Vax Creator Professor Nikolai Petrovsky: Government Must Be Open And Honest About Vaccine Risks

The goal of the government should NOT be maximal vaccine uptake ('vaccine maximalism'). Instead it should be fully informed of citizens, so that each citizens can make a decision that they judge to be optimal for their specific situation.

Besides information about known vaccine risks, fully informed consent MUST include:
* Relevant easy to interpret data about the risk of the risk of a disease, stratified by age group and comorbidities.
* Possible interventions to strenghten your immune system, e.g. with optimal humidity and vitamin D.
* Possible interventions to reduce your exposssure, e.g. with adequate ventilation and (again) optimal humidity.
* Possible safe and effective treatments, such as early intensive combination treatment with adequate dose supplements, repurposed medicines and safe treatments such as nasal rinse, mouth wash and gargling.
* That these genetics jabs are completely different from traditional vaccines, with completely unknown risks.
* Efficacy and duration of vaccine protection against severe disease.
* Efficacy and duration of vaccine protection against transmission.
* Unknowns such the risk of these jabs on auto-immune disease, cancer, fertility, health of foetus and nursing babies, DNA damage, et cetera. These jabs have been *developed* at 'Warp Speed', but it is impossible to *test* them at such a speed, especially for rare side effects and effect in mid to long term.
* Plausible risks, such as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and other vaccine enhanced disease.
* Risk of vaccine resistance, which is similar to antibiotic resistance.
* Risk of vaccination stratified by sex, age group, and natural immunity status.
* That naturally acquired immunity is in every way significantly superior to vaccine immunity: it is robust, durable (probably lifelong) and sterilizing (meaning that you don't transmit the disease to others). The exception to this rule is in people who have a very weak immune system.
* That vaccinating a person who has already acquired natural immunity, can bring no benefits and only harms.
* That vaccine immunity is unlikely to be effective or durable if a person has a weak immune system. Vaccines can only train your immune system, but a trained weak immune system is still a weak immune system.
* The vaccine makers cannot be held liable in any way, even for fraud. On the other hand, they do profit handsomely for these products. This makes them extremely unreliable partners. That they have a long track record of lies, fraud, manipulation, etc. makes it even more so. Decoupling a company’s profit interest from its interest in safety is a moral hazard, and a departure from centuries of product liability doctrine.

Judging from the above list, it should be clear that no adequately informed consent is being given in any country regarding the COVID jabs. The statistical risk of COVID is enormously overrated, due to 24/7 fear porn by the media and government. The necessity, safety and efficacy of the jabs is equally overrated. Adequate ventilation and optimal humidity are not being recommended in most places. Early treatment is not only not recommended, but actively and viciously suppressed in most places.

Well known risks of the jab, such as ADE, are not mentioned by any authority. The unvaxxed are held as the scape goats of vaccine resistance, while they are the least responsible. The unvaxxed are said to be guilty when a vaccinated person becomes ill, whilst it is the job of the vaccine to protect the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.

Mandates, especially for experimental products, are crimes according to the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki. Any person who forces these experimental products upon their population, especially knowing that these product don't significantly prevent transmission or disease, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity in Nuremberg II trials.

SOURCE: https://odysee.com/@discernable:7/vaccine-inventor-on-side-effects:c