Covid vaccine boosters in older people are killing one person for every 800 doses administered and should be withdrawn from use immediately, a leading vaccine scientist has said.
Dr. Theo Schetters, a vaccinologist based in the Netherlands who has played a leading role in the development of a number of vaccines, has analysed the official data from the Dutch Government and found a very close correlation between when fourth vaccine doses were administered in the country and the number of excess deaths, as shown in the chart below. Importantly, in the Netherlands the booster rollout in different regions was staggered over a number of weeks allowing an analysis by region, which confirms the effect.
Dr. Schetters, who is a recipient of the Medal of Honour of the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Montpellier in France, told Dr. Robert Malone, an inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, that medical doctors are currently seeing “all sorts of symptoms that they do not know what it is” and that “in the Netherlands now it’s very clear that there is a good correlation between the number of vaccinations that are given to people and the number of people that die within a week after that”. It is essential to look at all-cause mortality, he said, as the vaccine “potentially affects all organs”.
So it potentially affects all organs. And that’s what the medical doctors now see, they see all sorts of symptoms that they do not know what it is. And because the adverse effects are so not just single one adverse effect, but can be anything, they surface very difficult to a statistical level. And that’s why we do analysis on all cause mortality, because say, okay, and if we do not know what is exactly related to vaccination, of course, the coagulation problems, myocarditis, we know that, but there are many more things happening at the moment. And so that’s why we look at all cause mortality, and in the Netherlands now it’s very clear that there is a good correlation between the number of vaccinations that are given to people and the number of people that die within a week after that. So let’s say in this week we gave 10,000 vaccinations. Then in this week, we have something like 125 excess in death in that week.
The correlation is striking, he said, to the extent that if you have more vaccines in a week then you also have more excess deaths, and if you have fewer vaccines in a week, you have fewer deaths. Dr. Schetters says he has written to the Director of the Institute of Health in the Netherlands to alert him to the findings.
So what we’ve done is we have written a registered letter to the director of our Institute of Health and presenting the results and expressing my concerns. And just with the question, from a precautionary point of view, please reconsider vaccination strategy because I think this is a real warning. And so it’s not that everybody dies. Actually I do a rough calculation, it’s one in 800
During the interview, Dr. Malone explained that his own organisation, consisting of 17,000 medical practitioners and scientists, has released a statement that the vaccines should be withdrawn as they are no longer justified on a risk-benefit ratio, a statement with which Dr. Schetters agreed. Dr. Malone said:
I stand as the President of the International Association of Physicians and Medical Scientists. So we’re 17,000 that are only physicians and medical scientists, all verified, no nurses, not because we don’t like nurses, but it has to do with the positioning with the press and messaging. So that’s the basis for our organisation.
Months ago, we came out with a press conference in a clear unequivocal statement that one can find at www.globalcovidsummit.org, where we made a clear, unambiguous statement. In our opinion, as an organisation, these vaccines should be withdrawn. They are no longer justified on a risk-benefit ratio. And as the person who is responsible for the genesis of this technology, I’m often criticised. Didn’t I realise what I was doing? And there’s no way for me to have known that the normal standards for regulatory development and testing and clinical would be circumvented.
But I stand as someone who has intimate, detailed knowledge of the technology and its risks and benefits, the nature of the formulations, the role of the pseudouridine, all of those things.
It’s my opinion and that of the organisation that I represent, that the data are now sufficiently clear that, in our opinion, the ongoing campaign for vaccination is no longer warranted.
Dr. Schetters’ analysis is in line with the observations we have been making on the Daily Sceptic in recent weeks as we have been following what appears to be a correlation between the spring fourth dose booster rollout among over-75s in England and a wave of now over 11,000 non-Covid excess deaths that are currently unexplained (see the charts below).
The latest official data from the Office for National Statistics, released on Tuesday, show there have been 11,370 excess non-Covid deaths registered in England and Wales in the 13 weeks since April 23rd. If all of these were a result of the spring boosters (of which 4,182,483 have been delivered up to July 22nd) it would be a rate of one every 368 doses. That figure is an upper bound, of course, as not all the additional deaths will be due to the boosters, but it shows the U.K. data are broadly in line with the Netherlands data. Note that a higher vaccine injury rate would be expected in the U.K. where the fourth doses are only being given to the over-75s, as the rate increases with age.
In the week ending July 22nd, the most recent week for which data are available, 10,978 deaths were registered in England and Wales, which is 1,680 (18.1%) above the five-year average for the week. Of these, 745 mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate as a contributory cause and 463 mentioned COVID-19 as underlying cause, leaving 1,217 deaths from a different underlying cause. Note that this was the week of the brief but intense heatwave (with recorded temperatures topping 40°C for the first time in some areas), so some of these will be heatwave deaths, as will many of the additional Covid deaths (being people who happened to have Covid at the time).
Deaths by date of occurrence rose dramatically in the most recent week, which might be assumed to be connected with the heatwave of July 18-19th. However, the data by date of occurrence show the spike occurring in the week ending July 15th, too soon for the heatwave. One explanation for this may be that the ONS uses a ‘statistical model’ to calculate death occurrences for recent weeks and this model may not cope well with unpredictable phenomena like heatwaves. If so, we should see adjustments in the next few reports as more real data become available. Note that the cause of the spike in non-Covid excess deaths during June remains unclear.
Here is the cumulative curve of excess non-Covid deaths by date of registration along with the cumulative total of spring boosters.
As noted in previous weeks, the cause of the deaths appears to be largely related to diseases of the heart and blood vessels (cause of death data for July are now available here). Cancer deaths are, perhaps surprisingly given the withdrawal of healthcare access during the pandemic, broadly at normal levels, suggesting there is something other than lack of access to healthcare going on. The continued high level of excess deaths is unexpected as, following the 142,000 excess deaths of the last two and a half years, we would have anticipated a period of lower than average deaths.
The Government ought to be urgently investigating what lies behind the more than 11,000 additional deaths in three months. However, as we saw last week, it has shown no interest in doing so. When Esther McVey MP, Chair of the Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), submitted a written question asking the Cabinet Office what steps it was taking “to investigate the higher than expected rate of deaths of 12.2% above the five-year average”, it simply referred the matter to the U.K. Statistics Authority, which merely said it will continue to publish the relevant statistics.
Perhaps Dr. Schetters’ intervention in the Netherlands will start to wake up those in Government who have their heads planted firmly in the sand.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
These eco nutter would crucify a polar bear if it served their purpose of destroying the market economy. Delingpole was entirely correct in watermelons about these folk, he may have lost the plot in some ways but that book stands the test of time.
Apparently polar bears are very good to eat. The crucifixion idea of the eco nutters may be to enhance the animal’s palatibility…….
‘According to one guest, the bear meat there is boiled for six hours and fried another two, to kill parasites.’
‘Modern Inuit and Inupiat value the flavor nuances of different bears or parts of a bear. Some prefer den polar bears, instead of bears caught in the open, because they taste better.
The Cree consider the front and back paws (tukiq) the best eating.
For many Inupiat, polar bear meat remains a favorite meal and a prestigious gift.’
‘The Norwegian restaurateur André Grytbakk, manager of the upscale Huset in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, occasionally dishes out polar bear steaks with potatoes or a slice of roast in red wine sauce.
He also offers a bear meat snack with lingonberry pickle. As it’s “a rough kind of meat,” the chef recommends a heavy wine with it, such as full-bodied Bordeaux, from the Huset’s 1,200-bottle cave.’
Anchorage Daily News Feb. 2017
Would I serve Polar Bears with potatoes or chips?
Roast potatoes.
Bear fat apparently has excellent roasting properties.
If I may, a 2019 Ch. Angludet?
Probably also worth getting in a few bottles of Nyetimber for opening in due course:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14131.pdf
I like a bit of Branston with my bear and Marrow fat peas, but my life doesn’t like those so I am happy with garden peas.
I have tried brown bear in a Bucharest restaurant; not great. No Branston or marrow far peas (or Ch. Angludet 2019) were available so that may have been why.
My excuse is that it seemed by far and away the best choice from a menu whose English translation included such delights as ‘Peasant’s Cock Soup’ and ‘Fried Crap’.
The 2019 is still a bit young? There was little 2018 and no 2017 so maybe go back 10-15 years?
Or, out of left field, a flanders red beer, or maybe a kriek?
I would watch that “fried crap” if I were you
Sound advice. There is seems to be a great deal of it about, particularly in Whitehall/Westminster……
Too fatty for me in the summer months. Anyway I’ve been reliably informed that there’s only one skinny one left on an ice flow somewhere.
I want to eat a polar bear now.
Actually the Polar bear is going to eat you and wash you all down with a refreshing coke
OK so on this website we are questioning things. After all in science, if that is what is meant to be about scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin. —–Dear BBC, SKY NEWS Guardian Independent etc etc etc. ——Blind faith has no place in science. The fact that you never question any aspect of “climate crisis” claims or the energy solutions that are allegedly going to fix it means you are not indulging in science, you are indulging in advocacy. ——-But the activist media don’t question any of it because they know what they are going to find. —-A smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency with no evidence and all for political purposes.
So…..minor increases in temperature appear to be beneficial to the Great Barrier Reef.
I wonder if there are other, global, benefits to those minor increases in temparature?
Oh!
‘We have also seen that assuming a warmer world is more dangerous than a cooler world is highly questionable, after all the baseline temperature used is from the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest and most miserable period in the past 12,000 years.’
You mean?
‘….all the benefits of warming and additional CO2 have not been considered in any of the AR6 reports, so how can they equate greenhouse gas emissions with dangerous warming? They can’t. Thus, without establishing a need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC produced a 2,000-page report on how to do it.’
Oops!
‘In every volume we see that the selection of papers cited, model input, and models chosen was guided not by a desire to uncover the truth, but by how best to reach their pre-determined conclusions. The three volumes, total 7,519 pages and most of content is made useless by obvious reporting and confirmation bias. In summary, we see that the hundreds, maybe thousands of authors were given the answer, and told to find the data and analysis to support it.
What a useless waste of time and money.‘
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/13/climate-model-bias-7-wgiii/
The wheels really are coming off……….
Over the decades there have been so many hyped up scare stories about the GBR I’ve lost count: first it was global cooling, now global warming/boiling; sea level rises/falls, pollution & plastic islands, tourism, etc etc. None of them seem to have cottoned on to the fact that the GBR seems to be highly resilient and self-regenerative over periods of more than a couple of random weeks in June. But that wouldn’t fit The Narrative™, would it?
It’s only been around for millions of years in warm times and cool times, so what would it “know” about survival?
What hope is there that this Net Zero and climate fraud tyranny can be halted when on a sceptical website like this there are only 14 comments on article like this? ———The UK Population are giving these phony planet savers such an easy ride, and as result we are going to deserve all the impoverishment coming our way
No, they are going to deserve all the impoverishment coming our way. We know what to expect, they don’t…I hope I’m not around to see their pathetic faces when the penny drops.
This is really good news. I wouldn’t want to GBR to disappear for any reason, and the fact it has recovered so strongly when the doomsters were predicting otherwise is excellent.
The old bloke who was running the Darwin aquarium back in 2018 told me the reason their coral reef was healthy whereas there were problems with the GBR was due to a lack of agricultural runoff.
I saw an eco-twerp being interviewed about 12 months ago on the (good?) news of the resurgence of the GBR. Surely he was happy? Oh no, it was the ‘wrong type’ of coral….
I like the cut of his jib, an honest outspoken scientist who still believes in Science.
The downticker strikes again in the comments. Pathetic!