Vaccines and lockdown worse than COVID

[Firestarter]

Of course these psychopaths knew in advance that the lockdown would cost more lives than it would save (even when you believe the official tale on the COVID pandemic)...
In the Netherlands somebody through a FOIA (WOB in Dutch) got a hold of the risk-benefit analysis of the Dutch ministry of economics (Economische zaken) from March 2020. Unfortunately only in Dutch.

Estimating that the lockdown would save 100,000 live years, but would cost 620,000 live years. So the lockdown would cost an estimated 520,000 live years.
This is premeditated and planned mass murder...

That's besides the immense economic costs.
The health costs of the lockdown would include mental health problems and health problems as a direct result of stopping "normal" medical procedures.

The health benefits of the lockdown would be a maximum of €8 billion.
The health costs of the lockdown would be €50 billion + €100 billion + increase of the government debt €200 billion, making a grand total of €350 billion.
Or a (minimum) net cost of €350 billion - €8 billion = €342 billion.
(in Dutch): https://archive.is/CO5R3

[Firestarter]

In Germany an “official” 93-pages report was drafted by a scientific panel that is negative about the lockdown in Germany under the guise of the coronavirus “pandemic”. This report became quite controversial.
Stephen Kohn, the whistleblower who leaked the report, has since been suspended from duty.

See some excerpts from the following story on this draft report (the full report is in German).

• The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
• A reproach could go along these lines: During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
(…)

More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.
The reason is a scandal in the making:
A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.
(…)

“Therapeutic and preventive measures should never bring more harm than the illness itself. Their aim should be to protect the risk groups, without endegearing the availibilty of medical care and the health of the whole population, as it is unfortunately occurring”
“We in the scientific and medical praxis are experiencing the secondary damages of the Corona-measures on our patients on a dialy basis.”

.
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who is in charge of the ministry that drafted the report, ridiculed the the report instead of giving actual arguments:

If you start analyzing papers like that, then pretty soon you’ll be inviting the guys with the tin foil hats to parliamentary hearings.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... lse-alarm/
(http://archive.is/gi3m8)

[Firestarter]

The following scientific-looking paper concludes that in 24 European countries, the countries with the harshest lockdowns had the highest death rates.

The "hard lockdown" group of countries experienced 372 additional deaths per million, while the other countries (only) experienced excess mortality of 123 deaths. This suggests that lockdowns have caused 200% more deaths than they prevented.

The grey lines show weekly mortality in the first half of the year for countries with a "soft" lockdown, while black lines show mortality for the "harsh" lockdown countries.
The full lines are the mortality in the first half of 2020, while the dotted lines show average mortality for the first halves of 2017, 2018, and 2019.


The data also suggest that lockdowns have led to significantly higher mortality among the population aged between 60 and 79 years (that's younger than the average age of COVID fatalities).

Of course it could be argued that these countries needed the harshest lockdown because for some reason they experienced a worse "pandemic" than their neighbours (which seems impossible if the "pandemic" is caused by an infectious coronavirus).
More important is that the determination of COVID cases and deaths seems to be more of a political than scientific question, with protocols to determine these differing from nation to nation. So at least in part this could be explained if the countries with the more draconian lockdowns, also had the most flexible way to count a death as caused by COVID.

Christian Bjørnskov - Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison (March 2021): https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/advance ... 03/6199605
(https://archive.is/J9xgw)

[Firestarter]

For some reason the following analysis of the risk-benefit of the experimental COVID vaccines was deleted, but was reposted on UKcolumn.org.
.

Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.1
Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract.
(...)

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
(...)

Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [36–38]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40].

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/banned ... covid-jabs
(https://archive.is/b5zfA)

[Firestarter]

The title of the following May 2021 is surprising in that it's coming from the reputable MIT, "Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19" (42 pages long).

The Moderna vaccine demonstrated an absolute risk reduction of a mere 1.1%, while the Pfizer vaccine absolute risk reduction is only 0.7%.

A 2018 publication concluded that "unprecedented" vaccines, like the emergency approved COVID vaccines, are expected to take 12.5 years to develop and have only a 2% probability of getting approved after a proper medical study (including Phase III).

Many aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine development are unprecedented, including "6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths".

The authors make some suggestions to monitor the effects of the vaccines, including:

•Studies comparing populations who were vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines and those who were not to confirm the expected decreased infection rate and milder symptoms of the vaccinated group, while at the same time comparing the rates of various autoimmune diseases and prion diseases in the same two populations.

.
With the conclusion (courtesy of MIT).

https://silview.media/2021/07/11/bombsh ... sstitutes/

[Firestarter]

The following article shows once and for all how dangerous it is to have these experimental mRNA vaccines approved without a proper medical trial.

The official explanation on how these mRNA vaccines work is that they inject mRNA into the bloodstream that orders the blood cells to create a SARS-CoV-2 protein, which magically "teaches" the immune system to fight COVID-19.
Because these mRNA vaccines are completely new technology that were approved without proper medical trial we know next to nothing of its long-term adverse effects.

Injecting synthetic mRNA for medical purposes has been tried and failed over and over again for a variety of disorders for more than 15 years.
This failed over and over again because mRNA backfired causing the immune system of lab animals attacking the cells that were producing something alien to the body (an autoimmune disorder).

So then they had the great idea to make mRNA vaccines, speculating that injecting only a small amount of mRNA would cause less harm...
So Moderna that was founded in 2010 suddenly became a vaccine manufacturer!

Besides the mRNA technology also the polyethylene glycol (PEG) coating has never been used before in an approved vaccine.
PEG has been used in several drugs that have triggered anaphylaxis — that can cause rashes, plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and rapid heartbeat. Severe allergy-like reactions that have occurred after being poisoned with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine shouldn't be surprising: https://archive.is/RoBcJ

[Firestarter]

On 13 May 2020, a “scientific” looking report was published that shows that 2/3 of the excess deaths in England and Wales was NOT caused by COVID-19. This suggests that 20,000 deaths (of the 30,000 excess deaths) were caused by the draconian lockdown measures.
.

David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, said that Covid-19 did not explain the high number of deaths taking place in the community.
At a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre on May 12 he explained that, over the past five weeks, care homes and other community settings had had to deal with a ‘staggering burden’ of 30,000 more deaths than would normally be expected, as patients were moved out of hospitals that were anticipating high demand for beds.

Of those 30,000, only 10 000 have had Covid-19 specified on the death certificate. While Spiegelhalter acknowledged that some of these ‘excess deaths’ might be the result of underdiagnosis, ‘the huge number of unexplained extra deaths in homes and care homes is extraordinary. When we look back . . . this rise in non-covid extra deaths outside the hospital is something I hope will be given really severe attention.’ He added that many of these deaths would be among people ‘who may well have lived longer if they had managed to get to hospital.’

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931
(http://archive.is/nMV8S)

[Firestarter]

When big pharma uses statistrics to prove the wonderful benefits of the not-properly tested COVID vaccines, this is called "science". But when anti-vaxxers do a similar statistical analysis of the available data, this is called "misinformation", and the information gets censored...
I'm NOT saying that the following scientific-looking article is of excellent quality, but as this is mainly caused by lack of good publicly available information on the health of vaccinated people compared to those who remain unvaccinated, it's the best they could do. They compared the NNTV from one source (a large Israeli field study), to the adverse reactions from another source (the Dutch National Register Lareb.nl).

Here's a fact checking, debunking exercise about a controversial peer-reviewed article that was published on 24 June in Vaccines and retracted on 2 July 2021 that "showed that the COVID-19 vaccine causes two deaths for every three lives it saves": https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... iming-cov/


Best of all I found the full, uncensored paper, see some excerpts...

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
(...)

The risk–benefit ratio looks better if we accept the stronger effect sizes from the phase 3 trials. Using Cunningham’s estimate of NNTV = 12,300, which stems from a non-peer reviewed comment, we arrived at eight deaths prevented per 100,000 vaccinations and, in the best case, 33 deaths prevented by 100,000 vaccinations. Thus, in the optimum case, we risk four deaths to prevent 33 deaths, a risk–benefit ratio of 1:8. The risk–benefit ratio in terms of deaths prevented and deaths incurred thus ranges from 2:3 to 1:8, although real-life data also support ratios as high as 2:1, i.e., twice as high a risk of death from the vaccination compared to COVID-19, within the 95% confidence limit.

.
Walach et al. - The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations — We Should Rethink the Policy (2021): https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/up ... Policy.pdf
(https://web.archive.org/web/20210707021 ... Policy.pdf)

[Firestarter]

The following article argues that because there were 70,000 excessive deaths in Poland in 2020, while only 20,000 of those were caused by the coronavirus infection,
50,000 people in Poland died NOT from COVID-19, but from the lockdown (most importantly the closing of health care facilities): https://rmx.news/article/commentary/the ... cally-high

[Firestarter]

According to the "reputable" Economist, there have been 7-13 million excess deaths worldwide during the pandemic. Officially a total number of 3.8 million COVID deaths have happened worldwide.

This suggest that the response to the COVID "pandemic" has caused (IS) a genocide of 3-9 million deaths: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021 ... e-pandemic