By Jeanne A. Rungby, Specialist in otorhinolaryngology.
On Wednesday 4 December 2024, during a consultation in the Danish Parliament, Lars Boje Mathiesen asked the following questions to Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde (the Minister):
Does the minister think that the Danes were informed correctly about the effects of covid with the covid 19 vaccine?
To this question the minister replies:
"During the entire Covid-19 crisis, the Danish authorities have informed the population in a timely and evidence-based manner about the effect of the covid 19 vaccines. The Danish Health Authority has continuously adapted the citizen-oriented communication on the basis of the currently available knowledge."
The Minister of Health is wrong here. In December 2021, a scientific work from the Serum Institute was published, which showed that the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines only had a positive effect for almost 6 months. After that, the effect became negative (1). One must remember that such scientific work is on its way for several months before acceptance via peer review in a scientific journal. SSI should have informed the then Minister of Health of this alarming finding months before print.
The health authorities have failed to explain to the public the meaning of a negative effect, which entails an increased risk of contracting Covid-19 and is therefore an expression of a weakened immune system. This negative effect was not taken seriously and not communicated at all to the population, in particular the youth, who, despite this serious finding, were pressured hard to receive Covid-19 vaccines and booster vaccines over the winter 21/22. This lack of timely care on the part of the authorities is inexcusable.
The observation of a negative effect has been confirmed in other scientific studies, including the Cleveland study, which showed that the risk of getting Covid 19 increased with each vaccine given (2). See Figure 1 below. By the way, note the bottom black line, which represents the unvaccinated, who clearly live the least dangerous life.
In her response, the minister refers to a recent study by Andersen et al (3), in that she refers to the fact that last year a 58 percent relative effect was found for the covid 19 vaccine in relation to the risk of hospitalization and serious illness and a 75 percent effect in connection with deaths. The minister explains here that the vaccine in this study is compared to unvaccinated people.
The minister is speaking directly untruthfully. This is because there is no question of a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the referenced study. Rather, it is a comparison between the group who received the 5th or 6th COVID-19 booster vaccine compared to those who had already received at least 4 Covid-19 injections a year or more ago. The authors (among others from SSI) have therefore deliberately chosen to compare with a group that has been documented (1) to have reached the phase that implies a negative effect; i.e. a group with a weakened immune system, and therefore an increased risk of Covid-19. Another thing that has conveniently failed to be included in the study by Andersen et al (3) regarding the group studied is the period from the injection to one week onwards, when most deaths and serious early side effects traditionally occur. I perceive this as data manipulation with a view to obtaining the conclusions that can defend a political decision that the authorities continue to give these COVID-19 gene therapy-based vaccines to people over 65 and pregnant women. One must conclude that objective science has a poor reputation with the Health Authorities.
Lars Boje Mathiesen then asks the Minister of Health a question concerning the Minister's claim that the health authorities have given the population correct information about these vaccines.
At a press conference on 8 November 2021, it was said that young people who have chosen not to take this Covid-19 vaccine are "living life dangerously".
The question was: Does the minister agree with this statement from the (then) director of the National Board of Health (Søren Brostrøm)?
To this the minister replies that the health authorities have taken responsibility for informing the population correctly about these Covid-19 vaccines in relation to the knowledge they had at the time in question, and that they have continuously provided updated information.
Lars Boje Mathiesen concludes that with this statement "living life dangerously" it was a matter of putting heavy pressure on young healthy people, who the authorities and politicians at the time knew perfectly well that they were not at risk of serious illness from covid 19.
Health authorities and the Regions have always referred to the product summary as a basis for the vaccinators' information to the persons receiving the Covid-19 vaccination(4). The product summary is based on the initial phase 3 trial and not on the vaccines that were rolled out to the population. They have thus failed to inform the public about the change in the manufacturing process and the risks this change entails, including for the occurrence of foreign synthetic plasmid DNA, SV40 partial sequences, endotoxins and genes for antibiotic resistance.
The Minister of Health is thus not being honest about whether the authorities have informed the population correctly. One can therefore conclude that correct information has not been given to the vaccinated as a basis for the legally bound informed consent.
Lars Boje Mathiesen points out that there are two different manufacturing processes and that the authorities approved the first process (process 1) but not the second process (process 2). The Danish Medicines Agency, as the approving authority, simply assumed that the difference was unimportant and allowed the change in the manufacturing process to pass without objection - presumably due to time pressure.
Lars Boje Mathiesen emphasizes that process 2 is more impure, with a risk of synthetic DNA content, and therefore entails greater risks for the population's health.
The Danish Medicines Agency, by Jakob Lundsteen (case number 2024024182), in his reply to the undersigned specialist doctor Jeanne A. Rungby on 12 August 2024, admitted
· That there are no placebo-controlled randomized clinical studies on humans with material from process 2 for Cormirnaty.
· That there was no objection from the Danish Medicines Agency when Pfizer switched from process 1 to process 2.
The Minister of Health is not aware that these vaccines are particularly dangerous, as serious side effects rarely occur. She repeats several times that the probability of DNA residues being dangerous to humans is unlikely, hypothetical and without risk to the human genome.
The minister is speaking here against better judgment. One year ago, she received and acknowledged a letter of concern from the undersigned specialist doctor Jeanne A. Rungby, in which the problem of DNA contamination of the vaccines is described with a particular focus on the risk of cancer in vaccine recipients(7). The minister answered roughly the same as the answer to Lars Boje Mathiesen to this letter.
As she had not understood the seriousness, she received another letter from the undersigned specialist Jeanne A. Rungby in early 2024. This letter was thoroughly elaborated with explanations of the meaning of DNA, SV40 and also the difference between process 1 and process 2(5). This letter was also acknowledged.
Moreover, the minister's answer does not harmonize with the registered side effects in, for example, the American side effect registration system VAERS. See figure 2 below(6 ). The data speaks for itself.
The Minister of Health's answer also does not harmonize with Pfizer's released data, in which already 3 months after the rollout of the vaccines there were 1223 deaths, the majority due to myocarditis(6). That is, before it was decided to give these vaccines to young people. The minister maintains, despite this, that the authorities have done their best in terms of informing the population.
Lars Bøje Mathiesen's second question reads: "Does the minister think that enough is being done for the people who have experienced side effects after the covid 19 vaccines?"
The minister replies: That the side effects are mild and moderate, but in rare cases serious side effects can be seen shortly after the injection. Anyone who experiences injuries that they believe is caused by the vaccines has the right to an investigation via general practice. Whether this corresponds to reality is a separate chapter.
Lars Bøje Mathiesens then states that side effects and late effects are connected to the production of the vaccine, because impurities have been found in the vaccines, including DNA residues, which can be harmful to human health.
The minister resolutely replies that there is no scientific documentation for Lars Boje Mathiesen's theories, which she also calls misinformation.
She has, however, received the updated scientific documentation, as an international group, the NORTH Group, submitted a letter of concern to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health on 25 November this year, drawing attention to the serious risks associated with the excessive amounts of synthetic DNA , which is found in USA, Canada, Germany and Australia (7). The letter is signed by more than 432 scientists, doctors, lawyers and politicians from around the world.
Added to this is a completely new study by Kämerer et al from 3 December 2024 (8), whose results confirm and expand the already published reports of residual DNA findings in far too large amounts, incl. SV40, which is known to promote cancer. The authors find that DNA is integrated into human cells in vitro after they are vaccinated with Covid-19 vaccines. The authors' findings raise serious concerns about the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine. They, like the NORTH group, call for an immediate halt to all RNA-based biological products until these concerns are scientifically addressed and convincingly dispelled.
It is time for the Minister of Health to read the letters she receives and properly understand the seriousness of the situation.
Thanks to Lars Boje Mathiesen for asking these important questions. Unfortunately, he has every right to have concerns about these so-called vaccines.
References
תגובות