Aletho News


An open letter to my pro-jab GP

By James Rogers | TCW Defending Freedom | May 18, 2022

Dear Dr X

Just over a year ago, as I made efforts to inform myself, you were kind enough to respond to my questions about taking the C-19 jab.

You may recall saying to me, ‘These drug companies would not run the risk of being sued for supplying dodgy drug products.’ I replied that the drug companies had been given immunity from civil action and criminal prosecution. You seemed not to know this. In this regard, I am writing to describe what has happened in the interim.

For a very unpleasant and lengthy period, the British people were begged, bribed, browbeaten and bullied into accepting C-19 jabs. Most submitted – at least to one jab – but a few million of us were highly dubious, and declined. Consequently, we were pejoratively labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’ and pressured, abused, socially outcast and even forced out of jobs.

I declined the jab for three reasons: firstly, I was neither vulnerable nor afraid and had faith in my immune system; secondly, I do not believe it is possible to develop an effective jab against cold and flu viruses; and thirdly, my instincts told me that everything about the lockdown regulation and development of C-19 jabs was wrong, irrational and political.

Oddly enough, this ‘anti-vaxxer’ took all of the childhood inoculations that the NHS of his day provided to counter illnesses such as TB, polio, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis B, and his child has taken all of those and more. This is because those illnesses are genuinely nasty and potentially fatal – people do not get ‘mild’ cases of tetanus, whereas the overwhelming number cases of C-19 have been just that. It is also the case that the true vaccines took decades to develop and test – measles 46 years, polio 45, HPV 33, hepatitis A 22.

The official line is that the C-19 jabs were authorised after about six months of testing – I think the Salem Witch Trials were longer, and were a more open process. Last autumn in the USA  a group of 200+ conscientious doctors, scientists and public health officials, ‘Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency’, took the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to court to force them to obey their legal obligation in respect of a freedom of information (FoI) request about the trials that Pfizer had conducted on its C-19 products.

The case was heard by District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. The FDA had made public commitments to be fully transparent so there was no dispute as to whether the information would be released, just the time-frame. The FDA stated that with 450,000 pages to release, and with personal data therein that required redaction, only 500 pages a month could be released. At that rate it would take 75 years to discharge their FoI obligations.

Judge Pittman delivered his ruling in early January  stating that the FDA’s position was anathema to the spirit of the legislation, ordering them to release 55,000 pages a month. The process commenced on March 1, 2022, and the FDA’s obligation should be fully discharged by the end of this year.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency have assembled a broad alliance of scientists and experts to assimilate and analyse the material, and after three months, the results have been alarming.

It is important to note that as C-19 jabs were authorised in an emergency situation, the ‘trial’ is still in progress, and the effects the jabs have on people must be fully recorded. So, this matter has two spheres to consider: firstly, the trials that were run in 2020 that persuaded the FDA (and our own MHRA, CHM and JCVI) to approve the jabs; and secondly, the trials run in 2021 – and ongoing – that are necessary to allow those drug authorisations to remain valid.

After some 150,000 pages of Pfizer’s documents, some very fishy and worrying facts have emerged – here is one assessment. It turns out that ‘these drug companies’ did indeed ‘run the risk of supplying dodgy drug products’.

What happens now? Doubtless, the likes of Dame June Raine, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Wei Shen Lim and many others anxiously scan the internet for news of what the FDA papers reveal. I mean ‘the internet’ specifically, because none of this is being reported on television or in newspapers.

If it is established that Pfizer’s trials were fraudulent, their immunity from civil and criminal action becomes invalid. Sadly, even with ample evidence to evince serious doubt about the legitimacy, efficacy and safety of these drugs, governments have taken no steps to cancel any authorisations. Why? It is impossible to say. All I know is that my instincts have proved correct, and that in the past two years my trust and confidence in our government, our public health officials and the NHS has completely evaporated.

Tragically, for reasons of avarice or something more sinister, we have been subjected to a huge fraud, one that has generated grave implications for health, welfare, livelihoods, relationships and general wellbeing.

I respect you as a conscientious GP and wish you well.


James Rogers

May 18, 2022 - Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | ,


  1. This letter comprehensively incriminates the ‘official’ connivance with pharmaceutical renegades and should surely be distributed more widely than to a single GP! The Government, the DPP, the meja, UN Ambassadors, the ICC….?


    Comment by jbthring | May 19, 2022 | Reply

    by Lawrence Broxmeyer MD
    © 2012
    Registered: US Library of Congress
    All rights reserved.
    Several Medline studies have shown that inoculating with influenza vaccine is also protective against tuberculosis. New evidence and older historical findings which explain this phenomenon bring up the possibility that influenza doesn’t originate from a virus – despite the indefatigable efforts of flu enthusiasts to make ‘viral’ their 1918-19 pandemic.

    Pfeiffer’s influenza bacillus, a bacterium, was heavily isolated at one time or another in victims of the 1918–19 pandemic by practically all major research centers in the United States. It was therefore considered, by most, to be the cause of influenza until at least 1933.
    Before 1933, a mysterious filterable bacteria kept surfacing in influenza specimens. Bradford and colleagues minute, unknown filterable bacteria might have been challenged and silenced by Arkwright’s criticisms, but resurfaced in the subsequent studies of Gibson, von Angerer, da Cunha, and Bowman. This bacterial cause then culminated with Fildes and McIntosh’s insistence and reassertion that Pfeiffer’s bacillus was indeed behind influenza. [1] The two leading pathologists in London, Fildes and McIntosh were a force to be reckoned with. Unlike others, used special “selective media” which inhibited the overgrowth of other secondary microorganisms seen in the influenza pandemic of 1918. For a while, Fildes and McIntosh sent the forces insisting on viralizing influenza scurrying. And yet, all the while, the description of the coccoid and bacillary forms found by many of these investigators, including the filterable bacilli of Olitsky and Gates were not inconsistent with Löhnis’s minute pleomorphic forms of the mycobacteria. The precise name originally given to Pfeiffer’s influenza bacillus originally was Mycobacterium influenzae. Next to these studies, those of the nearest competitor of Pfeiffer’s bacillus – a vague filterable “virus” paled.

    Although the term ‘virus’ has existed since 1898, the infectious agent it was attempting to describe was so unclear and mysterious that for many decades scientists considered a virus as purely theoretical. Certainly, even by 1917, “influenza” was still not felt to be serious enough to be a reportable disease, and no doctor had to report it to state or local health officials. Most cases were self-limiting and gone in 10 days. Yet the great “influenza” pandemic that swept the world in 1918–19 may have been the most virulent outbreak in history, at least in terms of the swiftness of its devastation. It killed more than 20 million persons around the world, including some 550,000 in the United States—all within two years.

    By 2000, Dr Andrew Noymer and Michel Garenne, demographers from the University of California, Berkeley, thought they knew just why this perceived discrepancy existed, reporting convincing statistics showing that undetected tuberculosis (TB) may have been the real killer in the 1918 flu epidemic. Aware of recent attempts to isolate the “influenza virus” from human cadavers and their specimens, Noymer and Garenne concluded:
    “Frustratingly, these findings have not answered the question why the 1918 virus was so virulent, nor do they offer an explanation for the unusual age profile of deaths.”[2]

    Somehow overlooked in today’s revisionist history of the flu, the influenza bacillus or Pfeiffer’s bacillus, discovered by Pfeiffer and Canon in 1892, was originally named Mycobacterium influenzae because it was thought to be related to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Both mycobacteria stained best with carbolfuchsin and methylene blue—bacterial stains that Robert Koch himself used in the discovery of tuberculosis. Also, Grassberger [3] observed the same branching fungal forms in Pfeiffer’s influenza mycobacteria as Metchnikoff [4] first identified in tuberculosis. Such fungal-like forms are the hallmark of the mycobacteria (their prefix “myco” means “fungal”). Mycobacteria such as tuberculosis are particularly deadly precisely because they share properties of the fungi as well as bacteria.

    More recently, in 1999, Fredj Tekaia, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and colleagues, looking for “overall gene similarities as signatures of common ancestry”, found similar genetic profiles and sequencing for Pfeiffer’s bacillus (Mycobacterium influenzae –now called) Mycobacterium tuberculosis, lumping them together in the same “well-defined group”. [5] Tekaia’s diagrammatic genomic tree shows the two organisms directly next to one another. This reopened the historical argument that Pfeiffer’s bacillus and tuberculosis are related.

    In 1933, the very year that Smith, Andrewes and Laidlaw, with the most scanty of evidence, claimed stake to the discovery of the human influenza “virus” – Stobie, in the British Medical Journal, still acknowledged that, rather than being a virus, the real nature of “influenza” could well be a form of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. [6] Stobie simply reflected the active, vigorous, yet historically suppressed debate that had been raging in medical journals for decades. He mentions cases of tuberculosis following influenza which together exhibited “a sinister type of disease which rarely responded to treatment”. Enter “galloping consumption”, the most devastating form of tuberculosis, then called “consumption”.

    In 1890, a fierce “influenza” pandemic struck worldwide, killing approximately a million people. Occurring at the end of the 19th century, this second most severe influenza ever to hit the world occurred at a time when there was fear that tuberculosis would destroy the civilization of Europe.

    Twenty-eight years later, those who survived that pandemic and lived to experience the Great Pandemic of 1918–19 tended to be less susceptible to the disease. But the lessons of 1890 were poorly understood and therefore not carried over to 1918.

    Of all the forms of “influenza” known in 1890, none was more dreaded nor struck more terror into the hearts of victims and their families than that described by Wiltschur [7] as “galloping consumption”. An attending physician at the Obuchow Hospital, St Petersburg, Wiltschur tells what happened when influenza punctuated previous or active cases of tuberculosis:
    “The [influenza] patients were, for the most part, still well nourished.” This mirrored the swine flu episode of 1918, where young healthy soldiers were suddenly decimated by disease. Wiltschur continued: “Cyanosis of the face and extremities was a frequent occurrence.” Patients exhibited severe difficulty in breathing (dyspnea), an extremely high temperature not characteristic of the flu, pulmonary hemorrhages and a rapid progression of lung disease, “with death occurring in many instances unexpectedly and suddenly”.

    Why these findings, including the well-known rapid fatality of “galloping consumption” with its high fever, profuse hemorrhaging, brownish spots or splotches on the face, strawberry tongue and typhoid-like symptoms, documented so clearly in and after the pandemic of 1890, were ignored by the historians, scientists and practitioners of 1918 is beyond comprehension.

    Historian/researcher René Dubos, of the then-named Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, would later confirm the galloping acceleration between influenza and tuberculosis in the laboratory. [8] Dubos also assured his readers that “galloping consumption” was not an isolated, but a frequent diagnosis in the 19th century. [9]

    Despite persistent myths to the contrary, in the early phase of any new TB epidemic, perhaps from a new strain, tuberculosis manifests itself as an acute disease and only much later as the chronic pulmonary tuberculosis that we know in today’s western world. An example of this can be found in the high mortality during the 1918 “influenza” pandemic, when African-Americans were brought to fight in France during World War I, large numbers of them dying from the accelerated tubercular “galloping consumption” of yesteryear. But was it only this specific group that was affected circa 1918? There has been much documentation that in certain cases, depending on the virulence of the tubercular strain, the infection can spread rapidly, causing a disease both acute and fatal, with signs and symptoms so unspecific that a proper diagnosis is impossible to make.

    Pivotal to any understanding of how and why Pfeiffer’s bacillus was both mistaken for the influenza virus and at the same time, misclassified by virtue of its mycobacterial-like fungal forms was the study of Wade and Manalang. At the beginning of January 1920, an important study [10] appeared in The Rockefeller Institute’s Journal of Experimental Medicine. Physician Herbert Windsor Wade, an American investigator working out of the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology at the University of the Philippines College of Medicine and Surgery, doubted that a virus had anything to do with influenza at all. And Wade, working with Filipino national Dr Christobal Manalang, proved this in 1919 in their university laboratory.

    Richard Pfeiffer still insisted that his organism “had the best claim to serious consideration as the primary etiologic agent [cause], and its only competition is an unidentified filterable virus”. [11] Had Pfeiffer studied Wade and Manalang’s laboratory evidence, his reply would have been quite different. Pfeiffer’s bacillus itself had a filterable virus-like form that could easily be mistaken for a filterable influenza “virus”.

    Wade remained a voice of scientific reason throughout the 1918 influenza pandemic, during which he personally experienced a scourge in which, depending upon which province he visited, from 40 to 95 per cent of Filipinos had contracted the disease. At least 70,000–90,000 of them had already died. Wade knew what it was like to come into a village where there were not enough living to bury the dead. Also, being far from the United States, he was not subject to the relentless censorship of the Wilson administration, both against civilians and scientists of the US Army Medical Corps itself. If he saw mycobacterial forms similar to those of TB in Pfeiffer’s influenza bacillus, he could and would report them without fear of being accused of fueling the flames of hysteria. And in documenting tuberculosis-like fungal forms in Pfeiffer’s bacillus, that is exactly what Wade did.

    When the French chemist/ microbiologist Louis Pasteur was on his deathbed, his conscience finally overtook him, forcing him to admit that his great rival, biochemist and MD Antoine Béchamp, had been correct and that he had been wrong. Not only were microbial forms changeable, but they depended upon the culture media or the environment in the body’s terrain. So with his last dying breath, Pasteur whispered: “The terrain is everything…”. [12]

    [1] Gladstone G.P., C.J.G Knight, and G. Wilson, “Paul Gordon Fildes, 1882-1971”, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 19, 317-74.
    [2] Noymer A. and M. Garenne, “The 1918 influenza epidemic’s effects on sex differentials in mortality in the United States”, Population Development Review 2000; 26(3):565-81.
    [3] Grassberger R., “Zur Frage der Scheinfadenbildung bei influnzakulturen”, Centralbl f Bakt I Abt 1898;23(9/10):353-364.
    [4] Metchnikoff E., “Über die phagocytäre Rolle der Tuberkelriesenzellen”, Virchow’s Archchives of Pathological Anatomy 1888; 113(1):63-94.
    [5] Tekaia F., A. Lazcano and B. Dujon, “The Genomic Tree as Revealed from Whole Proteome Comparisons”, Genome Research 1999; 9:550-557.
    [6] Stobie W., “Prognosis in Pulmonary Tuberculosis”, British Medical Journal 1933 Mar 25; 1:507-509, p. 508.
    [7] Wiltschur A.J., “Ueber den Einfluss der Gippe auf den Verlauf der Phthise und deren Krankheitsbild bei Complicationen mit Gippe”, Petersburger med Wochenschrift 1890; XV(5).
    [8] Volkert, Mogens, Cynthia Pierce, Frank L. Horsfall, Jr, and René J. Dubos, “The Enhancing Effect of Concurrent Infection with Pneumotropic Viruses on Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Mice”, Journal of Experimental Medicine 1947
    Aug 31; 86(3):203-214, pp. 212-213.
    [9] Dubos R. and Dubos J., The White Plague: Tuberculosis, Man, and Society, Rutgers University Press, 1987, p. 205.
    [10] Wade H.W. and C. Manalang, “Fungous Developmental Growth Forms of Bacillus Influenzae”, Journal of Experimental Medicine (Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research) 1920 Jan 1; 31(1):95-103.
    [11] Pfeiffer R.F.J., “Die Aetiologie der Influenza” (“The Aetiology of Influenza“), Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten 1893; 13:357-386.
    [12] Hume E.D., Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology, C.W. Daniel Co. Ltd, Ashington, England, 1923.


    Comment by Pip | May 19, 2022 | Reply

  3. Pfeiffer’s bacillus as a cause for influenza, as described in Pip’s comments, is, as I have previously suggested, the reason why Ivermectin is a successful early treatment against covid-19. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an anti-viral, and if it is effective against bacteria, it stands to reason that covid-19 is not a virus, but a bacterial disease. But, of course, the ‘experts’ tell us otherwise. So, not only do sufferers get wrongly diagnosed and treated in hospital, but many of us are forced to take a jab of poison that is not designed to address, nor able to treat, the illness.


    Comment by Bill Francis | May 20, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.