It makes me want to scream, so many doctors are still saying the v. is safe and effective. Still to many people say that if they wouldn’t have taken the v. they would be dead now and that includes my parents and all the relatives and we are all lying and are stupid and conspiracy theorists and “Querdenker “……. My GP surgery sends me SMS invites to get the v. as I am vulnerable.
Phillip..I know I have said this before.....But have you not noticed the whole buisness world has gone subscription based... Not having a customer choose if he likes a product or not before buying.
The Govs of our world are all desperate to have a large pharma complex in their country, to help bail them out of the financial mess we are all in (Pre Covid I might add),
Im sure you are aware we are on the Brink of total financial collapse, our GDPs will never payback the debt in several generations, the US is increasing at 1 Billion every 100 days
Until you accept this was not driven by medical goals, this is never going to make any sence to you
Everything need not be one or the other: both/and is a frequent targetted outcome. Reduction of a population and complete control over the remainder are quite compatible goals.
We all knew the currency printing was simply unauthorised nation debt being foisted onto the tax payer, a massive transfer of wealth. We also know the global economy with inevitably need to go through hyperinflation and a ten year depression.
Meanwhile birth rates are plummeting because going into massive debt with education and mortgages in our early twenties has become socially "normalised".
Who is going to dig us out of this one? Who's the military industrial complex going to sell arms to this time?
It's all so spineless and naive. Carlson is right to be alarmed AND furious at the lack of moral fortitude all 'round.
My personal feeling is the eradication of small buisnesses, would mean all our money would be placed in the hands of big corporations, and any choice would be enforced by CBDC currencies. We would no longer be able to buy from abroad, for example.
If all medical products were given a captive audience provided by our states, then the revenue generated by pharma would be ploughed in to our govs coffers, on a mutual handshake agreement.
The Co2 religeon, whether you belive it or not, is going to kill millions of people, if energy is removed, before replacing with something equally reliable.
There is so much that does not make sence here, the MHRA being funded to over 85 percent of their income by the very companies they are meant to be regulating, in what deranged mind could that possibly work.
This is correct to argue that parenteral vaccines can’t stop transmission of airborne respiratory infection, and therefore, can’t be mandated, since the only legitimate basis (collective benefit) for compulsory vaccination against airborne respiratory virus – herd immunity – can’t be achieved by means of the parenteral vaccines.
But I would not argue that it is because of a type of antibodies induced by the vaccines (IgG instead of secretory IgA. You would not mention vaccinal IgG in the mucosa of upper respiratory tract (URT), had you known its neutralizing capacity and half-life). I would argue that health integrity in the URT is ensured primarily mechanistically (nasal hairs, mucus produced by goblet cells, ciliary beating of motile cilia, etc.) rather than immunologically. And even sufficiently primed secretory IgA and tissue resident immune cells in the URT would not protect against the infection when the mechanistic part is compromised.
Secondly, the immunological error was not the main defect that corrupted the pandemic response. The idea that public authority, which has not observed the patient can better protect and cure the patient than the GP who knows the patient, has done more harm than the virus itself. This pathogenic idea prevents informed consent, proper diagnostic and evidence-based treatment from normal functioning. Had the public authority retained the role of the GP’s assistant rather than the boss, then primary care would have prevented secondary care overload, need for vaccine passports and lockdowns.
Additionally, the public health authorities will have to admit that fooling (euphemizing) everyone that gene therapy or prodrug is a vaccine causes more confusion than clarity in a drug regulatory sphere. It will take some time to clean up the regulatory mess.
Well said and well explained. Your view about the perils of bypassing the GP in his patient care is a bullet point. By extension, I would say that whole pandemic response got botched because non GPs ( virologists, epidemiologists even cardiologists ) took charge of the medical administrations including specially constituted Covid committees in many countries. As a result, the patients were left in the lurch. The first response should have been to the patients - means treating the illness. Not worrying about people who were normal now, but could become a patient sometime in future. Live treatments versus vaccinations.
You know I had my GP recommend that I get the COVID-19 vaccine, I was at my computer at the time and had access to all the information that was coming in stating that these so-called vaccines were dangerous. I sat there reading out all the adverse events and all the people that had died and been injured according to the TGA, and do you know I couldn't sway his belief in these so-called vaccines.
These inoculations at best were bio-warfare countermeasures, at worst they were a tool for depopulation. Further I can assure you that the full effects of these inoculations will be felt for decades to come. I don't want an apology, I want justice for the crimes that have been committed against the Australian people and humanity. Let's start at the top with the dictators that refused to listen to the doctors and scientists that were crying out “stop the rollout of these COVID-19 jabs they are dangerous”.
Just saying an apology isn’t necessary, Justice is all I'm chasing.
So igG4 has rendered people immunogically defenceless against further mutations of the virus and this isn't a scandal?
GPs lost their careers daring to prescribe Hdclqne, both useful and very safe because those advising the politicians were hell bent on pushing the vaccine.
The use of the emergency regulations to push mRNA was criminal, especially when concerted efforts like the Great Barrington declaration were demonised.
The result of these short cuts, the subsequent investment of billions into mRNA factories at the tax payers expense.
The rampant inflation caused by "lockdowns" that were never part of any pandemic response plan has crippled both health services and the economies of countries.
The medical professions were cowed into submission to the politicians need to display mastery over a genetically engineered bio weapon.
And now we have eminent oncologists alarmed at a massive resurgence in cancers in all ages groups, what they term "turbo" cancers, and a 10% increase in annual death rates that continues, for years after the gene therapy was applied.
My son is vaccine damaged and has not worked for 2.5 years despite trying numerous treatments including IV drips, hyberbaric oxygen therapy treatment, different diets, Perrin technique massage and triple / quadruple anticoagulants. If the course could help him then I am very interested. Many thanks.
Geert says a tsunami is coming? Is this a new warning? I read his recent posts but I don't recall it described in that term. Perhaps I am being too pedantic.
KunstlerCast 398 — Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and the Coming Acute Crisis of Covid among the Vaccinated
(Long read but worth it. Audio link at bottom.)
I had the honor of interviewing the Belgian virologist Geert Vanden Bossche on Friday for my podcast, and he had quite a sobering message. “What I am predicting,” he said, “is a massive, massive tsunami” of illness and death among highly-vaccinated populations with dysregulated immune systems.
“You commit errors or even crimes at the very small scale, you can hide them,” he said (at around 47:00 minutes into the hour-long discussion). “I have seen this happen with the Ebola vaccination with Africa a number of years ago. . . . However, if you do this at the very large scale, like what has happened with this mass [Covid] vaccination campaign, the truth will surface. And those who have committed these crimes who have been lying to the people, who have not been taking care of the health and safety of the people, will be severely, severely punished. . . . If these people would now go out and say, ‘Yeah, wait a minute, we have been making some mistakes, it wasn’t all right, we have to correct them, we have to revise our opinion,’ these people will be stoned in the streets. . . . They can only hope that something will happen that will distract from this issue, but it won’t. . . . The truth will surface: this has been a large-scale experiment of gain-of-function on the very human population. This will be something that will be reported in history for many many generations to come.”
A bit further on (around 55:20 minutes) he says, “You will see what will happen, for example, in the next coming weeks. . . is more and more cases of more serious long Covid. . . . They will start to replace the surge of the cancers. . . now we have a more chronic phase. It will end with a hyper-acute phase, a huge, huge wave. . . I’ve been studying this now for four years. I know what I’m talking about. I’m probably the only person, in all modesty, who understands the immunology behind this. . . . (At 1:00:12) The thing I want your audience to understand, what we will be facing in the hyper-acute Covid crisis that is imminent, is that we will have to build a completely new world. . . . It is very very clear that when this starts, our hospitals will collapse. And that means the chaos in all kinds of layers of society — financial, economic, social, you name it — will be complete. And that is what I’m very clearly predicting. . . . It’s very strange for me to make such statements, but I’m not hiding it because I’m two hundred percent convinced that it will happen.”
Now that you’ve had an ice-cold shower, consider some further implications of this scenario. One is that the government and its public health officials may try to attribute the blame for this to the “Disease X” story they’ve been peddling for about a year, the “next pandemic,” something entirely new. That will not be true. They will be trying to cover their asses. Rather, this next episode will be the result of the epic blunders they already made, beginning in 2020, with the emergence of Covid-19. The variant that causes the coming hyper-acute crisis will be quite different from the original “Wuhan” strain, but it will be a direct descendent of it, having mutated in the bodies of the vaccinated. It was, after all, Dr. Vanden Bossche who declared at the outset of the Covid vaxx melodrama in 2021 that vaccinating into the teeth of an ongoing pandemic disease was absolutely the wrong strategy from an immunological point-of-view, and sure to produce a grievous outcome.
What, if anything, can you do to prepare for this? Dr. Vanden Bossche is also very clear: “What I can advise. . . to all these vaccinated people: they need to avoid reinfection. It is the reinfection of vaccinated people that is responsible for this situation. . . . Well, the only thing they can do — it’s very simple — is take anti-virals, of course. The only difference is, you will not be able to wait to take anti-virals until you have symptoms. . . . As soon as people see that in one of the other countries, or one of the other states in the United States, when this starts with hospitalizations going up very rapidly, they need to take anti-virals prophylactically, not wait until they have any symptoms. I’m in Belgium. If it starts in the US, or starts in Israel, or starts in the UK, I bet you that within a few days, you will see the same scenario in many of the highly-vaccinated countries.
By “anti-virals,” Dr. Vanden Bossche means specifically Ivermectin, the Nobel Prize-winning drug that the FDA and the CDC demonized brutally in order to distract the public from knowing that there was a safe and effective treatment for Covid. To acknowledge that would have vacated Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Emergency Use Authorization, which allowed them to make tens of billions of dollars on a very poorly tested pharma product while enjoying blanket protection against lawsuits.
“I have been predicting already a half a year ago, that the public health authorities are finally going to have mandates for ivermectin.” Dr. Vanden Bossche said. “The results with ivermectin are fabulous. It is very safe. It is the only anti-viral that is cost-effective, that is widely available, that can be supplemented in sufficient quantities. . . . There is simply no alternative.”
Note that just last week, as a result of a lawsuit brought in the Texas Southern District federal court, the FDA agreed to finally take down the social media messages it had put up to lawlessly block the use of ivermectin. Remember the mocking tweet: “You’re not a horse, you’re not a cow, come on y’all.” The truth was that the FDA had no authority to tell doctors how to practice medicine; nor to block FDA-approved drugs (including ivermectin), even for off-label treatments. Off-label treatment with approved drugs is routine in medicine. Instead of ivermectin, US public health officials pushed the use of unsafe remdesivir with intubation, resulting in many thousands of avoidable deaths. This is only one of the crimes they will have to answer for.
If Dr. Vanden Bossche’s scenario comes to pass, the “hyper-acute Covid crisis” will intersect with the elections of 2024, and not just in the USA. You would naturally expect some extreme despotic hysterics out of the “Joe Biden” government. They will surely try to run their “Disease X” ruse. But they have already lost the trust of the people they made war against in their own country. In which case, expect resistance among the un-sick. No more trips will be laid on us.
Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsened with the denial of access to primary care and early intervention as a result of mandated lock downs and complete lack of primary care. Resulting in a futile fire fighting mode and overwhelming of critical care facilities among the vulnerable population who could have avoided life threatening complications with early interventions. Thus creating a ground for emergency use authorisation and misleading the implementation of a poorly developed vaccine, using a technology which had questionable safety.
Further the entire population were sleep walked by the experts and medical fraternity into mandating this sub optimal vaccine which failed to prevent infection and transmission but claimed to reduce the severity of the disease. By conveniently redefining the purpose of vaccine after having failed in meeting the much needed and conventional clinical end point of preventing infection and its transmission. To make situation worse, boosters were proposed to meet the drop in antibody titres.
Thank you Philip for your relentless efforts in bringing out the facts and educating the population. I am sure we will be better prepared in the future.
You are right and each one of your sentence is a bullet point. Before the population was led into sleep walking by the experts over the magic of impending vaccines and new anti virals ( see my earlier comment below), the medical administration experts around the world were sleep walking on all the points mentioned by you. Were they led into ( by whom, no prizes for a safe guess) or were they dizzy on their own ? These administrators became a flock of sheep around the world in those first few months. I recall reading in April/May 2020 people scrambling about the viral phase ….in France, Germany, Italy….paracetamol ok, not ok, ibuprofen not ok, naproxen ok…. These were all the medicines in mind for the viral phase and no clues about the second phase, it was just plain emergency management, just physically keeping up breathing and the rest to the will of the God. Where was the need for the doctors to get so frozen in those initial weeks ? Did the Chinese story in Jan-Mar 2020 scare every one ? We don’t know. Collectively this was anything but a professional response.
More emphasis was made on the genetic engineering and chemistry of the so called novel pathogen than its impact on the host biology. The existence and spread of this pathogen was further fueled and endorsed by the false diagnostic test the PCR.
In my personal experience in managing patients I could not find any correlation in positivity and severity of the illness. But a definite correlation could be established among those with preexisting poor metabolic health, severe essential nutrient deficiencies compromising immune health and regulation ( not even the aged who were otherwise healthy). Which only points out to delayed or failed primary care in these vulnerable individuals. Everything else was a hoax.
The healthy and the so called asymptomatic individuals who evaded the localised contact of the pathogen are currently succumbing to the systemic effects of the unwanted protein post vaccination
Could doctors like you, who could understand the science of this virus quickly, both from observations and studies, establish in your practice level norms for early treatments and use of classical medicines ? Or were you constrained in any way by the official pronouncements and guidelines ? I am seeking this info because the correlation you found between illness severity and pre-existing conditions should have been only for the second phase, which also should have hit the patient only if he had not taken any meaningful treatment in the initial days of viral phase. Could you record the correlation distinctly for the two phases ? In my opinion on the organic chemistry of many common drugs, those who were taking regularly immuno modulators (including cancer drugs), anti inflammatories, anti histamines, TB/asthmatic drugs, anti psychotics/antidepressants, neuro drugs ( like pregabalin), bp drugs for their existing conditions were carrying sufficient anti viral protection from these drugs. So they must have experienced only a moderate/eventless viral phase with minimal chances of getting hit suddenly on the 8th-10th day by the autoimmune trigger of breathlessness. They must have been safe, unless they were under advice to discontinue them for a while if they tested positive ( as you said, the test was a self goal). I have written in many places that all these drugs have part anti viral behaviour by virtue of their chemical structures and a couple of them would never have allowed the viral load build up in individuals in the first few days. Can you clarify from your practice experience?
In fact what I am highlighting here is a very unique point, contrary to the omnibus view that the people with pre baggages were the ones hit hard by this virus. I have never read anyone saying that their medications were protective in the viral phase, which is what it is. I recall a report from California in early 2021 that a cohort of patients on anti inflammatories for their arthritic conditions were not infected by this virus, the prophylactic use of HCQ. If you have the resources and data, please look for individual correlations from your patient data. Small cohorts of patients on monitored anti inflammatories, anti histamines, anti depressants/ anti psychotics, long haul respiratory medicines, anti hypertensives, under each category and their infection record. That should be quite revealing. I have made this request a few times in the comments of various podcasts that I see, but no response. I am pretty certain that the every day run of these conditions and the metabolism of the medicines cross path with the host biology of this virus.
For sure the severity of the disease always was evident in all individuals who had a natural progression into the second phase (especially when they reached out to address their symptoms without correcting the initial hypersensitive phase due to lack of access to timely primary care). The propensity of this progression into this hyperinflammatory phase often was evident in those with preexisting conditions. One other common denominator making them susceptible to this progression was deficiency in Vitamin D (and in obese individuals) and those with higher NLR, ESR and /or low Tregs signifying preexisting proinflammatory state.
Individuals who were on treatment for preexisting hypersensitivity, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions for sure were found to be relatively less susceptible to both the phases, I am more convinced with the idea that these agents helped in preventing and correcting these two phases rather than claiming them to be antivirals.
I want to renew my long standing emphasis again. Almost all these categories of drugs are anti virals with a possible split distinction - if the composite pKa of the drug is high, say 9, 10 and above, they can defang the virus directly and eliminate it. If the pKa is 7.5, 8 type, they can interfere in the work of the virus and render it ineffective. In either case, these molecules are only part anti virals. They can work as single anti viral drug adequately only if the viral load is low - asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. If the viral load is high, severely symptomatic, then they need to be bolstered by another drug or two, preferably an anti histamine. They won’t be adequate as single drugs. This was true of Ivermectin also. That is how your patients must have responded while on their existing drugs. One more point. The term “ those with existing conditions” may be used loosely. Some one who has been taking a daily metformin or two, or a daily telmesartan or amlodipine or even both sets of them for 15 years safely and without any other major health issues, in my opinion, should not be considered in that “pre existing condition” category. The term must apply only to more serious baggage. On the last line of your comment, the drugs were working on the virus directly or indirectly, that is how they were mitigating that phase, so they deserve to be called anti virals.
If you want to know succinctly where the experts went wrong in covid ( title), please see my two comments in the previous podcast of this series - on covid misinformation. It was not about any technical misunderstanding or ignorance. Precisely on this point, I would have written about 500 pages of notes highlighting a few simple, common sense medical points. Letters to the Editors, mails to many scientists and experts including Dr. McMillan and in recent months, some prolific engagement in the comments section. I am not a biologist, but an organic chemist and my technical content will have only some chemistry background.
You say "there were benefits. There certainly was protection against severe disease. At least transiently. That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
Does this paper "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies" not completely invalidate your point that "there certainly was protection against severe disease"? In my opinion it does. I mean the UK ONS admitted to Norman Fenton in writing a while ago that their flawed data should NOT have been used to make any judgements on vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. And yet scientists did not see that the data was flawed and wrote plenty of papers on the basis of that flawed data. It seems that you are also referring to such flawed data when claiming that "there certainly was protection against severe disease". Can you see your own fallacy after studying "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies". Or does it in your opinion not matter that in those vaccine efficacy studies vaccinated patients were misclassified as unvaccinated patients?
Also your claim "That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
What makes you so sure that there was indeed pressure on hospital systems?
Let us look for example at Germany: During 2020 and during 2021 there were only 17 million people hospitalized in Germany annually as opposed to 19 million in 2019. How can one say that there was pressure on the hospital systems, when in fact nurses were laid off and some medical staff were put on short-time work? The analysis from the "Initiative Qualitätsmedizin" that analysed the data of a considerable statistically significant percentage of hospitals in Germany found that not more people were in ICU for influenza like illnesses during the first year of the Covid crisis than in 2019 (https://www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/monatliche-analyse-jan-bis-nov-2020). In Germany there is also the work of data analyst Tom Lausen that shows that neither ICUs nor hospitals during the first waves were overwhelmed with patients. The German Health Minister Jens Spahn also admitted in spring 2021 in a press conference that neither ICUs nor hospitals were overwhelmed during 2020 and also not in the winter of 2020 and 2021, and that there was in very few hospitals at the most an occasional overload [as is the case every winter during the flu season].
With 2 million less patients being hospitalized per year, and also not more (rather quite a few patients less) being admitted to ICU, it seems really debateable whether there was any pressure on Germany's hospital system. In UK during the first Covid "wave" the nurses also reported that they had plenty of time dealing with a fairly moderate number of Covid patients after the UK government had decided to kick out all those patients who would have probably needed surgery for non-Covid things.
How can one claim that the vaccination reduced the pressure on hospital systems when there was no pressure. Any pressure on hospital systems came mainly down to having to quarantine Covid-asymptomatic patients who had a positive Covid test but had in fact been admitted to the hospital for diseases other than Covid.
How can we trust doctors and experts like you who continue to base their analysis and conclusions on flawed covid-19 vaccine efficacy data?
This is really an enigma to me. Could you not have had a closer look and seen that the data that those covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies are based on is flawed? I mean it is not so difficult to see that there is a miscategorisation. Why are you not mistrusting such flawed data a little bit more? Why do you experts take many claims that are being made at face value without questioning them? If you would ask questions, you would be able to see that this so-called vaccine efficacy data was in fact seriously flawed.
I demand that ALL those studies that relied on those data sets that miscategorized the vaccine status are withdrawn.
I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of scientific experts are neither scientific nor experts. Otherwise they would by now have been able to acknowledge that their assumptions and claims regarding vaccine efficacy were based on flawed data. They would withdraw their studies in shame. And they would indeed apologize to the public for having made a serious misapprehension thereby misleading the public with regards to Covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies.
It is essential that Dr Philip read the preprint on MedRxiv that is refrred to in this comment.
It is by Norman Fenton and others, and shows that many (all?) trials of vaccines from the earliest Pfizer were largely if not totally dependent on miscategorization. That is the modRNA vaccines were almost totally ineffective in stopping infection.
In Germany residents from old people's homes were prioritised for Biontech/Pfizer vaccination in January 2021. The vaccine was rolled out from 27 December 2020, and many residents would have received two Covid injections in January 2021.
The German Office of National Statistics wrote in its January 2021 report the following:
"The above-average number of deaths in January 2021 was largely due to an increase in deaths in the 80+ age group. In January, 29% or 14,464 more people aged 80 and over died than the average for the previous four years in this month. The number of deaths among the under-80s differed significantly less from the four-year average in January (+4% or +1,461 deaths)."
It can really not be ruled out that a high percentage of those extra 14,464 deaths of this highly vaccinated group are due to Covid vaccination. I wonder how much the "efficacy" of the Covid vaccine went up because those dead vaccinated people can no longer be infected and hospitalized for or with Covid because they had died so quickly after being vaccinated.
Furthermore, when it comes to evaluating the pressure on hospital systems, one should really also take into account the many side effects of the vaccines that needed hospitalization.
Data Analyst Tom Lausen who analyzed the data from Health Insurances in Germany discovered that doctors did report quite a lot of side effects to Health Insurances (yet only a much smaller number to the German Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). The data indicates that there were more hospitalizations due to Vaccine Adverse Effects than the government wanted to admit. From that German Health Insurance Data we can tell that many doctors and nurses took sick leave after their Covid injections. It was altogether quite a high number of sick leave days. In my opinion it is not all that clear that the vaccines reduced the pressure on the hospital systems. Also they found that vaccinated nurses and doctors had a very high load of covid infections. Really a very substantial amount of Covid infections in the Covid vaccinated.
Also to give further factual evidence with regards to my claims made in the comment further above I would like to refer to the a study at the University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf.
"From 30 April to 12 May 2020, interviews were conducted with the clinic directors responsible at the UKE (University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf) by telephone, video or face-to-face using a partially standardized questionnaire.
... In most clinical areas, both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates and workloads fell sharply in some phases. In some cases, however, workloads also increased, e.g. due to the adaptation of work processes, changes in communication and personnel structures and additional hygiene measures."
[Me: Workloads in some cases increased because they reduced staff numbers as a result of the sharp fall in both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates.]
Austria's chief epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Franz Allerberger, the Head of AGES, said in an interview with CIBIS in early summer 2021, i.e. more than one year into the Covid crisis that in his opinion nobody would have noticed the pandemic if it was not for the PCR testing.
Nonetheless he thought that as the vaccines seemed to be safe one should administer them to people. The only reason for administering unnecessary vaccines apart from that they seem to be not harmful was according to Allerberger that they would alleviate the fear of people and brings them immediate relief from fear of catching Covid.
How ludicrous is this?
Injecting people with potentially harmful mRNA or vector vaccine technology so as to relieve their fear of catching Covid when the whole scientific community should have known that the goal of mRNA therapeutics is NOT even to prevent Covid infection?
It is not clear what you are saying here. Why was the population not given other options? Why is a potentially harmful injection better than nothing? Is doing nothing not better than a potentially harmful injection?
Why in your opinion has the vaccine reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations? Can you provide me with the data sets that would support your claim that the vaccine in fact reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations?
Very revealing, all these postings from you Gabrielle. You have rightly put Dr. McMillan on the backfoot on his small soft corner for the vaccine and the claim of it having saved serious illness. The companies and authorities began peddling this claim everywhere later in 2021, as the increasing vaccinations could not stop reinfections or burgeoning fresh cases. The claim was an opportunistic grab of attention, those vaccinated not getting sick as the claimed beneficiaries of the vaccine. Even when numbers began showing that more vaccinated were getting sick than unvaccinated, there was this casual twist of explanation that more people were now vaccinated. In public perception, one stunning observation cannot be disputed. In 2021, there were more vaccinations, more infections, more deaths, than say 2020 without vaccine.
Would this be in layman's terms or for medical professionals? I'd be interested in this, depending on cost, to help with the issues I'm struggling with but I'm not a medical professional.
It makes me want to scream, so many doctors are still saying the v. is safe and effective. Still to many people say that if they wouldn’t have taken the v. they would be dead now and that includes my parents and all the relatives and we are all lying and are stupid and conspiracy theorists and “Querdenker “……. My GP surgery sends me SMS invites to get the v. as I am vulnerable.
Really,…..?!? I prefer to live.
They like to target the vulnerable, very sad..
Phillip..I know I have said this before.....But have you not noticed the whole buisness world has gone subscription based... Not having a customer choose if he likes a product or not before buying.
The Govs of our world are all desperate to have a large pharma complex in their country, to help bail them out of the financial mess we are all in (Pre Covid I might add),
Im sure you are aware we are on the Brink of total financial collapse, our GDPs will never payback the debt in several generations, the US is increasing at 1 Billion every 100 days
Until you accept this was not driven by medical goals, this is never going to make any sence to you
It is one TRILLION every hundred days!
Yep I know couldnt go in an re-edit it
Everything need not be one or the other: both/and is a frequent targetted outcome. Reduction of a population and complete control over the remainder are quite compatible goals.
We all knew the currency printing was simply unauthorised nation debt being foisted onto the tax payer, a massive transfer of wealth. We also know the global economy with inevitably need to go through hyperinflation and a ten year depression.
Meanwhile birth rates are plummeting because going into massive debt with education and mortgages in our early twenties has become socially "normalised".
Who is going to dig us out of this one? Who's the military industrial complex going to sell arms to this time?
It's all so spineless and naive. Carlson is right to be alarmed AND furious at the lack of moral fortitude all 'round.
My personal feeling is the eradication of small buisnesses, would mean all our money would be placed in the hands of big corporations, and any choice would be enforced by CBDC currencies. We would no longer be able to buy from abroad, for example.
If all medical products were given a captive audience provided by our states, then the revenue generated by pharma would be ploughed in to our govs coffers, on a mutual handshake agreement.
The Co2 religeon, whether you belive it or not, is going to kill millions of people, if energy is removed, before replacing with something equally reliable.
There is so much that does not make sence here, the MHRA being funded to over 85 percent of their income by the very companies they are meant to be regulating, in what deranged mind could that possibly work.
Regrettably, your observation holds true. The issue slipped under the radar some time ago.
Over the years, individuals have been reduced to mere commodities, now subject to dictates regarding the extent of our wellness or illness.
What will come next - Soylent Green?
The point is that you are analyzing vaccines, while the COVID "vaccines" are the gene therapies, which utilize nanotechnology.
Good point.
This is correct to argue that parenteral vaccines can’t stop transmission of airborne respiratory infection, and therefore, can’t be mandated, since the only legitimate basis (collective benefit) for compulsory vaccination against airborne respiratory virus – herd immunity – can’t be achieved by means of the parenteral vaccines.
But I would not argue that it is because of a type of antibodies induced by the vaccines (IgG instead of secretory IgA. You would not mention vaccinal IgG in the mucosa of upper respiratory tract (URT), had you known its neutralizing capacity and half-life). I would argue that health integrity in the URT is ensured primarily mechanistically (nasal hairs, mucus produced by goblet cells, ciliary beating of motile cilia, etc.) rather than immunologically. And even sufficiently primed secretory IgA and tissue resident immune cells in the URT would not protect against the infection when the mechanistic part is compromised.
Secondly, the immunological error was not the main defect that corrupted the pandemic response. The idea that public authority, which has not observed the patient can better protect and cure the patient than the GP who knows the patient, has done more harm than the virus itself. This pathogenic idea prevents informed consent, proper diagnostic and evidence-based treatment from normal functioning. Had the public authority retained the role of the GP’s assistant rather than the boss, then primary care would have prevented secondary care overload, need for vaccine passports and lockdowns.
Additionally, the public health authorities will have to admit that fooling (euphemizing) everyone that gene therapy or prodrug is a vaccine causes more confusion than clarity in a drug regulatory sphere. It will take some time to clean up the regulatory mess.
Well explained Janis.
Well said and well explained. Your view about the perils of bypassing the GP in his patient care is a bullet point. By extension, I would say that whole pandemic response got botched because non GPs ( virologists, epidemiologists even cardiologists ) took charge of the medical administrations including specially constituted Covid committees in many countries. As a result, the patients were left in the lurch. The first response should have been to the patients - means treating the illness. Not worrying about people who were normal now, but could become a patient sometime in future. Live treatments versus vaccinations.
You know I had my GP recommend that I get the COVID-19 vaccine, I was at my computer at the time and had access to all the information that was coming in stating that these so-called vaccines were dangerous. I sat there reading out all the adverse events and all the people that had died and been injured according to the TGA, and do you know I couldn't sway his belief in these so-called vaccines.
These inoculations at best were bio-warfare countermeasures, at worst they were a tool for depopulation. Further I can assure you that the full effects of these inoculations will be felt for decades to come. I don't want an apology, I want justice for the crimes that have been committed against the Australian people and humanity. Let's start at the top with the dictators that refused to listen to the doctors and scientists that were crying out “stop the rollout of these COVID-19 jabs they are dangerous”.
Just saying an apology isn’t necessary, Justice is all I'm chasing.
So igG4 has rendered people immunogically defenceless against further mutations of the virus and this isn't a scandal?
GPs lost their careers daring to prescribe Hdclqne, both useful and very safe because those advising the politicians were hell bent on pushing the vaccine.
The use of the emergency regulations to push mRNA was criminal, especially when concerted efforts like the Great Barrington declaration were demonised.
The result of these short cuts, the subsequent investment of billions into mRNA factories at the tax payers expense.
The rampant inflation caused by "lockdowns" that were never part of any pandemic response plan has crippled both health services and the economies of countries.
The medical professions were cowed into submission to the politicians need to display mastery over a genetically engineered bio weapon.
And now we have eminent oncologists alarmed at a massive resurgence in cancers in all ages groups, what they term "turbo" cancers, and a 10% increase in annual death rates that continues, for years after the gene therapy was applied.
My son is vaccine damaged and has not worked for 2.5 years despite trying numerous treatments including IV drips, hyberbaric oxygen therapy treatment, different diets, Perrin technique massage and triple / quadruple anticoagulants. If the course could help him then I am very interested. Many thanks.
Sorry to hear.
Please follow my long covid links.
https://drphilipmcmillan.substack.com/
Geert says a tsunami is coming? Is this a new warning? I read his recent posts but I don't recall it described in that term. Perhaps I am being too pedantic.
Dr. VB's Substack article at https://voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com/p/nature-will-unambiguously-demonstrate is named "I can now spot the tsunami at the horizon" at VoiceForScienceAndSolidarity.org - I think that's what Dr. McMillan referred to.
Thank you.
Actually he might have been referring to this interview, which I believe is new and someone just posted this link to: https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-398-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-and-the-coming-acute-crisis-of-covid-among-the-vaccinated/
KunstlerCast 398 — Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and the Coming Acute Crisis of Covid among the Vaccinated
(Long read but worth it. Audio link at bottom.)
I had the honor of interviewing the Belgian virologist Geert Vanden Bossche on Friday for my podcast, and he had quite a sobering message. “What I am predicting,” he said, “is a massive, massive tsunami” of illness and death among highly-vaccinated populations with dysregulated immune systems.
“You commit errors or even crimes at the very small scale, you can hide them,” he said (at around 47:00 minutes into the hour-long discussion). “I have seen this happen with the Ebola vaccination with Africa a number of years ago. . . . However, if you do this at the very large scale, like what has happened with this mass [Covid] vaccination campaign, the truth will surface. And those who have committed these crimes who have been lying to the people, who have not been taking care of the health and safety of the people, will be severely, severely punished. . . . If these people would now go out and say, ‘Yeah, wait a minute, we have been making some mistakes, it wasn’t all right, we have to correct them, we have to revise our opinion,’ these people will be stoned in the streets. . . . They can only hope that something will happen that will distract from this issue, but it won’t. . . . The truth will surface: this has been a large-scale experiment of gain-of-function on the very human population. This will be something that will be reported in history for many many generations to come.”
A bit further on (around 55:20 minutes) he says, “You will see what will happen, for example, in the next coming weeks. . . is more and more cases of more serious long Covid. . . . They will start to replace the surge of the cancers. . . now we have a more chronic phase. It will end with a hyper-acute phase, a huge, huge wave. . . I’ve been studying this now for four years. I know what I’m talking about. I’m probably the only person, in all modesty, who understands the immunology behind this. . . . (At 1:00:12) The thing I want your audience to understand, what we will be facing in the hyper-acute Covid crisis that is imminent, is that we will have to build a completely new world. . . . It is very very clear that when this starts, our hospitals will collapse. And that means the chaos in all kinds of layers of society — financial, economic, social, you name it — will be complete. And that is what I’m very clearly predicting. . . . It’s very strange for me to make such statements, but I’m not hiding it because I’m two hundred percent convinced that it will happen.”
Now that you’ve had an ice-cold shower, consider some further implications of this scenario. One is that the government and its public health officials may try to attribute the blame for this to the “Disease X” story they’ve been peddling for about a year, the “next pandemic,” something entirely new. That will not be true. They will be trying to cover their asses. Rather, this next episode will be the result of the epic blunders they already made, beginning in 2020, with the emergence of Covid-19. The variant that causes the coming hyper-acute crisis will be quite different from the original “Wuhan” strain, but it will be a direct descendent of it, having mutated in the bodies of the vaccinated. It was, after all, Dr. Vanden Bossche who declared at the outset of the Covid vaxx melodrama in 2021 that vaccinating into the teeth of an ongoing pandemic disease was absolutely the wrong strategy from an immunological point-of-view, and sure to produce a grievous outcome.
What, if anything, can you do to prepare for this? Dr. Vanden Bossche is also very clear: “What I can advise. . . to all these vaccinated people: they need to avoid reinfection. It is the reinfection of vaccinated people that is responsible for this situation. . . . Well, the only thing they can do — it’s very simple — is take anti-virals, of course. The only difference is, you will not be able to wait to take anti-virals until you have symptoms. . . . As soon as people see that in one of the other countries, or one of the other states in the United States, when this starts with hospitalizations going up very rapidly, they need to take anti-virals prophylactically, not wait until they have any symptoms. I’m in Belgium. If it starts in the US, or starts in Israel, or starts in the UK, I bet you that within a few days, you will see the same scenario in many of the highly-vaccinated countries.
By “anti-virals,” Dr. Vanden Bossche means specifically Ivermectin, the Nobel Prize-winning drug that the FDA and the CDC demonized brutally in order to distract the public from knowing that there was a safe and effective treatment for Covid. To acknowledge that would have vacated Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Emergency Use Authorization, which allowed them to make tens of billions of dollars on a very poorly tested pharma product while enjoying blanket protection against lawsuits.
“I have been predicting already a half a year ago, that the public health authorities are finally going to have mandates for ivermectin.” Dr. Vanden Bossche said. “The results with ivermectin are fabulous. It is very safe. It is the only anti-viral that is cost-effective, that is widely available, that can be supplemented in sufficient quantities. . . . There is simply no alternative.”
Note that just last week, as a result of a lawsuit brought in the Texas Southern District federal court, the FDA agreed to finally take down the social media messages it had put up to lawlessly block the use of ivermectin. Remember the mocking tweet: “You’re not a horse, you’re not a cow, come on y’all.” The truth was that the FDA had no authority to tell doctors how to practice medicine; nor to block FDA-approved drugs (including ivermectin), even for off-label treatments. Off-label treatment with approved drugs is routine in medicine. Instead of ivermectin, US public health officials pushed the use of unsafe remdesivir with intubation, resulting in many thousands of avoidable deaths. This is only one of the crimes they will have to answer for.
If Dr. Vanden Bossche’s scenario comes to pass, the “hyper-acute Covid crisis” will intersect with the elections of 2024, and not just in the USA. You would naturally expect some extreme despotic hysterics out of the “Joe Biden” government. They will surely try to run their “Disease X” ruse. But they have already lost the trust of the people they made war against in their own country. In which case, expect resistance among the un-sick. No more trips will be laid on us.
172 comments below:
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/this-is-not-an-april-fools-gag/
Full interview:
https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-398-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-and-the-coming-acute-crisis-of-covid-among-the-vaccinated/
No access to funds for anything but rent and necessities.
Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsened with the denial of access to primary care and early intervention as a result of mandated lock downs and complete lack of primary care. Resulting in a futile fire fighting mode and overwhelming of critical care facilities among the vulnerable population who could have avoided life threatening complications with early interventions. Thus creating a ground for emergency use authorisation and misleading the implementation of a poorly developed vaccine, using a technology which had questionable safety.
Further the entire population were sleep walked by the experts and medical fraternity into mandating this sub optimal vaccine which failed to prevent infection and transmission but claimed to reduce the severity of the disease. By conveniently redefining the purpose of vaccine after having failed in meeting the much needed and conventional clinical end point of preventing infection and its transmission. To make situation worse, boosters were proposed to meet the drop in antibody titres.
Thank you Kannan.
Thank you Philip for your relentless efforts in bringing out the facts and educating the population. I am sure we will be better prepared in the future.
You are right and each one of your sentence is a bullet point. Before the population was led into sleep walking by the experts over the magic of impending vaccines and new anti virals ( see my earlier comment below), the medical administration experts around the world were sleep walking on all the points mentioned by you. Were they led into ( by whom, no prizes for a safe guess) or were they dizzy on their own ? These administrators became a flock of sheep around the world in those first few months. I recall reading in April/May 2020 people scrambling about the viral phase ….in France, Germany, Italy….paracetamol ok, not ok, ibuprofen not ok, naproxen ok…. These were all the medicines in mind for the viral phase and no clues about the second phase, it was just plain emergency management, just physically keeping up breathing and the rest to the will of the God. Where was the need for the doctors to get so frozen in those initial weeks ? Did the Chinese story in Jan-Mar 2020 scare every one ? We don’t know. Collectively this was anything but a professional response.
More emphasis was made on the genetic engineering and chemistry of the so called novel pathogen than its impact on the host biology. The existence and spread of this pathogen was further fueled and endorsed by the false diagnostic test the PCR.
In my personal experience in managing patients I could not find any correlation in positivity and severity of the illness. But a definite correlation could be established among those with preexisting poor metabolic health, severe essential nutrient deficiencies compromising immune health and regulation ( not even the aged who were otherwise healthy). Which only points out to delayed or failed primary care in these vulnerable individuals. Everything else was a hoax.
The healthy and the so called asymptomatic individuals who evaded the localised contact of the pathogen are currently succumbing to the systemic effects of the unwanted protein post vaccination
Could doctors like you, who could understand the science of this virus quickly, both from observations and studies, establish in your practice level norms for early treatments and use of classical medicines ? Or were you constrained in any way by the official pronouncements and guidelines ? I am seeking this info because the correlation you found between illness severity and pre-existing conditions should have been only for the second phase, which also should have hit the patient only if he had not taken any meaningful treatment in the initial days of viral phase. Could you record the correlation distinctly for the two phases ? In my opinion on the organic chemistry of many common drugs, those who were taking regularly immuno modulators (including cancer drugs), anti inflammatories, anti histamines, TB/asthmatic drugs, anti psychotics/antidepressants, neuro drugs ( like pregabalin), bp drugs for their existing conditions were carrying sufficient anti viral protection from these drugs. So they must have experienced only a moderate/eventless viral phase with minimal chances of getting hit suddenly on the 8th-10th day by the autoimmune trigger of breathlessness. They must have been safe, unless they were under advice to discontinue them for a while if they tested positive ( as you said, the test was a self goal). I have written in many places that all these drugs have part anti viral behaviour by virtue of their chemical structures and a couple of them would never have allowed the viral load build up in individuals in the first few days. Can you clarify from your practice experience?
In fact what I am highlighting here is a very unique point, contrary to the omnibus view that the people with pre baggages were the ones hit hard by this virus. I have never read anyone saying that their medications were protective in the viral phase, which is what it is. I recall a report from California in early 2021 that a cohort of patients on anti inflammatories for their arthritic conditions were not infected by this virus, the prophylactic use of HCQ. If you have the resources and data, please look for individual correlations from your patient data. Small cohorts of patients on monitored anti inflammatories, anti histamines, anti depressants/ anti psychotics, long haul respiratory medicines, anti hypertensives, under each category and their infection record. That should be quite revealing. I have made this request a few times in the comments of various podcasts that I see, but no response. I am pretty certain that the every day run of these conditions and the metabolism of the medicines cross path with the host biology of this virus.
For sure the severity of the disease always was evident in all individuals who had a natural progression into the second phase (especially when they reached out to address their symptoms without correcting the initial hypersensitive phase due to lack of access to timely primary care). The propensity of this progression into this hyperinflammatory phase often was evident in those with preexisting conditions. One other common denominator making them susceptible to this progression was deficiency in Vitamin D (and in obese individuals) and those with higher NLR, ESR and /or low Tregs signifying preexisting proinflammatory state.
Individuals who were on treatment for preexisting hypersensitivity, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions for sure were found to be relatively less susceptible to both the phases, I am more convinced with the idea that these agents helped in preventing and correcting these two phases rather than claiming them to be antivirals.
I want to renew my long standing emphasis again. Almost all these categories of drugs are anti virals with a possible split distinction - if the composite pKa of the drug is high, say 9, 10 and above, they can defang the virus directly and eliminate it. If the pKa is 7.5, 8 type, they can interfere in the work of the virus and render it ineffective. In either case, these molecules are only part anti virals. They can work as single anti viral drug adequately only if the viral load is low - asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. If the viral load is high, severely symptomatic, then they need to be bolstered by another drug or two, preferably an anti histamine. They won’t be adequate as single drugs. This was true of Ivermectin also. That is how your patients must have responded while on their existing drugs. One more point. The term “ those with existing conditions” may be used loosely. Some one who has been taking a daily metformin or two, or a daily telmesartan or amlodipine or even both sets of them for 15 years safely and without any other major health issues, in my opinion, should not be considered in that “pre existing condition” category. The term must apply only to more serious baggage. On the last line of your comment, the drugs were working on the virus directly or indirectly, that is how they were mitigating that phase, so they deserve to be called anti virals.
If you want to know succinctly where the experts went wrong in covid ( title), please see my two comments in the previous podcast of this series - on covid misinformation. It was not about any technical misunderstanding or ignorance. Precisely on this point, I would have written about 500 pages of notes highlighting a few simple, common sense medical points. Letters to the Editors, mails to many scientists and experts including Dr. McMillan and in recent months, some prolific engagement in the comments section. I am not a biologist, but an organic chemist and my technical content will have only some chemistry background.
I think teaching "where experts got COVID right" would be a much shorter course.
Brilliant!
You say "there were benefits. There certainly was protection against severe disease. At least transiently. That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
Have you read https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.09.24304015v1?
Does this paper "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies" not completely invalidate your point that "there certainly was protection against severe disease"? In my opinion it does. I mean the UK ONS admitted to Norman Fenton in writing a while ago that their flawed data should NOT have been used to make any judgements on vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. And yet scientists did not see that the data was flawed and wrote plenty of papers on the basis of that flawed data. It seems that you are also referring to such flawed data when claiming that "there certainly was protection against severe disease". Can you see your own fallacy after studying "The extent and impact of vaccine status miscategorisation on covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies". Or does it in your opinion not matter that in those vaccine efficacy studies vaccinated patients were misclassified as unvaccinated patients?
Also your claim "That was beneficial to reduce pressure on hospital systems."
What makes you so sure that there was indeed pressure on hospital systems?
Let us look for example at Germany: During 2020 and during 2021 there were only 17 million people hospitalized in Germany annually as opposed to 19 million in 2019. How can one say that there was pressure on the hospital systems, when in fact nurses were laid off and some medical staff were put on short-time work? The analysis from the "Initiative Qualitätsmedizin" that analysed the data of a considerable statistically significant percentage of hospitals in Germany found that not more people were in ICU for influenza like illnesses during the first year of the Covid crisis than in 2019 (https://www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/monatliche-analyse-jan-bis-nov-2020). In Germany there is also the work of data analyst Tom Lausen that shows that neither ICUs nor hospitals during the first waves were overwhelmed with patients. The German Health Minister Jens Spahn also admitted in spring 2021 in a press conference that neither ICUs nor hospitals were overwhelmed during 2020 and also not in the winter of 2020 and 2021, and that there was in very few hospitals at the most an occasional overload [as is the case every winter during the flu season].
With 2 million less patients being hospitalized per year, and also not more (rather quite a few patients less) being admitted to ICU, it seems really debateable whether there was any pressure on Germany's hospital system. In UK during the first Covid "wave" the nurses also reported that they had plenty of time dealing with a fairly moderate number of Covid patients after the UK government had decided to kick out all those patients who would have probably needed surgery for non-Covid things.
How can one claim that the vaccination reduced the pressure on hospital systems when there was no pressure. Any pressure on hospital systems came mainly down to having to quarantine Covid-asymptomatic patients who had a positive Covid test but had in fact been admitted to the hospital for diseases other than Covid.
How can we trust doctors and experts like you who continue to base their analysis and conclusions on flawed covid-19 vaccine efficacy data?
This is really an enigma to me. Could you not have had a closer look and seen that the data that those covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies are based on is flawed? I mean it is not so difficult to see that there is a miscategorisation. Why are you not mistrusting such flawed data a little bit more? Why do you experts take many claims that are being made at face value without questioning them? If you would ask questions, you would be able to see that this so-called vaccine efficacy data was in fact seriously flawed.
I demand that ALL those studies that relied on those data sets that miscategorized the vaccine status are withdrawn.
I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of scientific experts are neither scientific nor experts. Otherwise they would by now have been able to acknowledge that their assumptions and claims regarding vaccine efficacy were based on flawed data. They would withdraw their studies in shame. And they would indeed apologize to the public for having made a serious misapprehension thereby misleading the public with regards to Covid-19 vaccine efficacy studies.
It is essential that Dr Philip read the preprint on MedRxiv that is refrred to in this comment.
It is by Norman Fenton and others, and shows that many (all?) trials of vaccines from the earliest Pfizer were largely if not totally dependent on miscategorization. That is the modRNA vaccines were almost totally ineffective in stopping infection.
In Germany residents from old people's homes were prioritised for Biontech/Pfizer vaccination in January 2021. The vaccine was rolled out from 27 December 2020, and many residents would have received two Covid injections in January 2021.
The German Office of National Statistics wrote in its January 2021 report the following:
"The above-average number of deaths in January 2021 was largely due to an increase in deaths in the 80+ age group. In January, 29% or 14,464 more people aged 80 and over died than the average for the previous four years in this month. The number of deaths among the under-80s differed significantly less from the four-year average in January (+4% or +1,461 deaths)."
It can really not be ruled out that a high percentage of those extra 14,464 deaths of this highly vaccinated group are due to Covid vaccination. I wonder how much the "efficacy" of the Covid vaccine went up because those dead vaccinated people can no longer be infected and hospitalized for or with Covid because they had died so quickly after being vaccinated.
Furthermore, when it comes to evaluating the pressure on hospital systems, one should really also take into account the many side effects of the vaccines that needed hospitalization.
Data Analyst Tom Lausen who analyzed the data from Health Insurances in Germany discovered that doctors did report quite a lot of side effects to Health Insurances (yet only a much smaller number to the German Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). The data indicates that there were more hospitalizations due to Vaccine Adverse Effects than the government wanted to admit. From that German Health Insurance Data we can tell that many doctors and nurses took sick leave after their Covid injections. It was altogether quite a high number of sick leave days. In my opinion it is not all that clear that the vaccines reduced the pressure on the hospital systems. Also they found that vaccinated nurses and doctors had a very high load of covid infections. Really a very substantial amount of Covid infections in the Covid vaccinated.
Also to give further factual evidence with regards to my claims made in the comment further above I would like to refer to the a study at the University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf.
"From 30 April to 12 May 2020, interviews were conducted with the clinic directors responsible at the UKE (University Clinic Hamburg Eppendorf) by telephone, video or face-to-face using a partially standardized questionnaire.
... In most clinical areas, both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates and workloads fell sharply in some phases. In some cases, however, workloads also increased, e.g. due to the adaptation of work processes, changes in communication and personnel structures and additional hygiene measures."
[Me: Workloads in some cases increased because they reduced staff numbers as a result of the sharp fall in both inpatient and outpatient occupancy rates.]
Very good point.
In truth I always recognised the risks.
The problem was that the population was given no other options. In that situation, a vaccine for the high risk could be better than nothing.
Austria's chief epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Franz Allerberger, the Head of AGES, said in an interview with CIBIS in early summer 2021, i.e. more than one year into the Covid crisis that in his opinion nobody would have noticed the pandemic if it was not for the PCR testing.
Nonetheless he thought that as the vaccines seemed to be safe one should administer them to people. The only reason for administering unnecessary vaccines apart from that they seem to be not harmful was according to Allerberger that they would alleviate the fear of people and brings them immediate relief from fear of catching Covid.
How ludicrous is this?
Injecting people with potentially harmful mRNA or vector vaccine technology so as to relieve their fear of catching Covid when the whole scientific community should have known that the goal of mRNA therapeutics is NOT even to prevent Covid infection?
https://www.oval.media/e6bd5618-c2e9-45a2-9d5a-f76a3704909d/
It is not clear what you are saying here. Why was the population not given other options? Why is a potentially harmful injection better than nothing? Is doing nothing not better than a potentially harmful injection?
Usually, I have to give some balance in these presentations.
Recognise that the vaccine has reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations. It is not clear that it has impacted all cause mortality.
In a perfect situation with targeted vaccination, early treatment and no lockdowns, there would have been minimal deaths.
Why in your opinion has the vaccine reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations? Can you provide me with the data sets that would support your claim that the vaccine in fact reduced the numbers of severe covid presentations?
Very revealing, all these postings from you Gabrielle. You have rightly put Dr. McMillan on the backfoot on his small soft corner for the vaccine and the claim of it having saved serious illness. The companies and authorities began peddling this claim everywhere later in 2021, as the increasing vaccinations could not stop reinfections or burgeoning fresh cases. The claim was an opportunistic grab of attention, those vaccinated not getting sick as the claimed beneficiaries of the vaccine. Even when numbers began showing that more vaccinated were getting sick than unvaccinated, there was this casual twist of explanation that more people were now vaccinated. In public perception, one stunning observation cannot be disputed. In 2021, there were more vaccinations, more infections, more deaths, than say 2020 without vaccine.
Exactly how much will the program cost? Will scholarships be available?
Not worked out as yet.
It takes a lot of time to put together so trying to see if it is worth the investment.
Would this be in layman's terms or for medical professionals? I'd be interested in this, depending on cost, to help with the issues I'm struggling with but I'm not a medical professional.
Appreciated.
It will be a combination of both as certain topics will benefit professionals in more detail.
what opportunities are likely to be opened by course admission? I am interestred in taking debate this EU
If done properly, I could get CPD points attached.