It is great that MODERN TIMES allows itself a critical look at the "holy grail of medicine". But some claims in the review of the book "Vaccine coercion" needs correction and nuance. I would like to mention five points:
- Reference is made to a quotation from the book regarding what sanctions one risks in different countries if one does not follow the state's vaccine program: «The state may threaten to take your children from you. Or the children can be vaccinated at school without your knowledge and will. " The reviewer claims that the source stated (4) is not to be found on the website. In (4), the article and website are listed, but not the URL. But if you google the title – "Is the medical community invading your family" (use quotation marks!), The article appears at the top of the list. It works just as well in Google as in DuckDuckGo. This article refers to laws that open up for such a practice. An example: «B23-0171 (= Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019) places vaccines in a special category to allow legally unaccountable individuals to persuade a minor child to get vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of the parent. »
- Reference is made to an example from Vaccine intake concerning Australia No jab, No pay-principle. MODERN TIMES has found out that “there are actually exemptions – which are not mentioned in the book. […] You can actually get an exemption if an approved doctor confirms that there are medical contraindications… »But if you go to the website MODERN TIMES refers to, you will only find one approved contraindication, namely anaphylactic shock, which is an acute and life-threatening allergic reaction immediately after vaccination. On the other hand, 18 relevant contraindications are listed as not should be able to grant exemptions, including what any doctor would normally look for – "a family history of adverse vaccine reactions immediately after vaccination". This applies any adverse events, ie regardless of type and severity. The exemptions are therefore not worth much when it comes to the play. In addition, doctors who grant many exemptions may risk sanctions from the Norwegian Board of Health, which further limits the possibilities for medical exemptions.
- An impression is given in the discussion that FrP has only written a statement on compulsory vaccination for children. It is not true. They have a national meeting decision from May 2019, where they are in favor of compulsory vaccination.
- Yes, Pfizer has used real placebo in its early studies on the coronary vaccine. They were ordered to do so by the FDA, which in turn was under strong pressure from vaccine critics in the United States at this point. If they have done this correctly (it remains to be seen!) It says the stark contrast to all other vaccines listed on the mandatory vaccine program. So we should ask ourselves: why have not the other vaccines undergone the same standard procedure? That is the question Vaccine intake focus on.
- MODERN TIMES misses more «corona-related information». This is understandable, and more will come in the 2nd edition. The book was closed before any coronary vaccine was tested. However, it has thorough references to the vaccine trials that took place after SARS-CoV-1 (2003). These experiences were so frightening that even ardent vaccine promoters, such as Peter Hotez and Paul Offit, have warned against the urgent development that has taken place with the new coronary vaccines. Children's Health Defense describes the problem as follows: Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China's 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines. At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying. Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies, especially in their lungs. Researchers had seen this same "enhanced immune response" during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died. Even the leader of the United States Coronavirus Task Force, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, has warned: The issue of safety, something that I wanna make sure the American public understand. […] Does the vaccine make you worse? And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you are trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection. You can get a good feel for that in animal models. So that's going to get interspersed at the same time that we are testing. We're going to try and make sure we do not have any enhancement. The worst possible thing you can do, is vaccinate someone to prevent infection and actually make them worse.
The life-threatening immune response, also known from other vaccines, led to mass deaths among the experimental animals tested for the SARS-Cov-1 vaccine. But the reaction came only by exposure to the natural coronavirus, or a virus of the same family. The effect was revealed with animal experiments. But that has not been the case for SARS-CoV-2. Fauci, who is known for speaking out of both mouths, was thus able to commit "the worst thing you could do".
MODERN TIMES's review of the book Vaccine intake you can read here