A critical interview with Prof Theo Schetters, who is warning the public of the potential harm Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) vaccine can do when injected. It would be a very good idea for anybody who is considering to take an mRNA vaccine to listen to what Prof Theo Schetters has to say.

Please note that the interview was in Dutch and I have translated the video into English as accurate as possible.

Prof Theo Schetters.zp172515.jpg

Prof Theo Schetters

BSc (Biology) MSc (Immunology/Parasitology) PhD (Medicine)

Extraordinary Professor: DVTD

Professional and academic experience

39 years of experience as a researcher

15 years experience as a lecturer (visiting professor University of Montpellier, France)

Professional memberships

Member of the Netherlands Society of Parasitology

Member of the International Society of Vaccines

Member of the International Veterinary Vaccine Network

Member of the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology

Member of the African Vaccine Network

Associate Member of the European Veterinary Parasitology College

Subjects taught at undergraduate and postgraduate levels

Parasitological pathogenesis

Veterinary vaccine development

Research interests

Recombinant vaccine development against ticks and tick-borne diseases

Collaboration

National and International

Postgraduate students

Dr. D. Breed; Dr. C. Carret; Dr. A. Vallet ; Dr. S. Delbecq; Dr. A.-L. Finizio; Dr. J. Trentelman

Research output/publications

94 publications in peer-reviewed or refereed journals

4 book chapters

3 Special Issues of International Scientific Journals

11 patent application

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Start of the video interview

JANUARY 6, 2021

Theo Schetters interview 1 in person BlBoxtv.png

Start of the transcript interview

JANUARY 6, 2021

“Massa mRNA Vaccination is reckless and unnecessary”, says Prof. Dr. Theo Schetters. Professor Dr. Theo Schetters has been active in the vaccine industry for 40 years and even has some patents to his name.

He is not against vaccines but is very worried about the current mRNA vaccine and the short testing period it has gone through with a lot of uncertainties. Program maker Flavio Pasquino talks to the routine about the phenomenon of “messenger RNA vaccines”, the risks, and the peculiarities of the MEB (Committee for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products) at the press conference at which the EMA’s approval was explained.

In the video, we also show interesting excerpts from Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who compares the situation with experiments from Jurassic Park.

We also give the floor to Adrian Hill, a renowned researcher – who works closely with the WHO on HIV vaccines – who, with a meta-analysis of ivermectin, thinks he has made a breakthrough as a drug against Covid-19.

Transcript

It’s Wednesday, January 6. An important day in America but also in the Netherlands. Hugo de Jonge (Minister of Health) Twittered this morning “Carer Sanna has just received the first vaccination from nurse Wies, it is this injection in the upper arm that prevents disease and saves lives. The beginning of the end of the crisis has now begun. ” What a milestone … but my guest

Professor Dr. Theo Schetters has a different opinion. He has published a lot on Linkedin in recent months and in summary, he says the following:

“Vaccination against Corona is unnecessary and mass vaccination is highly irresponsible because of unknown side effects and consequences.” That’s what he says as an immunologist, specialised in the development of vaccines for 40 years.

Q: First of all, can you explain – to the people at home who don’t know you – who you are and what you do and what your track record is?

A: I am a biologist by training, I specialise in immunology, and in the study of diseases and how to prevent disease. I obtained my PhD in immune resistance against malaria at the University of Nijmegen and then I continued in the development of vaccines against infectious diseases, especially in animals. For a number of years, I have also been appointed as professor by special appointment at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, where I developed vaccines for animals in Africa.

Q: OK, so let’s be clear, you also have four children, I understood, who are vaccinated, you are not an anti-vaxxer?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Neither am I, my children are also vaccinated, but you are very critical of the current Pfizer vaccine which is now – as we speak – being rolled out in the Netherlands today. Can you explain that?

A: Yes, I am not only concerned about the vaccine that is being used, but also about the fact that this strategy is being chosen. Because in my opinion, it is not necessary to have the total population – the world population if it is up to certain people – to be vaccinated against Corona.

The current vaccine – which was the first on the market – is a vaccine that uses a new technique. We call this an mRNA technique and it stands for Messenger RNA. That technique has never been widely used or deployed for human use in vaccines. So I am very concerned about the rush with which this is happening and the lack of data when it comes to the safety and efficacy of these types of vaccines.

Q: Yes, and your concern is also shared by several people from the profession. Including Dr. Wakefield from the UK and he made a short video about that to illustrate what we just mentioned:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Start the video at minute 3:20 until 5:45

A: Yes, the link with Jurassic Park is made here, this may sound a bit funny but what this man is saying here is deadly serious. That there can actually be irreversibility by injecting this vaccine.

Q: Do you underline what this man says or do you say

A: ‘No, this is not correct’? Well, I fully underline the risks he outlines. To which I want to make a small addition: the problem we are talking about here is that by means of the mRNA injection you get the mRNA into your own body cells, and your own body cells then start to make the virus protein and put it on their surface ‘ express’, as it is called.

Q: You have provided a photo of that, we can see that here in the background, can you explain a bit?

Spier cellen road Blckbxtv.png

A: Exactly. What we see here is from a scientific paper that looked at where the mRNA that codes for a particular protein remains in the muscle cell and where the protein itself is in those muscle cells. And if you look here they are coloured blue where the mRNA is found and coloured red where the muscle shows the protein.

You might imagine that when the immune system sees this, the immune system is actually thinking: I have muscle cells here that are not normal. And will respond to that. If all goes well, the immune system would only remove those muscle cells that show this protein, but there is a chance that an autoimmune disease will develop against healthy muscle tissue. And we don’t know if it will happen, but that is no legitimacy to say: if we don’t know, then we’ll do it.

Q: But then our minister (of Public Health) will say: ‘yes, but there is a pandemic, an urgency, and we have to do something. And this is what we have now, but…. is the urgency really that great – as for you?

A: Yes, there are two things to say. First, an urgency has been created and the urgency that has been created here is that our society is locked up. If you look at the aspect of the infectious disease of what we are dealing with, then there is no urgency at all. Obviously, most people are just immune and don’t develop Corona or COVID at all. There are, of course, people who are in the hospital, that’s right. But I don’t see the urgency.

And the second thing I want to say here is there is now an mRNA vaccine being pushed or viral vaccines that actually do a bit of the same thing and those are completely new techniques. You could say it could if it were the only solution. But it is not the only solution! There are other companies that traditionally make vaccines against Corona, for example, a Chinese company that has weakened Coronaviruses and uses that for their vaccine. Another company, just like with the flu vaccine, has cultured Coronaviruses, killed, and formulated them with immune-stimulating substances and they are testing this. So that’s a bit like the flu shot we have. None of that has been chosen here in the Netherlands.

Here in the Netherlands, a number of vaccines have been purchased – also through the European Union (EU) – and most of them except one use DNA or mRNA techniques. There is only one that does not, that works in a traditional way, and that is the vaccine from GSK / SANOFI. That is a protein that is formulated with an immune-stimulating substance, of which we know the safety of such substances and these types of products far better than that of the DNA and mRNA vaccines.

Q: But what is the reason that the EU, but also the Netherlands, prefers to use this mRNA vaccine – so actually this new technique, of which Hugo de Jonge ( Dutch health minister) has also stated in a letter to the Parlement that there is a risk because of that new technology.

Q: Why do they choose it anyway?

A: Because there are risks involved, because it is new, it has not been done before, so then there are other options and it is not chosen?

Q: That’s right. – Or are they just not finished yet?

A: Exactly.

Q: Firstly, the question of why this is chosen.

A: That is a question you should of course ask our policymakers. I think what’s going on here is that the vaccine is available first, is the vaccine that gets pushed. Because it is clear that there is now this ‘social urgency’ to get rid of this situation.

Q: The lockdown?

A: Yes and whether you should do that with this vaccination – mass vaccination – that is not a question for me. This is NOT the way we should get rid of that lockdown.

Q: Yes, but well, as you rightly said earlier, the lockdown is actually a political choice if you look at the clinical picture in the hospitals then it does not seem to be a very big problem. Or am I saying something that everyone will soon find scandalous?

A: No, we live in the Netherlands where we have freedom of expression, so you can say whatever you want.

Q: I think there are less than 3,000 (Corona) patients in the hospital right now? –

A: Exactly, so exactly what people don’t ask themselves here and what you should ask yourself is: how come almost everyone – all healthy people who become infected with Corona – are simply immune and do not die or are not getting seriously ill?

If you add everything together, we actually had about 30,000 people in the hospital within these two seasons – we had a spring season and we are now in an autumn season – about 30,000 people together and 11,000 people died. The question to ask is: why did those people get sick and why did they die?

We all know that the vast majority of people who have passed away are people who are very old, who are weakened as human beings. This manifests itself, for example, in a higher susceptibility to diseases such as influenza and Corona. There is another group before that, those that are very sick, but which have been shown to having many underlying comorbidities.

That also immediately paints a picture that vaccines are unlikely to help people because those people don’t have a properly functioning immune system anymore. And then, of course, it was politically decided – and that is a strategy with which I do not agree at all – to vaccinate the entire population. Hoping to totally ‘eradicate the virus’… Well, that’s utopia. You will never succeed.

For example, if we think of mink farms – I will take it as an example – that the virus that makes people sick can simply give infections in mustelids without those animals dying at mass. So just consider this Coronavirus to be in nature, in wild nature, and it is just going to come back regularly in the normal population.

Q: It has already mutated again, actually that makes sense, it will always continue to mutate, but we now speak of a ‘more contagious variant’. Do you endorse that?

A: Yes, mutations have been described that are more contagious, but that in itself is not a problem. It is all about how virulent these strains are. Because if something is very contagious but it doesn’t make you sick, that’s all okay at all. Where I do see a problem is that if people start framing a new strain of every virus as a life-sized threat to society, we will soon be in the next lockdown. With the next period that a vaccine has to be made again and that we will all be vaccinated again. And then we end up in an endless thing that I don’t think is the way to go.

Q: Yes, the Pfizer vaccine has recently been approved for the Dutch market and the Medicines Evaluation Committee (MES) made a statement with a press conference.

Press Conference CBG (Good Medicine Good Use)

CBG foto pers conference.png

The spokeswoman for CBG said the following:

“There are no data yet on how well the vaccine protects against infection. So we do not yet know whether people who have received this vaccine also… Uhm… whether these people would still be able to transmit the virus should they become infected.

It is also not yet clear whether the vaccine offers good protection against the more severe form of COVID because too few people in the study received severe COVID. The fact that we do not know this does not mean that the vaccine does not work against this.”

At the moment there is simply insufficient data to be able to make a statement about this.”

Q: I wonder if she slept well. Because she was pretty insecure? I can imagine it because it was quite a difficult message she had to convey. A vaccine of which we actually do not know whether it is effective. That’s the conclusion, isn’t it?

A: Yes the conclusion is – and indeed I would not like to be in her shoes – the bottom line is that there is too little data to make any statements about whether this vaccine protects against severe COVID 19 – the disease – and whether this vaccine protects against the spread of it. Coronavirus could counteract.

Q: But I think that was what it was all about or….?

A: Yes, and that of course makes her position very difficult because that was what it was all about. What the European Medicines Agency ( EMA), it has, of course, realized this, is “OK, let’s issue a ‘Conditional License'”. This means a provisional license, a conditional license and in which the conditions actually state that the company must report back to the EMA faster and more often with regard to data that are not yet complete.

So you can say: ’the EMA is on top of it’. But that is of little use if at some point it turns out that this vaccine provokes wrong immune responses and you have already vaccinated millions of people with it. So that’s why I find it highly irresponsible that this vaccine is now being given to humans on such a large scale.

Q: So the effectiveness is uncertain and in the study that has been done the claim was made that there was 95% efficacy, which is of course somewhat surprising if you realize what we just mentioned you have a lot to do about it how to interpret that study?

A: Yes, we are talking about a study they did with about 40,000 people. They divided them into two groups, so say 20,000 on the side of people who received the vaccines and 20,000 people who received a placebo. Then they started following those people: do they get sick or don’t they? Where ‘illness’ was defined as at least one symptom – for example headache or fever or a runny nose – in combination with the well-known PCR test, so if it was positive, such a person was scored as: ‘being a Corona-patient’. For example, they found about 170 people in the control group and 8 in the vaccinated group. So that seems impressive. But it is only about minor complaints.

The spokeswoman of the CBG also indicates: “we cannot say whether the vaccine protects against serious COVID because that has also been examined.” Looking at people who were that sick they had to be hospitalized, there were only 4 people who had severe COVID out of 40,000 in the whole study!

The first remark is of course: apparently, Corona and severe COVID are very rare, second, the 4 people were divided between the vaccine group and the control group. There were 3 in the control group and 1 in the vaccine group. Thereby even the (vaccine) company itself, stated that in the control group there was 1 patient with a complicating factor in the sense of a very high BMI.

So, even if you figure out what the ‘protection’ is here, you get 75%. But then we are talking about a calculation based on 3 to 4 people. That is what it is about. That is even less than the requirement that the authority (EMA) imposes on the vaccine because it must provide more than 90% protection.

A: So they overruled that too?

Q: That has also been overruled yes. Probably hoping that – as was also indicate – these data will come in soon. But if you look at it like that, you have to conclude: we are actually doing a very large live experiment on people. And are those people told that they are actually participating in a major medical experiment? As is mandatory in clinical studies: “would you like to participate in this experiment to develop a vaccine against Corona?” But that’s not the situation now.

Q: So if I understand correctly, out of a group of 40,000 people – half of whom had a placebo and half had the vaccine – about 150-160 people got slightly ill, and 4 got more seriously ill? And that’s the data? That’s actually the whole study sample, those 150-160 people they’ve been following to see, ‘OK, is this effective?’

A: That’s right

Q: So in fact you could say that this Pfizer vaccine is now being rolled out around the world based on a study of just 150-160 people who have been followed more or less intensively? Because they have left out the rest?

A: Yes, but you may even include the rest.

Q: But they didn’t get sick?

A: No, they didn’t get sick.

Q: And not in the placebo group either?

A: No,

Q: So it means the virus was either not present or that….

A: It just didn’t cause such a big problem, which we now know worldwide to be true. Of course, when it showed up at the beginning of the year, people were uncertain where this was heading. And that may have justified an initial lockdown, and that is what the World Health Organisation (WHO) itself says.

But WHO has also changed its opinion with all science available now. About 85,000 publications have been published on this. And with all that extra knowledge they say: a lockdown really shouldn’t be done anymore. It is not necessary. Because the virus is not at all as virulent and as lethal (as deadly) as we thought at first. Or what we were afraid of back then.

Q: But if you then have to conclude that the effectiveness of the vaccine is doubtful – which they even indicate and from the (Dutch) FDA: ’that remains to be proven’ – but that there is that risk that you mentioned that we have an mRNA vaccine in our body with a possible autoimmune response or weird things that might develop over the next few years that we don’t know what’s going to happen. How come our health minister is willing to take that risk with millions of people?

A: Yes, that is a complete mystery to me too. How that is possible. I don’t have a good answer for that. All I can say is I would never do this. I don’t think you can justify this. It is not necessary because people just have enough resistance. So I don’t know.

Q: But medicine and treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin – which now also seem to be coming into use – our minister of Public Health (Mr. Hugo De Jong) say, “quackery, we are not going to do that, because it is all uncertain… and there are risks.” But apparently, this major risk is non-existent?

A: I don’t know how the Minister weighs the risks. But I’m glad you mention the other medicines because people do get sick and of course people do die. But we now also know – or no, let me rephrase – it would be much better to give more attention to those people who are now in those hospital beds because we do like counting those beds, but we must not forget that there are actual patients lying in those beds who are ill. And so there are developments – for example, the use of ivermectin – to help people who are really sick get over it, to use that as a medicine.

The problem is, it’s not registered for that use. So such a remedy should be reconsidered: can you use it for Corona patients who are currently very ill? I advocate that strongly. And why? Because you have immediate results. We are talking about people who are very sick, so…

Q: they need a solution now and are not helped at all with a vaccine that might prevent them from getting infected in the future.

A: Exactly, the people who are ill right now have no use for that anyway. And I am convinced that if we are going to give the entire population the vaccine – a population that is already immune – that we will only relive the situation of people coming to hospitals and who are sick because of an unhealthy lifestyle, comorbidities, or just are really old – that we’re just going to get it again. So I want to argue strongly in favor of putting a lot more energy into good treatment for people who really get sick. So there are several roads to Rome.

Q: This has been advocated for months by various doctors who are then simply banned on YouTube. So did Adrian Hill, a doctor who works closely with the WHO on the HIV vaccine, so definitely not someone who is seen as a quack, a serious medical professional, and he had an interesting presentation on this topic.

Clip Adrian Hill-start at minute 25:58 until 26:41 (IF IT DOES NOT START AT MINUTE 25:58 PLEASE FORWARD THE VIDEO to 25:58)

Text of the video clip of Adrian Hill:

We are using the same type of techniques for COVID 19 to ask if there is enough clinical evidence to support the worldwide approval for Ivermectine to treat COVID-19. In the conclusion of this Meta-analyses, we are seeing using WHO grade criteria a faster time of viral clearance, shorter duration of hospitalization 43% higher rate of clinical recovery, 83% improvement of survival rates.

Results from three more Q randomised trials will be made available in January. If we see these same trends consistently observed across more studies then this really is going to be a transformational treatment.

Q: Immediately a disclaimer: I will definitely not try to argue in favour of certain medicines, I just don’t have the medical knowledge to do that, but this man is a gifted and respected scientist who explains that very good metadata and results are now known from all kinds of trials. all over the world with Ivermectin, a treatment method that is extremely effective, and therefore very hopeful. As a government, you could say: hey, let’s have a thorough look at that. Because it could provide an alternative solution to the problem?

A: Not only is it an alternative, I think that for the problem we are dealing with right now – with people who are currently sick and people who are now dying from COVID 19 – I think this might be THE solution. Because those people who are now ill have no use for vaccination. And I think it is wrong to focus all attention on administering vaccines to an already healthy population and when it comes to the sick people, only remain to talk about the ‘overflow of healthcare’. We are talking about people who are sick and who die. I am very much in favour of paying more attention to this.

Q: Theo, we’ve been in a lockdown, or ‘intelligent’ lockdown – or however, they want to call it – for months now. A lot of people long for a normal life again, but according to our government, the only way out is vaccination. There was a journalist at the press conference of the Dutch CBG who also raised a question about this and a pretty peculiar answer followed. We certainly don’t want to keep that from you.

Forward the video to minute 28:28 until minute 29:10

Journalist asks: “Everyone is understandably eager and would like to be vaccinated so that we can cuddle each other again, but does this (your presentation) indicate that the vaccine does not offer a solution for that yet?

CBG spokeswoman answers: “Most importantly, the vaccine protects against the disease. That has now been shown. So people at risk for serious illness or disease will be protected by vaccination. We do not know whether an infection is also prevented and whether the virus is still transmitted. There is a lot going on in the human body and we do not have a full view of it yet. Normally these clinical studies cannot really make that clear too. So this is something we have to follow up on. It does not mean that the vaccine will not help, but at the moment that data is just not there yet.”

Q: Theo, would you like to respond to this, what is it that this lady is actually saying?

A: Yes, well I hear her say a number of things and that also reminds me of … we were just talking about that the trial results and about the experiments that have been done. I want to add to that to be able to measure that difference (between vaccinated or non-vaccinated) people have looked for places in the world where Corona had not yet spread.

So the people who took part in this trial were selected not to have had a PCR positive test, nor were they allowed to have antibodies to Corona (ergo: be pre-exposed) So the sample groups they used, those people were as sensitive as possible.

Q: Those 40,000 people?

A: Yes, and that is not at all the situation we have in the Netherlands at the moment. So this Corona variant or strain came in in early spring 2020 and our immune system has been ‘struggling’ with this for 10 months now.

Q: So, you could conclude that the Pfizer study is not at all representative of our population?

A: Exactly. What you see is – everyone knows ’the numbers’ and we wake up with them every morning and go to bed with them every night – on how many people have been ‘infected’ that day. We reached already over 800,000 people who have had at least a positive PCR test and who have not become ill. There have not at all been 800,000 people in the hospital, so I want to stress that the corroboration on the efficacy of which the Dutch FDA thinks it “will get more data” you are never going to get. Because you are talking about a population in the Netherlands that has been adapting to this virus for 10 months now, who’s immune system got to know it and developed improved immunity against it.

Q: Right. But could you give us a more specific response to what the lady of the Dutch FDA said?

A: The question is: is this vaccination going … is this whole undertaking going to help to change the situation in such a way that people can hug each other again? And is crucial for that to happen? They consider it crucial that the virus is no longer allowed to circulate in the population … or to cite some policymakers: “the R-value must be below 1!”.

This lady states that is ‘not clear’. I dare to say that even the study and trial reports themselves shows that that is not the case. It does not protect 100% against the circulation of the virus. Because in the vaccinated groups there were still 8 people who had symptoms and were PCR positive. So the guarantee that the transmission of the virus will be blocked is therefore not even claimed by the company. And if that is the underpinning to vaccinate or treat the whole of the Netherlands with this vaccine, then I think: it is faulty! This is not at all what you should be doing. Because you are doing something with a very uncertain outcome.

Q: If I now analyze everything together, then we are actually dealing with a vaccine that is not at all without risks. We use a technology that is new in which we tweak (DNA in our) bodies. We don’t know if it is effective at all. And we’re now going to vaccinate millions of Dutch people and the answer is that we may not be able to stop the ‘social distancing’ at all and get out of the lockdown?

A: The latter is a policy decision because if you ask me we can start hugging today and get out of the lockdown. We don’t use the vaccination – that mass vaccination that we are doing now – for that at all.

Q: Theo, what would you like to share with policymakers in the Netherlands in conclusion? Because you’ve been around for 40 years, you’ve developed vaccines, again you’re not an anti-vaxxer.

A: What I want to convey urgently – and that’s a concern I really have – is that we’re going back to what I call normal: and that is that if someone is sick, they stay at home. As we always do. If you have the flu, you stay home. If that gets really bad, you call the doctor, and then the doctor comes and he can possibly determine with a laboratory test whether you have the flu or Corona or whatever. And then decide on treatment accordingly.

So I want the GP to be reinstated and to continue to provide primary care. And that we stay away from screening a total population as we do now and then blindly – depending on that screening – we have decided “well then we have to get a new vaccine again and depending on how many people have died, we will have some more lockdowns and will end up in an endless cycle of lockdowns, new virus variants, vaccinations and so on. And we must not go that way!

Q: I fully agree with that. I express the same concern. We will move into a medicalized surveillance society when this is introduced because I am convinced that the vaccine in itself is one thing, but if we also go to a COV-ID pass with QR codes and all, it will be the beginning of the end. Because that means that you will constantly have to legitimize that you are apparently not carrying a virus by means of a reversed burden of proof. That does not seem a pleasant future society to me.

So I want to ask everyone to think this through carefully in the coming months. What are you going to do? I’m not going to try to influence anyone, but think carefully, inform yourself, read about it – there is a lot of information and knowledge – and make the right decision.

For more information on what is going on in relation to this plandemic please (click here)