Doctor Angelique Coetzee Who Discovered Omicron Was Pressured Not To Reveal It's Mild

When asked if it's true, Coetzee replied: "I was told not to state publicly that it was a mild illness. I have been asked to refrain from making such statements and to say that it is a serious illness. I declined." (translated).

"What does that mean?" replied Welt.

"I am a clinician and based on the clinical picture there are no indications that we are dealing with a very serious disease. The course is mostly mild. I'm not saying you won't get sick if you're mild.

"The definition of mild Covid-19 disease is clear, and it is a WHO definition: patients can be treated at home and oxygen or hospitalization is not required," she said, adding: "A serious illness is one in which we see acute pulmonary respiratory infections: people need oxygen, maybe even artificial respiration. We saw that with Delta - but not with Omikron. So I said to people, "I can't say it like that because it's not what we're seeing.""

When asked why she was prevented from telling the truth, Coetzee said "They tried, but they didn't make it."

"What I said at one point – because I was just tired of it – was: In South Africa this is a mild illness, but in Europe it is a very serious one. That's what your politicians wanted to hear."

According to Coetzee, she wasn't pressured by South African authorities - and was instead criticized by scientists in the UK and Netherlands, who said "How can you explain that it's a mild disease? It's a serious illness. Look at the mutations."

My reports have thrown them off track. In a pandemic, you also have to look at what is happening at the grassroots level. The general practitioners who treat the sick every day must be asked what they experience, how the clinical picture presents itself. -Welt

When Omicron first emerged, Dr. Anthony Fauci played dumb right after praising South African doctors, saying: "The things that we don’t know right now are whether the people who do get infected have a severer form of the disease or whether it’s a light disease or somewhat the same as delta."

Evidence Mounting on Negative Efficacy of the Jabs

Do you know anyone who got the vaccine that has Covid?

— brandon 🇺🇸 (@gboslovesjesus) January 6, 2022

"The Danish government reported on Jan. 3 that only 24 percent of the people hospitalized with Omicron during late November and December were unvaccinated - while 76 percent were vaccinated, including 18 percent who were boosted."https://t.co/a0HKfxwahG

— Edmund Kudzayi (@EdmundKudzayi) January 7, 2022

Read the COVID-19 Positive Reddit Messageboard.  It's hilarious. 

Data from highly vaccinated countries suggests strongly that the answer is yes; vaccinated people are at higher risk of infection from Omicron.  

Denmark has fewer than 6 million people - 1/60th as many as the United States.

Nearly all adults are vaccinated, mostly with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine that is the world’s supposed gold standard. Half have received the third “booster” doses. On Wednesday Denmark reported 28,000 Covid infections - equal to about 1.7 million in the United States.

The figures are similar in the United Kingdom, and all over Western Europe. Many countries are at 90 percent adult Covid vaccination levels, with boosters soaring. And they are all now in the midst of an epidemic of Covid contagion that dwarfs any that has come before.

The vaccines sure seem to have failed. That’s wrong, though.The reality is worse.The data from several countries now show clearly that infection rates are higher in vaccinated people.

We already know vaccine protection against earlier variants of Sars-Cov-2 falls sharply within months of the second dose, as the vaccine-generated antibodies fade.

But the new data go a step further, showing that previously vaccinated people are actually more likely to contract Omicron.

The government of Ontario has reported exactly the same pattern. So have Danish researchers, in a paper two weeks ago, when they found protection against Omicron turned negative three months after the second dose.

The vaccine fanatics have said that boosters are the answer against Omicron, that people who receive a third dose will regain protection.

This is - at best - a highly optimistic view.  Remember the happy vaccine valley?

During the 2021 mass vaccination campaigns, Covid infections (whether Delta or the original strain) fell close to zero in the four months after the second dose, as antibodies peaked.

The happy vaccine valley no longer exists. Boosters begin to fail essentially immediately against Omicron, despite the massive (and potentially dangerous) increase in anti-spike-protein antibodies they produce.

Here’s the most recent report on vaccine protection from the United Kingdom, from last week.

The black boxes represent protection against the Delta variant (which is overstated because of the healthy vaccine user bias, but put that fact aside). As you can see, peak protection against Delta starts around 90 percent two weeks after the second dose. It remains at 60 percent six months out. A third dose pushes it back to 90 percent, and it barely budges for the first 10 weeks.

But what’s true for Delta is NOT true for Omicron.

Even at their absolute peak, two doses of mRNA vaccines offer only 60 percent protection against Omicron. Within four months protection has fallen almost to zero. A booster returns protection to 70 percent, but two months later it has fallen to about 50 percent.

That’s a decline to 50 percent protection from Omicron (at most, because the unseen confounders will tend to overstate vaccine efficacy) within 10 weeks of a third dose. We have every reason to expect it too will plunge to zero within a few more weeks.

What then? A fourth dose? A fifth a few weeks after that? How much mRNA do the public health authorities intend to cram in us?

And what about the real terror, antibody-dependent enhancement?

Are the vaccines only driving infection with Omicron, or are they increasing the risk of serious illness too?

We don’t really know yet, in part because Omicron is milder across the board. In addition, the wave of cases has hit so fast that it will take time for serious illness to catch up. Finally, the problem of incidental hospitalizations (with, not from Covid) is worse and will further muddy the data.

That said, hospitalizations of vaccinated people with Omicron are rising very fast, and the gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is shrinking. The Danish government reported on Jan. 3 that only 24 percent of the people hospitalized with Omicron during late November and December were unvaccinated - while 76 percent were vaccinated, including 18 percent who were boosted. During the same period, unvaccinated people made up 45 percent of those hospitalized with earlier variants - yet more proof the vaccines simply do not work as well against Omicron as earlier variants.

Why are we encouraging people to get “vaccinated” or “boosted” with a “vaccine” that within a few weeks probably increases their risk of becoming infected with the newly dominant variant of Sars-Cov-2?

We were lucky with Omicron; it is apparently quite mild.

But we are now in a world where Sars-Cov-2 cannot be contained and where it will continue to mutate in both humans and animals in ways we cannot predict (some scientists believe that Omicron underwent most of its mutations in mice before before jumping back to humans).

Nor do we yet know whether and how vaccines will interfere with the development of immunity after Sars-Cov-2 infection and recovery; will they prevent our immune systems from developing antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus, or interfere with B- and T-cell maturation?

All we really know is that the vaccines don’t prevent infection for very long and for many healthy people have side effects that are significantly worse than coronavirus infection. Both those facts were true before Omicron. Both are doubly true now.

Yet the drive to vaccinate - and boost - continues.

Why?