As a side note to the articles below: Almost everybody I know has now been vaxed, but yesterday I received my first personally-related report on a serious adverse reaction to the experimental mRNA therapy used against COVID-19. An old friend and former employer called me up and told me that her son, who is now in his late fifties, had suffered a stroke a few days after receiving the first dose of the Moderna “vaccine”. It caused some impairment of his ability to speak, and induced partial paralysis on one side of his body. He won’t be getting the second jab.
The following four German-language articles concern the adverse effects of the “vaccine” against the Wuhan Coronavirus. and other “pandemic”-related news.
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for the translations.
First, a report from B.Z. Berlin on severe adverse effects suffered by a jabbee who happens to be a well-known shoemaker in Berlin:
Paralyzed from the navel down
Friedrichshain cult shoemaker in a wheelchair after Corona vaccination
With his love of craftsmanship and a lot of heart, John O’Hara (59) became a cult shoemaker in Friedrichshain. Customers from all over Berlin came to his shop on Lebuser Straße. But the blinds have been down for two months now: “Closed due to illness”.
What is not on the note in the window: O’Hara has been vaccinated with AstraZeneca — and is now in a wheelchair.
BZ visited him in a rehab clinic near Berlin. His legs are paralyzed; he can neither stand nor walk. The fine motor skills of the hands do not work. Even opening a yogurt cup is no longer possible. In addition, he has constant pain in his back.
O’Hara just wanted to follow the recommendation of the federal government and get immunized against Corona at an early stage. With a heart attack as a previous illness, he belonged to priority group 3.
His cardiologist thought there was nothing against the AstraZeneca vaccine. As a layperson, O’Hara had to make the final decision — like hundreds of thousands of others. On June 7 he was vaccinated with the drug. Only twelve days later there was suddenly a sharp pain in his lumbar spine. An odyssey began: general practitioners, emergency rooms, specialists — no findings.
“The pain was like torture,” says the shoemaker. The numbness went from his legs to his hands. Only after a week did doctors at the Park-Klinik Weißensee diagnose Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).
It progresses rapidly; the immune system destroys the sheaths on the nerve cells. The experts stopped the process with therapies. And: they reported the suspicion of a vaccination complication to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) responsible in Germany.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was already aware of an accumulation of GBS cases after AstraZeneca vaccinations at the beginning of May. The PEI also counted 37 confirmed cases by the end of July! A warning was therefore included in the information sheet in August.
“My case would have been avoidable,” says John O’Hara. “If the doctors had been made aware of GBS as a rare consequence earlier, they would have recognized my symptoms more quickly.”
A spokeswoman for AstraZeneca declined to respond to a BZ request: There is currently no evidence of a connection between GBS and the vaccine. [There’s no evidence that the bullet manufactured by us was the cause of death in the shooting. — translator]
The doctors do not yet know whether John O’Hara will ever be able to reopen his shoemaker’s workshop and whether the paralysis will recede. He says: “Politicians and the pharmaceutical company should take responsibility for the victims!”
Guillain-Barré Syndrome! 37 cases already identified
According to a spokeswoman, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) received the first report of Guillain-Barré syndrome in connection with an AstraZeneca vaccination on February 19, 2021! At first this was an isolated incident.
By July 31, there had been a total of 84 suspicious adverse drug reaction reports. In 37 cases, the PEI was actually able to determine, according to the criteria of the World Health Organization, that the vaccination was the cause of the outbreak of the neurological disease. Statistically, according to the PEI, 8.48 cases would have been expected within 14 days of vaccination — but 43 cases were reported!
In July 2021, the Risk Assessment Committee of the European Medicines Agency recommended that a warning be included in the product information of the Covid-19 vaccines from Janssen and AstraZeneca.
The second article, from Die Achse des Guten, discusses the very interesting question of whether the Corona “vaccinations” actually make the disease worse:
And again: does the vaccination make COVID worse?
The phenomenon is called “antibody dependent enhancement” (ADE). Vaccination means that a new infection with the pathogen is much worse than without vaccination. I thought that was an exaggeration, but new evidence is worrying.
Dear reader: The following article is in parts quite difficult to understand for non-experts, but the consequences of this are understandable. In other words, we are poking around in the dark about the side effects and consequential effects of Covid vaccinations due to the lack of long-term studies, and there also seems to be a lack of political will to create better data as quickly as possible. The existing and gradually complementary information, however, increasingly advises even greater caution; the all-clear regarding the potential danger of vaccination can really be out of the question, because as you can read in this article, it even increases the risk of a serious illness with increasing probability.
So much for the general. In particular, the subject is unfortunately not easier to explain; the connections can only be determined from the synopsis of medical-clinical, statistical and cell-biological knowledge. But there is no other way, because I have to write down these new thoughts in a technically correct manner in order not to be vulnerable. Reporting on Covid and the vaccinations has unfortunately become a minefield. I must (and can) defend the interpretation that I give to the data of the study that follows, which the authors do not do in this case. I still don’t understand why no scientific colleague in a specialist journal does that.
Damage caused by vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is still so rare, with a frequency of less than 1:1000, that people do not perceive it from their own experience — similar to COVID deaths — without media reports. Only a few know a vaccine victim themselves (vaccinated dead or chronically vaccinated victims). If everyone were to know one, there would have to be a vaccination damage rate of at least 1:500 to 1:250, because everyone knows that many people directly or through an acquaintance. Only phenomena with such a high frequency get around quickly without media. That is also the reason why the vaccination propaganda is still working; if everyone knew a victim or two from their own experience, things would be different.
“Antibody dependent enhancement” (ADE)
For some time now, however, there has been evidence that vaccination worsens the disease. The phenomenon is called “antibody dependent enhancement” (ADE). Vaccination means that a new infection with the pathogen is much worse than without vaccination. This evidence has been growing for a few weeks, and another very important essay has now been published.
What’s in it?
The study examines whether vaccinated and unvaccinated convalescents differ in terms of outcomes. Differentiate between positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, COVID disease, COVID-related hospitalization or death from COVID. The study is a retrospective cohort observational study, so its quality and significance is worse than that of a prospective, randomized, controlled blind study (which I have explained in numerous articles). The results of such retrospective studies should only be taken seriously if the effects shown are very strong. That is the case here, however; in contrast to the miserable data that Public Health England (PHE) publishes every two weeks. These are retrospective cohorts, and indeed very large groups, so that the study has sufficient discriminatory power.
The study looked at three groups of test subjects: those who had been vaccinated twice (group 1, more than 650,000 individuals), those who had not recovered from SARS-CoV-2 (group 2, 62,000) and those who had recovered who received a single vaccine dose in addition (Group 3, 42,000; this group and Group 1 were almost all vaccinated with BNT162b from Pfizer / BioNTech). For the comparisons, the groups were all randomized to the same size — a good practice — and very meaningful statistical models were used.
The cohorts were generated in the study by adapting groups 2 and 3 to the group parameters (age, gender, demographic data) of the reference group in order to be able to compare the groups in a meaningful way (PHE does not do that). It should be noted critically that only subjects with a formerly positive PCR test are considered to be “recovered”, which, however, does not represent a problem for the statement of the study, because meanwhile all unvaccinated worldwide have recovered anyway (the virus has long been endemic).
The study is methodologically very clear
Three statistical models were calculated; in the models with significant results, vaccinations up to February 28, 2021 were taken into account. The outcomes were recorded between June 1 and August 14, 2021. In the first model, the time of vaccination and the time of infection of the convalescent were matched. In this way, a similar course of immunization was simulated in order to be able to compare the effect of the immunization, which diminishes over time, in both groups. In this model, those who have been vaccinated have a 27-fold higher chance of developing symptoms of COVID again compared to those who have recovered. The chance that this statement is wrong is P <0.001 (highly significant result).
In the second model, the time of immunization was not taken into account, as a result of which there were more vaccinated people who were only exposed to the risk of infection again relatively shortly after vaccination. Nevertheless, the risk of the vaccinated compared to the convalescent of falling ill again was increased by a factor of six in this analysis as well (P <0.001).
The third model, in which those who had recovered were compared with those who had recovered who had also been vaccinated once, did not produce any statistically significant results, which is not surprising, since the vaccination has no effect on those who have recovered, as the Pfizer study also shows.
Overall, there were only a few severely symptomatic patients in all groups, because the virus is largely harmless, and no deaths. The study is methodologically very clear, the results are significant and should be taken seriously, especially since the effects are very strong.
It looks like ADE
What do the results mean? The authors only conclude that those who have recovered are much better protected from re-infection than those who have been vaccinated. This is not surprising, because in a natural infection the body is naturally exposed to the entire virus with all its antigens, while vaccination with BNT162b only presents the body with the spike protein. This effect was to be expected from the outset.
But the real meaning of the study is different.
Looking at models 1 and 2, it is noticeable that when the time of immunization (through infection or vaccination) is taken into account, the risk of the vaccinated person for symptomatic re-infection was 27 times higher, while without taking into account the time of immunization, the risk is only 6 times higher. This can be attributed to the fact that the vaccine quickly wears off.
But the study looks at a short period of time, because only about three to six months passed between vaccination and measurement of the outcomes. It is hardly conceivable that the vaccination effect wears off so quickly that such a massive difference between the two models (with and without consideration of the time of immunization) would become visible in this short period of time. So the difference must have another reason.
The explanation is that ADE sets in about four to eight months after immunization, which partly coincides with the post-immunization period that the study is looking at. Why is this? With ADE, an antibody constellation develops in the serum about four to eight months (window of the onset of the ADE effect [i.F ADE window]) after vaccination, in which the antibodies that neutralize the virus and prevent it from being absorbed into the cells disappear, while antibodies that accelerate its uptake into the cells are still in the serum. When re-infection in the ADE window there is then an accelerated, more severe course. What we observe in the study looks like ADE because in the first model, compared with the group of those who have recovered, more patients from the group of vaccinated people walk into the ADE window, while in the second model this is not the case because of the time not taken into account since immunization. For the significance of the study, it is important that all unvaccinated people around the world have now recovered because the virus is endemic. Therefore, the effects shown in the study between the vaccinated and all other people (the unvaccinated) will soon become generally visible.
None of this is proof of ADE, but unfortunately it looks like it. The full picture of ADE, however, would show even more severe courses and, above all, deaths. That this is not the case can most likely be explained by the low incidence (in the real epidemiological sense, not in the sense of the RKI) of COVID in the summer, the observation period of the study. In winter, not only could there be more illnesses, but also significantly more deaths among those vaccinated.
Hard evidence of ADE, however, has to come from prospective cohort studies, which in addition to clinical outcomes, require biopsies and blood to be obtained to measure biochemical characteristics of ADE. It may well be that this will not happen all that quickly in the current social climate.
What ADE means
If we have the first signs of ADE in front of us, it could also develop here in Germany four to eight months after vaccination in young, healthy vaccinated people (under 70 years old) that we otherwise only know in very old patients. If that were the case, significantly more people among the vaccinated would die of COVID than among the unvaccinated beginning around October. If you consider the severity of the effect in group 1, if the incidence rose sharply compared to the summer, not just one in a thousand, but significantly more people would be affected. The toxic effect of the vaccination would be visible to everyone in their immediate vicinity. For those who have been vaccinated, SARS-CoV-2 would then be a real danger to life and limb, unlike last year before the vaccination campaign, or for those who have not been vaccinated.
Toxicologists such as Prof. Stefan Hockertz and the immunologist and inventor of the mRNA vaccination, Robert Malone, warned long before of ADE with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, I initially considered this to be exaggerated based on the results of the approval studies. Unfortunately, it now seems to be more likely.
Addendum to readers’ letters 5 p.m. / August 31, 2021
Some readers have raised the objection that I am quoting from a study that has not been validated by the peer method. My investigation of the study is a peer review, just one that was not commissioned by a journal. Therefore, the quality control was carried out with my examination. I check exactly what other reviewers check if they are working correctly.
Furthermore, the reader Manfred Wohlfeil made the following criticism of the analysis: “Models 1 and 2 basically cannot provide a comparison of NEW INFECTIONS of VACCINATED PEOPLE, since only Covid-19 NAIVE vaccinated people are considered for the vaccinated people. Mr. Ziegler comes to the wrong conclusions because he mixed up the groups. Incidentally, the authors of the study conclude something that is in direct contradiction to the statement in this article, quote: “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.” ‘
The following can be said about this.
1. There are three groups and three models; one has to read the study very carefully and think carefully to understand what the authors show. All three statistical regression models of the study examine the reinfection of the three different groups of test subjects. Therefore, the qualitative comparison of models 1 and 2 that I made is meaningful. The only difference between the models is that the epidemiologically quite exact matching (to some readers: of course also with regard to age) that was carried out in model 1 has been softened in model 2. The first objection raised by Mr. Wohlfeil is therefore no longer valid. 2. The conclusions of the authors quoted by Mr. Wohlfeil are inadmissible, since no statistically significant effects were calculated in model 3 (incidentally: the smaller the P value, the more significant the result, P <0.001 indicates a more certain falsification of the null hypothesis than P <0.01). Hopefully this conclusion should be drawn in the printed version of the article.
I had never heard of “vaccination buses” being sent to schools to lure children to be vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s what was happening in the Netherlands, according to this report from 2020News:
How the Dutch stopped school vaccination buses
The Dutch parents drove away the vaccination buses in front of their children’s schools with cameras and notices.
Inspired by a tweet from a friend who filmed a vaccination bus with his mobile phone’s camera, the Dutch activist and microbiologist Willem Engel called on social media for people to take pictures of the employees of mobile vaccination teams all over Holland. “No to the vaccination buses. Also make sure to take pictures of all employees for later,” he wrote on August 4, 2021 on Twitter.
The Dutch health service announced that they wanted to file a complaint against Engel. Engel commented on this two days later by tweet: “If I take a selfie, I don’t threaten suicide. Stop the nonsensical and pathological urge to associate intimidation, violence and threats with taking a photo! It’s really about everyone feeling that what is happening here is unacceptable and immoral #stopdeprikbus.”
Engel is concerned with securing evidence. The information concerning the vaccinations in Holland as well as in Germany is usually not up to professional standards. It is regularly not explained that the so-called Corona vaccinations are experimental gene-therapy applications that only have conditional approval in the EU because important studies have not been carried out. In addition, there is often no information about the sometimes massive side effects that are now becoming more and more obvious.
In rare exceptional cases, children and adolescents can consent to medical treatment with natural consent, without their parents’ consent, for example this is conceivable when splinting a leg in an acute situation when the parents are not on site. In the case of a complex treatment such as vaccination, the effects of which cannot be assessed and which is not time-critical, the consent of minors cannot be effectively given. If this takes place nonetheless, the vaccinators and other parties involved are guilty of bodily harm (in the worst case, resulting in death). For the schools that lure the children to the vaccination buses, punishable criminal offences are possible.
Taking photos of employees is not punishable in Holland if it is only documentary and occurs without threats or harassment, as suggested by Engel, according to the defense lawyer Joris van ‘t Hoff. Taking photos on public roads, even without the permission of the subjects, is generally allowed due to freedom of expression. The limit on this right lies with the right to the image, but then it must be proven that the person depicted has a legitimate interest in not being in the public eye. If the photos are used to gather evidence of a possible crime — for example, to provide evidence that a child was injected at a certain point in time in the vaccination bus without his or her parents’ presence — in Holland the public interest in the picture is likely to outweigh.
At the same time as the Engel photo campaign, Dutch parents have drawn the school principals’ attention to the legal problems concerning the vaccination buses with a sample letter from the organization Wir die Eltern — We the Parents”. The letter can be found here in a German modification.
Shortly after the Engel photo campaign, the vaccination buses disappeared from in front of schools in Holland. Engel reported on 2020News: “A group of parents armed with their cell phones gathered in front of a school and they couldn’t look fast enough, because the bus disappeared so quickly.”
The attorney Viviane Fischer explains about the Dutch campaign: “Many of the employees of the vaccination team are not aware that the vaccination is experimental, that it has a great potential for harm, and that the minors themselves cannot effectively consent to the vaccination. They are not aware of their personal liability risks. It is good if such a photo campaign helps employees to begin to become aware of their harmful role and their personal responsibility, especially with regard to our particularly vulnerable group of children and adolescents.
“In Germany it should be noted that civil law claims for deletion of images can exist under the Art Copyright Act and other norms if one specifically photographs employees of the vaccination team. In principle, however, justifications for the preservation of evidence for possible criminal offenses could also be adduced. It is important, for example, that no-one films inside the vaccination bus; it is forbidden to take uncoordinated photos in a closed room. As long as the pictures are not published, taking photographs in public space is not criminally relevant. Such recordings can be kept for future evidence.
“As can be seen in the Dutch video , a small rally took place in the immediate vicinity of the vaccination bus. In such a constellation — it can also be a spontaneous demonstration of at least two people — the event may also be filmed according to German law, and people who happen to be in the picture have to accept this, as follows from §22 of the Art Copyright Act.”
Finally, from PolitikStube, a report on the extension of the epidemic emergency in Germany:
Keep up the good work! Bundestag votes to extend the “epidemic situation”
With the votes of the coalition factions, the Bundestag prematurely extended the law that determines the epidemic situation of national importance. 325 MPs voted in favor, 253 against. Five abstained. Actually, the existing law will expire at the end of September. Under normal circumstances one would have waited before an extension, because the decision is legally contestable at this point in time. The law states that there is a current pressure to act and does not forecast anything for the future. But that is exactly what is happening now.
In spite of the uncontaminated health system, and only on the basis of the incidence values, it is agreed that the epidemic situation will be prolonged and that the state of affairs will be maintained. But this is the only way to continue administering the experimental vaccinations (by means of emergency approval) and to maintain the paternalism over the citizens. The only thing missing now is the postponement of the BTW [General Elections] in order to maintain power.