Home Infos

Alarmierende C-Studien

Normalerweise werden Medikamente und insbesondere Impfungen 8 bis 1o Jahre getestet. Das ist wissenschaftlicher Standard, um Menschenleben zu schützen. Denn kein Mensch kann mittelfristige oder sogar Langzeitnebenwirkungen bis hin zum Tod vorhersagen. Es sei denn die Politik setzt sich, gottgleich, über alles hinweg und beauftragt Studien und Gutachten, bei denen sie das gewünschte Ergebnis vorgibt, wie im Falle Corona nachgewiesen.

Somit laufen nun die Versuchsreihen an der Menschheit. Regime auf der halben Welt, vor allem der “Westen” machen quasi ihre Bevölkerungen zu Labor-Ratten und das teils mit derartig neuen Verfahren (Gen-Therapien, wie mRNA, Vector, u.a.) die so nie zuvor beim Menschen eingesetzt wurden. Selbst der renommierte Wissenschaftler und Erfinder der mRNA Technik, Dr. Melone, USA, warnt vor zu schnellem Einsatz und warnt vor möglichen starken Impfschäden.

Länder wie China jedoch, setzten auf einen alt bewährten, getesteten Grippeimpfstoff , Tot-Impfstoff (deaktivierte, abgetötete Viren), der seit vielen, vielen Jahren erprobt und sehr erfolgreich im Einsatz ist. Dieser wurde nur auf das Sars Cov 2-Virus angepasst. Also keine Experimente mit unbekannten Verfahren in der ersten Phase.

Sinopharm (Zulassung 31.12.20 in China, angepasst mit Wuhan-Institut) dürfte der meist verimpfte Stoff auf der Welt sein (Asien, arabischer Raum, u.a.).  Im Westen ist dieser erprobte Stoff verboten und nicht anerkannt. Hier werden stattdessen nur experimentelle Stoffe zugelassen.

Nach ca. einem 3/4 Jahr experimenteller Massenimpfungen liegen immer mehr Studien zu den neuen Gen-Therapien vor:

1. V-AIDS  entwickelt sich

The Lancet (Abo wöchentlich, Elsevier-Verlag) ist die, oder eine der ältesten und renommiertesten Fachzeitschriften für Mediziner auf der ganzen Welt. Die Veröffentlichung einer aktuellen Studie aus Schweden, so die Zusammenfassung von Journalisten, begleitete 1,6 Mio. Teilnehmer über längere Zeit von 9 Monaten.

Eine Kontrollgruppe blieb danach ungeimpft, eine Gruppe geimpft:

• Diejenigen, die in der Gruppe der vollständig Geimpften auf die Impfung reagierten und Antikörper bildeten, zeigten nur für kurze Zeit (nur teils max. 6 Monate) einen, so wörtlich “Hauch von Immunschutz” !!!
• Je öfter Personen “geimpft” wurden (3. / 4. Injektion), desto schneller erliegt der Körper einem AIDS-ähnlichen Syndrom, einer jeweils leichten Schwächung des Immunsystems V-Aids genannt).
• Quellen:
• Presselink: https://pressecop24.com/booster-warnung-je-mehr-impfstoffe-eine-person-gegen-das-covid19-coronavirus-injiziert-bekommt-desto-schneller-erliegt-ihr-koerper-einem-aids-aehnlichen-immun
• PDF  Studie aus Schweden: delivery.php (ssrn.com)  
• Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study by Peter Nordström, Marcel Ballin, Anna Nordström :: SSRN

• Auszug Manuskript Studie:

  Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 months: a Swedish total-population cohort study

  Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, Marcel Ballin, MSc., Anna Nordström, MD, PhD

  Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Unit of Geriatric Medicine, Umeå

  University, Umeå, Sweden (Peter Nordström and Marcel Ballin)

  Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Sustainable Health, Umeå

  University, Umeå, Sweden (Marcel Ballin and Anna Nordström)

  School of Sport Sciences, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway (Anna

  Nordström)

  Abstract word count: 299

  Main text word count: 3467

  Corresponding author:

  Peter Nordström, Professor

  Unit of Geriatric Medicine

  Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation

  Umeå University

  90187 Umeå

  Sweden

  Phone: +4670 899 65 99

  E-mail: peter.nordstrom@umu.se

  Manuscript Click here to view linked References

  This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410

  Preprint not peer reviewed

  Abstract

  Background: Whether vaccine effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)

  lasts longer than 6 months is unclear.

  Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Swedish nationwide registries.

  The cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2

  doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated

  individuals. Cases of symptomatic infection and severe Covid-19 (hospitalization or 30-day

  mortality after confirmed infection) were collected from 12 January to 4 October 2021.

  Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from

  92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-

  180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41,

  P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59%

  (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19

  was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and

  onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall,

  vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the

  outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day

  15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses

  showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with

  comorbidities.

  Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes

  progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of

  vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness

  seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and

  This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410

  Preprint not peer reviewed

  individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for

  administration of a third booster dose.

  Research in context

  Evidence before this study

  Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)

  vaccines against the risk of infection and severe illness. However, reports on breakthrough

  infections and waning immunity have raised concerns regarding the duration of vaccine

  protection, and whether additional doses are warranted. Currently, there is some evidence to

  suggest waning vaccine effectiveness against infection up to 6 months after vaccination, with

  protection against severe illness appearing to be better maintained. Yet, the evidence is

  limited and consistent, in part due to evaluations of vaccines that may have different longlasting effects, a low proportion of old participants, and varying and relatively short follow-up

  times. Specifically, whether vaccine effectiveness persist beyond 6 months is unknown.

  Added value of this study

  In this study, vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against symptomatic infection waned

  progressively from 92% during the first month, to 47% by month 4-6 and from 7 months and

  onwards no effectiveness was detected. Effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273,

  whereas effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower. Overall, effectiveness was

  lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome of hospitalization

  or death, effectiveness (any vaccine) waned from 89% during the first month to 42% from

  month 6 and onwards in the total population. There was notable waning among especially

  men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.

  Implications of all the available evidence

  This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410

  Preprint not peer review.

  Specifically, from the total cohort, each fully vaccinated (2
  doses) individual was matched 1:1 to one randomly sampled unvaccinated individual on birth
  year, and sex, with baseline set to the date of the second dose of vaccine, in both vaccinated
  and matched unvaccinated individuals. Matched unvaccinated individuals were excluded if
  they received a first dose of vaccine or died within 14 days of baseline, and a new individual
  was searched from the remaining total cohort. This procedure was repeated 5 times. The final
  study cohort comprised 842,974 matched pairs of vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals
  (N=1,684,958). Data on individuals vaccinated or diagnosed with Covid-19 were collected
  from the Swedish Vaccination Register and SmiNet register, respectively, both of which are
  managed by the Public Health Agency of Sweden22 23
  . All health care providers in Sweden are
  obliged to report to these registers according to Swedish law, with a 100% coverage of the
  total population.
  We also formed a second cohort to be used in a forthcoming sensitivity analysis. This cohort
  was formed using less strict matching criteria to increase the size of the cohort. In this data
  set, each vaccinated individual was matched to the rest of the cohort on age only, with an
  allowance of a 5-year difference in age within each pair. This process was repeated 10 times
  and one unvaccinated individual could be paired with several vaccinated individuals. This
  resulted in a cohort of 1,983,315 pairs (N=3,966,630).
  Exposure, outcome, and baseline date for the analyses
  In the analyses, the exposure variables were vaccination status (vaccinated with 2
  doses/unvaccinated). Vaccination status was defined according to each specific vaccine
  schedule, as well as a composite variable (any vaccine). There were two outcomes of the
  study. The first was symptomatic infection until 4 October, 2021 latest. In 94·4% of cases,
  This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410
  Preprint not