Fear the Public Health Bureaucrats Bearing Gifts

The proverbial 'lessons of history' show abuse and obfuscation in recent memory, courtesy of Der Spiegel from 2018

The archive, a common quip goes, is the historians’ revenge. Today, I have a quite interesting piece from Der Spiegel, of all places, from ‘BC’, or ‘before Covid’, that lists, in quite conspicuous detail, several things that clearly went wrong with the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Swine Flu Pandemic™’ of 2009.

And, before you read on, remember that what transpired in the past 4+ years is, of course, unique in history, has never happened before, and there is absolutely nothing to debate in terms of what we should do now that the EU Commission has discontinued, at the manufacturer’s request, the market authorisation for AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 injections.

As always, translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.

---

GlaxoSmithKline: Manufacturer of Swine Flu Vaccine Ignored Risks

Around 30m Europeans received the swine flu vaccine ‘Pandemrix™’ nine years ago. Even then, there were considerable safety concerns. Now new, serious allegations are coming to light.

By Irene Berres and Magdalena Hamm, Der Spiegel, 21 Sept. 2018 [source]

After the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared swine flu a global epidemic, authorities around the world activated their emergency plans [remember that the WHO ‘faked’ this ‘pandemic’, according to Forbes]. A swine flu vaccine had to be found, in the shortest possible time, for millions of people. The idea was that this was the only way humans could regain control over the spread of the virus.

Even back then, many criticised the fact that standards had been lowered too much due to the haste. A recent report in the British Medical Journal now confirms that the vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had explosive information on the side effects of the Pandemrix vaccine used in Europe at an early stage, but ignored the warning signs [why, pray tell, is GSK still (!) in operation?].

To speed up production, GSK added an active ingredient booster to its vaccine. This allowed companies and authorities to distribute less active ingredient to more people. Until now, this so-called adjuvant was considered to be the most problematic part of the vaccine. Now the British Medical Journal reports that there may also have been problems in the manufacturing process of the European product.

Allergic Shock, Facial Paralysis, Convulsions

The scientific journal refers to data that circulated in four internal reports on side effects at GSK between December 2009 and March 2010. Excerpts from these reports have now been disclosed by a lawyer in connection with adverse reaction lawsuits. The corresponding document has also been made available to Der Spiegel.

According to the document, it was already apparent at the beginning of the vaccination campaign that the Pandemrix vaccine produced and used in Europe led to significantly more reports of side effects than its Canadian counterpart—even though the two products were both manufactured by GSK with the same active ingredient and the same adjuvant. Possible causes could be traces of other substances that found their way into the European vaccine during production

• While 1138 serious side effects were documented for the European vaccine Pandemrix by the end of November [2009], for example, the figure for the Canadian drug Arepanrix was only 95.

• In view of the number of people vaccinated, this means that 75.8 serious side effects were reported for every million people vaccinated with Pandemrix. With Arepanrix, there were 7.9 serious side effects per million vaccinated people [which is virtually a magnitude (!) of difference].

The much more frequent side effects include allergic shock, facial paralysis, convulsions, vasculitis, and encephalitis. All side effects were observed around the time of vaccination. This does not yet prove that the vaccination was the trigger. However, the reports per million doses remained largely constant from December 2009 to March 2010.

Although the differences between the two variants of the drug were so obvious, according to the British Medical Journal, they were never publicly addressed or investigated further. There are also possible explanations for the differences that invalidate safety concerns. For example, it could be that the Europeans were more sensitised by the critical reporting and reported more side effects than the Canadians. Nevertheless, the company should have investigated this [sure, blaming the victims never gets old; also, where were the regulators, as in: why do we pay ‘public health’ officials (on which see below)?].

‘Large-scale experimentation with an insufficiently tested vaccine’

‘The figures on the side effects of Pandemrix don’t surprise me at-all’, says Wolfgang Becker-Brüser, editor of the Big Pharma-critical Arznei-Telegramm:

I already said at the time that swine flu was being used to start a large-scale experiment in Germany with a vaccine that had not been sufficiently tested and was therefore unsuitable for mass immunisation.

According to the report, the number of serious side effects reported in connection with Pandemrix totalled more than 5,000 by the end of 2018 [remember, this was a product that was ‘fully approved’ by public health officials before the swine flu ‘pandemic™’]. Estimates assume that only around 10% of side effects from medicines are documented—the number of serious side effects that actually occurred is therefore likely to be significantly higher [gee, why did we have to replay that shitshow?].

This illustrates just how risky the vaccination campaign was, says Becker-Brüser:

In my opinion, the risk was negated by the responsible authorities. They wanted to vaccinate, they wanted to get rid of the vaccine they had bought.

According to the British Medical Journal, at least the Irish government is aware that the responsible authorities were in possession of GlaxoSmithKline’s internal side-effect reports. Nevertheless, the vaccination campaign in Ireland continued unabated [would it be too late to call for harsh punitive measures?].

In Becker-Brüser’s view, it is also problematic that the responsible authorities did not carry out sufficient interim analyses [again, why to ‘we, the people’, pay for the FDA, the EMA, etc.?]:

In a large-scale experiment like this, you should actually stop after a certain number of vaccinated doses and look at whether the benefit-harm ratio is still right. That didn’t happen, even though it soon became clear that swine flu would be much milder than predicted [Groundhog Day, swine flu style]

What is GlaxoSmithKline’s position on the allegations?

When asked by the British Medical Journal, GSK stated that it had submitted all available safety data on Pandemrix to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on a weekly basis, where it is still publicly available. According to the report, GSK did not answer questions about whether the company had investigated the differences in the reports on Pandemrix and Arepanrix, whether it had informed health authorities about the differences or considered recommending Arepanrix instead of Pandemrix. Instead, it referred to ongoing legal proceedings [it all has happened before].

It is also questionable what the European Medicines Agency knew about the different side effect profiles of the vaccines. In a statement to the British Medical Journal, the EMA explained that it does not carry out comparative benefit and risk analyses between different products [they were the same, but they were marketed under different brand names].

Despite the current analysis, Becker-Brüser still sees the adjuvants as the biggest problem with Pandemrix:

There are enough examples of other vaccines [such as the HPV jab ‘Gardasil’ by Merck, currently in court and pending discovery] that also contain adjuvants and show poorer tolerability than those without. In the case of Pandemrix, however, there are no comparative studies on products with and without adjuvants—there are and have been too few studies on this [‘look, we were not required to study this issue, hence we don’t know’]

Long-known Side Effect: Narcolepsy

At least one serious side effect of Pandemrix has now been studied quite well. After the mass vaccinations, a striking number of people developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleeping sickness. The problem only became known months after the end of the vaccination campaigns [this is a big, fat, and stinkin’ lie: reports about suspected narcolepsy cases made the Norwegian Institute of Public Health stop the vaccination campaign, on which see below]. Among the approximately 30 million Europeans vaccinated, there were around 1300 cases of narcolepsy, which are thought to be linked to the drug. Children and adolescents are particularly affected.

In May 2016, the Swedish government decided to compensate those affected with up to one million euros. Lawsuits against GSK are ongoing. The data that has now become public also comes from one of these proceedings [of course, GSK won’t disclose anything voluntarily, and neither will public health officials oblige them to—sounds like the AstraZeneca thing to me].

Nevertheless, GSK and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still do not consider it proven that the cases are attributable to Pandemrix [this is hilarious, if it weren’t such a piece of journalistic malpractice: Pandemrix’ marketing authorisation had been cancelled by the EMA on 10 June 2016, i.e., more than two years before this Spiegel piece was published; it was cancelled due to its side-effect profile and concerns about human health while court trials were ongoing…]. Further investigations are needed to confirm what role Pandemrix may have played in the development of narcolepsy in those affected, GSK explained to the British Medical Journal.

At least one thing is certain: Pandemrix no longer poses a risk. With the end of the swine flu epidemic, it has also lost its marketing authorisation.

---

Bottom Lines

This is all, of course, testament to the widespread insanity that has affected, and continues to affect, a sizeable share of people all around us.

All of this has happened before, and the receipts are, well, all over the place. Take, e.g., the misinformation about concerns coming to light after the ‘pandemic’ was over. Take, for instance, this account of Norway’s chief epidemiologist Preben Aavitsland who spoke candidly about the ‘Pandemrix’ in Norway (it’s a long read):

Covid in Norway--Vaxx Injuries Edition: Pandemrix (2009 swine flu) caused a fraction of AEs and was shut down: this time *is* different, ain't it?

On the other hand, with the WHO-declared, so-called Covid ‘pandemic™’ we’re so far gone—there are no more standards, experiences, or the like.

From the below-linked piece:

Using publicly available reports from both the Institute of Public Health (IPH) and the National Medicines Agency (NMA), which I combined with legacy media pieces and a couple of other sources (papers), I was able to show that back in 2009/10, the swine flu vaccination campaign was shut down after 1,449 AEs, 584 of which were deemed severe, at a time when 2.2m injections were administered.

Fast forward to spring 2021, specifically the NMA AE report from 18 May 2021 (source here, p. 4), with approx. the same number of doses administered, there were way, way more both ‘light’ and ‘severe’ AEs with the Covid-19 products:

Yet, the injection program—if judged by the Norwegian public health authorities’ standards less than 15 years ago—must have been shut down…well, when exactly?

Covid in Norway--vaxx injury update: there were 13 deaths reported after injection by 14 Jan. 2021 (it's 255 and counting now)--what's your number to stop these products?

The Covid shenanigans are still-ongoing, and there’s no stopping it; the AstraZeneca discontinuation is but a very limited hangout, if anything.

We’ve experienced virtually all of this before, albeit on a much smaller scale.

By now, what we can do, first and foremost, is hoping that the human body is able to ‘deal’ with the consequences.

And demand justice.