History will not judge Discovery kindly – NEASA

At the beginning of January, Discovery regurgitated its unfettered stance in respect of the COVID-19 vaccines, stating, “There’s extensive evidence-based research, of a high standard, that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” Discovery’s entire response to a request from BizNews amidst increasing reports, some even reaching mainstream media, of deaths and adverse events resulting from the mRNA vaccines was published on BizNews.com. NEASA, which fought hard against the mandatory vaccination policies instituted in South Africa – a trend initiated confidently by Discovery – released this statement demanding answers from both Discovery and the SA Government regarding their COVID-19 response and overreach. – Nadya Swart

NEASA demands answers from Discovery and Government regarding COVID-19 response and overreach

By Gerhard Papenfus

The South African Government’s destructive response to Covid-19, among others the introduction of a medical product under development (sold to the public as a traditional ‘vaccine’), and the forcing of people to subject themselves to this treatment through Government’s Covid-19 mandatory workplace ‘vaccine’ policies, caused havoc in the labour market. 

NEASA’s responsibility in respect of this matter stems from its obligation to protect the interests of businesses and, consequently, that of their employees. Throughout this period, NEASA advised employers to steer clear from forcing their employees to subject themselves to this experimental ‘medical product’. NEASA is currently challenging Government’s mandatory workplace Covid-19 policies in the High Court.

In June 2022, NEASA was invited to participate in a public debate regarding the issue of mandatory vaccination. Two highly senior staff members of Discovery were also involved, including the head of Discovery’s Centre for Clinical Excellence. 

The reason for singling out Discovery in this article, is their claim made during this public debate that they played a leading role in the establishment of Government’s mandatory workplace Covid-19 policies. During this debate, the Discovery officials made a number of public statements which resulted in subsequent written engagements between NEASA and Discovery. The content of these engagements, except for one particular point, is not under discussion herein.

The issue of significant concern lies in Discovery’s response to a request by NEASA for more information, following Discovery’s public claim that the ‘vaccines’ are “safe and effective”. The eventual response by Discovery was, at best, disappointing. In actual fact, the inherent shortfalls of Discovery’s response were deeply concerning. For instance, a document provided by Discovery to prove their claim of the ‘vaccines’ being “safe and effective”, actually shows the contrary and indicates that safety concerns were raised as early as 2008. A further review published in 2018 warned of systematic reactions, auto-immunity, clotting, brain edema and abnormal thrombi as main concerns to be added to more recent reports of cardiovascular events related to mRNA ‘vaccines’.

The warnings listed in Discovery’s own reference appear to have accurately predicted the types of adverse events that are being reported in various adverse event reporting systems, such as VAERS. What is of concern, is that none of the references cited by Discovery could prove safety or efficacy in a scientifically responsible manner. One would expect public statements to be backed with sound scientific evidence, especially from an organisation of this stature.

A risk assessment compiled by NEASA’s advisors indicated, based on the very same government sources that Discovery cited, that the benefit-risk ratio does not warrant any mandates whatsoever. NEASA requested a similar risk assessment from Discovery, but such an assessment has not been provided to date, making it perfectly reasonable to assume that it had not been done.

Towards the end of 2022, Discovery issued a media statement in which they reported that, in the wake of Covid-19, there had been a spike in deaths caused by heart- and nervous system disorders among its client base. Discovery also indicated that claims related to these conditions have more than tripled since 2020, and that a 200% increase was recorded in the last year.

At the time, Discovery attributed this new trend to mainly “long Covid”, as according to Discovery, “international studies suggest” that “long Covid” raises the risk of heart attack and strokes because it increases blood clotting. While this is not impossible, a host of other underlying causes was not considered or investigated before this public statement was made.

In fact, Discovery did not demonstrate any concern that these heart conditions and deaths may possibly be attributed to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’. As recently as January 2023, Discovery comprehensively responded to previous articles published by BizNews, and once again insisted that the vaccine is “safe and effective”. No alternative scientific result was presented in their official response to our requests, notwithstanding more than 1200 credible scientific studies that provide sufficient evidence of Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ adverse events. 

In an extraordinary turn of events, the US FDA and CDC (who have until now denied and suppressed any negative narrative or scientific evidence regarding the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’), in January, belatedly reported “early” signals of possible Pfizer bivalent Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ links to strokes in older adults. 

How does Discovery explain the more than 1600 athletes who, during the course of 2021/22 inexplicably collapsed due to cardiac events, of whom 1148 actually died? There is sufficient evidence that myocarditis in younger persons, at this point in time, has resulted in a number of highly respected cardiologists calling for the suspension of Covid-19 vaccinations. Has Discovery investigated this? Do the medical treatments of the previous two years in any way or means raise a concern at Discovery that an actual risk may be evident?

Either way, history will not judge them kindly when the safety signals become alarms, as is the current growing trend.

It may take some time, but the day will certainly come when the fading Covid-19 narrative, and Government’s incompetent and potentially corrupt response thereto, will be exposed. It pays in many ways to be objective and cautious when working with human lives and medical experiments.

Medical experimentation and bodily integrity have been so important historically that these principles were embedded in our Constitution. Let us not forget: we have to regard the lives of our employers and employees as precious under all circumstances.

  • Gerhard Papenfus is the Chief Executive of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA).

Read Also: