SARS-Cov-2

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

What’s Causing Abnormal Periods in Women Post ‘Vaccination’?

This is what the Daily Expose reports:

Thousands of women have been reporting period problems after they received the Covid-19 vaccine and are now being monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

4,000 women have reported changes in their menstrual cycle after getting their Covid jab, particularly among those aged 30 to 49.

Figures obtained by The Sunday Times show that 2,734 reports of period problems after the AstraZeneca vaccine was made to the MHRA up to May 17th, a further 1,158 were related to the Pfizer jab, and 66 were linked to the Moderna vaccine.

The period side effects primarily include heavier than normal bleeding and other irregularities, which are believed to have affected more women who have not reported their experience.

Despite over 4,000 women reporting these issues post-vaccination, doctors have said that there is “no increased risk” of period problems after the jab so there is no reason to add it to the growing list of side effects.

June Raine of the MHRA, of course, has dismissed claims of anything unusual happening, despite the fact that 4000 yellow card reports is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. Something definitely odd appears to be happening though, judging from the nature of many anecdotal reports by women all over the world.

MHRA chief executive Dr June Raine said: ‘Alongside the independent experts of the Commission on Human Medicines and members of its Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, we have reviewed reports of menstrual disorders and unexpected vaginal bleeding, suspected as adverse reactions to vaccination. 

‘The current evidence does not suggest an increased risk, following vaccination, with the UK’s three Covid vaccines.

‘The number of reports is low in relation to the number of women who have had the vaccine to date and the background rate of menstrual disorders generally. 

‘We continue to closely monitor these reports for potential signals.’

Usual dismissive guff from the medical and pharmaceutical regulatory bodies whenever serious side effects to the ‘vaccines’ are mentioned. Many women are reporting highly unusual disruptions to their periods; women who have always had light periods suddenly experiencing very heavy and painful periods, even post menopausal women reporting having a period soon after the jab. Does that come under ‘background rate’ of menstrual disorders? I don’t think so. These women commented in the Daily Mail for instance:

Well I was one of the 4000 who reported it to the yellow card. Post menopausal for 2 years yet had a period 3 weeks after my Pfizer jab. Not a coincidence!

I’m 41 my monthly’s have completely stopped since having the first jab. I’ve had my second and still no period. I had to go for a scan and they can’t see a problem. I think it’s definitely something to do with the vaccine, as I was as regular as clockwork before.

There are thousands of similar comments from other women on social media and elsewhere

Raine, as a woman, should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for being so blatantly and arrogantly dismissive of these real concerns.

So what’s going on? Well, the first clue might be the peer reviewed scientific literature which demonstrates that lipid nanoparticles in the blood stream tend to accumulate in the ovaries and the second clue is the demonstration that Covid ‘vaccine’ lipid nanoparticles and spike proteins do not stay confined to the local injection site and can in fact escape into the blood vessels and thus travel throughout the body. The former has been known about since at least 2013, so Pfizer and Moderna knew, in advance, that if their product did manage to escape into the blood stream, it would accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Here for instance:

Lipidots are original nanoparticulate lipid delivery vectors for drugs and contrast agents made from materials generally regarded as safe. Here, we characterized the in vivo stability, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of lipidots.

Radioactive and fluorescent tracers displayed a similar nanoparticle-driven biodistribution, indicative of the lipidots’ integrity during the first hours after injection. Lipidots distributed in the liver and, surprisingly, in the steroid-rich organs adrenals and ovaries, but not in the spleen.

We report the pharmacokinetics and whole-body biodistribution of triply labeled lipidots in mice. Results from organ counting and fluorescence detection were confirmed by live optical imaging and ex vivo histologic examination of target organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs. Unexpectedly, lipidots showed specific uptake in steroid organs, which to our knowledge has never yet been reported for a lipid nanoparticle.

Altogether, uptake was major in gonadosteroid organs (i.e., liver, adrenals, ovaries), suggesting a specific tropism of lipidots for these organs.

But the really shocking thing is that the ovaries accumulated so many lipidots that the researchers could actually see them fluorescing through the skin of the mice!

DiD fluorescence levels in the ovaries were high enough to be observed directly through the skin of live mice 24 h after the injection of DiD-loaded lipidots

The presence of lipids was still quite high even after a week:

Tritium and fluorescence signals persisted also in the adrenals and ovaries: in the ovaries, uptake for 3H maximized at 52 ± 2.3 %ID/g at 16 h after injection and still was 21 ± 4.6 %ID/g at 168 h after injection

I found it interesting that Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology, in his interview with Brett Weinstein, mentioned in passing that the lipids could be ionised. Could this be part of the reason why they are accumulating in specific organs, notably the ovaries, and not others? This study published in 2017 makes it clear that there are genuine concerns about possible toxic effects of nanoparticles on the female reproductive system:

The wide application of nanomaterials in industry, consumer products, and medicine has raised concerns regarding the potential toxicity of nanoparticles in humans. In this review, the effects of nanomaterials on the reproductive system in animal models are discussed. Females are particularly more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity, and toxicity in this population may affect reproductivity and fetal development. Moreover, various types of nanoparticles have negative impacts on male germ cells, fetal development, and the female reproductive system. These impacts are associated with nanoparticle modification, composition, concentration, route of administration, and the species of the animal. Therefore, understanding the impacts of nanoparticles on animal growth and reproduction is essential. Many studies have examined the effects of nanoparticles on primary and secondary target organs, with a concentration on the in vivo and in vitro effects of nanoparticles on the male and female reproductive systems at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels. This review provides important information regarding organism safety and the potential hazards of nanoparticle use and supports the application of nanotechnologies by minimizing the adverse effects of nanoparticles in vulnerable populations.

Fertility, reproduction, and fetal development are essential to sustain a species, highlighting the importance of the growing public awareness of the toxicity of NPs on the reproductive system. Women have only about 400 follicles that reach maturity and undergo ovulation during their lifetime, meaning that there is a limited opportunity for reproduction (Hillier, 1994Song et al., 2009). Moreover, reproductive female organs, including the uterus and ovaries, exhibit periodic growth, and regeneration that is regulated by hormones. The hormonal control system has dynamic functions and is susceptible to the physiological stress caused by foreign particles (Warren and Perlroth, 2001Armenti et al., 2008), and any interruption in female reproduction potentially results in fetal anomalies.

Moreover, it suggests the mechanism whereby ionised nanoparticles might be able to penetrate the specialized barrier of specific human organs:

Other vital organs of the human body that nanoparticles reach include the brain (Elder et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008), and the testis (Bai et al., 2010), or even the fetus, which are protected by their own specialized barriers. Nevertheless, even these vital organs are not fully protected, since certain nanoparticles can effectively penetrate their barriers (De Jong et al., 2008). The ability of nanoparticles to bypass/penetrate these defensive, protective barriers of the human body depends on their physical (e.g., size, shape, aspect ratio; Meng et al., 2007; Qiu et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2011) and chemical properties (e.g., aggregation, surface chemical, charge status). For example, positively charged nanoparticles can more effectively enter the cell since the cellular membrane (which consists of a double layer of phospholipids) is negatively charged. This has been also confirmed in independent experiments studying the cellular uptake of nanoparticles (e.g., polyethyleneimine-coated mesoporous silica nanoparticles), which are positively charged, demonstrating an increased uptake by cells compared to negatively charged nanoparticles (Xia et al., 2009). Thus, the increased uptake of positively charged (cationic) nanoparticles may result in increased damage of membrane phospholipids as well as increased damage to cellular compartments (e.g., the lysosomes; Xia et al., 2006).

Doesn’t look too good does it, if, in ‘vaccinated’ women especially, there are millions of ionized lipids floating around in the bloodstream, ready to release their mRNA into cells, forcing them to manufacture what is now known to be a highly cytotoxic spike protein? Ionized lipids which just ‘happen’ to preferentially accumulate in the female reproductive organs. Which brings us back to the enigma of why ‘vaccinated’ women are experiencing highly unusual and alarming irregularities in their normally very stable periods.

An interesting study published in 1998 looked at ionized proteins and their ability to pass unhindered (or not) through the selectively permeable ovarian follicular blood barrier. It’s interesting because it reveals that the permeability of the barrier depends on the ionizing charge of the protein molecule, and whether or not ovulation is taking place:

This report characterizes the permeability and selectivity properties of the ovarian blood-follicle barrier. Proteins of similar size but opposite net charge possess strikingly different permeabilities with respect to this barrier. Inter-α-inhibitor (I α I, 220 kDa, pI ~ 6.2) is excluded from the follicle until an ovulatory stimulus, whereas immunoglobulin G (IgG, 155 kDa, pI ~ 6.5–7.0) passes into the follicle without an ovulatory stimulus. However, cationization of I α I results in its influx into the follicle in the absence of an ovulatory signal. Conversely, anionization of IgG results in its exclusion from the follicle unless an ovulatory stimulus (hCG administration) is provided. Molecular size also plays a role in blood-follicle barrier selectivity. For example, cationization of 2-macroglobulin (pI ~ 8.5; 700 kDa) fails to facilitate its entry into unstimulated follicles. Conversely, negatively charged BSA (pl ~ 4.5; 66 kDa) passes freely into unstimulated follicles. These studies support the hypothesis that the blood-follicle barrier is size-selective but that charge sign and density play a role in the permeability of this barrier to proteins within an intermediate size range.

Earlier studies provided evidence that the blood-follicle barrier was located at the level of the ovarian microvasculature and demonstrated that it was freely permeable to most molecules below 70-300 kDa [1-5]. Surprisingly, however, it was also shown that molecules of the IaI family could enter the follicular fluid only after an ovulatory surge of gonadotropin [4, 5]. Thus, the trans-barrier flux of these negatively charged proteins was regulated differently from neutral or positively charged proteins of similar size, suggesting that charge might also play a role in permeability of the blood-follicle barrier. A test of this hypothesis was carried out by cationizing IotI and demonstrating that this positively charged molecule crossed the barrier in the absence of gonadotropic stimulation. Studies involving another serum protein, IgG, also supported this hypothesis. IgG carries a net neutral to slightly positive charge and is similar in size to IoI but is characterized by a strikingly different
follicular distribution. No ovulatory stimulus was needed for native IgG to cross the barrier and enter the follicle. At an appropriate level of anionization, however, regulation of its trans-barrier flux was similar to that of IaI.

Basically, what this study found is that negatively charged proteins could only pass across the ovarian blood-follicle during an ovulatory surge. The egg during ovulation starts to develop in the follicle and is released into the uterus some days later and if it is not fertilized, the uterine lining breaks down and a woman passes blood from the vagina.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part but could these disruptions to women’s periods have anything to do with maybe negatively charged lipid nanoparticles or even negatively charged soluble spike proteins passing preferentially into the the follicle during ovulation, contaminating the developing egg therein, the same egg which is later released directly into the uterus, stimulating the breakdown of the uterine lining and consequent loss of blood if it is infertile? Could the contamination of the egg with toxic spike proteins and/or lipid nanoparticles be resulting in these irregularities in women’s periods? It’s an unsettling thought and as I say it is pure layperson speculation on my part. I have no idea what ionising charge the lipids may have, whether positive or negative, whether that charge varies, and the same for the spike proteins, but I believe it should at least be looked at. The heavier periods may of course be as a consequence of the presence of the lipids/spike proteins in the blood vessels which feed the uterine lining and have nothing to do with the egg. However, if the egg itself is being contaminated with these products of the ‘vaccine’, then I would think this definitely has implications for fertility.

Update: July 4th 2021

Robert Malone has tweeted this:

Deaths And ‘Cases’ Of Delta Variant In ‘Vaccinated’ And Unvaccinated – A Complicated Picture

There’s been a lot of talk on social media regarding the 17th technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom. According to the UK government’s own figures on the Delta (formerly known as the ‘Indian’) variant, up to 21st June, these were the data for cases, hospitalisations and deaths attributable to said VOC:

Summary of the information:

/ There were a total of 53,822 ‘cases’ (positive tests) in unvaccinated individuals, virtually all of them in the under 50s.

/ There were 13,715 ‘cases’ in those >21 days post vax dose 1, just over two thirds of them in under 50s age bracket.

/ There were 7235 ‘cases’ in those fully ‘vaccinated’, roughly divided equally between those over 50 and those under 50.

/ All of the deaths in the double vaccinated were in those over 50; none occurred in the under 50s. 50 fatalities out of 3546.

/ 6 deaths occurred in those under 50 in the unvaccinated group. 6 fatalities out of 52846.

/ 38 deaths occurred in those over 50 in the unvaccinated; 38 deaths out of 976.

/ For the fully vaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 50/3546=1.41% in the over 50s.

/ For the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 38/976=3.89% in the over 50s.

/ In the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate for those under 50 was 6/52846=0.011%

/ No data is available for the ‘case’ fatality rate in those under 50 who are fully vaccinated.

So, from this, if we are to take the government’s figures at face value – and I’m still not sure how they are identifying Delta cases re. ‘genotyping’ as opposed to ‘sequencing’, or the relative proportions of those two methods which make up the total – we get a somewhat confusing picture. It would appear that in the fully vaxxed over 50s, the chance of dying if you’re infected with the delta variant is about a third of the chance of dying if you are unvaxxed. But the vast majority of delta ‘cases’ are in the unvaxxed under 50s (52,846), yet only 6 of those people died. Only 976 ‘cases’ occurred in the unvaxxed over 50s – which may reflect the relative lack of over 50s who have not been jabbed. Conversely, 3546 ‘cases’ occurred in the fully jabbed over 50s, which may reflect just how many fully jabbed over 50s there are. The take home message appears to be: if you are over 50, it might be worth getting jabbed to reduce your risk of dying from Covid, but if you’re under 50, the chance of dying even if you’re infected with the delta variant is very small.

The risk calculation above of course does not take into account the risk of dying or being seriously injured as a consequence of getting jabbed, which is significant for all age groups, as we have seen. So even though, if you are over 50, you might theoretically have lowered your risk of death from Covid by getting jabbed, you will also have raised your risk of death (by what is looking like to be a comparable amount) by getting jabbed, plus there are also unforeseen future risks. If you’re under 50, the jab is probably more of a risk to life and health than Covid, especially if you’re under 30, in which case you’d have to be nuts to get jabbed – or bullied mercilessly into it (which is happening).

Study Concludes: Vaccines Are Killing About As Many People as they are Saving and Causing Many More Serious Injuries

Here’s the study, published today.

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

Where do they get that figure of 3 deaths prevented for every death caused? I think it may actually be a typo because their own figures, even quoted in the abstract, don’t lead to that conclusion. Using the point estimate of 16,000 NNTV to prevent one death, this is roughly six lives saved per 100,000 vaccinated, meaning that four die and sixteen are seriously injured to prevent six deaths. That’s a ratio of 3 lives saved for every two killed by the vaccines. The text confirms this:

Thus, we need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

It’s not good is it, especially when you include the 16 people out of every 100k with life-changing injuries, especially when you consider that the long term risks of these ‘vaccines’ must also be added in and they are not likely to be insignificant. Yet the absolute scumbags in government are still pushing the jabs for all they are worth, convincing healthy people that they need to get them if they want to travel abroad. This is what that weasel Schapps posted on Twitter today (with apologies to all weasel-kind):

Our government is telling people to risk their lives for no net clinical benefit and to significantly risk serious, life-changing injuries, in order to be able to travel freely, which is their God-given right, a basic human right which was never the government’s lawful perogative to remove. I cannot convey my dismay and disgust at that without lapsing into a string of expletives, so I’ll leave it there.

The study outlines the clinical reasons behind these deaths and adverse reactions which are now becoming generally accepted (except by megalomaniac, psychopathic, murderous, power-mad politicians of course).

A recent experimental study showed that the SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26].

As the authors point out, the risk-benefit ratio of adults getting ‘vaccinated’ might be even worse because of underreporting of adverse side effects and no way should kids be jabbed.

Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases [27,28]. The median underreporting can be as high as 95% [29].Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

In conclusion:

The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?

Can you actually envisage a time when you will hear sober facts coming from the mouths of Hancock and Johnson and the ‘vaccine minister’ Zahawi? I can’t. It’s been relentless lies and disinformation so far. They are committed to jabbing literally every person in the UK with these verifiable toxins and they are determined to make social outcasts (or worse) of those people who refuse them.

“We have never seen anything like this”: Mass Vaccinated Israel Experiences a Surge of Winter Viral Infections in Midsummer.

This comes straight from the Annals of ‘Screw With Nature and Nature Will Screw With You’. Israel is one of the most Covid ‘vaccinated’ countries in the world, with 58% of the populace now fully jabbed, including kids as young as 16. They’ve paid a high price for that ‘privilege’ though. First, deaths spiked soon after ‘vaccination’. Then the government introduced medical Apartheid by instigating the Green passport scheme, which has recently been abandoned as unworkable, probably because not enough people were getting jabbed. Then recently, they’ve discovered that jabbing youngsters (who don’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ against Covid) has resulted in a significant increase in myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscle), a serious condition which can be life threatening. Now they’ve got even more problems – the emergence of winter respiratory viruses in midsummer.

The corona crisis might be over, but all over Israel adults and children are getting sick with viral infections in a phenomenon that is unprecedented for this time of the year, according to several medical professionals.“We have never seen anything like this,” said Dr. Tal Brosh, head of Infectious Disease Unit at the Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital. “We’ve been monitoring viral infections in the hospital, which of course is just the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in the community, as for each hospitalized patient, there are many more out there. Since the spring, we have been seeing an increasing number of respiratory diseases, and since May there has been a surge in RSV cases.”RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, usually appears in the winter together with the influenza, and is especially serious for very young children and older, vulnerable adults.

“We usually see it disappearing in the summer, but if we consider the numbers now, it looks like winter in previous years,” said Brosh. “During the winter 2020-2021, we did not see one individual case of RSV.” RSV is not the only virus that is widely circulating – other diseases that are currently infecting a growing number of people are a type of adenovirus, the human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and the rhinovirus. All of them are associated with respiratory symptoms and other symptoms similar to those of a severe cold. At the same time, influenza has not hit the country since the winter previous to the pandemic.

So, they ended the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ only to end up with a series of other crises, medical and political. They ‘killed’ the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, which mainly affected the ill and the very old, and ended up with an unprecedented summer epidemic of RSV and other viruses which not only affect the old but also the very young, who were never at risk of Covid. God only knows what the winter holds, when ‘flu will most likely come roaring back (if it ever went away). Of course, the ‘experts’ are playing it down and saying it’s because of the ending of lockdowns and mask wearing, but I suspect that is far too simplistic an explanation. If masks and lockdowns failed to kill Covid (and there is no evidence that they have contained the spread of SARS-CoV-2, virtually everywhere they’ve been tried), then it’s highly unlikely that they had any significant impact on other respiratory viruses.

Snir noted that after the year of the pandemic, it is not surprising that these diseases are reappearing.

“We did not see them during the winter because we were wearing masks and because of the lockdowns, but they are normal viruses,” she said.

So what’s causing this re-emergence of winter respiratory viruses? We know that the ‘vaccines’ can trigger the re-emergence of latent viruses, especially Herpes Zoster. So perhaps normally seasonally dormant viruses have been re-activated by the mass vaccination campaign? It’s a possibility, as outlined here:

Unfortunately, as virus circulation decreases, the age of primary infection increases, and since age is directly associated with pathogenicity, vaccinating children would likely lead to lower infection rates but higher case fatality rates.22 Additionally, depending on the relative durations of immunity induced by vaccines and infection, and the rate of viral antigenic change, vaccinating children might increase the frequency of large seasonal epidemics, leading to overall increases in virus induced morbidity and mortality.5

Finally, mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce greater antibody responses than natural infection but may elicit CD8 T cell responses that are less broadly protective against future variants.23,24 Further studies on the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity should be done to explore and quantify these trade-offs.

Whatever the actual reasons for the current outbreaks of respiratory viruses in Israel may be, it looks highly likely that the decision to mass vaccinate the entire population with experimental, gene-based ‘vaccines’ is going to turn out to be unwise at the least, catastrophic at worst. The UK is not far behind Israel, so expect a similar phenomenon here, with people suffering colds and other respiratory ailments during the height of summer, which no doubt our lying government will identify as the beginning of a third ‘deadly wave’ of Covid.

“It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required”

These are the words of Dr Tess Lawrie (MBBCh, PhD), Director, Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMC Squared CiC, in a letter to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA, the same MHRA which has recently authorised the use of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ in children aged 12-15. It is almost inconceivable that they would do this, given the number and seriousness of the adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ being recorded on their own ‘early warning’ database, especially when children of that age are at statistically zero risk of serious Covid disease. But we live in strange times, so strange in fact, so deeply disturbing that our government is threatening not to end lockdown restrictions completely on June 21st because they haven’t coerced enough younger people to get injected with the blood toxin they are calling a ‘vaccine’.

Here are a few relevant passages from that letter:

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out in the UK on the 8th of December 2020. As of the 6th May 2021 nearly 39 million people have received their first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, and 24 million both doses. Sufficient data have now accumulated to get a good overview of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). I would, therefore, like to draw your attention to the high number of covid-19 vaccine-attributed deaths and ADRs that have been reported via the Yellow Card system between the 4th January 2021 and the 26th May 2021. In total, 1,253 deaths and 888,196 ADRs (256,224 individual reports) were reported during this period.

To facilitate a better clinical understanding of the nature of the adverse events occurring, primarily to inform doctors at the frontline, we have searched the Yellow Card reports using pathology-specific key words to group the data according to the following five broad, clinically relevant categories:

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs

B. Immune System ADRs

C. ‘Pain’ ADRs

D. Neurological ADRs

E. ADRs involving loss of Sight, Hearing, Speech or Smell

F. Pregnancy ADRs

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic Adverse Drug Reactions

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs: bleed, haemo*, thrombo*, emboli*, coag*, death, ischaem*, infarct*, angina, stroke, cerebrovascular, CVA.

We included the term ‘death’ in this search group, as this term accounted for many reported fatalities (438) without specific details. Given the large number of fatalities without a specific cause of death, we considered that ADRs reported in this way, in particular as ‘sudden death’, would be most likely to occur from haemorrhagic, thrombo-embolic or ischaemic events. Given the seriousness of this ADR, we considered it justifiable to do this pending a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to clarify the cause of death in these 438 people.

Using these search terms, 13,766 bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs were identified – 856 of which were fatal. Government reports have highlighted the occurrence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, apparently accounting for 24 fatalities and 226 ADRs up to the 26th May 2021.However, our analysis indicates that thromboembolic ADRs have been reported in almost every vein and artery, including large vessels like the aorta, and in every organ including other parts of the brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, ovaries and liver, with life-threatening and life-changing consequences. The most common Yellow Card categories affected by these sorts of ADRs were the nervous system (152 fatalities, mainly from brain bleeds and clots), respiratory (with 103 fatalities, mainly from pulmonary thromboembolism) and cardiac categories (81 fatalities).

So, you see, it’s not just “extremely rare” cerebral venous sinus thromboses which are the problem here. Blood clots are forming in blood vessels throughout the body and in virtually every organ. This suggests that the vaccine and/or its spike protein product is getting into the vascular system and being distributed widely. This was not supposed to happen! To get an idea of just how massive a problem this may be, Dr Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer currently pursuing Covid human rights violations class action lawsuits, cites a German clinical study which measured D-dimer levels in volunteers before and after ‘vaccination’. Regardless of any adverse reactions, D-dimer levels were elevated post vaccination in almost half of volunteers, proving that clot formation was taking place. If that sample is representative of the vaccinated population as a whole, then it is truly shocking. Remember, each time you are jabbed, these toxins circulate around the blood system and the psychopaths in charge are proposing 3rd and even 4th booster jabs this winter.

Thrombo-embolic events aren’t the only problem:

B. Immune System Adverse Drug Reactions (Infection, Inflammation,Autoimmune, Allergic)

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify immune system ADRs: INFECTION (category), IMMUNE DISORDERS (category), -itis; immun, multiple sclerosis, lupus, myasthenia, pernicious, diabetes, Addison, Crohn’s, Coeliac, Graves, alopecia, amyloidosis, antiphospholipid, angioedema, Behcet’s, pemphigoid, psoriasis, aplasia, sarcoidosis, scleroderma, thrombocytopenia, vitiligo, Miller Fisher, Guillain-Barre; allerg*, urticaria, rash, eczema, asthma.

To the 26th May, a total of 54,870 ADRs and 171 fatalities fell into this category, which comprised the second most common cause of post-vaccination fatalities after ‘Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs’. However, only 4 associated fatalities were reported under the Yellow card ‘IMMUNE DISORDERS’ category, with the majority (141 fatalities associated with 19,474 ADRs) reported under the ‘INFECTIONS’ category. Among 1,187 people for whom post-vaccination COVID infection was reported, there were 72 fatalities (6% of reported COVID infection ADRs).

Many ‘INFECTION’ category ADRs indicated the occurrence of re-activation of latent viruses, including Herpes Zoster or shingles (1,827 ADRs), Herpes Simplex (943 ADRs, 1 fatal), and Rabies (1 fatal ADR) infections. This is strongly suggestive of vaccine-induced immune-compromise.Bell’s palsy, also associated with latent virus reactivation, is reported in the Neurological ADRs section of this report (D). Also suggestive of vaccine-induced immunocompromise was the high number of immune-mediated conditions reported, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome (280 ADRs, 6 deaths), Crohn’s and non-infective colitis (231 ADRs, 2 deaths) and Multiple Sclerosis (113 ADRs).

Allergic responses to the vaccines comprised 25,270 reported ADRs, with 4 fatalities occurring among 1,001 people experiencing anaphylactic reactions. 

Additionally, we have the following classes of adverse reactions which also give cause for concern:

C. ‘Pain’ Adverse Drug Reactions

D. Neurological Adverse Drug Reactions

E. Adverse Drug Reactions involving loss of sight, hearing, speech or smell

F. Pregnancy Adverse Drug Reactions

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, we also have the unforeseen potential long term adverse reactions. We know for sure now that the drug companies have screwed up by not anticipating very serious immediate adverse reactions, so it’s more than plausible that they have failed to anticipate long term serious adverse reactions too.

According to the recent paper by Seneff and Nigh (1), potential acute and long-term pathologies include:

• Pathogenic priming, multisystem inflammatory disease and autoimmunity

• Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis

• Antibody dependent enhancement

• Activation of latent viral infections

• Neurodegeneration and prion diseases

• Emergence of novel variants of SARSCoV2

• Integration of the spike protein gene into the human DNA

The author calls for an immediate halt to the vaccine rollout:

The nature and variety of ADRs reported to the Yellow Card System are consistent with the potential pathologies described in this paper and supported by other recent scientific papers on vaccine-induced harms, which are mediated through the vaccine spike protein product (2,3). It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression,autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

This is perhaps the most damning sentence in the entire letter:

The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.

Why? Well, aside from the obvious, it comes within a week of when, far from withdrawing the emergency use authorisation for these ‘vaccines’ generally, the MHRA has in fact extended their use to children who were not even included in the original trials, on the basis of a ridiculously underpowered recent clinical trial in the States. Seriously WTAF is going on?

UPDATE: Watch this video. Just watch it – before YouTube delete it. I cannot stress how important it is to view this video. It is your duty as a human being.

https://newtube.app/user/PhilStone/p01lQ7L?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=fbe3476ad2f7ce0a4bd0fce10834b9dea6a7046c-1623771117-0-AXO4hUMwVvnapjfo0ZClBWSlb09cDq0HjI2z0CYhPGXc_W5Ov7ZsAVQhfY6WRFCxM13NS5jYamTIistagoUHUr2VlI6jRUXYq9-tcUoks9znltBw1y68hWk71hNDkyHKc0MRVnPh6Hq-yLOUrtyv7-4PUvBWjsmHaIkjOQTFi6gQd09nTmTSECI9tYHL3VlkRfGDqScii0gdnl3SEkCLlWtgh3BYspbmlSi-bFSPW5AGi3wdOweOXGiWdhMG_YMais7wnNcJVKI1ibagsyPRBImBH8KG8e4I0AaGGH5BI0VAEZFl45cIaaIZpk69bqQbxIYb3L5M6rSls1IvdivQ1Kdl3Y844Rifw0IRTAKepDJT4mrwae6Rl3Cxg5kE87xU0oX81nEDaLvnXc4uoeFTvNWeRy-QFKOXnULg3u2mftjfNd6W1FEMnlBBcsrwfRqFdZlgFvCjHK860ns96_aBUg-V07sArS1xiVXfDwS_lWsU

Here is the entire video:

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0?r=FuWwFotRbicqY9GHyWBqDdTNNHpaTgC9

The UK Government’s Own Data Botherers Signal That The Covid Herd Immunity Threshold Has Been Surpassed

When herd immunity has been reached or surpassed, this means that a contagious disease-causing virus is effectively endemic and can no longer spread epidemically unless it mutates sufficiently so as to evade natural or vaccine-induced defences. The Office for National Statistics has just tweeted this:

This means that in England, Wales & NI, the sero-positive rate for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is now an astoundingly high 80%. This exceeds even the unscientific and absurdly high herd immunity threshold previously cited by SAGE ‘experts’ of 60-70% assuming that the entire population is equally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, which it most definitely is not. In immunological terms, the population is heterogeneous which means that the effective herd immunity threshold for Covid is probably much lower, around 40%. This lower threshold was probably achieved by the end of December last year, largely via natural infections, just as the vaccinations were getting going. So all that’s happened since is that sero-positivity has doubled due to ‘vaccinating’ millions of people who didn’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ and we have now exceeded even government scientists’ own implausibly high community immunity threshold. Also, summer has finally arrived, putting a natural lid on the spread of the virus.

So, in essence, there is absolutely no excuse for not fully dispensing with restrictions and fully opening up the country on June 21st – something which the government could have safely done months ago. But they’re trying desperately to claim that the new, scary, more transmissible Delta variant (aka the ‘Indian’ variant) is spreading rapidly among the younger generation who haven’t been jabbed and therefore opening up must be delayed until more of those people get jabbed. Basically, they’re lying about the supposed health risk of a new variant and they’re threatening to delay returning our stolen civil liberties in order to blackmail younger people into getting jabbed. The fact is, if the sero-positive rate is 80%, many young people will already be immune to SARS-CoV-2, many of those via natural infection, which will confer robust immunity against all variants, because all variants so far differ only very slightly from the original Wuhan strain and infection-acquired immunity is broad spectrum. In fact the concern is that if too many youngsters get jabbed with a narrow spectrum immunity-inducing ‘vaccine’ then this may override their broad spectrum T-cell mediated natural immune response, making them more susceptible to being infected with new variants.

It definitely is time for the government to end all restrictions on commerce, hospitality, entertainment, travel and personal liberty, to stop ‘vaccinating’ people unnecessarily, to not even think about ‘vaccinating’ kids and to let us get on with our lives free of state control and fear-mongering propaganda. But they probably won’t. They have grown to love lockdowns and the control which they can exert over us all by falsely claiming a state of emergency exists as a result of a ‘deadly pandemic’. They can’t or won’t let go and the MHRA has scandalously just authorised the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ for use in 12-15 year olds so they will want to keep the fear going and the ’emergency’ on simmer all over summer so they can justify jabbing your kids with an experimental gene-based ‘vaccine’ whose long term consequences are unknown and whose short term consequences mean that the risk to children of getting jabbed outweighs considerably any alleged benefit.

Revealed: Why the Oxford AstraZeneca Jab is Even More Dangerous than the mRNA ‘Vaccines’

People are dying and suffering from serious illness, including strokes, brain haemorrhages, blood clotting, blindness, heart attacks, neurological/nervous disorders, etc. soon after getting jabbed with any of the ‘vaccines’ currently available in the UK – Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford/AstraZeneca. This is a fact. 44 year old BBC presenter Lisa Shaw has just died from a blood clot, having been injected with AZ’s viral vector ‘vaccine’ – as part of a scandalously coerced mass vaccination program, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, fully supported by and sold to a gullible, fearful public by her own employer. The AZ jab definitely appears to be – at present – the worst offender as far as serious adverse reactions are concerned.

Our government, the media, the NHS and the MHRA tell us that this carnage means the AZ jab is ‘safe and rigorously tested’. 182,751 people, including 806 dead people, might disagree. Let us also be aware that many adverse reactions are not being reported, and indeed there is evidence to suggest that doctors and medical staff are deliberately not reporting adverse reactions to the jabs in those people they coerced to get jabbed. The VAERS database in the US for instance, is cited as recording only 1-10% of all adverse drug reactions.

Considering that many of the victims of this mass stabbing exercise by the state are people who are at minimal risk from Covid, considering that many of them will have already had robust and durable natural immunity to Covid anyway, via past infection, this is a massive scandal and evidence of an ongoing crime against humanity.

We now have emerging research which might explain why the adenovirus vectored Oxford AZ DNA jab is even more dangerous than the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It has to do with the genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus itself and the way in which it gets its ‘payload’ of SARS-Cov-2 spike encoding DNA into our cells.

During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using
vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination
campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under normal life conditions, were
found as a severe side effect that occured 4-14 days after first vaccinations. Besides CVST, Splanchnic
Vein Thrombosis (SVT) was also observed. This type of adverse event has not been observed in the
clinical studies of AstraZeneca, and therefore led immediately to a halt in vaccinations in several
european countries. These events were mostly associated with thrombocytopenia, and thus, similar to the
well-known Heparin-induced thrombo cytopenia (HIT). Meanwhile, scientists have proposed a mechanism
to explain this vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia. However, they do not provide a satisfactory
explanation for the late thromboembolic events. Here, we present data that may explain these severe side
effects which have been attributed to adenoviral vaccines.

What is the fundamental difference between mRNA and vector-based vaccines? The mRNA vaccines are
delivered by a lipid nanoparticle containing the appropriate mRNA molecule – coding for the spike protein
of SARS-CoV-2 – to muscle cells surrounding the injection site. Cells that have successfully taken up these
nanoparticles will release their cargo mRNA into the cytosol, where it will be translated into Spike protein
in the rough endoplasmatic reticulum (ER). Subsequently, the translated and folded Spike proteins will be
post-translationally modified in the ER and Golgi apparatus and transported to the outer membrane – as
membrane-anchored proteins. This way, the immune system is able to recognize the viral antigen, which
in turn triggers the initial events for all subsequent immunological processes to produce specific B- and T effector cells.
What happens to the same Spike gene when delivered via an adenoviral system? The adenovirus life
cycle includes the infection of cells, uncoating of the virus in the cytosol, entry of the adenoviral DNA into
the nucleus, and subsequently gene transcription by the host transcription machinery (6). All adenoviral
systems follow exactly these steps (Ad5, Ad26 and chimp Ad). Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike gene will be
transcribed inside of the nucleus and subsequently exported as mRNA out of the nucleus. Arriving in the
cytosol, the mRNA will again be translated into the Spike protein (see above).
And exactly here lies the problem: the viral piece of DNA – deriving from an RNA virus – is not optimized to
be transcribed inside of the nucleus. Solely this 3,822 nucleotide long open reading frame, coding for a
primary product of 1274 amino acid long Spike protein, contains 6 predicted splice donor and 5 predicted
acceptor sites. This problem becomes even more severe when using codon-optimized Spike reading
frames (depending on the company: up to 13 splice donor and 11 acceptor sites; see Fig. 1A). Thus, it
could well be that the Spike open reading frame of SARS-CoV-2 is potentially disrupted by arbitrary splice
events when transcribed inside the nucleus. Most, if not all, of these undesirable splice events would
produce shorter protein variants, disrupting the Spike protein upstream of the C-terminally located
membrane anchor, and thus, leading to soluble Spike protein variants.

In simple translation, what the authors are saying here is that because the AZ and other ‘vaccines’ deliver a piece of DNA (not mRNA) directly into the cell nucleus via the adenovirus vector, then there is the possibility that errors will occur when that DNA is transcribed back into RNA inside the nucleus. Thus, when the RNA is expelled from the nucleus into the surrounding cell material and starts instructing the cell machinery to manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, those spike proteins produced might be ‘missing bits’; they will be shorter versions of the actual spike protein which, as result, will be able to migrate into the blood vessels where they will bind to platelets and cause serious health issues, namely haemorrhaging and clotting, which is exactly what we are seeing with AZ adverse reactions.

It’s not just the AZ ‘vaccine’:

The authors give the mRNA ‘vaccines’ a free pass on safety because they say that this production of soluble spike proteins just can’t happen with mRNA delivered into the cell cytosol:

Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a
problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the
vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its
(trans)genes inside the nucleus. However, RNA viruses have evolved in the absence of any post transcriptional modifcation systems that are usually enabled to process the primary RNA transcripts of
nuclear encoded genes.

They even say the AZ ‘vaccine’ can be ‘re-optimized’:

Based on our findings, we strongly suggest that the Spike open reading frames – wildtype or codonoptimized in vector-based vaccines has to be re-optimized to avoid unintended splice reactions and to increase the safety of these pharmaceutical products. Vice versa, all mRNA-based vaccines should represent safe products, because the delivered mRNA will only be translated into surface antigen, without having any possibility to participate in nuclear splice events.

Unfortunately, spike proteins ‘leaking’ into the blood system can and do happen with other type ‘vaccines’ also, so it’s not a problem unique to AstraZeneca. The mRNA ‘vaccines’, though apparently less dangerous than the Oxford AZ viral vector vaccine, still have a whole host of serious side effects including thrombotic events like clots, strokes, heart attacks, haemorrhages, many linked to thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count). Something which the manufacturers said couldn’t happen, has happened: spike proteins have been detected circulating in the blood of several volunteers who were administered the Moderna ‘vaccine’. Supposedly, they are at such minute concentrations that they cannot cause damage, but then this underpowered study looked at just a handful of healthy volunteers who were not suffering serious adverse side effects. The point is, the ‘experts’ have no explanation as to why they are there at all.

SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. 11 of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day one after first vaccine injection.

Nonetheless, evidence of systemic detection of spike and S1 protein production from the mRNA-1273 vaccine is significant and has not yet been described in any vaccine study, likely due to limitations in assay sensitivity and timing assessment. The clinical relevance of this finding is unknown and should be further explored.

It’s not just soluble SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins

The Daily Fail would have us believe that the problem with the AZ ‘vaccine’, which is just ‘very rare’ brain haemorrhages, has now been identified and can be fixed. Not really a big deal according to them.

Germans scientists say they have figured out why the Covid vaccines from  AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are linked to rare blood clots

In a new pre-print, the team says the problem is with the adenovirus vector, a common cold virus used to get the body to induce an immune response

They claim the vaccine is sent into the cell nucleus instead of surrounding fluid, where parts of it break off and create mutated versions of themselves 

The mutated versions then enter the body and trigger the rare blood clots

Scientists say they can genetically adapt the vaccine to prevent the virus’s spike proteins, which it uses to enter cells, from splitting apart

That’s all OK then. What they don’t tell you, probably because they didn’t read the study carefully, assuming they even read it at all, is that this newly identified faulty transcription of DNA to RNA, resulting in the production of truncated, soluble spike proteins, is not the only problem with the viral vector ‘vaccines’. The other major problem is the genetically modified adenovirus vector itself. It too can bind to platelets and cause thrombocytopenia. The issue has been known about for at least 15 years, so there’s no excuse for the manufacturers to claim that such an adverse effect was unforeseen – it wasn’t. Here for instance:

Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown.

And here:

Thrombocytopenia is a major adverse effect of high dose systemic administration of adenoviral (Ad) gene therapy vectors. While a previous report did not find platelet activation by Ad [1], recent studies have shown that Ad may activate platelets [2] and binds in vivo to murine thrombocytes resulting in hepatic sequestration [3]. Ad-induced thrombocytopenia has been shown to be dose-dependent, saturable and reversible [4], compatible with a ligand-receptor mechanism. Recently, binding of Ad to platelet was indirectly suggested following interference of platelet adhesion to fibronectin after incubation with Ad [2]. In this study we developed a direct flow cytometry assay to quantitatively analyze Ad attachment to human platelets in vitro and to characterize their interaction.

What this clearly tells us is that there are two major problems with the AZ viral vector vaccine, giving rise to very similar serious thrombotic adverse reactions associated with a low blood platelet count and those two problems arise separately as a result of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins migrating into the blood, plus the adenovirus itself binding to blood platelets. The authors of this new study do actually point this out, but then they appear to ignore it, along with the media reporting on the paper.

Therefore, we propose a pathological disease mechanism that is depicted in Fig. 1D. On one hand, the
recently described VITT mechanism
is based on the artificial activation of PF4 by adenoviral proteins or
DNA molecules, which can similarly to heparin, act as a poly-anion to mediate PF4 activation. In patients
that exhibit a high load of auto-antibodies against PF4, this may cause the observed thrombocytopenia
(Fig. 1D, left side). The other side of the pathological disease mechanism is depicted as well (Fig. 1D, right
side). Based on our splicing data, membrane-anchored and soluble Spike protein variants are produced
after the vaccination procedure. When the immune system now starts the production of anti-Spike
antibodies (days 4–16), these antibodies will recognize the membrane-anchored as well as soluble Spike
proteins.

VITT is Vaccine Induced Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia and is a known adverse effect of adenovirus gene therapy vectors, not just ‘vaccines’. Drug companies have known about the dangers for years. Here is the handy diagram provided by the authors of the new study, which distinguishes between the two:

In summary, the AZ ‘vaccine’ is dangerous; (a) as a result of a known side effect of the administration of adenovirus vectors, (b) as a result of an unforeseen faulty transcription of DNA into RNA, resulting in the production of soluble spike proteins, which are binding to blood platelets. The mRNA vaccines appear not to be so dangerous, but they certainly don’t have a free pass on safety, as implied wrongly by the authors of the new study on AZ adverse reactions.

Salk Institute: SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins Cause Damage To Blood Vessels But the Same Spike Proteins Coded By the Vaccines Are Safe!

We already knew that the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins were implicated in serious damage to blood vessels in severe cases of Covid disease in the immune-compromised. Here (Sept 2020) for instance:

Critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19 may develop a pro-thrombotic state that places them at a dramatically increased lethal risk.

We demonstrated that COVID-19 patients present with increased mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet hyperactivity, which correlated with a decrease in overall platelet count. Detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood stream was associated with platelet hyperactivity in critically ill patients. Platelets expressed ACE2, a host cell receptor for SARS-CoV-2, and TMPRSS2, a serine protease for Spike protein priming. SARS-CoV-2 and its Spike protein directly enhanced platelet activation such as platelet aggregation, PAC-1 binding, CD62P expression, α granule secretion, dense granule release, platelet spreading, and clot retraction in vitro, and thereby Spike protein enhanced thrombosis formation in wild-type mice transfused with hACE2 transgenic platelets, but this was not observed in animals transfused with wild-type platelets in vivo.

Our findings uncovered a novel function of SARS-CoV-2 on platelet activation via binding of Spike to ACE2. SARS-CoV-2-induced platelet activation may participate in thrombus formation and inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients.

Or here (Jan 2021):

It was found that the treatment of cultured primary human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (SMCs) or human pulmonary artery endothelial cells with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit is sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the viral components [21]. Furthermore, our analysis of the postmortem lung tissues of patients who died of COVID-19 has determined that these patients exhibited pulmonary vascular wall thickening, a hallmark of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) [21]. Based on these results, we proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (without the rest of the viral components) triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and PAH as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications [21,22].

The Salk Institute have recently published another study which comes to much the same conclusions. They seem to think they might be the first to discover the mechanism whereby the spike causes endothelial damage:

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

Just looking at the other two studies cited above (which are by no means exhaustive) I think Salk’s claim to originality is somewhat dubious. But what is even more dubious is their claim (minus any proper scientific evidence) that the spike protein of the virus itself can cause serious cardiovascular symptoms independent of the virus in those infected with SARS-CoV-2 but that, for some mysterious reason, the very same spike proteins generated by the body’s cells after vaccination are ‘safe’ and do not cause such symptoms! Hence they say:

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

Excuse me? The scientific justification for this claim appears to come from this brief and somewhat confusing statement from the authors themselves:

. . . . . . our data reveals that S protein alone can damage endothelium, manifested by impaired mitochondrial function and eNOS activity but increased glycolysis. It appears that S protein in ECs increases redox stress which may lead to AMPK deactivation, MDM2 upregulation, and ultimately ACE2 destabilization.4 Although these findings need to be confirmed with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the future study, it seems paradoxical that ACE2 reduction by S protein would decrease the virus infectivity, thereby protecting endothelium. However, a dysregulated renin-angiotensin system due to ACE2 reduction may exacerbate endothelial dysfunction, leading to endotheliitis. Collectively, our results suggest that the S protein-exerted EC damage overrides the decreased virus infectivity. This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.

Does that mealy-mouthed scientific explanation make sense? It doesn’t to me. I’m not an expert admittedly but I can sense there is something amiss here. Especially considering the fact that other scientists have also questioned the wisdom of injecting young, healthy people with a ‘vaccine’ which induces their body cells to manufacture the very spike protein which, in severe cases of Covid – which young, healthy people are at very minimal risk from – causes life-threatening cardiovascular disease. Hence, the authors of the PubMed study cited above say:

Vaccines that introduce the spike protein into our body to elicit virus-neutralizing antibodies are currently being developed. In this article, we note that human host cells sensitively respond to the spike protein to elicit cell signaling. Thus, it is important to be aware that the spike protein produced by the new COVID-19 vaccines may also affect the host cells. We should monitor the long-term consequences of these vaccines carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals.

But, you know, vaccine passport, idiot selfish refuseniks and all that. They’ve simply got to jab every single person on the planet, including your kids, because ‘nobody’s safe until we’re all safe’, right? With the huge and growing number of documented cardiovascular adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ (heart attack, stroke, eye damage, haemorrhaging, blood clots, ‘extremely rare’ cerebral haemorrhaging, heavy periods in women) I think it is a near certainty that the spike proteins raised by the ‘vaccines’ do not behave differently at all from the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself and the only difference is that the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins are causing severe cardiovascular disease in people who would not be at significant risk of severe cardiovascular symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection, because their innate immune system would prevent the virus from ever progressing to the point where it was able to enter the blood stream and effectively poison the blood with toxic spikes.

UPDATE

It gets murkier. Robin Monotti on Telegram made a Youtube video about this Salk study which they promply deleted, calling it ‘medical misinformation’. What a surprise! However, what did surprise me is that Salk did not originally claim the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins were safe in their initial press release and they actually changed the wording in the article after Robin had released his video. No conspiracy there then.

Note that since I released this video Salk added the words “safely encoded” in their article in their also newly added description of the vaccine spike protein. VAERS numbers indicate this theoretical description does not correspond to the full and complete reality of the situation. Original Salk text was this: “Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key role in the disease itself”

The video is available here on Brandnewtube:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/salk-institute-warning-robin-monotti-graziadei_DuK7KkpWhib6N4E.html

And on Bitchute:

They really, really, really want you to get jabbed with these ‘vaccines’.

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.