Red Cross withdraws from ‘Austria vaccinates’ campaign
The Austrian government fanatics will soon be alone because the vaccination front is crumbling quite spectacularly. Even the Red Cross is now abandoning the sinking vaccination ship and withdrawing from the “Austria vaccinates” campaign.
The Red Cross rescue commander Gerry Foitik made this clear in an internal letter that is available to the daily Wochenblick. Like Caritas and Diakonie, the Red Cross also reported concerns about mandatory vaccination. There is an increasingly great legal uncertainty and the risk of years of legal disputes in the health, social and care sectors for those actors who insist on the jab.
Red Cross withdraws from vaccination campaign
The law on prescribed bodily harm with experimental genetic engineering injections was passed yesterday in the Bundesrat, but the Corona regime is losing its support. More and more are turning away, including the Red Cross. According to the rescue organization, the Federal Chancellery had already taken over the “communication measures” of the vaccination campaign since July.
The question now arises: Why now when this withdrawal was “transparently and publicly communicated” in the summer already? The reason may be that Foitik, previously a measure extremist and known for his bizarre mask interviews, is concerned about the legal implications of forced vaccination.
Red Cross boss sees jab as ‘state-imposed individual responsibility’
Foitik announced on Wednesday via a letter that the Red Cross would withdraw from the “Austria vaccinates” campaign. After being responsible for the “Austria vaccinates” campaign in summer 2021, the homepage and all social media channels will now also be returned to the Ministry of Health’s area of responsibility. In his letter, Foitik himself described the obligation to vaccinate as “state-imposed individual responsibility”.
The FPÖ General Secretary Michael Schnedlitz asked whether Foitik’s letter could not also be seen as a withdrawal from the obligation to vaccinate: “Mr. Foitik, who was royally rewarded by the government for his comments at the beginning of the Corona pandemic, is now distancing himself from the vaccination campaign – and thus also from the obligation to vaccinate?”
More and more arguments against compulsory jabs
Even more interesting are Foitik’s statements against the background that before the adoption of the compulsory vaccination law in the Bundesrat on Thursday, social organizations such as Caritas and Diakonie expressed their concerns about the compulsory vaccination law in addition to the Red Cross.
As a result, they all see great legal uncertainty and the danger of years of legal disputes for the health, care and social sectors throughout Austria. “The closer the compulsory vaccination law comes, the greater the concerns from all sides that this measure has no justification. Apparently the Red Cross has now pulled the rip cord and decided to withdraw from the vaccination campaign,” Schnedlitz said.
Billions spent on jabs
The pharmaceutical industry has been closing deals worth billions with Austria. This was revealed by the FPÖ’s parliamentary question to Health Minister Wolfgang Mückstein (Greens).
FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl noted with great surprise that more and more genetic engineering injections are being ordered, although less and less of them are being consumed.
“This exposes the crude and expensive dealings of the Austrian government with the vaccination industry, which not only confirm the worst expectations, but exceed them,” Kickl said.
Austria has so far been billed 246 million euros by the pharmaceutical giants until the end of October. So far, 23,9 of the ordered 57 million vaccine doses have been delivered. More than 300 million euros will have to be paid for the 33,1 million vaccine doses still to be delivered. The government still wants to buy another 33,5 million.
At least 283 140 vaccine doses have gone where they actually belong: on the rubbish heap.
Over half a billion euros for vaccine manufacturers
“In total, the Austrian Federal Government has done business with the vaccination industry to the tune of over half a billion euros so far. And with the purchase of another 33 million vaccine doses planned for this year, another 300 million euros will be added. So the Corona vaccinations of Austrians are a billion euro deal of the federal government with the vaccination industry,” Kickl added.
Less than half of the vaccine doses consumed
Huge quantities of “vaccines” were ordered, which they can only get rid of “by forcing the population to have the vaccine administered”. Vaccination lotteries and raffles are used to lure people, Kickl explained. Less than half of the quantities ordered have actually been delivered and consumed so far. “The legally imposed and unconstitutional compulsory vaccination is due to nothing more than a pathological compulsion to buy on the part of the federal government.”
All corruption indices show that the pharmaceutical industry is among the most corrupt business sectors in the world. “Who benefits from Austria ordering more and more vaccine, although less and less vaccine is needed and the Corona pandemic continues to decline?”
https://freewestmedia.com/2022/02/05/red-cross-withdraws-from-austria-vaccinates-campaign/
Let’s Celebrate Britain at The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee
Why Ivermectin was Disappeared
By Henry F. Smith Jr., MD
It’s a common occurrence in winter. A patient calls a primary physician to report a nonproductive cough, slight hoarseness, muscle aches, and a low-grade fever. The physician, and likely the patient, realize that this is almost certainly a viral upper respiratory infection. If the patient were in the office, the physician may test for a streptococcal bacterial infection, but it will likely be negative.
This is probably an infection with a rhinovirus, adenovirus, or endemic coronavirus. Despite this, the afflicted patient will happily proceed to the pharmacy to pick up their prescription for an antibiotic. The patient will feel as though the physician was proactive, something the doctor certainly understands.
This prescription, however, will be of no value to the patient and may actually cause issues. Yet pharmacies in the U.S. see this type of prescription thousands of times a day.
It occurs despite the fact that physicians are constantly reminded that gratuitous antibiotic prescriptions come with side effects and can lead to antibiotic resistance. Beyond that, there is no tangible resistance to this practice from the medical establishment or healthcare authorities.
Now let’s imagine another patient calls in. This patient also has a dry cough scratchy throat, muscle aches, and a low-grade fever. Only this patient had a COVID test kit at home and tested positive. The physician wants to prescribe a medication with no risk of bacterial resistance and a very benign side-effect profile. He’s read lots of literature to suggest it will be helpful. There are a significant number of double-blind studies showing it to be effective in the treatment of SARS Co-V2. It has been used in multiple countries with excellent results. Except, in this case, the physician will find it impossible to prescribe that medication. It will be impossible because that medication is Ivermectin. And somehow it has been removed from the market.
Not only has this FDA-approved, Nobel prize-winning drug been made unavailable, but if a physician were to prescribe it, or advocate it as therapy, they are threatened with the potential loss of their medical license, their hospital affiliations, and their board certification.
It gets even more ironic. I’ve noticed that some physicians are prescribing a very common antibiotic called azithromycin for their COVID patients. It is well understood that for COVID-19 when taken alone, it is of no value. There is absolutely no data to show efficacy in COVID-19. It has the same potential problems, as when it is prescribed for other viral infections. Yet the practice goes on, again unimpeded.
Let’s go one step further. Levofloxacin is another antibiotic, introduced in 1996. It was unusual in that it can treat a broad variety of infections, even those that are severe, but can be given orally. Because of this, it was overutilized, threatening to create drug resistance.
In 2016, the FDA issued a black box warning because of several severe side effects including tendon rupture, peripheral nerve damage, for them and psychosis. Since then its usage has waned.
The drug was proposed as a treatment for COVID early in the pandemic but proved to have limited antiviral activity.
So I posed this hypothetical to several pharmacist friends: If a physician called in a prescription for azithromycin, or even levofloxacin, and gave the diagnosis of COVID-19, would they fill the prescription? The answer was yes, as there would be nothing to prevent it.
So, in other words, a physician is permitted to prescribe useless antibiotics, even those with serious adverse reactions according to the FDA for COVID-19 infection. If, as apparently, the FDA believes, ivermectin is similarly useless but benign, why is it alone being blocked?
Let’s do some mathematics. As of this writing, there are roughly 890,000 deaths recorded in the United States related to COVID-19. I think most people understand that a lot of these deaths are not due to the virus but from other comorbid conditions. The CDC has long stated that the number of deaths from COVID where there was no comorbid condition (In other words, healthy people who died from COVID) is roughly 7% of the total (65,000). In several meta-analyses, Ivermectin was shown to be roughly 65% effective at preventing serious disease and/or death. So, in the best-case scenario for them, our public health organizations, by suppressing Ivermectin, may be responsible for roughly 40,000 deaths. In fact, the vast majority of people who actually died from COVID had multiple comorbid conditions, so that number could be much higher.
I need to acknowledge that prescribing antibiotics for viral infections is something that the primary caregivers struggle with. Patients expect them to do something when they’re sick. They don’t appreciate being told to go home and take acetaminophen. Some may never come back and seek care elsewhere.
Yet patients have accepted that exact recipe for dealing with COVID-19, a disease they perceive may actually kill them.
So what’s the difference between prescriptions written for an anti-bacterial, versus Ivermectin, which is an anti-parasitic agent, for a viral infection? Both primarily target infectious agents other than viruses. If anything, even it was futile therapy, Ivermectin is safer than the antibiotics discussed. Yet it is the only medication that has been effectively banned
Given all this, I think it’s easy to suspect that the FDA, the NIH, and the CDC actually understand the potential benefits of Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs. But they also realize that these medications threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry with which they are financially entwined.
What makes this even more infuriating is the government’s warm embrace of two new antiviral medications, Pfizer’s Paxlovid, and Merck’s Molnupivinir. These drugs have exactly one company-sponsored study each to vouch for their efficacy. Merck’s drug, by its own testing, is only 39% effective in reducing severe disease and/or death. There is no long-term safety data for either medication. Yet both have received emergency use authorization, and have suddenly popped up on government-approved treatment protocols.
As I look towards the end of my career, I’ve seen a lot of profit-oriented behavior by pharmaceutical companies. I think of the me-too drugs, molecules that are only slightly different than their now off-patent predecessors aggressively marketed to physicians. I’ve seen pharmaceutical reps actually reimburse physicians for a certain number of prescriptions written for their medications. I’ve seen manipulation of the rules regarding inhaled medications to maintain their patents long after they would have expired.
But if they actively suppressed the adoption of useful medications during a pandemic, then this is beyond the pale. It would suggest a total collapse of any morality or sense of responsibility within the pharmaceutical industry, and their partners in the regulatory agencies.
I hope that someday, our investigatory agencies can push past the vast political power these companies have acquired through their burgeoning profits, and find out the truth.
I’m not optimistic.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/why_ivermectin_was_disappeared.html
German hospital bills show cases of serious vaccine injury increased twenty-fold
The German data analyst Tom Lausen has been evaluating the figures from hospitals, the Robert Koch Institute and the DIVI intensive care register since the beginning of the Covid crisis. In an interview with Milena Preradovic, he said he had calculated that based on the accounting data from German clinics, the experimental jabs have led to an alarming incidence of serious damage that has required medical treatment.
Hospital accounts show that in 2021 up to September more than 18 600 people with severe vaccination damage were treated in clinics. The figures from the end of the year are still unavailable. As a result, up to September alone, the cases of confirmed severe vaccine damage increased 21-fold compared to previous years.
According to Lausen, however, there haven’t been 21 times as many vaccinations as in previous years — so the difference cannot be explained by a mere increase in the doses of vaccine administered. The risk of serious side effects seems to be significantly higher with the supposedly safe Covid vaccines than with other vaccines — even if politicians and the established media try to dispute this.
At least 2000 adverse vaccination reactions were so serious that treatment in the intensive care unit was necessary. Lausen estimated that 500 to 700 more cases will be added through the end of the year. These alarming numbers do not include sudden deaths from the jabs.
Mark Steyn: GoFundMe should be sued into oblivion
They should be in jail for grand theft.
Journalist in Roubaix, France, complains: “Anyone researching political Islam is quickly labelled Islamophobic
A report broadcast on M6 at the end of January by the programme Zone interdite on Islamism in Roubaix in the north of France – “Face au danger de l’Islam radical, les réponses de l’Etat” (Faced with the danger of radical Islam, the state’s responses) – sparked a major controversy. The journalist Ophelie Meunier and the lawyer Amine Elbahi were threatened and placed under police protection. In an interview with Marianne published on Thursday February 3, La Voix du Nord reporter Bruno Renoul, who is featured in the documentary and works in Roubaix, spoke about the difficulties of covering this issue in his profession. “When you do research on political Islam, you are quickly labelled Islamophobic by the public,” he laments.
According to Bruno Renoul, what is the state of Islamism in Roubaix today? “If you are a journalist [there], it is inevitably a crucial aspect,” the reporter asserts to the weekly publication. “If I work in a city with a strong automotive industry, I have to take an interest in it,” he continues to back up his argument.
Bruno Renoul later added to the same medium: “Roubaix is a city to which Islam belongs.” However, it is not always easy to deal with the subject. I have developed a sensitivity to the subject that has led me to speak about it regularly, but I have many colleagues who have no desire to be insulted or threatened,” he explained shortly afterwards. The accusation of Islamophobia is not necessarily an easy one to deal with…”.
This accusation of Islamophobia is made by several people. For example, local association activists, some MPs or even people acting on social networks, Bruno Renoul tells Marianne. “It is all the more difficult […] because we saw in the Samuel Paty case that this kind of accusation can have very serious consequences,” he explains. There was a time when he was automatically accused if he raised this issue in one of his articles. “It hurts to be accused of being driven by a racist attitude and hatred towards others,” he lamented to journalists.
Bruno Renoul was initially very affected by this accusation and told the news portal that he gradually got used to it. In his opinion, it is “too tacky to be taken seriously” as it amounts to “calling the other person a racist to end the debate”.Sometimes, however, it is even worse. “I have also received threats, for example a message threatening me that I will be ‘kalacher’ in the street in Roubaix,” the reporter reported. He concluded, not without bitterness: “At some point you get used to it and tell yourself that it’s just words. And then you think back to the context of Charlie Hebdo and remember that there is also the consummation of deeds.”
English Premier League soccer club Liverpool FC has teamed up with Islamic Relief, an Islamist NGO close to the Muslim Brotherhood and classified by Israel as a terrorist organisation, to distribute halal food parcels
On Thursday January 27, Islamic Relief UK, in partnership with the LFC Foundation and the Liverpool Mosque Regions Network (LRM), will distribute 500 packets of basic food items to vulnerable people, including homeless people, asylum seekers, refugees and women who have been victims of domestic violence.
[…]
To help the most vulnerable, the boxes will be packed with essentials by LFC staff at Anfield and then delivered to ten locations across the city by the Liverpool Mosque Regions Network.
The food parcels – which contain 17 items including halal chicken, rice, pasta, eggs, beans, butter and bread – were distributed along with sanitary items such as shampoo, toothpaste, shower gel and other products.
[…]
In December, the LFC Foundation and Liverpool Regional Mosque Network (LRM) worked together as part of LFC’s Christmas Magic campaign to deliver over 400 festive food parcels, helping 1700 people in need.
Spain: African asylum seeker rapes 95-year-old senior citizen
In the middle of the night, a man forced his way through a window into the house of an elderly woman in Figueres (Catalonia, Spain). He then raped the 95-year-old woman. An extremely brutal attack. The victim was in shock and suffered severe injuries to her genitals. Nevertheless, she managed to trigger the emergency call system of her remote surveillance to alert the rescue services. After an surgery in Figueres hospital, the old lady was initially saved before being transferred to a nursing home […].
Since then, the search for the man has been ongoing. […] Until the Catalan police announced the arrest of the man, who was about 30 years old and from sub-Saharan countries. The man confessed to the crime […]L’Indépendant