Stinging COVID: Ineffective, Suppressive and Dangerous

Stinging COVID: Ineffective, Suppressive, and Dangerous

Thanks to Frontnieuws and reported by Robert Gorter, MD, PhD.


December 26th, 2021



There is no moral, legal or logical argument for mandatory vaccination. The only logical argument, from a public health perspective, would be to either limit the spread of the infection or reduce the impact on health services through some other mechanism.

We will examine the evidence showing that the COVID-19 alleged “vaccines” are unable to reach either, writes Iain Davis.

That did not stop the British Parliament from allowing the government to make vaccination compulsory for National Health Service staff. In doing so, they have paved the way for a broader, national mandate.

Ahead of the vote, the British Medical Journal published the protest of concerned medical professionals who emphasized there is insufficient evidence to support a mandate.

The British MPs apparently decided that the doctors and nurses did not know what they were talking about and were not interested in the scientific evidence they provided. While this illustrates that decision-making is not science-led, it may not be the primary concern.

Whatever political or popular opinion, to insist that an individual be injected against his will is to deny his inalienable right to bodily integrity.

This right was described by Professor David Feldman in Civil Liberties and Human Rights In England and Wales:

“A right to be free from physical interference. This right includes negative freedoms: freedom from physical violence, torture, medical or other experimentation, immunization and forced eugenic or social sterilization, and cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. It also includes a number of positive duties of the state to protect people from harm by others.”

Both the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1 & 3) would guarantee the integrity of the person.

However, nowadays, these are “Human Rights” written on scraps of paper by politicians and lawyers. As such, they can be brushed aside by governments and other politicians, and lawyers. Human rights are not rights, they are government permits and permits can be revoked.

UK Supreme Court

More importantly, there is a clear legal precedent for the concept of bodily integrity in the UK. In Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court ruled:

“A mature person in their right mind has the right to decide which of the available forms of treatment, if any, they wish to receive, and their consent must be obtained before any treatment is undertaken that affects her or his physical integrity.”

If society decides that the population no longer has a right to physical integrity, then the people become the slaves of that society. A society that favors mandatory vaccinations also supports slavery. Those in favor of mandatory vaccination support slavery in principle. None of the justifications they advance negate this fact.

The legal definition of property is the “exclusive legal right to possession.” A vaccination requirement states that the individual no longer has legal possession of his own body. It deprives the individual of the legal right to property of his physical being and transfers it to the state. This is slavery.

Slavery is defined as:

“The state of being legally owned by someone else and being forced to work for or obey them.”

There are those who suggest that the “public interest” justifies slavery. They argue, based on assumption and ignorance, that when a person refuses COVID-19 vaccination, they endanger others and behave in a way that endangers the common good.

They argue that society should have the right to violate the physical integrity of its slaves.

As many have pointed out, a mandate is different from law. However, a government mandate is something that the state uses to claim the non-existent right to force people to obey. Individuals can be punished – with a fine or even jail – for failing to comply with a state mandate. The right to physical integrity is denied by a mandate and all citizens are enslaved on that basis.

Some anti-rationalists have argued that a mandate is not “coercion.” This is a ridiculous claim.

Threatening to fine people is coercion and warning against a possible prison sentence is the threat of violence. This is the literal definition of the use of force:

“Coercion or compulsion, especially using or threat of violence.”

Where violence is defined as:

“Extremely powerful acts intended to hurt people or are likely to cause harm.”

Those who believe in the concept of the common good, debate the point at which it overrides individual sovereignty, accepting that any group they choose to empower has the right to compel others to obey.

Regardless of their motives, by ultimately insisting that no citizen has the right to bodily integrity, they are promoting slavery, including their own.

Some people are a little hesitant to admit their support for slavery and prefer to pretend that enforcing compliance by other means is not slavery.

Ryan Air chief Michael O’Leary apparently thinks that denying people access to society, work, food, and medical treatment is not a “mandate” and so forcing them to take the vaccine through this mechanism is not tantamount to slavery.

O’Leary’s suggestion is that those who refuse the vaccine should be punished for their disobedience. He thinks that threatening people with poverty, starvation, and a shorter life expectancy is perfectly acceptable to force them to do what he wants. He believes that if not officially mandated, it will somehow protect their rights:

“[A mandate] is an infringement on one’s civil liberties. But you just make life so hard. Or [make it so] there are a lot of things you can’t do unless you get vaccinated.”

Proponents of the “public good”, who insist that getting vaccinated is the “right thing” and that it is, therefore, wrong not to do it, cannot at the same time proclaim society’s alleged authority to ignore the inalienable right to physical integrity and at the same time pretending to be against slavery.

If we, as a society, allow the government to impose vaccination or if we, like O’Leary, choose to enforce vaccination in other ways, then we have collectively agreed to live in a slave state where we are all slaves.

If we go down this road, we are condemning future generations to slavery. But somehow those who decline the offer of slavery, who oppose it on principle, are considered egoists by society.

The proponents of slavery justify this to themselves because they believe that the extremely limited impact on public health of respiratory disease with low mortality is more important than human freedom.

This view is motivated by the erroneous and irrelevant assumption that vaccines protect others. The efficacy and safety of the vaccines are not important. To deny an individual’s right to physical integrity is slavery. It doesn’t matter what the purported justification is.

Many slaves have already been traded, exploited, and abused in the UK. While the experience of those who daily undergo the hell of modern slavery is in no way comparable to being forcibly injected with a serum once or twice a year, the principle of slavery is the same. It seems strange that the proposed “public good” does not demand freedom for those currently living as slaves. Maybe society doesn’t care anymore.

Aside from the lack of moral and legal legitimacy, there are other reasons why we should reject any idea of ​​a vaccination mandate. In the first place because the so-called vaccines do not work and are dangerous.


The word “infection” is defined as:

“The condition caused by the presence of one or more pathogens (such as bacteria, protozoa, or viruses).”

If you had looked at the medical definition of “vaccine” in 2019, you would have understood that a vaccine is:

“A preparation of killed microorganisms, live attenuated organisms, or live fully virulent organisms administered to induce or artificially enhance immunity against a particular disease.”

Where immunity was defined as:

“The quality or state of being immune; in particular: being able to provide a state of resistance to a particular disease, in particular by preventing the development of a pathogenic micro-organism or by counteracting the effects of its products.

A vaccine was a drug that “mainly” reduced the infection. It could theoretically stop a pathogen, such as a bacterium, a protozoan, or a virus, from establishing itself in a biological system. This would reduce the incidence of disease and subsequent transmission of the pathogen.

However, in the wake of the pseudopandemic (pandemic), that is not what the changed definition of “vaccine” has come to mean today. The only thing a supposed, so-called vaccine has to demonstrate is immunogenicity:

“A preparation administered (such as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease.”

Purely by changing the definition, a “vaccine” is now a drug that stimulates an immune response. It says nothing about how effective or safe that immune response is. Inflammation is an immune response and it is potentially fatal.

Without the ability to protect against infection, most people would view a drug that only reduces the severity of disease as a treatment, not a vaccine.

It is true that language is constantly evolving and definitions are constantly changing, but when that change fundamentally redefines the commonly accepted meaning of a word, everyone needs to be aware of the new interpretation. If not, they might be accepting an implicit meaning that no longer exists.

For example, people could easily be fooled into believing that a COVID-19 “vaccine” will stop the infection. To distinguish between what most people imagine “vaccine” means and what it means now, we will refer to the alleged COVID-19 “vaccines” as jabs.


Unlike all the vaccines that came before it, the syringes did not undergo clinical testing until they were given to more people than any other vaccine in history.

At the time of writing, there are no known results from the NCT04614948 trial with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA shot; no results from the NCT04516746 trial with AstraZeneca; there are no results from Moderna’s NCT04470427 trial, nor from J&J’s NCT04368728 trial with the Jansen shot.

When the UK’s medicines regulatory agency, the MHRA, said it had “conducted a rigorous scientific review of all available evidence of quality, safety, and efficacy” before authorizing the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the injections, they did not say they had studied the results of clinical trials. They couldn’t, because there aren’t any.

What they meant is that they had received interim reports from the manufacturers and their sponsors (UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, etc. ) The MHRA, like other regulatory agencies around the world, based its decision to grant the EUAs on these interim reports, not the results of clinical trials.

This allows the mainstream media to report statements from news agencies that mislead the public:

“Massive trials of the Coronavirus vaccine, involving tens of thousands of participants, have so far revealed no signs of serious side effects.”

The impression is constantly created that the vaccines are clinically proven to be safe and effective. In reality, few side effects were reported in the trials, as no results of the trials have been published. The FDA in the USA is even not willing to publish their data which they used to approve of the Pfizer vaccines until 75 years from now……

The trials were designed as blind randomized control trials (RCTs). As these were the first proposed vaccines for a new disease, the standard RCT approach to assess vaccine safety and efficacy was to compare the long-term health outcomes of vaccine recipients with those of a placebo group. These would be “blinded,” meaning the trial participants were not told whether they had received a vaccine or a placebo.

The secondary outcomes of the trials were intended to assess the effects of the vaccines. This included assessment of any adverse events (ADRs) up to two or more years after the last dose. So far none of the secondary outcomes have been measured because we are more than a year away from the end of the minimum trials.

There is now no chance that these clinical trials will ever yield any meaningful results. As reported in the British Medical Journal, both J&J and Moderna “unblinded” their trials by giving their injections to their placebo groups. They dropped the secondary results years before the trials were completed. Neither AstraZeneca nor Pfizer-BioNTech denied doing the same when asked.

In any case, it seems that their trials were poorly designed and lacked sufficient scientific credibility. It is strongly argued that, at the very least, Pfizer-BioNTech falsified data, unblinded their study, failed to adequately train staff, and were disinclined to follow up on reported adverse events.

When independent researchers asked the UK regulatory agency, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), via a Freedom of Information request (FOIR), why Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trial NCT04614948 could affect the vaccine’s effects on pregnant women. women had not been assessed, the MHRA stated:

“The above trial was not conducted in the UK, the MHRA has not reviewed its content and is, therefore, unable to answer specific questions.”

Not bothering to consider the primary clinical trial doesn’t really seem like a “rigorous scientific assessment.” Rather, it appears that the MHRA is part of a group of regulatory bodies that uncritically accept what the manufacturers claim without really scrutinizing anything.

The MHRA has now formally approved this laissez-faire approach for the future regulation of injections. The MHRA has joined the Access Consortium of Regulatory Authorities (Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland), making it one of those who see no need for further regulatory scrutiny before approving new shots.

The Consortium believes that new iterations, in response to alleged new variants of COVID-19, may in fact be allowed to pass automatically. This is based on the impossible.

The MHRA claims that their initial EUA reflects their assessment of the “critical clinical trials”, for which no results have been published. After the MHRA authorized the rollout of the jabs without any evidence, it now claims that for all modified future versions:

WHO data reveals: Covid “vaccines” cause psychiatric disorders in hundreds of thousands of people

“Pre-approval clinical efficacy studies are not required. Regulators are requesting bridging immunogenicity data from a sufficient number of individuals.”

This speeds up the process of getting injections straight out of company labs and injecting into the arms of a generally misinformed public.

The changes the manufacturers want to make will simply be approved by the Consortium, as long as the pharmaceutical companies make the appropriate immunogenicity claims.

The issuance of a EUA is not the same as the regulatory approval of a medicinal product. As explained by the US regulatory agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a EUA is a temporary authorization for an investigational drug:

“A EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine could enable rapid and widespread application of the investigational vaccine to millions of individuals.”

The FDA also states that an investigational drug, which is still in trials, is an investigational drug:

“An investigational drug can also be called an investigational drug.”

The current COVID-19 injections are still in the pilot phase and are “experimental drugs”. So-called fact-checkers have been sent out to mislead the public into believing that this is not the case.

For example, Full Fact, the UK-based political activists who work with policymakers to market their own companies:

“The three Covid vaccines currently approved for use in the UK have already been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.”

This was a factually incorrect claim. With regard to the release of EUAs, only the interim results of the Phase 3 trials were known.

These reflected the few available data from the first two months of Phase 1. This was no more than a claim that the vaccines were relatively safe for a small group of fit and healthy, mostly younger people. We shall shortly discuss why even this statement is false.

All we can say at this point is that there is no discernible regulation of the injections. They are in fact unregulated.

The trials have not yet shown that the syringes are safe or effective. The exclusion criteria for all trials preclude the vaccines from being administered to those most vulnerable to COVID-19. The Phase 1 interim reports only claim efficacy and safety in those least susceptible to apparent COVID-19 risks. Now, these trials will never be completed.

The interim study reports claimed efficacy in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reduction. This enabled the manufacturers to claim a 95%+ reduction in mortality (efficacy). This was subsequently reported to the public, who were affected by this reporting bias.

The claimed absolute risk reduction (efficacy) was usually less than 1%. If this had been reported to the public, people would have been less enthusiastic and perhaps more skeptical about the syringes, which is why it didn’t happen.

The EU, on both sides of the Atlantic, also came with immunity from prosecution for the manufacturers. In the UK, liability protections for administering physicians have been extended to pharmaceutical companies by the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

Immunity to prosecution is a clear breakthrough for the drug companies. In early 2021, World Bank director David Malpass reported that some vaccine manufacturers would not distribute their vaccines in countries that do not fully protect them from prosecution:

“The immediate problem is the indemnity. Pfizer is hesitant to go to some countries because of the liability issues they don’t have a liability shield. So we are working with the countries to make that happen.”

There is no doubt that the vaccines are experimental drugs that have not yet passed clinical trials. As such, the population that has been given them is part of a global medical experiment. In collaboration with the government, this experiment is being conducted by global pharmaceutical companies that are not liable for the damage they may cause.

This fact is then covered up by the global media companies and appointed fact-checkers, who are also collaborating with the government.

Statements from the NHS such as “The COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to protect yourself and others” or “any side effects are usually mild and should not last more than a week” are not based on any evidence from clinical research. They are speculative, misleading, and potentially dangerous claims.

Unless the recipients were expressly made aware of these facts before receiving a shot, it is impossible for them to have given informed consent.

In all cases, despite the fact-free denials of the comically erroneous fact-checkers, this constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg Code.


Following the comments from Health Minister Sajid Javid, the media dutifully reported that there are around 5 million “unvaccinated” people in the UK. This figure appears to be only partially accurate.

According to figures from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), by mid-December 2021, when the booster rollout was well underway, of the approximately 44.6 million adults in England, approximately 38.6 million had received at least two doses and were therefore temporarily deemed to be “fully vaccinated”.

This means that approximately 6 million adults are currently officially “unvaccinated” in England alone. England represents about 84% of the British population. Using comparable numbers for vaccine distribution across the UK, means that at least 6.9 million adults are officially unvaccinated. This amounts to almost 13% of the UK’s adult population.

The size of the unvaccinated population will continue to increase. The UK government has already said a booster will be required for the NHS COVID Pass (certificate) for international travel.

Initially, the UK government said it had no intention of extending this to the domestic vaccine passport, but it also repeatedly denied that it would introduce vaccine passports.

Subsequent comments from the Health Minister clarified the government’s intention to continually shift their definition of “fully vaccinated.” To be fully vaccinated, the slave must always agree to the next shot.

With the vaccine salesforce insisting that boosters will be needed for years to come, it looks like the “fully vaccinated” status will last about 6 months.

The MSM, on behalf of the government that funds them, has fooled the nation that it is unvaccinated who is “flooding” health services. With headlines like ICU is full of the Unvaccinated – My Patience With Them is Wearing Thin, it’s no wonder the grafted majority is turning its hatred towards the people who don’t want the jabs. It’s very common to read comments on social media such as:

“Unvaccinated people are picking up beds from other sick people, some of whom are getting sicker as a result. Not being vaccinated during a pandemic is an act of selfishness hidden behind the facade of individual freedom.”

The “ICU is full” Guardian article was from an anonymous source. No one was willing to put his name under it. It was primarily an appeal to emotion and offered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate its claims. This is because the evidence does not support any aspect of the published story. The only apparent reason for the article was to incite hatred.

Real and honest journalists, like Kit Knightly of the OffGuardian, who is censored by the social media platforms, have been willing to put their names to the reporting of the facts.

As he shows, the ICUs are not overwhelmed at all. They are quite busy, as usual, but they are certainly not inundated with COVID-19 “cases”, as the Guardian and others have deceptively claimed again and again. The same is taking place in the European continent where mass media proclaim overburdened hospitals with COVID-19 patients dying in the hallways.

Currently, there are 4330 CC beds in England. On December 14, 2021, 925 were occupied by so-called COVID-19 patients, a COVID-19 ICU bed occupancy rate of 21.4%. There were 775 (17.9%) unoccupied ICU beds, with 2657 beds (61.4%) occupied by patients who did not test positive for the selected COVID-19 nucleotide sequences.

In their “Week 50 Vaccine Surveillance Report” the UKHSA state that, for the prior 4 week period, 2,965 suspected COVID-19 adult hospitalized patients had received no vaccination and 4,557 had received at least one. Thus, UKHSA claims that the unpunched represent 39.4% of total COVID-19 hospitalizations.

For the same 4-week period, UKHSA also reported that 715 of a total of 3,083 adult deaths within 28 days of testing positive were people who had not received the vaccination. This represents 23.2% of the alleged COVID-19 deaths. With 28 deaths attributed to people of unknown shot status, the remaining 2340 had been shot. Vaccinated individuals represent 76% of all suspected COVID-19 deaths.

Similar data for Wales also belies the false claim that it is the unpunched individuals who are “flooding” health services. In November 2021, 12.8% of hospital patients were “unvaccinated”. The “vaccinated” made up 84.5% of hospitalized patients and 2.7% had unknown vaccination status.

The anonymous claims in the Guardian were not remotely accurate. The story was propagandistic misinformation. It was “fake news”.

Yet the politicians are desperate to spread the same lie, with the help of their docile MSM. Again, the Guardian reported the health minister’s comments as if they were realistic. Speaking of the people who considered the evidence and decided not to take the shot, Javid said:

“They really need to think about the damage they are doing to society. They’re confiscating hospital beds that could have been used for someone who might have a heart problem, or maybe someone waiting for surgery.”

At no point did the Guardian’s intrepid journalists let the public know that what he said was total nonsense. Instead, they continued to crack down on the lies with their own misinformation, claiming that “nine out of 10 people who need the most care in the hospital are unvaccinated”. Another example of absolute fake news, intended to mislead the public.

As we will discuss in a moment, it is the apparent call to “get a booster” that is incessantly pushed by the MSM and the politicians, effectively shutting down primary health care, which poses a much greater risk to the public health. The mendacity of Javid’s misinformation was breathtaking.

The people queuing for their shots are not selfish, just misinformed. But the 13% of the adult population where there is no will is not selfish either.

The MSM and the politicians are stubbornly trying to drive a wedge between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. They try to sow division based on disinformation, lies, and propaganda.

The reason for this is clear. Like all tyrannical regimes in history, the current British dictatorship wants to scapegoat a minority to avoid drawing public attention to them. They do this to reduce the chances of the people questioning the tyrants who hold them in their grip. It’s nothing more complicated than divide and conquers.


In a speech in October, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, actually admitted that the syringes are not “vaccines”. They don’t work like the vaccines we know. Apparently, they are much more like a treatment:

“Double vaccination offers a lot of protection against serious illness and death, but it does not protect you from contracting the disease, and it does not protect you from passing it on.”

Johnson’s comment was partially correct. Recent research from the US showed that there was no difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated. These findings appear to be corroborated by a study from Singapore, which strongly advocated the vaccines for their purported ability to lower the death rate, but also noted:

“PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values ​​were comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral load decreased more rapidly in vaccinated subjects […] viral load indicated by PCR Ct values ​​was comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects.”

In order for the vaccines to work like a vaccine, in the traditional sense of the word, the disease prevalence would have to decrease as the number of vaccines increases. This is an obvious point, but it seems it needs to be emphasized as the general public seems to be largely unaware of this.

There is no statistical relationship between the number of vaccinations, the number of infections and the prevalence of diseases. A joint US and Canadian study, reviewing statistical records from 68 countries and 2,947 US districts, found the following findings:

“At the country level, there appears to be no discernible correlation between the percentage of the population that is fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the past 7 days. In fact, the trendline suggests a marginally positive association, such that countries with a higher percentage of the population that is fully vaccinated have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

And yet, somewhat at odds with their own findings, the researchers promoted the vaccinations as part of a broader approach to contain the disease by using non-pharmaceutical interventions, including wearing face masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. As we’ll discuss in a moment, promoting the official narrative is now a prerequisite for peer-reviewed and publishing.

Presumably, to stay within the allowable limits of the official scientific consensus, the researchers stuck to the new definition of “vaccine,” denoting a drug that is unable to reduce the number of infections, but acts as a treatment:

“Vaccinations protect individuals from severe hospitalization and death.”

The Gibraltar Peninsula, with a population of approximately 34,000, was pleased to declare that it had achieved 100% vaccination coverage. After that, it faced a spate of reported cases.

In the Republic of Ireland, the city of Waterford has a 99.7% vaccination rate and the highest number of cases in Ireland.

In Israel, where the definition of “fully vaccinated” means that someone has received two initial vaccinations and a booster (3 vaccinations), 67 cases of the Omicron variant have been recorded. Of these, 54 (almost 81%) were fully vaccinated. Of the other 13 cases, we do not know whether they really have not been vaccinated. They may have received one or two vaccinations and still be classified as not “fully vaccinated”.

If we look at a recent CNN map of vaccination rates, we can make some interesting comparisons.

Brazil, with a vaccination rate of 150 vaccinations per 100 people, has more than 103,000 COVID cases per million people (CPM). Neighboring Bolivia, with 77 vaccinations per 100 inhabitants, has cases of just under 47,000 CPM. Paraguay has a slightly higher number of shots (88) and a slightly higher number of cases (64,000 CPM). Argentina, with the highest number of shots per 100 of all, at 220, also has the highest number of cases, at just over 117,000.

The most striking feature of the CNN map is the very low vaccination rate in Africa. Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zambia, for example, have fewer than 10 vaccinations per 100. They are among the countries with the lowest rates of disease in the world. Zambia has just over 11,000 CPM and Nigeria and Tanzania much less. By contrast, with a relatively high African vaccination rate of 62 per 100 people, Botswana has a CPM of nearly 82,000.

What the “Covid Pandemic” has taught us is that we can only have ZERO TRUST in the medical world, politicians, and the mass media


Some scientists are apparently baffled by the low rates of COVID-19 in Africa as a whole. They offer a number of possible explanations. They point to a younger population or early border closures, some suggest lower urban density or perhaps more outdoor activity explain the apparent anomaly.

Prof. dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, head of Global Health at Columbia University, calls it a “mystery”:

“Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the US, but somehow they seem to be doing much better.”

African countries are definitely doing better than the US. With about 4% of the world’s population and a vaccination rate of 147 per 100 people, the US accounts for more than 36% of the current 27,586,743 active cases worldwide.

In fact, the list of the 20 countries with the highest rates of disease in the world consists mainly of the countries with the highest vaccination rates.

Scientists are examining all the variables to find out what might explain the African mystery. The only factor they ignore is the most obvious.

While most African countries have not had the first wave, scientific and medical authorities worldwide are determined to prevent the second wave with the vaccines. Prof. dr. Salim Abdool Karim of the South African University of KwaZulu-Natal said:

“We need to vaccinate everything to prepare for the next wave.”

Professor Karim has been invited to join the Scientific Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) in April 2020. The WHO, with its largest contributor Bill Gates, has made vaccinating African populations its next priority for its own evil reasons.

There are several studies showing that the natural immunity due to infection is significantly better than that produced by the injections. A recent Israeli study shows that the natural immunity after infection is up to 27 times stronger than the immunity conferred by the vaccines.

Regardless of the scientific debates about antigens, T-cells, and immunogenicity, etc., all of which are related to the alleged action of the vaccines, a very basic statistical analysis is enough to clearly show that they do not act as vaccines.

The only remaining claim about the effectiveness of the vaccines is that they reduce hospitalizations and deaths. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence that also casts doubt on this claim.

If the vaccines are unable to stop infection and transmission and only serve to reduce natural immunity, there is no reason to mandate vaccines that serve public health. An uninfected person is no more likely to contract COVID-19 from a non-infected person than from a punctured citizen. According to the official definition of a COVID-19 case, the statistics show that the vaccines do not make any difference to the spread of the disease.

In his more recent address to the nation promoting the unregulated booster vaccines, Boris Johnson said:

“Over the past year we have shown that vaccination is the key to beating Covid and that it works […] It is now clear that two doses of vaccine are simply not enough to provide the level of protection we all need […] we urgently need to strengthen our wall of vaccination protection to keep our friends and loved ones safe [… ] If we focus on boosters […] it will mean that some other appointments will have to be postponed until the new year […] If we do this now If we don’t, the Omicron wave could be so big that cancellations and disruptions, such as the cancellation of cancer appointments, could be even greater next year.”

Johnson’s speech was completely incoherent. On the one hand, the vaccines work, but on the other hand, they don’t work and a booster is needed. To stave off a wave of cases defined by a test that can’t identify cases, seemingly trivial health interventions, such as cancer screening appointments, must be canceled for the sake of the country’s health and the common good.

Shortly after Johnson’s plea to “step up now”, the British government made it clear that GPs across the country would only focus on shots and emergency appointments.

Declaring a “national mission” to get as many people as possible with a shot has virtually suspended primary care in the UK. This happened in the winter, in the midst of an alleged pandemic of respiratory diseases. The health consequences will be disastrous.

The British Medical Association has already warned that the reconfiguration of the NHS, first to a service that only includes COVID-19 and now to a service that only includes injections, will have dire public health implications.

In the 3-month period after the initial lockdown alone, there were up to 1.5 million fewer clinical admissions; initial patient admissions, across all conditions, decreased by 2.6 million; the number of urgent cancer referrals fell by an alarming 280,000, with up to 26,000 fewer patients starting treatment, 15,000 of which would normally have first come to light through a GP referral.

And yet, knowing all this, the government would have you believe that it intends to save lives. This claim is not credible.


Further evidence from Israel shows that the period between the first and second injection, and shortly after, increases the risk of death from COVID-19. The vulnerability to disease is significantly greater during this 3 to 5 week period.

Prof. dr. dr. Seligmann (Ph.D.) and his research partner calculated the baseline probability of COVID-19 death for different age groups prior to getting the shot. For example, for people over 60, that was 0.00022631% per day. He then compared this with official Israeli data for the immediate post-shot death rate.

During the 13-day period after the first dose of the Pfizer shot, the COVID-19 daily mortality risk for people over 60 was 14.5 times higher at 0.003303% per day. After 13 days, this risk increased to 0.005484% per day, more than 24.2 times higher. This increased further, up to 6 days after the second dose, to 0.006076% per day, representing a 26.85-fold increased risk of COVID-19 death for the shot.

Prof. dr. Seligmann found similar massive increases in the COVID-19 mortality risk for all vaccines during what he called the “vaccination period.” Once the recipients were “fully vaccinated”, Seligmann found some benefit to the vaccinated individuals, as they caused a marginal reduction in the COVID-19 mortality risk compared to that of the unvaccinated individuals.

He calculated that for this benefit to outweigh the massive increase in risk during the “vaccination period”, the vaccines would need to provide nearly 100% protection for more than two years, just to offset the initial health costs of the vaccination. This advantage is not apparent from the data.

A recent Swedish study is one of many showing that once the vaccines are fully administered, any potential benefit from COVID-19 quickly fades. The research of Dr. Seligmann shows that there is no COVID-19 health benefit from the jabs, as it is unable to protect those most vulnerable to COVID-19 after 6 months at best.

The official risk-benefit analysis suggests that a full vaccination offers marginal protection against hospitalization. There is also a barely perceptible statistical signal suggesting that they also reduce mortality, to a very limited extent.

Prof. dr. Seligmann thought the same. However, this is only related to the COVID-19 statistics and these are based on non-diagnostic RT-PCR test results. The official claims do not take into account the additional “vaccination period” risk identified by Seligmann.

Prof. dr. Seligman and Dr. Spiro P. Pantazatos, Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology at Columbia University, then further evaluated the risk of all-cause mortality after the vaccinations.

Their study showed an estimated Vaccine Fatality Rate (VFR) in the US of 0.04%, suggesting that the CDC’s reported VFR of 0.002% underestimates vaccine-induced mortality by a factor of 20. The scientists found that data for February-August 2021 indicated a number of deaths in the US from the injections between 146,000 and 187,000.

Pantazatos and Seligmann also found a significant increase in the risk of all-cause death in the first 5-6 weeks after the first vaccination. This also shows that the initial risk of vaccination is not outweighed by the transient benefit once “fully vaccinated”.

There is little reason to accept the officially reported statistics.

The attribution of COVID-19 to mortality is false. Death is assumed to be within 28 or 60 days of a positive RT-PCR test, depending on whose stats you’re looking at. This is not “proof” that COVID-19 was the cause of death.

The attribution of COVID-19 to hospitalizations is equally weak. Research by independent auditors shows that people with a range of non-COVID-related presentations, such as a limb or head injuries, are often hospitalized as suspected COVID-19 patients.

The researchers determined that in more than 90% of the alleged COVID-19 admissions, there was no clinical reason to label them as such.

All the alleged benefits of the jabs are based on these woolly definitions and questionable statistical claims. Consequently, if we really want to understand the potential benefits of vaccines, we need to look at all-cause mortality.

This can be considered more reliable because it is simply an analysis of all recorded deaths, regardless of the cause.

If the vaccines work and are safe, there should be a difference in all-cause mortality between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Although the vaccinated individuals are not protected from other causes of death, they are presumably protected against COVID-19 and this should be evident from the data.

A team of statisticians from Queen Mary University in London conducted a study on all-cause mortality data in England. They examined the monitoring reports on vaccination surveillance issued by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

They noted that, as we discussed, these official reports initially appear to demonstrate a benefit from the vaccines. However, they identified a series of anomalies in the data.

They found that the death patterns outside of COVID-19, for the supposedly unvaccinated, showed peaks that correlated with the rollout of the vaccines. After the “vaccination period” the non-COVID-19 mortality for both the inoculated and the supposedly unvaccinated cohorts remained comparable and relatively stable. Furthermore, in general, the unvaccinated appeared to have an unusually high non-COVID-19 mortality, while the vaccinates appeared to have an unusually low non-COVID-19 mortality.

They also looked at the different categories of vaccinated people. These were “within 21 days of the first dose,” “at least 21 days of the first dose,” and “second dose.”

They found a consistent but wide variation in mortality rates between these groups. The “second dose” non-COVID-19 mortality was consistently lower than baseline, while “within 21 days” mortality was consistently well above baseline.

Most striking were the different patterns of mortality between the three age groups studied. Historical data shows that for age groups 60-69, 70-79, and 80+, while the all-cause death rate increases with age, the three groups consistently showed the same distribution pattern of death, usually peaking in the winter months. This is often referred to as “excessive winter mortality”.

But in 2021, not only did the three groups have separate periods of peak mortality, but also spread out seasonally across the year, for the unseeded, those deaths corresponded directly to the roll-out of the jab in each age group. Nor did these spikes in the deaths of the uninjured match presumed waves of COVID-19. They followed the rollout of the jab.

These researchers and many others concluded:

“Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that they are both unreliable and misleading […] we believe the most likely explanations are: systematic miscategorization of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and vaccinated;  delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations;  systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated [and] incorrect population selection for Covid deaths. With these considerations in mind, we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather cause true spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after the end of the year. vaccination.”

The head of the research team, Prof. dr. Norman Fenton gave a radio interview explaining why his article was not peer-reviewed or submitted to a journal for publication:

“Once we raised these concerns in our work, as soon as we submitted it for publication, it was rejected without review. Something I have never experienced before.”

Rejecting science for being inconsistent with the official (political) narrative is not a new problem, but it is “anti-science” and suggests a concerted effort to deceive. The work of prof. Seligmann and others, who have looked at both COVID-19 and all-cause mortality, seem to independently confirm the Queen Mary team’s finding.

There is no doubt that these injections can be fatal. A number of studies have found that death was caused by complications directly linked to the injection.

Causes of death included venous infarct thrombosis, intracerebral hemorrhage, anaphylaxis, vaccination-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, and “unrecognized consequences of elective COVID-19 vaccines,” to name a few. The only question is the magnitude of the death rate from the vaccinations.

US researchers found a 19-fold increase in myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation) among 12- to 15-year-olds, which correlated directly with the introduction of the vaccines. The study was peer-reviewed and then published, before being withdrawn without explanation by the journal’s editors.

Myocarditis is very serious for young people and often leads to death or requires a heart transplant later in life, significantly reducing their life expectancy and quality of life.

Just as some in the scientific community are baffled by the near-perfect correlation between the number of cases of the needle stick and COVID-19, the medical community is also baffled at the marked rise in heart failure rates in Scotland. These two followed the introduction of the vaccine for the affected age groups.

WHO official: Masks obligation and social distancing must continue indefinitely


Apparently, doctors have no idea what could be causing it. They do not investigate if it could be the syringes. By my own experience in Germany and in California, doctors are being threatened if they would go public.

Why they don’t can be seen as another mystery, as the statistical evidence points to the syringes being lethal. Statistics from the ONS show that between January and October 2021, deaths among 60-year-olds in England were about twice that of the unvaccinated population.

This is not an insignificant fact, but there are important caveats. Prof. dr. Fenton and his team did not analyze this age group because it is too broad. Depending on the course of the vaccination campaigns, where the elderly are vaccinated first, the vaccinated cohort is likely to have a higher baseline mortality risk than the non-vaccinated cohort.

By itself, this statistic doesn’t say much. It is more telling when combined with a German study that also showed a clear correlation between the jabs and the death rate.

Together, they confirm the other statistical findings we discussed. The German scientist, Prof. dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler, concluded:

“The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the mortality surplus. In view of upcoming policies to reduce the virus, this figure is alarming and should be explained if further policies are taken with the aim of increasing vaccination coverage.”

The only explanation for the fact that the ONS, MHRA, EMA, FDA, and other official bodies around the world are perpetuating the lie that vaccines save lives is that they have chosen or been instructed to spread misinformation that knowingly endangers public health. There is even more evidence from the clinical trials that this is the case.

The FDA, MHRA, EMA, and other alleged regulators have granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech shot based on 2 months of extremely questionable and limited, interim trial data. Research by Canada’s COVID Care Alliance has revealed this completely unreliable process. The original interim study data provided by Pfizer made no mention of the magnitude of side effects caused by their product.

Using relative risk, they claimed their injections were great and almost everyone, including the regulatory authorities, simply took their word for it. Those who didn’t were reviled as “covid deniers” or “anti-vaxxers”.

Six months after the injection was introduced, Pfizer released more data with another interim study. They made more claims about the efficacy and safety of their BNT162b2 shots:

“BNT162b2 remained safe and had an acceptable side effect profile. Few participants had side effects leading to withdrawal from the trial.”

However, this was not true at all. In their declassified report, published by “respected journals” such as the Lancet, they forgot to analyze the additional evidence regarding ADRs, which was also included in their findings.

This showed a consistent increased risk of adverse events (AEs) for the subjects. For example, “related events” are adverse health events that are believed to be caused by the injection. For the vaccinated persons, the risk ratio was 23.9, for the non-vaccinated persons 6. This is almost 300% more chance of health damage if you take the Pfizer shot.

A drug that increases the disease in the population is not an “effective vaccine”. Reducing the number of cases of a certain disease is completely pointless if it increases the number of cases of illness and the number of hospital admissions. It gets worse.

Before they unblinded their own studies, ending the so-called RCTs years before completion, the spiked and non-stick cohorts were the same size. 15 people died in the inoculated cohort and 14 in the non-inoculated cohort. After the unblinding, another 5 inoculated people died, including 2 who had not previously been vaccinated.

The shot increases the risk of death. This is exactly as observed by Seligmann, Fenton, Steyer, Kappler, Pantazatos, and many other scientists and statisticians.

Pfizer was eager to report the 100% reduction in COVID-19 mortality in the main body of their study. Of the 21,926 people in the sampled cohort, only 1 died with a positive RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 “case”. While 2 of the 21,921 placebo groups died. Hence Pfizer’s claim of 100% efficacy improvement.

They neglected to mention that their product doubled the chance of a cardiovascular event and they certainly eschewed the most incorrigible reality of all. There were 4 heart attack deaths among those injected compared to 1 in the placebo group. A 300% increased risk of fatal heart failure after the injection.

If the purpose of the injections is “to save lives”, it is incomprehensible that they ever received EUAs.

Completely free from prosecution and with carte blanche from regulators to do as they please, the drug companies are determined to puncture all our children, including infants.

This is something that our governments and the majority of the population wholeheartedly agree to. If you question that, you’re being selfish.


It’s common to read claims from the regulatory authorities, and everyone else in favor of the vaccines, that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.

This is based on the perceived risk of COVID-19, which is practically impossible to assess due to the massive corruption of the data, and an apparent blind refusal to consider any risk from the vaccines.

At first glance, the safety profiles for the vaccines look horrendous. So far, 1,822 possible vaccine-related deaths have been registered through the MHRA’s yellow-card program in the UK alone.

In response to a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR), the MHRA disclosed that it had received:

“[…] a total of 404 spontaneous UK reports of suspected adverse reactions to a vaccine between 01/01/2001 – 25/08/2021 with a fatal outcome.”

With more than 1,800 suspected deaths already reported for the COVID vaccines, they are currently potentially responsible for three and a half times more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the past two decades. This is a statistical pattern that repeats itself in every country that has rolled it out.

We also know that the vast majority of potential ADRs go unreported. A 2018 survey of pediatric health professionals found that 64% had not reported known ADRs. Of the total respondents, 16% did not even know that the Yellow Card system existed and 26% did not know how to use it, while only 18% had received relevant training.

So it is not at all surprising that the MHRA states:

“It is estimated that only 10% of severe reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.”

There is no evidence that the MHRA has done anything to improve the reporting of yellow cards. Apparently, they promoted the Yellow Card system, it’s just that no one noticed. With nearly 400,000 COVID jab ADR reports already in the system, the true figure is likely to be above 10 million and possible UK deaths from the jabs could certainly exceed 18,000.

This is necessarily speculative to some extent, as the MHRA has not examined any of the registered ADRs. They have no idea how many people have died from the shots and have shown no interest in finding out.

While they claim their job is to research potential side effects, to provide an “early warning system” of potential harm from vaccines, they also say:

“The suspected ADRs described in this report are not to be interpreted as proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.”

This is reasonable if those reports are subsequently investigated. That’s not what the MHRA does. Their position and their statements are completely unreasonable.

To date, they have provided nothing to prove that these reports are not evidence of ADRs. Their given interpretation that these reports provide no evidence is meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven if you don’t bother to examine the evidence.

The MHRA has made no commitment that it will ever investigate the yellow card reports for the jabs. All they will do is point out potential safety concerns, take note of the reports, and perhaps discuss them with other national regulatory authorities. There is no express intention to question the manufacturer’s claims for the syringes.

The UK’s MHRA claims that a special team is looking for “signals” in the data and if a signal is found it will discuss it with a number of selected experts.

Given that the MHRA recognizes underreporting data and current monitoring shows vaccine deaths are many times higher than any vaccine, you would think the MHRA is sending a very disturbing “signal” would have found. They do admit that:

“Yellow cards alone are sufficient to detect a signal.”

However, they choose not to use the yellow cards as an “early warning”. There is no data on the follow-up of yellow cards. Instead, they first apply some relative risk calculations to see if the signal is worth further discussion.

In particular, they use the MaxSPRT (Sequential Probability Ratio Test). This compares reported ADRs to the general population risk, or background risk, of the same adverse event. If the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) indicates that the risk is higher after injection, then a signal has been identified. There is, however, dishonesty in this approach.

MaxSPRT is based on a series of assumptions about the data. In particular, that they are constantly monitored in real-time and that there is an equal exposure between the injected and the non-inoculated to contrast the incidence rates.

When talking about 40 million injected compared to 7 million non-injected adults, the difference between and the size of the injected and non-injected cohorts invalidates this methodology.

Many biostatisticians have pointed out the limitations of using MaxSPRT for the analysis of large-volume databases:

“This particular LRT, which is dependent on the total number of events, is designed for the rare event case where only one event per exposure is expected to be observed […] However, when events are not extremely rare, or when the probability is within a stratum that more than one occurrence is not minor, the assumptions of this LRT are violated.”

In other words, the MHRA review is very sensitive to extremely rare side effects, but will likely hide rather than reveal the more common side effects that cause people to die. The MHRA uses a system that will cover up serious problems with the syringes. The only signals their special team discusses with experts are “extremely rare.”

They will not see any signs of more frequent side effects and may therefore overlook the obvious and ignore the danger.

MHRA – Dedicated team

Presumably, this is why the MHRA has chosen not to use the “yellow cards per se”. The raw data clearly give great cause for concern. They have to be edited and bent to ignore the obvious. This too is a common feature of all drug safety monitoring systems (pharmacovigilance), described by scientists as “completely inadequate”.

Correlation does not prove causation, but where correlation is persistent and pronounced, the likelihood of it not proving causation decreases rapidly. Wherever we look, the syringes seem to cause serious side effects on an alarming scale.


There is no evidence for official or MSM claims about the efficacy or safety of COVID-19 jabs. They are experimental drugs with unknown risk profiles that are forced on people without giving them a chance to give their informed consent. The roll-out of the vaccines violates numerous international conventions, including the Nuremberg Code.

The data that is available is alarming, to say the least, and there is every indication that the vaccines are extremely dangerous. There is no doubt that they can be deadly. Those in favor of a mandatory jab argue that people should be forced to take an injection that can be fatal. Those who are aware of these understandably don’t want to take them.

That is why they are being demonized by the government, the media, and a large part of those who have chosen to be stung. If they try to voice their concerns, they are portrayed as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, Covid deniers or dangerous refusers and accused of being selfish. Despite the fact that it is the needle stick obsession that is destroying public health and medical services.

There is clear evidence of cover-up and denial to hide the dangers of the jabs from the public. This seems to cross the threshold of crime in almost every nation-state where the vaccines are administered. The national populations are clearly under attack by their own governments and their partners.

But perhaps the most insidious aspect of the lampreys is their central role in a new system of government authority that enslaves humanity. Our vaccination status is the required license to participate in a technocratic, behavior control and surveillance network. Not only will our vaccine passport (app) monitor and report where we go, who we meet, and what we are allowed to do, it will also determine what services we have access to.

Those who believe that vaccinations are essential to protect themselves and others against a low-mortality respiratory virus have either not been given the information necessary to make this judgment, or they prefer to ignore it. They believe that they are free because they can now register to use the services that were previously freely accessible to everyone. They have accepted that they need government approval to carry out normal, day-to-day activities.

They are committed to taking the genetically engineered jabs that are provided to them for the rest of their lives. If they want to keep their social permits, this is not negotiable. Their imaginary freedom depends on their continued obedience.

They do not possess their own bodies and are no longer, in any sense, free. They are elected slaves and they seem content to doom future generations, including their own children, to the same fate.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *