The COVID vaccine, many experts warn, is designed to make your body a time bomb. As soon as it is administered, the countdown begins. For some, such as infants, the elderly, and babies not yet born, it causes immediate death. For others, it will cause death as soon as that person is exposed to a similar virus in the ‘wild.’ mRNA vaccines are highly experimental, but many people argue that the purpose of this particular vaccine is depopulation on a massive scale, which will then be blamed on ‘new variants’ of COVID.
While in January a group of independent doctors concluded that experimental COVID-19 vaccines are “not safer” than the virus itself, a new analysis of vaccine-related death rates in Israel demonstrates that this may indeed be the case to dramatic levels.
A re-analysis of published data from the Israeli Health Ministry by Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ reveal, in short, that the mRNA experimental vaccine from Pfizer killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period. Among the younger class, these numbers are compounded to death rates at 260 times what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.
While the full mathematical analysis may be found in the article itself, the authors demonstrate how among “those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2% … died during the three-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100,000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100,000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.”
“This scary picture also extends to those below 65,” the researchers continued. During the five-week vaccination process “0.05%, meaning 50 among 100,000, died. This is to be compared to the 0.19 per 100,000 dying from COVID-19 (who) are not vaccinated … Hence the death rate of this age group increased by 260 (times) during this five-week period of the vaccination process, as compared to their natural COVID-19 death rate.”
As reported by IsraelNationalNews (INN), Seligmann is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality, has a biology degree from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written more than 100 scientific publications. INN reports the researchers “have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.”
Yativ and Seligmann stipulate that even these “estimated numbers of deaths from the vaccine are probably much lower than actual numbers as it accounts only for those defined as COVID-19 deaths for that short time period and does not include AVC and cardiac (and other) events resulting from the inflammatory reactions.”
Nor do these numbers “account for long-term complications,” they write.
In addition, within several months they expect “mid- and long-term adverse effects of the vaccination as ADE (Antibody-dependent Enhancement)” begins to become manifest in those who have received the experimental Pfizer vaccine.
As explained by America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), ADE “is when anti-COVID antibodies, created by a vaccine, instead of protecting the person, cause a more severe or lethal disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage.”
AFLDS provides an example of a vaccine produced to fight the Dengue fever, which resulted in deaths of 600 children in the Philippines due to ADE, and the filing of criminal charges against the decision-makers in 2019.
For these reasons and more, AFLDS and many other doctors strongly discourage the use of these experimental vaccines for most people while only acknowledging that it may be plausible for those over 70 years of age, yet acknowledging that such injections are “a higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications” (sources here, here, here, and here).
Given these death rates, Yativ and Seligmann also have harsh criticism for the severe pressure being imposed upon the population by Israeli authorities to receive these shots. According to INN, the researchers call these draconian efforts “a new Holocaust.”
In the past weeks, Israel’s government made headlines when they adopted a “green pass” system, allowing people who have been injected to receive a green code, which then grants them entry into places such as entertainment and leisure facilities.
As the country reopens after a two-month lockdown, the green pass would be given only to those who had been injected, not to people who tested negative for the virus. The proposed benefits include access to “non-essential” businesses as well as not being required to self-isolate if identified as a close contact of a confirmed case of COVID-19, and not having to self-isolate after a return from what the government calls a “red location.”
Despite there being no proof that these experimental vaccines actually prevent transmission of the virus, Israel’s minister for health, Yuli Edelstein, said upon the release of the vaccine “passport” that “(g)etting vaccinated is a moral duty. It is part of our mutual responsibility.” He went further, declaring, “Whoever does not get vaccinated will be left behind.”
The green pass needs renewing every six months, and despite holding one, an individual must still abide by masking and physical distancing rules. The Jerusalem Post also reported that legislation is being considered to grant employers the right to refuse unvaccinated people entry into the workplace.
Such measures prompted Business Insider to describe the country as “waging a war on the unvaccinated.” Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, has styled Israel’s vaccination response as “extraordinarily good.”
Web MD previously reported:
The poll asked doctors and nurses how likely they were to order or use treatments or vaccines if the FDA grants emergency use authorization before phase III trials are completed.
The poll was first posted on Medscape.com on Sept. 2. Of those responding, 17% of doctors said they would order or use the vaccine; 63% said no; and 20% said they were unsure. Younger doctors were more likely to say they would not get a vaccine under such circumstances (68% of those younger than 55 years said no, vs. 61% of those ages 55 years and older.)
The Washington Post reported last week that the FDA is expected to roll out a tough new standard for emergency authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Nurses were less likely than doctors to say yes (11%); 69% said no; and 20% said they were unsure. Answers did not vary substantially by age.
The poll was taken after Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, wrote to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn on Aug. 31, detailing why he thinks recent emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of interventions to treat COVID-19 have not been based on evidence.
Topol cited three EUAs specifically: one for hydroxychloroquine on March 30 (revoked in June for lack of evidence), one for convalescent plasma on Aug. 23, and an expanded EUA for remdesivir to treat any patient hospitalized for COVID-19, not just those with severe disease.
The letter, which was also posted online, drew more than 500 comments.
Another poll question concerned the use of plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 as a treatment for the disease.
The National Institutes of Health’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines committee said this month that current data is insufficient to recommend using convalescent plasma to treat patients who have COVID-19.
The poll asked doctors and nurses if they would or have ordered convalescent plasma for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Nine percent of doctors and 2% of nurses said they had ordered it; 28% of doctors and 40% of nurses said they would. On the other hand, 44% of doctors and 29% of nurses said they would not. The rest were unsure.
One ear, nose, and throat doctor who responded to the poll wrote, “As to whether or not I would consider prescribing convalescent plasma for a seriously ill COVID patient, yes I would. And if I ever found myself falling off a cliff, I would try to grab onto any twig projecting from the cliff.”
But the responder said the biggest problem with the EUA for plasma was the “false claims about efficacy.”
“The data are not convincing of its efficacy for COVID-19, and convalescent plasma had no significant effect in Ebola. The best situation for using plasma would be in a clinical trial.”
Doctors and nurses were also asked whether they would order, or have ordered, remdesivir, given the available clinical trial evidence that supported the EUA. Doctors were more likely to say they had or would order it (42%) than were nurses, at 37%.
But in both groups, there was much uncertainty about the drug. Only slightly more doctors (44%) said no than said yes, and 14% were unsure. Among nurses, 39% said no and 24% were unsure.
Among doctors, answers on remdesivir differed by work setting. Whereas 37% of hospital doctors said they would or had ordered remdesivir, 52% of those who were office-based answered that way.
Overall, most doctors and nurses (about 60%) reported they had not treated patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Commenters had different views on the evidence behind EUAs. Some stood by their support for hydroxychloroquine, even though the EUA for it was revoked on June 15.
A reader who agreed with Topol’s criticism of the EUAs wrote, “People in significant leadership roles must be held accountable for their actions. If you serve in an office and are receiving intolerable political pressure from superiors to take actions that are inconsistent with your training and personal integrity, then you have but a few options.
“Convince your superiors of their misguided directives or resign. History is not going to be kind to those who have supported these unscientific and completely inappropriate positions.”
A registered nurse wrote that issuing the EUA can discourage completing clinical trials.
“The saddest thing isn’t so much that EUAs are allowed in emergencies (if truly believed potential benefit outweighs potential risk), but when it is allowed to get in the way of well-planned and designed research that can actually determine its true usefulness,” she wrote.