reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @no_bad_vibes1
@no_bad_vibes1 - Ma-Ro
Shocking confirmations about COVID-19 vaccines in the EU Parliament today 21 November 2023 with @MJRLdeGraaff @Joachim_Kuhs @willem_engel All streams are recorded by the European Parliament, but not this one it seems. Luckily there is a screen recording.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers in the video discuss various red flags and concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. They highlight the importance of accurate information and informed consent for individuals deciding whether to get vaccinated. They criticize government policies and media campaigns for downplaying the risks and side effects of the vaccines. The speakers also raise concerns about the registration of adverse events and the existence of a closed database containing more serious side effects. They emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and further investigation into the safety and long-term effects of the vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There are so many red flags in this COVID affair that it almost hurts your eyes. There's a big thing at stake, the health of our citizens. Many of them have decided to be repeatedly vaccinated against COVID based on the information they received from the government and doctors. They assumed that they had made a well informed choice and have an informed consent. But informed consent is only possible when the information spread by the member states and its authorities regard these vaccines.
It's regarding these vaccines is correct. When misinformation is spread by the governments of our member states, doctors can't give good advice. And people can't make a good choice whether they want to be vaccinated or not. One of the major consideration for people whether or not to take a vaccine is a possible risk and side effects. EMA mentioned in its letter to us they expect reports of conditions occurring at or soon after vaccination.
This implies the data on adverse events or side effects within 14 days of vaccinations are of the utmost importance to assess the risks related to the vaccines. However, Member state officials adopted the policy that if it would take 10 to 14 days for the vaccine to produce by proteins, adverse events within 14 days after vaccination were not to be registered as related to the vaccination. Statistically, they considered the person who got the vaccine as not vaccinated within those 1st 14 days. What a nonsense. Government policies and also governmental media campaigns to promote COVID vaccinations are thus leaving out the risks and side effects that might occur in those 1st 14 days.
Most allergic reactions occur within 20 minutes to 2 hours after getting into contact with the halogen. Side effects of regular vaccines. Our children get normally occur within 1 to 2 days. But yet, somehow. They just invented this 14 days story to create this fake feeling of security and reducing the amount of registered side effects.
And that's my impression. They did it because they knew from the reports of Pfizer and Moderna and so on that many and severe side effects will come. Where are the governmental policies then based on how can doctors correctly advise their patients whether or not to take the vaccines. Okay, the citizen who is thinking about vaccination and assess for himself the safety of the COVID vaccines. How can there then be a truly informed choice and thus a valid consent when this crucial information is not shared?
And why did the EMA not intervene? How can they upheld some market authorization when there is no accurate registration of the risks. It was also recently disclosed that the side effects registration institute in the U. S. Called warehouse, has 1 register that's public and another closed database that is only available for certain pharmaceutical companies and officials.
The closed database contains more, more serious and more detailed side effects than the database that is not publicly accessible. That is, of course, unheard of and unacceptable. In this way, the ordinary citizen Who only has access to the public database is not correctly and fully informed about the risks and therefore, the citizen cannot give a truly informed contribution to the vaccination. In Europe, we have a similar database called OITRAVigilance. To say also have a closed and a public version?
Have they also misleading our citizens? I don't know the answers. But we must get this question answered as soon as possible. The health of our citizens is at stake and the next COVID booster campaigns have already started. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Joachim. And now I'd like to give the floor to, William Engel.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So we are here today to inform you, the public and its representatives, about the grave errors and safety issues with the mRNA injections. You have heard from the previous speakers what political, mortal sins have been committed by the EMA and the European Commission, willfully misleading the public in using pseudoscience and public office to nudge, push and even force people into participating into an uncontrolled and potentially deadly experiment. The EMA has admitted that the information given to the public is not adequate for informed consent. Moreover, the lack of proof for transmission control from the start made the campaign of vaccinating for the other a scam, an illegal marketing campaign.
That the EMA tries to hide behind the fact that just advising the European Commission is weak an unbecoming of an agency that was founded to protect the European public against medical and pharmaceutical mistakes. Moreover, the argument that it would be a disservice to the frail and elderly, who are at risk from corona infection, is a false argument, as the whole population was forced in some way to participate in this real world experiment. From the EMA and other national institutes, we keep hearing that the benefits outweigh the risks for each specific case or group. Yet we have seen no assessment or calculation. We have to assume this is a marketing line as it is not backed up by facts.
The reality is that we are dealing with a public health crisis as we speak, not caused by a virus, But by these mRNA injections, many 1,000 have been injured and cannot live a normal life because they were forced to participate in a potentially deadly experiment. Ignoring the ARHUS treaty is a violation of international law that we have raised, and with us, national institutes like the Commission for Genetic Modification, the COHEM. In their reports, they Argue that the exemption under Directive 20twentyten 43 should be void, as it cannot be in the interest of the public to skipped studies on environmental impacts and human health due to genetically modified organisms, which were used to produce the mRNA injections. To be very clear, the mRNA is non human and part of a GMO. Moreover, the recent publications on Plasmid DNA contamination in these mRNA injection fluids proves beyond doubt that we are dealing with a GMO product.
Regardless the attempts to redefine the term 'GMO', following an EU court ruling from 2018, Any innovation containing or derived from the use of genetic engineering techniques is to be considered the same as an MGML and subject to the same regulatory approval system. Now, integration of bacterial or viral genetic code into the genome has been associated with a higher risk of cancer. Whether that will be the case, we don't know. But we should have known. More precisely, the EMA should have known before giving a positive advance.
Another serious concern is the interaction with the microbiome each person carries. By integration of antibiotic resistant genes, some bacterial or single strains could become a health risk. An attempt was made to classify these injections as vaccines, an attempt that continues to this day. In regulation 2009 slash 120, a line is misinterpreted. Gene therapy shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.
It should be read as mutually exclusive. Two essential components of a vaccine is long lasting immunity, Also called active immunity as opposed to the passive immunity derived from antibody therapies. Secondly, a vaccine should contain an antigen. None of the mRNA injections contain an antigen. Using redefinition, omission and skewing, an Appointed expert group has tried to circumvent the regulations guarding the safety on gene therapy by silently changing the classification and conditions for the marketing application of these mRNA injections.
In the Directives 20 nineteenfive End 20 20 oneseven 56, the words CORONA and CODING SEQUENCE or added to the conditions after the granting of the original marketing authorizations, making these authorizations themselves proof of fraud. The EMA in her reply is well aware of what happened but tried to evade answering the questions about the legitimacy off the marketing applications by stating this is a political matter and should be taken up with the European Commission. Rest assured: We will. We will not stop until all mRNA injections are taken off the market. All victims are acknowledged and those responsible for the biggest scandal in medical history are held accountable.
Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Peter, for your fast bipartisan and exciting fast to become money But for Zellef, you must have the fort.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thanks. Thank you for having us. And I do agree that it's a public health crisis we are in the midst of. I am one of 3 scientists to, behind the study of advanced dependency safety issues.
And Max will talk about that in a minute. But what we actually have shown, just to put it shortly, is that there was and still is three patterns of the side effects. Post less serious side effects and the more serious side effects and also the deaths. Max will show in a minute. Which shows that from the beginning, the batches hurts.
Which were given were the so called bad batches. Actually, and all the weight, it changed whether it was Pfizer that changed the Whether it was the transportation, the administration, we don't know. But what we know is that the patients or the people, the children, the young ones, the elderly, Who had these side effects. They weren't informed by the risk. They didn't have the benefit.
You didn't have the beneficial and the risk ratio. And some were giving very bad batches. And that we know from our study. And that reminds me of what the vice president from Pfizer said At one point in nature, she said that they were building the aeroplane while flying. And for me, that's obviously what happened because we showed that One of the wings fell off.
And then I'm like: Well, if you know you have a safety issue, why don't you handle that safety issue? Why don't you withdraw the badges? Why don't you communicate to the public which IMAN did and all the national similar institutes didn't? And what our study also shows is that you have this safety issue, but it also shows that, EMEA and the national institutions Should have actually informed the public. Because Pfizer did that already in August 21.
They actually informed the IMEI that there was a safety issue. They And that some of the badges, what we call the blue badges, gave many more side effects than some of the other batches. So we know that already. We have just replicated our data, into Sweden, which shows us that It's a European matter. It's not just a Danish matter.
It's a European issue. We know that now from Sweden. And I'm quite sure if we looked into the data From the rest of Europe, we will see exactly the same pattern. And what we are now into is that what we showed was the short term side effects. But we are very much interested into looking into the long term side effects.
You mentioned cancer. Will there be a relation of certain cancers toward the different batches, will there be a difference between the all cause mortality? You have mentioned it, Marcel, the excess mortality. We know from the data that since May 21, it was, like, literally on the spot that excess mortality Happened in all the European countries. We have, seen those graphs or made those graphs ourselves.
And we can see that the excess mortality is still there. Some places may be waning a little, but there's still an excess mortality. And that is very worrying. And that brings me back To that, I think, I would have expected as a citizen, I'm not a politician, I'm just a doctor, I would have expected EMA to react on these data. Even before we published the data in April, I would have expected that they saw the safety issue, that they saw that in the database, and that they, You know, Homosick suffered the vaccination, at least withdrawn these various batches and also informed The population, the young ones, the elderly and so on, we do have a problem.
So going back to the thing that the vice president from Pfizer said, And that they were building the airplane while flying. I must say the wing fell off. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Max Vergne, who is the statistician, who did all data processing. Max,
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. My name is Max Whelan. And I'm the statistician behind this study, where Liebigke is the medical, medical capacity behind it. The, As you can see in front of you on this screen, is the result, the main result of our study. It shows from the official Danish data that we queried for this study, it shows each batch and how many adverse reactions were present in each batch.
You can see that along the y axis, the vertical axis, and along the horizontal axis, you can see How big were the batches? I should perhaps just mention a batch is a unit of vaccine that is produced, filled into vials, packaged up and sent out to different countries. As you can see from the graph, some of these batches are very small. Some of them are very big. And in this case, if we assume that we would see a normal vaccine, a really good vaccine, something that was very consistently produced, We would see a near perfect line.
One near perfect line. If we, on the other hand, produce A really horrible vaccine, the worst one we could possibly conceive, we would see no line. We would see just scattered dots. In this case, we see 3. Not 1, but we see 3 lines and they are actually near perfect.
The problem with this is that it's obviously it's something that is completely outside the category of what we should expect to seeing adverse data. And in this case, it very clearly shows right away that it was because of the product's nature. It has been impossible for the, for the participants, for the vaccinees, people who receive the vaccines to give informed consent. Because if you cannot grow the risk, how can you make informed consent. How can you give informed consent?
That's the main finding of this study. But something that is also very troubling is This shows a system. It shows structure in the data. Adverse reactions, error, errors in production are by nature. They are random.
But this shows structure. We do not know yet why, but we are obviously researching this issue as Birbigot also mentioned. But as of now, we do not know why it is. The only thing that we do know is that this should, by no means, be present. And that is why it's a very alarming safety signal, As has been mentioned.
And I would like to stress again this this makes it absolutely impossible to give informed consent. And I think I would like to stop there.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Max. I think you made it very clear that there are 3 different types of batches and every batch gives another risk. And the low one gives the Highest mortality risk, and nobody knew upfront which batch you would get. Nobody knew that there was this difference between these batches.
Nobody knew. But the EMA gets samples of every batch and they can test it and they can see whether or not they are identical and that's their job because their job is to protect us from mistakes made by pharmaceutical industries and they did it. So that's very worrying. Thank you for making that clear, both of you. And there is also something that in a second letter to the AMA, we are going to address.
Be sure of that As are the things as contamination by DNA of bacteria in the vaccines As are the things that, Joachim mentioned about are the 2 databases with adverse events, how come that the EMA never warned us? And how could it be that they Accepted government to campaign, for off label use. Is there anyone Who would like to ask a question? We still have some minutes before we round up. Yes, please.
Speaker 5: First of all, thank you very much for your contribution to this press conference. I have a question in the letter of summons. One of the arguments you have made with regards to the suspension of the marketing authorizations is that in the SMPCs of Pfizer and Moderna, that they are now very comprehensive and unreadable. However, one thing is very clear. I saw on page 4 of the document of the SMPC, that is by now 5 74 pages.
It's literally mentioned: Some cases required, intensive care support, and fatal cases have been observed, quote unquote. And my question is: how is it possible that the marketing authorizations have not been suspended and also withdrawn immediately by the EMAP, since Weiser and Moderna themselves admit that the remedy is now worse than the disease. Could you maybe elaborate on that a little bit?
Speaker 1: Walter? Hector, this is a question for the EMA. The EMA needs to assess all these statistics, the safety and then take a decision. We demanded from the EMA to withdraw Market approval immediately because of all these, Sorry. Signals of people dying of the myocarditis, pericarditis, people, with this heart failure dropping dead, on the football field, in front of television.
That is all related to these vaccines And that is what, it has been obscured, obscured by bad registration. So yes, it's a very hurts a valid point. It only stresses that even now the pharmaceutical industry Is making this clear statements in their, additional information of five 74 pages sorry. I mean that is not accessible information for a medical doctor Or for a patient, they need to make very concise, small, clear, list off side effects and the probability how much how probable how often does it occur, like 1 in 10,000, for instance, If 1 in 10,000, vaccinated will drop dead sorry to put it dead blunt because of the vaccine. Then it is much worse than, getting a COVID infection.
So that stated, I think the ball lies now with the EMA to take measures. Thank you. Other questions? None? Okay.
Speaker 5: Maybe one more. Because It seems that you have to have separate SMPCs per booster. Could you elaborate on that maybe a little bit more, mister Engel?
Speaker 2: Yes. Strange that we see 1 document for all the variants they have produced. The reasoning of the EMA is that it is still the same marketing application, and it is a very Concerning point, we see that the clinical trials were just ongoing for 3 weeks, Yet the XBB 1.5 booster was granted a market authorization. So the EMA really does not follow its own guidelines and they have created a sort of, punch, a hole in this Ultra Vigilance safety registration. So now we have untested medical products on the market.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, sorry. We have to end this, no more questions. Thank you all very much for attending this press conference. Thank you very much for listening or watching us via the social media channels and, we'll