For risks and side effects, read the package leaflet …
Posted On 19/04/2022
In the context of the freedom of information act, the American federal drug administration was forced by court order to publish the detailed information in connection with the accelerated approval of the so-called “Covid-19 vaccination”.
In a January court order, US District Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas thus required the FDA to release about 12,000 documents immediately and 55,000 pages per month thereafter until all documents are released—more than 300,000 pages in total. Thus, at the beginning of March, the first 55,000 pages of documents relating to the testing of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine were released.
Originally, the FDA wanted to limit thenpublications to 500 pages per month, which, with a total of 329,000 pages, would have taken 55 years for the public to gain access to the data Pfizer wanted to keep hidden.. Fortunately, this was rejected by the judge so that we are now allowed to read the “package leaflet” in tranches of 55,000 pages per month—i.e., still slice by slice—and find out what is actually being injected into us.
Considering the very alarming numbers of side effects, and knowing full well that by no means all of them were identified as such by autopsy and/or in-depth diagnosis and thus duly reported, this Pfizer document, from which a total of 1200 different side effects  can be gathered, is of particular interest.
Here in Luxembourg, not only these figures, but three other things (should) make us perplexed:
First, we find it utterly disturbing that a patient advocacy group, a non-profit association whose purpose is to defend the welfare and rights of patients, is forced by Santé (the Luxembourg Ministry of Health) to delete a specially designed form for the uncomplicated reporting of side effects from its website. So, here is a non-profit association that offers patients and (the hopelessly understaffed) Santé assistance for more efficient reporting and communication, and the Ministry of Health of a government that, among other things, committed itself to absolute transparency in its election campaign, refuses to do so! What is one to make of this?
2. Then, we stumbled across the following newspaper article from 18 March 2022 in the Luxemburger Wort :
The evil in the eyes of the beast
Let us recall the warnings of the recently deceased Nobel Prize winner in medicine, Professor Luc Montagnier, that parts of the HIV genome sequences he discovered were also found in the spike protein of the coronavirus. Could this lead to vaccinated people testing HIV positive in the future?
Note: The word AIDS is an acronym for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, i.e., a combination of symptoms denoting an acquired immune deficiency and not synonymous with HIV! The latter is a virus that can trigger this immune deficiency.
The hypothesis that this novel “vaccine” could trigger such an immune deficiency seems less and less improbable. You can see this in the latest Corona Committee (from minute 26) as well as in this study . Florian Schilling also reported in his most recent presentation on this V-AIDS phenomenon(“vaccine”-AIDS), which is not taken seriously by the public. To beat the “advertising drum” for an AIDS “pandemic” now seems to us—to put it mildly—like a perfidious form of gaslighting, especially as this immune deficiency is still associated with a certain social shame (mostly unprotected sex with the “wrong” people or drug use). It seems as if now that the Corona hysteria has died down, people want to build up a new threatening backdrop right away. And the media are joining in (again).
1. Last but not least, Santé has recently refrained from publishing the incidence values of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons
After all, these figures were used to justify all measures and restrictions, including indirect compulsory vaccination, and to divide a society into (vaccinated) do-gooders and (unvaccinated) egoists. So now they are no longer public—even though behind the scenes, according to Sam Tanson, they are still working diligently on a national compulsory vaccination (even though it has long since been overturned in other countries). And now this is being done without giving the public the opportunity to check the proportionality and benefits for themselves based on publicly available data! Because the state is trying to override the constitutional principle of bodily integrity, access to detailed information/education should be the very least. In addition to the content of the “package insert”, which is now gradually being published by this court decision (!), a compulsory vaccination also appears increasingly questionable for ethical reasons.
The reason for the cessation of publication of the incidence figures may of course be that these figures already speak volumes : not only does the vaccination demonstrably not protect against infection, but it also leads to hospitalizations related to Covid-19 or side effects, thus undermining the persistent claim that this “vaccination” would protect against a severe course of a Corona infection.
We would, of course, prefer you make up your own mind about these possible connections.
Since this so-called “vaccination” is, after all, a large-scale genetic experiment still n its trial phase, a responsible government would have to analyse in detail all of the unexpected deaths (after all, at least 417 since the beginning of the “vaccination” campaign) to ensure that there is no connection whatsoever with this experiment. Of course, this would require a great deal of commitment for those politically responsible and certainly also a great finacial expense, since in the (frequent) case of vaccination coercion under false pretences or concealment of correct facts, one or two self-confident citizens could certainly come up with the idea of making claims for damages.
In the event of such symptoms indicated in the Pfizer document (or accidents following an unexpected indisposition), one would at least—if one were sincerely interested in the health of the people— systematically have to request an autopsy to limit the damage as quickly as possible and not try to cover it up using tax payers’ money.
Taking a stand for solidarity
I can hardly imagine how difficult it must be to deal with potential self-harm or harm to close relatives. To have potentially sacrificed one’s health or life for a pizza, a party, a holiday, a visit to the cinema or a spa … to acknowledge this and take responsibility for it must require an incredible amount of courage, strength, and self-responsibility. I honestly don’t know if I could do it. It would probably be a lot easier to suppress an unexpected death, pericarditis, myocarditis, thrombosis, exhaustion, other malaise and attribute it to bad luck, long covid or some other circumstance (such as the professional cyclists at Paris-Nice and tennis athletes at the Miami Open tournament). After all, many vaccinated people are also fortunately symptomless! Even if, as experience shows, there are many people among them who do not advertise their increased susceptibility to infections, their loss of energy, etc. After all, one has one’s pride! After all, one has one’s pride! I fear that this will take a lot of time and positive encouragement from loved ones.
The situation is likely to be different for those injured parties who have trusted the state, the pharmaceutical industry and the media, or the masses, or couldn’twithstand the coercion out of fear of losing their jobs.
Nevertheless, the sooner you deal with it, the better.
Therefore, we strongly encourage those affected to read “Postvaccine Syndrome” by Florian Schilling, explaining in detail the prompt reactions, specific blood analyses and treatment approaches that so far have shown to have the greatest possible chance of relief. Whether it will always work is of course not known, but it should be worth a try, don’t you think?
Those who can show this sort of courage are not alone: they can finally reconcile with those who had the courage to stick to their NO. They, too, were afraid, only of something else and at a different time.
One at a time, or all together?
Starting with the “coerced”, and the “convinced” to those who did it for supposedly trivial reasons. Those who now demand their right to full disclosure: e.g., requesting an autopsy, or persistently reporting the side effects until they are finally taken seriously, and helping themselves, are doing something decidedly altruistic: through their courage they can possibly spare others the same suffering and in the end show what solidarity really means.
This would also revert this much invoked word to its original meaning, a meaning heavily distorted and perverted in the vaccination campaign.
Are people today capable of such solidarity?
: freedom of information act: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto
: https://covid19.public.lu/fr/vaccination/infovaxx.html, Bericht Nr. 11 vom 21.03.22: https://covid19.public.lu/dam-assets/covid-19/vaccinations/pharmacovigilance/11eme-rapport-de-pharmacovigilance-vaccins-covid.pdf
: Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
: A diligent person has counted the death notices published in the Luxemburger Wort since the beginning of the “vaccination campaign”. Her criteria are: “sudden and unexpected” and younger than the average life expectancy, which here in Luxembourg is 79 years for men and 81 years for women.