arrive at quite high percentages, that was the message. Especially in light of the disease it is fighting.
2) It bothers me that sensible work that comes from the corner of the FvD is disqualified because it comes from the FvD. When I look to the left, I see that they even have difficulty accepting facts when they have been brought to light by FvD. Everything is politicized and the left still doesn't seem to figure out how to deal with it. They have difficulty with their own views where they correspond to those of the right, even if they have nothing to do with political signature. Hopefully, the left will eventually dare to embrace (partly) the same 'truths' as the right – if they believe they are truths.