3 responses

1. Stvar je izrazito enostranska. Sprašujem se zakaj?

   V Evropi je več kot 4.000 mrtvih kot posledica cepljenja, V ZDA več kot 2000. V tem obsegu je na desetisoče resnih reakcij vključujoč tisoče primerov trajne invalidnosti. Večina jih gre na račun Pfizer BioNtech in Moderne. Glej link v mojem komentarju na:

   Res je, da so ti primeri na milijone cepljenih, vendar če bi šlo za normalna zdravila bi jih že zdavnaj umaknili iz uporabe. Pri tem pa še sploh ne vemo, kakšni so dolgoročni efekti. Glej:

   «In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that

   “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

   For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light» this is the danger that lurks in the time factor capable of escaping any active pharmacovigilance because it would be unthinkable and difficult for the national health systems to monitor tens of millions of vaccinated against Covid-19 year by year. ”

   Druga zanimivost je, da se podobno cepivo, vendar neprimerno kvalitetnejše in varnejše (Sputnik V) sistematično blokira s strani Evropske unije. Zakaj, če je menda varnost in zdravje prebivalcev prva vrednota? Glej:

   “Germany’s vaccination program director, Thomas Meretens, praised Sputnik V, despite the fact that EU commission president, Germany’s former defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, casts dispersions about Sputnik V.

   On March 14, Mertens told Rheinische Post,

   “Russian scientists are very experienced in vaccines. Sputnik V is a very clever construct. As with AstraZeneca, we are talking about a viral vector vaccine, which is based on an adenovirus. But unlike AstraZeneca it uses two different viral vectors for the first and second doses. That’s very clever, because that way you can prevent a possible loss of efficacy that might arise through the immune response against the vector.”

   ali pa Anthony Faucci:

   “The data I know about Sputnik is pretty good. I don’t have enough information about Chinese because they have two or three different vaccines. So I haven’t closely followed their effectiveness, but the Russian data looks pretty good.”

   Zakaj ameriški pritiski na vsako državo, ki se odloči za Sputnik V? Iz skrbi za zdravje njihovih prebivalcev ali je zadaj kakšen drug interes?. Kakšen je interes, da se sistematično skriva težke posledice uporabe mRNA cepiv? Zdravje ljudi?

   Pri tem pa se sistematično spregleduje alternativa cepivom in sicer profilaksa (zaščita) in terapija oz.zdravljenje. Glej primer uporabe ivermectina v Peruju.

   Sharp Reductions in COVID-19 Case Fatalities and Excess Deaths in Peru in Close Time Conjunction, State-By-State, with Ivermectin Treatments

   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3765018

   Iz istega članka:

   “For nine states having mass distributions of IVM in a short timeframe through a national program, Mega-Operación Tayta (MOT), excess deaths at +30 days dropped by a population-weighted mean of 74%, each drop beginning within 11 day after MOT start. ”

   Zakaj uporaljamo nepreizkušeno gensko terapijo (kar mRNA cepiva nedvomno so), ki bi v normalnih pogojih zahtevala od 10 do 20 let preizkušanja, preden bi približno vedeli ali je varna ali ne? Glej:

   “RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles (box).

   “The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year. “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”

   Crommelin and colleagues note that specific regulatory guidance for mRNA based vaccines has yet to be developed, and The BMJ’s attempts to clarify current standards were unsuccessful.”

   Uporabljamo visoko rizično gensko terapijo namesto preizkušene varne in poceni terapije, genska terapija? Ne verjamete? Glej:

   “However, in the Gates Foundation-bankrolled Moderna’s 2018 SEC filing, they offer a clearer, more legally precise explanation of their work, correctly referring to them therein as “gene therapies” and “transformative medicine”:

   “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA… We are creating a new category of transformative medicines based on messenger RNA, or mRNA, to improve the lives of patients. From the beginning, we designed our strategy and operations to realize the full potential value and impact of mRNA over a long time horizon across a broad array of human diseases.”

   -Moderna SEC Filing

   Ne bi bilo bolj modro in varno uporabljati preizkušeno varno in poceni terapijo in profilakso temelječo na ivermectin-u in hidroklorokin-u ter splošno profilakso v obliki D3 in C vitamina ter cink-a?

   Glej

   https://covid19criticalcare.com

   https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/

   Vse to stane cente na dan na osebo, brez stranskih efektov in brez potencialnih dolgoročnih rizikov? Res pa je da so % dobička na stvari , ki se jih ne da patentirati (D3 in vitamin C) ali zdravila, ki jim je patentna zaščita že davno potekla (hidroklorokin, ivermectin) bistveno manjša od teh pri cepivih.

   Ne morem se znebiti občutka, da je vse ta zadeva v zvezi z Covid-19 speljana v smeri masovnega (na koncu obveznega) cepljenja populacije. Zakaj? Zaradi profita, zaradi česa drugega? Pri tem mi odzvanjajo besede nekdanjega ministra za zunanje USA:

   “A 1975 quote from Henry Kissinger, author of the eugenics document NSSM-200 during the Nixon-Ford era is instructive:

   “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

   And from Bill Gates:

   “The world today has 6.8 billion people…that’s headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.”

   Or the grand old dog of eugenics, Prince Philip:

   “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”

   ~ Prince Philip, in his Foreword to “If I Were an Animal” – United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.”

   Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je

   • Tudi jaz bistevno bolj zaupam Sputniku V in desetletjem izkušenj ruskih znanstvenikov s cepivi (in bojnimi strupi).
     Na žalost moram v Srbijo, če se želim cepiti z njim.

     Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je

2. Tukaj še link, ki je bil izpiščen v gornjem komentarju in se nanaša na smrti in hude posledice cepljenja:

   https://www.gospanews.net/en/2021/03/06/decimation-among-covid-vaccinated-serious-adverse-reactions-boom-2-787-fatal-case-in-eu-1-095-in-us/

   Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je