The Covid-19 vaccine.... The Final Solution?

Updated: Dec 14, 2020

It must surely not have escaped anyone's attention that Pfizer have announced their '90% effective' Covid-19 vaccine.

First of all, in case you have any doubts, here's a quick reminder of what our friend Bill Gates says about the miracle vaccine which should put everyone's mind at rest:

In case anyone is in any doubt, it was always about the vaccine. All the alarmist news, the inflated death count, the 'cases' which are not even real cases in the true medical sense, the wall-to-wall fear porn. The endgame has always been the vaccine. Combining immunisation status with 'digital identity' was planned and discussed a long time before Covid-19 but you can't just roll that out with no good reason. First of all, you really need to scare the population to death about a virus they will most likely recover from..... .

But firstly, what do we know about this vaccine?

We know that the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) is expecting a high volume of adverse reactions:

How will doctors manage the conflict between their vow to ‘do no harm’ and the knowledge that the vaccine may cause adverse reactions in a large amount of people?

We also know that there was a government consultation a few months ago suggesting that we should all be given unlicensed Covid-19 vaccines and that the pharmaceutical industry should be free from liability. It now looks like the UK government is planning to allow the pharmaceutical corporations to use their 'emergency regulations' to fast track an unlicenced product for distribution to the entire population.

Dr Mike Yeadon, ex Chief Scientific Officer of Pfizer, who, by the way, is 100% pro-vaccine, has written an open letter to Matt Hancock on Twitter expressing his alarm:

“Dear Mr Hancock,

I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco - acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.

I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked & upset. All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been in development for more than a few months. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent. This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information.

My concern does not arise because I have negative views about vaccines (I don’t), Instead, it’s the very principle that politicians seem ready to waive that new medical interventions at this, incomplete state of development- should not be made available to subjects on anything other than an explicitly experimental basis. That’s my concern.

And the reason for that concern is that it is not known what the safety profile will be, six months or a year or longer after dosing. You have literally no data on this & neither does anyone else.

It isn’t that I’m saying that unacceptable adverse effects will emerge after longer intervals after dosing. No: it is that you have no idea what will happen yet, despite this, you’ll be creating the impression that you do.

Several of the vaccine candidates utilise novel technology which have not previously been used to create vaccines. There is therefore no long term safety data which can be pointed to in support of the notion that it’s reasonable to expedite development & to waive absent safety information on this occasion.

I am suspicious of the motives of those proposing expedited use in the wider human population. We now understand who is at particularly elevated risk of morbidity & mortality from acquiring this virus.

Volunteers from these groups only should be provided detailed information about risk / benefit, including the sole point I make here. Only if informed consent is given should any EXPERIMENTAL vaccine be used.

I don’t trust you. You’ve not been straightforward & have behaved appallingly throughout this crisis.

You’re still doing it now, misleading about infection risk from young children. Why should I believe you in relation to experimental vaccines?

Dr Michael Yeadon

Another medical professional raising concerns is Dr Malcolm Kendrick who has his own blog:

As well as raising concerns about the actual need for this vaccine bearing in mind the low risk for most people, it is clear that many countries look like they are going to be using coercion as well. In Australia, the Health Minister said that he wanted to make the vaccine ‘as mandatory as possible’. Dr Kendrick writes:

“As mandatory as possible? Sorry, but mandatory is binary. It is, or it isn’t. Telling people that they cannot travel, or work, or receive welfare payments, is tantamount to compulsion.

In my opinion, if we had fully tested vaccines, that were known to be both safe and effective, contemplating such actions would still be several steps too far.

However, compelling people to get vaccinated, when all we have is Phase II studies to go on, ventures into extremely worrying territory.

We will effectively be compelling people to become participants in a massive medical research trial. It is my understanding that actions such as this would lie directly within the Nuremberg Code.”

And another blog post on the ‘90% effective’ quoted widely on mainstream media:

It would appear that it is not clear what the ‘90% effective’ actually means. Here is one comment from a Dr Lehmann (comments section of blog post):

"Yes. I read through the protocol in its entirety as well as the press release. No idea if we were preventing serious cases or mild cases. No information on the cycle threshold of the Cepheid PCR test being used, etc. etc etc. but IT’S A MIRACLE"

And a reply to his comment:

"Dr Lehmann, you should know you’re NOT supposed to read through that middle – morass, a.k.a. ‘Trial Protocol’…. and certainly not closely enough to …. heaven forbid – QUESTION anything therein…. Goodness gracious ! – You might conclude that the Trial is designed to succeed."

Even the BMJ are now raising concerns about the fact that ‘Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain’.

Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the British Medical Journal writes:

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”

And footnote number 17 of the article states “Government test tsar has £770,000 shares in drugs firm that sold us £13 million of “pointless” antibody screening kits—after it emerged that Sir Patrick Vallance has a financial interest in a company racing to find vaccine. Daily Mail 2020 Sep 26.

We are entering very dangerous times. What is even more worrying is how social media is being used as a weapon to divide the population and implant suggestions that anyone who dares to decline the experimental vaccine should have restrictions placed on them and even refused NHS treatment and denied the ability to work. Unfortunately there seems to be some support for these draconian suggestions. However, people are fighting back! This is an email sent to The Metro news after Tom Williams, a reporter, suggested that restrictions should be placed on ‘anti vaxxers' ability to go back to work.

Dear Tom

I have just read your article about “anti vaxxers” and have a few questions.

1) Can you define what an 'anti-vaxxer' is? The people you refer to in this derogatory way are actually “pro vaccine safety” and are intelligent enough to have done thorough research on the subject of vaccines, their ingredients, their safety, the immunity to liability afforded to their manufacturers etc.

2) Are you suggesting that those who have compromised immune systems or conditions where vaccinations are contraindicated, should not be allowed back in to the workplace?

4) Can you confirm your understanding of “90% effective” for the Pfizer vaccination? I have read the trial paperwork so I am fully up to speed on the interpretation of the “90% effective claim” and I’m assuming that you, a journalist, have also gone through it with a fine-tooth comb.

5) Why do you choose the phrase “refuse to get the vaccination”? I am perfectly within my rights to decline any medical intervention. Have you forgotten that the Human Rights Act exists?

6) The vaccine debate is really not that complex. You either believe that the government has full control over what is injected in to you and your children or you don’t. At its core, it’s medical tyranny versus medical freedom.

7) Please can you provide evidence that this vaccination is even needed. With a survival rate of 99.9%, my understanding is that our immune system is just fine.

With heart disease being the biggest killer in the UK by a long way, can you tell me if all those who consume processed food, alcohol, sugary drinks, smoke, consume alcohol etc will also be subjected to such draconian medical interventions?

9) With annualised Covid death numbers on a par with road accidents, can you tell me if the government has any plans to remove vehicles from our roads to avoid any more preventable deaths?

10) Could you please provide evidence that Covid-19 exists as I have now seen half a dozen FOIA documents which show that no government body holds this information and that includes one from Matt Hancock’s Department of Health and Social Care?

11) Can you explain why you are not accompanying your Pfizer comments with the fact that they hold the record high for healthcare fraud pay outs (currently $2.3 billion) for making false marketing claims?

This is a great reply to copy, paste and use if you encounter anyone arguing that The State should have the authority to restrict your freedom if you decide to decline the Covid-19 vaccine.

The issue at stake here is bodily autonomy. If we allow The State to regulate our breathing by mandating that we cover our mouths with any old piece of bacteria-ridden cloth, it paves the way for the acceptance of mandatory vaccinations. Only mass non-compliance can work to derail the agenda. Or do we try to create another life outside of the technocratic totalitarian world that is developing and intensifying at an alarming rate all around us?

27 views0 comments