Health

Censorship Overdrive: NEJM BAN Robert Malone’s IP Address!

The medical establishment must be getting utterly desperate. The New England Journal of Medicine, no less, have now taken the bizarre step of actually banning Robert Malone’s IP address so he can’t read their publications! To take such a desperate (and obviously ineffective) token measure, they must feel very threatened by Robert Malone and his brave colleagues who have, in a minority, elected to stand against the increasingly obvious corruption in the medical and scientific profession, in collusion with big Pharma companies, governments and the main stream media who are pushing very hard to try to enforce one narrative on the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ and its alleged ‘solution’.

Apart from the petty and absurd attempts by ‘respected’ scientific journals to restrict access by dissenting scientists, Robet Malone identifies the real problem:

Peter McCullough, a physician colleague of Robert Malone, has also suffered similar attempts to shut him up, but he’s having none of it. This talk by him is simply brilliant.

https://rumble.com/vnbv86-winning-the-war-against-therapeutic-nihilism-and-trusted-treatments-vs-unte.html

‘Non Urgent’ NIH Study Investigating Potential Impact of ‘Vaccines’ on Women’s Periods to Include Transgenders Taking Male hormones

I’ve written previously with regard to the large number of women reporting quite drastic changes to their periods following administration of the Covid ‘vaccines’. It appears to be quite a significant problem, which, considering the close link between menstruation and fertility and women’s overall health in general, is worthy, in my opinion, of urgent further investigation; nay, actually it was worthy of urgent investigation before they just dished out these ‘vaccines’ to healthy young women, even pregnant women, who are at little risk of severe Covid symptoms. So what do we get from the US National Institute of Health? A ‘non urgent’ investigation which bizarrely includes female to male transgender individuals who are taking large doses of male hormones!

The National Institutes of Health has announced a $1.67 million study to investigate reports that suggest the COVID-19 vaccine may come with an unexpected impact on reproductive health.

It’s been a little over six months since the three COVID-19 vaccines in the US — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — became widely available to all adults. But even in the early days of vaccine rollout, some women were noticing irregular periods following their shots, as reported first by the Lily in April.

Shana Clauson, 45, spoke to the Washington Post’s women’s news site at the time, and again this week, about her experience after getting the jab — revealing that her period arrived earlier and heavier than what she considers normal. She was one of many who gathered on social media to share what they were seeing.

“Is this not being discussed, or is it even being looked at or researched because it’s a ‘woman’s issue?’ ” Clauson speculated to the Lily last spring.

It would appear that the NIH heard Clauson and others’ reports, as they announced on Aug. 30 that they intended to embark on just such research — aiming to incorporate up to half a million participants, including teens and transgender and nonbinary people.

Researchers at Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health and Science University have been enlisted to embark on the study, commissioned by the NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Office of Research on Women’s Health.

That’s big of them isn’t it? They’re even going to include transgender and non binary ‘people’ as well as politically incorrect to mention women. So inclusive of them.

The approximately yearlong study will follow initially unvaccinated participants to observe changes that occur following each dose. More specifically, some groups will exclude participants on birth control or gender-affirming hormones, which may have their own impact on periods.

Some groups? Why not all groups? Does it not seem fairly obvious that if you want to investigate the possible influence of the ‘vaccines’ only on the menstrual cycles of women, then you include only normally menstruating, healthy women, not those taking contraceptive pills, and certainly not those receiving massive doses of male hormones as part of gender reassigment, both of which can seriously affect periods? These will only serve to cloud the results. You don’t need these groups at all. But, but, diversity, inclusion! Would it surprise me in the least if, in deference to the rainbow-hued God of Diversity, they also included male to female transgenders who don’t menstruate at all on account of the fact that they don’t have ovaries or a uterus? No, it would not! They would argue in that case that the ‘vaccines’ had no effect whatsoever on the menstrual cycles of these women! Science, innit?

The Mail reports:

Now, the federal health agency has distributed one-year supplemental grants totaling $1.67 million to Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, Michigan State University and Oregon Health and Science University. 

The five studies will likely recruit between 400,000 and 500,000 participants, including adolescents, transgender women and nonbinary people, Dr Diana Bianchi, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told The Washington Post.  

So it looks like different universities will study different groups of ‘menstruating people’, in the words of Bianchi.

It just gets worse:

“Our goal is to provide menstruating people with information, mainly as to what to expect, because I think that was the biggest issue: Nobody expected it to affect the menstrual system, because the information wasn’t being collected in the early vaccine studies,” said NICHD director Diana Bianchi in a statement to the Lily — reportedly crediting their early coverage for helping to make the NIH aware.

‘Nobody expected’? Is that their justification for doing a post hoc study after administering these ‘vaccines’ to millions of unsuspecting women assured at the time that they were ‘safe and effective’. Bloody hell! This is what now passes for ‘science’ and medical ethics? And ‘menstruating people’? What is so wrong with saying women? Biological women are the only human beings on the planet who menstruate and the concern should be solely with normal, healthy menstruating and recently menopausal women (yes, there have also been reports of post menopausal women experiencing periods!), not subjects who will likely be experiencing significant interruptions to their periods due to other (totally unrelated) issues.

But it gets even worse than that. The NIH boldly claims (without evidence) that the ‘vaccines’ do not affect fertility and that investigating their potential effect upon menstruation is hardly a “life and death” issue! Say what? If an unborn child dies in the womb, then I think that is a life or death issue, don’t you? For the child certainly, but also potentially for the grieving mother.

It’s also worth noting the vaccine does not cause infertility and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the shot even for pregnant women.

As changes to the menstrual cycle are “really not a life and death issue,” explained Bianchi, the Food and Drug Administration — fast-tracking their work — prioritized only the most critical risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Then Bianchi pulls the cat out of the bag, giving away the real reason why they have grudgingly and belatedly, ‘rushed through’ what is essentially a ‘non-urgent’ study into the effects of the experimental ‘vaccines’ on a key indicator of the reproductive health of women:

The NIH, too, pulled together the initiative at breakneck speed. Funding for such a study would typically take years to see approval.

“We were worried this was contributing to vaccine hesitancy in reproductive-age women,” said Bianchi.

Sickening. And misogynistic.

The Queen Shows Her “Heartfelt Appreciation” To The NHS For Slapping A DNR Order On The Dragon

Her Majesty the Queen has bestowed the George Cross upon the entire NHS.

Blanket DNRs on the elderly, vulnerable and disabled suffering Covid infection is not the only ‘courageous and compassionate’ thing the NHS has done this year of course. We should also recognise their unerring dedication to harass, coerce and misinform millions of healthy people to get a dangerous, toxic experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only in violation of the Nuremberg Code principles of informed consent when there is demonstrably no ’emergency’. Not forgetting also their willful refusal to treat millions of people suffering serious and life threatening non-Covid conditions over the past 15 months, the effective termination of in person GP services and the absolutely disgusting and callous refusal to allow relatives to be with their dying loved ones in hospital.

Poor Mike Yardley is going to be extra fuming when he learns of this news, after having been injected with AZ by the NHS when he specifically made a point of informing them of his clotting history at the time of the injection, a history which they should already have been aware of anyway. The nurse waived away his concerns of course and jabbed him anyway, ignoring his pleas for a scan for a clot for 3 months afterwards. Now he’s permanently disabled. The kind of ‘service’ worthy of the George Cross in Pol Pot Belly’s FUBAR Britain, it would seem.

Neil Oliver: “Leave The Children Alone”

I’ve been saying for quite some time that, as a society, we have thrown our children under the bus for Covid. First we locked them up at home and deprived them of schooling, leisure activities and much needed social contact with their peers and other adults. Many have suffered grievously as a result. Then we bizarrely, absurdly, insanely, shockingly, demanded that they wear useless masks in lessons, supposedly in order to ‘protect’ bed-wetting teachers, whipped up into a frenzy of self-righteous and selfish indulgence by the actions of the government and their own unions. This despite the documented psychological, social and physical harms of doing so. As a society, we tolerated this outrage. We also demanded that they be subjected to a punishing regime of having a swab shoved up their nose or down their throat every few days in order to demonstrate that they were not ‘infected’ with a disease which they were not suffering from! If they were ‘infected’ (very likely a false positive) then they and their peers were sent home to isolate for 10 days as punishment. Why? Why as a society have we tolerated such an outrageous and cruel abuse of our children?

Thus it became obvious very early on that we might also eventually tolerate the ultimate abuse of our kids – subjecting them to dangerous clinical experimentation for no proven public health benefit and certainly for zero clinical benefit. The government and Big Pharma have been salivating at the prospect of doing so for some months now. It was just one small step from the masks and the testing. But one ‘small’ step too far for Neil Oliver and I hope many others. If we lose this fight against getting kids jabbed, then we have lost our society and more importantly, our humanity. It must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances whatsoever.

Update 4th July

This is a ghastly new low for Twitter, who have now labelled this tweet by GB News as ‘misleading’, insisting that the jab is recommended for ‘most people’. Utterly demonic and disgusting beyond belief; the blatant censoring of heartfelt and genuine concern for the welfare of children. Time to get off Twitter and to assist taking down Big Tech and its evil stranglehold on ‘information’.

Letter to Sir Simon Stevens, CEO, NHS England From Suspended GP’s Solicitor

This is quite frankly devastating. The government and the NHS might think they are untouchable but they cannot walk away from these extremely serious allegations of misconduct and breach of public duty, which may indeed amount to criminal offences. Here is the letter in full, which should, if we lived in a free, fair and open society, be published in all the main newspapers and main stream media outlets, especially the BBC. But we don’t.

Sir Simon Stevens
Chief Executive Officer
NHS England
2 July 2021
Dear Mr Stevens
Re: My Client: Dr Sam White
I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.
Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.
Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.
The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing.
What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.
My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended.

My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.
All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.

The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person. The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client.
It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.
The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.
My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:

The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.

That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.
My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head.
Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.
The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must.
I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.
3
I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.
The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.
The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.
The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:

HM Government.

The Executive Board of the NHS.

SAGE.

Senior public office holders within the civil service.

The Executive Board of the MHRA.
In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations.
The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study. A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body.
I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.
4
To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes.
The Vaccination Roll Out:
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:

To do no harm.

To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery.
Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent.

That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.1

Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments.2

That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.
The Montgomery principles are in line with Article 6 of the Unesco Declaration of Bio-Ethics and Human Rights, the right to decline any medical treatment without being penalised is enshrined in International Law.3
1 Per Lord Justice Simon in Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62
2 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
3 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
5
Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.
At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.
Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:
The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information to the public has been the following:

The Daily Press Conferences.

The NHS badged advertisements.

The Patient Information Leaflet.
The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:

The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.

The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.

The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.

The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.

The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.

The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.

The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.
Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry. Public Office Holders should
6
act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.
Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry.4
It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 5 in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna6, one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein.7
Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.
The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation.8
Finally the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts9 over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.
When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.
4 https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sages-covert-coup
5 https://tinyurl.com/c89nke49
6 https://www.modernatx.com/ecosystem/strategic-collaborators/foundations-advancing-mRNA-science-and-research
7 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html
8 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for-collaboration-with-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-the-world-health-organisation
9 https://www.prweek.com/article/1700784/hancock-faces-questions-luther-pendragon-shareholder-hired-advisory-role
7
The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.
How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses?10
How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?
Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.
If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available. Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem. The Officials should level with the public.
It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route. Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.
Taking each risk in turn:
The material risk of being infected:
10 https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles
8

The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.

That information does not differentiate between:
a. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
b. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.

The principal diagnosis tools have been:
a. The lateral flow test.
b. The PCR test.

Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.

The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.

The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. 11 The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.

Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness.12

Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. 13

The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
11 https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE
13 https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tiktok-fake-covid-positive-test-schools-1079693
9

The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection.14

The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.

The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.

The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice.15

The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.

There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.16
The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:

The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.

That information has not differentiated between:
a. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
b. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
c. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.

The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.

In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
14 https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30
15 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
16 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
10

The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are. This has either been intentional or grossly negligent.

Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.

The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.
The material risks of dying from covid:

The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
a. Those dying from covid.
b. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
c. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
d. The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
e. Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.

The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity.17

A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated.18
17 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-not-quietly-updated-covid-19-death-estimates-67902
18 https://www.expatica.com/pt/news/lisbon-court-rules-only-0-9-of-verified-cases-actually-died-of-covid-100196/
11

The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings.19 20

The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.

Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.

The risk is asymmetrical.

The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.

The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.

The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.

The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms21. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.

It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability.22

None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.

Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy.23

Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.

Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.

Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
19 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374291/Scandal-500-care-home-patients-given-DNR-orders-without-consent.html
20 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8514081/Number-prescriptions-drug-midazolam-doubled-height-pandemic.html
21 https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
22 https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
23 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-hails-herculean-effort-of-life-science-companies-to-defeat-coronavirus
12

Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.
The Patient Information Leaflet:
The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.
That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy.24

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
24 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mRNA-20200630.htm
13

By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1%. 25
Advertising of the vaccine:
The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination.
It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.

None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA26. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.

Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 201227 make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.

The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.

The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent
25 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
26 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
27 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/part/11/crossheading/enforcement/made
14
means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent.28

The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.

The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.
Information on Vaccine Passports:

HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. 29

Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.

HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.

A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should be not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.

The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
28 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
29 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9744557/Double-jabbed-Brits-able-travel-quarantine-free-July-26.html
15

Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:

The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.

The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.

It’s called the immune system.

The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.

The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.

Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.

It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years.3031

There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.

It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.

Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.

At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of
30 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23333-3
31 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1
16
it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.

Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.32

Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.

There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.

Those therapeutics are:

Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe.33 34Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.35

HCQ and Zinc.36

Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers37.38

The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
32 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf
33 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx
34 Published Ahead-of-Print : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)
35 https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210506/covid-patient-in-coma-gets-ivermectin-after-court-order
36 https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/
37 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n957
38 https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-12-asthma-drug-budesonide-shortens-recovery-time-non-hospitalised-patients-covid-19
17

There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.

Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.

Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?

My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.

These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?

The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.

The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?
3.Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:

At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.

The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.
18

The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA.39

Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences40

That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.

Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.

The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.41

The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries42. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.

The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.

The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.

A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.

The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.

The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
a. Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.43
b. Bells Palsy.
c. Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
d. Capillary Leak Syndrome.
39 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mRNA-20200630.htm
40 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
41 https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
42 https://regenerativemc.com/biodistribution-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/
43 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
19
e. Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
f. Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
g. Antibody dependant enhancement.

The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.

The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.

It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.

Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.

Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.
My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.
The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.

The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
a. The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
b. The mask is not defined.
c. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged.44
44 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2966/contents/made
20
d. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.45
e. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
i. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
ii. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?
iii. How are those risks best mitigated?
f. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low.46 Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
g. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
h. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
i. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
j. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents.47
k. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. 48
l. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
m. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public.49 50
45 https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/suitability-of-personal-protective-equipment/58160.article
46 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851.full
47 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/425/annex/I/division/3
48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/425/annex/II/division/n1
49
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full
50
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
21
n. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. 51
o. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. 52
p. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
q. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
r. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
s. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
t. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.53
u. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
v. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.
The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly. They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.
How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:
51 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214031X18300809
52 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743
53 https://www.politico.eu/article/free-masks-distributed-by-belgian-government-contain-toxic-articles/
22

Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.

That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.
By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent. Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?
The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.
Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.
Yours sincerely
Philip Hyland
Principal
PJH Law
Solicitors

Great Britain is Now Just a Heartbeat Away from 1930s Germany

I warned that this is where blind compliance with government diktats would take us. We are almost there. The government and the media are actively encouraging the condemnation, the demonisation of those people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to avail themselves of the ‘offer’ of being jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only with now demonstrable serious side effects. If a brainwashed public, still in the grip of fear deliberately generated by SAGE and amplified by the media and the government, take this message seriously, then hell is coming, riding a pale horse. The unvaxxed are going to be outrageously discriminated against at best, violently assaulted and forcibly removed from society at the very worst. The Pandora’s Box is almost open.

The unvaccinated are about to become the ‘unclean Jews’ in 21st Century Britain unless people wake up now to the hideous coercive devices being employed by this government and a complicit media.

Daily Mail Promotes Highly Dubious Claim that the ‘Vaccines’ are Safe for Pregnant Women

Can the press get any lower? Promoting a dubious claim that the ‘vaccines’ are entirely safe, even beneficial for pregnant women. thereby inciting them to put their own health at risk and to risk the death of their unborn child? For what? To supposedly ‘protect’ themselves and their child against a disease which is virtually no threat to them at all? It hardly seems possible, but this is where we are today. The Covid mass vaccination campaign is palpably evil and so are the people promoting it.

I don’t need to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to say this, because the facts speak for themselves. Here is what the Fail says:

Premature birth more likely for pregnant women who catch Covid, studies show

But experts say around one in five pregnant patients are hesitant over getting jab

No evidence to suggest any Covid jab has any effect on pregnancy, say scientists

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy 

The message from health chiefs is clear: Covid-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant women. While a question mark hung over this vital detail earlier on in jab trials, today there is clear data to show there is no risk to mothers-to-be or their unborn children.

It is a major step forwards in the battle against the virus.

And there is even evidence that vaccinating women now may have knock-on benefits for any children they have in the future, too. Since the immunity provided by a Covid vaccine is passed down to the foetus, wide take-up of the jab will eventually lead to a generation of children with in-built resistance.So what is the basis of these bold claims?

Jesus Christ, I can hardly believe I read that last paragraph. ‘Built in resistance’? Against a disease which babies are not vulnerable to? The evil, ugly head of eugenics rises once again.

What is the basis for the bold safety claims made by the Fail? Let us be in no doubt whatsoever. At their introduction, just a few months ago, these ‘vaccines’ had not been tested on pregnant women:

In November, Pfizer became the first company to announce that its vaccine was effective against Covid-19 – but the company also said it hadn’t yet been tested on pregnant women.

This is entirely normal for vaccine trials, says Dr O’Brien, adding: ‘Traditionally, pregnant women are excluded from these studies as a precaution.’

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy. Nonetheless, due to a lack of data, the Government warned expectant women not to have the jab – NHS leaflets circulated at the start of the rollout reiterated this. The effect, experts say, was to entrench worries in a group already naturally cautious about what medicines they take.

Then, in April, suddenly, everything changed and Wanksock went public to advise pregnant women that the jab was safe and they should seriously consider getting it after the JCVI changed its advice to allow pregnant women to book the Pfizer or Moderna jabs following a trial in the US. Here is what the Fail reports about that trial, which allegedly demonstrates that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are ‘safe’ for pregnant women:

“Instead, the JCVI decided to wait for data from America to filter through before making a call.

In early April, that data arrived in the form of a major study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It had tracked the condition of more than 90,000 pregnant women who had received a vaccine, the majority of them in their third trimester.

The CDC was able to report that there were no safety concerns.

Since then, the number of pregnant American women who have had a vaccine has risen to more than 105,000. However, finer data released from within that study set off fresh anxieties.

The CDC closely monitored more than 800 participants. Of that group, 712 had a live birth, while 115 suffered a loss of pregnancy.

This means that roughly one in eight woman who’d been jabbed had lost their baby.

It is a scary thought but, in fact, this is identical to the average rate of pregnancy loss in the population, according to NHS figures.

Armed with this knowledge, on April 16 the JCVI made the recommendation to the Government that pregnant women, along with any planning pregnancy or currently breastfeeding, should be invited for vaccination along with their age and clinical risk group.

However, the recommendation extended only to the Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It did not include the UK’s Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.”

Pay particular attention to the bold. 90,000 women were tracked but only 900 or so were monitored closely and of those, one in eight lost their unborn child. But it’s all OK according to the Fail (and presumably also the NHS, the JCVI and the British government) because this is the same as the rate of spontaneous abortion in the population at large. Right. So, silly me, I went and checked, didn’t I and this is what I found:

Miscarriage accounts for 42,000 hospital admissions  in the UK annually[1].

Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant[1].

85% of spontaneous miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

The risk falls rapidly with advancing gestation[2]:

9.4% at 6 complete weeks of gestation.

4.2% at 7 weeks.

1.5% at 8 weeks.

0.5% at 9 weeks.

0.7 % at 10 weeks.

85% of miscarriages occur in the First Trimester. As the pregnancy term progresses the risk of miscarriage diminishes rapidly. The First Trimester covers weeks 0-13, the Second Trimester 14-26 and the Third Trimester 27-40. Miscarriages don’t even technically occur in the Third Trimester; they are known as stillbirths.

I don’t know where the Fail gets the figure of 90,000 from because I have read the study in question and it only mentions a total of 35,691 participants. It is obvious where their figures of 712 and 115 come from though:

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). 

A ‘completed pregnancy’, contrary to what it suggests, is not a completed pregnancy as such, resulting in a live or tragic still birth, it is a pregnancy which goes either full term or is aborted at an earlier stage. Hence:

For analysis of pregnancy outcomes in the v-safe pregnancy registry, data were restricted to completed pregnancies (i.e., live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth)

Before we go any further though, let’s take a look at what this CDC-run ‘v-safe pregnancy register’ actually is:

V-safe Surveillance System and Pregnancy Registry

V-safe is a new CDC smartphone-based active-surveillance system developed for the Covid-19 vaccination program; enrollment is voluntary. V-safe sends text messages to participants with weblinks to online surveys that assess for adverse reactions and health status during a postvaccination follow-up period. Follow-up continues 12 months after the final dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. During the first week after vaccination with any dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, participants are prompted to report local and systemic signs and symptoms during daily surveys and rank them as mild, moderate, or severe; surveys at all time points assess for events of adverse health effects. If participants indicate that they required medical care at any time point, they are asked to complete a report to the VAERS through active telephone outreach.

In other words, it’s a smartphone app which links to the VAERS reporting system if participants require medical attention for adverse reactions.

To give you an idea of the type of people running this study, they are keen to emphasise ‘pregnant persons’ and people who ‘identify as pregnant’ over the politically incorrect ‘pregnant women’:

Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy.

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons . . . . .

But if you think this sounds pretyy absurd, look at what they say later in the study:

To identify persons who received one or both Covid-19 vaccine doses while pregnant or who became pregnant after Covid-19 vaccination, v-safe surveys include pregnancy questions for persons who do not report their sex as male. Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry.

So at pains are they to avoid using the term women that they resort to describing “persons who do not report their sex as male”! Bloody hell! Who enrols themself in a pregnancy study and puts on the form “I am not male”? If you are pregnant, you are a woman – biological fact. There shouldn’t even be a place on the form for stating whether you are male, female or ‘other’. But there you are. This is a supposedly ‘scientific’ study carried out via a smartphone survey and obviously monitored and analysed by the obsessively woke.

It doesn’t get a lot better when we start examining the actual figures either. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Of those, only 86.5% actually reported themselves as being pregnant at the time of vaccination! I kid you not:

Pregnant at time of vaccination16,522 (85.8)14,365 (87.4)30,887 (86.5)

So nearly 5000 ‘persons’ who identified as preggers didn’t actually say they were pregnant at the time of vaccination! Presumably, these were the ones who also said “I am not male”.

Anyway, it’s not this larger survey that we’re interested in; it’s the smaller V-safe pregnancy register – and a smaller subset of people within that. This is where the figures come from to make the claim that the ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe’ to administer to pregnant women.

As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than 30 days before the last menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility). The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a Covid-19 diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3). Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

So that’s 3958 people who were enrolled, 94% of whom declared themselves as health personnel, 79% of whom were white. Sounds really representative doesn’t it? But this hardly representative small sample shrinks even more when only ‘completed pregnancies’ are considered. There were 827 in total.

Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester.

This last paragraph is basically what the Fail relies upon to claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe on account of the fact that the rate of spontaneous abortions in this small sample of health care workers is approximately the same as that in the unvaxxed population as a whole, before Covid-19. But what it actually says is that in a small sample of vaccinated mainly Caucasian healthcare workers, 12.6% experienced spontaneous abortions and 92.3% of those occurred earlier than 13 weeks into gestation. But if we go back to the the figures above referencing the risk of spontaneous abortion, we see immediately that the majority occur in the period 0-8 weeks into gestation. So without more specific information of just when these spontaneous abortions occurred in the vaccinated women, we can’t say for sure that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, because it may be the case for instance, that most of those spontaneous abortions occurred between 8-13 weeks, in which case they would not reflect the situation in the wider populace.

What we are left with, is a very small sample of highly unrepresentative individuals surveyed over the phone being used to make the sweeping claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe to use in all pregnant women. A study survey which ran only for 2 months and 2 weeks when a full term pregnancy is 9 months. If you’re not white, and you’re not a healthcare worker and you have half a brain, you might be forgiven for thinking that this is not sufficient ‘evidence’ to risk your own health and the life of your unborn child. Even if you fail to qualify for either of the first two categories, but still have at least half a brain, you should also think very carefully before you take the plunge and get unnecessarily ‘vaccinated’ with child on the mere say so of the media, Big Pharma and government ministers and ‘experts’.

US Quackcines Kill Kids

The risk of a child under 15 dying from SARS-CoV-2 is virtually zero, but 4000 children have so far been jabbed in the US according to VAERS data. Of those, 9 have died within 28 days, equating to a ‘vaccine fatality rate’ of 0.22%. So the risk of death from vaccinating children (according to VAERS reports) is much higher than the risk of death from Covid itself. This is just the beginning. This does not include unreported fatalities and it does not include any long term ill health or death resulting from vaccination of children. Why are they doing this? There is no convincing medical or public health reason. It is certainly not to protect children from a disease which they are not vulnerable to.

In September, the UK government is going to start vaccinating children in order to supposedly make schools ‘safe’. The choice will be: you either wear a useless mask for 8 hours a day or you get jabbed with a lethal ‘vaccine’ which you don’t need in order to return to class. Do you see now how blind compliance ends up? The innocent pay the price. Those without a voice pay the price because you chose to obey, with not a murmur of dissent.

‘Climate Emergency’: They’re Coming For Your Pets

‘Environmentalists’ have had their beady green eyes on your pet dogs and cats for years but they’re stepping up the assault now ahead of COP26 and also as they joyously surf the wave of economic and social destruction created by the fake ‘Covid crisis’, insisting that we must #buildbackbetter and #buildbackgreener. That process of ‘building back’ is to include dispensing with pets apparently, because their carbon pawprint is way too high and unacceptable to the High Priests of the Climate Action movement. This is very much an issue close to my heart, having currently two rescue German Shepherds and having spent more than half a lifetime in the company of animals, mainly rescue dogs, so I’ll try not to descend into incoherent ranting and keep to the facts, difficult as it is to resist the urge to verbally abuse these misanthropic, dog-hating, cat-hating freaks. You see, there I go already!

On GMB this morning, they invited Donnachadh McCarthy on to talk about the need to eradicate pets from the face of the planet in order to save wild animals from extinction and the environment from degradation:

‘Donna’, you may – or may not – recall is, according to his Twitter profile:

“Co-founder Stop Killing Cyclists. Author “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Was Bought”. Eco-auditor. Eco-columnist for Independent.”

He’s also followed by Richard Betts, senior ‘climate scientist’ at the UK Meteorological Office, now a prominent advocate of Extinction Rebellion activists’ tactics and an apologist for the mythical ‘climate crisis’. I have no idea if Betts supports the gradual eradication of pets and dogs in order to ‘save the planet’ but the company kept by ‘climate scientists’ in their effort to convince us all that there is in fact a scientifically demonstrable ‘climate emergency’ is increasingly dubious of late.

In the video here, reproduced in The Sun newspaper, credit must be given to Susannah Reid who calls out ‘Donna’ on this issue, rightly pointing out that we, as human beings, also have a carbon footprint and, if we’re going to start getting rid of our pets by ‘not replacing them’ as loved family members, then when do we start getting rid of our kids – and ourselves? It’s one thing giving up an inanimate object like a car – as adored and as absolutely necessary as affordable personal transport is for millions of people – but it’s quite another thing to give up what most people consider a loved family member, albeit that they have four paws and a waggy tail. When Susannah points out that she ‘puts her kids and her pets before the planet’, Donna finds this ‘shocking’. He actually thinks that addressing the so called ‘extinction crisis’ is more important than our allegiance to our companion animals and our own children – who, in his eyes, are just useless, superfluous creators of excess carbon and thus shoud be gradually eliminated, i.e don’t breed and don’t have pets. This is a cold, callous, deeply misanthropic and cruel perspective which is sadly more and more typical of these neo Malthusian climate crisis freaks who think that the final solution to imminent man-made Thermageddon is drastic depopulation, not just of human beings, but their ‘useless eater’ companion animals as well.

Donna says that a Biosciences Journal study published in 2019 demonstrates that “the state of the carbon emissions from the average dog is equivalent to two household’s electricity emissions for a year”. What does this even mean? The study he mentions is probably this one: ‘The Ecological Paw Print of Companion Dogs and Cats’. As far as I can see, it mentions nothing about household electricity emissions. It compares the GHG emissions and “ecological paw print” (EPP) of cats and dogs in Japan, the Netherlands and China. This is what it says:

Meat-based diets require more energy and water and, therefore, have far greater environmental impacts than plant-based diets (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003, Reijnders and Soret 2003, Wirsenius et al. 2010, Okin 2017). For example, in China, commercial pet dry food has higher percentages of animal meat products than human foods. Therefore, the dietary EPP and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of companion dogs relying on commercial dry food was found to be much higher than the dogs relying on human leftover foods (Su et al. 2018b). If we look at differences between countries—assuming all companion dogs and cats eat commercial dry food—then the dietary EPP of all companion dogs and cats in China equals the dietary EF of between 70 million and 245 million Chinese people, in terms of homemade food (Su et al. 2018b). The carbon emissions resulting from the food consumption of these animals are equivalent to the emissions generated by the food consumption of between 34 million and 107 million Chinese people (Su et al. 2018b). Meanwhile, in Japan, companion dogs and cats may consume between 3.6% and 15.6% of the food eaten by Japanese people, and through their consumption, Japanese companions release between 2.5 million and 10.7 million tons of GHG per year (Su and Martens 2018).

The authors estimate the annual EPP in hectares (first column) and annual GHG emission in tons (second column) for the average sized dog (10-20kg), for dogs fed exclusively on dry kibble, as follows:

Per capita average-size dog The Netherlands 0.90–3.66 0.349–1.424 
 Japan 0.33–2.19 0.127–0.831 
 China 0.82–4.19 0.313–1.592 

According to the Independent the average middle class family of four emits about 0.75 tons annually from electricity usage. Two families therefore emit 1.5 tons, which is indeed the same as the upper estimate of GHG emissions for a dog in China or Holland, but nearly twice the upper estimate for dogs in Japan. If we take the lower estimate, then the average dog uses less than half of just one family’s electricity in China and Holland and one sixth of a family’s average electricity emissions in Japan, therefore one twelth of two families’ emissions. So Donna’s assertion that your average pooch is the carbon criminal equivalent of two average families using electricity is stretching the truth somewhat, especially as your ‘average dog’ is probably not fed exclusively on a diet of industrially manufactured kibble.

But of course it stands to reason that dogs, being mainly carnivores, will be fed largely on a diet of animal protein and will therefore have an annual carbon footprint if that meat is produced commercially. Just as human beings eating meat (or even vegans) have a non negligible carbon footprint. Is this a valid excuse to abolish the age old human practice of keeping companion animals, especially canine companion animals? Because, you can be sure, it will never be enough. Once all the cats and dogs are gone, they’ll be coming for your children, demanding that you only have two, then one, then stop breeding. They’ll demand that you never eat meat again, then they’ll demand that you remove yourself completely from the gene pool in order to reduce your personal carbon footprint to zero. It will be the only way to prevent the ‘climate emergency’.

But back to dogs. What did dogs ever do for the human race? In response, it’ll be like the Monty Python sketch ‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’

The answers will be, throughout 40,000 years of co-evolving with domesticated wolves:

/ They helped us hunt wild prey

/ They gave us protection.

/ They gave us unconditional love

/ They protected our houses and our herd animals

/ They boosted our natural immunity via exposure to pathogens and by raising our oxytocin levels

/ By demanding walkies, they made us fitter and healthier, in mind and in body

/ Working in law enforcement and the military, they have apprehended criminals, kept us all safer and saved countless human lives

/ They have been the eyes and ears of disabled people and safe-guarded ill people by warning of e.g. imminent epileptic seizures

I could go on. The environmentalists want ‘rid of them’. The new breed of ‘environmentalists’ actually want rid of humanity as well. They are the ultimate misanthropists who would love to see the ‘virus’ that is humanity wiped out, along with every single one of their domesticated agricultural and companion animals. Net Zero = Net Zero human race. Only when ‘we’ are all gone will the planet be happy again. Of course, ‘they’ (the neo-Malthusian Greens) will be the last to vacate, because they have to oversee the cull, naturally.

Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccine & Blood Clots – the Shifting Sands of Evidence

It’s strange isn’t it, that days after Mike Yeadon and other scientists wrote to the European Medicines Agency warning of the potential for serious thrombolic adverse reactions associated with the Covid ‘vaccines’, many countries in Europe put a temporary hold on vaccinations with AZ whilst the EMA and the German regulator looked into it. The British government claimed there was no evidence of any link between the AZ jab and blood clots and Pol Pot Belly went live on TV to get the AZ jab despite earlier claiming that he was ‘bursting with [natural] antibodies’.

The EMA then reversed their decision, despite there being evidence that there was a significant increased risk of this very rare form of blood clotting in women under 60 administered with the vackseen. The vaccine was ‘safe and effective’ they said and there was no evidence of a link with rare blood clotting and the benefits outweighed the risks, blah, blah, blah, despite the fact that the risk to healthy women under 60 from Covid-19 is tiny.

But now, Germany has suspended the use of AZ in the under 60s and the EMA has changed its tune. In the Mail:

One of the European drug regulator’s senior officials today claimed there is now a ‘clear’ link between AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine and potentially deadly blood clots.

Marco Cavaleri, head of vaccines at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), said that CVST — a brain blockage that can lead to a stroke — was occurring more often than expected in younger people.

But he admitted that the body was still baffled about how the jab may trigger the rare complication.

Despite his comments, Mr Cavaleri’s agency has repeatedly insisted AstraZeneca’s jab is safe and the benefits outweigh any risks. 

Last week it slapped down Germany for suspending its use in under-60s, arguing there was ‘no evidence’ to support age-based restrictions.

But at the same time, the watchdog paved the way for a potential U-turn, warning that the rate of the complication did appear to be slightly higher than expected in vaccinated under-60s. 

Experts across the board say the evidence is now ‘shifting’ and that the jab is likely – in extremely rare cases – to cause the brain blockage.

‘Shifting’ . . . . yeah, right. It was there in the first place. First they took notice, then they dismissed it, no doubt for political reasons, then they were forced to look at it again because incidences of blood clotting in vaccinees kept happening.

The MHRA have not yet moved to restrict AZ vaccinations and Pol Pot Belly was out in Macclesfield a few days ago promoting the jab, no doubt thinking at the time that he would be announcing the introduction of vaccine passports, having not anticipated the strength of opposition to them.

Boris Johnson today called on Britons to still get the jab while on a visit to an AstraZeneca factory in Macclesfield, saying the ‘best thing’ they can do is ‘look at what the MHRA say’. He added: ‘Their advice to people is to keep going out there, get your jab, get your second jab.’

But he glossed over questions about whether the UK could impose a ban on the jab for under-30s.

Of course, the hard-nosed statisticians claim that the chance of a person dying from Covid in the younger age groups is still much higher than the chance of dying from the rare form of CVST blood clotting. The Mail reproduces this graph:

Convincing isn’t it? Except for the fact that it completely ignores:

/ Covid deaths in the 25-44 age groups are overwhelmingly those with serious underlying illness, both male and female.

/ AFAIA CVST events are mainly in younger women with no underlying health issues who are at much less risk of dying from Covid-19 than is the impression given by that chart.

/ ‘Covid deaths’ are almost certainly overestimated, therefore the risk of dying from Covid is also overestimated.

/ Other adverse reaction risks are associated with being jabbed (there are many), including unknown long term risks.

So why would any sane, healthy woman (or man even) under 60, but particularly under 45, opt to get jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ with demonstrable serious side effects (including CVST) and unknown future long term health effects supposedly in order to ‘protect’ themselves against a disease which, if they were to contract, would probably present as no worse than a bad cold, if they were unlucky? Most liklely answer: because the government told them they wouldn’t be able to go on holiday if they didn’t! But it’s the vaccine refuseniks who are ‘selfish’ apparently.