This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”)). All data contained herein is sourced from VigiBase®, the World Health Organization’s (the “WHO”) global database for ADRs, maintained by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (the “UMC”).
To access the database follow the link below and type into the search box “comirnaty”.
Comirnaty contains the active ingredient(s): Covid-19 vaccine.
Covid-19 vaccines are exposing populations to serious, unnecessary and unjustified medical risks.
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them. In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
11th Nov 2020 : A Portuguese Court of Appeal has made a judgement in relation to a detention case. In it the Court analysed how reliable the PCR Test is and concluded that if misused the PCR Test would have a reliability as low as 3%. for the detection of Coronavirus, and with a False Positive rate of 97%.
The judge references a Sept 2020 paper in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal which determined that the quality of a PCR Test depends on the amount of “amplification” cycles used in the test with the following cycle vs quality tradeoff:
25 = 70%, 30 = 20%, 35 = 3%, 35> = 0%
The Portugeuse judge concluded that at 35 cycles a PCR Test produces only 3% reliability and 97% false positives.
The NHS guidance for the use of PCR for the diagnosis of Coronavirus, is 45 Cycles, which is equal to producing 0% .
Samples from the ruling:
“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of the samples remained positive in cell culture (ie they were infected): at a ct of 30, 20% of the samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3 % of the samples remained positive; and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).
This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as is the case in most laboratories in the US and Europe), the probabilities of a person being infected are less than 3%. The probability of the person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”
“In short, Covid-19 tests that call for false positives are increasingly likely in the current uk epidemiological climate landscape, with substantial personal consequences for the health and corporate system.
Thus, there are so many scientific doubts expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their performance and that there is no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of the existence of infection and risk”
“To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels”
Murder is an emotive word. In law, it requires premeditation. Death must be deemed to be unlawful. How could “murder” apply to failures of a pandemic response? Perhaps it can’t, and never will, but it is worth considering. When politicians and experts say that they are willing to allow tens of thousands of premature deaths for the sake of population immunity or in the hope of propping up the economy, is that not premeditated and reckless indifference to human life? If policy failures lead to recurrent and mistimed lockdowns, who is responsible for the resulting non-covid excess deaths? When politicians wilfully neglect scientific advice, international and historical experience, and their own alarming statistics and modelling because to act goes against their political strategy or ideology, is that lawful? Is inaction, action?1 How big an omission is not acting immediately after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020?
At the very least, covid-19 might be classified as “social murder,” as recently explained by two professors of criminology.2 The philosopher Friedrich Engels coined the phrase when describing the political and social power held by the ruling elite over the working classes in 19th century England. His argument was that the conditions created by privileged classes inevitably led to premature and “unnatural” death among the poorest classes.3 In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell echoed these themes in describing the life and living conditions of working class people in England’s industrial north.4 Today, “social murder” may describe the lack of political attention to social determinants and inequities that exacerbate the pandemic. Michael Marmot argues that as we emerge from covid-19 we must build back fairer.5
Coerced vaccination, no jab – no pay – no job, is not a thing of the future. The ‘vaccine hesitant’ are being sacked and it is happening now.
Barchester Healthcare Ltd employ a staff of approximately 17,000. Over several months they have conducted a campaign successfully to ‘persuade’ all their workforce to have a Covid-19 vaccine. They say about 90% have been vaccinated. They have written to the rest to say that, unless they can provide evidence of medical exemption, then their employment will be terminated.
Their campaign of persuasion has been nothing less than coercion. Barchester have offered a vaccine bonus for the vaccinated but for employees who do not agree to be vaccinated, they have repeatedly and expressly threatened.
The legal case
The law has not changed. The Human Rights Act is still in place, as is the legal requirement for informed consent.
Coerced injection of any substance is an interference with fundamental human rights that must be justified as necessary and proportionate. In circumstances where the government keeps repeating that the vaccines do not stop transmission and that the vulnerable have been vaccinated already, it is difficult to see any justification whatsoever.
Irrespective of your thoughts about these treatments – who may or may not benefit from any Covid vaccine, their efficacy, the adverse events, their experimental nature, unknown medium or long term harms or whether they should be regarded as unlawful because there is no longer an emergency – everyone still has the right to their personal and bodily autonomy.
On April 20, all following Members of the European Parliament were served with notices of liability, advising that they may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of a Digital Green Certificate (Vaccine Passport), to be voted upon in the European Parliament on April 28, 2021.
“Remember, all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.”
The most read book in the world is the Bible.
According to a list of religious populations (1) Christianity remains the largest religion with 31.11% of the world population. That is equal to 2.323 billion people.
Out of those 2.323 billion people how many of them actually know the real meaning(s) of the words that are being used in the Bible as they were originally intended to be used and as they have been translated from Hebrew and Greek.
The Bible is very much like law in the sense that words can and do tend to have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which they are being used. In law, Blacks Law Dictionary is used to understand intended meanings from a legal perspective, whereas for the Bible the meaning of words can be found in Strong’s Bible Concordance. Strong’s provides an index of every word that is used in the King James Bible along with a detailed explanation of how it is defined and also provides links to word etymology.
Let us start at the beginning.
Wow! The opening verse of Genesis has so much information in just one word. But before I begin unpacking it all, I think it is important to point out there are rules to the English language and established boundaries in which to operate.
These rules are found in the New Oxford Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Styles which are the ‘go-to’ reference books of ‘officialdom’ and therefore indisputable in terms of representing the facts about language rules.
With this in mind, now consider the fact that the opening verse in the Bible is a narrative of a so called beginning of everything, the catalyst of all life, in short, it could be interpreted as the start of the universe. It is also the introduction to an all powerful deity called God.
And yet, strangely, despite this being the defining moment of existence, heaven and earth were not capitalised as proper nouns. Now before some one claims Hebrew was written without capital letters, which is true, it does not mean that words were not intended to be used with the equivalent meaning of nouns, if this were not the case, there would be no capitalisation found in Gen 1:8 and 1:10 respectively.
“And God called the firmament Heaven”.
“And God called the dry land Earth“.
The original translation of ancient Hebrew and Greek has recognised the use of proper nouns in verse(s) 1:8 and 1:10, but not in the crucial opening verse where one should expect to find them being used, particularly when the text relates to the beginning of creation, which naturally implies that everything is new and therefore can be considered unique in terms of proper noun use.
According to the rules of the English language the opening verse of the Bible was not intended to represent the beginning of space and time, or the creation of the universe, but rather the beginning of some-thing that was copied from pre-existing stuff — hence the use of common nouns to describe pre-existing heaven and earth.
As of 14 April 2021, for the UK, 50,022 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 145,994 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, 44 for the Moderna vaccine and 516 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions.