Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

We might not agree on many covid aspects but I strongly agree with you on the above.

I have woken up in a parallel universe .

I know even less about most legal issues than I do about politics (and that is clearly not much), so I cannot make any comments about the veracity of this Law Society of NSW article from December 2020, but it does seem possible to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory:

https://lsj.com.au/articles/a-covid-...y-could-it-be/

“ In Australia, the Commonwealth and State governments have extremely broad powers to take action during a public health emergency,” says Alison Choy Flannigan, a partner at Hall & Wilcox and leading expert on health and biosecurity legal issues.”

“ Flannigan says Australians would have little room to protest if the government did decide to make vaccination mandatory under the federal Biosecurity Act. There are penalties for breaching orders made under the Act – just as there have been penalties and fines for breaches of recent COVID-19 Public Health Orders in NSW.
Anyone who refuses to comply could become subject to a “human biosecurity control order”, which can restrict their movement or behaviour, require them to receive vaccination or treatment, or isolate them from the community for specified periods. If a person goes on to breach the control order, consequences are severe: ranging from detention to being charged with a criminal offence, punishable with up to five years in prison and/or a fine of $63,000.”


This is part of a transcript of the press conference the PM gave a few weeks later on the 7th January. It does not leave much answered regarding this:

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-co...ament-house-12

“JOURNALIST: You mentioned a discussion with the states about when and how vaccines could be required by uniform public health orders. Could you please clarify who that would apply to? Would that be aged care workers, returning Australians? And how does that square with repeated assurances that vaccines will be voluntary?

PRIME MINISTER: All I've said today is that that is a discussion that needs to be had. And so we will have that discussion.

JOURNALIST: But you said it would be voluntary, so…

PRIME MINISTER: It is voluntary. But that is an important discussion for the public health and safety that needs to be had in the states and territories who are responsible for public health.

JOURNALIST: So you're leaving open the possibility that you could require certain cohorts of people like returning Australians, aged care workers…

PRIME MINISTER: We’re going through the processes that are necessary to protect public health and safety in the country and I'm doing that collaboratively with the states and territories, who are principally responsible for that, John.

JOURNALIST: Is that going back on your previous statement…

PRIME MINISTER: No, I think you're over interpreting, Paul. You've got a want to do that. Yep””


I guess we just need to wait and see exactly how voluntary it will be.
I think this is under discussion, as I personally can’t see any way out of this for Australia given zero community transmission has been so hard fought for, other than it being “as mandatory as possible” (to quote the PM from last August).

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

...............
I guess we just need to wait and see exactly how voluntary it will be.
I think this is under discussion, as I personally can’t see any way out of this for Australia given zero community transmission has been so hard fought for, other than it being “as mandatory as possible” (to quote the PM from last August).

Well I'm in the same boat (i.e. not a legal or political expert).

My two cents of opinion - There might be (maybe) a legal power for making vaccination mandatory.

I fairly confident there is no political will to do so. There is plenty of political to sound tough and make 'mandated' comments but none to follow through on it. I expect there will be pressure in some areas to be vaccinated but not for whole of population (mandatory vaccination).

It could end up like childhood vaccinations - plenty of pressure but not compulsory.

Let's check in again in 2022

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Well I'm in the same boat (i.e. not a legal or political expert).

My two cents of opinion - There might be (maybe) a legal power for making vaccination mandatory.

I fairly confident there is no political will to do so. There is plenty of political to sound tough and make 'mandated' comments but none to follow through on it. I expect there will be pressure in some areas to be vaccinated but not for whole of population (mandatory vaccination).

It could end up like childhood vaccinations - plenty of pressure but not compulsory.

Let's check in again in 2022

As it has been suggested that Australia’s international borders won’t “reopen” (whatever that means) until late 2021, I doubt vaccination will be made mandatory for any big groups other than health workers until closer to that time. There is no urgency.

There have been some precedents set for mandatory vaccination in Australia. This is from the article I linked in my last post:

“The Victorian Government earlier this year passed legislation to compel healthcare workers to be vaccinated. At this stage it doesn’t extend to include COVID-19 vaccinations but obviously, when a vaccine rolls around, I expect it will be added to the list of vaccines required for healthcare workers.”

Also:

”Prime Minister Scott Morrison was, after all, the inventor of the “no jab no pay” policy in 2015. This policy requires children to be immunised for their parents to be eligible for family tax benefit payments and the federal childcare subsidy.”

And:

“Similarly, the NSW Public Health Act introduced “no jab, no play” laws in 2017, preventing parents enrolling their children in childcare or preschool unless they are fully vaccinated for their age or have a certified medical exemption.”


So I think that although it is likely not to be universal, there will be either federal or state regulations put in place before the states of emergency are lifted making it “effectively mandatory” for a large number of people, even perhaps the elderly if admission to care homes is restricted.

I agree though, we will need to wait to 2022 to see .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

... Weighing risk vs benefit for this [at risk] group, offering them a vaccine that is approved only for limited use (eg emergency or conditional) is very sensible. Vital in fact, given the crisis. Governments need to present this honestly though, not simply say the vaccine is “safe”.
Once the death rate is slashed, I would consider it prudent to wait until the initial trials are completed before offering the vaccine to others considered at low risk...
... I think once deaths drop back dramatically, the urgency will disappear, people will stop panicking and it will allow them to carefully consider whether or not they wish to be vaccinated.
In my opinion, it would be ideal to have several years of trialling/use before those at low risk are vaccinated in large numbers...

Do you think that those at "low-risk" should wait to get vaccinated, until Full Licensure is granted?
Or, is there a period of follow-up monitoring (ie: 6 mos, 1 or 2 year ...) that would satisfy your long-term safety concerns?



As I understand it, both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have concluded their phase I, II, & II clinical trials ("primary endpoint"*), (November 18 & 30, respectively) and the required regulatory review(s) (by ‘rolling submission’), by various government health authorities performed, resulting in Emergency Use Authorizations* (by Health Canada, for instance, on December 9, and December 23, respectively). Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine was approved for emergency use in the U.K. on Dec. 2, and in the U.S. on Dec. 11.

Before EUA approval can be sought, for the vaccines, half of the volunteers must be followed for a minimum of two months, as most side effects show up within that time period. In fact, adverse events, considered plausibly linked to vaccination, generally start within 6 weeks after vaccine receipt.



To support full licensure of a vaccine, the FDA generally requires at least 6 months of safety follow-up, for serious and other medically attended adverse events in a sufficient number of vaccinees.

Studies continue for patients not included in the initial trials (pregnant women, adolescents & children, HIV patients, etc).
The manufacturers & regulators will continue to monitor patients (for long-term protection and safety) for (about) two years, after their second dose.

* While Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies are focused mainly on safety, dosing and lab indicators of an immune response, Phase 3 trials answer a key question: are those who get the vaccine protected from the disease compared to those who get a placebo? It could also reveal rarer side effects that aren't observed in smaller Phase 1 and 2 trials.



The agency (USFDA) doesn’t have the power to issue an EUA without a declared emergency. The agency has previously issued EUAs for anthrax, ebola, enterovirus, H7N9 influenza, and Middle East respiratory syndrome.


Manufacturers, who receive an EUA, must continue their clinical trials, and ultimately file for a Biologic Licensing Application (BLA). An EUA is no longer valid, once a public health emergency declaration is no longer in effect, meaning full approval/licensure (BLA) will be needed, for the vaccine to continue to be used.

To support full FDA approval/licensure, most vaccine clinical trials include substantially longer follow-up, of trial participants, to track both safety and efficacy.

For example, for shingles vaccines, participants in Shingrix clinical trials were followed for a median of 3.1 years in one study, and 3.9 years in another, and participants in Zostavax clinical trials were followed for a median of 1.3 years in one study and 3.1 years in another.


“Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-b...ines-explained

“Emergency Use Authorization” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...-authorization

[GordMay]

A follow-up question:
Does anyone have an informed opinion on whether, or not, an mRNA (or DNA) type vaccines, might be more, or less, likely to have long-term (or very long-term) adverse side effects, than do more conventional* vaccines?

* There are 4 main types of “conventional” vaccines:
- Live-attenuated vaccines (Measles, mumps, rubella, MMR combined vaccine, Rotavirus, Chickenpox, Yellow fever)
- Inactivated vaccines (Hepatitis A, Flu, Polio, Rabies)
- Subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines (Hib, Hepatitis B, HPV, DTaP combined vaccine, Pneumococcal disease, Meningococcal disease, Shingles)
- Toxoid vaccines (Diphtheria, Tetanus)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Well I'm in the same boat (i.e. not a legal or political expert).

My two cents of opinion - There might be (maybe) a legal power for making vaccination mandatory.

I fairly confident there is no political will to do so. There is plenty of political to sound tough and make 'mandated' comments but none to follow through on it. I expect there will be pressure in some areas to be vaccinated but not for whole of population (mandatory vaccination).

It could end up like childhood vaccinations - plenty of pressure but not compulsory.

Let's check in again in 2022

FWIW, in the U.S., oddly, mandatory forced vaccination is absolutely legal. Settled by the Supreme Court, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). I thought this case wrongly decided when I studied it in Con Law and used to enjoy teaching it in the Con Law classes I taught, but FWIW Jacobson is still good law today. The context was smallpox, a real scourage of mankind which killed something like half a billion people over 100 years. A vaccine against smallpox has existed since 1796, and in the second half of the 19th century European countries started making vaccination mandatory. Then eventually some states in the U.S. started making the vaccine mandatory, and there was some pushback by antivaxxers, resulting in this case.

I don't know anything about the legal situation in Australia, but if mandatory vaccination is indeed legal, then considering the extremely intrusive measures used in Australia so far, and the broad consent of the people to be subjected to such measures, I would not be surprised to see mandatory vaccination. We shall see.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do you think that those at "low-risk" should wait to get vaccinated, until Full Licensure is granted?
Or, is there a period of follow-up monitoring (ie: 6 mos, 1 or 2 year ...) that would satisfy your long-term safety concerns?



As I understand it, both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have concluded their phase I, II, & II clinical trials ("primary endpoint"*), (November 18 & 30, respectively) and the required regulatory review(s) (by ‘rolling submission’), by various government health authorities performed, resulting in Emergency Use Authorizations* (by Health Canada, for instance, on December 9, and December 23, respectively). Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine was approved for emergency use in the U.K. on Dec. 2, and in the U.S. on Dec. 11.

Before EUA approval can be sought, for the vaccines, half of the volunteers must be followed for a minimum of two months, as most side effects show up within that time period. In fact, adverse events, considered plausibly linked to vaccination, generally start within 6 weeks after vaccine receipt.



To support full licensure of a vaccine, the FDA generally requires at least 6 months of safety follow-up, for serious and other medically attended adverse events in a sufficient number of vaccinees.

Studies continue for patients not included in the initial trials (pregnant women, adolescents & children, HIV patients, etc).
The manufacturers & regulators will continue to monitor patients (for long-term protection and safety) for (about) two years, after their second dose.

* While Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies are focused mainly on safety, dosing and lab indicators of an immune response, Phase 3 trials answer a key question: are those who get the vaccine protected from the disease compared to those who get a placebo? It could also reveal rarer side effects that aren't observed in smaller Phase 1 and 2 trials.



The agency (USFDA) doesn’t have the power to issue an EUA without a declared emergency. The agency has previously issued EUAs for anthrax, ebola, enterovirus, H7N9 influenza, and Middle East respiratory syndrome.


Manufacturers, who receive an EUA, must continue their clinical trials, and ultimately file for a Biologic Licensing Application (BLA). An EUA is no longer valid, once a public health emergency declaration is no longer in effect, meaning full approval/licensure (BLA) will be needed, for the vaccine to continue to be used.

To support full FDA approval/licensure, most vaccine clinical trials include substantially longer follow-up, of trial participants, to track both safety and efficacy.

For example, for shingles vaccines, participants in Shingrix clinical trials were followed for a median of 3.1 years in one study, and 3.9 years in another, and participants in Zostavax clinical trials were followed for a median of 1.3 years in one study and 3.1 years in another.


“Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-b...ines-explained

“Emergency Use Authorization” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...-authorization

The trouble is that there are no 'Major' long term studies into vaccinations and such things as chronic illness and auto-immune disorders, both of which are currently a massive problem for society. The data is there (minus privacy laws, which I am sure can worked with) but the will to undertake such studies is obviously not. The only time that they do do a study is to refute another study showing a link! There are also plenty of smaller university studies on this subject and most of them don't come out favorable for vaccines.


You have to remember that these are corporations where the bottom line is more important than individual health and safety and if you don't believe that, maybe do a search for class action law suits!

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A follow-up question:
Does anyone have an informed opinion on whether, or not, an mRNA (or DNA) type vaccines, might be more, or less, likely to have long-term (or very long-term) adverse side effects, than do more conventional* vaccines?

* There are 4 main types of “conventional” vaccines:
- Live-attenuated vaccines (Measles, mumps, rubella, MMR combined vaccine, Rotavirus, Chickenpox, Yellow fever)
- Inactivated vaccines (Hepatitis A, Flu, Polio, Rabies)
- Subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines (Hib, Hepatitis B, HPV, DTaP combined vaccine, Pneumococcal disease, Meningococcal disease, Shingles)
- Toxoid vaccines (Diphtheria, Tetanus)

Well I would have given you the link to a Dutch Molecular Genetic Scientist who gave a reasoned review of the MRNA Vaccines - Nothing really damming, but raising a lot of points and "possible" longer term issues with it, but in our new world order of full censorship by the tech ars$holes it has been removed.

[Dockhead]

Meanwhile, back in Northern Europe, encouraging trends in infections rates continue:



UK continues coming down, now a bit over 600. Lithuania unfortunately has had a bounce back up to nearly 500, but I suspect uneven data release. Latvia slowly falling and just over 400, Sweden continues to fall and now at 365. Denmark steadily falling and now 157. This is encouraging.

As to deaths:



The picture is not nearly as good, not good at all in fact, with four countries above 10, including Germany, and UK at a very high rate of 18. Sweden not looking good at over 13.

But since deaths reliably lag infection rates by a couple of weeks, we can be sure that this numbers will come down too.

On the brighter side, Lithuania and Latvia are falling constantly and will fall through 10 soon and Latvia already below 10. Denmark has also fallen constantly and is now just above 5.

Altogether we have more and more reason to hope that we are on the back side of the second wave.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't know anything about the legal situation in Australia, but if mandatory vaccination is indeed legal, then considering the extremely intrusive measures used in Australia so far, and the broad consent of the people to be subjected to such measures, I would not be surprised to see mandatory vaccination. We shall see.

You are right, Australia is an Over Zealous police state, but I really hope you are wrong about vaccinations, as I am happy to leave here, but one day may wish to return.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

The trouble is that there are no 'Major' long term studies into vaccinations ...
... You have to remember that these are corporations where the bottom line is more important than individual health and safety and if you don't believe that, maybe do a search for class action law suits!

We learn about a vaccine’s safety, during clinical trials, before it is licensed (or gets an EUA), and monitor it continually*, as millions of doses are administered, after it is licensed. Although most common side effects, of a vaccine, are identified in studies, before the vaccine is licensed, rare adverse events may not be detected in these studies. Therefore, the U.S. (And others) vaccine safety system continuously monitors for adverse events (possible side effects), after a vaccine is licensed. When millions of people receive a vaccine, less common side effects, that were not identified earlier, may show up.

We also know there is not a plausible biologic reason, to believe vaccines would cause any serious long-term effects.

Based on more than 50 years of experience with vaccines, we can say that the likelihood that a vaccine will cause, unanticipated, long-term problems, is extremely low.

Of course, if your government, and the corporations that control it, is secretly controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshipping, pedophile, cannibals, all bets are off.

* In the USA, for instance, the CDC monitors the safety of vaccines by:
Performing vaccine safety research.
Making determinations about whether vaccines caused reactions in certain cases and helping to learn about preventable risk factors.
Identifying vaccine adverse events through public health surveillance (see below).

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...ers/index.html
Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...vsd/index.html
Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...isa/index.html
Emergency Preparedness and Vaccine Safety ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...ess/index.html

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

We learn about a vaccine’s safety, during clinical trials, before it is licensed (or gets an EUA), and monitor it continually*, as millions of doses are administered, after it is licensed. Although most common side effects, of a vaccine, are identified in studies, before the vaccine is licensed, rare adverse events may not be detected in these studies. Therefore, the U.S. (And others) vaccine safety system continuously monitors for adverse events (possible side effects), after a vaccine is licensed. When millions of people receive a vaccine, less common side effects, that were not identified earlier, may show up.

We also know there is not a plausible biologic reason, to believe vaccines would cause any serious long-term effects.

Based on more than 50 years of experience with vaccines, we can say that the likelihood that a vaccine will cause, unanticipated, long-term problems, is extremely low.

Of course, if your government, and the corporations that control it, is secretly controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshipping, pedophile, cannibals, all bets are off.

* In the USA, for instance, the CDC monitors the safety of vaccines by:
Performing vaccine safety research.
Making determinations about whether vaccines caused reactions in certain cases and helping to learn about preventable risk factors.
Identifying vaccine adverse events through public health surveillance (see below).

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...ers/index.html
Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...vsd/index.html
Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...isa/index.html
Emergency Preparedness and Vaccine Safety ➥ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/en...ess/index.html

Do you just google and copy and paste this stuff? Its propaganda what you have spouted there.


OK so Vaccines deal with the Immune system and we have massive auto-immune issues and Chronic illness in society which are all related to the immune system, so show me the unbiased long term studies that have looked into this.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do you think that those at "low-risk" should wait to get vaccinated, until Full Licensure is granted?
Or, is there a period of follow-up monitoring (ie: 6 mos, 1 or 2 year ...) that would satisfy your long-term safety concerns?



As I understand it, both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have concluded their phase I, II, & II clinical trials ("primary endpoint"*), (November 18 & 30, respectively) and the required regulatory review(s) (by ‘rolling submission’), by various government health authorities performed, resulting in Emergency Use Authorizations* (by Health Canada, for instance, on December 9, and December 23, respectively). Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine was approved for emergency use in the U.K. on Dec. 2, and in the U.S. on Dec. 11.

Before EUA approval can be sought, for the vaccines, half of the volunteers must be followed for a minimum of two months, as most side effects show up within that time period. In fact, adverse events, considered plausibly linked to vaccination, generally start within 6 weeks after vaccine receipt.



To support full licensure of a vaccine, the FDA generally requires at least 6 months of safety follow-up, for serious and other medically attended adverse events in a sufficient number of vaccinees.

Studies continue for patients not included in the initial trials (pregnant women, adolescents & children, HIV patients, etc).
The manufacturers & regulators will continue to monitor patients (for long-term protection and safety) for (about) two years, after their second dose.

* While Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies are focused mainly on safety, dosing and lab indicators of an immune response, Phase 3 trials answer a key question: are those who get the vaccine protected from the disease compared to those who get a placebo? It could also reveal rarer side effects that aren't observed in smaller Phase 1 and 2 trials.



The agency (USFDA) doesn’t have the power to issue an EUA without a declared emergency. The agency has previously issued EUAs for anthrax, ebola, enterovirus, H7N9 influenza, and Middle East respiratory syndrome.


Manufacturers, who receive an EUA, must continue their clinical trials, and ultimately file for a Biologic Licensing Application (BLA). An EUA is no longer valid, once a public health emergency declaration is no longer in effect, meaning full approval/licensure (BLA) will be needed, for the vaccine to continue to be used.

To support full FDA approval/licensure, most vaccine clinical trials include substantially longer follow-up, of trial participants, to track both safety and efficacy.

For example, for shingles vaccines, participants in Shingrix clinical trials were followed for a median of 3.1 years in one study, and 3.9 years in another, and participants in Zostavax clinical trials were followed for a median of 1.3 years in one study and 3.1 years in another.


“Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-b...ines-explained

“Emergency Use Authorization” ~ USFDA
➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...-authorization

Hi Gord
You ask difficult questions . This is such a complicated situation, but I will give it my best shot answering.

Regarding what information we have from Phase 3 of trials, the only data that I have seen for the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines extends merely to 1-2 weeks following the second dose. These are these press releases regarding this:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...vid-19-vaccine
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...he-lancet.html

The trials are still continuing.

These are my personal views as a layperson:

Regarding when I think those at “low risk” should consider getting themselves vaccinated, there is no simple answer. I think it is not just “low risk” that is the main consideration, but factors such as how significant “long covid” ends up being, the actual risk of infection, etc also need to be considered.

One big consideration is the amount of contact with more vulnerable people, particularly indoors. This is is one reason I think for being vaccinated for influenza even if your personal risk is negligible. The risks to the elderly are far higher if they contract COVID-19 compared to influenza and they are not 100% safe after being vaccinated. There is no data so far that I have seen indicating vaccination prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 but I think it is very unlikely it does not at least partly help.

As a broad generalisation, I would at a minimum consider waiting until Full Licensure is granted if the above comments regarding contact with vulnerable people do not apply and better information is not available regarding “long covid”.

Then it depends on factors such as exact age and how much risk of infection still exists. Confidence in a vaccine is a sliding scale. I understand it takes 6 months of widespread usage for most serious complications crop up. Some may take several years. Using DNA & mRNA vaccines is very new technology and I would be far more comfortable waiting a longer period of time.

For children some diseases may not be likely, but the consequences are severe and here I would weigh up vaccination with risk vs complications and how long the vaccine has been in use. In the case of COVID-19 at the moment unless there are co-morbidities, the risk of severe disease in children is negligible. I understand most of them are actually asymptomatic, or nearly so. For young children there are actually benefits of contracting this disease and strengthening their immune systems naturally, so based on current data, I think you may be doing more harm than good vaccinating them at all for COVID-19.

So, as you see, it is complex. You could pose this question to a dozen experts in this field and you are likely to get a range of responses.

I think everyone needs to carefully consider the situation for themselves.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

Well I would have given you the link to a Dutch Molecular Genetic Scientist who gave a reasoned review of the MRNA Vaccines - Nothing really damming, but raising a lot of points and "possible" longer term issues with it, but in our new world order of full censorship by the tech ars$holes it has been removed.

I haven’t been able to locate a “Dutch Molecular Genetic Scientist who gave a reasoned review of the MRNA Vaccines”, nor any retraction of any such study.
Do you know this scientist’s name, or affiliation”

Just a small part of my search:

The Top Retractions of 2020 ➥ https://www.the-scientist.com/news-o...-of-2020-68284

Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers ➥ https://retractionwatch.com/retracte...vid-19-papers/

Database Search ➥ http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?

Corona Central Retractions ➥ https://coronacentral.ai/retractions

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I haven’t been able to locate a “Dutch Molecular Genetic Scientist who gave a reasoned review of the MRNA Vaccines”, nor any retraction of any such study.
Do you know this scientist’s name, or affiliation”

Just a small part of my search:

The Top Retractions of 2020 ➥ https://www.the-scientist.com/news-o...-of-2020-68284

Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers ➥ https://retractionwatch.com/retracte...vid-19-papers/

Database Search ➥ http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?

Corona Central Retractions ➥ https://coronacentral.ai/retractions

This was simply a video that she gave - I put the link up earlier in this thread, but when I just checked the video had been removed by Youtube - Hence my censorship remark and I then deleted the link from my bookmarks, it also looks like google have removed any trace of it as well It was though NOT: Judy Mikovits