The HAS expresses its fears about the vaccine
and its impact on the immune system
Eric Verhaeghe
The Strategist Courier
No one now questions the very low efficacy of the vaccine (and two scientific studies that we quote here, published in the prestigious New England Journal Of Medicine, demonstrate this). Despite repeated evidence that vaccination will not prevent new waves of contamination, and despite recognition by the EMA of new side effects of the Pfizer vaccine, the French High Authority of Health now recommends a third dose of vaccine. By fully recognizing that, for the younger generations, the risk-benefit is questionable. The logic of human sacrifices is exposed in broad daylight.
If the globalized caste that leads us were capable of a minimum of reason and flexibility in the face of its religious certainties, it would calmly examine what the benefit-risk analysis of the Pfizer vaccine means today, without showing any ideological pride. nor any dogmatic consideration of the usefulness of vaccination in general. Because, let us repeat, the messenger RNA vaccine that we are forced to undergo (we will closely follow the decision of the Council of State in summary on the vaccination obligation in Polynesia) is not a vaccine like the others. It is a young vaccine which, by the admission of our scientific authorities, raises serious health and efficacy problems.
But, without taking the slightest precaution, our authorities maintain against all rationality a logic of sacrifice which raises serious ethical questions.
European agency expands list of serious side effects
The subsidized press obviously did not notice it, but the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has just expanded the list of side effects of the Pfizer vaccine . She now recognizes multiple erythema and loss of touch as new side effects.
Those who ignore the list of recognized side effects of this vaccine, we remind you here:
As we can see, we also find asthenia, lethargy, loss of appetite, night sweats, menstrual disorders and inflammation of the kidneys. We repeat, there is every reason to think that this enumeration is extremely limiting compared to reality . But it proves that health officials can’t pretend they don’t know the Pfizer vaccine is causing health problems.
Studies highlight vaccine ineffectiveness
At the same time, the prestigious scientific journal New England Journal of Medicine has just published two studies which demonstrate the strong ineffectiveness of vaccines in the fight against the epidemic.
An Israeli study concludes:
Six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older, and among persons with immunosuppression.
In other words, the immune response to the virus permitted by the vaccine does not last six months, which poses a real problem as to the effectiveness of said vaccine.
A Qatari study confirms these results:
BNT162b2-induced protection against SARS-COV-2 infection appeared to wane rapidly following its peak after the second dose, but protection against hospitalization and death persisted at a robust level for 6 months after the second dose. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine – Qatar and others.)
Translation: The protection provided by the vaccine decreases rapidly, although (this is the official version) the protection against severe or fatal forms remains at a robust level for six months after the second dose.
Bottom Line: The vaccine only works a very short time after the second dose to prevent the virus from actively circulating (getting contaminated and infecting others), and it only prevents severe cases for six months. These findings do not come from any conspiratorial sites, but from perfectly authorized sources and not contested by the great defenders of the vaccine.
The High Authority for Health draws up worse findings
It is in the light of these studies that we must read the last two opinions issued yesterday by the High Authority of Health on the third dose of vaccine. A first opinion broadens the scope of the booster dose to nursing staff. A second text gives a recommendation to the government on the booster dose of Pfizer , to be distinguished from the third dose.
Each of these opinions is worth reading, for they both reveal considerations that will one day be far more serious than the tainted blood affair.
The first opinion, which recommends a booster dose for caregivers, explains without ambiguity that the effectiveness of the vaccine drops rapidly, and that it does not prevent the circulation of the disease. It justifies the booster dose (ie six months after the second dose, and not a few weeks after this one as for the “third” dose, it is necessary to follow these Jesuitical distinctions) by the need to reduce the contaminations of the “most fragile”. but certainly not to prevent them …
But the conclusion of the opinion is particularly murderous in view of the risk that the High Authority of Health is making the population take:
The HAS considers that the improvement in the health situation and the still limited data on the consequences of a decline in vaccine efficacy over time in young adults without comorbidity do not at this stage justify recommending the administration of ‘an additional dose in the general population .
So, it is clearly established that the data on the risk benefit of vaccination for young adults is far from clear! Despite this lack of knowledge, the High Authority requires, in order to “protect” others, that these young adults be vaccinated if they are caregivers.
What a twisted way to recognize that vaccination is potentially more dangerous than non-vaccination in adults without comorbidity! What a health scandal to recognize without assuming the human sacrifices to which we promise these young adults, to better protect our little old people …
The Haute Autorité de Santé recognizes that it does not know if a 3rd dose is useful
But it is above all the second opinion, called “recommendation”, which deserves its weight in peanuts. First, he gives official figures on the vaccine failure rate, much higher than the data displayed by the European Medicines Agency when the conditional marketing authorization was granted.
Here we leave the reader to form their own opinion:
But from this opinion, we will retain explicit sentences which show that the precautionary principle is here totally swept aside in the name of a doctrine founded on the conscious acceptance of individual sacrifices in the name of the good of the “group” (reduced in this case to a few frightened members).
Thus, we find this sentence:
- Limited data from a retrospective Israeli study (with only 245 infections occurring in people who received a booster dose in Israel), show that administration of a booster dose is associated with a statistically significant decrease in viral load compared to that of people who first received their vaccine who had not received their booster dose, thus suggesting that the administration of a booster would decrease the viral load and thus, probably the contagiousness of people developing an infection by SARS-CoV- 2 (Delta variant).
Completely astoundingly, the High Authority for Health recognizes that it bases its recommendation on “limited data”… “suggesting”… “that the administration of a booster would decrease the viral load and in fact, probably the contagiousness”. We pinch ourselves to check that we are not dreaming.
Thus, the decision to force caregivers to receive a third dose is based on a study with “limited data” which suggests the effectiveness of the process, and “probably” the decrease in contagiousness. Here we are no longer in the realm of science, but of speculation.
Let us remember the arguments opposed to hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin: despite positive studies, the health authorities were always asking for more, in order, in the end, to ban these treatments. On the other hand, the paucity of data on the Pfizer vaccine does not seem to be an obstacle to the renewal of its use.
Two weights, two measures ! But one thing is certain: when it comes to a vaccine, the suggestion, the plausibility, the conditionality, the lack of data are more than enough to establish scientific proof.
HAS does not say everything about its deep concerns
We let each reader read the recommendation of the Haute Autorité de Santé through the prism of the doubts that it lets show through without daring to write them clearly. But we feel everywhere, in this opinion, the embarrassment of those who are seized with doubts but who, in the ambient climate of detestation and banishment, scarcely dare to speak out to denounce the imposture.
We will only retain the last sentences which say a lot about the fears of its members:
In addition, the HAS insists on the fact that the phase 3 trial should be continued in order to be able to have data on immunogenicity, efficacy and longer-term safety and wishes to be informed of the results of the sub-analyzes. groups in this trial, as well as studies implemented as part of the Risk Management Plan (RMP). The HAS would also like to have additional information on the acceptability of vaccination, in particular on the reasons for refusing vaccination among professionals in the health and medico-social sector.
This opinion will be reviewed according to the evolution of knowledge, in particular with regard to the efficacy and safety data under real conditions of use over a longer term (Israeli data in particular), the complete results of the phase 3 trials in adults, as well as epidemiological and pharmacovigilance data.
In other words, the HAS does not hide its concern about the long-term tolerance to the vaccine, and about the consequences in terms of “immunogenicity”. This learned term covers the probable lasting drop in immune defenses in vaccinated people. Take ! take !
In addition, she begins to wonder about the refusal of the vaccine among doctors and caregivers … It clearly indicates that the marketing must remain conditional as long-term data is not updated.
All these precautions should naturally lead to suspending vaccination while waiting to see more clearly. It is rationality itself that demands it. But the Taliban in power has long been out of the realm of reason.