It’s strange isn’t it, that days after Mike Yeadon and other scientists wrote to the European Medicines Agency warning of the potential for serious thrombolic adverse reactions associated with the Covid ‘vaccines’, many countries in Europe put a temporary hold on vaccinations with AZ whilst the EMA and the German regulator looked into it. The British government claimed there was no evidence of any link between the AZ jab and blood clots and Pol Pot Belly went live on TV to get the AZ jab despite earlier claiming that he was ‘bursting with [natural] antibodies’.
The EMA then reversed their decision, despite there being evidence that there was a significant increased risk of this very rare form of blood clotting in women under 60 administered with the vackseen. The vaccine was ‘safe and effective’ they said and there was no evidence of a link with rare blood clotting and the benefits outweighed the risks, blah, blah, blah, despite the fact that the risk to healthy women under 60 from Covid-19 is tiny.
But now, Germany has suspended the use of AZ in the under 60s and the EMA has changed its tune. In the Mail:
One of the European drug regulator’s senior officials today claimed there is now a ‘clear’ link between AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine and potentially deadly blood clots.
Marco Cavaleri, head of vaccines at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), said that CVST — a brain blockage that can lead to a stroke — was occurring more often than expected in younger people.
But he admitted that the body was still baffled about how the jab may trigger the rare complication.
Despite his comments, Mr Cavaleri’s agency has repeatedly insisted AstraZeneca’s jab is safe and the benefits outweigh any risks.
Last week it slapped down Germany for suspending its use in under-60s, arguing there was ‘no evidence’ to support age-based restrictions.
But at the same time, the watchdog paved the way for a potential U-turn, warning that the rate of the complication did appear to be slightly higher than expected in vaccinated under-60s.
Experts across the board say the evidence is now ‘shifting’ and that the jab is likely – in extremely rare cases – to cause the brain blockage.
‘Shifting’ . . . . yeah, right. It was there in the first place. First they took notice, then they dismissed it, no doubt for political reasons, then they were forced to look at it again because incidences of blood clotting in vaccinees kept happening.
The MHRA have not yet moved to restrict AZ vaccinations and Pol Pot Belly was out in Macclesfield a few days ago promoting the jab, no doubt thinking at the time that he would be announcing the introduction of vaccine passports, having not anticipated the strength of opposition to them.
Boris Johnson today called on Britons to still get the jab while on a visit to an AstraZeneca factory in Macclesfield, saying the ‘best thing’ they can do is ‘look at what the MHRA say’. He added: ‘Their advice to people is to keep going out there, get your jab, get your second jab.’
But he glossed over questions about whether the UK could impose a ban on the jab for under-30s.
Of course, the hard-nosed statisticians claim that the chance of a person dying from Covid in the younger age groups is still much higher than the chance of dying from the rare form of CVST blood clotting. The Mail reproduces this graph:
Convincing isn’t it? Except for the fact that it completely ignores:
/ Covid deaths in the 25-44 age groups are overwhelmingly those with serious underlying illness, both male and female.
/ AFAIA CVST events are mainly in younger women with no underlying health issues who are at much less risk of dying from Covid-19 than is the impression given by that chart.
/ ‘Covid deaths’ are almost certainly overestimated, therefore the risk of dying from Covid is also overestimated.
/ Other adverse reaction risks are associated with being jabbed (there are many), including unknown long term risks.
So why would any sane, healthy woman (or man even) under 60, but particularly under 45, opt to get jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ with demonstrable serious side effects (including CVST) and unknown future long term health effects supposedly in order to ‘protect’ themselves against a disease which, if they were to contract, would probably present as no worse than a bad cold, if they were unlucky? Most liklely answer: because the government told them they wouldn’t be able to go on holiday if they didn’t! But it’s the vaccine refuseniks who are ‘selfish’ apparently.