• Németh Debs

France vs. Australia: Comparison Of Covid Vaccine Responses

Updated: May 30


Australian "News" anchor, "We Draw Closer To N. Korea with Victoria's 'Latest Rubbish'": Alan Jones On Fourth Lockdown. See Baalshit in video below.


Alan Jones unhappy that the Australian government has not gone to the extent of offering pizza or lottery tickets in exchange for a life altering, gene modifying "vaccine" (realistically gene therapy) that we already know is designed to lower immunity as it has already been established that these vaccines attack antigens. "They" say "Covid Antigens" but if you look back in my posts or even looked at them in the first place you'd find the Thai physician based out of Germany, who explained it in plain English. If covid is a lung-borne/respiratory infection then no "Covid" antigens may be produced inasmuch as antigens are made in the blood stream. Therefore, I submit to you that the constituents of these "Covid Vaccines" attack antigens generally and it is just another misrepresentation to state that the vaccine ingredients attack "Covid" antigens. M'kay?


Just a "white" girl from Camden who had the luck of growing up impoverished and uneducated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Meanwhile in France . . .

French drug assessment center demands removal of all four widely used COVID vaccines | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)


According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before ‘proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product’ was produced.


A regional independent drug assessment center, the CTIAP (Centre territorial d’Information indépendante et d’Avis pharmaceutiques), which is linked to the Cholet public hospital in the west of France, recently published a report showing that the vaccines used against COVID were not only submitted to insufficient clinical testing, but that the quality of the active substances, their “excipients, some of which are new,” and the manufacturing processes are problematic. “These new excipients should be considered as new active substances,” the Cholet hospital team stated, in a study that according to them raises issues that have not been commented to date.


The team led by Dr. Catherine Frade, a pharmacist, worked on public data released by the EMA with relation to the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) shots, and its first caveat was that all these products only have temporary marketing authorizations. They are all subject to further studies that reach as far as 2024 and even beyond, and these will be almost impossible to be completed because of the way the vaccines are now being distributed, said the CTIAP report.


These studies even include the stability and comparability of the vaccine batches put on the market and the quality and safety of excipients — substances formulated alongside the active ingredient of a medication to facilitate or enhance their absorption.

According to the CTIAP, all of the vaccines were put on the market and actively used on human beings before “proof of quality for the active substance and the finished product” was produced: all the manufacturing labs obtained future deadlines to submit their studies in this regard.


The authors of the report consider that the “variabilities, which impact the very core of the product, could even invalidate any clinical trials conducted” in the coming months and years.

They go so far as to state: “Prudence would even dictate that, in all countries where these vaccines against COVID-19 have been marketed, all the batches thus ‘released’ should be withdrawn immediately; and that these MAs that have been granted should be suspended, or even canceled, as a matter of urgency until further notice.”


5 views0 comments