Spaniards risk mass death from monkeypox
Bill Gates has been promising it for months, someone may have done it, now the monkeypox virus MKP, a West African clade, has appeared concomitantly in many European countries including France, the USA, Canada and elsewhere, particularly affecting a population of male homosexuals, which has not yet been explained by anyone. How subjects who have not traveled can have contracted this disease specifically Nigerian, extremely little contagious and on all continents at the same time? Will a cobbled-together gain-of-function in the lab raise this virus above its usual 2% mortality rate, which would make it a hundred times more deadly than CoV-2 and corroborate Gates' predictions? What is certain is that the therapeutic agitation has already begun (**) and that above all, horror of all horrors, the most useless epidemiologists in the world (or the most corrupt, but they are often the same ones) are preparing for us the most deadly vaccination there is, that of subjects already in contact with the sick. Everything has been demonstrated since the 19th century, this vaccination, if it is implemented, will kill in a certain way and on a very large scale. Vincent Reliquet and Bernard Guennebaud cooperate here for urgent lighting. Warn your Spanish friends, a new madness is beginning, probably orchestrated since March 2021 and you will see how, good reading... if implemented, will kill for sure and on a very large scale. Vincent Reliquet and Bernard Guennebaud cooperate here for urgent lighting. Warn your Spanish friends, a new madness is beginning, probably orchestrated since March 2021 and you will see how, good reading... if implemented, will kill for sure and on a very large scale. Vincent Reliquet and Bernard Guennebaud cooperate here for urgent lighting. Warn your Spanish friends, a new madness is beginning, probably orchestrated since March 2021 and you will see how, good reading...
Introduction
Several cases of monkey pox have appeared in Europe and even in France.
There are two human smallpox viruses, that of variola major, the most serious, and that of variola minor also named from a Portuguese name alastrim.
These two viruses, from the poxviridae family, were officially declared eradicated by the World Health Assembly on May 8, 1980. This means that they no longer circulate although they are
officially kept in two laboratories, one in the USA and the other in Russia. However,
there are other poxviruses such as that of the camel or that of the monkey, the monkeypox. These viruses can, if necessary, contaminate humans as has happened on several occasions since 1980. According to
Nice-Matin ,
Spain would consider vaccinating contacts with the vaccine used against human smallpox:
https://www.nicematin.com/sante/variole-du-singe-lEspagne-command-des-milliers-de-doses-de-vaccin-contre-la-variole-classique-pour-freiner-la-propagation- 768655
- “ No vaccine has yet been approved in Europe, but faced with the rise in monkeypox cases in Spain, the Ministry of Health has decided to order thousands of doses of vaccine against classic smallpox. The vaccine should be injected into contact persons. »
Vaccinating contacts from smallpox, the bad idea forever
This vaccination of contacts was used more and more systematically and restrictively during the campaign to eradicate human smallpox.
There is hardly any doubt today to be able to attribute to this vaccination of contacts the epidemic outbreaks which followed these vaccinations and which were described as “explosive and unexpected” by the WHO. But as this vaccination of contacts was practiced in conjunction with the isolation (most often quarantine) of patients and contacts, the transmission of the virus was interrupted and this success was largely wrongly attributed to this vaccination of contacts.
This measure, which aggravated the disease and amplified epidemics, was thus introduced into the smallpox plans of the States and even
made compulsory in France for high-level contacts by a decree of February 2003.
I had studied these questions in three Aimsib articles (1)(2)(3) Here is a complement to these.
India, 1974: Vaccination followed by confinement of all contacts with the sick: Explosion of cases, then eradication of the disease.
On the WHO website, the smallpox homepage states (4):
– “
Following a worldwide vaccination campaign led by the WHO, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980.”
Yet this same home page refers to documents which, as we will see, are far from being so affirmative,
demonstrating that eradication was an adventure whose favorable outcome was only narrowly obtained . There were many hurdles in the field to be able to apply wherever smallpox was present, the isolation of cases that had to be discovered first and then that of their contacts.
The success of these interventions, sometimes rendered perilous by a precarious network of communications,
was unfortunately compromised by the increasingly systematic vaccination of contacts due to what I have proposed to call the Buchwald effects which I recall here (2 ):
– First Buchwald effect: in a non-immune person, vaccination during the incubation period or a few days before will aggravate the disease. Collectively, this effect will be manifested by an increase in serious forms and mortality in patients (lethality).
– Second Buchwald effect: in a person immunized (by an old vaccination or an old smallpox) the same vaccination will trigger the disease that it would otherwise have avoided. Collectively, this effect will manifest itself in an amplification of epidemics.
They were known in 1870 as the writings of the experts of the time testify to it but they considered them as a simple rumor which they will crush by recommending on the contrary the systematic vaccination of the contacts. A century later, the same attitude prevailed during the eradication campaign:
- “ The smallpox vaccination is protective when applied within 4 days of contagion. »
I propose to name this affirmation the postulate of Henderson in order to refer to it easily even if it had been affirmed for a long time. It was considered to have been established by immunological demonstration confirmed by epidemiological demonstration.
- The immunological “proof”: the average incubation period for smallpox is 14 days and it is accepted that the antibodies appear 10 days after vaccination. Also, if the vaccination was carried out within 4 days of the contagion, the antibodies will appear before the disease begins. This was considered sufficient to be able to deduce that the virus was going to be neutralized before the onset of the disease… However, it was also known that the antibodies appeared a week after the onset of it and that despite this it continued another 3 weeks. This fact might have been enough to cast doubt on the relevance of such a simplistic argument. Unfortunately, nothing happened.
- The epidemiological "evidence": it was reported in the seminal document by Fenner, Henderson et al with the study by Rao (5):
During a smallpox epidemic, 61 people identified as contacts of cases were vaccinated for the first time in this circumstance, 18 will get smallpox (29.5%). Among 42 contacts who had never been vaccinated, 20 will get smallpox (47.6%). This difference in proportions was considered demonstrative of the effectiveness of this vaccination carried out after contagion.
- The flaw in this "demonstration" is that there was no way to know if the contacts had really been infected with the smallpox virus unless they became ill. There is therefore no evidence that the 43 vaccinated contacts who remained unharmed were true contacts or false contacts. On the other hand, it can be argued that the 22 contacts who had never been vaccinated and who had not previously had smallpox either were false contacts not infected with the virus.
How many false contacts among the 43 vaccinated and not sick? No one knows, which takes away all value from such a conclusion.
Or if you want, adding 10 volumes of water in whiskey against 1 volume in beer, we could demonstrate that beer is more loaded with alcohol than whisky! This is obviously to be avoided.
What would the fraud inspectorate think?
Who to declare as subject-contact?
Since this vaccination has always been said to be effective on contacts,
vaccinators tended to classify as many people as possible in order to protect them by vaccinating them.
It is therefore quite logical to find many more false contacts among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated. The recruitment criteria being very different, the proportions observed are therefore not at all comparable. It will be necessary to wait until 2005 with the first results on experiments on monkeys for the experts to finally begin to realize that this vaccination of contacts could not be effective.
It could have been done much earlier, as early as 1870, as the documents of the time show.
Much later, in 2009, Samuelsson wrote this (6):
- “ WHO recommendations for smallpox include post-exposure vaccination as soon as possible. However, there is only anecdotal historical information on the success of post-exposure vaccination against smallpox , and in most cases the pre-vaccination status was unclear. “Furthermore, in animal models, no significant survival advantage after post-exposure vaccination was observed in monkeys” He then refers to Staib and Stittelaar (2005, 2006)”
- “ We could not find strong scientific evidence on the effectiveness of post-exposure vaccination in people naïve to the smallpox virus. »
There is also, on this subject, the report of the Committee of Independent Experts (AGIES) appointed by the Director-General of the WHO to examine the experiments carried out between 1999 and 2010 on smallpox: (7):
– “The Scientific analysis suggests the possibility of using
post-exposure vaccination for therapeutic interventions, but data on this promising method remain limited.
– “
If a smallpox outbreak occurs, post-exposure vaccinations will be required, but further work is needed to validate this strategy. This point is only briefly mentioned in this chapter, perhaps because of the paucity of data. »
Limited and rare data? Contact vaccination was routinely performed on tens and hundreds of thousands of people during the eradication campaign. Field reports were drawn up by the teams on site. Kept by the WHO, they represent 700,000 pages of documents that have been digitized.
Another report also dating from 2010 by a committee appointed by the WHO
does not hesitate to question the effectiveness of smallpox vaccination on contacts as it was affirmed in the wake of the major campaign to eradicate smallpox. smallpox. (8)
- “ These results appear to call into question the limited data, collected during the eradication phase of smallpox, on the effectiveness of vaccination given up to 4 days after exposure in preventing disease. »
When the error is commonly shared
In 2002, Professor Didier Raoult, a world-leading expert on infectious diseases, was asked by the government to issue analyzes and recommendations relating to the bio-terrorist risk: (9)
– “
Vaccination against smallpox has was the first to be the subject of a strategy of encirclement, in a situation in which part of the population was already immunized. This strategy consisted, each time a new case of smallpox was notified, in vaccinating widely around the cases observed. This strategy has had great success in eradicating the last cases of smallpox ”
– “
However, the finding of protection conferred by vaccination carried out within 4 days of exposure suggests a role for cellular immunity. The vaccine can therefore be effectively administered to patients after they have been in contact with people with smallpox. »
For him, as for all the institutional experts in 2003, Henderson's postulate rested on observations whereas it had never been demonstrated and which it will be recognized as false a few years later.
At the time, the Minister of Health will take good note of it for a possible application. Scientific research will follow.
They will completely upset this belief about vaccinating contacts against smallpox.
Experiments on monkeys
The smallpox vaccination was purely empirical, no animal experiments having ever been conducted on her. The first reason for this was that the smallpox virus did not grow on the animal. It is this specificity of the virus for the human species that has allowed its eradication. However,
by proceeding intravenously, it was possible to provoke the disease in monkeys. The first publications on these experiments came out in 2005-2006 (Stittelaar, Staib).
They will express the surprise of the experimenters noting that in primary vaccination Henderson's postulate was not verified, certain antivirals being able to be protective but not vaccination.
They were using a 100% lethal challenge dose on the controls. These experiments were repeated in 2008 by Earl et al. (10) with a
lethal dose reduced to approximately 50% and the Dryvax vaccine used during the eradication campaign.
The published results will confirm the first Buchwald effect:
In comparison with unvaccinated controls, vaccination with Dryvax shows its effectiveness when it is practiced 10 days before the test and even 6 days before. On the other hand, the results are reversed 4 days before with 1184 lesions on average for the vaccinated against 643 for the controls.
The authors also used
the MVA vaccine (modified Ankara strain). This vaccine was obtained by cultivating the vaccinia virus 530 times on a chicken embryo. It then loses its ability to replicate, so it does not produce a vaccine pustule.
Its effectiveness against smallpox is not known.
10 days or 6 days before the test, this vaccine is less effective on monkeys because more lesions occur than with Dryvax. On the other hand, 4 days before, the results reverse very clearly with an average of only 248 lesions against 1184 with Dryvax.
These findings could provide confirmation, under the conditions of the experiment, of the reality of the first Buchwald effect with Dryvax.
Curiously, the authors comment on their results by stating that there are no differences between the controls and the vaccinated!!! In addition, they do not publish any results when the vaccination is carried out, for example, 2 days before the test dose or on the same day. Given the very significant degradation of the results when going from 6 days before to 4 days before, it is not difficult to predict, without great risk of error, that the results would be catastrophic.
Have these experiments been carried out? It is very probable because the scientific community which dealt with this question and which was endowed with a large budget because of the fear of bioterrorism, awaited the results with great interest after the failure of the experiments of 2005 with lethal doses.
Even more curious, the authors whose mission was to verify or invalidate the veracity of Henderson's postulate in primary vaccination, rely on him to explain the failure they observe in monkeys. Here is :
“Analysis of historical records suggests that primary vaccination within 4 days after exposure to smallpox is usually protective of serious illness”.
In this first sentence
they recall Henderson's postulate by considering it as established whereas the objective of their experiments was to verify it. Under these conditions, why sacrifice monkeys? Especially since experimentation is prohibited without special authorization from Animal Rule, to which the reasons and conditions for the experiment must be explained.
“Because the incubation period preceding systemic smallpox is 2 weeks, it is understandable that Dryvax administered only 4 days before an iv challenge would not be protective. »
The first part of the following sentence also refers to humans while its second part applies to monkeys, "an iv" meaning intravenously.
There is thus a mixture between human and animal incubation times, which is a most dubious comparison.
A judicious comparison cannot be made between man and ape, especially on the basis of an unproven postulate for man. It must be between the monkeys themselves. First between the controls and the vaccinated monkeys and there the results are clear: very clear inversion of the number of lesions when going from 6 days before (advantage to the vaccinated) to 4 days before with an advantage to the controls confirmed by the viremia ( see the study). In addition,
there is a considerable acceleration in the deterioration of the results when going from 6 days before to 4 days before . This could be explained biologically by the fact that then the two viruses, vaccine and contaminant, had the possibility of meeting.
The non-replicating MVA vaccine does not cause this phenomenon,at least on such a scale.
Meetings announced but data secret
The 2010 report of the WHO Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research mentions the
consultation of unpublished data, the so-called gray literature. He tells us that these data were presented during a WHO meeting at the highest level because opened by the Japanese K. Fukuda, the second in the WHO, one of the 2 rapporteurs being the Frenchman R. Drillien (11 ):
“1. Report of the Secretariat
1.1 The WHO Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research met on 17 and 18 November 2010, with Professor GL Smith as Chairman and Drs R. Drillien and F. McLellan as Rapporteurs.
Dr. Robert Drillien said he had worked as a consultant for Bavarian-Nordic, a firm that produces a smallpox vaccine, and was a consultant to the French army on smallpox vaccines.
1.2 Dr K. Fukuda opened the meeting, noting that discussions on these issues have been ongoing since 1986 and are still of great interest to countries. The assessment will focus on two main points: first, a review of the literature and unpublished data conducted by a group of scientists approved by this Committee. »
At the Adelf-Sfsp congress in Bordeaux on October 17-19, 2013, I presented a poster on the subject (12). It will play a revealing role because on Friday 18, during the lunch break, I notice that an important personality of the congress reads it attentively. I approach.
He pointed out to me that I was only talking about contact vaccination and then told me that it had never been used under these conditions (13)
!!! There, I am destabilized! I admit that he took me completely from the back because I really did not expect that!
On the contrary, it has been perfectly proven and he very certainly knew it, that the vaccination of contacts was a real systematic and restrictive machine-gunning and that our smallpox plan of 2003 had made it compulsory by a decree of February 3, 2003 ... I insist on support that but my interlocutor firmly maintains his assertion. He will put an end to this exchange, which is surreal to say the least, by telling me “
I only know of one effective vaccination after infection, that against measles within 72 hours”.
So he had just told me, given the context, that the one against smallpox was not effective under these conditions! Even if there is a gap, at least formal, between ineffective and aggravating, here is an admission that deserves to be framed! Formally there is a gap but in fact it is less certain because, for my part, I do not know of epidemiological situations where the lack of efficacy of smallpox vaccination has not been associated with an aggravation. This is also what experiments on monkeys show.
This aggravation, even in immunized people, was it known to my interlocutor? Since this surreal exchange, it has become highly probable for me because I do not see how else to explain his assertion when he maintained that the vaccination of contacts had never been used. It's as if he had said to me, "Of course, we have a gun that can kill, but we've never shot anyone with it!" Indeed
, he did not seek to dispute what I said in the poster on the catastrophic effects of this vaccination.
For me, the most likely explanation for all of these facts is that a solid team of epidemiologists would have gone to study the reports of the eradication campaign at WHO headquarters and that, with their eyes opened by the animal experiments, they would have finally understood what had happened. Having thus had before their eyes the dramatic reality of the Buchwald effects and the explanation of the disasters recognized by Henderson, they would have exposed all this in a report studied during the WHO meeting opened by Fukuda and of which R. Drillien was rapporteur.
It is highly probable that R. Drillien was interviewed by the HCSP to prepare the opinion of December 21, 2012 on the revision of our smallpox plan at the request of the DGS (14). It should also be noted that this opinion mentions relying on an unpublished report by the HCSP on the subject and that I was able to find out during this congress that it had been classified as a defense secret. Today, it is recognized that we do not know how resistance to smallpox occurs (see WHO reports 2010) or how the vaccine works.
In October 2001, the bioterrorist risk will make the headlines and will be at the origin of a document “
Use of the smallpox virus as a biological weapon instead of vaccination ” (15). Written by Nicole Guérin, expert at the ministry and Daniel Lévy Bruhl, now head of the vaccinations unit at Public Health France, it mentions page 18:
- “ The limited transmissibility made it possible, if we act quickly, to interrupt the chains of transmission through the isolation of cases, the active search for their contacts, their vaccination and their follow-up to check that they do not develop the disease. . There is no doubt that it was the implementation of these control strategies that made it possible, at least in high-density areas, to achieve elimination, the level of immunity in the general population that would have been necessary to allowing elimination alone, close to 100% for the most populated regions, being impossible to achieve in practice.”
On March 12-14, 2003 D. Lévy Bruhl participated in the training of trainers in smallpox vaccination at CRESA in Grenoble where he will present this slide (16):
The active search for patients and their contacts followed by their isolation during the eradication campaign and the importance of this strategy is attested to by the report of the Global Commission for the Eradication of Smallpox: (17)
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/39258/1/a41464_eng.pdf
Let us add that Nicole Guérin, co-signer of the 2001 document on bioterrorism, said at the colloquium organized by the GREENS at the National Assembly on January 31, 2001:
“Smallpox was defeated by vaccination and a certain number of other things” .
She was responding to three speakers who had claimed that smallpox had been defeated by vaccination. They were a European Green MP, the Director General of Health Lucien Abenhaïm and an immunologist from Strasbourg. As the scheduled speaker, I will then outline what those “other things” had been.
On December 22, 2017, a very solemn press conference (16) “Vaccines: an opportunity for our children” was organized at the University of Paris-Descartes. D. Lévy Bruhl will launch this magnificent tirade:
- "
The only disease that has never been eradicated from this earth, was eradicated thanks to vaccination and it is smallpox with its procession of suffering, death and sequels. »
The conclusions of Bernard Guennebaud
I don't like to conclude because for me research is never complete, especially on a theme as strong, complex and as muddled as that of smallpox and its eradication. For me, what dominates in this business, after a long and patient research which began in 1978, it is initially
the scientific incompetence of the experts in public health. This incompetence did not allow them to understand what was happening when there was still time to avoid disasters. Today the specialists in this question of smallpox have certainly become aware of it, at least that is my belief, but
the affair is retrospectively so serious that they cannot report it publicly.
Vaccination of contacts of smallpox cases could occur during so-called mass vaccination in endemic areas and even more so during so-called ring vaccination. It had the effect of amplifying epidemics and aggravating disease and mortality. Thus, for propaganda, vaccination will have overcome a disease that is certainly serious but greatly aggravated by the misuse of the vaccine which will also have put an end to epidemics amplified by this same misuse!!!
Yes, the same goes for propaganda…
On May 8, 1980, the day of the official proclamation of the eradication of smallpox, the Director General of the WHO, Dr. H. Mahler, declared [9]:
– “
Because of the exceptional nature of this achievement, it is important that public health officials, historians and future generations have access to the evidence on which these conclusions were based. This book Global Smallpox Eradication – the final report of the Global Commission for the Certification of Smallpox Eradication – rigorously analyzes these elements. May this final report inspire us all to reflect on how this experience can help us tackle other health issues more effectively. »
Can we forget, indeed, that in this experiment to defeat smallpox, the knowledge, methods and practices attached to it have been developed on an ocean of suffering and that
Humanity has paid dearly for dogmatic arrogance of those who recklessly launched gigantic and useless vaccination campaigns?
Out of respect for all this past suffering and all that could be avoided today by the application of similar methods, or tomorrow in the face of emerging diseases against which there will be no vaccine, do we have the right to participate , consciously or not, to concealing everything that was not vaccination in the victory over smallpox?
Renouncing this concealment, knowing and making known this adventure, this is certainly the most beautiful tribute we could pay to the victims of smallpox as of its vaccination. I wrote these lines in 2007. Today, everything that is revealed with this coronavirus pandemic provides a new illustration.
The Monkeypox case of May 2022
The eruption of monkeypox cases concomitantly striking a mostly homosexual male population in France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the USA and Canada (18), in subjects who do not have not traveled to Africa recently, leaves you speechless.
It obviously seems
highly improbable that this dissemination is due to chance , especially since a simulation of March 2021 already gave us a chilling prediction, see instead:
https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO-TTX_Final.pdf
This 36-page document was produced on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference or MSC, it takes as its basis the exercise that
a fictitious country, Brinia, sees an epidemic of monkey pox (monkeypox) set in. terrorist origin and that it is secondarily communicated to neighboring countries. (19)
It's already very curious but it becomes even more so when you take note of the
chronological sequence enacted for the exercise, I send you a simple image:
https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO-TTX_Final.pdf p.12
If it is a little early today to confirm the continuation of the simulation imagined more than a year ago, we can only remain amazed by the start date of the "epidemic", sticking absolutely to reality currently living in Europe
We recall that Bill Gates became the undisputed master of all WHO decisions because he took control of it at the same time as all the health decisions of member countries, in March 2020 (20). This simulation took place at the highest level as evidenced by the list of members present,
should we be surprised or not to find there an employee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Chris Elias, as well as a board member at Merck:
https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO-TTX_Final.pdf p.9
Overall, this document does not provide any specific therapeutic proposal, but largely insists on the constraint measures to be applied to populations, safety distances, movement restrictions, confinements and of course the general wearing of masks. One of the participants dropped this sentence, which is very worrying for the future of our freedoms because it is included in the final document:
- “It will be chaotic and frightening, but you can't wait until you have certainty. You have to act with no regrets.”
Trad: “It will be chaotic and scary but you can't wait to know for sure, you have to act without regret. »
To those who are surprised that in this exercise
no recourse is exercised at the level of the use of the human smallpox vaccine, the answer is in the appendix of p.28:
- “ Through intentional modifications made by Arnican virology lab scientists sympathetic with the Arnican terrorists, this monkeypox strain is assumed to be more contagious than naturally occurring monkeypox—with a basic reproductive number (R0) for the modified strain of 3, as compared to 2.13 for the wild type strain. The lab-modified strain is also engineered to be resistant to the smallpox vaccine. Vaccine resistance is assumed to be driven by the introduction of the Interleukin-4 gene, as demonstrated in previous mousepox studies. We assume a case fatality rate of approximately 10 percent, which is consistent with previously described monkeypox outbreaks. »
Trad: " Thanks to intentional modifications made by scientists at the Arnican Virology Laboratory sympathetic to the Arnican terrorists, this strain of monkeypox is believed to be more contagious than natural monkeypox - with a base reproduction number (R0 ) for the modified strain of 3, versus 2.13 for the wild-type strain. The lab-modified strain is also engineered to be resistant to the smallpox vaccine. Vaccine resistance is thought to be induced by the introduction of the interleukin-4 gene, as demonstrated in previous mousepox studies. »
What about in reality?
Is this MKP increased to resist existing vaccination, as in the MSC simulation or is it an unmodified wild-type virus release?
Since the time Bill Gates has been warning humanity that the virus that will follow CoV-2 will lead to a far more destructive pandemic…
Last minute, communicated by Hélène Banoun: Everything would be explained here!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7568176/?report=printable
The FDA-approved smallpox and monkeypox vaccine is also a vector virus (MVA, non-replicating smallpox virus, modified vaccinia Ankara ) of Ebola, Marburg, etc. vaccine (21)
Monkey pox comes at the right time to experiment with this type of new vaccine in the general population, just as Covid has made it possible to experiment with mRNA vaccines for other diseases (including influenza, as planned in October 2019, see the article on the origin of the Covid virus). And even an anti-Covid vaccine based on the MVA vector (22)!
Bernard Guennebaud
Dr. Vincent Reliquet
May 2022
Notes and sources:
(*)
https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2022-dgs-urgent_55_monkeypox.pdf
(**)
https://pasteur-bangui.org/6-decembre-2021- siga-obtains-approval-from-the-european-medicines-agency-ema-for-the-use-of-tecovirimat-tpoxx-in-the-treatment-of-vari/
(1)
https:/ /www.aimsib.org/2019/12/22/eradication-de-la-variole-les-grandes-manoeuvres-ont-commence/
(2)
https://www.aimsib.org/2020/05/10/ eradication-de-la-pox-la-disastrous-vaccination-des-sujets-contacts/
(3)
https://www.aimsib.org/2020/09/06/vaccinez-les-tous-confinez-les-ensemble -the-sad-example-of-1974/
(4)
https://www.who.int/topics/smallpox/fr/
(5) Smallpox and its eradication
http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39485 p.591
(6) Samuelsson
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/33940/version/2 /pdf/render p. 1782 col1 and 1783 col 2}
(7) AGIES WHO Independent Expert Advisory Committee p.11
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70607/WHO_HSE_GAR_BDP_2010.4_fre.pdf?sequence=1
(8) WHO Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research, p.38
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70606/WHO_HSE_GAR_BDP_2010.5_fre.pdf?sequence=1
(9) Report Raoult 2003 p. 101
https://medecine.univ-amu.fr/sites/medecine.univ-amu.fr/files/mission_bioterrorisme_raoult.pdf
(10) Earl p. 10893 col. 1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495015/pdf/zpq10889.pdf
(11) WHO Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research p.3
https://apps.who.int /iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70606/WHO_HSE_GAR_BDP_2010.5_fre.pdf?sequence=1
(12) Adelf-Sfsp congress poster
https://p4.storage.canalblog.com/42/31/310209/121014493.pdf
( 13) It was the lie of the day, watch: Vaccine Strategy Guidance Council, Opinion of May 7, 2021 – ring vaccination
“
This opinion responds to a referral of May 4, 2021 by the Director General of Health. Ring vaccination is a vaccination strategy used in an epidemic situation to prevent the spread of the infectious agent from a transmission focus. This strategy consists of vaccinating all individuals who have been in contact with a subject presenting a confirmed infection, as well as all persons in contact with this first circle of contact subjects »
Possible risk for persons who would be vaccinated during their period of incubation : There is no identified risk for people who would be vaccinated during their incubation period.Indeed, symptomatic cases of Covid-19 have been observed in phase 3 clinical trials within less than 10 days post-vaccination, without the severity of these cases being amplified. In addition, no severe adverse effects related to the administration of a dose of vaccine during a potential incubation period were observed. »
It is striking to note that in 1870 the experts said exactly the same thing about the smallpox vaccination practiced near the contamination: «
if it is not protective, it will not be aggravating. It can therefore be practiced without restrictions. »
It was false, completely false even, but this belief will continue until 2005 and will be the cause of great suffering for the populations.
(14) Opinion of the HCSP 21 Dec 2012:
https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/avisrapportsdomaine?clefr=318
(15) Type the title “Use of the smallpox virus as a biological weapon” then launch the pdf .
(16) slide 9:
http://www.infectiologie.com/UserFiles/File/medias/_documents/BT/vaccin%20variole.PDF
(17) p.22:
http://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/39258/1/a41464_fre.pdf
(18) extension report as of 05/22/2022:
https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2022-dgs-urgent_55_monkeypox.pdf
(19 )
https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NTI_Paper_BIO-TTX_Final.pdf
(20) at 24 minutes,
https://www.aimsib.org/2022/01/30/dou- come-tu-sars-cov-2/
(21)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359686026_Origine_du_virus_de_la_Covid-19_mise_a_jour_1er_avril_2022
(22)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247 (22)00027-1/fulltext” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>
DEFINE_ME
beforeitsnews.com
biolabs in 
