Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References:
1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020.
2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089
3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020.
5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020.
7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
I agree with you that the c-shots should not have been authorized. I am not in the senior nor the vulnerable category but even if I were I wouldn’t have gotten the shots (let’s not pretend that these are vaccines).
I think that many who died in the hospitals died because of the protocols that they used, the ventilators and some of the drugs. There were physicians and nurses who said, let’s not use ventilators but they were quickly censored.
But the biggest crime of all was denying effective treatment with antivirals. That is premeditated murder in my opinion. The people who made the decision to not use antivirals and other effective treatments that Dr. McCullough and Dr. Kory promoted (and they testified in Senate hearings in 2020 (!) ) must be held accountable !!
I would also confiscate all the money that they made during the “pandemic”.
Geert, I think this Covid thing is the biggest con ever...
People get sick with respiratory ailments and most get better without much in the way of intervention - does it help to give these ailments a name via dodgy and lucrative 'testing'?
What's the real, clear and unambiguous thing that is happening?
People are being stuck with needles and injected with who knows what poison...repeatedly...
The pHarmaceutical industry is making billions out of this racket, with the adoring support and protection of its acolytes in the scientific and medical establishment, academia, governments, NGOs, and the corporate/mainstream media.
It's been going on for years, the gross exploitation of the global population with these injections, which are now being inflicted from womb to tomb, with who knows what current and cumulative long-term harms.
I reckon it's time for a massive overturning of the tables, because we've been fed a load of bullshit for years, and not just about 'Covid'...
“ But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.
Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.” “
“ Stopping transmission
What about Hotez’s second criterion, interrupting virus transmission, which some experts have argued17 should be the most important test in phase III studies?
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
He repeatedly emphasised these “operational realities” of running a vaccine trial. “Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,” he said. “If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works.”
Zaks added, “A 30 000 [participant] trial is already a fairly large trial. If you’re asking for a 300 000 trial then you need to talk to the people who are paying for it, because now you’re talking about not a $500m to $1bn trial, you’re talking about something 10 times the size. And I think the public purse and operational capabilities and capacities we have are rightly spent not betting the farm on one vaccine but, as Operation Warp Speed [the US government’s covid-19 vaccine plan] is trying to do, making sure that we’re funding several vaccines in parallel.” “
Authorities repeat that vaccines protect against severe infections.
There are, I think, no well constructed studies providing evidence. It's just a claim.
Still, perhaps Geert is speaking in his professional role to say the claim makes sense ... or perhaps he is trying to avoid side arguments and focusing on the current topic.
Yes, there is no evidence, it is just an unfounded claim. After all, as vaccines contain, and have always contained, poisons/foreign bodies, since when has it been a good idea to poison oneself unless one wishes to commit suicide?
Spot on !! This is actually a rhetorical question now that we have a mountain of evidence that has emerged and continues to emerge on the safety and efficacy of the experimental injections. In particular, when you suppress innate immunity using experimental interventions and block access to proven treatments that would have actually worked had they not stopped the physicians from discharging their duties as medical practitioners to do what they trained for and spent years getting clinical experience - TREAT PATIENTS. Having said that, I am going to try and focus on the conclusion that calls out the real issues as it is still a ray of hope albeit we clearly need more than that.
"...had they not stopped the physicians from discharging their duties as medical practitioners to do what they trained for and spent years getting clinical experience - TREAT PATIENTS"
Stunning isn't it?!?!?
And that so many doctors/practitioners went along with it... What a cowed 'profession'...
So lacking in critical thinking.
Really, the medical 'profession' is toast when people wake up to how they've been betrayed and exploited with the cooperation of this group.
You, sir, have had the courage of a lion in the way that you’ve tried to put the welfare of humanity above all else. And, no doubt, at great cost to yourself, professionally. History will see you as one of the heroes 👏
I also am unhappy with the statement that these products “initially saved lives”. How do we know? As they are not actual vaccines, but do introduce spike protein sequences into the body it seems that they trigger an inflammatory response. Antibodies may be generated as a defence, but this is not saving lives from Covid, merely a defence against the chemical insult from the “vaccine”, and its pathogenic contents.
I don't think you are missing anything. Vaccines cannot save lives as they are, if anything, poisons and poisons have never been good for health. All vaccines are bad, all that are or were. Calling them vaccines is fine, we just have to educate people that vaccines contain poison and unless one has a death wish they should be avoided like the plague.
Thank you. I have been aware of his stack but good to see this. I consider Fenbendazole unnecessary though as there are things which aren't pharma made, like good, untainted, food the good Lord made!
And clean water of course, we are 75% water. I must do a post on it some time, I have some interesting information.
Right then, I shall put a note on the start of a post to contact you via comments. Which I have now done. It will give me an incentive to prioritize, so will try to get out this September.
Had repurposed drugs not been suppressed there would have been no pandemic and no need for the unsafe and ineffective, or rather dangerous, injections. Definitely a crime against humanity.
Had there not be male energy left brain tunnel consciousness evolving to conquer, control, ego playing the game of gain of function testing , while we go on our materialistic merry ego way of daily life unconscious.
LOOKS like on this stage , the spiritual science is playing out of this collapse/chaos, ego breaking, perhaps passing us through the eye of the needle , where we will create our own healthier higher evolving way. Notice a flower can grow in the crack of man made concrete. REMEMBER there is calm at the bottom of the ocean, when the wave is passing over.
And we bought tickets to this play, playing out. Asking for a refund( useless), waiting until the end(boring), getting up leaving the show to go play in nature, help another human, animal, pick up trash in our community, plant a seed to feed.
True, and had repurposed drugs not been suppressed so many of us would not have realised how we have been conned for a very, very long time. it is very sad it had to come to this but it was necessary.
However many deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infection the mRNA inoculations might have prevented (if any), they have been overwhelmed by the deaths, as well as the pain and the suffering, these same inoculations have caused and continue to cause.
Trading life for life is neither good healthcare, good science, nor good policy. It is peddling flesh, nothing more.
The four main pillars of medical ethics include non-malfeasance , beneficence , justice , and autonomy which includes informed consent . ( thanks to Alex Vasquez three doctorates) Seems the vaccine makers , propagators have missed the boat .
> Although the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease, they do not prevent viral infection and transmission, allowing the virus to escape from the vaccine-induced antibodies and cause vaccine breakthrough infections (VBTIs).
I have a question on this one. The Pfizer study itself used the Relative Risk Reduction when evaluating the COVID-19 vaccines, which a doctor commented is useless for a vaccine, when Absolute Risk Reduction should have been used. The ARR for the Pfizer vaccine showed hospital reductions of at most, 1%. Now add in 100+ studies about the bad side effects of the vaccine, the vaccine isn't worth it. I have studies on request. Start here: 300+ studies, gov't data, lab reports, and doctor statements showing the COVID-19 vaccine is still too risky at this point. https://wordsalad.info/tag-vaccinebadstudy.html
How do you support your comment "the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease"? I try to look at both sides of the issue but I've never seen fact-based science to support the quoted phrase. What we did see were claims by gov't officials whose college degrees were in gov't management, not any medical science, and not a single one provided any study to support their claim.
It is vert important Geert that you continue to point out the blunders and mistakes (or whatever) that WHO etc. made concerning the rollout of these Shots. Good for you for doing so once again!
However, your article could have been an advert for these so called ''vaccines'. Why? Because you point out the lives that they saved in the beginning, without providing the smallest bit of evidence to support that claim!
For a start and you know better than anyone....that these were not vaccines to begin with, but experimental gene therapy mRNA concoctions (aside from the Spike Protein) that apparently include DNA fragments and other very undesirable dangerous matter, wrapped-up in their lipid nano particle packaging.
Why did you not highlight this most important point? Instead you kept referring to them as 'Vaccines' as if of themselves they were not so dangerous and actually saved lives as you put it. There is truth, half truth and not the whole truth and sadly, what you wrote here was unfortunately, not the whole truth!
Seeing as how you are a highly accomplished veterinarian Geert and have worked with producing vaccines in the past, you know that there are no completely safe vaccines to start with! So, why are you sticking to announcing that these ''vaccines'' have been beneficial and saved lives and you say this without pointing out the truth about them- i.e. the reverse of that statement, that they have done more harm than good vis-a-vis their Risk / Benefit already and God only knows the damage they may do in the future. !
I would also be very interested in knowing what you think of the plans now in-full-swing to roll-out these same type of mRNA inoculations for animal livestock and therefore into the food chain and more than likely into us?
Non-malficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all students in healthcare are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
I'm not sad I'm glad now we the few know exactly what the demon possessed things are capable of doing. Know your enemy! Put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-18) and STAND--he will do the fighting for you and me! Just STAND!
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Using the sword is a must. Sword is an anagram of 'words'. Jesus is the Word.
Geert, you say: "While the mass vaccination program initially did save lives..."
Upon what evidence do you base this statement?
There should not have been a vaccination program, full stop.
I stand by my BMJ rapid response, published on 25 March 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References:
1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020.
2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089
3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020.
5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020.
7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
I agree with you that the c-shots should not have been authorized. I am not in the senior nor the vulnerable category but even if I were I wouldn’t have gotten the shots (let’s not pretend that these are vaccines).
I think that many who died in the hospitals died because of the protocols that they used, the ventilators and some of the drugs. There were physicians and nurses who said, let’s not use ventilators but they were quickly censored.
But the biggest crime of all was denying effective treatment with antivirals. That is premeditated murder in my opinion. The people who made the decision to not use antivirals and other effective treatments that Dr. McCullough and Dr. Kory promoted (and they testified in Senate hearings in 2020 (!) ) must be held accountable !!
I would also confiscate all the money that they made during the “pandemic”.
Gabriella, here’s an email I sent to Geert today…
Geert, I think this Covid thing is the biggest con ever...
People get sick with respiratory ailments and most get better without much in the way of intervention - does it help to give these ailments a name via dodgy and lucrative 'testing'?
What's the real, clear and unambiguous thing that is happening?
People are being stuck with needles and injected with who knows what poison...repeatedly...
The pHarmaceutical industry is making billions out of this racket, with the adoring support and protection of its acolytes in the scientific and medical establishment, academia, governments, NGOs, and the corporate/mainstream media.
It's been going on for years, the gross exploitation of the global population with these injections, which are now being inflicted from womb to tomb, with who knows what current and cumulative long-term harms.
I reckon it's time for a massive overturning of the tables, because we've been fed a load of bullshit for years, and not just about 'Covid'...
Elizabeth
It is not just unethical, it is evil. And they cannot claim they didn't know, we all can read.
Another interesting BMJ article from 2020
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
“ But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.
Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.” “
“ Stopping transmission
What about Hotez’s second criterion, interrupting virus transmission, which some experts have argued17 should be the most important test in phase III studies?
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
He repeatedly emphasised these “operational realities” of running a vaccine trial. “Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,” he said. “If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works.”
Zaks added, “A 30 000 [participant] trial is already a fairly large trial. If you’re asking for a 300 000 trial then you need to talk to the people who are paying for it, because now you’re talking about not a $500m to $1bn trial, you’re talking about something 10 times the size. And I think the public purse and operational capabilities and capacities we have are rightly spent not betting the farm on one vaccine but, as Operation Warp Speed [the US government’s covid-19 vaccine plan] is trying to do, making sure that we’re funding several vaccines in parallel.” “
Yes, I had the same question.
Authorities repeat that vaccines protect against severe infections.
There are, I think, no well constructed studies providing evidence. It's just a claim.
Still, perhaps Geert is speaking in his professional role to say the claim makes sense ... or perhaps he is trying to avoid side arguments and focusing on the current topic.
Yes, there is no evidence, it is just an unfounded claim. After all, as vaccines contain, and have always contained, poisons/foreign bodies, since when has it been a good idea to poison oneself unless one wishes to commit suicide?
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/why-vaccines-do-not-work-in-a-nutshell
>> Upon what evidence do you base this statement
Spot on !! This is actually a rhetorical question now that we have a mountain of evidence that has emerged and continues to emerge on the safety and efficacy of the experimental injections. In particular, when you suppress innate immunity using experimental interventions and block access to proven treatments that would have actually worked had they not stopped the physicians from discharging their duties as medical practitioners to do what they trained for and spent years getting clinical experience - TREAT PATIENTS. Having said that, I am going to try and focus on the conclusion that calls out the real issues as it is still a ray of hope albeit we clearly need more than that.
"...had they not stopped the physicians from discharging their duties as medical practitioners to do what they trained for and spent years getting clinical experience - TREAT PATIENTS"
Stunning isn't it?!?!?
And that so many doctors/practitioners went along with it... What a cowed 'profession'...
So lacking in critical thinking.
Really, the medical 'profession' is toast when people wake up to how they've been betrayed and exploited with the cooperation of this group.
How many sold their souls in this entire hierarchy of propaganda, seriously how many people sold their soul and then turned their heads? COWARDS
I call them liars and deceivers. They sought profit from people's pain. And they swallowed the lies.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/05/29/i-knew-an-old-doctor-who-swallowed-a-lie/
Hi Elizabeth , obviously you spotted the fox in the henhouse right from the start . I appreciate your advocacy on all of our behalf .
And I have the utmost respect for Dr. Geert. But I wonder the same as you ask in your opening sentence.
Exactly. Non COVID excess mortality begs to differ.
You, sir, have had the courage of a lion in the way that you’ve tried to put the welfare of humanity above all else. And, no doubt, at great cost to yourself, professionally. History will see you as one of the heroes 👏
Thank you Geert - if there were no professionals like yourself who prioritise truth above their own welfare then we would all be lost. I applaud you.
I also am unhappy with the statement that these products “initially saved lives”. How do we know? As they are not actual vaccines, but do introduce spike protein sequences into the body it seems that they trigger an inflammatory response. Antibodies may be generated as a defence, but this is not saving lives from Covid, merely a defence against the chemical insult from the “vaccine”, and its pathogenic contents.
Am I missing something?
I don't think you are missing anything. Vaccines cannot save lives as they are, if anything, poisons and poisons have never been good for health. All vaccines are bad, all that are or were. Calling them vaccines is fine, we just have to educate people that vaccines contain poison and unless one has a death wish they should be avoided like the plague.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/why-vaccines-do-not-work-in-a-nutshell
If one would rather call them chemical weapons that's fine as long as one calls all vaccines chemical weapons.
By the way I like the term "chemical insult".
You might like this Baldmichael. https://fenbendazole.substack.com/p/swedish-medical-report-traditional?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1089973&post_id=136203809&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Thank you. I have been aware of his stack but good to see this. I consider Fenbendazole unnecessary though as there are things which aren't pharma made, like good, untainted, food the good Lord made!
And clean water of course, we are 75% water. I must do a post on it some time, I have some interesting information.
Baldmichael, would love to hear your info!
Right then, I shall put a note on the start of a post to contact you via comments. Which I have now done. It will give me an incentive to prioritize, so will try to get out this September.
Had repurposed drugs not been suppressed there would have been no pandemic and no need for the unsafe and ineffective, or rather dangerous, injections. Definitely a crime against humanity.
Graham Wells , exactly right !!!
Had there not be male energy left brain tunnel consciousness evolving to conquer, control, ego playing the game of gain of function testing , while we go on our materialistic merry ego way of daily life unconscious.
LOOKS like on this stage , the spiritual science is playing out of this collapse/chaos, ego breaking, perhaps passing us through the eye of the needle , where we will create our own healthier higher evolving way. Notice a flower can grow in the crack of man made concrete. REMEMBER there is calm at the bottom of the ocean, when the wave is passing over.
And we bought tickets to this play, playing out. Asking for a refund( useless), waiting until the end(boring), getting up leaving the show to go play in nature, help another human, animal, pick up trash in our community, plant a seed to feed.
True, and had repurposed drugs not been suppressed so many of us would not have realised how we have been conned for a very, very long time. it is very sad it had to come to this but it was necessary.
Case close
So true! Thank YOU.
I totally agree.
However many deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infection the mRNA inoculations might have prevented (if any), they have been overwhelmed by the deaths, as well as the pain and the suffering, these same inoculations have caused and continue to cause.
Trading life for life is neither good healthcare, good science, nor good policy. It is peddling flesh, nothing more.
The four main pillars of medical ethics include non-malfeasance , beneficence , justice , and autonomy which includes informed consent . ( thanks to Alex Vasquez three doctorates) Seems the vaccine makers , propagators have missed the boat .
They didn't miss the boat, they sunk the boat.
And most citizens
The WHO needs to be held accountable for this atrocity. Governments from around the world, The WHO, UN and WEF have their agenda!
Humanity needs people like Dr Geert Vanden Bossche. 🙌🏻
They will be held accountable, I promise---Revelation 20:11-15 (KJV)
If only the Love of Money and Power were not so desired by those who have been granted the power to make such decisions you speak of Dr. Bossche
> Although the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease, they do not prevent viral infection and transmission, allowing the virus to escape from the vaccine-induced antibodies and cause vaccine breakthrough infections (VBTIs).
I have a question on this one. The Pfizer study itself used the Relative Risk Reduction when evaluating the COVID-19 vaccines, which a doctor commented is useless for a vaccine, when Absolute Risk Reduction should have been used. The ARR for the Pfizer vaccine showed hospital reductions of at most, 1%. Now add in 100+ studies about the bad side effects of the vaccine, the vaccine isn't worth it. I have studies on request. Start here: 300+ studies, gov't data, lab reports, and doctor statements showing the COVID-19 vaccine is still too risky at this point. https://wordsalad.info/tag-vaccinebadstudy.html
How do you support your comment "the C-19 vaccines largely protect from severe C- 19 disease"? I try to look at both sides of the issue but I've never seen fact-based science to support the quoted phrase. What we did see were claims by gov't officials whose college degrees were in gov't management, not any medical science, and not a single one provided any study to support their claim.
that was early on ... by now, everyone knows it ... here is smt fun ...
https://twitter.com/danacarvey/status/1674131570767155251?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1674131570767155251%7Ctwgr%5Ec1407141eab8a87cc5537cba8861f72d537d8b6e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Ffeature%2Fi-miss-covid-says-american-comedian-dana-carvey-mocks-anthony-fauci-4163739
Which part was early on?
WHO recommendations described as reckless, an insult & lacking scientific integrity sounds like crimes against humanity to me...
It is vert important Geert that you continue to point out the blunders and mistakes (or whatever) that WHO etc. made concerning the rollout of these Shots. Good for you for doing so once again!
However, your article could have been an advert for these so called ''vaccines'. Why? Because you point out the lives that they saved in the beginning, without providing the smallest bit of evidence to support that claim!
For a start and you know better than anyone....that these were not vaccines to begin with, but experimental gene therapy mRNA concoctions (aside from the Spike Protein) that apparently include DNA fragments and other very undesirable dangerous matter, wrapped-up in their lipid nano particle packaging.
Why did you not highlight this most important point? Instead you kept referring to them as 'Vaccines' as if of themselves they were not so dangerous and actually saved lives as you put it. There is truth, half truth and not the whole truth and sadly, what you wrote here was unfortunately, not the whole truth!
Seeing as how you are a highly accomplished veterinarian Geert and have worked with producing vaccines in the past, you know that there are no completely safe vaccines to start with! So, why are you sticking to announcing that these ''vaccines'' have been beneficial and saved lives and you say this without pointing out the truth about them- i.e. the reverse of that statement, that they have done more harm than good vis-a-vis their Risk / Benefit already and God only knows the damage they may do in the future. !
I would also be very interested in knowing what you think of the plans now in-full-swing to roll-out these same type of mRNA inoculations for animal livestock and therefore into the food chain and more than likely into us?
Non-malficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all students in healthcare are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.
Sadly no longer. Utilitarianism rules current medicine ~ see Ezekiel Emanuel MD ~ along with corporate Pharma profiteering.
Ezekiel Emanuel is a piece of shit of a human
I was saying he is dog poo, I stopped. I realized that I was disrespecting my dog. You are right he is a demon possessed piece of sh-t.
So sad it has come so far.
I'm not sad I'm glad now we the few know exactly what the demon possessed things are capable of doing. Know your enemy! Put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-18) and STAND--he will do the fighting for you and me! Just STAND!
GOD told me this just minutes ago
Yes, because we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in each of us! The Holy Spirit which is from GOD!
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Using the sword is a must. Sword is an anagram of 'words'. Jesus is the Word.
Very good!
Thanks. If I may, you might find this useful.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/from-i-to-j-to-y
Indeed Dr Bossche Primum non nocere
😞
What has happened to truth and common sense?
Truth (John 14:6). Common sense (---imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth---(Genesis 8:21)