Side effects: one suspected serious case every 5,000 injections

03/08/2022 · Nicolas Mertens

In Germany, it is an official, comprehensive and precise report by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, which comes under the Ministry of Health, that reveals it: out of more than 172 million vaccine doses administered between December 2020 and April 2022, there was one suspected serious side effect every 5,000 injections ^[1], i.e. a total of more than 34,000 serious side effects reported so far.

Despite the caution with which official figures must be viewed – as everyone knows, they tend to under-record cases of side effects suffered during vaccination campaigns ^{^[2]}^{, ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]} – this is nevertheless a particularly reliable and credible count. Should it not be set against the low danger posed by Covid in the populations least at risk, such as children, and the vaccination recommendations be revised as soon as possible ^{^[8]}?

One suspected serious side effect every 5,000 injections

The figures come from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, which comes directly under the Ministry of Health in Germany ^{^[9]}. These figures are entirely official and have been relayed by the German Ministry of Public Health itself via its various channels ^{^[10]}.

It has indeed been confirmed that there is one suspected serious side effect every 5,000 injections ^{^[11]}, the risk being multiplied by the number of doses. “Boosters” also increase the risk, with each additional injection. In other words, on the basis of these statistics, and bearing in mind that the risk may vary according to each person’s profile, overall a person who receives 2 doses of “vaccine” and 2 “boosters” would have a 1 in 1,250 risk of suffering a serious side effect ^{^[12]}.

We are not talking here about mild side effects such as local inflammation, but about serious side effects such as myocarditis, pulmonary thrombosis and anaphylaxis ^{^[13]}, which can leave after-effects and even lead to death. Not to mention hearing or vision disorders, or rarer disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, which have also been observed ^{^[14]}. The report does not, however, count menstrual or fertility problems, which have nonetheless already been widely reported elsewhere ^{^[15]}^{, ^[16], ^[17]}.

How can vaccinating the populations least at risk be justified?

We know that people under 65 have a Covid recovery rate of more than 99.99%, and that across the entire Belgian population there was only one death per 10,000 inhabitants under 65 ^{^[18]}^{, ^[19], ^[20]}. A breakdown by age group under 65 is unfortunately not available for Belgium, but in France the number of deaths under 40 is close to 0% ^{^[21]}, and only 5% of deaths were under 60. In other words, 95% of the people whose death was attributed to Covid were over 60. How, then, can vaccination be justified for the under-60s, now that we know the terrible prevalence of serious side effects?

Moreover, everyone has been able to see around them that vaccination does not prevent people from falling ill. After the myth of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” ^{^[22]}, it quickly became clear that the vaccination rate in a country or region was in no way correlated with the number of cases measured or deaths, and that vaccination therefore does not prevent people from contracting Covid ^{^[23]}.

Vaccination that stops neither infection nor transmission

At one point there was talk of vaccinating populations not at risk in order to “protect the most vulnerable” ^{^[24]}^{, ^[25], ^[26]}. Yet we have since learned that being vaccinated prevents neither catching the disease nor transmitting it. The argument therefore no longer holds, and the only people who might have an interest in vaccination are those at risk, i.e. the over-60s, or even the over-80s. How indeed can one justify taking the absurd risk of a serious side effect to receive a vaccine that will change absolutely nothing about one’s risk of catching Covid or suffering any effect from it.

Finally, if the only reason for vaccinating is to reduce hospital saturation ^{^[27]}^{, ^[28]}, would it not have been more reasonable to treat patients before they were admitted to hospital, rather than subjecting the population to a product with such a level of reported serious incidents? When one sees the number of vaccines purchased ^{^[29]} and their price ^{^[30]}^{, ^[31], ^[32]} – the vaccine doses cost around 400 million euros for Belgium alone, not counting the exorbitant cost of setting up the vaccination campaigns –, one can imagine funding other early-treatment solutions to keep patients out of hospital.

What responsibility for political decision-makers? What solutions for the future?

Should the real question today not be that of identifying and compensating the victims of this senseless vaccination policy? And to go a little further, as has already been suggested by some such as Reiner Füllmich ^{^[33]}, should the political leaders who played into the hands of the pharmaceutical industries and allowed these vaccination policies to be imposed or heavily “encouraged”, for example through “disguised compulsory vaccination” ^{^[34]} brought about by the CST, not bear some responsibility?

Finally, how can we trust in future this healthcare system run by the WHO and by our politicians in the service of lobbyists ^{^[35]}^{, ^[36]}? The repressive measures currently being considered against so-called “disinformation” ^{^[37]}^, ^{^[38]} will not restore trust – quite the contrary. An overhaul of the system, with less authority and power for the institutions that have failed and more respect for doctors’ independence, seems essential. Has this crisis not shown that what is needed is not more centralisation, as is nonetheless being considered ^{^[39]}, but on the contrary less centralisation? Has the healthcare system not shown that, if it is given too much power, it can become dangerous?