UVC: Adv. Sabelo Sibanda: Prove it! Jab Causation: Shutting Out Ordinary People

The inaugural Understanding Vaccine Causation Conference, convened by World Council for Health Steering Committee Member, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, took place on Feb. 5, 2022. The WCH Law and Activism Committee brought together legal practitioners, doctors, scientists, and jab victim data and advocacy groups to explore a key question: How are jab adverse events proved?

Adv. Sabelo Sibanda joined the Law and Rights panel for his presentation, Prove it! Jab Causation: Shutting Out Ordinary People.

This clip is also available on Odysee.

[00:00:00]

[00:00:06] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: The next speaker for law and write session is going to be Advocate Sabelo Sibanda from South Africa, also a great friend, a colleague and comrade of mine. And Advocate Sibanda will be speaking on the topic, ‘Prove It. Jab causation, shutting out ordinary people.’

[00:00:24] Sabelo please introduce yourself, firstly, and tell us why this conference is important in under 60 seconds before your presentation.

[00:00:33] Sabelo Sibanda: Thank you very much Shabnam. Sabelo Sibanda is my name. I’m an advocate. I did my little training in, Aberdeen, Scotland. I registered to practice in Zimbabwe and in South Africa.

[00:00:50] This conference for me is absolutely critical because there are aspects which in themselves, if properly understood will help us to tackle the issue that we are confronted with, which is the lies that have been presented and accepted. And the fact that now we’ve got different disciplines coming together and fighting on the same side. I really appreciate what all the speakers have said and in laying a foundation and it’s definitely going to make it much easier for me to do my presentation.

[00:01:32] I talk to my issues from a position of being what I have now termed a ‘lawtavist’. Where a lawtavist basically is someone who uses the law as a tool by which to advance an activist cause for the purpose of achieving justice. So you don’t have to be a lawyer to be a lawtavist. You just have to correlate the law, the activism, but the fundamental being the aspect of justice.

[00:02:07] The point at which Dr. Edeling finished, leads directly to why this particular topic for me. Dr. Edeling raises a very critical issue about the common law aspects of suing for damages. And those in the know basically have prepared themselves for this. And this is why I say, ‘_Prove It_.’ Jab causation shutting out the people. The legal-ise that is being used – basically using the law by a manner which in itself is designed to perpetuate unlawfulness.

[00:02:57] This is what the unholy alliance between government and the cabal in general and the private sector are subjecting the ordinary people to.

[00:03:10] I was listening to the presentations on causation and thinking to myself, some of these things, even for me, I have to go and conduct further research regardless of the fact that I’ve been in the profession since 1995.

[00:03:26] But now how more for the ordinary people? Look at the South African scenario for instance, whereby in April, 2020, the government gave the nation approximately five days to comment on a vaccine compensation scheme proposal. Which was going to be made law.

[00:03:53] And the whole idea behind this particular scheme of which we were told, ‘_No, we’ve got it in many different parts of the world and it is working and the world health organization has got it under Covex for helping those nations who are deemed not to have enough funds_.’ But because South Africa is deemed to be in a stable economic position, it cannot be supported by the world health organization. It has to have its own compensation scheme. And on proper analysis of this particular scheme, the reason why the nation was given those few days is because the government was at a point where they’re about to get into a mass roll out of J and J and leading up to Pfizer.

[00:04:47] So this scheme is supposed to work in such a manner that for anyone who has been injured, having taken the jab. So anyone who has suffered harm, who has taken the jab have recourse and therefore can be compensated. And anyone whose family member has died is also entitled to basically claim against the scheme. Which sounds all good, looked at on the surface.

[00:05:16] But when you now go into the detail, this is where you realize exactly how the ordinary people are being cubed and being taken advantage of by a government that claims to care. And this is happening right around the world. So you’ll find that, this scheme is supposed to exonerate the jabbers, exonerate the nurses, exonerate the doctors, exonerate the hospitals, exonerate the clinics, exonerate the pharmaceutical industry against any public claims, should it be that anyone wants to claim for injury that has been occasioned by the jab. As an ordinary person if I am healthy today, you jab me and tomorrow I’m sick; necessarily what comes to mind is, ‘_Oh my goodness it was because of that jab that I took. That’s why I’m in the situation that I’m in_.’

[00:06:19] As sportsman is running around fit and healthy, next thing is told that he must take the jab. We have seen it happening all over. Guys, literally collapsing right in front of us. Then there’s ordinary people, what we can say is it is as a result of that particular jab that they have taken.

[00:06:39] But then now this is how the causation element becomes problematic for ordinary people. We have heard how problematic, the causation argument is legally and scientifically. And then now you tell an ordinary person, ‘_Okay, you are entitled to compensation but you have to prove that it is the jab that is responsible for this particular condition_.’

[00:07:10] So you basically, closing them out whilst pretending to be opening the door for them to get the compensation that they need. So you make the causation aspect literally impossible for them. You’ll make it so difficult that there is no way that they themselves can justify that particular element.

[00:07:35] They have to prove that they have suffered loss. They have to prove that they have suffered harm. They have to prove that there are damages that have been occasioned as a result of this loss is that they have suffered.

[00:07:49] Let me relate it to our rural settings for instance. Let me talk about a case that we are looking at where some people wanted a job on a farm. And they were told that for them to get employment, they must be jabbed first. And someone actually goes across to the farm. The workers are there. They are jabbed and months into their contract they are told that, oops, the company doesn’t have enough money. We have to retrench. So they retrench 60 people. And because they had only been there for a couple of weeks, there was no issue of severance pay, so says the company. And then now for those who suffered adverse events as a result, they’re told there is nothing that we can do for you.

[00:08:46] They now caught in a scenario where there is no way that they can exercise their legal rights. And the damages that Dr Edeling is talking about the government tries to block on the basis that, ‘_No, we have a scheme that is supposed to protect you_.’ This is another fallacy about this particular scheme. In that government in claiming that it is putting up 250 million Rand fund per year to compensate the people, is actually saying to us with people, we are the ones responsible for paying for damages under contracts that government has gotten into purportedly for our own good. If this thing was so good, why should the manufacturers be exempted? Why should government seek to close off everyone and put themselves in the line?

[00:09:49] Because they know that once they say their government, who do you take? Because government is basically an institution supposedly, and we have here a constitution that talks to governance by the people. So if our constitution is right, that governance is by the people it’s necessarily saying that we are the ones responsible for taking care of the mess up that has been made by the pharmaceutical industry.

[00:10:20] And Dr. Edeling talks about flawed studies. They are just a downright fraud. And the last time I checked fraud was a criminal offense. So necessarily we need to come to a point where as lawyers, we address this for what it is, which is a fraud. And we push for the criminal charges because, once we go the criminal route, regardless of the compensation scheme, there is nothing that they can do about that.

[00:10:48] They have to take responsibility for that particular aspect. And the thing is as well, this is where they have got our people in a fix. This compensation scheme is only supposed to address serious adverse events. It’s only supposed to address, long-term hospitalization as a result of the jab.

[00:11:14] Yes, but it’s up to government. It’s up to the minister of health to basically define what the conditions are that will be deemed to be the relevant medical conditions that are considered adverse events as a result of the jab. Our South African health products regulatory authority, which is supposed to be taking responsibility for the entire aspect related to the safety and efficacy of medications.

[00:11:50] And they go and tell us that regardless of what is happening in the rest of the world, South Africa is in a unique position in that no one has died as a result of a COVID jab.

[00:12:08] So it boggles the mind that if Pfizer is manufactured in the United States and people are dying in the United States, or let me say north America, in general, they’re dying in Europe. They dying in other parts of the world. Only in South Africa does Pfizer not kill the people. And we are supposed to be the ones now who as ordinary people, are supposed to prove that indeed it is this jab that has caused that particular condition.

[00:12:39] If it’s difficult for a doctor to prove it, if it’s difficult for the lawyer to prove it, if it’s difficult for a scientist to prove it, effectively what you are telling me is that you have opened the door and yet have got the burgler inside closed.

[00:12:56] So people can just peep in and say, oh my goodness, that’s where the money is, but the burgler bars are closed and no one can actually enter and take advantage of that particular provision of the law that says people must be compensated. Further to that. It’s not even a simple question of say, supposing, I get the jab and the next thing I’m sick. I go to my doctor, I’ve got this medical report. I run with it and I say, ‘_Hey, hooray, here I am. I’m sick_.’

[00:13:27] They are the ones who have the final say as to whether my condition is indeed related to the jab or not. Regardless of what I am saying, regardless of what my doctor is saying, they even have a committee, national immunization safety expert committee, and the worst possible people to give us evidence is the experts.

[00:13:49] And yet they are the ones who are supposed to give the ultimate determination as to whether my condition is as a result of the jab or not. So we are caught in a situation where ordinary people are on their own. Till such time that the lawyers, the doctors and the scientists come together and begin to defend the cause of justice.

[00:14:16] Because if we are lawyers and the ultimate in, as far as our being lawyers is not to see justice done, then we’re in the wrong profession. And I will say the same for the doctors and the scientists as well, regardless of the fact that you might see yourself from a position of health, you might see yourself from a position of science.

[00:14:37] If the abuse of medicine and the abuse of science is leading to an injustice, then you are as much responsible for perpetrating crimes against humanity. And this is what is happening right now. How can it be that you expect the ordinary person on the street to establish the causal link? How are they supposed to know that?

[00:15:02] And the amazing thing about this whole scenario is that it’s only after a person has died or a person has claimed that they are injured, that they want to go back and look at their medical records. And then once they look at the medical records, they turn around and say, oh no, no, no, it has comorbidities. It has nothing to do with the jab. But when a person goes and gets the jab, no one says, bring your medical records so that we can establish whether this thing is good for you or not. And they block anything to do with informed consent. So this whole aspect of causation has to be challenged from a legal perspective, for the purposes of advancing justice in the name of the people.

[00:15:51] There is no way that we can allow for claimants to have to prove the medicine and the science behind their medical conditions as a result of a medical intervention, which many did not even need.

[00:16:10] As we speak right now. We have a scenario. I spoke about an unholy alliance. The unholiest, most evil alliance that we have right now is between government and the private sector.

[00:16:23] The employers have been given a green pass. They have been given basically a get out of jail card. On the basis that they can push for their employees to take a jab. If the employees refuse, they have been given basically a passport by which to get rid of them on grounds of insubordination or incapacitation.

[00:16:51] But if an employee agrees to take the jab and gets injured as a result of the jab, the employer, according to the government is free of any liability they owe the employee nothing. That is why you find that as much as we can give out, as we have been giving out the notices of liabilities, the cease and desist. The reason why these employers are behaving in the manner that they are doing is because they believe they have the protection that they need from government.

[00:17:28] And because government has basically said they will not be affected. You find that in South Africa, even the workman’s compensation fund has now been structured in such a manner that people who take the jab as a result of pressure from the employers may be compensated through that fund.

[00:17:50] But that fund was never designed for that. It is now being tailored in that way, because governments are aware that there is no law that gives them the authority to mandate the vaccination of anyone. The more so using these experimental jabs. So they’re now saying, employers can use the internal purposes and their internal policies for that particular purpose.

[00:18:18] Now they are the ones who are now running ahead of government and doing the dirty jobs for government. CEOs have become the lap dogs of government for the advancement of the interest of government and protecting the profits of the pharmaceutical industries. And the ordinary people are being shut out from justice, because they are being asked to prove what everyone knows they are not capable of proving. Regardless of the fact that I have been exposed academical in the manner that I’ve been exposed. I cannot prove the causal link between a jab and my health if I were to take a jab and suffer an adverse reaction.

[00:19:01] What more for the people who this system has kept out of any exposure to academics.

[00:19:10] People who basically have been caught in a scenario where they have believed the lie that government is there for their own good, whilst government knows that it thrives on the killing of these same people. Whilst government knows that the manner in which it is advancing this whole COVID thing is designed at taking advantage of the ordinary people.

[00:19:40] We have an obligation by virtue of the fact that we have been exposed academically to the different fields that we’ve been exposed to, places an obligation upon each and every one of us as individuals and as a collective, to protect those who need protection the most.

[00:20:02] I will close it off by saying this whole approach of calling upon the people to prove causation definitely cannot be allowed to continue. And we cannot sit back as though we cannot see, because we can see, and we can understand. And I applaud the World Council for Health for putting up this vaccine causation conference. And we use the word vaccine very guardedly, because we know for a fact that this thing is not a vaccine. But because this is the word that people relate to, we are forced to have to use the word so that we can come to the same level as themselves. But otherwise the truth of the matter is that it is not a vaccine. And here in South Africa, when you even look at the regulations that speak to this vaccination scheme, so-called they very sneakily say when I’m talking about a vaccine, it has to be registered or approved by SAPRA or approved by the South African government, because they know for a fact that they don’t have anything registered.

[00:21:26] J and J has been conditionally registered. Pfizer is not registered, but they run around and tell people that there is a vaccine knowing indeed that they are lying to the people. Knowing indeed that over and above calling it flawed.

[00:21:41] Dr. Edeling for me, I will take it to be a politically correct way of actually addressing the fact that it’s a fraud. When you mentioned it and you say yet you talk about the corruption? I fully agree with you. This is just all a corrupt exercise, which is covering serious fraud that we need to take up. We need to challenge these people criminally.

[00:22:09] Thank you very much.

[00:22:11] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Advocate Sabelo Sibanda with a superb presentation there, and there are so many comments, commending you from WG. Mr. Sibanda thank you for the most significant and invaluable contribution, simply in my view. Superb. And so simply put. So Sabelo, I’m going to ask you to have a look at the comments a little later on, but we do have a couple of minutes before we begin at the next session, which is medical practice.

[00:22:40] And there we have Dr EV Rapiti, Dr Shakara Chetty, Prof Arne Burkhardt and Dr Ryan Cole. And before I turn the mic to my colleague, Charles Kovess for Q and A, because we have some time I want to engage on the topic of fraud and I’d like to bring Dr. Edeling into the conversation, Dr. Edeling, you would have heard Sabelo’s impressions and law based arguments for why these are not flawed, but fraud referring to these studies, your response,

[00:23:12] Herman Edeling: Of course, Shabnam. You must decide whether I’m talking with my professional medical legal head or my citizen of the Republic of South Africa head. Because with a latter, I can say many things that I can’t say with the former. And I was trying to stick to the former. In other words, to only say things here that I will say in court and that I would defend under cross examination.

[00:23:38] But yes, I absolutely agree with Sabelo.

[00:23:41] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: You agree. Let me rephrase before you launch into substantiating your agreement. What is a fraudulent study?

[00:23:51] Herman Edeling: Let’s go to the new England journal of medicine that studied miscarriages in pregnancy with a Pfizer vaccination? The outcome of the study was that there is no signal for an increased risk of miscarriages in the first trimester. That was what the authors concluded and the way they did it they took that of everybody in the study. There were so many miscarriages in the first trimester and that percentage – that number compared to the whole percentage of the people in the study, was a very similar percent. It’s something like 15%, which is more or less close to the natural rate of miscarriages in pregnancies in the first trimester.

[00:24:37] But they corrupted their data because when somebody else went and looked at that data, they found that only a small number of participants got their vaccination in the first trimester. Whereas 80% or more of the participants only got their vaccination in the third trimester.

[00:24:56] So for that 80%, they were not exposed to the risk of vaccine induced miscarriage in the first trimester because they only got it afterwards. And then if you counted the number of miscarriages compared to the number of participants, who got their vaccination in the first trimester, it was something like an 80% risk of miscarriage.

[00:25:17] So where there was an actual, massive risk, 80%. The authors concluded that there was no signal. And that was so dramatic. And that was pointed out luckily people read not just the conclusion but went and studied the data, the raw data in the study and wrote to the editor. And that article had to be retracted and the new England journal of medicine had egg on its face.

[00:25:41] Shabnam to me that is deliberately dishonest. It is dishonest and it is intended to mislead in a way that is harmful to the health of people and which is only beneficial to the commercial interests of the vaccine manufacturers.

[00:25:59] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Sabelo let me draw you back into the conversation based on Dr. Edeling’s response. Share with our audience, many of whom are not lawtivists, or perhaps not yet; the definition, the element of fraud.

[00:26:14] Sabelo Sibanda: One has to make a misrepresentation more particularly within the context of what we’re talking about, knowing full well that it is factually incorrect and someone else, relying on that particular misrepresentation to their own detriment, where in this particular instance, it goes to the extent that the people behind the studies that Dr. Edeling is talking to, deliberately manipulate the results or the procedures so that particular result comes out and the ordinary people rely on those particular results with the belief that they’re actually following something which is authentic, whereas it’s not authentic. So there is the element of the fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the people who are doing this study.

[00:27:10] And some people therefore relying on it and to their own detriment, finding that they are stuck in this situation.

[00:27:18] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Of course the attempts around the world to Institute criminal charges against those scientists in particular who have been responsible for misrepresenting, the facts. I hope that sounds euphemistic and committing fraud, which is what the legal definition is. I do believe there was one such case, there was an attempt to open one type of such case in South Africa.

[00:27:41] Sabelo your thoughts on the prospects of success, opening up charges of fraud against scientists or government officials or anyone really who committed misrepresentation and fraud.

[00:27:51] Sabelo Sibanda: I am honestly believe that our prospects of success are very high. Because thankfully we have, the likes of people like Dr. Edeling, like Dr. Rapiti, Dr. Chetty, Dr. Kat, who can help us to interpret and analyze some of these medical documents and we’ve got people like, um, factory, her son who have done extensive research from a scientific perspective. So they can help us to establish the fraudulent aspects in those reports. Because if I read a scientific study, I will end up with a different conclusion from what someone like factory will end up with for instance.

[00:28:40] But now if he can help to bring out what should be and what isn’t, it’s just like with the PCR test. For some of us to understand that the PCR was the fraud. It is a fraud as compared to what it was being made out to. It’s because factory explained it to me and made and gave me a breakdown of all these different things.

[00:29:01] So like what Dr Edeling was saying earlier about the classes of evidence, the raw data, the basic facts. When we go to court with this basic facts and present them, and we say, this is what is, and this is what they say. And this is the result of what has transpired. We will be able to take this up. And the beautiful thing with South Africa is that we don’t even have to wait for the ICC.

[00:29:30] We don’t have to ask anyone if we can go to the hake and do this, we already have legislation in this country that allows us to be able to take up crimes against humanity, against all the people responsible. Then when you talk about all the people responsible, it’s not just the scientists, we’re talking from the jabber right through to the president who has authorized this whole thing to be where it is now.

[00:29:59] We are aware that he has been informed. Dr. Edeling is one of the people who wrote a letter, addressing all these different issues and all that is ignored. So it basically raises an issue whereby they cannot in any possible defense, get up and say, I did not know. I did not know we’ll be totally meaningless on that day.

[00:30:29] I genuinely believe that our prospects of success are very high. And one of the reasons why we are compelled to have to go down that route is because the civil route will take a very long time. And they’ll try to defend themselves based on these contracts that they signed, which gave immunity to themselves and to everyone else.

[00:30:54] And because of the laws that they have forced through, in the dead of night without public participation, which is supposed to be our constitutional right. One of the things about the South African constitution is that it gives on one hand participatory democracy and representative democracy and participatory democracy basically talks to the South Africans being able to get involved in decisions in as far as laws that are going to affect their wellbeing and their future.

[00:31:28] And that didn’t happen because they knew for a fact that if they do that, they are not going to get away with it. And it’s these acts of criminality that we have to structure put together and get to the courts.

[00:31:42] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you very much for that Sabelo. I want to come back to you in a second, before I turn the mic over to Charles who I’m sure is looking for relevant questions in the Q and A.

[00:31:51] Dr. Edeling the other example of what can be construed and defined as fraud would be the usage of relative risk reduction or R.R.R. As opposed to absolute reduction or A.R.R. Would you agree?

[00:32:05] Herman Edeling: Absolutely and Shabnam, maybe the best known example of that is the fraudulent study of Pfizer on which the FDA gave emergency use authorization.

[00:32:16] Now in that study there were many methodological problems and fraud s. But one of them was the relative risk reduction instead of after just production. And essentially what I understand why that is this, that the risk of getting COVID was a very small risk. And, if you give the vaccine to a million people, those who are not going to get COVID anyway, don’t get any benefit from it.

[00:32:44] The only ones who stand potentially to benefit, are those who would have got COVID. So if you look at the studies where one point something percent of the unvaccinated control arm got COVID. And 0.5% of the vaccinated arm got COVID. If you compare the 1.2% with a 0.5. That’s a relative risk reduction you get the 95 difference.

[00:33:13] Now the figures I’m telling you now are wrong, but that is the principle. So the very small percentage in the vaccinated group, so it’s 95% better than the other very small percentage in the unvaccinated group. Whereas in fact the only people in the whole group of vaccinated people who had a benefit, which was about 0.8% of them didn’t get COVID compared to the other group.

[00:33:42] So if you take the absolute risk reduction, which is the correct measure, and which also by the way, is the measure required by the FDA -is an absolute risk reduction. It would be 0,8% in that study. But instead of that they gave the relative risk reduction, which was 95%. Now another interesting thing about the fraud in that study is that because of the early unblinding and shifting people from group to group, and also because of the tracking of adverse events, they didn’t do it fully on everybody.

[00:34:21] They had different study leaders and when they had adverse events, they could use their discretion as to whether to put it into the study results or not. And then by employing their discretion that’s what eventually got through.

[00:34:36] The Canadian COVID Care Alliance I think their name is, has put out an excellent explanation on that study.

[00:34:43] And from there it’s apparent that even with all the rest of the fraud in that study, if they had actually counted everybody who had adverse reactions, the relative risk reduction wouldn’t have been 95%. It would have been 19%. And that wouldn’t have helped them because the FDA needs at least a 50% risk reduction.

[00:35:04] So on absolute risk reduction, they had 0.8%. On relative risk reduction with all the other fraud they only had 19%. But then they further fraudulently excluded certain cases to come to this ridiculous figure of 95%. And that figure of 95%, I think materially influenced almost every country in the world and most experts and people in the world and the press to say, the reason we say that the Pfizer is effective is because it has a 95% risk reduction. That figure had a material influence I believe on the thinking of everybody in the world. And it was absolute fraud.

[00:35:49] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you Dr. Edeling, comprehensive and concise. I hand over to my colleague, Charles Kovess for Q and A.

[00:35:56] Charles Kovess: Thank you Shabnam. There were two big things that come out of the chat.

[00:36:01] Herman and Sabelo, and it’s these number one: on this question of data. And I’ll give you the example of the tobacco cases, the injuries caused by smoking. Part of the problem with these data that we’re talking about is if we look back, can we learn?… and Sabelo you might have had a look at this as well, but the tobacco industry was held liable based on group data, not individual injury.

[00:36:30] Sabelo you said,’ _No, we can’t prove that this jab caused these damage_,’ but the data, how that is used in group numbers to get the damages.

[00:36:42] The second question is are companies, employers, and farmer indemnified?

[00:36:50] They’ve got indemnity. Are they indemnified for criminal behavior? So we’ve been talking about fraud. If an employer acts criminally in forcing all employees to get jabs are they indemnified? So the first question, what can we learn from the tobacco cases and big data? And secondly, are the government given indemnities valid for crime?

[00:37:14] Sabelo Sibanda: Thank you very much, Charles. Definitely. We can learn a lot from the tobacco cases. It’s almost like in what you have seen in some countries with asbestos where claims related to people who have been affected by asbestosis as a result of asbestos. And they are claims succeeded because of the data that came and was presented. And the people basically put in a group claim so to say. And with the tobacco scenario, we can then a lot.

[00:37:51] This is why is the scenario as it stands right now is seeking to individualize it so that individuals claim as individuals, they don’t want the collective approach. But from a legal perspective for us to be able to advance it will be important that the lessons learned in the tobacco cases, for example, will be that we need to bring together these claims that we have and show the data from a worldwide position. Which is why I was mentioning the fact that it is really amazing, where you have Pfizer manufactured in the USA and people are dying and you find them VAERS in America, confirming that people are dying. And here we are told that no one is died whatsoever.

[00:38:44] So that is one of the reasons why it becomes necessary for us to look at that example. And the advantage that we have now is that there is greater connectivity from different continents and different professionals who can bring this argument to the table.

[00:39:00] So definitely, it is something that we can learn from and use. And it is important that we try as much as we can to avoid individualized attacks as we attack the system. Once we treat it as an individual fighting the system, the likelihood of success is much more limited than a group fight.

[00:39:26] So definitely there is a lot that we can learn from these kind of class actions, for lack of a better word.

[00:39:34] Charles Kovess: We got three minutes before we have to shift just quickly on the tobacco. Do you think there are good lessons to be learned from the tobacco experience from some years ago?

[00:39:46] Herman Edeling: Yes Charles I do. I agree with what Sabelo says. Of course he knows much more about law than I do. To me the interesting corollary is that the globalists and the totalitarians were practicing their trade in the tobacco issues, where they used money and lobbying and political influence to counter the effects of facts and science. They also used that to produce fraudulent, misleading articles in peer reviewed journals.

[00:40:17] A similar thing happened with the sugar industry where the population was given misinformation about sugar so as to promote the financial interests and which was bad for the health of the world’s population.

[00:40:29] So both of those to me where like practice runs for what they are now doing with COVID. And most of those did come to an end. Sense and actual facts and data and science did provail. And I believe in this case, again.

[00:40:44] I just want to add one thing. I don’t totally agree with Sabelo that if he gets a jab adverse event, he can’t prove it. I believe if the court system remains true to the principles of law and the principles of evidence-based medicine, he will be able to prove it. The only reason to me that anybody will not be able to prove jab injury, if it is in fact jab injury and not something else. But when it really is jab injury, I believe the only reason that one can’t prove it in court is either you haven’t done your homework properly enough with medical experts and lawyers or alternatively, the court is captured by the psychosis of believing the narratives.

[00:41:28] Charles Kovess: And the one minute you have Sabelo for this question.

[00:41:32] Sabelo Sibanda: Dr. Edeling is correct from a professional perspective, but from an ordinary person on the street who cannot access the lawyers and the doctors, those are the ones who live with difficulty proving it.

[00:41:43] In a nutshell the issue of exemption criminally, no, they are not exempt criminally. They are only exempted in as far as civil claims are concerned. From a criminal perspective those are straight common law offenses and we are going to nail them in that regard.

[00:42:05] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thanks very much colleagues. So there were two more questions which I asked Sabelo and Dr Edeling to please engage. We’re going to move on swiftly because in our next session, our first peak as another interview coming up and those two questions from James in bong, how can the adverse inference systems will be used including causation?

[00:42:24] The second question from Christoff Plothe how can we legally challenge the lack of liabilities? So gentlemen, if you can have a look at those two questions, I think they’re in the chat, not in the Q and A. That would be very helpful. And just to round up by saying South Africa has over 40% unemployment with over 70% of our young people unemployed. The possibility of the vaccine injured being able to pay for autopsies to prove causation, is in itself a burden that will not be able to be attained.

[00:42:57] And perhaps what is instructive in helping us to prove causation is the legal principle of ‘but for.’ But for that injection, would that outcome have happened and the other would be temporal causation. How close to the jab did that adverse effect actually happen. Thank you very much, gentlemen, you’ve been brilliant.

[00:43:17] Please have a look at those two excellent questions and I hope you’ll stick around to engage further. The chat is brilliant. Lots of interesting and useful information coming out. So thank you for everyone for being a part and participating in the understanding vaccine causation, number one.

[00:43:34]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

One Comment