MEP Christine Anderson must not have been a good fit in the Temporary Committee on Corona. She does, however, lead the European Commission's corona investigation. Delicate coalition souls and plush sticks would complain in the Netherlands about an 'unworkable situation' and 'bias' or not want to work 'in accordance with the political code' – am I confusing something or not? With that, Pepijn van Houwelingen and Wybren van Haga, members of our research committee, are now being worked out. The only parties that made a fuss about the scandalous policy. And so, after the cancellation of Arib, there is another bomb under the parliamentary inquiry. They should be happy that Anderson is not part of that committee.
Service announcement: I am getting more and more signals that the mails (especially by gmail?) are banned. Have you experienced that too, would you please let me know?
I think it is commendable of the EU that an official like Anderson is tolerated. She is fierce and determined to get to the bottom of it. Anyone who wants to get evidence out will have to be in it because the force fields to be broken are gigantic. That's not going to work with porridges, keeping wet and smearing syrup around the mouth. Just listen.
Ook in Nederland moet de eindeloze lus van “Liegen -> betrapt worden -> ontkennen -> vergeten -> sorry zeggen -> en weer door naar het begin” gestopt worden. Onderzoek zal moeten uitwijzen wie hier de door Christine Anderson genoemde “leugens” heeft overgenomen en waarom.
WOB documents expose the incompetence
We have long tried to maintain that there may have been meaningful considerations that led to the seemingly psychotic desire for control.
From WOB documents that Cees van den Bos published yesterdayone absolute must-read, clearly indicate that those considerations really weren't there. Substantiation was lacking. For draconian interventions, arguments were scraped together afterwards by experts and institutes to pseudoscientific laundering of human rights violations. (© @dimgrr)
Precautionary principle set aside
The medical precaution principle was completely reversed in the panic of the first months and in that mode it was apparently comfortable to drive. It must now be proven that interventions cause harm, that is the upside-down world, while the data to prove that are still hidden.
The precautionary principle places the burden of proof for potentially harmful acts on proof of safety, not on proof of harm! That proof of safety has never been there before the government measures. Warnings, also from institutes and scientists, were even ignored.
As far as vaccines are concerned, reference is made to pre-clinical studies by the manufacturers themselves. New analyses of these studies came to less rosy results than the manufacturers: serious adverse events in at least 1 per 1,000 vaccinated.
"The increased risk of serious adverse events identified in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those stratified according to the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. For these analyses, the datasets must be released at participant level."
"Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of particular interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated relative to the placebo baseline of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of particular importance of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2,1 to 22,9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer study showed a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna study showed a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccination group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95% CI -23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16% higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95% CI -3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).“
(Vaccine – Volume 40, Issue 40, September 22, 2022, Pages 5798-5805)
The list of Adverse Events of Special Interest on the package leaflets of the vaccines is still being expanded to take account of serious conditions that occur in vaccinated persons. For example, there is now the advice to let your prick know whether you are pregnant, have a desire to have children or are breastfeeding ... Do they know something we don't?
Once again: the vaccines are intended for emergency use. At least this one does:
The identical Comirnaty has now been fully approved... If anyone can explain it, please. It feels like a legal escape but that can also be my distrust.
EMERGENCY USE PERMIT
Noodgebruik van de vaccins is niet goedgekeurd of toegelaten door de FDA, maar is door de FDA toegestaan krachtens een Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) ter voorkoming van Coronavirusziekte 2019 (COVID-19) bij personen van 6 maanden en ouder. Het noodgebruik is alleen toegestaan voor de duur van de verklaring dat er omstandigheden bestaan die de toestemming voor het noodgebruik van het medische product overeenkomstig artikel 564(b)(1) van de FD&C Act rechtvaardigen, tenzij de verklaring eerder wordt beëindigd of de toestemming eerder wordt ingetrokken.
The conditions for emergency use have been ignored from day 1.
I can't find it again soon, but I think I have read that the emergency permit was converted into a definite admission in September? If I can find it, I'll send you the link.
Here is a link that it has received full-approval in the US: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-and-biontech-s-comirnaty-scores-fda-s-first-full-covid-19-vaccine-approval
Do you understand this?
And probably in Europe as well: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-standard-marketing-authorisations-comirnaty-spikevax-covid-19-vaccines
There was also something about Comirnaty, which was not sold in America. But it does indeed look different now. I will adjust it in the text. Thanks!!!
I believe the trick in America was to get it admitted for children first, then it was possible to get a full approval for general use (in USA).
That is indeed true to what I know. Only first there was the news that 'Comirnaty had been approved', while then it was only about approval to market the vaccine as Comirnaty as well. Comirnaty was then used for the US army. I thought it was strange.
What a chatter about details in the margins again. No one is talking about the fundamental issue: viruses don't exist. Everything else doesn't matter, as long as no one mentions this, there will soon be another "plandemie" on the doorstep with some kind of, then very contagious and deadly, virus. Once again, tens of millions of people will be scarred for life by chemical poisoning.
Why doesn't virusvaria pay attention to the virus lie?
I watched Tom Cowan's video. I can't say anything sensible about that, there have also been scientists for decades who could not prove the contagiousness of aerosols. I see sequences being patented, I see the videos of Pierre Capel, I read about how the spike protein works, about the furin cleavage site, the genetic distance between variants etc. etc. If that is one big masquerade I wonder why because they fight each other out of the tent. What I see is that people can infect each other (through the air). I have no doubt about that. If that's not with a virus, then it will be something else with viral properties. Furthermore, I see wrong scientists and politicians.
Getting married, these FOI documents show that none of the "agencies" have ever had "the virus" in their hands:
@Anton (I didn't see an Answer button on your comment):
You wonder why... genuine? Behold https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil once. That's a start. Money and power are the motives. Oh dear, conspiracy theory! 😉
About "spike": there are no viruses, so also no "spike proteins" of viruses. Everything about this is synthetic, made in software. Behold https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/Conversations-with-Dr-Cowan-Ep-58-Stefano-Scoglio:e once, no spike protein has ever been isolated in anyone, isn't that strange if it were produced after vaccination?
Capel is a well-meaning useful idiot. He only talks after what he was/is fed.
If you don't doubt airborne contamination, why did researchers in 1918 not even succeed with the Spanish Flu? Here's the original research:
Remember, it was once thought that scurvy was caused by a virus... because people in the same place with the same symptoms got sick. Surely that had to be something contagious?
What's the point of turning exosomes into a virus or vice versa? A story that there is a vaccine against exosomes or bacteria is just as useful as the story against viruses. I don't see it. But the point is perhaps that contagion does not exist? That seems to me to be an underestimation of the exchange that people at all levels have with each other – and how important that is.
Histopathological examination finds spike, with or without virus (residues). What is that if it's not a spike? But even though the men in the video may have a point, this is going to be so microbiological, that's yet another study... And I don't rule out the possibility that other ingredients of vaccines are bad either.
This site now deals with the disastrous impact on society of interventions, both medical and non-medical, and the dangerous conflicts of interest that we identify. In any case, I agree with the gentlemen in the video that the vaccines are not safe. If science becomes truly transparent, the truth will come to light, including about its microbiological aspects.
Spanish flu – 1918, that's over a hundred years ago. In 2021 (I believe) there was spectacular news that new sample methods finally made it possible to grow virus from sampled air. In 1918, there was still a long way to go when it came to sampling aerosols.
The error regarding scurvy was found in 1750 and integrated into modern medicine. We have really come a bit further in terms of diagnostics. It does indicate how stubborn medics are, especially if they are standing on a pedestal.
In short: interesting subject but not something I can dive deep into. I will ask Jillis if he has time to take a look at it, he is better at it, see this article:
About that gmail: I switched to protonmail a long time ago. In any case, they say that privacy is guaranteed. I haven't felt comfortable at Google for a long time.
Good to see Christine Anderson at work. What worries me: why aren't there hundreds of thousands of people on your site, Anton? Nothing at all in MSM. They are so cheated.
And Ms. Anderson will also be dismissed as right-wing extreme (Afp). That's the trick that's being applied. But only these kinds of parties see through the madness it seems. Entire media building plastered with stickers, but nothing on MSM.
Only 600 subscribers have registered, half of whom are only opening the mails. The articles are hardly shared. I take heart from encouraging reactions, including from scientists and opinion leaders. And besides: it just has to be done.
By the way, you ask 'why': I think the articles are too long and sometimes too complicated for a large audience.
'It just has to be done'. Agree. It's bizarre that so few people see it. On the other hand, on Twitter (I don't like it) I see for the most part statements of support for critical reports.
I hope this comment comes under yours, Anton, is at least that's how it's meant to be. If the explanation is considered too long and too complicated, then that is a sign on the wall. It is about our own mental and physical health, and that cannot always be captured in a few lines. If people find that too much trouble, that is actually quite worrying.
Look at the 'vaccinations'. You would expect people to want to understand what exactly is being injected, but most apparently find that too complicated, or they are too good of faith. You could also call it naïve. The choice is then: EITHER you delve into topics that concern you personally, OR you rely on government, 'experts' or other parties. You also implicitly trust big pharma. Given the track record, that's not even naïve anymore.
Read https://privacy-watchdog.io/truth-about-protonmail/ once. 😉
@Anton: I like to see the method of sampel aerosol viruses. Apart from that: if in 1918 it was not possible to infect people by coughing a few centimeters into the face or even inserting snot from the sick, that still does not work today. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? As far as I know, viruses such as particles and contamination as a concept have never been proven. That is apart from the fact that people probably also exchange "information" at other levels, such as "brain waves" or bio-resonance / bio-photons.
About converting exosomes into viruses: the two are certainly not the same in terms of characteristics, see among other things https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/Dr-Thomas-Cowan-The-Contagion-Myth-and-Heart-Stellium7-Feb-2023:d agree for the differences.
You too only focus on interventions and the like. These interventions wouldn't exist if people knew that viruses don't exist. Or do you think people will still be muzzled and poisoned with vaccinations? Very curious that hardly anyone has the guts to proclaim that viruses as such do not exist, and have never existed. All air cycling from Pasteur fraudster. Or wait, did you think that pasteurizing dairy is a good thing? 😉
Funny that people suddenly have "no time" to dive into information that goes against their cognitive dissonance. 😉 But I like to dive into it together with Jillis. About the article: COVID-19 as a disease does not even exist as there are no differential diagnostic criteria for it.
Note: why is there no "Answer" button in your comments?
I found that study with that soft sample method on PubMed.
Coughing in your face doesn't make you sick either. Neither does eating snot. Respiratory contamination has been proven.
I have not claimed that exosomes have the same characteristics as viruses. Perhaps you can explain why exosomes cannot be made into a business model and viruses can. Are there no interventions conceivable? Is it purely spontaneously getting sick?
You have already sent me videos for a few hours, unfortunately I do not have time for that. I'm speaking to Jillis tonight.
Well, no Answer button... it was a free plugin, I thought 'ff try' if it works. You can easily use the Answer button at the top of the thread in question. But I admit, it's not really luxurious.
@Anton: "Respiratory infection has been proven." Where? By whom? How? I would very much like to see your documentation for that, because it is fairly easy to debunk, like all the "evidence" that viruses exist are sickening.
Why is there no business model of exosomes? They are not pathogenic and contagious, so there are no vaccines to be developed for them – according to the virus lie. 😉
In any case, read the conclusion of the 1918 study. Or the conclusion of Enders in 1954 – that was the last study in virology in which a control experiment was also done...
A few hours of video isn't a whole lot of investment for something that will turn your worldview upside down and benefit your health.
@Anton, You were wondering if there are no standards in this article:
There certainly are, but you may know that by now.
1. Of course, hard, significantly more qaly profit than loss must be made (healthy life years). So, for example, a factor of 2 due to all uncertainties. But there is no hard standard for that. Of course, it should certainly not be negative, so more qaly loss than profit! And that is clearly the case for Corona vaccines at 50- (1:10,000 extra risk due to vaccine, and approx. 1.5: 100,000 Corona risk). This is different for the elderly. Vaccines seem to have (had?) a positive balance there.
2. The costs for prevention (including vaccines) may not exceed €20,000 / qaly. For curation this is €80,000/qaly.
See Zorg Instituut Nederland.
They have some publications on these kinds of standards. And also about their own doubts, because they notice that due to emotions in the media there is a strong tendency among politicians not to adhere to the set standards.
As is well known: the lockdowns have cost around €150 billion and have max. 100,000 qaly's (according to Ira Helsloot even less....) delivered (so approx. € 1.5 million / qaly) and almost certainly cost more than 500,000 qaly's. 320,000 of these have already been harshly demonstrated by the RIVM (and therefore admittedly)!
So the 1st standard has been exceeded by a factor of 5.
The second standard with a factor of 65!
Dit zou m.i. bij de Parlementaire Enquête de belangrijkste conclusie moeten zijn, naast een analyse van het mechanisme waarom de overheid in de hele EU en de VS en Azië zich tot een dergelijk irrationeel beleid heeft laten verleiden. Ik ken het antwoord daarop denk ik al: dat is de Rule of Rescue (zie Orr & Wolf), in samenhang met diverse massa psychose theorieën zoals die van Desmet.