While the decision by Standard Bank to retract its vax mandate for employees indicates some progress away from the flawed narrative on so-called vaccines, the reasoning of the medical experts on whose advice the Bank acted shows the extent to which science has been corrupted.
In terms of section 12 (2) of our constitution, Standard had no right to require employees to subject themselves to a drug which is untested and which is not certified to produce immunity.
But it is sad that the opinions of Professors Thumbi Ndung’u of the Africa Health Institute and Yunus Moosa of UKZN, both cited as experts (The Mercury, July 13), do not reflect the dire impact that the jabs are producing. How can they maintain that the jab “remains the best defence against Covid” when the evidence against that opinion is irrefutable?
In every country where the majority of the population was subjected to Covid vaccinations, cases of re-infection are rife. Not only are unprecedented cases of blood clots, inflammation of vital organs and miscarriages occurring, but also sudden deaths among a range of previously healthy people. Data compiled before 2021 makes it clear that the so-called vaccines are the cause of this catastrophe.
Whilst the abilities of Professors Ndung’u and Moosa are unquestioned, it would appear that for reasons of funding they are obliged to hew to a narrative which is not of their making. Medical research in South Africa enjoys substantial overseas funding which obviously comes with terms and conditions.
The Africa Health research Institute receives funding from the US via the Wellcome Trust which was incorporated into GlaxoSmith Kline in 1995. It also receives aid from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute of Maryland. Both organisations are part of the US scientific and financial establishment which determines the narrative to be pursued. UKZN Medical School derives funding through the SA Medical Research Council which is partnered with funding from Sweden and the US.
GlaxoSmith Kline, like the rest of Big Pharma, is heavily invested in promoting the mRNA jab, so not surprisingly those who depend on their funding have to adhere to their narrative. Of course, for decades doctors have been promoting all sorts of medical solutions at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.
The difference, however, is that the promotion of the jab is clearly not scientific and is proven to be health and life threatening. To ignore that reality is a severe blot on professional integrity.