German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before. Everything was rushed and even they forgot to test for transmission which is scandalous

Really, it's experimental and has never been tested on humans before?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Healthy, young volunteers will be infected with coronavirus to test vaccines and treatments in the world's first Covid-19 "human challenge" study, which will take place in the UK.

The study, which has received ethics approval, will start in the next few weeks and recruit 90 people aged 18-30.

They will be exposed to the virus in a safe and controlled environment while medics monitor their health.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Safety trials begin in the lab, with tests and research on cells and animals, before moving on to human studies.
The principle is to start small and only move to the next stage of testing if there are no outstanding safety concerns.

Half are given the vaccine and the other half a placebo jab. The researchers and participants are not told which group is which, until after the results, to avoid bias.

www.health.gov.au...

Phase 1
Clinical trials usually include a few dozen healthy adult volunteers. They focus primarily on establishing that the vaccine is safe, and also on demonstrating that the vaccine induces an immune response.

Phase 2
Clinical trials have hundreds of volunteers, and can include specific groups for whom the new vaccine is intended. For example older adults, children or people with pre-existing medical conditions. These trials aim to test whether the vaccine causes an immune response and confirm that it is safe with minor side effects, such as a mild headache.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

In a Phase 3 trial, researchers usually compare data between vaccinated people and those who received a placebo (like a salt water injection). They compare the frequency of infection, disease severity and any reported side effects between the two groups.
Last updated: 13 February 2021

www.peta.org.uk...

Here at PETA, we’ve been saying for years that experiments on animals are pointless – they slow down the search for treatments and cures for human disease. Moreover, all the poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing is unethical and cruel. Many other scientists and experts agree. But when it comes to a new coronavirus vaccine, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is finally heeding PETA’s call – according to BBC News, the agency isn’t waiting for the typical lengthy animal-testing phase that would assess whether it can trigger an immune response in animals and is instead heading straight for human trials. While this won’t stop all tests on animals for the vaccine, it should pave the way for safe straight-to-human vaccine trials from now on.

That's not what testing is.
You need to know the short, medium, and long term effects before releasing them to the general population. As well as the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups.

They didn't have the time to test them and not even to test for transmission. The phase1,2,3 were rushed and this is inadequate testing at the least. Not testing for transmission is scandalous. Testing takes a lot of time to be accomplished.

I see, its your incorrect assumptions that decides on what testing means even though you state phase 1,2,3 testing???

Nooope! The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months. Testing is not what you think.

If the testing was performed properly then you would have known the short, medium and long term effects. But nobody did and nobody does in relation to the medium and long term effects. We are just starting to see the short term effects which are very unpleasant and rather serious.

This has happened because there was no testing.
Phase 3 is where the major failure is. Not that the other two were successful.

From your own reply above.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

One of the aims is to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting disease.

If you remember Pfizer admitted that they were moving with the speed of light and didn't even test for transmission! Which is scandalous at the least. The vaccines don't prevent transmission or infection and don't significantly reduced them.

In addition Phase 3 assess safety and side effects. They couldn't do that in such a small period of time as it would be impossible to find out even the short term effects, let alone the medium and long term effects.

So no much testing has happened and they just looked for an immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Not a coincidence that we see a range of side effects.

She should have been instantly fired and banned from care forever. She's paid to do a job, not to question science she doesn't understand and put seniors at risk. Disgusting and dangerous woman.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
She should have been instantly fired and banned from care forever. She's paid to do a job, not to question science she doesn't understand and put seniors at risk. Disgusting and dangerous woman.

I wouldn't do what she did.
I would have asked to be excempted from the vaccination campaign on the basis of doubts about the quality of the products showing some evidence of serious adverse reactions and deaths from these products and writing to the head nurse and manager(s).

She has the right to question science just as everyone else. If one thinks that they don't serve their patients and they can potentially harm them with some drugs then they have the right to exclude themselves from the process. That is the correct way.

When you say this is a disgusting woman I wouldn't agree with you.

Disgusting are those who promoted these products on the market for public use through coercion, pressure, intimidation, harassment, and threats of dismissal in case employees decided not to get vaccinated. This is a form of medical tyranny of the worst kind.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think it's more about semantics...

If you inject someone with something, or dose them with something, and they don't immediately die, in essence, I guess you could say it was "Tested." But by admission of one of the big wigs at Pfizer, they did NOT test for transmission, which really kinda is the salient point of all of this isn't it??

We were told that we MUST be vaccinated because if we didn't, we were a walking covid bomb that was going to kill everyone within a hundred yards. Then come to find out that they didn't know if the "Vaccine" would inhibit or stop transmission.

They had to move at the speed of science to really understand what was going on in the market?? I'm not a scientist, but I can assure you, that is not science.

www.youtube.com...

Whether it was greed, population control, straight up psychopathy, or a combination of all of these doesn't matter. They launched this product, and terrified everyone into getting it when they had no idea what was going to happen to those who took it 6 months, a year, or 5 years down the road. Those who took it are the trial group, those who didn't are the control. I'd say the control group is better off at this point.

a reply to: MaxxAction

"We were told that we MUST be vaccinated because if we didn't, we were a walking covid bomb that was going to kill everyone within a hundred yards."

When did that happen?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You must live in a place with no access to media eh??

twitter.com... ff8690167ca8588df8943fa9949%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fcnn-don-lemon-rules-force-vaccinations-freedom-liberty

"When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community, In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.” ---Dr. Fauci

www.factcheck.org...

COVID-19: The Unvaccinated Pose a Risk to the Vaccinated

Q: How do people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 pose a risk to people who have been vaccinated?

A: An unvaccinated person who is infected with COVID-19 poses a much greater risk to others who are also unvaccinated. But vaccines are not 100% effective, so there is a chance that an unvaccinated person could infect a vaccinated person — particularly the vulnerable, such as elderly and immunocompromised individuals.

This is just a couple of examples, but if you care to do some digging, you can fins many, many more.

For goodness' sake they gamed this to see which messages would hold the greatest chance at motivating people to get vaxxed.

clinicaltrials.gov...

Other: Control message
Other: Baseline message
Other: Personal freedom message
Other: Economic freedom message
Other: Self-interest message
Other: Community interest message
Other: Economic benefit message
Other: Guilt message
Other: Embarrassment message
Other: Anger message
Other: Trust in science message
Other: Not bravery message

Personal Freedom Message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting people's personal freedom and by working together to get enough people vaccinated society can preserve its personal freedom.

Economic freedom message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting peoples's economic freedom and by working together to get enough people vaccinated society can preserve its economic freedom.

Self-interest message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one's health, even if one is young and healthy. Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.

Guilt message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Embarrassment message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Trust in science message
1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one's community. Vaccination is backed by science. If one doesn't get vaccinated that means that one doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.

a reply to: MaxxAction

Oh, so you were just exaggerating then?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Oh, so you are disingenuous then?

You ask for evidence, then when evidence is presented, you deflect and focus on the "exaggerations" of the one posting the evidence??

Isn't that kinda like the knee jerk response when perhaps the most qualified person on earth on a specific topic says something and because it's on Bitchute or Rumble that immediately disqualifies everything the expert says?

If you want to debate, come to the table. If you don't, then don't. But quit acting like you do when it seems obvious that all you want to do is derail the conversation with derision, and ignore everything presented for consideration.

a reply to: MaxxAction

No, I asked for evidence of your claim that:

"We were told that we MUST be vaccinated because if we didn't, we were a walking covid bomb that was going to kill everyone within a hundred yards."

Specifically.

Thanks, though

a reply to: MaxxAction

Here in the UK we are having a Public Inquiry into all this.

I suspect that our Govt is going to come in for some heavy criticism of it's handling of COVID.

They don't usually hold back.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Oh, so you are disingenuous then?

You ask for evidence, then when evidence is presented, you deflect and focus on the "exaggerations" of the one posting the evidence??

Isn't that kinda like the knee jerk response when perhaps the most qualified person on earth on a specific topic says something and because it's on Bitchute or Rumble that immediately disqualifies everything the expert says?

If you want to debate, come to the table. If you don't, then don't. But quit acting like you do when it seems obvious that all you want to do is derail the conversation with derision, and ignore everything presented for consideration.

Classical tactics but what you say easily can be shown. I mean it would be unlikely that we one doesn't know the claims emanating from the establishment at that time. Get vaccinated to protect others and especially granny as the vaccines prevent transmission and infection and/or significantly reduce them.

These claims were false.

Back to the topic.

The judges have not seen a clear motive as they say. But I think we all know what the motive of the nurse was. It seems that it's not only the nurses and hospital staff who are not convinced in relation to the safety and effectiveness of these products.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Who is running the inquiry??

Is it real? Or is it a made for TV production to satiate the masses?

a reply to: MaxxAction

Baroness Hallett, and no, it isn't "made for TV".

Here you go:

covid19.public-inquiry.uk...

a reply to: MaxxAction

Some more information for you about UK Public Inquiries:

www.pinsentmasons.com...

You were saying about "derision"?

Your post querying whether it was "real" etc seems to be "derision" to me.

Hopefully you are now a little more informed about the process.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think it's more about semantics...

If you inject someone with something, or dose them with something, and they don't immediately die, in essence, I guess you could say it was "Tested." But by admission of one of the big wigs at Pfizer, they did NOT test for transmission, which really kinda is the salient point of all of this isn't it??

We were told that we MUST be vaccinated because if we didn't, we were a walking covid bomb that was going to kill everyone within a hundred yards. Then come to find out that they didn't know if the "Vaccine" would inhibit or stop transmission.

They had to move at the speed of science to really understand what was going on in the market?? I'm not a scientist, but I can assure you, that is not science.

www.youtube.com...

Whether it was greed, population control, straight up psychopathy, or a combination of all of these doesn't matter. They launched this product, and terrified everyone into getting it when they had no idea what was going to happen to those who took it 6 months, a year, or 5 years down the road. Those who took it are the trial group, those who didn't are the control. I'd say the control group is better off at this point.

Indeed! They had to move at the speed of science to bypass all major checkpoints and present their products as safe and effective.

Although I would have done things differently if I was the nurse, I can see that neither her nor many of her colleagues and as it seems some of the judges, are not moving at the speed of science and haven't lost their minds yet.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You make many assumptions about what the Judges may have been thinking.

Do you have a link to their Judgment?

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here is what the Nurse had to say:

www.dw.com...

"The woman's lawyer Christoph Klatt told news agency DPA that it had been "a one-time incident."

She'd panicked after breaking a vaccine vial — and out of fear of dismissal, filled the vial with saline solution to continue doing her job.

The shots administered to patients did contain the vaccine, just diluted with saline, Klatt said."

Any comment?

So, your speculation about her motive, is wrong.

No?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Here is what the Nurse had to say:

www.dw.com...

"The woman's lawyer Christoph Klatt told news agency DPA that it had been "a one-time incident."

She'd panicked after breaking a vaccine vial — and out of fear of dismissal, filled the vial with saline solution to continue doing her job.

The shots administered to patients did contain the vaccine, just diluted with saline, Klatt said."

Any comment?

So, your speculation about her motive, is wrong.

No?

I know. That's what they said in the court. It's obviously an excuse which the judges accepted and on the basis of this they couldn't establish the motive as they said....

But we all know what the motive was, given that she injected thousands of people with the saline solutions. She just didn't believe in safety and effectiveness of the products.

I am quite right and there is no need for a debate here.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You make many assumptions about what the Judges may have been thinking.

Do you have a link to their Judgment?

Thanks in advance.

I can do as I please.
The information is there in the original link I posted.

From my original link which has the news from the left-wing Mirror

The 39-year-old had additionally posted several social media posts where she openly emphasised her skeptical views regarding Covid-19 vaccines.

When questioned by police, she admitted to using saline solution but had said she only did it because she had accidentally broken a vial containing six shots and was ashamed to tell her colleagues.

She had also claimed that it was a one-time incident, but was immediately sacked after antibody tests that were carried out on the affected people confirmed authorities' suspicions.

One must be very naive to believe these ridiculous stories. So I suppose the judges are not that naive or stupid to not know what is going on. But they seem to have doubts about many other matters just as many other professionals at this point.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am disappointed she avoided jail. What she did was a betrayal of trust. Personal beliefs should not come in to it. The fact is she deceptively injected people with saline when they thought they were getting a vaccine. She is not a hero. I hope she never gets her license back.

So, if you weren't armchair nursing and were an actual nurse like her and saw adverse reactions to a new drug with lets admit it, a laundry list of side effects, you would just keep injecting people because you were told to?
The medical industry is at fault here for threatening her livelihood/career unless injecting people with experimental, untested and known to be dangerous "drugs"

yikes

Agreed!! I personally know of a MA of 20 years refusing to give a shot of ' medicine/painkiller ' to an elderly woman of 85yrs old, Knowingly it would kill her even though she was mentally competent and able to get around with a walker. 😔 I was there and heard the conversation!

I was shocked that home health RN's could give this shot without a Dr notice!!! 😳😔😔😔😔 and upon request of their family members!!!