There is a vaccine which the antivaxxers in Germany are literally queuing to get. Some already got vaccinated, utterly illegally and utterly in the open, while the German state authorities appear helpless because the vaccine’s inventor is extremely rich.
Meet the German billionaire Winfried Stöcker, the biomedical entrepreneur from Lübeck, who in 2017 sold his company Euroimmun for $ 1.3 Billion, who owns a shopping mall, an airport and a marmalade factory, and whom many would describe as far-right, given his history of xenophobia, misogyny and support for the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.
And now Stöcker developed a vaccine for COVID-19, which he calls LubecaVax and everyone else “the Stöcker”, and offers it, directly or as a do-it-yourself, to everyone who disapproves of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.
The vaccine is a recombinant fragment of the SARS-CoV2 spike protein, never clinically tested, never approved, even though Stöcker claims “high levels of virus-neutralizing antibodies in 97% of those vaccinated“. Here is how he describes on his own blog the advantages for the interested Querdenker and antivaxxers:
“Since the production of the vaccine antigen takes place outside the body, there is no need to be afraid of the uncontrolled spread of genetic information introduced into the human organism.
The Lübeck anti-Covid-19 vaccination causes hardly any allergic reactions, not at all to polyethylene glycol, which is used by the Biontech company to microencapsulate mRNA, and in contrast to the vaccinations already approved in Germany, of more than a hundred vaccinated people no one reported sick, but continued working uninterruptedly. Any doctor can legally administer the vaccine in their practice.“
The last part is untrue, it is not legal. But it doesn’t matter: the Stöcker vaccine is being injected by collaborating doctors all over northern and eastern Germany it seems, and all that German authorities dare to do, is to occasionally disrupt the mass-vaccinations. Like it happened on 26 November 2021, when Stöcker’s team was mass-vaccinating people at the Lübeck airport, which he happens to own.
Deutsche Welle reported:
“Before the action in Lübeck was stopped on Friday, 50 people were likely to have been vaccinated, the authorities said. When the officials arrived, 80 people were counted in front of the airport building, and more people streamed in. Around 150 people willing to vaccinate have already been in the check-in hall.
The vaccination was carried out in an office room specially prepared for this purpose. There was no air traffic. The police secured vaccination samples, used syringes and vaccination lists. The personal details of the people present were recorded.”
Nobody was arrested. Imagine if some pedestrian Querdenker was doing same thing, he may have been arrested right away, surely put on trial. But Stöcker is a billionaire, politically connected, and the lawyer who represents him is Wolfgang Kubicki, vice-chairman of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), a party where Stöcker used to be member in, but left when FDP was forced to publicly renounce a collaboration with the AfD. FDP traditionally represents the interests of the wealthy elites and is about to become part of the German government once again.
The police and state prosecutor announced to investigate the illegal vaccinations, as NDR reported:
“The investigations by the police and public prosecutor’s office are reportedly directed against four men between the ages of 61 and 81. According to information from NDR Schleswig-Holstein, these are the two managing directors of the airport, Jürgen Friedel and Winfried Stöcker, and two retired doctors.[…]
Winfried Stöcker confirmed in social networks that he had no approval for his vaccine. He also did not apply for this. More than 10,000 people have already been vaccinated with his unapproved vaccine, he said.”
Thing is, although Stöcker and his partnering doctors are subject to criminal investigations for some time already, it seems Kubicki has been doing a great job explaining the concept of elites to the confused authorities. His strategy is to use the German loophole of compassionate use, which, when played smart, has been allowing doctors to do with their patients anything they wanted after the patient signed the approval. Kubicki argues that sure, it may be illegal to do clinical trials with an untested and unapproved medicine, but Stöcker never did a clinical trial, his medical partners were vaccinating everyone individually! And besides, unlike all those medical quacks getting rich by peddling quack therapies as compassionate use in Germany, Stöcker has declared to earn no money with his vaccine, so what he did was actually an act of charity, very honourable and also tax deductible probably.
The compassionate use argument is baseless, even the German term (“Individueller Heilversuch”, “healing attempt on an individual”) makes it clear. For starters, the volunteers whom Stöcker’s team vaccinated were not even ill, hence no need for a “healing attempt”, and there were thousands of these perfectly healthy people by now, not one incurably sick “individual”.
But the law is an ass, and it’s always helpful to be so rich you can afford lawyers like Kubicki. Because Stöcker doesn’t seem to be at all afraid of facing a criminal trial in court and instead continues with his own private clinical trials compassionate use mass-treatments unabated.
How did we get there?
Stöcker’s Wikipedia page contains interesting information about his sociopolitical views:
“On 18 December 2014 Stocker told the Sächsische Zeitung that he wanted to send refugees and foreigners in general “ideally back to their home countries”; they had “no right to settle down in Germany.” [4] Stöcker warned in an interview also against “Islamization” of Germany. […] He insisted to continue using the word “Negro“. […]
In an address to the EuroImmun employees during a Christmas concert in the Church of St. James at the end of 2017 [link,- LS], Stöcker spoke critically about the #MeToo movement, feminists and journalists. He also published the speech on his blog. Among other things, he advised “girls” to “dress more restrained and present themselves less provocatively to audition so that poor film directors remain on the path of virtue.” He suspected that it was those in the # MeToo movement who cried out “were optically less favourably endowed by nature”. To the EuroImmun employees, he advised: “(…) conceive many children so that we have something to oppose the wilfully incited mindless onslaught of unauthorised asylum seekers”.
Stöcker is a refugee himself – in his youth he escaped the totalitarian East Germany to study in the West German University of Lübeck (he now holds an adjunct professorship there). Recently, it turned out he donated to the far-right anti-immigration party AfD.
My regular readers will recall Stöcker and his Lübeck-based Euroimmun, which the founder sold in 2017 to Perkin Elmer for $1.3 Billion, half of the money officially went to himself. Euroimmun is a diagnostics company, which supplies tests and assays for various pathogens, these days of course also for the coronavirus.
Two years ago, Elisabeth Bik flagged several Euroimmun papers for image manipulation, these often featured Stöcker and/or his company’s then-CEO Wolfgang Schlumberger as co-authors. None of these papers were corrected, because Stöcker explained to me that “Essential message is beyond any question“. He also provided a rebuttal letter to Bik, which became the basis for my follow-up article.
Stöcker told me also:
“Given the insignificance, we will inform the journals, but suggest to leave the matter rest“.
All journal editors did as ordered and let the matter rest. Like here:
Nina Van Beek , Kristin Rentzsch , Christian Probst , Lars Komorowski , Michael Kasperkiewicz , Kai Fechner , Inga M. Blöcker , Detlef Zillikens , Winfried Stöcker , Enno Schmidt Serological diagnosis of autoimmune bullous skin diseases: Prospective comparison of the BIOCHIP mosaic-based indirect immunofluorescence technique with the conventional multi-step single test strategy Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (2012) doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-7-49
As Stöcker summed up:
“In summary, Dr. Elisabeth Bik’s observations are not suitable to bring us into disrepute. She will not find a more integer company as Euroimmun, where enthusiastic scientists considerably contribute to the world’s technical and scientific progress since 40 years, including the period before starting the business. Thousands of people owe their lifes or the recovery of their health to our efforts and competence. And three thousand coworkers are proud to work at EUROIMMUN.”
Little did we know that while Bik was flagging Stöcker’s Euroimmun papers on PubPeer and while I was printing his explanations, he was actually busy pushing his home-made COVID-19 vaccine. Evidence of shoddy science in Stöcker’s past research may prove unhelpful in his vaccination campaign. Hence, there was also no correction issued here:
Christian Probst, Sandra Saschenbrecker, Winfried Stoecker, Lars Komorowski Anti-neuronal autoantibodies: Current diagnostic challenges Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2013.12.001
And no correction here:
Gianna Mastroianni-Kirsztajn, Nora Hornig and Wolfgang Schlumberger Autoantibodies in renal diseases – clinical significance and recent developments in serological detection Frontiers in Immunology (2015) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00221
And of course also no correction here, for all we know it may have been Kubicki or another lawyer Stöcker recruited to advise the journals to let the matter rest:
Waltraud Suer, Cornelia Dähnrich, Wolfgang Schlumberger, Winfried Stöcker Autoantibodies in SLE but not in scleroderma react with protein-stripped nucleosomes Journal of Autoimmunity (2004) 10.1016/j.jaut.2004.02.002
Stöcker: “One of the chromatographic lanes demonstrated by Mrs. Bik really looks like to be covered at the lower end. We use to read each of our papers very carefully before being published, but did not observe such irregularity and cannot more find out anymore who caused it, we or the publisher. […] At least, the essential message of this publication is beyond any question.”
Now that you had a gist of what Stöcker thinks of refugees, people of colour and women, you can now gather a general idea about his attitude to the scientific method and research integrity.
And in 2020, Stöcker invented a COVID-19 vaccine! Which he then immediately tested on himself and a hundred volunteers, without any ethics approval. He informed the German health authority Paul-Ehrlich-Institute only afterwards, expecting them to immediately approve his vaccine for public use. But the institute reacted in December 2020 by reporting Stöcker to the state prosecutor for illegal human experimenting.
Never mind! In February 2021, Germany’s most respected political magazine Der Spiegel touted the miracle vaccine in a TV programme, denouncing this conspiracy against Stöcker. This is also what top lawyers can achieve: advertising via favourable media coverage in top news outlets. Most recently, another leading German political magazine, Stern, brought a portrait article:
“In his private laboratory with 50 employees, Stöcker developed an antigen, which he first tested on himself and later also on family members and volunteers. It didn’t take him more than half an hour to manufacture the vaccine. In three months, it follows, enough vaccine could be produced to completely vaccinate Germany, he stated, among other thing in Stern TV, and declared the active ingredient as harmless. According to his own statements, he did not experience any side effects.
Stöcker then contacted the chief virologist at the Berlin Charité, Christian Drosten. He offered a neutralization test. This is used to check whether specific antibodies have been formed that neutralize the coronavirus. The results were clear and the self-experiment was successful. The institute of the virologist Hendrik Streeck in Bonn also considered the antigen to be effective.”
Now, Drosten and Streeck are Germany’s two most prominent virologists (for very different reasons, mind you), the claim of their support goes back to that Spiegel TV programme. Streeck is very popular with Querdenker and other covidiots, because he propagated the herd immunity approach early in the pandemic, with a much criticised study on a German town included. Drosten and his COVID-19 advice is extremely respected by both the general public and his peers, his lab also designed the COVID-19 PCR test which is now used worldwide. It may be not at all surprising to hear of Streeck endorsing the Stöcker vaccine, but very puzzling at least to see Drosten do same.
Well, this SWR article debunks the Stöcker vaccine and is sceptical of the claim that Drosten ever supported it. Apparently, Stöcker merely sent his own blood sample to Drosten’s lab at Charite Berlin, and received in return some advice from the virologist:
“Overall, I can understand your self-experiment very well, but of course you have to note that the marketing of a vaccine antigen meets very high quality standards if you want to market the vaccine.”
It is however strange that Drosten himself is not rejecting media’s claims of his Stöcker vaccine endorsement. I can’t speculate about Drosten’s reasoning to remain silent, but in any case, I congratulate Stöcker on his lawyers, and also on their media savviness.
Thanks to the embarrassing advertising by Spiegel TV and other media, Stöcker’s vaccine became quite popular in certain circles. Those of Querdenker, antivaxxers, far-right, and other covidiots. To facilitate the distribution, the inventor posted the recipe for the recombinant vaccine on his blog, inviting doctors to order his freeze-dried polypeptide and mix the vaccine themselves.
Here is one such early customer. In spring 2021, a general practitioner in the Görlitz area (where Stöcker incidentally owns that fancy shopping mall) was “vaccinating” people in her private practice with “Stöcker”, the vaccine, and it seems nobody was willing or daring to do anything about it. The doctor said she was not the only one in the Görlitz area applying “the Stöcker”:
“I have a list of at least 150 interested parties, including 50 Euroimmun employees. I will vaccinate with the Stöcker as soon as I have any” .
The Görlitz doctor also argued to operate under “compassionate use”, claiming “the Stöcker” was safer than the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine. As if Stöcker’s lawyers trained her what to say when caught.
Later on, Stöcker opened a vaccination centre in the German state of Saxony. The public news channel MDR reports:
“The public prosecutor’s office in Görlitz is investigating against unknown persons because of an illegal vaccination campaign in Schönau-Berzdorf. As a spokesman for the public prosecutor’s office told MDR SACHSEN, they are investigating a violation of the Medicines Act. It is also about whether the vaccination campaign is an act of bodily harm. The criminal police took over the investigation.
A few days ago, up to 200 people in the Schönau-Berzdorf district of Kiesdorf were injected with an unapproved corona vaccine. It is said to be the vaccine by Winfried Stöcker, the founder of the Euroimmun company. Investigations against Winfried Stöcker are already pending at the Lübeck public prosecutor’s office. There are several reports against the doctor for a violation of the Medicines Act.”
As a reminder, Stöcker reacted to all these criminal investigations by opening another “vaccination centre” at the Lübeck airport (which he owns). The customers were recruited over a mailing list among those who previously petitioned for an immediate approval of “the Stöcker”, as a local newspaper in Northern Germany reported. Also, it mentioned that a “woman from Scandinavia” tried to register her Stöcker vaccination certificate in a local pharmacy in the northern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Stöcker is most obviously not bothered by the criminal investigations and has apparently no plans to stop. Can you imagine a better advertisement for the services of his lawyer Kubicki? Maybe the reason why German journalists are allowed to critically report about Stöcker’s illegal vaccination campaign is that they actually advertise to all the antivaxxers and covidiots in Germany and beyond. Because this is the only COVID-19 vaccine these people trust, and Stöcker is their hero.
Update 2.12.2021
Yesterday Stöcker announced to cease his vaccinations. He wrote on his blog (translated from German):
“Now we don’t have time to wait for an ideal vaccine like LubecaVax, which I believe offers a better risk-benefit ratio, or to complain about incompetent authorities. Figuratively speaking, we are in a state of war with the coronavirus. There is no point in anticipating a miracle weapon that has not yet been approved, regardless of why it is not yet available.
Please get vaccinated with the state-recommended preparations, provided that you do not yet have immune protection on this day. I do not want to induce anyone to postpone the vaccination that is currently required and for these reasons I will cease my activities in this direction until the end of this emergency in Germany.“
Guess his lawyer Kubicki negotiated a deal with the authorities?
For Better Science 
Perhaps what is needed a follow up the the vaccinated and then if it fails, manslaughter charges. Mind you Wakefield is still plying his trade and getting rich, and no move to extradite him and prosecute on the ground of causing the deaths of children. So I suspect he will get richer and that is all.
LikeLike
“the COVID-19 PCR test which is now sued worldwide. ”
Perhaps “sued” is meant to be “used”?
LikeLike
Uhm, thanks, corrected. Freudian slip
LikeLike
In French “slip” means “underwear” which makes the Freudian slip even funnier. Otherwise, what is it with medicine in Germany? Homeopathy, new German medicine, etc … I see all the time completely wtf medecine from there. I am not even German and don’t speak a word of it.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Foreste rurali e alberi urbani – ocasapiens
I wouldn’t be surprised anyway if the Covid-19 PCR test indeed becomes sued worldwide in the not so far future.
LikeLike
The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key To The Pandemic Fraud
https://principia-scientific.com/the-covid-19-pcr-test-is-key-to-the-pandemic-fraud/
LikeLike
Have you come across the surgeon, Ernst Ferdinand Sauerbruch? He went completely gaga in the late 1940s but kept operating anyway. No-one could stop him, because FAMOUS DOCTOR.
“Patients continued to consult Sauerbruch even in his old age because of their unyielding devotion and ardent faith in him. They visited him at home where he converted the lounge into a consulting room. Initially he only examined patients and prescribed drugs, referring those who required surgical interventions to the Grunewald clinic, but soon he began operating at home [2, 22]. He operated with inadequate instruments and obsolete equipment under conditions of questionable sterility. The outrageous postoperative complications instigated local doctors to file a notice with the Board of Health that issued warning notices forbidding him to practice surgery and ordered the immediate discontinuation of operations undertaken at home. He ignored these warnings and continued to operate on gullible patients, sometimes even suturing the wound with unsterile needles and ordinary
sewing thread [22].”
“On April 17, 1951, Sauerbruch performed his last operation [22]. He operated without anesthesia on a 41-year-old lady to remove an inoperable metastatic tumor of the neck. She suffered from severe postoperative infection and died 6 months later.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00268-001-0072-x
LikeLike
So he extended this lady’s life by 6 months then?
LikeLike
No, he reduced her remaining lifespan to 6 months.
LikeLike
I was using Macchiarini logic.
LikeLike
The nature paper describing Sars-Cov-2 as I mentioned before contains many flaws and therefore does not describe any new virus. What is happening is just seasonal flu and colds.
Please, support this cause and help us put an end to this fiction covid pandemic at:
http://www.nomorelockdowns.uk
LikeLike
Just submitted to Welsh Government (Freedomofinformation@gov.wales) the following FOI request:
“This Freedom of Information Request is in relation to comment on the truth of the original Nature paper describing Sars-Cov-2 (which contains many serious flaws) and also about the PCR test (not the most adequate method to screen diseases) and antigen tests (as a consequence not trustful). Also, I would like to know if you could reveal the raw Test and Trace clinical Covid-19 data without being processed and all the clinical data about the patients said to have died with Covid-19 because is not because you tested positive for something you necessarily die of that! I look forward to receiving this information at your earliest possible convenience”
LikeLike
Grŵp Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol
Health and Social Services Group
ATISN 15835
Ana Pedro
PinturAnas
romalocums@gmail.com
December 2021
Dear Ana Pedro
ATISN 15835 – Covid Description
Thank you for your enquiry to the Welsh Government received on 21 December 2021 relating to COVID-19.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI Act) provides a right to request information that is held in a recorded format. From your email, your enquiry contains the following valid FoI request:
The raw track and trace data; and,
the clinical data for each of those patients who have died within 28 days of testing positive for COVID-19.
You also asked us for an opinion on certain matters. The FoI Act does not pertain to information which is not held as recorded information. As such these do not constitute valid
FoI requests and we will not be responding to these.
You should receive a response by 21 January 2022.
If you have any queries about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence.
Please note: the Welsh Government is facing unprecedented challenges during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
As a result, resources, both finances and people, are being diverted away from many of our usual activities to deal with the pandemic. This will undoubtedly impact on our ability to comply with the normal requirements for information rights work and as a result you may experience delays when making information rights requests during the pandemic. We thank you for your understanding during this time.
The following is a link to the blog page of the Information Commissioner’s web site where you can find an article entitled “FOI and the coronavirus: a measured approach”
LikeLike
My FOI request above and below is also acknowledged by Cabinet Office as well:
from: Cabinet Office FOI Team no-reply@cabinetoffice.ecase.co.uk
reply-to: Cabinet Office FOI Team foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
to: romalocums@gmail.com
date: Dec 31, 2021, 12:44 PM
subject: Acknowledgement – Ref: FOI2021/24642
Our ref: FOI2021/24642
Dear Ana Pedro,
Thank you for your request for information which was received on 29th December. Your request is being handled under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’).
The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event within 20 working days. We will therefore aim to reply at the latest by 28th January.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
Cabinet Office
LikeLike
Also submitted the FOI information requests to the Scottish Government and to no. 10, Downing St.
A good way of putting in evidence covid-19 weaknesses is to criticize the paper describing sars-cov-2 (link pasted below). Among many other flaws:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7
Patients clinical history is not clear and they just use 7 patients
They just isolate the virus from one patient sample using cell lines that says previous coronavirus in her clinical history. Which coronavirus?
Only 0.02% of the Whuan population was affected in that period of time. Was this an epidemic?
Where are the electron microscopy photos DIRECTLY from at least a couple of different patients, at least 10, showing considerable amounts of the supposed sars-cov-2?
They did metagenomics to find new virus sequences, so these genetic material sequences can be present not only in different microorganisms but also in different particles such as extracellular vesicles and lipoproteins where they can even have been recombined. So the PCR test does not detect neither a virus nor it shows the sequence for a new virus which can be very well recombinant genetic material from different sources. You will need to perform in situ hybridization electron microscopy to prove a certain genetic sequence is indeed associated with a specific virus. Unlucky the one who tests positive! Is like Russian roulette! PCR does not detect at all any putative sars-cov-2 virus!
LikeLike
US: CDC Issues Lab Alert to Withdraw PCR Test Approval
https://gnews.org/1776701/
LikeLike
And now enter the covid deniers. Yes SARS-CoV-2 is a hologram you are right.
LikeLike
Citrus: Happy to know you agree with me. As more and more people we gather to this cause, sooner we will get rid of this problem. Below is an acknowledgment from the Scottish Government to my FOI request above:
from: casehandling.service@gov.scot via gov.scot
to: romalocums@gmail.com
date: Dec 31, 2021, 7:09 PM
subject: Your Recent Enquiry with Scottish Government and partner agencies
Our Reference: 202100268200
Dear Ana Pedro,
Thank you for your correspondence sent on 24/12/2021. Your query will be passed to the relevant area for consideration and has been given a reference number of 202100268200. Please quote this number in all correspondence. The Scottish Government aim to respond, where necessary, as quickly as possible and within the stated timescale as indicated on our website (http://www.gov.scot/about/contact-information/how-to-request-information/).
Yours sincerely
MiCase
Correspondence system for SG and partner agencies
LikeLike
Please, read below the response to my FOI request from Welsh Government. I will resubmit to PHW as they mentioned.
Grŵp Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol
Health and Social Services Group
Parc Cathays ● Cathays Park
Caerdydd ● Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
E-bost E-mail:HSSBriefingsandMeeting@gov.wales
ATISN 15835
Ana Pedro
PinturAnasromalocums@gmail.com
January 2022
Dear Ana Pedro
ATISN 15835 – Covid Description
Thank you for your enquiry to the Welsh Government received on 21 December 2021 relating to COVID-19.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI Act) provides a right to request information that is held in a recorded format. From your email, your enquiry contains the following valid FoI request:
1. The raw track and trace data; and,
2. the clinical data for each of those patients who have died within 28 days of testing positive for COVID-19.
Our Response
Welsh Government does not hold the information you are requesting.
Public Health Wales (PHW) may be able to assist and should you wish to submit a further Freedom of Information request to them, you can do so via the following channel: https://phw.nhs.wales/use-of-site/contact-us/freedom-of-information
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) collect and produce mortality statistics for England and Wales based on information from the death registration process. They publish weekly statistics on deaths involving Covid-19 (i.e. Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate as a contributory cause of death) and monthly statistics on deaths due to Covid-19 (i.e. where Covid-19 was identified as the underlying (main) cause on the death certificate).
The ONS also show the different pre-existing conditions of deaths due to Covid-19.
For further information on this data, please contact the ONS at health.data@ons.gov.uk
LikeLike
Please, sign this petition:
If there’s no proof the virus exists end all Lockdowns/Masks/Trax/Vax actions
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/if-theres-no-proof-the-virus-exists-end-all-lockdownsmaskstraxvax-actions-2.html
LikeLike
Please, read my article and add your name too!
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/welsh-pharmacist-publishes-open-letter-asking-the-pm-to-prove-the-existence-of-sars-cov-2/
LikeLike
Please, read below the response from Public Health Wales to my FOI request
FOI Reference:
FOI 871
Date request received
10 January 2022
Date information is due to be sent
8 February 2022
Information provided for the answer:
Thank you for your recent request.
PHW does not have a position on the paper that you have described and so we don’t hold that information.
PHW does not hold clinical data of the nature you describe, that is held by Health Boards. You are of course free to contact the Health Boards direct and request it, but the information will almost certainly not be released under Freedom of Information due to confidentiality issues.
LikeLike
There is no new virus or new pandemics or any new disease as simple the virus already existed since at least 2006 and is just a common cold virus named differently! https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/52/7/1446/5627058
As such the paper, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7, does not describe or isolate any new virus and does not identify any pandemic
These “vaccines” are not exactly vaccines but instead some sort of gene therapy releasing toxins in patients’ bodies. Those with certain genetic traits, or co-morbidities, or weakened immune systems may develop very serious adverse reactions such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/
LikeLike
COVID-19 Vaccines: Proof of Lethality. Over One Thousand Scientific Studies
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-vaccines-scientific-proof-lethality/5767711
LikeLike
Response to my FOI from Cabinet Office:
Ana Pedro
By email: romalocums@gmail.com
FOI Reference: FOI2021/24642
28 January 2022
Dear Ana Pedro
We refer to your request where you asked:
“RE: FOI REQUEST COVID-19
This Freedom of Information Request is in relation to comment on the truth
of the original Nature paper describing Sars-Cov-2 (which contains many
serious flaws) and also about the PCR test (not the most adequate method to
screen diseases) and antigen tests (as a consequence not trustful). Also, I
would like to know if you could reveal the raw Test and Trace clinical
Covid-19 data without being processed and all the clinical data about the
patients said to have died with Covid-19 because is not because you tested
positive for something you necessarily die of that! I look forward to
receiving this information at your earliest possible convenience”
Thank you for your request for disclosure of information held by the Cabinet Office.
I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I
have established that the information you have requested is not held by the Cabinet Of-
fice.
Under our section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance, we are sharing a weblink
with you that you may find helpful. This is the Office for National Statistics page for the
latest data and analysis on coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK and its effect on the
economy and society:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/condi-
tionsanddiseases
If you require further information on ONS COVID-19 statistics, please contact
Health.Data@ons.gov.uk.
However, I can advise you that if the information that you have requested were held by
a public authority, the information would likely be exempt from disclosure under section
40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 40(2) exempts personal information
from disclosure if that information relates to someone other than the applicant, and if
disclosure of that information would, amongst other things, contravene one of the data
protection principles in schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act.
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request or wish
to request an internal review, you should write to:
Tarley Smith
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS
email: foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
You should note that the Cabinet Office will not normally accept an application for
internal review if it is received more than two months after the date that the reply was
issued.
If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may apply directly to
the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Commissioner cannot
make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the
Cabinet Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
LikeLike
Please, read below the response of the Scottish Government to my FOI request:
Ana Pedro
romalocums@gmail.com
Our Reference: 202100268200
4 February 2022
Dear Ana Pedro,
REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA)
Thank you for your request dated 24 December 2021 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act
2002 (FOISA).
Your request
You asked for:
1. Comment on the Sars-Cov-2 Nature paper
2. Comment on the PCR test
3. Clinical Test and Trace data
4. Clinical data about patients said to have died with COVID-19
Response to your request
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government does not routinely comment on scientific research from third parties.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may be interested in the Scottish Government’s weekly State of the Epidemic report, which brings
together the different sources of evidence and data about the coronavirus epidemic to summarise the
current situation, why we are at that place, and what is likely to happen next. You can access the latest
Scottish Ministers, special advisers and the Permanent Secretary are covered by the terms of the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016. See
http://www.lobbying.scot
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
http://www.gov.scot
report at Coronavirus (COVID-19): state of the epidemic – gov.scot (www.gov.scot).
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the approval and regulation of PCR tests in Scotland. However, you
may wish to contact the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), at
info@mhra.gov.uk, who may be able to help.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may also be interested in the Public Health Scotland publication COVID-19: Guidance for sampling
and laboratory investigations.
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the routine collection of Test and Protect data. However, you may
wish to contact Public Health Scotland (PHS), using the contact form on their website, who may be able
to help.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the routine collection of clinical data. However, you may wish to
contact Public Health Scotland, who are responsible for the collection of national clinical data from a
range of settings including hospital inpatients, using the contact form on their website.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may also be interested in the COVID-19 death statistics reported by National Records of Scotland.
Their latest report on Deaths involving Coronavirus (COVID-19) is here and includes explanations of the
different methodologies they use to identify COVID-19 deaths.
Your right to request a review
If you are unhappy with this response to your FOI request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review
of the response, by writing to Richard Foggo, Director of Covid Public Health (covid-
19.director@gov.scot). Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response,
and should be made within 40 working days from the date when you received this letter. We will
complete the review in accordance with FOISA as soon as possible, and not later than 20 working days
from the day following the date we receive your review request.
If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Scottish
Information Commissioner. More detailed information on your appeal rights is available on the
Commissioner’s website at: http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/Unhappywiththeresponse
/AppealingtoCommissioner.aspx.
Yours sincerely
Scottish Ministers, special advisers and the Permanent Secretary are covered by the terms of the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016. See
http://www.lobbying.scot
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
http://www.gov.scot
LikeLike
Response to my FOI from Scottish Government:
Ana Pedro
romalocums@gmail.com
Our Reference: 202100268200
4 February 2022
Dear Ana Pedro,
REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA)
Thank you for your request dated 24 December 2021 under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act
2002 (FOISA).
Your request
You asked for:
Comment on the Sars-Cov-2 Nature paper
Comment on the PCR test
Clinical Test and Trace data
Clinical data about patients said to have died with COVID-19
Response to your request
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government does not routinely comment on scientific research from third parties.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may be interested in the Scottish Government’s weekly State of the Epidemic report, which brings
together the different sources of evidence and data about the coronavirus epidemic to summarise the
current situation, why we are at that place, and what is likely to happen next. You can access the latest
report at Coronavirus (COVID-19): state of the epidemic – gov.scot (www.gov.scot).
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the approval and regulation of PCR tests in Scotland. However, you
may wish to contact the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), at
info@mhra.gov.uk, who may be able to help.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may also be interested in the Public Health Scotland publication COVID-19: Guidance for sampling
and laboratory investigations.
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the routine collection of Test and Protect data. However, you may
wish to contact Public Health Scotland (PHS), using the contact form on their website, who may be able
to help.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because the Scottish
Government is not responsible for the routine collection of clinical data. However, you may wish to
contact Public Health Scotland, who are responsible for the collection of national clinical data from a
range of settings including hospital inpatients, using the contact form on their website.
This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the
information you have requested.
You may also be interested in the COVID-19 death statistics reported by National Records of Scotland.
Their latest report on Deaths involving Coronavirus (COVID-19) is here and includes explanations of the
different methodologies they use to identify COVID-19 deaths.
LikeLike