REPORT FOR LEADING AND COOPERATING WITH A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.
AGAINST:
Mr. H.M. De Jonge (Hugo) Minister of VWS
Mr. J. Bridge (Hans) Director General RIVM
Mr. J.T. van Dissel (Jaap) Director CIB RIVM
Mrs. M.C.J.M. (Miriam) Sturkenboom Associate Professor UMX Utrecht/ member of the WHO Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety

TRANSLATION FROM ENGLISH

https://www.globalresearch.ca/globalized-wellness-the-big-pharma-covid-vaccine-marathon/5714053

#wouterragiver

As for pharmaceutical giants who are looking for the first #Covid19 #vaccine in the world, the race is very popular. The SARS-COV-2 is still praised as the most time-sensitive crisis of our modern age, and CEOs of various pharmaceutical companies do not hide the fact that they put the safety of their production schedule on the long track. If there is anything, they even seem to praise such a risky practice and eventually seem to pick up some remarkable rewards to do so.

Johnson & Johnson chief scientist, Paul Stoffels, has revealed that the company will spend $500 million on research and development of a vaccine (which, incidentally, is part of a $1 billion partnership with the US government). Stoffels announced that his company is committed to starting production within a few weeks 'before the vaccine has undergone clinical trials or has been approved by the FDA'. The reasoning behind this rush to produce, as Stoffels explains, is to ensure that large quantities are ready for consumption - assuming they are finally approved. Although Stoffels admits that this is a generally unorthodox approach to vaccine development, he justifies this unprecedented reverse order because “the crisis is so great that we have to organize and start working differently... (Forbes, 30 March). '

Stoffels also denies all profit-based ambitions in this blatant pursuit of vaccine development. He claims that J&J is developing a vaccine that is essentially not intended for profit, so that it is “more affordable and available worldwide as soon as possible”. He also stresses that this is 'not about competition' and that essentially 'there must be more trains on track in order to succeed here than just one vaccine'.

Although the seemingly altruistic attitude of Johnson and Johnson has been clearly expressed in relation to her efforts to combat the coronavirus, it should nevertheless be noted that the stock value of the company rose by 7.5% immediately after the announcement (Forbes, 30 March).

Some analysts have indeed warned that the US stock market may recover prematurely (and ultimately superficially) due to the infusion of optimism about the news that a vaccine product will be available in the near future. This optimism was put even more under pressure by an announcement from Matt Hancock (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the UK) that the Jenner Institute of the University of Oxford has in fact been ready for distribution already in September. Human trials apparently began at the end of April (The Telegraph, May 13).

Geoffrey Porges, Director of Therapeutic Research and Senior Research Analyst at SVB Leerink (a specialized investment bank dedicated to healthcare), has warned that announcements of this kind pose the risk of predetermined expectations among the public , to the point where “having a vaccine and having a vaccine in this period seems to be a foregone.” Porges adds that “such a conclusion subsequently disrupts policymakers, decisions and expectations of investors and developers.”

The implication is that these kinds of expectations have led to a dramatic increase in the stocks of pharmaceutical companies, and that the prophecy itself seems to be sufficient to conjure the equity value. Meanwhile, ambitions are being made to stimulate the development of a vaccine as soon as possible 'the risk of safety or efficacy obligations on the road', says Porges. He also points out concerns that “epidemiologists and economists seem to be planning a vaccine that comes out of the pipeline within six months, (although a broader) used vaccine is likely to last two to three years in (Porges) 'most optimistic 'estimate.”

The Gates/Fauci vaccine developed by Moderna. Video with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Andrew Kaufman
By coincidence, Porges's opinion came just after a peak of 20% in the S&P 500 Index after a number of remarkable lows in March (Bloomberg, 22 April).

At the time of writing, more than 70 vaccines are currently under development, with companies like Moderna and Johnson & Johnson earmarked for faster development. In addition, experimental vaccines developed by Pfizer have already been rolled out in the US.

But there is far from unilateral agreement between the scientific community when it comes to the ethics of such rapid brewing in the vaccine industry. In a recent edition of Nature, Dr.. Shibo Jiang (professor of virology in New York and Shanghai, and also one of the original developers of the SARS vaccine) that:

“... In the United States, the biotechnology company Moderna in Norwood, Massachusetts, has sent an experimental vaccine based on Messenger RNA to the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in Bethesda, Maryland, for clinical trial testing. The mRNA based platform for the delivery of vaccines has proven to be safe in humans, but this COVID-19 vaccine is not. The NIAID states that the risk of slowing the progress of vaccines is much greater than the risk of causing disease in healthy volunteers, but I fear vaccine developers will run in too fast if the standards are lowered” (Nature, March 16-20).

Despite serious concern, as it comes from an experienced virologist like Jiang in March (which in our current Covid culture could be just as well a hundred years ago), it seems that the mold is now cast in terms of pharmaceutical companies' expectations about when a vaccine could come on the market - let alone whether it should appear at all. The expectation is official and companies want to deliver it yesterday.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that “the short time frame of less than four months in which we have been able to move from preclinical studies to human testing is extraordinary.” Bloomberg reports that, across the board, “drug makers have worked with regulators to shorten development times to stop the spread of the virus...”

By the way, the shares of Pfizer increased by 2.2% shortly after the publication of their news about possible options for early vaccination.

However, Bloomberg warns that “given what has happened to the development of other vaccines in the past, there is a risk that the new vaccination will actually make patients more susceptible to serious illnesses.” As regards the specific timeframe, Pfizer projected the autumn of 2020 as a target period for emergency use of their vaccine. Currently, the company is working on four different potential products, each of which is based on a 'new type of RNA technology'.

More specifically, when injected into the body, the RNA (ribonucleic acid) inserts itself into human cells, resulting in the formation of viral proteins that eventually cause the development of protective antibodies.

The only problem with this technology is that it has not yet been approved.

Director of the NYU Langone Vaccine Center, Mark Mulligan, has pointed out that this type of vaccine technology used by Pfizer is actually more of an “imitation of what happens with a natural immune response to an intruder”, and that there are some obvious advantages to a such a vaccine product “in terms of the speed at which they can be produced and this idea that this is a natural type of vaccination” (Bloomberg, May 5).

Alternatively, the Saturday Evening Post recently revealed a big step towards a vaccine built specifically on synthetic biology - with the advantage that such a product can be rolled out in large quantities much earlier. “To create new vaccines, researchers use computers to design nanoparticles that assemble themselves from protein building blocks, LEGO-like, and attach viral molecules that cause a strong immune response” (Saturday Evening Post, June 2020, Vol. 292).

An additional (so-called) advantage of this alternative brand of vaccine technology is that, once developed, it does not have to be cooled. Of course, this has significant implications for widespread use in Third World countries. It is not surprising that funding for this emerging variant of vaccine technology comes from the NIH and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It goes without saying that pharmaceutical companies have become so imbued with our globalized wellness infrastructure that we don't even see them anymore. They are ubiquitous anchored in the background of our social fabric, and are considered everyday important and essential as the sanitary facilities in our homes and our cities. This widespread habituation has ultimately numb our sense of collective concern to the point where we are not so alarmed by how their products are conceived, nor by whom ultimately finances their research and development. Their deeper, inner workings are not part of our personal lives, so why should we care?

Coupled with the official Covid-19 story itself and the treacherous scare tactics paraded by ill-informed officials and mainstream media, it is safe to say that we have officially entered an era of radicalized and globalized media. seeking. The intended consumers are those who do not question the risks, side effects or injuries that are possible under such accelerated industrialized conditions; it is for those who simply want to have the promise of a cure for something that they blindly as a biological monstrosity.

The scary thing is that so many citizens simply agree to it, without asking questions. And if you do ask questions about it, be prepared to be rejected immediately because you do not have a valid perspective, and your perspectives continue to sound up to the clattering of a “silver-paper-hat-wearing” conspiracy theorist.

But my general urge is to remember that this unusual and fascinating event in our history can actually serve as a very poignant incentive to redirect our attention to the crucial issue of freedom.

After all, this is really the most important thing that we as a global society can share. Without it, I'd say we don't even have a society in the end.

With this in mind, we can actually look at the blatantly admitted previous of security policy that our drug providers use, and do our fellow neighbours a real public service simply by not being in order with such irresponsible standards.

Moreover, our collective resistance to such sociopathic medication should ultimately serve as the new standard - contrary to what is endlessly offered to us as the “new norm”. Otherwise, by silently and willingly accepting the desperate, profit-driven norms behind such accelerated vaccine developments in today's world, we tell the developers and financiers behind such things that our bodies (along with our intellectual integrity by the way) are essentially for sale.

*