“Covid-19-Impfstoff”: Was Ihnen keiner dazu sagt | www.konjunktion.info

“covid-19-impfstoff”:-was-ihnen-keiner-dazu-sagt-|-wwwkonjunktion.info

18-11-20 12:19:00,

18. November 2020

· 190 Aufrufe

Zwangsimpfung - Bildquelle Pixabay / WikiImages; Pixabay License

Zwangsimpfung – Bildquelle Pixabay / WikiImages; Pixabay License

Lassen Sie schon mal die Sektkorken knallen! Der Impfstoff gegen Covid-19 ist fast fertig!

Für den Fall, dass Sie diese Woche diese große Neuigkeit nicht gesehen haben: Pfizer hat bekannt gegeben, dass die vorläufigen Ergebnisse der “Phase 3, Spätstadium der Studie (Phase 3, late-stage study)” ihres Covid-19-Impfstoffs zeigen, dass dieser “mehr als 90% wirksam bei der Prävention von Covid-19 bei den Probanden ist, die in der ersten Zwischenwirksamkeitsanalyse keine Hinweise auf eine vorherige SARS-CoV-2-Infektion hatten (more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis)”.

Endlich! Wie der Chefentwickler Trump anmerkt, ist dies ein GROSSER SIEG, der nur dank seiner COURAGIERTEN FÜHRUNG möglich war, da er dazu beitragen wird, die wunderbaren Impfstoffe direkt in die Blutbahn aller Menschen zu bringen (natürlich mit Hilfe des Militärs):

Tweet Trump - Vaccine - Bildquelle: Screenshot-Ausschnitt Twitter

Tweet Trump – Vaccine – Bildquelle: Screenshot-Ausschnitt Twitter

(Der Aktienmarkt boomt, der Impfstoff kommt bald. Bericht besagt 90% Wirksamkeit. Welch großartige Neuigkeiten!)

Oh ja, Mister Präsident! WELCH GROSSARTIGE NEUIGKEITEN!

Abgesehen von ein paar klitzekleinen Problemen. Zum Beispiel die Tatsache, dass diese Ankündigung genau das ist: eine Ankündigung. Es gibt bislang keine überprüfbaren Daten, nichts, was der Öffentlichkeit zur Begutachtung vorgelegt wird (geschweige denn ein sogenanntes Peer-Review). Derzeit ist es eine reine Pressemitteilung, buchstäbliche Firmen-PR und nichts weiter.

Und die Tatsache, dass selbst die Aussage von Pfizer “Vertraut uns, es funktioniert”, konterkariert wird, wenn man sich die 310 Wörter dieser Propaganda-Lektion auf deren Website genauer anschaut. Denn dort lesen wir:

Während die Studie weitergeht, kann der endgültige Prozentsatz der Impfstoff-Wirksamkeit variieren.

(As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary.)

Pfizer Impfstoff - Bildquelle: Screenshot-Ausschnitt www.pfizer.com

Pfizer Impfstoff – Bildquelle: Screenshot-Ausschnitt http://www.pfizer.com

Mit anderen Worten: “Wir veröffentlichen in unverantwortlicher Weise vorläufige Ergebnisse, die uns nichts sagen, weil sie unser zukünftiges Produkt gut aussehen lassen und für viele begeisterte Schlagzeilen in der Hochleistungspresse sorgen werden, die wir mit unseren Werbegeldern finanzieren.”

Und dann gibt es da noch die Tatsache,

 » Lees verder

The COVID-19 Vaccine. The Imposition of Compulsory Vaccination with a Biometric Health Passport? – Global Research

the-covid-19-vaccine.-the-imposition-of-compulsory-vaccination-with-a-biometric-health-passport?-–-global-research

17-11-20 06:49:00,

The COVID-19 vaccine…

Is this THE final goal of this crisis, to impose a compulsory vaccination on everyone, with a biometric health passport and without it, the impossibility to move, to buy, to eat?

The near future will tell.

With time, the accumulation of side effects, the testimonies of more and more doctors, vaccination has become a subject of controversy, often passionate, sometimes violent.

This is not just a question of being for or against vaccination in general.

It is about being vigilant in the face of enormous pressure from companies and governments to inject billions of healthy people with a hastily manufactured product, using immature technologies such as DNA manipulation, with as yet unknown side effects.

The cure should not be worse than the disease.

Given the fear, the terror in people’s minds, given the enthusiasm of certain leaders and given the power of the vaccine companies and manufacturers, will we, as ordinary citizens, be able to resist, keep our cool and prevent these people from playing with our health?

Do you know what the marketing of vaccines brings to the pharmaceutical companies?

References on the Statista website, figures for the year 2019 [1] :

  1. GSK (GlaxoSmithKline): more than 8 billion euros.
  2. Merck: €7.3 billion
  3. Pfizer: €5.9 billion
  4.  Sanofi: €5.8 billion

Billions, in a single year!

Do you think that the conservation of such gains would not motivate the transgression of limits by sweeping away everything in its path, all scientific ethics, all moral values?

As Emma Kahn [2] stated to the AIMSIB (International Association for Scientific, Independent and Benevolent Medicine) website, May 3, 2020:

“Strangely enough, the three vaccines in clinical trials in the West (excluding China) against COVID-19 are being developed by start-ups and not by Big Pharma (the nickname of the pharmaceutical industry). Why haven’t the big companies (Merck, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer) launched any clinical studies? A first reason is worrying: … industry experts already know that coronavirus vaccines are too risky, they induce facilitation and immunopathological phenomena.

 » Lees verder

Why COVID-19 Testing Is A Tragic Waste

why-covid-19-testing-is-a-tragic-waste

17-11-20 10:38:00,

Authored by Joseph Mercola via LewRockwell.com,

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.

This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren’t designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to “manufacture a ‘second wave’ based on ‘new cases,’” when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.

http://www.zerohedge.com/

Understanding PCR Tests

Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it’s incapable of diagnosing disease.

A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13 2020:

  • Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

  • The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.

  • This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

So, what does the PCR test actually tell us? The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle.

Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified,

 » Lees verder

Covid, actuele ontwikkeling in Nederland en in Zweden – Ad Broere’s Blog

covid,-actuele-ontwikkeling-in-nederland-en-in-zweden-–-ad-broere’s-blog

16-11-20 03:35:00,

Hieronder worden Nederland en Zweden vergeleken voor de recente periode van 27 oktober tot 10 november 2020 voor wat betreft het aantal positieve PCR tests en het aantal Covid gerelateerde sterfgevallen. De gegevens zijn ontleend aan het RIVM en de Zweedse gezondheidsautoriteit FOHM.

Het relatieve aantal positieve PCR tests ten opzichte van de totale bevolking van de beide landen verschilt niet veel. Wel zijn er in Nederland relatief meer ouderen boven de 70 die positief werden getest. Opvallend is het grote aantal jongeren beneden 60 jaar die in zowel Zweden als Nederland een positieve PCR test hadden.

Er zijn in deze periode geen covid gerelateerde sterfgevallen beneden 40 jaar in Zweden, twee in Nederland. Tussen 40 en 60 stierven 6 mensen in Zweden en 18 in Nederland. Het meest opvallend in deze tabel is echter dat er vijf keer zoveel covid gerelateerde sterfgevallen zijn in Nederland dan in Zweden.

Hoewel het percentage mensen die zijn overleden ten opzichte van de positieve PCR tests in die periode in beide landen laag is (minder dan 1 procent), is het aantal sterfgevallen verhoudingsgewijs dubbel zo groot in Nederland dan in Zweden. De relatieve sterfte is in Nederland eveneens groter dan in Zweden.

De oversterfte grafieken die door het Deense Euromomo wekelijks worden gepresenteerd geven aan dat het aantal covidgerelateerde sterfgevallen in Zweden niet heeft geleid tot een hogere sterfte dan volgens het normale patroon werd verwacht in de weken 44 en 45 (waarin de gerapporteerde gegevens vallen). In Nederland daarentegen is er wel sprake van een hogere sterfte dan die welke volgens het normale patroon werd verwacht. Deze oversterfte is zelfs hoger dan uitsluitend te verklaren uit covid gerelateerde sterfgevallen.

Stichting Euromomo, afwijking van het verwachte normale sterftepatroon in NL en SE

Het bovenstaande wijst erop dat het Zweedse beleid momenteel effectiever is dan het Nederlandse. Het gedeeltelijke lockdown beleid heeft Nederland geen gunstiger verloop van de tweede golf opgeleverd dan in Zweden. Vanzelfsprekend nemen ook de Zweden de adviezen van de gezondheidsautoriteit in acht. Er worden echter niet van bovenaf maatregelen opgelegd. Geen mondkappen, restaurants, cafes, scholen, musea, bibliotheken zijn geopend. Het belangrijkst is echter dat het succes van het Zweedse beleid de bevolking zelfvertrouwen heeft gegeven.

Als het grote aantal positieve PCR tests bij jongeren in beide landen wordt vergeleken met het niet tot zeer lage aantal sterfgevallen bij mensen onder de 60 wordt vergeleken,

 » Lees verder

COVID-19: Politicisation, “Corruption,” and Suppression of Science – Global Research

covid-19:-politicisation,-“corruption,”-and-suppression-of-science-–-global-research

16-11-20 10:26:00,

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.[1] Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.[2] The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.[3,4]

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report.[5,6] Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”[7]

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.[8] The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests.[9] It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.[10,11]

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.[12,13] Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.[14] Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny?

 » Lees verder