The statement: “two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine administered 21 days apart can prevent 95% of adults aged 16 and over from developing the COVID-19 disease” (//https://www.aifa.gov.it/domande-e-risposte-su-vaccini-covid-19, Consenso Covid-Pfizer) is completely false and misleading.

This reports only the estimated efficacy, a projection based on the elaboration of 170 positives (0.5% of the total) out of 43.548 participants in the trial.

The pharmaceutical industry suppresses on the other hand the publication of the data of the guaranteed efficiency, which corresponds only to 30%.

The vaccinee is therefore not fully informed, as the informed consent is MISLEADING, so that every vaccination constitutes an illegal act.

The FDA states: to ensure that a widely deployed COVID-19 vaccine is effective,….. the primary efficacy endpoint estimate is >30%, i.e. only one in three vaccinees becomes immune. Pfizer itself points this out in its publication, basis of the authorization.

The misleading “Advertising” of the 95% “efficacy” e Pfizer) andncourages people to submit to new vaccines, despite possible side effects both immediate (see what is currently happening) and long term (from which the producers exclude themselves: see Pfizer consent).

Likewise the current political pressure to have to be vaccinated to be able to travel, continue to work etc. is in stark contrast to the European Parliament resolution 2361 of 27/01/2021, which declares: “7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.

This resolution is probably the result of having realized that forcing the population to have a vaccine which is not very effective and not very safe, would make the suspicion of a political- medical-economic collusion a certainty signed: “European Community”.

As Henry Gadsden, at that time CEO of Merck, said thirty years ago in an interview with Fortune (the second most important economic magazine in America):

Our dream is to produce drugs for healthy people.

This would allow us to sell them to everyone like the Chewing gum giant Wrigley’s.

The trials are going in the same direction, aiming to produce vaccines for healthy children from 6 months to 12 years of age, precisely from AstraZeneca. There is no scientific evidence that children get sick or infect others.

That is why all this constitutes a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

ARTICLE

The statement that the Pfizer vaccine “prevents up to 95% (95% efficacy), adults aged 16 and over from developing the Covid-19 disease (Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine:  efficacy and safety, Le FAQ di Aifa-Quotidiano Sanità)”is one of the greatest falsehoods in the history of recent medicine.

PfizerBioNTech, in its admission statement to the FDA explicitly stated that: the actual efficacy of the vaccine is higher than 30% (Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, 2020). Therefore it is guaranteed that only one vaccinated person in three becomes immune, not 95%.

The 95% efficacy refers to another statistical processing data used in medical statistics. As soon as 170 (only 0.5%) of the total 43,548 participants in the Pfizer study became positive, the trial was ended (there was no mention of antibody titre etc.).

Of these 170 participants, 162 were in the unvaccinated group and  8 in that of the vaccinated. If you put 162 in relation to 8 you get a quotient = 95%, which in English is called: “efficacy” (relative efficiency), which definitely not to be confused with “efficiency” (absolute efficiency) (according to Pfizer-BioNTech at least 30% become immune).

These famous 30% are required by the FDA to accept vaccines produced at a time of emergency (Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download), way below normal standards.

A statistical model of common consent has been created (political-medical-industrial) in order to give everyone (more than 200 centres worldwide) the authorization for trials, production and marketing of the vaccines without any basis of valid medical statistics.

At this point we need to make some elementary statistical observations:

Setting up a statistical study in medicine requires criteria, so that it is significant not only statistically but also clinically relevant.

The criteria are as follows:

1. Unambiguous definition of the single events of the study (the definition e.g. of “Covid patient” in the Pfizer study is clinically totally insufficient: see attachment),
2. Determination of the level of significance: in medicine the p<0.05 level is mostly used (which allows for only one error in 20 forecasts/tests)
3. Determination of the desired benefit to be achieved (e.g. how low does the blood pressure have to drop to justify the administration of a drug, or: how effective does the vaccine have to be to be able to administrate it).
4. The necessary number of participants is calculated from these last two criteria (2-3). Choosing a higher number a difference will be seen, but not more clinically significant. This appears to be a contradiction. But increasing the number of samples serves only to put the insignificant efficacy of a vaccine/drug on the front page, which however in practice produces more negative than positive effects. In the case of the Covid vaccine this means that a substantial part of the world is subjected to an ineffective vaccine (statistically it guarantees 30% protection) connected to all the associated dangers for those vaccinated besides the economic, administrative etc. efforts.        

The statement, that 95% of those vaccinated is protected from Covid infection, is maybe due to a mistaken translation from the specific terms in English.

But it is also possible, that the realization, that they had not interpreted the data provided by the drug companies correctly, prompted the authorities to carry out vaccinations, omitting two basic principles for vaccinations:

1. Determination of the actual infective state: it is mandatory to take a swab immediately before vaccination to avoid serious adverse events caused by a double entry into the body of two similar antigens (virus and vaccine),
2. Determination of the actual state of immunity: it is mandatory to carry out a serological test before vaccination. Omitting this, maybe they hope in the end to be able to add the number of naturally immune tothat of  thevaccination, interpreting this result as the success only of thevaccination, putting a tombstone on the errors made and also on the general number of naturally immune. If in the end the immunity is still not that promised, the variants of the virus will be blamed, now presented daily as one of the main “enemies”.

The statement: that the Pfizer vaccine “prevents up to 95% of adults aged 16 and over from developing the Covid-19 disease” is misleading, which exposes people to submit to vaccines on the one hand unsafe because of the shortened approval and on the other not very effective (30% of immunization), as scientifically proven.

The European Parliament resolution 2361 (27/01/2021):

“7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.

has exempted politicians etc. from the risk of being accused of promoting a vaccination which is not very effective but full of potential risks. The suspicion of collusion between politicians and the pharmaceutical industry would have become a certainty.

Appendix:

The definition “suffering from Covid-19” applied by the Pfizer trial is based on epidemiological evidence, on the presence of multiple symptoms common to many other  similar diseases and on confirmation by positive swab (by PCR).

The Nobel Prize winner, inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis declared:

1. PCR does not show that someone is sick … and does not show that what has been found would have been harmful.
2. With PCR, if it is done well, you can find almost anything in everyone.

However the latter does not show an ongoing infection, but only contact with the coronavirus. A person who was with smokers, is not necessarily a smoker (the transmission of the coronavirus is similar to that of passive smoke).

The confirmation of an entry into the body and the reaction of the body to the virus is shown only by the presence of specific antibodies in the blood (serological test).

The search for these antibodies

• was not done so as not to lose the number of “positives” necessary to be able to present the vaccine as soon as possible,
• is not even done on those currently vaccinated (very serious medical error), so as to lose the traces of a previous immunity and not to have to admit that there have been very many false positives because of swabs, which have created tremendous economic, psychological etc. harm.  

Die Behauptung, “ nach derzeitigem Kenntnisstand bieten die COVID-19-mRNA-Impfstoffe eine hohe Wirksamkeit von bis zu 95 % (Comirnaty®) bzw. 94 % (COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) (Aufklaerungsblatt Robert Koch Institut) ist unvollstaendig und bewust irrefuehrend.

Es wird nur auf die geschaetzte Wirksamkeit hingewiesen, die sich auf die Auswertung von 170 Coronainfizierten von 43548 Studienteilnehmern (<0.5%). Es wird jedocj bewust die garantierte Wirksamkeit verschwiegen, die bei 30% liegt

Der Impfkandidat wird somit nicht nur unzureichend, sondern IRREFUEHREND aufgeklaert, weswegen jede Impfung unrechtmaesig ist.

Die FDA verlangt: “um zu gewaehrleisten, dass eine Covid-Impfung wirksam ist ….ist eine Wirksamkeit von mindestens 30% erforderlich”. Dies heisst, dass nur einer von drei Geimpften immun werden muss. Pfeizer selbst weist darauf in seiner Veroeffentlichung hin, die die Basis der Zulassung war.

Die irrefuehrende “Werbung” der 95% Wirksamkeit (Pfeizer) und 60% (AstraZeneca) auch mittels der Medien, veranlasst die Menschen, sich mit vollstaendig neuen Stoffen impfen zu lassen. All dies trotz der moeglichen unmittelbaren Nebenwirkungen (siehe AstraZeneca etc.) und der Spaetwirkungen, fuer die die Produzenten keine Verantwortung uebernehmen (siehe Patientenaufklaerung Robert Koch Institut).

Weiterhin steht der politische Impfdruck (um reisen, arbeiten etc. zu koennen) im deutlichem Widerspruch  zur Resolution 2361 vom 27/01/2021 des Europaeischen Parlaments, die fordert:

„7.3.1. sicherstellen, dass Bürgerinnen und Bürger informiert werden, dass die Impfung NICHT verpflichtend ist und niemand politisch, sozial oder auf andere Weise unter Druck gesetzt wird, sich impfen zu lassen, wenn sie es nicht selbst möchten“.

7.3.2 sicherstellen, dass niemand diskriminiert wird, weil er aufgrund von möglichen Gesundheitsrisiken oder weil er es möchte, nicht geimpft wurde

Diese Resolution ist wahrscheinlich aus der Einsicht geboren, dass bei Impfzwang aller Buerger mit wenig wirksamen und wenig sichere Stoffen, der Verdacht einer politischen – medizinischen- oekonomischen Absprache (unterzeichnet Europaeische Union) zur Gewissheit werden koennte.

Wie sagte bereits vor 30 Jahren der derzeitigen Chef des US-Pharmariesen Merck Henry Gadsden in einem Interview mit der Zeitung Fortune:

:

Unser Traum ist, Arzneimittel fuer Gesunde zu entwickeln.

Dies wuerde es uns erlauben, sie jedem wie den Chewing gum giant Wrigley’s zu verkaufen.

In diese Richtung geht die Studie, die Impfstoffe fuer gesunde Kindern von 6 Monaten bis 12 Jahren entwickeln soll, und gerade von AstraZeneca. Wissenschaftlich gibt es zur Zeit keinerlei Evidenz, dass Kinder an Coronavirus erkranken oder als Uebertraeger gelten. Deswegen ist dies ein VERBRECHEN AN DIE MENSCHLICHKEIT.

ARTIKEL

Die Behauptung, “ nach derzeitigem Kenntnisstand bieten die COVID-19-mRNA-Impfstoffe eine hohe Wirksamkeit von bis zu 95 % (Comirnaty®) bzw. 94 % (COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) (Aufklaerungsblatt Robert Koch Institut) ist eine der groessten Falschmeldungen in der juengeren Geschichte der Medizin.

Pfeitzer BioNTech hat in seinem Artikel zur Zulassung bei der FDA nur erklaert, dass die Wirksamkeit des Impfstoffes ueber 30%liegt,(Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, 2020).Somit wird nur garantiert, dass einer von drei eine Immunitaet entwickelt, nicht 95%.

Die Wirksamkeit von 95% ist nur eine statistische Vorhersage aufgrund der Auswertung eines Bruchteiles des Studienkollektives. Sobald von den insgesamt 43.548 Teilnehmer der Pfeizerstudie 170 an Coronavirus (0.5%) erkrankt waren (jedoch ohne sierologische Bestaetigung), wurde die Studie beendet.

Von diesen 170 Erkrankten kamen 162 aus der Plazebogruppe und 8 aus der Impfgruppe, woraus sich der Quozient von 95% ergibt. Dieser drueckt die “efficacy” (relative Wirksamkeit), die jedoch nicht mit der “efficenzy” (absolute Wirksamkeit) aus, die bei Pfizer-BioNTech bei 30% liegt.

Diese 30% werden von der FDA gefordert fuer Impfstoffe in Notfallzulassung https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download), deutlich geringer ald fuer andere Impfstoffe.

Es wurde ein statistisches Modell in allgemeiner Ueberinstimmung (Politik, Medizin, Industrie) entwickelt um fast allen (mehr als 200 Zentren in der Welt) die Moeglichkeit zur Erforschung, Herstellung und Vertrieb von Impfstoffen zu erlauben, ohne jeglicher Grundlage fuer Medizienische Statistik.

Hierzu muessen ein paar Ueberlegungen ueber die Basis der Statistik angestellt werden:

Der Aufbau einer Statistischen Studie in der Medizin benoetigt bestimmte Kriterien, damit selbige nicht nur eine statistische sondern auch eine klinisch relevante Bedeutung hat.

Dies sind die Kriterien:

1. Eindeutige Definition der einzellnen Bestandteile der Studie (die Kriterien der Definition: Covid-Patient sind voellig unzureichend  (siehe Anlage),
2. Bestimmung des Signifikanzniveaus: in medizinischen Untersuchungen wird dies auf < 0.05 angesetzt, was nur einen Fehler auf 20 Vorhersagen/Tests erlaubt.
3. Bestimmung der erhofften klinisch rilevanten Veraenderung, die die Anwendung des Arzneimittels etc. gerechtfertigt.
4. Mittels diesen beiden letzten Kriterien (2-3) wird der Strichprobenumfang festgelegt. Wird ein groesserer Umfang gewaehlt, wird eine Wahrscheilichkeit festgestellt werden, die jedoch klinisch nicht bedeutend ist. Dies erscheint ein Widerspruch, aber den Stichprobenumfang zu erhoehen, dient nur dazu, eine unbedeutende Wirksamkeit eines Impfstoffes/Arzneimittels in den Vordergrund zu stellen. Dies alles obwohl in Wirklichkeit nur mehr Nebenwirkungen als ein positiver Effekt erzeugt wird. Im Falle der Coronaimpfung bedeutet dies, dass ein grosser Anteil der Weltbevoelkerung einer wenig wirksamen Impfung (30% Immunitaet) verbunden mit all den Risiken unterzogen wird.

Die Behauptung, dass 95% der Gemipften vor Coronaerkrankung geschuetzt sind ist wahrscheinlich aus einer fehlerhaften Uebersetzung des spezifische englischen Ausdruckes entstanden.

Es ist jedoch moeglich, dass es die Einsicht ist, die Daten der Pharmaindustrie nicht richtig interpretiert zu haben, die die Regierungen dazu gebracht zu haben, die Impfungen durchzufuehren. Bei der Impfdurchfuehrung werden zwei elementare Grundlagen straeflich uebergangen:

1. Bestimmung einer vorliegenden Coronainfektion: es ist unerlaesslich einen Abstrich unmittelbar vor der Impfung durchzufuehren, um eine bestehende Infektion nachzuweisen, da ein zweifacher Kontakt mit aehnlichen Antigenen (Virus und Impfung) zu unvorhersehbaren Reaktionen fuehren kann
2. Bestimmung des Immunstatus des Patienten: es ist unerlaesslich, einen sierologischen Befund ueber den Immunstatus des Patienten zu erhalten, um auch mehr ueber die Verbreitung des Virus zu erfahren. Dies wird wahrscheinlich auch deswegen unterlassen, um die geringe Impfwirkung mit der natuerlich bereits erhaltenen Immunitaet summieren zu koennen und dies als Erfolg der Impfung praesentieren zu koennen. Somit kann man einen Grabstein auf die begangenen Fehler und die natuerlich erworbene Immunitaet legen. Wenn allerdings die Immunitaet auch dann nicht die erhoffte ist, so kann man immer noch die Schuld auf die Varianten des Virus schieben, die mittlerweile jeden Tag als eine der Hauptfeinde angeprangert werden.

Die Behauptung, dass der Impfstoff Pfeizer “zu 95% der Erwachsenen ueber 16 Jahre verhindert, die Krankheit Covid-19 zu entwickeln, ist irrefuehrend: und bringt die Menschen dazu, sich Impfungen zu unterziehen, die einerseits unsicher sind aufgrund der kurzen Zulassungszeit, und andererseits, da sie wenig wirksam sind (30% Immunitaet) wie allerseits wissenschaftlich bestaetigt.

Die Resolution des europaeischen Parlamentes 2361 (27/01/2021):

„7.3.1. sicherstellen, dass Bürgerinnen und Bürger informiert werden, dass die Impfung NICHT verpflichtend ist und niemand politisch, sozial oder auf andere Weise unter Druck gesetzt wird, sich impfen zu lassen, wenn sie es nicht selbst möchten“.

7.3.2 sicherstellen, dass niemand diskriminiert wird, weil er aufgrund von möglichen Gesundheitsrisiken oder weil er es möchte, nicht geimpft wurde

hat die Politiker vom Risiko der Anklage befreit, die Buerger zu einer unsicheren und unwirksamen Impfung zu verpflichten mit allen seinen Folgen. Dies haette den Verdacht der Vernetzung von Politik, Medizin und Industrie zur Gewissheit werden lassen.

ANHANG:

Die Diagnose “Coronakranker”, die von den Impfstudien angewandt wurde, basiert auf epidemilogische Kriterien, klinische weitverbreiteten Syptomen und einen positiven Rachenabstrich (mittels PCR, der molekulare Test).

Der Nobelpreisstraeger, Erfinder der PCR, Kary Mullis selbst hatte erklaert:

1. Die PCR beweist nicht, dass jemand erkrankt ist …..und beweist nicht, dass das, was man gefunden hat, Schaden haette anrichten koennen.
2. Wenn die PCR gut gemacht ist, kann man fast alles bei fast jedem finden.

Es wird tatsaechlich keine Infektion nachgewiesen, sondern nur ein vorhergegangener Kontakt mit einem Coronaauscheider: jemand, der mit einem Raucher in Kontakt war, ist selber noch kein Raucher. (die Uebertragung des Coronavirus ist vergleichbar mit der des Passivrauches). Die Bestaetigung des effektiven Eindringens in den Koerper erfolgt nur mittels Nachweis von spezifischen Antikoerpern im Blut erfolgt.

Die Suche nach diesen Antikoerpern erfolgt jedoch nicht:

1. Um die Impfung unerlaesslich erscheinen zu lassen,
2. Um die natuerlich bereits erworbene Immunitaet nicht aufzuzeigen. So muss man nicht zuzugeben, dass eine Vielzahl von falschen Positiven (vor allem Kinder) sich einer Quarataene unterziehen mussten, mit all den enormen finanziellen, psychischen und weiteren Schaeden.

L’affermazione: “due dosi del vaccino COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 possono impedire al 95% degli adulti dai 16 anni in poi di sviluppare la malattia COVID-19 (//https://www.aifa.gov.it/domande-e-risposte-su-vaccini-covid-19, Consenso Covid-Pfeizer) è una affermazione incompleta ed ingannevole.

Questa riporta solo l’efficacia stimata, una proiezione basandosi sulla elaborazione di 170 positivi (0.5% del totale) su 44.000 partecipanti alla sperimentazione.

L’industria farmaceutica sopprime dall’altro canto la pubblicazione dei dati dell’efficacia garantita, che corrisponde solo al 30%.

Il vaccinando viene pertanto informato in maniera incompleta, essendo il consenso informato INGANNEVOLE, per cui ogni vaccinazione costituisce un atto ilegitimo.

La FDA, dichiara: “per garantire, che un vaccino Covid-19 è effettivo …viene richiesto una efficienza del 30%”. Cioè solo uno su tre vaccinati diventa immune. La Pfeizer stesso lo sottolinea nella sua pubblicazione, base dell’autorizzazione.

La “Pubblicità” ingannevole del 95% (Pfeizer), e del 60% (AstraZeneca) di “efficacia” (sostenuta anche da tutte le media) induce le persone, di sottoporsi a dei vaccini completamente nuovi. Tutto questo avviene nonostante gli effetti collaterali immediati (vedi quello che sta succedendo attualmente) ed a lungo termine (delle quali i produttori stessi si escludono: vedi consenso Pfeizer).

Inoltre la pressione politica attuale, di doversi vaccinare per poter viaggiare, per poter continuare a lavorare ecc., è in netto contrasto alla risoluzione 2361 del Parlamento Europeo del 27/01/2021, che decreta: “7.3.1 garantire che i cittadini siano informati che la vaccinazione NON è obbligatoria e che nessuno è politicamente, socialmente o altrimenti sotto pressione per vaccinarsi, se non lo desiderano da soli;
7.3.2 garantire che nessuno sia discriminato per non essere stato vaccinato, a causa di possibili rischi per la salute o per non voler essere vaccinato”.

Questa risoluzione è probabilmente il risultato della presa di coscienza, che costringere la popolazione ad un vaccino poco efficace e poco sicuro, farebbe diventare il sospetto di una collusione politico – medico – economico una certezza firmato: “Comunità Europea”.

Come diceva trent’ anni fa l’allora direttore della Merck, in una intervista al Fortune (seconda rivista economica più importante dell’America),

Henry Gadsden:

Il nostro sogno è quello, di produrre farmaci per le persone sane.

Questo ci permetterebbe di venderli a chiunque come il Chewing gum giant Wrigley’s.

In tale senso va la sperimentazione, che mira a produrre vaccini per bambini sani da 6 mesi a 12 anni, proprio dall’AstraZeneca. Scientificamente non c’è alcuna evidenza, che bambini si ammalano o infettano altri.

Perciò tutto questo costituisce un CRIMINE ALL’UMANITA’.

L’affermazione, che il vaccino Pfeizer impedisce al 95% (efficacia del 95%), che gli adulti dai 16 anni in poi svilupperanno la malattia Covid-19 (vaccino Covid Pfizer-BioNTech: efficacia e sicurezza, Le FAQ di Aifa-Quotidiano Sanità)” è una delle più grandi falsità nella storia della medicina recente.

La Pfeitzer BioNTech, nel suo articolo base alla amissione all’FDA ha esplicitamente dichiarato che: l’efficacia effettiva del vaccino è superiore del 30% (Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, 2020).Pertanto viene garantito, che solo un vaccinato su 3 diventa immune, non il 95%.

L’efficacia del 95% si riferisce su un altro dato di elaborazione statistica utilizzato nell’ambito della statistica medica e si basa solo su una proiezione possibile. Appena sui complessivi 43.548 partecipanti allo studio Pfeizer 170 (solo il 0.5%) erano diventati positivi, la sperimentazione si era conclusa (non si parlava di titolo anticorpale ecc.).

Di questi 170 partecipanti 162 erano del gruppo dei non vaccinati e 8 di quello dei vaccinati. Mettendo i 162 in rapporto con i 8 si ottiene un quoziente = 95%, quale viene chiamato in inglese: “efficacy” (efficienza relativa), che però non deve essere assolutamente confuso con la “efficenzy” (efficienza assoluta) (sec. Pfizer-BioNTech almeno il 30% diventa immune).

Questi famosi 30% sono richiesti dalla FDA per accettare vaccini prodotti in fase di emergenza (Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download), molto inferiore ai standard normali.

E’ stato creato un modello statistico di comune consenso (politico – medico – industriale) ai fini di dare a tutti (più di 200 centri nel mondo) l’autorizzazione di sperimentazione, produzione e commercializzazione di vaccini senza alcuna base di statistica medica valida.

A questo punto bisogna fare qualche osservazioni elementari di statistica:

L’impostazione di uno studio statistico in medicina richiede dei criteri, affinché avesse una importanza non solo statisticamente ma anche clinicamente rilevante.

I criteri sono i seguenti:

1.  Definizione univoca dei singoli eventi dello studio (la definizione ad. es. di “paziente Covid” dello studio Pfizer è clinicamente completamente insufficiente: vedi allegato),
2. Determinazione del livello di significatività: in medicina viene maggiormente usato il livello p<0.05 (che ammette solo un errore su 20 previsioni/esami)
3. Determinazione del auspicato benefico da raggiungere (ad es. per quanto si deve abbassare la pressione arteriosa per giustificare la somministrazione di un farmaco, oppure: quanto deve essere efficace il vaccino per poterlo somministrare).
4. Da questi ultimi due criteri (2-3) viene calcolato il numero necessario dei partecipanti. Scegliendo un numero più elevato si evidenzierà si una differenza, ma non più clinicamente significativa. Questo sembra una contraddizione. Ma aumentare il numero dei campioni serve solo per mettere in prima pagina l’efficacia insignificante di un vaccino / farmaco, che però all’atto pratico produce più effetti negativi che positivi. Nel caso del vaccino Covid significa, che una considerevole parte del mondo viene sottoposta ad una vaccinazione poco efficace (statisticamente garantisce una protezione al 30%) connesso con tutti i pericoli collegati per i vaccinanti oltre ai sforzi economici, amministrativi, ecc.

L’affermazione, che il 95% dei vaccinati è protetto dall’infezione da Covid è forse dovuta ad una errata traduzione dei termini specifici dall’inglese.

E’ però pure possibile, che la presa di coscienza, di non aver interpretato in maniera corretta i dati forniti dalle dite farmaceutiche, ha indotte le autorità di effettuare le vaccinazioni omettendo due principali fondamenta per le vaccinazioni:

1. Determinazione dello stato infettivo attualmente in atto: è d’obbligo di eseguire un tampone immediatamente prima della vaccinazione per evitare eventi avversi gravi a causa di un duplice ingresso nel corpo di due antigeni simili (virus e vaccino),
2. Determinazione dello stato di immunità attualmente in atto: è d’obbligo di eseguire un esame sierologico prima della vaccinazione. Omettendo quest’ultima, forse si spera alla fine di poter sommare il numero dei immuni per via naturale a quella da vaccinazione, interpretando tale risultato come successo solo della vaccinazione, mettendo una pietra tombale sui errori commessi ed anche sul numero generale dei immuni naturali. Se alla fine ancora l’immunità non è quella promessa, la colpa verrà assegnata alle variazioni del virus, ormai presentate ogni giorno come i principali “nemici”.

L’affermazione: che il vaccino Pfizer “impedisce al 95% degli adulti dai 16 anni in poi di sviluppare la malattia covid-19” è una affermazione ingannevole, che espone le persone a sottoporsi a dei vaccini da un lato insicuri a causa dell’approvazione abbreviata e dall’altro lato poco efficaci (30% di immunizzazione), come scientificamente dimostrato.

La risoluzione del Parlamento Europeo 2361 (27/01/2021), di non imporre alcun obbligo per le vaccinazioni, ha esentato i politici ecc. dal rischio, di essere responsabili dei probabili effetti collaterali gravi e di venire accusati, di promuovere una vaccinazione poco efficace ma ricca di potenziali rischi. Il sospetto di una collusione tra politica ed industria farmaceutica sarebbe diventata certezza.

Appendice:

La definizione “affetto da Covid-19” applicato dalla sperimentazione Pfizer si basa su evidenze epidemiologiche, sulla presenza di sintomi molteplici comuni a tante altre affezioni simili e sulla conferma tramite tampone positivo (tramite PCR).

Il Premio Nobel, inventore della PCR, Kary Mullis ha dichiarato:

1. La PCR non dimostra, che uno è malato… e non dimostra, che quello, che si ha trovato, avrebbe recato danno.
2. Con la PCR, se fatta bene, si può trovare quasi tutto in ognuno.

Viene dimostrato solo che la persona è venuta a contatto con il coronavirus, ma non che è stato infettato con una risposta anticorpale, rilevabile con il test sierologico. Una persona, che era insieme con un fumatore, non è per forza fumatore (la trasmissione del Coronavirus è paragonabile a quello del fumo passivo).

La conferma di un effettivo ingresso nel corpo e la reazione del corpo al virus viene rilevato solo dalla presenza nel sangue di anticorpi specifici (esame sierologico).

La ricerca di questi anticorpi

• non fu fatta per rendere il vaccino indispensabile,
• non viene fatto neanche ai attuali vaccinanti (gravissimo errore di medicina), ai fini di far disperdere le tracce di una immunità già avvenuta precedentemente. Inoltre non si dovrà ammettere, che ci sono stati tantissimi falsi positivi a causa dei tamponi, che dovevano fare la quarantena (specie i Bambini), il che ha creato danni economici, psicologici ecc. immensi.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sapientiae Christianae, Encyclical Letter (1890) by His Holiness Leo PP. XIII

Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Bertold Brecht

Heinrich Boell

Mahatma Ghandi

German Costitution (Art. 20, Abs. 4): against everyone who intends to abolish this order (art. 3),  Germans have the right to resistance (indeed the duty , author’s note).

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sapientiae Christianae, lettera enciclica (1890) di Sua Santità Leone PP. XIII

Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Bertold Brecht

Heinrich Boell

Mahatma Ghandi

Costituzione Tedesca (Art. 20, Abs. 4): contro ognuno, che intende di abolire questo ordine (art. 3), tutti i tedeschi hanno il diritto alla resistenza (anzi il dovere, nota dell’autore)

Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Bertold Brecht

Heinrich Boell

Mahatma Ghandi

German Costitution (Art. 20, Abs. 4) :

gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung (Art. 3) zu beseitigen, haben all Deutsche das Recht zum Widerstand (sogar die Pflicht, der Autor)

 Even now some of the fundamentals of virology are still not recognized:

• Coronaviruses travel individually suspended in the air like smoke particles (the same dimensions of 150nm) and like pollens (which seem like their bigger brothers). They are carried by air currents, forced to accumulate in closed environments, so causing harm. The Coronavirus is not a killer virus, but we make it dangerous. In these closed environments they are inhaled and arrive in large quantities at their only point of entry, the peripheral respiratory tract.
• The necessary viral load for a more serious infection only happens in badly ventilated (through negligence?) environments like care homes, public transport, hospitals, hotels, conference rooms, law courts.
• The interpretation of the means of transmission of the Coronavirus through droplets and surfaces (as also for the Influenza virus) represents a relic from history, when virology was only a theory, but not a science.
• The specific death rate from Coronavirus can partly be attributed to the handling of patients with Coronavirus through “autointoxication” (masks, oxygen masks and helmets, one way intubation) and through “external intoxication”: the antiviral drugs.

It is obvious that all this takes the vast majority of government interventions to the point of absurdity, they infringe the most elementary constitutional rights, especially of children.

It is enough to ventilate as required by law (windows open for 10 minutes every hour), and masks, distancing, yellow, orange, red zones, experts and vaccines would become unnecessary.

See the article:

“The aerosol as the only significant mode of transmission of the coronavirus: epidemiological evidence”,

Published April, 24^th. 2020

Introduction: There are currently many different opinions, partly contrasting with regard to the transmission of coronavirus and the measures to be taken to deal with it. At present the main mode of transmission is considered to be through droplets or contact. The aim of this article is to examine the importance of transmission through contact and droplets against transmission by aerosols using an epidemiological approach. To this end three regions of Italy have been compared as cohorts.

Material and Methods: The three regions included in this study are Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Sicily. A clinical analytical study has been carried out on these three cohorts. The relative homogeneity at the beginning of the epidemic (general risk of exposure, demographic conditions) and eventual interaction during the observation period have been assessed. 24/04/2020 was considered the final date of the survey in relation to fatal cases.

The results were assessed with regard to transmission through contact/droplets or by aerosols.

Results:

Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Sicily are fairly similar as regards territorial extent (Lombardy: 23,865 km^2,, Emilia Romagna 22,453 and Sicily 25,832 km²) As for population/population density  per km², Emilia Romagna and Sicily are comparable (Emilia Romagna 4,459,477/198.6 per km ², Sicilia 4,999,891/193.6 per km ²). Lombardy has an approximately double population/population density (10,060,574/421.6 per km²).

The homogeneity of the two cohorts in the north as regards risk of exposure is comparable due to the similar geographical, demographic and climatic conditions. Sicily, 1000 kilometers further south, until the end of March was exposed to a similar if not much higher exposure:

1. Catania airport (metropolis with over a million inhabitants) took 6^th place in Italy last year for passenger transport, in Germany it would be little after Stuttgart, Cologne and Berlin Tegel at 9th place. Compared to the previous year, air traffic in Catania in January increased by 4.94% to 609,750 and in February by 1.36% to 547,210: Lombardy is in third place overall for presences in Sicily (1,069,293) after France (1,584,410) and Germany (1,185,041)
2. From 3 to 5 February the Festival of St Agatha took place, one of the largest religious festivals in the world with a turnout of over a million people, obviously with no social distancing.
3. After the closure of universities, bars, restaurants etc. there was a justified return of students and workers from the north: around 40,000 people who registered spontaneously (Note from the Ministry 24/03/20), even if the actual figures will be considerably higher.
4.  Until International Women’s Day (8 March) as regards the winter season, Catania was the city in Italy and Europe with the highest quota of social personal contacts due to the very intense daily and night life. This was caused by the extensive presence of people both from outside and inside the territory. In this period Catania pulsated from early morning until long after midnight.

As for the homogeneity of the cohorts regarding healthcare and political interference, no differences were found. (The various government decrees applied to the whole of Italy).

26 April 2020 was taken as the final point of the study. According to government statistics the following data were recorded for the number of deaths:

Lombardy: 13,325, Emilia Romagna: 3,386, Sicily: 228)

Discussion: three Italian regions were included in this study, two from the north: Lombardy and Emilia Romagna and Sicily 1000 km further south. The structure of the population is similar with the exception of Lombardy which has double the density of the other two regions. The starting point of the epidemic (end of January, beginning of February) is comparable as regards risk of exposure (possibly higher in Sicily). The lockdown ordered by the government meant that the course of the epidemic was not altered by regional interaction. This allows a homogeneity of the cohorts virtually unique in medicine.

The evaluation of the results regarding the two factors considered responsible for transmission  (droplets/aerosols) leads to the following conclusions:

The importance of transmission through contact, droplets etc. in relation to the course of the epidemic goes towards zero. This is evident from the fact that the necessary interpersonal contact is similar in the three cohorts (certainly much higher in Sicily, especially in big cities), but the death toll in Sicily is very low. (Sanitary conditions, often considered to be the cause of this mode of transmission, are similar in North and South Italy).

The importance of transmission by aerosols remains the only determining factor. The explanation lies in the analysis of the differing living conditions in the home-work environment between the north and the south. Staying in the open air and in insufficiently ventilated environments are identified as determining factors.

The habitat of the Sicilian population, due to the climatic and industrial conditions, is fundamentally different to that in the North.

1. Buildings are not insulated to guarantee energy efficiency (the concentration of CO2 is an indicator for risk of infection: Rudnick and Milton 2003), they have high ceilings to provide coolness in the summer.
2. Heating is only used to a limited extent (both in private and public spaces) and there is also sufficient ventilation (see the indications for a healthy climate in buildings) in winter facilitated by the relative difference between the external and internal temperature.
3. Life in Sicily takes place outside to a great extent also in winter thanks to the mild climate.
4. Industrial plants with a high concentration of people are far less common than in the North.
5. There is adequate ventilation in means of transport (cars, buses, trains).

As transmission by aerosols finds an ideal situation in the closed environments in northern Italy (the concentration of CO2 will be caused by the high level of insufficient ventilation) we are faced with, in the broad sense, the already well known Sick building Syndrome (Finnegan et al. 1984). .

The theory of transmission by aerosols is also confirmed in the virological literature. Particles the size of the coronavirus settle at the level of the lower respiratory tract (Bottarelli 2020). The involvement of the oropharyngeal cavity and the upper respiratory tract are to be considered secondary, occurring following exhaled air, not significant for transmission.

Conclusions: As transmission, as explained above, occurs by aerosols (influenza too, showing the same epidemiological features as the coronavirus, probably follows the same mode of transmission) the measures currently being taken (quarantine/lockdown, masks, gloves, measures against gatherings) should be corrected immediately.

It is vitally and urgently important to undertake measures to rectify the human habitat regarding both internal and external pollution.

Bibliography (in limited edition due to the coronavirus)

1. Finnegan MJ, Pickering CA, Burge PS: The sick building Syndrome: Prevalence Studies. Br Med J. 1984; 289:1573-5
2. Rudnick and Milton 2003
3. Bottarelli 2020