Skip to main content

Novak Djokovic and his stand against mandatory vaccines: will it help turn the tide against mandates now and in the future

  • Teaser: Novak Djokovic: Hero or Villain. You decide

Novak Djokovic and his stand against mandatory vaccines: will it help turn the tide against mandates now and in the future

As nearly the whole world knows, Novak Djokovic was kicked out of Australia for not being vaccinated. He had applied to Tennis Australia and the government of Victoria for an exemption to the vaccine mandate to play in the Australian Tennis Open, based on his having had covid already, in fact two times, and their published criteria for exemption. His case was taken before the panel adjudicating (without them knowing who it was as all cases were analyzed anonymously) and his case was accepted. He could go!! He had conformed to the accepted criteria established in Australia by the requisite bodies. However, as soon as he announced in the social media that he was going, a huge furor was unleashed in Australia and around the world. Why was he an exception? When so many made sacrifices, why should he be allowed to go, people said, forgetting that he simply went through the procedure that was already in place.

So the Federal Government of Scott Morrison stepped in and when Novak arrived, he was detained and before he even had an opportunity to consult with his lawyers or team, was put into an infamous detention center. We know what happened then. His lawyers appealed, an initial panel agreed with his lawyers, he was released but after 2 days or so, was re-detained (as it seemed the national government had felt the winds of public opinion were in their favour). Another judge then reviewed the case and agreed with the government. Novak could not play as he was unvaccinated. It was clear though and the government admitted this, that the main reason was that his cause would detract from the government’s agenda to vaccinate everybody and Novak playing would distract from their goals as well as interfering with the tournament itself, having Novak act as a lightning rod of bad publicity. Novak and his lawyers disagreed but chose not to appeal.

In an article by Russell Fuller on the BBC on February 15th entitled: Novak Djokovic's vaccine stance underlines his determination, however misguided you may think he is, based on an interview with Novak, he quotes a previous article by Fergus Walsh who said that – “after Novak says that he still needs more information on the vaccine, Walsh says ‘it’s hard to know what more information Djokovic wants’ and Walsh said that ‘he continuously talks about the vaccine – there are multiple types of vaccines.’” Well, yes, Mr Walsh, there are many types of vaccines, but the majority of people have got the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, or the AstraZeneca one in the UK. There is no need to distinguish between them really and anyway, ALL the vaccines are still in experimental phase until around 2023. Nothing is fixed. At least the BBC article said one must give grudging respect to Novak for his determination, “even if he is misguided”. What the article shows though, based on the interview he gave to the BBC is that Novak is simply not willing to take the chance with the vaccine, even if it means he loses his number one spot as top male player and loses opportunities to win more grand slams. At least this is being recognized by some people as a serious decision for someone who has committed so much to his career.

What would seem incredulous in “life before covid”, is in not waiting until drug trials are formally completed before full authorization is given and any basic declaration of safety and efficacy being ensured in randomized double-blind trials, the declared gold standard of research, which has been basically ignored in the rush to get these new “vaccines” out. Walsh’s facile comment about why Novak would want more information on a novel experimental new drug therapy that, even according to figures available, has seen more side effects and deaths than all other vaccines before it, and where it is now openly admitted doesn’t even act like a vaccine, as it doesn’t prevent infection and the spreading of the virus. On top of that, we have all the “coincidental” images of sports players collapsing on the pitch/court, some dying right now. Of course, it will be argued that this has nothing to do with the vaccine and that these things always happen. They don’t! And young healthy children and young adults don’t get myocarditis in the numbers being seen. If the vaccine is so safe, then why can’t we know what the secret ingredients are in the Pfizer drug that they are not revealing.

What has been conveniently forgotten or not even known is that Pfizer’s initial research that was used by the FDA to justify Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was flawed from the beginning. It did not show any of the efficacy and safety needed to authorize it. It was simply pushed through by a corrupt process. This is most clearly elucidated in the video and pdfs of the site. This site is one of many with a wealth of scientific research and analysis that really reveals what is going on. To put it bluntly, Pfizer fudged it and the world’s health bodies turned a blind eye and let it go by. This is also excellently documented in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert Kennedy Jr. This book is essential reading to understand the role of Fauci as a central figure in the way U.S. bodies such as the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) work. RFK Jr is an important voice in the so-called “anti-vaxxer” movement and regularly demonized by “pro-vaxxer” fanatics and their government cronies. He just happens to be an experienced lawyer and activist who has a team of researchers behind him to address the situation we are in and hold governments to account.

It is worth quoting briefly from RFK Jr’s book – “Far more people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group during Pfizer’s clinical trial”. In the final report of Pfizer after only six months of the trial, the study was then unblinded, meaning there was no longer any control group to measure and compare the impact of the vaccine. To quote from the book again, “Pfizer won FDA’s approval despite the rather pathetic showing that it’s vaccine might prevent one covid death in every 22,000 thousand vaccine recipients.” What Pfizer did was fudge the math, making their claim to 100% efficacy by analyzing “relative risk” and not “absolute risk.” In the six-month trial, two people in the placebo group numbering 22,000 and only one in the similarly sized vaccine group died from COVID. Hence the figure of 100% efficacy against death. This makes no sense, yet was ignored or willfully avoided scrutiny. Another way to look at it therefore is to say that we need to vaccinate 22,000 people to save maybe one life. Also, the figure of 1/22,000 makes any possibility of stopping the transmission the virus impossible. “Because the clinical trial showed that vaccines reduce ‘absolute risk’ (not relative) less than 1 percent those vaccines can’t possibly influence epidemic curves.” But it gets worse than this. “The trial showed a five-fold increase in fatal cardiac arrests and congestive heart failures in vaccinated individuals (5/22,000). Pfizer and its regulatory magician, Dr Fauci, used smokes and mirrors to divert public attention from this all-important question of all-cause mortality.” RFK Jr then discusses the importance of “all-cause mortality”, which would evaluate whether vaccinated people enjoy better outcomes and longer lives than the unvaccinated. This was not shown in the six-month trial and further, according to the book, “Pfizer was so alarmed by the total number of deaths in its vaccine cohort, that it omitted five of them from its report (table S4) and only disclosed them in fine print buried in the body of the report. That means there were 42.8% more deaths in the vaccine than in the placebo groups. “Researchers should have been attributing all injuries and deaths amongst the study group during clinical trials to the intervention (the vaccine) unless proven otherwise.”

We are now told relentlessly that the vaccine has saved millions of lives? How do we know when there is no control and no real analysis of the side effects of the vaccine? The USA attempts to monitor vaccine effects through its VAERS programme, the UK through its MHRA yellow card and the EU through its Eudravigilance programme. None of them are very good and it’s estimated that only 1/10 of cases are recorded. In the USA, a report by Harvard University some years ago, said only 1/100 cases are recorded by VAERS, which by the way, has now recorded over 23,000 deaths from the Covid vaccine, which could mean at a conservative account, that 230,000 have actually died. What is very possible is this: The vaccine is only working marginally in vulnerable people for between 3-6 months. Israel’s figures seem to show this which is why they are on the 4th booster, even as cases rise. The vaccine is maiming and killing so many more people than being acknowledged. Younger, healthy people, who are at very little risk of dying or becoming sick even with COVID are having serious side effects, including heart disease. Children from 5 years up are now being vaccinated when they have zero risk of getting sick and it’s admitted that they don’t spread the virus any more than vaccinated people, yet in many countries they are still forced to wear masks. Plans are being implemented to make the Covid vaccine mandatory for entry to school for over five-year-olds.

In most countries, there is simply no measurement of the side effects of the vaccines. Records are not kept and if they are, doctors are very reluctant to participate and actively deny the link of any illness to the vaccines. Ordinary people have to navigate the various systems of evaluation, if they are available at all. The complicity of denial is potentially huge and therefore getting the real facts of vaccine damage is very hard. Most countries don’t even have any mechanism to evaluate side effects. Furthermore, insurance companies, at least in France, but likely in the USA are denying life insurance from those who die from the vaccine, saying the risks were known and attributing it to suicide. In other words, it’s their own fault as they “chose” to take the vaccine. This is true.

Given the fact that there is really no way of knowing the degree of side effects and any figures given of the benefits of the vaccines are pure speculation as there is no control to compare it with, compounded by the fact that Pfizer’s research showed little efficacy but potentially serious damage, then one can sympathize with Novak Djokovic’s position. An extremely healthy person, who obviously looks after his body, has way more to lose by risking his life and career with any of the Covid vaccines than in not taking it. He’s already had covid. He has immunity. Why would he therefore take the vaccine? It doesn’t even benefit the community as a rationale as the vaccinated spread it as much as the non-vaccinated. This serious research in The Lancet stated this clearly. Both vaccinated and non-vaccinated spread the virus in a similar manner. The vaccine therefore can only possibly protect the individual, not the community. However, given his position as the world’s top male tennis player, he does have a lot to lose by going against the narrative, especially when there are clear plans to make the Covid vaccine an annual vaccine, just like the flu. Pfizer and others are not going to let this gravy train of money disappear too soon.

But good for Novak for standing his ground against the collective insanity around him and the legacy media that just love to criticize him and anyone in a public position that dares question the narrative.