By Chris Black
Motto: A third of the population will not be vaccinated. A third will rush in to get the jab. Another third will go along just to get along. How this eugenicist experiment plays out over the next decade will confirm who got it right.
So, are those vaccinated against COVID more likely to die if they get the virus? Yes, according to two official documents.
This is a quote from a brief, to which Europe 1 had access, produced by the Minister of Health to contest the request of an octogenarian who claimed to obtain in summary proceedings from the Council of State the right not to subject to the new COVID restrictions in March, due to the fact that he received his two doses of the Pfizer vaccine back in January.
Véran’s argument is carefully formulated: he recognizes that being vaccinated carries a greater risk of having a serious form of COVID and of dying from it during (we suppose) the period when the said vaccine has not reached its full effectiveness.
How long is that?
For this particular applicant, it was between 6 and 8 weeks (where’s the “science” on that?). And then there are the failures. What about covid cases where the vaccine is not effective at all, and they definitely, exist since no vaccine is 100% effective (forget about the claimed 90% effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna, it’s all bullshit), and we also know that the immune defenses of very old people – those who were not part of the initial trials of these vaccines which are still in the experimental phase – do not respond as well as those of young people.
So, at least for a part of the population, the mRNA experimental so-called vaccine leads to more risks, and not to less, of dying from COVID, since they are (I quote Olivier Véran) “the most exposed to serious forms and to deaths” under certain conditions.
We must quote Olivier Véran again in regard to the cases of “post-vaccination reinfection”: in clear terms, people who have had COVID, knowing it or not, and who are vaccinated, have a greater risk of death in case of reinfection after the vaccine (which is therefore not even supposed to protect against this risk).
You follow me? Heading to the UK, now, and an article in a mainstream newspaper, the Daily Telegraph respectively , which sounds surprised by an “extraordinary paragraph” from a pessimistic report submitted by the already-compromised Imperial College of London and published on a UK government site. Just as Neil Ferguson’s catastrophic predictions last spring dragged the world into its first lockdown, it was this report that led Boris Johnson to delay planned relief from COVID measures in the name of a deadly third wave he would have to avoid.
“The upsurge in hospitalizations and deaths is dominated by people who received two doses of the vaccine, about 60% and 70% of the wave, respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of vaccine uptake in the most at-risk age groups. “
The report bases its calculation on a 90% (!)efficacy of vaccines, therefore on the 10% of unprotected people over 50, i.e. we have 2.9 million people vaccinated and unprotected in this age category, with nearly 40,000 at stake risking certain death in the event of complete lifting of the restrictions, or even 59,900 according to another model signed by Warwick.
We would thus arrive at one in 70 deaths in the category of people over 50 or vulnerable, instead of 1 in 200 in this same category during the 1st and 2nd waves, when there was no vaccine.
Of course, everything is theoretical at this point. But it still deserves to be highlighted: vaccines were supposed to take us back to normal, i.e. the condition to lift all of the restrictions, and now “scientists” are starting to say that vaccination can make the situation even worse, and lead to even more deaths, therefore more lockdowns, more restrictions, etc.
Don’t you find that this is starting to get a bit much even for normies?
Interesting bit of predictive programming out there: the “Songbird” movie from 2020.
Examine the trailer on YouTube. This is what they have planned / want.