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, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
"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).“
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.