“When analyzing the drugs in question for Laporte and his research team one of the main uncertainties was the duration of the preventive
efficacy of the vaccine.” 
In this regard they established that “after six months of the second dose the efficacy decreases from 20% to 30% but it is curious that instead of taking note of this fact as an insufficiency of the vaccines the manufacturers welcomed this news with increases in their stock price. If a product is ineffective or partially effective it will be necessary to repeat doses if possible throughout life.”
Another crucial concern for Laporte and his research team was whether the vaccination will stop the spread of infection. According to Laporte “it is clear that vaccines do not prevent the transmission of the disease so the passport or certificate lacked a scientific basis and may also have contributed to an increase in the number of cases since it gave a false sense of security.” [because the main aim was to get as many people as possible trapped in the “no jab then no passport or certificate hence no travelling no dining out in restaurants no gyms and so forth. And those who fell for it went for the deadly clotshot because feeling part of society and still enjoying anything that the world offers is more important than health.]
The unfavourable effects of the analysed medications were the other area of ambiguity for Laporte and his team. He mentioned the issue of myocarditis and pericarditis where he stated that “we were first told that the incidence could be one case per million; the estimate was later lowered to one case per 100 000; then an Israeli study came out that spoke of one case per 10 000 in young adults.” Laporte then questioned the deputies present: “You will have seen or heard of famous soccer players and even spectators of sporting events who collapse in the middle of the match. They are vaccinated people who have heart problems possibly attributable to vaccination and they don’t talk about that.”
Laporte also concentrated on the immunization of children and young people and mortality among the elderly when discussing the vaccination campaign. First he specifically mentioned what had occurred in nursing homes where the pandemic had a terrible impact and “mortality was 57 times higher than in the general population ” with the lethality of between 9% and 10%. When referring to childhood and adolescent immunization he stated that “probably in these groups we end up knowing that vaccines cause more deaths than the disease”.
He added that according to the data of the Spanish Ministry of Health 52 children under the age of 20 died in Spain from the virus in 2020. But this data only showed the diseases of the first 10 of these 52 although later no more specific data was published “due to confidentiality problems [actually in order for them to hide the facts.] Of these first known 10 all but one suffered from leukaemia and all had undergone bone marrow transplants. Did they die of Covid or of leukaemia?
Towards the end of the speech Laporte spoke of the “advances” in the pharmaceutical industry of which he says that the vast majority are unnecessary chemical compounds: “Of all the drugs approved in the last 20 years in the United States and the European Union it is estimated that less than 2% were true therapeutic innovations. [Trust the science]. Up to 10% were some modest improvements but the other 90% are nothing garbage that only adds confusion and higher prices. [because Big Pharma is not interested in cures but in customers and it makes sure that these customers keep returning. There is no money in a cure.]
According to him the last two years have shown that our health systems [including authorities] lack the will to give accurate knowledge and instead are just “passive recipient of messages with clear commercial intentions.”
They pay smoke at the price of gold.
Before ending his speech he pointed out that “Spain is the most permissive member of the European Union in terms of conflicts of interest and opaque relationships between health professionals and pharmaceutical companies something that also occurs with medical societies and their experts.” He shared his surprise that no professional representative made the slightest allusion to such conflicts of interest that the Spanish medical societies.
Can this be applied to all global medical societies and their experts including our local one which as a side note it is also important to clarify that it has first given permission to two known local doctors to oppose the Covid-19 narrative by permitting them to give a counter-narrative through controlled opposition in order to be an affront challenge to my writings which have no conflict of interest and are independent and free of any control?