許すな！ワクチン未接種者差別！ ワクチン未接種者に対して各国政府やMSMが行った卑劣な人権侵害及び不当な差別行為に対し謝罪と賠償を要求する！

 

Self-Selected COVID-19 “Unvaccinated” Cohort Reports Favorable Health Outcomes and Unjustified Discrimination in Global Survey

Robert Verkerk PhD1, Christof Plothe DO2, Naseeba Kathrada MBChB3and Katarina Lindley DO41Science Unit, Alliance for Natural Health International, 78 Dorking Road, Chilworth, Surrey GU4 8NS, United Kingdom (corresponding author science@anhinternational.org)2 Praxis für Biophysikalische Osteopathie[Practice in Biophysical Osteopathy], Am Wegweiser 27, 55232 Alzey, Germany3 Dr Kats, 86 Jan Hofmeyer Road, Dawncrest, Westville, 3629, South Africa4 Lindley Medical, 2100 FM 1189, Brock, Texas 76087, USA

ABSTRACT

Self-reported data collected independently by the UK-based Control Group Cooperative between September 2021 and February 2022,inclusive,from aself-selected international COVID-19 “unvaccinated” populationare discussed. Data come from a cohort of 18,497 participants who provided questionnaire responses monthly. The largest numbers are from Europe, North America,and Australasia. Data were skewed towards the 40-69y age range and included 60% female respondents. Reasons for avoiding COVID-19 “vaccines” were: a preference for natural medicine,distrust of pharma, distrust of government information, poor/limited trial data,and fear of long-term adverse reactions.During the survey period, the greatest incidence ofCOVID-19 disease was reported in the 50-69y range, peaking at 12.3%, in January 2022. Persons at 70y and above were least affected (1.3%), with 10.7% and 3.8% in the 20to 49y band, and in the 1to 19y group, respectively. Most rated their symptoms as “mild” (14.4%), with 2% reporting“severe” disease.Fatigue, cough, muscle/body aches,and fever were the four most common. Just 0.4% of the cohort reported hospitalization (as in-or out-patients). Nearlytwo-thirdsreported taking vitamin D, C, zinc,quercetin, or a combination, for prevention, with 71% using vitamin D, C,and zinc for treatment. Nearly 45% reported “moderate” to “severe” mental health issues (depression) during the survey period.Menstrual abnormalities were reported by 36% of women in the20-49y age band. Reported job losses were greatest in Australia and New Zealand at 29%,followed by 13% in North America. Between 20% and 50% reported being personal targets of hate because of their vaccination status. Between 57% and 61% of respondents in Southern Europe and Western Europe, Australia/New Zealand and South America, reported being targets of governmental victimization. The cohort may not be representative of widerpopulationsgiven its reliance on self-care.The findings suggest that opting outof the world’s largest medical experiment, relying on natural immunity,self-care with supplements,and/or ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine,appeared to contribute to low incidencesof severe disease, hospitalization, or death. The results implythe urgent need for prospective studies of “unvaccinated”, “partially vaccinated”, and “fully vaccinated” persons investigating long-term outcomes, behaviors, choices, and discriminatory responses by the state, institutions,or employers based on “vaccination” status. Public dialogue about the touted “safety and effectiveness”of vaccines, contrasted with strategies to enhance immune resilience, all in the context of authoritarianismversusautonomy, self-care, personal responsibility, and freedom of  choice is needed.

Conclusions

Overall, the survey findings suggest there is no adequate basis to believethat the CGC cohort and, by extension, other health-aware populations who have elected to avoid COVID-19injections and have prioritized self-care, have inflicted a disproportionate burden on health systems. Nor is, or was, there any 

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(2), August 12, 2022 Page | 344robust scientific evidence that even suggests such COVID-19 “unvaccinated” populations place “vaccinated” populations at disproportionately greater risk.The survey data providepreliminary evidence that the CGC COVID-19 “unvaccinated” cohort prioritizes self-care, has faced low rates of hospitalization or severe disease, yet has also suffered a considerable mental health burden,while also being exposed to risks from COVID-19 “vaccinated” individuals, especially among women of reproductive age in the survey. It should be of considerable concern to those responsible for COVID-19 health policies, that essential workers, such as teachers, nurses,and care workers, have been among the most impacted by job losses that result from “unvaccinated” status. It follows, then, that the marginalization, stigmatization, coercion of, or discrimination against, this mass formation/hypnosis resistant “outgroup”, consisting of those who exercizedtheir right of refusal of products known to be “unavoidably unsafe” according to Bruesewitz et al. v. Wyeth LLC, FKA Wyeth, Inc., et al.2011, and/or defective in design (Goldberg, 2022), andall of whichwere known to be experimental medical products at their time of release on the public, is neither valid nor ethical.Such discrimination and restriction of liberties based on a medical choice may fall foul of relevant national anti-discrimination laws and international treaties, such as the United Nation’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN Office of Public Information, 1966), which includes fundamental rights to liberty and security of person, freedom of movement, privacy, religion and belief, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly.Finally, the findings amplify the need for high quality prospective observational studies to compare outcomes, choices, and potential discrimination, among COVID-19 “unvaccinated” (control) populations and those who have elected to be “vaccinated” with different products and doses.   

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(2), August 12, 2022 Page | 321

https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/43/78

International Survey of Unvaccinated ‘Control Group’ Reports its Findings

by Dr Rachel Nicoll

31 August 2022 1:05 PM

It is clear that many are now waking up to the realisation that much of the Government narrative on the pandemic was wrong and that many of the COVID-19 preventive measures did more harm than good. Both candidates for U.K. Prime Minister have recently admitted that the lockdowns were a mistake. In particular, many of the unsuspecting public who submitted to the vaccinations are now beginning to question the need for them. Vaccinations have not fulfilled the claims of manufacturers and governments and few in mainstream science seem to have anticipated the frequent mutations which render the early vaccines largely useless. More are now starting to question the unexpected, and sometimes fatal, conditions which some of the vaccinated mysteriously develop soon after vaccination. Others simply have ‘vaccine fatigue’ and can’t be bothered going for any more jabs.

Furthermore, there are those who know something about immunology and can see that natural immunity from having contracted the virus sets them up with excellent protection (not just antibodies but also the longer-lasting T cell immunity) against many future variants. They have also long recognised that you cannot stop a highly infectious virus spreading, as was acknowledged in the evidence-based U.K. pandemic plan, capriciously jettisoned by Boris Johnson and his ‘expert’ advisors. They can also see that these experts’ recommended means of avoiding the virus (masks, lockdown, social distancing) have not worked, and we are now seeing the results of the ‘Zero Covid’ policy in China, where successive cities are being placed back in lockdown. Meanwhile news is beginning to creep out of the success of natural remedies as well as banned drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which can protect against the infection and keep it from becoming serious.

Interestingly, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which provided the official recommendations on lockdown, masks and social distancing throughout the pandemic, followed slavishly in the U.K. and elsewhere, has now quietly changed its guidance to advocating personal responsibility by stating that “Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviours to use and when”. They are now recommending the individual risk assessment and risk-based countermeasures which many of us have been advocating from the start of the pandemic, since the elderly and those with co-morbidities have always been at much greater risk than healthy children and young adults. Indeed, much of the revised CDC guidance could have been cut and pasted from the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s just such a pity that so many of us have been attacked, cancelled and sacked from our jobs for saying this from the beginning.

Although there was much talk early in the pandemic of achieving ‘herd immunity’ through infection or vaccination, we no longer hear anything about this, since it has become clear that vaccination does not bring about herd immunity; achieving herd immunity through infection would negate the validity of the vaccine roll-out. Of course, since vaccinations were introduced, it has become impossible to assess natural herd immunity but there is no reason to suppose that it would not have been achieved in the absence of vaccines; there is plenty of evidence of pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses.

It’s not clear exactly how many of us are completely unvaccinated; figures range from 5 million (official Government sources) to over 23 million (other sources). This matters, because over 23 million represents around 35% of the U.K. population, a not insubstantial proportion. Interestingly, this 35% is the exact same proportion as the official number of unvaccinated globally. So much for the unvaccinated being a tiny and insignificant minority! We can all remember how governments around the world have tried to stigmatise the unvaccinated as pariahs for the last 18 months because of their ‘selfishness’ in refusing the vaccine, thereby placing others at risk by potentially transmitting COVID-19. Yet all the evidence indicates that vaccination does not prevent transmission of COVID-19, a point that even the vaccine manufacturers now acknowledge. The CDC has also tacitly acknowledged this by stating that “prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur”. It even grudgingly allows for natural immunity by stating “persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection”. And who, after at least two and a half years of exposure to a highly transmissible virus, has not had COVID-19, even asymptomatically? So why bother getting vaccinated at all?

So what are the experiences of the unvaccinated? A recent study led by Dr. Rob Verkerk of the Alliance for Natural Health International, evaluating survey results from 18,500 completely unvaccinated respondents to a survey by the international, U.K.-based, Control Group Cooperative, found that reasons for avoiding COVID-19 vaccination included distrust of health authorities, governments or the pharmaceutical industry, insufficient evidence of safety or effectiveness and concerns over potential injuries or adverse reactions. Over 70% relied on natural remedies for prevention and treatment, while two thirds also used repurposed, generic, off-patent drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, sales of which provide no revenue to the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies.

So were these unvaccinated individuals all Covid-free? No, and that was neither expected nor desired – one cannot build up natural immunity without contracting the infection. Among those who contracted COVID-19 during the reporting period, only 0.4% reported hospitalisation (as either in- or out-patients). Since this was an international cohort, it is not possible to compare this figure to national hospitalisation rates, which are often not available. However, a rate of 0.4% is sufficiently low to suggest that the unvaccinated have not placed a significant additional burden on healthcare systems. While there have been plenty of media headlines mentioning the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’, the actual evidence for this was always thin on the ground and has since evaporated altogether. This is particularly so when bearing in mind that anyone who contracts COVID-19 within two weeks of vaccination is labelled ‘unvaccinated’. Instead, a recent study showed that, in the U.K., there are an increasing number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly.

Furthermore, the vast majority of hospitalised Control Group respondents reported no use of natural remedies or repurposed drugs in hospital, reflecting the mainstream belief that these products don’t work and should not be used in a healthcare setting. This meant that any ongoing benefit they might have experienced from these remedies was immediately curtailed. Although not mentioned by the authors, another factor potentially affecting severity of disease in this cohort of individuals who believed in self-care, was the likely lower incidence of comorbidities (obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease etc.), which have been found to predict more severe disease.

Disturbingly, the respondents reported a high incidence of mental health issues. Much of this is likely because of the legalised sacking from jobs due to being unvaccinated (reaching a peak of 29% in respondents from Australia and New Zealand), the personal hate campaigns experienced by many and being a target of governmental victimisation (57% to 61% in Australia, New Zealand, Western and Southern Europe and South America). Other useful nuggets from the survey included the fact that those who reported never wearing facial coverings or masks also experienced the lowest incidence of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, indicating once again that masks are ineffective in stopping a virus.

This paper was originally placed with the preprint server ResearchGate but was removed on the grounds that “the content may expose [ResearchGate] to harm, potential legal liability, or [was] in breach of [its] Terms”. Happily, Dr. Verkerk’s team and the Control Group Cooperative persevered and the analysis and interpretation, in revised and even expanded form, has now been successfully peer-reviewed and published in the much bolder International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research. An excellent commentary on this study has been put out by the Alliance for Natural Health.

Dr. Rachel Nicoll is a medical researcher, lecturer and writer.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/31/international-survey-of-unvaccinated-control-group-reports-its-findings/

許すな！ワクチン未接種者差別！　ワクチン未接種者に対して各国政府やMSMが行った卑劣な人権侵害及び不当な差別行為に対し謝罪と賠償を！（爆ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ