2024-09-03 12:16:01
How will the Covid years be considered in 25, 50 or 100 years? As a contemporary of this time, if you had to describe them, what would your method be? What elements will you decide to reveal to, in the most understandable and reassuring way possible, explain to future generations and tomorrow’s historians the reality you face?
It is with this state of mind that Wolf Wagner wrote: The Pfizer vaccine and the transmission of Covid: denial of the public announcement!.
A book of which France-Soir invites you to explore the main chapters.
Author’s note:
Where many commercial successes have struggled, often in a hurry, to show and refute the many injustices, abuses and other manipulations observed during the Covid pandemic, this book, rewritten, aims to get time to “tell” them to you with a designer perspective.
However, it is important to note that some of the elements reported in this review are sometimes very difficult to find or cross-check. If copies or extracts are still circulating on social networks, the original officials/sources – usually contracted for the media and/or for many authorities in charge – are small and not well known, or is not referenced at all on search engines… when they have not been purely and simply deleted from their original sites.
So you should be afraid that some of the documents attached as introductions to this work will disappear over time. However, great rumors fill the pages, so that you can also leave a trail of television and radio interviews which have, until then, never been written.
Obviously, this work is, and will be, both personal and incomplete. It is not right to indicate all the most useful elements that should be remembered from this moment. In its own way and at its humble level, this “book of memory” wants to participate, in addition to all existing or future works, in the collective testimony that many of us want to leave as an object- heritage
In this case, let us cite, for example, the little-known books of the Internet user, Liutwin. Although he did not seek to write his book in a specific way, nevertheless the author offers a work as a writer that is undoubtedly rich and useful for the individual who wants to find out about this period (his book: Covid-19: The Great Nightmare).
The work, which you want to explore below, is divided into several stages, each of which precedes the previous one. The latter focused on the reactions of the public opinion and the press following the thunderous declarations of Janine Small, the general manager of Pfizer, who testified during a hearing in the European Parliament in October 2022 that, not before its marketing, the effectiveness of the domestic vaccine -its activity has not been tested on its ability to prevent the transmission of Covid-19.
Starting from this post, this paper will seek to re-route the political and public awareness that surrounds specific questions to the transmission of Covid-19, to the “health” restrictions designed to limit it and to the vaccine sold by Pfizer to destroy it.
In addition to its exhibition, France-Soir invites you to discover the first volume. Sealed to 2020, he investigates the passivity shown by the press to oppose the implementation of political measures that are independent and confusing for the population… but above all aberrant in view of the available scientific information.
Finally, in the last chapters of this volume 1, a jump into the history of France will show you why the decision to become human is actually designed on the principle of the patriarchy of the bourgeoisie.
Also, even if it is sometimes necessary to discuss broad trends, or even to explore certain aspects in great depth (see chapters on INSEE), this work does not aim to do a careful science or statistical analysis of the health crisis (in this chapter, early treatments, the origin or nature of the virus are not addressed in this book). The reason is simple: such exercise does not fall within my scope of expertise. Journalist for more than fifteen years, my favorite topics revolve more around political and social topics, related to the consideration of proper respect for the press or the protection of individual and collective liberties than mathematics, virology, disease epidemiology, and biology!
Furthermore, if the criticism of the newspaper Libération serves as the “starting point” and “common thread” for this analysis, the daily newspaper is the one that most tries to put into perspective the activity of Janine Small’s words, which he even saw that. it should be noted that AFP, BFMTV, CNEWS, Le Monde and Le Parisien, whose work is also determined at the end in this work, are all guilty of having buried themselves in the depth of newspaper descriptions in recent years back
May the following perspective allow the publishing house and all these titles to allow themselves to be freed one day. May he also make them aware of the amazing political propaganda that they have been, and continue to be noisy.
Wolf Wagner
Independent designer.Table of contents (completed as publications progress):
- Introduction: Details by Janine Small, between fiction and « non-declarative ». (Episode 1)
- Volume 1: 2020: An epidemic of propaganda, fear and restrictions. (Episode 2)
- Part: A Covid-19 epidemic in France.
– I: In 2009, WHO changed the meaning of the word. The number of deaths is no longer known.
– II: In March 2020, France submits itself to the proposal of the Scientific Council of False Freedom. (Episode 3)
– III: “In most cases, Covid-19 is not dangerous” (episode 4)
– IV: Thanks to the Health Security Council, there is no need to “burden yourself with the weight of discussions that come to the normal functioning of a government”
- The other side: Libération rejects any scientific debate on detention. (Episode 5)
– I: A study from Stanford University concluded that confinement does not prevent the spread of Covid.
– II: Libé inspires journalism and analysis…
– III: … by restraining oneself from any kind of behavior (Episode 6)
– IV: Inappropriate methods for the work of a journalist. (episode 7)- Third section: Official data on Covid, source of confusion and manipulation. (episode 8)
– I: According to the statistician Pierre Chaillot, the establishment of detention would not have prevented any deaths.
– II: In 2020, there is no injustice in the death of 80% of the French people… CNEWS journalists do not believe. (episode 9)
– III: Hospital excess attributed to Covid-19 is very low in 2020.episode 10)
– IV: Those infected with Covid detected using (many) highly sensitive PCR tests. (episode 11)
– V: “No data on Covid within INSEE”. (episode 12)
– VI: Countless inaccuracies distort the count of cases and deaths attributed to Covid.
– VII: In 2020, INSEE recorded an increase in deaths “from all percentages to those of previous years”. (episode 13)
VII/ IN 2020, INSEE RECORDS AN INCREASE IN DEATH “WITHOUT common measurements with those of previous years»…
If ” 64,600 deaths linked to Covid-19 » recorded by the French Public Health between March 1 and December 31, 2020 cannot be taken seriously to measure the number of deaths effectively characteristics to this bug,” 62,800 deaths all factors combined » observed by INSEE is at least meritorious showing the regular presence of mortality in this period.
In its box, the institute points out that the majority of deaths “ both answers from a many deaths caused directly or indirectly by Covid-19 etc small deaths caused by the protective effect of restrictions and preventive measures on other causes of death ».
So the institute can confirm – without showing it – detention has a protective effect on the deaths recorded in France during this…caused directly or indirectly by Covid-19 ».
In other words, as Pierre Chaillot pointed out to journalists from CNEWSthe data available to INSEE does not allow the institute to measure in any way the deaths due to, and not simply linked to, Covid in France in 2020.
Therefore, the title of the box proposed by INSEE in this paper is actually false because the institute has stated that this ” excess deaths from all causes [enregistré en 2020 est] in accordance with the statistics of deaths due to Covid-19 ».
“Dus” or “related”, INSEE is apparently lost in the formulas… and so are we.
Not to mention that when you calculate over the twelve months of the year, not just the last nine, the news of the institution to which this box is attached reveals that the maximum death recorded on all 2020 compared to 2019 no longer 62,800 deaths, but 55,700.
In question, the time of the 1st January 1st thing Mars 2020 which is excluded from the INSEE statistics, but during which the recorded deaths are significantly less than during the first three months of 2019.
Regardless of the figures taken as reference, INSEE notes in all cases that these 55,700 deaths are a representative ” increase (…)without common measure with the years that have passed »… but also takes care to remind us, from the beginning of his report, that in “ reason for arrival Great baby boom generations at ages where mortality is highest, the number of deaths is increasing every year since 2010 ».
A tradition from which 2020 is no exception as the institution insists that “ excess death in 2020 compared to 2019 is (…) even higher than those people were old».
Specifically, between 2019 and 2020, INSEE notes that ” increase in deaths limited between 60 and 69 years (+ 4%), but it is really learned from 70 years. He jumped in 14% between 70 and 79 years oldand it is at high levels between 80 and 89 years (+9%) etc pass (+ 12%)».
In contrast, the institute notes that ” the death of young people under 25as for them, less in 2020 than in 2019 (- 6%) and those who 25-49 ans quite stables “. For those who are 50-59 years old, the increase in their mortality is estimated + 2% by the institute.
INSEE data now confirms what Pierre Chaillot explained CNEWS Compared to 2019, Covid, or any other cause, did not cause any disparity in deaths among those under 59, or even 69, in France in 2020.
This is finally a confirmation that you get from reading this report with an enthusiastic process!
(editor’s note: As a gift, consult a counselor third question of” instructions for using INSEE data “To understand how three of the members of the institute tried – as best they could – to justify their choice to communicate on 62,800 deaths in the nine months period in 2020, instead of the 55,700 deaths that recorded every year).
- Wolf Wagner, freelance designer.
See you tomorrow, is France-Soirto continue to explain this INSEE report.
#epidemic #publicity #fear #restrictions #episode