On death traps and lethal weapons
Mon 10:06 am +01:00, 30 Nov 2020HOW AN INDUSTRY LIES AND CONS TO MAKE A KILLING
Introduction
The following was posted on FB as a contribution to a discussion about the deviousness of Vax company claims about the “effectiveness” of their new vaccines.
The UKR view on vax companies is that they will fiddle, distort, misrepresent, evade, fib and con as much as they feel necessary in order to make a killing from a vaccine.
Currently they do so with impunity because no-one in our shambolic and negligent government has the will or desire to inhibit their criminality and force them to behave decently and responsibly like the rest of us.
For criminality to flourish, it is only necessary for justice to be neglected.
Vax technology may well be a sound and workable technology but in the hands of criminal corporations it has become an effort to sell dodgy products, if not outright lethal weapons.
This descent by the un-policed and un-corrected pharmaceutical industry into uncorrected degenerate conduct has placed millions of us in clear and present danger.
The technology of the automobile is sound but imagine if criminal car manufacturers were allowed to get away with selling cars they have not properly trialed and tested, that are shoddily made and, in fact, death traps.
We would give them and their accomplices in government very short shrift indeed once the casualties started stacking up. This does not appear to be happening with the pharmaceutical industry – perhaps because of the degree to which they have managed to buy, pressure or blackmail influence over the second-rate intellects that comprise our degraded political class.
Imagine too a government so much in the pocket of these hypothetical criminal car manufacturers that it does nothing to ensure the honest, responsible conduct of those manufacturers and in fact colludes with them in their effort to foist off on the unsuspecting citizenry, with impunity, those very death traps.
In our view this is what is happening with pharmaceutical companies and their products – in this instance vaccines.
It is a situation in which politicians collude in and cover for criminal enterprise and are accomplices in the inflicting of actual harm upon the citizenry.
The following by Lior Lozinsky is a very good snapshot of some of the ways the aforementioned criminal corporations fudge and rig their “research”.
In short, we’d have to be idiots to take any claim by such a company at face value.
On how the vaccine manufacturers mislead the public
The “reduction in Covid19 after taking the vaccine” claim is highly misleading.
According to the world, a “case” is a positive PCR test. Now this can be debated at many levels, but that’s the global standard. [UKR ED’s note: the fraud involving the use of the PCR test to “diagnose” a COVID19 case is discussed in detail elsewhere]
According to Pfizer (I haven’t checked Moderna), they don’t need to follow the same criteria.
According to Pfizer, a “case” is someone showing a chosen group of symptoms, who then, and only then tests positive on a PCR test.
Very sneaky isn’t it?
So, all the vaccines need to do is reduce the symptoms enough to remove the threshold that requires getting a PCR test to confirm.
In other words, there is no data that it reduces the likelihood of getting a positive PCR test (as an asymptomatic case, which is about 80% of cases anyways) because the PCR test is not then done.
[UKR ed’s note. By way of a simplified example, imagine if Pfizer decide that the symptoms you have to display to require a PCR test are (say) a severe headache and a dry mouth. After the subject is given the vaccine, the headache eases until it is no longer severe and that’s all it that happens. Because the person no longer had a severe headache and a severe headache was set as one of the symptoms that would require a PCR test, the PCR test is “no longer required” and so not done. So there is no proof that the vaccine has actually prevented COVID 19, only that is changed one of the symptoms.]There is no proof it reduces cases at all, just Pfizer’s criteria of cases.
But it was always set up this way, to reduce symptoms of mild to moderate cases, but never testing whether it would do the following:
1 Reduce transmission
2. Reduce hospitalizations.
3. Reduce ICU admission
4. Reduce death.
Sneaky, but expected.
And this was only based on results of about 0.2% of those vaccinated.
Also, adverse events are only monitored for 28 days.
According to number of vaccines needed to help 1 person, you’re looking at 256 people vaccinated (in the trial) to reduce the mild symptoms of 1 person. 255 people got no benefit, while almost all had an immune reaction, and we don’t know the safety profile of the vaccine yet
Who’s lining up?
