'Two Shots for Summer' was the New Zealand government's edgy tag line to get young people vaccinated. The only problem was that it was contrary to the health advice.
Part 2 as enlightening as part 1, thanks again Thomas. Will me see any of this meticulous work feature on the 6pm news? Nope. This is why substack and subscription based journalism is becoming so popular and from my perspective money well spent.
Anecdotally myocarditis would appear much more prevalent than expected. Five members of my team and my father all experiencing this and requiring medical intervention as a result. Does the myocardium heal or scar and what are the long term implications of this is a question that worries me.
A couple of questions worth following up: 1) The fundamental assumption with the extreme vaccine campaign and mandates was that the vaccine would PREVENT TRANSMISSION (as well as reducing illness/death). As we now know (as admitted by Pfizer to the EU Parliament), the vaccine was never tested to see if it would prevent transmission. Would this not have been a basic question of CV TAG to investigate before backing the vaccine roll-out? Ie, what is the research evidence that the vaccine is effective at preventing transmission? This, after all, was how the vaccine was promoted: get your shots to protect grandma. (As we all know now from experience, transmission prevention is close to nil, if not actually nil.)
2) I understand that the vaccine was approved for use in NZ by Medsafe under the umbrella of the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) of the US CDC. This meant that the normal process for approving a new medication, ie, full testing, long-term safety data, etc, was completely bypassed. In order for the shots to continue in the US, the 'state of emergency' has just been renewed. (I mean really, what emergency?) So, if, in NZ, the Covid shots are to continue, they also hinge on the EUA. If it's no longer an emergency, the shots would have to comply with the usual testing and approval, in other words, they'd have to stop (pending the proper testing/approval process). Why do we (still) base our vaccine approval on the US EUA??
A last point which I find grimly fascinating: the work of Sasha Latypova (substack) is suggesting that the US EUA enabled the whole vaccine programme to be driven by the US DoD. In DoD language the vaccine (in the documents) is a 'countermeasure'. When a 'countermeasure' is implemented by the DoD, you do not bother with niceties like safety research or informed consent, etc. In Sasha's words, whatever 'safety monitoring and assessment' done by the FDA et al were purely 'for show' to reassure the public (and the 'experts', like our own CV TAG). Sasha is no tin-foil nutjob, nor a snowflake. She's an ex-pharma executive.
It could be worth giving this (DoD) issue some more daylight.
Apparently, here in NZ, it takes a top flight UK lawyer to nail this criminal manslaughter via its crooked maze of technocratic policy twisting for personal 'gain' in servitude to globalist gangsters. The constitutional law breaking around the world has been disastrously epic...
Part 2 as enlightening as part 1, thanks again Thomas. Will me see any of this meticulous work feature on the 6pm news? Nope. This is why substack and subscription based journalism is becoming so popular and from my perspective money well spent.
Anecdotally myocarditis would appear much more prevalent than expected. Five members of my team and my father all experiencing this and requiring medical intervention as a result. Does the myocardium heal or scar and what are the long term implications of this is a question that worries me.
Thanks for the work on this.
A couple of questions worth following up: 1) The fundamental assumption with the extreme vaccine campaign and mandates was that the vaccine would PREVENT TRANSMISSION (as well as reducing illness/death). As we now know (as admitted by Pfizer to the EU Parliament), the vaccine was never tested to see if it would prevent transmission. Would this not have been a basic question of CV TAG to investigate before backing the vaccine roll-out? Ie, what is the research evidence that the vaccine is effective at preventing transmission? This, after all, was how the vaccine was promoted: get your shots to protect grandma. (As we all know now from experience, transmission prevention is close to nil, if not actually nil.)
2) I understand that the vaccine was approved for use in NZ by Medsafe under the umbrella of the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) of the US CDC. This meant that the normal process for approving a new medication, ie, full testing, long-term safety data, etc, was completely bypassed. In order for the shots to continue in the US, the 'state of emergency' has just been renewed. (I mean really, what emergency?) So, if, in NZ, the Covid shots are to continue, they also hinge on the EUA. If it's no longer an emergency, the shots would have to comply with the usual testing and approval, in other words, they'd have to stop (pending the proper testing/approval process). Why do we (still) base our vaccine approval on the US EUA??
A last point which I find grimly fascinating: the work of Sasha Latypova (substack) is suggesting that the US EUA enabled the whole vaccine programme to be driven by the US DoD. In DoD language the vaccine (in the documents) is a 'countermeasure'. When a 'countermeasure' is implemented by the DoD, you do not bother with niceties like safety research or informed consent, etc. In Sasha's words, whatever 'safety monitoring and assessment' done by the FDA et al were purely 'for show' to reassure the public (and the 'experts', like our own CV TAG). Sasha is no tin-foil nutjob, nor a snowflake. She's an ex-pharma executive.
It could be worth giving this (DoD) issue some more daylight.
Apparently, here in NZ, it takes a top flight UK lawyer to nail this criminal manslaughter via its crooked maze of technocratic policy twisting for personal 'gain' in servitude to globalist gangsters. The constitutional law breaking around the world has been disastrously epic...