Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
“We have experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020.
Number of excess deaths according to Office for Health Improvements and Disparities
Mar-Dec 2020 (there were fewer deaths than expected in Jan and Feb 2020 according to ONS)
69,293
Jul 2021 – Sept 2023
76,554
Unlike during the pandemic, however, those deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excess deaths are striking down people in the prime of life… Full text with graphs
Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.
The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one’s looking.
Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since.
The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation.
There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone.
There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.
The US childhood vaccine schedule ballooned after 1986, when vaccine makers were no longer liable for deaths or injuries caused by vaccines and responsibility for compensating victims shifted to the US government.
In his bookVaccine-nation: Poisoning the Population One Shot at a time, Andreas Moritz relates that by the mid-1990s autism rates in the US had soared so high that parents of autistic children vaccinated during the period when the childhood vaccine schedule had twice expanded, 1988 and 1991, began to protest publicly. Alarm bells were ringing loudly and Congress responded by ordering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the use of the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal in all biologics including vaccines.
Similarly, in 1999 the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten was asked to assemble a research team to analyse the medical records of 100,000 children from the vast repository of health and vaccination data stored in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and compare the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.
Robert F Kennedy Jr writes in The Real Anthony Fauci (p327) that the raw data showed that infants who had thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccines in their first thirty days suffered a 1,135 per cent higher rate of autism than infants who did not.
A ‘secret’ conclave was convened in June 2000 at a retreat, Simpsonwood in Georgia, called the ‘Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information’, where Verstraeten presented his findings to selected senior government officials and scientists, vaccine specialists from the World Health Organization (WHO), specialists in the fields of autism, paediatrics, toxicology and epidemiology, and representatives of the major vaccine makers.
Several sources, including RFK Jr, maintain the CDC subsequently took a series of ‘damage-control’ measures to conceal the evidence, including issuing a public statement that the original data had been lost, commissioning another study by the Institute of Medicine, and instructing Verstraeten to ‘rework’ his findings. These were published in 2003 and, predictably, showed no link between the mercury-containing preservative and autism.
Andreas Moritz writes that the agency handed over its vast databases to a private company to remove the damning thimerosal-related data from the purview of the Freedom of Information Act. Other sources dispute this account and depict the meeting as routine and transparent.
What is unquestionable is that the epidemic of neuro-developmental, allergic and autoimmune diseases in children post 1986, coupled with more than 450 studies attesting to thimerosal’s devastating toxicity (cited in the highly referenced The Real Anthony Fauci), led Congress to ban the mercury-containing preservative from use in paediatric vaccines in 2001.
By this time, however, the ‘Vaccine Court’ was inundated with autism-related claims alleging the MMR vaccine as cause. The three hypotheses of cause were: that the cocktail of antigens caused ‘neuroinflammation’ by ‘hyperarousal’ or ‘overexcitation’ of the immune system; that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal alone was responsible; that it was a combination of both.
Claimants had witnessed their toddlers who had met normal developmental milestones up to receiving the MMR at 12 months react to the vaccination with high fever, sometimes accompanied by gastrointestinal symptoms, and from that point on cease to develop normally. This is described as ‘regressive’ autism. Many had good video evidence of normal development prior to the vaccination.
The ‘Vaccine Court’, however, is not a court of law. It is an administrative proceeding in which the most basic rules of law do not apply, such as the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure, the rules of discovery. None of this framework of balanced rights applies. Instead, it is presided over by a politically appointed government attorney called a ‘Special Master’ who is given ultimate discretion and authority over the proceeding.
In 2006, with 5,400 cases awaiting adjudication, the Special Masters decided to select half a dozen test cases as stand-ins for the rest. Test cases 1 to 3 alleged a combination of the MMR vaccine and the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal had caused their child’s autism, whilst test cases 4 to 6 alleged that thimerosal alone was responsible. Known as the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, they began in 2007.
Rolf Hazlehurst, an attorney and father of the second test case claimant, explained how his lawyers were denied discovery of the pharmaceutical company’s documents, normal in civil litigation. More unconscionable still, his lawyers and their scientists were denied access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which the government itself relies on. Far from being non-adversarial, Hazlehurst describes the process as highly adversarial.
Becky Estepp, mother of a vaccine-injured child, observed the intimidation used against parents at a proceeding. She explained that on entering the court one sees two rows of government lawyers on one side, and four rows of smartly dressed professionals on the other – the lawyers for the drug companies – constantly passing notes to the government attorneys. Petitioners are supposedly presenting their claims to the US government, so why are the drug companies represented at the hearing at all?
With all official discovery routes by which parents can plausibly prove causal link barred, they are left with the one resource of expert witness testimony, only to find these respected and experienced doctors viciously maligned in court by the government attorneys. Becky Estepp observed that government lawyers did not need to counter any arguments put forth by the claimants, or do anything procedurally to end the cases, because she witnessed on the day of the hearing the media attack the reputation of the claimants’ expert witness on national TV. She added that the prospect of national vilification would deter any professional from giving expert testimony on behalf of victims. Judy Mikovits PhD, who served as an expert witness at the Vaccine Court, gave a detailed account in her 2020 book The Plague of Corruption of the treatment they received.
Rolf Hazlehurst illustrated the travesty of these proceedings by relating the Special Master’s decision that, while the claimant had succeeded in proving that mercury was a neurotoxin, and that it was hazardous if inhaled, ingested or came into contact with the skin, in the case of vaccines it was injected into the bloodstream, therefore the evidence was not applicable!
All six test cases failed.
Years later, in 2019, it came to light through a sworn affidavit by the government’s own autism specialist and primary expert witness, paediatric neurologist Dr Andrew Zimmerman, that during the Omnibus Autism Proceedings he had taken the government attorneys aside and explained to them that his written opinion in the first test case, which refuted vaccine causation, was not intended to be a blanket statement for all the cases. He had clarified that in some children, those with mitochondria dysfunction, vaccination could cause autism. According to his affidavit, his services were promptly dispensed with and his opinion misrepresented for the public record. (Mikovits: The Plague of Corruption)
The central question, however, is why would we think injecting antigen cocktails, metals, preservatives, turbo-chargers and contaminants into the bloodstream of infants was not courting disaster? This case of a healthy two-month-old baby, who died hours after receiving a vaccine cocktail of eight antigens and corresponding adjuvants, exemplifies the human cost of this practice.
NBC News on Tuesday led its online broadcast with what the network said was the biggest news in the world: “President Biden to visit Israel and vaccine hesitancy on the rise for pregnant women.”
As the winter respiratory illness season rapidly approaches, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the first time is recommending four vaccines during pregnancy: the flu vaccine, Tdap vaccine (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis, or whooping cough), RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine, and the COVID-19 vaccine.
But more women are saying “no” to their doctors who recommend COVID-19 and the other vaccines — even shutting down conversations with, “I’m not going to talk about it,” according to the NBC News report.
“We are meeting more resistance than I ever remember,” said Dr. Neil Silverman, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at UCLA Health. “We didn’t get this kind of pushback on this scale before the pandemic.”
“Now all vaccines are lumped together as ‘bad,’” he said.
Medical experts interviewed by The Defender criticized the CDC’s recommendations and its report on vaccine hesitancy.
One of those experts, Dr. James Thorp, a Florida physician, board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology who has practiced obstetrics for more than 42 years, urged more women to say no to COVID-19 vaccines, in particular, which he called “an abomination of science and an abomination of a corrupted health care system.”
By continuing to push dangerous mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on pregnant women, Thorp said, the CDC is breaking the “golden rule” of pregnancy.
“The golden rule of pregnancy is you don’t ever, ever use a novel substance in pregnancy, ever,” he said. “And you don’t have to be a physician or nurse, you don’t have to have any education, to know that.”
Only 27% of survey respondents took COVID booster shot
The CDC study analyzed data from an internet panel survey conducted from March 28 to April 16, 2023. The CDC surveyed 1,814 respondents who were pregnant at any time from October 2022 to January 2023.
Only 27.3% of women chose to take the COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine before or during pregnancy during the 2022-23 flu season, nearly half the percent who agreed to take some other vaccines, the signal in the study indicating fear of COVID-19 vaccines tainted other vaccines, public health experts said.
Skepticism about vaccines has ballooned to taint the flu shot in the eyes of pregnant women, though the flu shot has been given to millions of pregnant women over several decades. Last year, the CDC study found, 47.2% of expectant mothers got their flu shots, down from 57.5% who got their flu shots during the pre-COVID-19 2019-20 season.
Among most of the 2,000 women who were pregnant during the peak of last year’s cold and flu season, or when the survey was conducted in March and April, almost a quarter said they were “very hesitant” about getting a flu shot, a significant increase in “vaccine hesitancy” over the 17.2% who said they had reservations during the 2021-22 respiratory illness season.
55.4% of women with a recent live birth elected to receive Tdap vaccination during pregnancy, a number inching back from pre-pandemic levels, but “self-reported hesitancy towards influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy increased among pregnant women from 2019–20 to 2022–23.”
Dr. Denise Jamieson, vice president for medical affairs at the University of Iowa Health Care and a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told NBC News that “even prior to the pandemic, it was a struggle to get pregnant women vaccinated.”
She said she is dismayed that “Tdap is just barely recovering from pre-pandemic levels” and “the number of women vaccinated for Covid is disappointing.”
Dr. Linda Eckert, an OB-GYN and global health and immunization expert at the University of Washington, said more of her patients have “a bias … about how they feel about a vaccine.”
Dr. Melissa Simon, an OB-GYN at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, decried the rise in vaccine “myths, what I would call blatant disinformation that is intended to be more politically charged, not based in science.”
Pregnancy ‘much safer’ without ‘risks of vaccination’
Thorp, a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine who sees 6,000-7,000 high-risk pregnant patients a year, said he was horrified by the unprecedented level of complications, miscarriages and fetal deaths among his pregnant patients and their unborn children after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are “the deadliest drug in the history of medicine, whether you call it a vaccine, a drug, a gene medicine, a medical intervention, whatever you call it,” he said. “And they knew it. The CDC knew it. HHS knew it. Pfizer knew it and tried to bury the data, which showed 1,223 deaths from its vaccine in the first 10 weeks, for 75 years.”
“If you take all the other vaccines in the U.S. in the last century and do a literature search,” he said, “the deaths and illnesses associated with the mRNA vaccines dwarf the dangers of all other vaccines combined.”
Captured government agencies and major media have for nearly three years continued to ignore the most dire vaccine impacts in U.S. history, which are especially tragic for pregnant women and their unborn children, Thorp said.
In December 2022, Thorp was the lead author of a groundbreaking preprint article on the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women and unborn children. The article was peer-reviewed and published in spring 2023 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The study analyzed adverse events after COVID-19 vaccines experienced by women of reproductive age, focusing on pregnancy and menstruation. It used data collected by the VAERS database from Jan. 1, 1998, to June 30, 2022, to compare injury reports on flu vaccines versus COVID-19 vaccines.
The study found that COVID-19 vaccines, when compared to flu vaccines, are associated with a greater than double rate of reported “menstrual abnormalities, miscarriage, fetal chromosomal abnormalities, fetal malformation, fetal cystic hygroma, fetal cardiac disorders, fetal arrhythmias, fetal cardiac arrest, fetal vascular malperfusion, fetal growth abnormalities, fetal abnormal surveillance, fetal placental thrombosis, low amniotic fluid, preeclampsia, premature delivery, preterm premature rupture of membrane, fetal death/stillbirth, and premature baby death.”
“Pregnancy complications and menstrual abnormalities are significantly more frequent following COVID-19 vaccinations than Influenza vaccinations,” the authors concluded.
According to Thorp, when he first alerted the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology — the most powerful of the three medical boards in his specialty — about the signals in VAERS, the board threatened to decertify him for spreading “misinformation.”
The board has since backed off, Thorp said, because “they know they’re wrong and I’m right.”
Thorp said he proved, with documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, another one of the three major OBG-YN medical societies, took “large sums of money” from the federal government to participate in “the largest 5th generation psyops warfare in the history of the world, a massive propaganda program to bury the data,” and threatened 61,000 doctors with loss of board certification that would end their careers if they deviated from the government line that the vaccines were “safe and effective and necessary.”
The CDC and other public health authorities, backed by major media, “targeted my patients with their propaganda,” Thorp said.
“They targeted women because women make all the healthcare decisions, not men,” he said. “And they went after women because pregnant women are the most vulnerable population in the world, not children, not the elderly. If you can capture pregnant women when you’re implementing a drug you can convince everyone in the world they should follow.”
Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, disputed that any of the four CDC-recommended vaccines during pregnancy is necessary, but he said the COVID-19 vaccine is especially dangerous.
“It is my belief that the safety of those vaccines have never been truly proven, especially in terms of them leading to increased rates of many chronic illnesses in childhood,” he said.
Kory said he was appalled by what he said was an ongoing propaganda campaign of misinformation. “This is both absurd and unsurprising,” he said. “The level of pharmaceutical industry influence is being revealed to more Americans on a daily basis.”
Kory pointed to the CDC’s “truly alarming,” maternal mortality data for 2021. “My recommendation to the CDC is to focus more on why so many American mothers died suddenly in 2021, rather than continuing to blindly recommend mass vaccination of that patient population.”
Using the CDC’s mortality data from its March 16, 2023, report, Kory created a chart breaking out mortality rates for pregnant mothers under 25 years old. It showed a 38% increase in deaths for all mothers of all races and more than an 83% increase for young Hispanic mothers.
Why is the CDC and JAMA finding an explosion in maternal deaths in 2021? https://t.co/NTYFlVYsAc I made a table for mom's under 25. Either men started having babies (higher risk?) or the U.S aggressively vaccinated pregnant women with mRNA. Take your pick. #stoptheshotspic.twitter.com/18Dj2bxQrt
Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender he was “concerned that unnecessary vaccines during pregnancy will cause fever in some women.”
“Fever is one of the most common triggers for miscarriage, stillbirth and premature labor,” he said. “Pregnancy is much safer when left to the natural progression of gestation without the risks of vaccination.”
“As a mother, the first thing I did, the first thing all mothers do, is evaluate what you’re consuming because it’s going directly into your baby,” said Laura Sextro, CEO of The Unity Project, a California-based nonprofit that fights for medical freedom and parental rights. “Pregnant women cut out fish because of high levels of mercury and lead, or maybe stop drinking Diet Coke.”
While mothers “go to great lengths to protect their child in the womb,” she urged more to become aware of the dangers of “injecting yourself” with the mRNA vaccine, which poses risks, both proven and unknown, to mothers and children.
“It’s an atrocity we’re seeing,” she said. “We’re seeing a dramatic uptick in spontaneous abortion in certain trimesters after women are given this vaccine.”
Sextro advised pregnant women that “the best way to protect you and baby is always make sure you’re asking questions.”
“If you’re not getting answers, it’s your right as a parent — just because the baby is in the womb doesn’t mean you’re not a parent — it is your responsibility to make sure that you stay informed and protect your child.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
The contrast between the evidence sessions of Prof. John Edmunds (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, SAGE modeller) and Prof. Carl Heneghan at the Covid Inquiry yesterday was absolutely shocking and raises huge questions about the professionalism of the Inquiry.
The King’s Counsel in the morning spent hours questioning Edmunds in a friendly, at times obsequious manner, as he explained how misunderstood the modelling was, how it wasn’t needed to justify lockdowns – as the indicative Basic reproduction number (R0) and Indicative Fatality Rate (IFR) were enough – to justify earlier and harder lockdown measures. Yet, according to Edmunds, the modelling would still be needed in the future. Truly an “all things to all men modelling” – useful when needed to justify future lockdowns, yet hides in the corner when retrospectively scrutinised and compared with real-world data. Three key flaws in the Covid modelling have been highlighted:
These aren’t flaws that can be explained away by saying the scenarios changed with the reality of lockdowns. For example, ICU rates are unaffected by shelter-in-place orders and school closures.
The dangerous implication here is that the Covid Inquiry is lining us up for future restrictions based on indicative RO and IFR, a lockdown hair-trigger switch that gives more authority to the modellers.
The soft-ball questioning and praise from the Inquiry continued as the discussion moved to Summer 2020, circuit breakers and the elision from “flatten the curve” to “zero Covid”.
Then the Inquiry moved on to the Downing Street Summit, where other voices – counsel highlighting as the ‘let it rip’ brigade – were invited at short notice. The big reveal was that Angela McLean, who has replaced Sir Patrick Vallance as Chief Scientific Officer, referred to Carl Heneghan as a “f*ckwit” in a contemporaneous WhatsApp chat, while Edmunds challenged Heneghan’s epidemiological knowledge. In my view, the Inquiry raising the point in this way is indicative of a lack of professionalism.
The Inquiry was also keen to include another pet villain – Doctor Death – the sobriquet applied by McLean to refer to Rishi Sunak, for the perceived crime of pushing for Eat Out to Help Out to reinvigorate the pub and restaurant industry, and providing a much needed moral boost to the nation.
The questioning continued for hours, covering the narrative classics of Long Covid, why the Vaccine rollout should have been broader, etc., all carried out in a cosy relationship included Baroness Hallett’s freely-given praise for Edmund, Ferguson and the whole modelling team.
By contrast, the interrogation of Carl Heneghan started out with a blatant attempt to undermine his credentials, strongly re-buffed by Carl, setting a tone for the only adversarial evidence session I have seen at this Inquiry so far. Any discussion that strayed from the narrative was met with aggressive and hostile demands for ‘yes/no’ answers.
Counsel objected to Carl’s answer rightly pointing out the danger of lockdowns to care homes, as he wanted to concentrate on focused protection and the misrepresentation of it by Counsel as hermetically sealing up the old and vulnerable. The minimum of critical thinking could have told Counsel that it was about reducing risk where it was highest, rather than across the board.
Carl was challenged on his views on the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) – he broadly agreed with it, he explained, but didn’t sign at the time as he needed more evidence on the details as you would expect, before Counsel dived into the Downing Street conference call.
Carl was challenged on his definition of ‘Endemicity’ on that call (presumably Edmunds’ gotcha epidemiological point), with Counsel demanding that the spread of infection be “broad and predictable” for it to qualify as endemic, when seasonal spikes shown on a graph means it wasn’t. This was rebuffed in a strong response from Prof. Heneghan, emphasising the seasonal pattern of endemic respiratory viruses and the variability of testing data and evidence on the ground.
Carl’s response to being challenged on the “f*ckwit” comment was dignified and professional, indicating it signified a lack of professionalism from the author as well as a lack of willingness to engage in debate, and an assumption of certainty where there was great uncertainty. He further pointed out that the entire lockdown response was driven by modelling and failed to take into account empirical data or the reality on the ground. Counsel scuttled along to that favourite fallback of the lockdown zealots – Long Covid – where Carl educated the Inquiry by telling it there was no greater risk of lingering disease from Covid than from any other seasonal respiratory disease.
At this point, Counsel decided to end the very short proceedings, presumably to shield the carefully constructed narrative to live another day.
It was hard not to notice the stark contrast in the attitude and approach to the two witnesses and it raises further serious questions on the ability of this long and expensive public inquiry to professionally and impartially challenge the decision making that led to lockdowns.
I appeared on American Sunrise (10/18/23) with Dr. Gina Loudon to let America know I am not recommending COVID-19 XBB.1.5 Boosters, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus vaccines for healthy adults or children. None of these vaccines are compelling and conditions are easily treatable. The EUA COVID-19 injections have been determined to be unsafe for human use by the World Council for Health and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
None of these vaccines have compelling efficacy. For example, the RENOIR Trial in 34,284 adults tested the unadjuvanted RSVpreF vaccine at a dose of 120 μg (containing 60 μg each of RSV A and RSV B antigens) (17,215 participants) versus placebo (17,069 participants). RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two signs or symptoms occurred in 11 participants in the vaccine group and 33 participants in the placebo group, (vaccine efficacy, 66.7%; 96.66% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 85.8); 2 cases and 14 cases with least three signs or symptoms (vaccine efficacy, 85.7%; 96.66% CI, 32.0 to 98.7). RSV-associated acute respiratory illness occurred in 22 participants in the vaccine group and 58 participants in the placebo group, vaccine efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, 37.1 to 77.9). There were no hospitalizations or deaths mentioned in either group. Because data are sparse, we must rely on the lower limit of the confidence interval for treatment effect, which is unacceptable being far below 50% for all outcomes.
RSV, like influenza and COVID-19 are easily treatable infections at home. As you can see RSV is very rare with <1% of adults contracting the virus. Vaccinating the entire adult population is an excessive use of a poorly effective new product. For healthy persons, it is perfectly reasonable to skip fall vaccines and seek early treatment in the rare circumstance that one of these viral infections is contracted.
James A Shannon, director of the US National Institutes of Health 1955-68, said: ‘No vaccination can be proven safe before it is given to children.’
When he made that statement, it was still possible in the US to sue vaccine manufacturers under tort law for vaccine-induced deaths and injuries, which is no longer the case.
Today the US has the world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule and ranks as the sickest country, with the highest infant mortality, in the developed world. The UK does not lag far behind.
Vaccines carry three separate areas of potential risk. Firstly, they artificially stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, which temporarily inhibits another part of the body’s defence mechanism. In an infant, whose immune system is just developing, this high demand of energy can in some cases overwhelm its metabolic reserves, and cause brain inflammation. The brain is the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body, followed by the gastro-intestinal tract and the immune system.
Secondly, vaccines contain chemicals, metals and drugs. Thirdly, according to the former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova, traditional vaccines are consistently contaminated with plant and animal proteins which hyper-sensitise the body, especially in children, giving rise to allergies.
In the US in the 1970s there were three inoculations recommended for children: the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) (DTP), polio, and the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), introduced there in 1971. The DTP which was used in the US until 1992 contained the carcinogen formaldehyde. Both the DTP and the MMR contained the preservative thimerosal, which is almost 50 per cent mercury, and in infants can pass through the blood-brain barrier.
A wave of sudden infant deaths (SIDs), severe brain injuries, seizures and other neurological problems were linked through studies to the DTP. In 1977, a study published in the Lancet established that the risks of the whole-cell pertussis used in the DTP vaccine exceeded the risks associated with wild pertussis. Six years later, in 1983, a National Institutes of Health-funded study found that Wyeth’s DTP vaccine was killing or causing severe brain damage to 1 in 300 vaccinated children.
Lawsuits against the manufacturers shot up. In 1984, the president of pharmaceutical manufacturer Lederle declared that the dollar demand of DTP lawsuits against the company was 200 times greater than their total sales of DTP vaccine in 1983. Another vaccine manufacturer, Connaught Laboratories, had damages suits filed against it in 1985/6 amounting to a billion dollars. Wyeth, now Pfizer, faced a similar plight, and bankruptcy threatened the industry as insurers withdrew their indemnity cover.
The industry therefore lobbied Congress for a liability shield from damages, which led to the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, and the establishment of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988, administered by the US government through the Health and Human Services Department.
Parents of vaccine-injured children from 1988 were directed to apply to what is commonly referred to as the ‘Vaccine Court’ to present their cases. This was supposed to be a neutral forum where the adversarial nature of civil litigation was removed, their cases would be dealt with swiftly and compensation, where applicable, paid in a timely manner. The reality could not be more different, and how the ‘Vaccine Court’ actually operates will be described in Part 2.
Meanwhile, freed from any consequences and related costs of selling unsafe products, vaccine manufacturers wasted no time in creating new lucrative vaccines and lobbying Congress to include them in the Childhood Vaccine Schedule. That same year of 1988, Hepatitis B and the Hib vaccine, against haemophilus influenza type B, were introduced, both containing mercury-laden thimerosal. In The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F Kennedy Jr writes that more than 450 studies attested to thimerosal’s devastating toxicity, and because testosterone amplifies the neurotoxicity of the mercury molecule, boys were disproportionately affected.
Cases of autism, ADHD, speech delay, and other neurological conditions soared, in direct parallel with the fast-expanding vaccine schedule. In 1986 autism cases in the US were approximately 1 in 2,500. By 2017 they had jumped to 1 in 36. From the three recommended vaccines in 1986, by 2017 the schedule had risen to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.
Not one paediatric vaccine has ever been tested for safety against a genuine placebo. In 2017 TV producer Del Bigtree asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) how it justified licensing any paediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions in the subject group was compared with a control group receiving an inert placebo. In January 2018 the HHS replied: ‘Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine.’
If randomised control trials (RCTs), the so-called gold standard of safety testing, are kicked aside, how can any conclusions reached on the safety profile of a product be scientifically valid?
There are, however, real-life comparison studies between cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
As reported by RFK Jr’s Children’s Health Defense, for years American paediatrician Paul Thomas, now retired, witnessed healthy 12-month-olds regress into severe autism following the MMR vaccination, so in 2010 he devised a new, bespoke approach to the vaccination of children in his practice Integrative Pediatric. He offered parents a comprehensive discussion and autonomy over whether to vaccinate their children as per the US schedule, selectively vaccinate them, with longer intervals between shots, or not vaccinate them at all.
As reported in TCW yesterday, he and colleague James Lyons-Weiler PhD studied the health outcomes of the children over almost ten years, and in 2020 published the results in a groundbreaking paper which showed unequivocally that unvaccinated children enjoy better health than vaccinated children. The results showed a dramatic reduction of cases of ADHD and autism. They were almost entirely absent in the unvaccinated cohort, and greatly reduced in the partially vaccinated cohort. The same applied to anaemia, asthma, allergies, dermatitis, eczema, ear and eye infections and sinusitis.
In a recent discussion with Paul Thomas, the mother of an autistic son explained that he had been developing normally until he received the MMR vaccine, when his temperature shot up, he came out in an appalling rash, and screamed incessantly while hitting his head against the wall. She said she kept telephoning her paediatrician, who said it was ‘normal’.
Dr Thomas explained that when paediatricians say it is ‘normal’, what they mean is it is ‘common’. Many in the medical profession have become so blinded by dogma that they see frequency as indicating normality and cease to recognise what is profoundly abnormal.
That one vaccine-generation child in two graduates from high school in the US taking medication for a chronic condition should be regarded as both highly abnormal and an indictment of US public health policy.
How this has been allowed is, at least in part, down to the corrupted working of the US Vaccine Court, and the total protection from liability this gives to Big Pharma and its profit driven vaccine enterprise, and I will discuss this in Part 2.
I am really sorry to have to do this to long-established TCW readers, who must be weary of the mass of scientific evidence we have reported over nearly three years about the ineffectiveness and dangers of the Covid jabs – and the continuing lack of response from regulators. But a peer-reviewed study out last week in the British Journal of Pharmacology provides an important piece of the puzzle of why heart damage has emerged as prominent among side-effects from the mRNA gene injections.
It shows for the first time that rat heart cells, isolated in the laboratory, become disordered 48 hours after exposure to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in ways that correlate with heart muscle damage in humans. The scientists involved, at the Giessen Institute of Physiology in Germany and the National Heart Laboratory of Semmelweis University, Hungary, say the findings mean the policy of giving people mRNA vaccines should be reconsidered. This adds even further weight to Professor Angus Dalgleish’s call for the mRNA vaccines to be banned once and for all made in these pages three weeks ago.
The vaccines were designed to induce our bodies to make a specific protein, the toxic ‘spike’ of the genetically engineered Covid virus, in the hope that this would increase our immunity to the virus. It was originally claimed that the genetic material would act only at the site of the injection, and that it would soon disappear. Both claims have been disproved, with studies showing that the nanoparticles carrying the genetic instruction for ‘spike’ travel all over the body, and can be long-lasting.
In the new study, the Moderna and Pfizer products had different, specific effects, but both altered heart cell function and structure in ‘hidden’ ways that ‘may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events’, the researchers say.
Commenting on the study, the US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough said yesterday: ‘There have been many drugs that have never made it to the market because they cause heart rhythm disturbances. Because the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed in development, pre-clinical cardiac toxicity studies were skipped. Now, three years into the disastrous Covid-19 vaccine campaign, we are learning that probably every person sustains some degree of heart dysfunction or damage within 48 hours of the shot . . . This and many studies support a complete moratorium on mRNA research, given these very serious findings.’
Mathematician and businessman Igor Chudov, who closely monitors Covid vaccine science, also drew attention to the study, commenting: ‘I wish this research had been done before billions of people were poisoned. Sadly, little will change now – but the truth is finally coming out.’
The finding comes after a long line of warnings about heart damage from the jabs. As early as December 2020, US physician Dr Patrick Whelan, a paediatric specialist, wrote that vaccines based on the spike protein may themselves trigger symptoms of severe Covid, including blood clots, brain inflammation and damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. He urged particular caution over giving the vaccine to children and young adults, who normally fight off the coronavirus infection in its early stages.
The following May, an international group of doctors and scientists published an appeal – the first of many – to halt mass vaccination programmes until safety issues were resolved.
A month later, in June 2021, pathologist Dr Roger Hodkinson said the vaccine should never have been released, warning that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – was being seen increasingly in the wake of the jab, especially in young men. The long-term consequences, he said, were ‘totally unpredictable’ and never ‘mild’, as regulators were describing it. ‘It may only present 20 years later because of the reserve of the heart having been destroyed. We are talking here about cardiac arrhythmias, abnormal heartbeats, heart failure and so on . . . The bottom line is that this vaccination of everybody should stop immediately.’
The same month Dr Byram Bridle, associate professor of immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, said it had become clear that ‘the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation’.
And in November 2021 Dr Steven Gundry, a renowned American heart specialist, reported ‘dramatic’ biochemical changes predictive of heart trouble in most of his patients after their second mRNA jab. ‘These changes persist for at least two and a half months post second dose of vaccine,’ he wrote in an alert to the American Heart Association.
More recently, another biochemical signal of hidden heart damage in the wake of the jabs was reported last month in the journal Radiology. Patients known to be suffering from post-vaccination myocarditis show this abnormality, and a study on hundreds of symptomless patients, who were in hospital for check-ups and other reasons, found the same signal to be more common among the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The effect was seen for up to 180 days after their second jab.
McCullough has given evidence supporting his call for a moratorium on the jabs at hearings in the US Senate and European Parliament. He has published a ‘note of concern to colleagues’ in which he says that as of August 25 this year, the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has recorded 18,015 deaths reported under the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the vaccine is related to the death. The largest autopsy study to date indicates that 73.9 per cent of deaths are directly caused or significantly contributed to by the Covid jabs, he says. Around 1,100 deaths occurred on the same day as vaccination.
His statement continues: ‘There are around 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts in the medical literature concerning fatal and non-fatal Covid-19 vaccine injuries including those recognized by regulatory agencies around the world such as myocarditis, neurologic injury, thrombosis, and immunologic syndromes.
‘The World Council for Health, June 11, 2022, has produced a pharmacovigilance report which is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven, calling for global market withdrawal of Covid-19 vaccines based on lack of safety.’
Citing other similar calls, he says the evidence indicates that not only are the vaccines not safe for human use, but ‘no large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization or death as primary endpoints.’
Elsewhere, he has said that the moratorium should apply to all mRNA vaccines, including those being developed for other purposes, until the effects on the heart are fully studied.
People who consume higher-than-normal quantities of erythritol, a popular sugar substitute sold under a variety of brand names, are at greater risk of having a heart attack or stroke, according to a study in Nature Medicine.
The risk of heart disease can last for years after consuming erythritol. This is concerning because “the very people who are being targeted for foods that contain erythritol” — those with diabetes, obesity, or a history of cardiovascular diseases — “are the same people who already are at increased risk for cardiovascular events,” according to one of the study’s authors.
Stanley Hazen, M.D., Ph.D., a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, led the study, which consisted of four experiments.
The first two experiments considered associations between erythritol blood levels and cardiovascular events. The third experiment found erythritol caused blood platelets to become stickier. And the fourth found ingesting erythritol raised blood levels to concerning levels for over two days.
Breaking down the study
Among 1,157 patients undergoing heart-health exams, those whose blood contained non-sugar sweeteners and their breakdown products were more likely to have a heart attack or stroke during a three-year follow-up period.
Researchers identified several artificial sweeteners in the patients’ blood, but erythritol seemed to have the strongest connection with heart attack and death.
Because the sweeteners are related chemically and several were present, researchers initially could not be sure that erythritol was to blame.
They began a second investigation among 2,149 U.S. and 833 European subjects undergoing heart tests. This time, they analyzed blood in a way that allowed them to detect only erythritol and its effects.
After categorizing subjects into four groups of increasing blood erythritol levels, those in the highest-level group were more than three times as likely to have a heart attack or stroke during the following three years.
In both the U.S. and European study groups, the highest erythritol blood levels were found in patients with the most serious heart conditions and those who went on to suffer a serious cardiac event during the study.
The risk for heart attack or stroke in the highest-level group, compared with the lowest-level group, increased by 164% for the U.S. subjects and 348% for the European subjects.
Results did not change when investigators factored in sex or existing cardiovascular risk factors like obesity or smoking.
This led Hazen to conclude that erythritol was “independently associated” with death, heart attack and stroke — meaning that consuming it is risky regardless of a person’s health status or risk factors.
In a third experiment, researchers found that adding erythritol to blood samples made platelets stickier, which could lead to increased clotting and higher heart attack and stroke risk.
Finally, investigators were interested in seeing if erythritol reached unhealthy blood levels after ingestion of a drink containing 30 grams of the sweetener — a dose typically found in one diet drink or serving of diet ice cream.
Baseline levels started low, increased a thousandfold just 30 minutes after consuming the drink, and remained elevated for more than two days. Levels surpassed thresholds established earlier in this study linked to platelet changes and a higher risk of heart problems.
The dangers of sugar alcohols
People use sugar substitutes to replace natural sweeteners like sucrose (table sugar) or fructose (the main sugar in fruit) in order to reduce or eliminate calories in drinks, snacks and other foods.
Many sugar replacements, like aspartame, saccharin and sucralose, are not found in nature but are produced in chemical plants.
Stevia is sometimes grouped with artificial sweeteners but is a natural (albeit processed) product chemically related to table sugar.
Erythritol, another natural sweetener commonly found in commercial baked goods, drinks, candies, snacks and sweetener packets, belongs to the “sugar alcohol” family, which includes mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, lactitol, isomalt and maltitol.
Sugar alcohols have long been considered safer than artificial sweeteners but recent data, including the Hazen study, suggest otherwise.
Erythritol occurs naturally but sparingly in melons, pears, grapes and in fermented foods like cheese and soy sauce. Red blood cells also naturally make very low levels of erythritol.
Erythritol is most often manufactured from corn sugar (dextrose), typically derived from genetically modified organism (GMO) cornstarch, but can also be made from wheat, maize or potatoes.
Because it is not metabolized and contains less than 6% of sugar’s calories, erythritol’s caloric contribution to foods is minimal despite being only 70% as sweet as sugar. And since it does not feed bacteria as well as sugar, erythritol does not promote dental cavities.
Some Americans consume 30 grams (a bit more than an ounce) of erythritol per day, which is a thousand times greater than what they would consume through natural foods plus the body’s own production.
U.S. and European Union regulators designate sugar substitutes as generally safe and recommend them for individuals with metabolic diseases like Type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Long-term safety studies on sugar substitutes, even for older sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame, are lacking.
Study strengths and weaknesses
This was a prospective, observational study, meaning investigators first observed the hypothetical cause (erythritol consumption) and looked for effects (heart attack and stroke) occurring afterward.
Establishing a potential causal relationship was therefore easier than retrospective studies, which look first at an effect and then at some exposure or event in the past that might have been the cause.
Yet on this note, Hazen was cautious: “By design, these studies can only show association and not causation.”
As the authors noted, their investigation tested subjects’ erythritol levels just once, but measuring levels at several time points may have provided better predictive value. As all subjects were undergoing testing for heart issues, the study subjects were already sicker on average than people in the general population.
Angelo DePalma, Ph.D., is a science reporter/editor for The Defender.
Scientists from Razumovsky University – or, to give it its full name Saratov State Medical University Named After VI Razumovsky (SSMU) – have developed an innovative anti-tumor herbal medicinal product based on the gratiola officinalis, a plant commonly known as medicinal hedge hyssop.
Fundamental research has been continuing for more than a decade, and according to the researchers, it has yielded compelling results. Based on these findings, the university has received approval from the Russian Ministry of Health to conduct Phase I clinical trials.
Medicinal Hedge Hyssop (gratiola officinalis) is a wild, perennial herb widely distributed in various regions of Russia. Although it possesses toxic properties, it has been used in traditional medicine in the form of infusions, known as the “Zdrenko mixture”.
Alexander Fedonnikov, SSMU’s Vice-Rector for Science and Innovations, told Sputnik that this new hedge hyssop-based drug has no direct analogue in global pharmacopeia. He clarified that existing drugs on the market, known as cytostatic drugs, cause massive destruction of tumor cells, often accompanied by severe toxicity to the body.
However, SSMU scientists claim that their innovative herbal treatment, based on hedge hyssop, activates apoptosis – programmed cell death that occurs under normal conditions in the body’s functioning.
“According to the results of pre-clinical studies, this drug produces significantly fewer side effects and is better tolerated by the body,” Fedonnikov emphasized.
He also said that the developed extract is a candidate for the position of the world’s first-class plant-based anti-tumor medication. According to his assessment, industrial production and clinical application of this drug could become a cutting-edge import substitution technology in cancer treatment.
The process of hedge hyssop extraction was developed by scientists from the Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Uronephrology of the Department of Pathological Anatomy, and the Faculty of Pharmacy.
“A complex recipe was selected: the herb was mixed with alcohol, dissolved in water, chloroform, and so on. By comparing different extract fractions, we selected the most active one. This is how we obtained a phytopreparation from components with the highest biological activity,” explained Professor Natalia Polukonova.
She noted that during pre-clinical research, safety data for the drug were obtained for various types of laboratory animals, and the potential efficacy of the phytopreparation was proved.
“Our experiments on laboratory animals showed that one month of taking the obtained extract reduces the tumor’s growth rate by 70 percent. These are very promising numbers. A drug is considered potentially effective if it slows tumor development by at least 30 percent,” she added.
The university reported that the research was conducted on 10 different cancer cell lines, including kidney cancer, bladder cancer, sarcoma, liver cancer, ovarian cancer and breast cancer. Based on the results, the university obtained approval from the Russian Ministry of Health to conduct a Phase I clinical trial. It is expected that cancer patients in the late stages of the disease will participate in this trial.
“These individuals will receive comprehensive treatment, and the developed drug is planned to be prescribed as an addition to it,” SSMU explained, pointing out that in this regard, scientists are guided by global ethical practices. New anti-tumor drugs are typically first applied to patients in the advanced stages of the disease. The clinical trials will be conducted at the Mirotvortsev University Clinical Hospital No 1.
According to Saratov scientists, the availability of an extensive raw material base for collecting wild medicinal hedge hyssop, combined with the already established production technology, ensures 100 percent localization of the entire production cycle in Russia, from plant collection to the finished medicinal form.
“Medicinal plants are not just promising; they have long been a part of our medical aid kits, and they work. The successful completion of this clinical trial will allow us to proceed to further phases of research to evaluate its effectiveness and, after a series of clinical trials, complete the process of state registration,” the university’s deputy director noted. He added that with this development, the university has become a part of the Russian Ministry of Health’s federal project “Medical Science for Humanity”.
I just sent this letter off to the Board of Regents of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy:
October 12, 2023
Dear Executive Director Maddux and Board of Regents,
During the past 3 1/2 years, I have observed the troubling pattern of silencing viewpoints that depart in any way from the official Covid narrative. Your cancelation of Dr. Vinay Prasad as a keynote speaker at the upcoming ACCP Conference is an example of this inappropriate trend.
This is America. The founding principle of America is the freedom of speech, without which none of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution matter, because they cannot be pursued. Healthy, vigorous, oppositional debate is essential to innovation and problem-solving. Without debate there is no progress and people become afraid, first to speak, and then to think for themselves.
Alicia Lichvar states she “cannot – in good conscience – share a platform with an individual who promotes such harmful rhetoric.” Ms. Lichvar claims there is a role for critical discourse, but not as the Keynote speaker. Why not? Since when is it assumed that the speaker at a conference, or graduation ceremony, or civic event represents the viewpoint of all?
In this instance, ACCP appears to have sided with the false ideology recently stated at Twitter (X) that people are entitled to “freedom of speech, not reach.” In Ms. Lichvar’s world, people like Dr. Prasad have the right to their views, just not in public, which is no right at all.
This was the moment to clarify that your group values varied viewpoints by inviting Ms. Lichvar to share her side in a debate with Dr. Prasad, or in her own presentation. It was not a moment to say you will be “revisiting the keynote speaker vetting and selection process to ensure alignment with the expectations and values of ACCP members.” There were obviously ACCP members who wanted to hear from Dr. Prasad, or he would not have been selected as a keynote speaker in the first place.
People who are so fragile they cannot even hear a differing viewpoint to their own, especially one presented by a licensed and credentialed colleague, need a wakeup call, not coddling.
You, Mr. Maddux, Mr. Olsen, Ms. Farrington, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Blair, Mr. Hemstreet, Ms. See, Ms. Finks, Ms. Parker, Ms. Ross, Ms. Clements, and Ms. Badowski, are listed on the ACCP webpage under the dropdown menu of “Leadership.”
The role of real leaders is not to “ensure alignment with the expectations and values” of the vocal few, but rather to preserve the ability to approach problems and issues in a manner that allows for consideration of all sides. People cannot make informed, adult decisions, if they’re awash in a culture of “safety” where “words are violence,” and differing viewpoints are “harmful.”
I invite you to reconsider your roles, and the bigger picture of what is happening in our country today, so as to ensure that free speech and thought are the elevating principles of enlightenment in your organization.
In June, a group of doctors, some of whom are general practitioners (GPs), initiated legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC). The basis of their claim was the GMC’s alleged failure to address misinformation about the Covid vaccines.
The doctors, who prefer anonymity – cowards – delivered a pre-action protocol letter to the GMC, signalling their intent to pursue legal action. Earlier in January, this group had urged the regulator to assess Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s suitability to practice medicine, citing his alleged “prominent dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.”
Dr. Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, activist, and author, boasts over half a million Twitter followers, with his latest content primarily centering around the safety, or the lack there of, of the Covid vaccines.
Prior to receiving an official denial from the GMC, the doctors contended in an April letter that the regulator should determine if Dr. Malhotra’s professional conduct had been compromised by his alleged “anti-Covid-19 vaccine stance”. They stressed that inaction could jeopardise patient safety and public trust in both the medical field and the GMC.
Professor Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University GP, highlighted the GMC’s reluctance to tie perceived “anti-vaccine statements” to direct harm inflicted upon a patient. She emphasised the expansive reach of “misleading statements” in the era of social media, necessitating a reevaluation of the definition of “harm” in this context.
To defray the legal expenses for challenging the GMC, the group embarked on a fundraising campaign, collecting a reported £5,000.
Dr. Malhotra defended his stance, citing a commitment to evolve his position in line with new evidence. He mentioned his own early vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine and efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy, but stressed his belief that the mRNA vaccines present serious risks while noting their approval despite the absence of long-term safety data.
Earlier today, Doctors For Patients UK, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Health Advisory & Recovery Team, issued a press release in response to the Good Law Project.
(It constitutes a bit of an ass-whopping in my opinion so I dare not summarise it. Here it is in its entirety):
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned doctors, and the campaign groups Doctors for Patients UK, UK Medical Freedom Alliance and HART, wish to publicly state our support for Dr Aseem Malhotra, a well-published academic and cardiologist who has been a popular commentator on medical and public health matters in the UK media for many years. We condemn the actions of a group of (mostly anonymous) doctors, supported by the Good Law Project (GLP), in seeking to silence and punish Dr Malhotra for speaking out about his concerns about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. This is a serious and chilling attack on the freedom of speech of a senior doctor.
Dr Malhotra is the son of the late BMA stalwart and NHS campaigner, Dr Kailash Chand. Following the unexpected death of his father from previously undetectable heart disease, Dr Malhotra made public statements highlighting his concerns that his father’s Covid-19 vaccinations were a causal factor in his death.
Despite initially endorsing and promoting the Covid-19 vaccines on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on 5th February 20212 he is now calling for an immediate suspension of the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and a full investigation into their adverse effects, for reasons detailed in the 2-part, peer-reviewed paper he wrote, published in September 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This is entirely in line with his duty as a responsible doctor, to protect the British public from the harm which he believes his family have suffered and to uphold the fundamental principle of medical ethics to “First do no harm”.
Dr Malhotra presented his concerns to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccine Damage, on 20th October 2022 at Portcullis House, Westminster. His impassioned call to prioritise patient safety resulted in a group of anonymous doctors reporting him to the General Medical Council (GMC) for ‘high-profile promotion of misinformation about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines’, demanding they investigate his fitness to practice. When the GMC refused to carry out a Fitness to Practice (FtP) investigation, Dr Matt Kneale, a junior doctor in the group, instructed The Good Law Project (GLP) to begin crowdfunding for a legal action against the GMC’s decision, and launched a judicial review against the GMC in the High Court.
Dr Malhotra is a senior cardiologist, a well-established commentator and campaigner on public health issues, and a long-standing advocate for patient safety. His previous campaigns have raised awareness about heart disease, obesity, the harms of sugar, and corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. As an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, he was the lead author in this joint initiative with the BMJ to tackle the harms of overprescribing and unnecessary medical interventions. It is a mark of Dr Malhotra’s high regard for medical ethics that he felt compelled to speak publicly about his new and growing concerns of a link between Covid-19 vaccines and heart damage, despite initially endorsing the mRNA jabs.
It is deeply unsettling that the GLP, an entity funded primarily by the public, would turn its legal machinery toward silencing an ethical doctor. This is especially troubling given the organisation’s stated commitment to transparency and a better world. Rather than exerting legal force to silence professionals, should they not focus instead on compelling the full release of the Covid-19 vaccine trial data? The absence of such vital information from public and medical scrutiny is not just a lapse; it’s a serious breach of trust and a blow to patient safety.
By contesting the GMC’s decision to support Dr Malhotra’s right to free speech and not to carry out a formal FtP investigation (on the grounds that his statements were not sufficiently egregious to merit action), the legal action supported by the GLP risks undermining the resolve of medical professionals to speak candidly on serious health issues, a move that would have profound consequences for patient safety and the ethical practice of medicine.
The GLP challenge against the GMC decision is misconceived, misguided, and threatens doctors’ individual right to free speech and proper scientific debate on matters relating to protecting the public from dangerous products. It is deeply regrettable in a democratic society that instead of being applauded for his courage in raising the alarm, Dr Malhotra is being persecuted in this way.
Thousands of doctors worldwide and in the United Kingdom11 share Dr Malhotra’s reasonable concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. Many have spoken out on this issue, including the eminent US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, who called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. The undersigned doctors and organisations are aware of multiple harms associated with the Covid-19 vaccines; among them frontline doctors who have reported vaccine-associated injuries and deaths in their own patients.
The list of signatories and co-signatories is something to behold:
Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
Dr Clare Craig BM BCh, FRCPath
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Ali Ajaz, MBBS, BSc, MRCPsych, PGCert, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP (2016), MRCPCH (2013), DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Lucy Apps, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner
Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
Dr Gill Breese, BSc, MBChB, DTM&H, DFFP, General Practitioner
Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM, CFMP, MRCPsych
Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), Dip Lap Surg, FRCS [ASGBI Medal], Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon
Dr Selena Chester, MBBS, Medical Practitioner
Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General Practitioner
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB FRCPath. Consultant Histopathologist
Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LLB
Dr Bob Gill, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Tony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant Surgeon
Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired Consultant Paediatrician
Dr Tim Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, Hospital Doctor
Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Dr Andrew Lees, MB BS, MRCGP, DCH, retired General Practitioner
Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP (2006), MRCGP (2007), General Practitioner
Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Janet Menage, MA, MBChB, retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr Campbell Murdoch, MBChb, General Practitioner and PCN Clinical Director, Somerset
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
Dr Sam McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
Dr Fairoz Miller, BSc, MBBCh, MRCP (1999), MRCGP (2016), General Practitioner
Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician, UKMFA Director of Medical Ethics
Dr Dean Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and General Physician, MBChB, FRCP
Dr Jessica Robinson, Bsc (Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom
Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS BSc MRCP MRCGP General Practitioner
Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), MRCGP (1981), DRCOG (1980), retired General Practitioner
Mr T. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal and General Surgeon
Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, DCH, MRCGP (2003-2017), General Practitioner
Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP (2012), retired General Practitioner
Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Lucie Wilk, BSc, MD, FRCPC (2013), Consultant Rheumatologist
You can find a full copy of the press release here.
Currently working on a new exposè concerning the coordinated attempt to tarnish “conspiracist” celebrities. It is, however, proving to be more time-consuming than I originally expected. I should have it up in the next few days.
On 2nd October 2023, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded a Nobel Prize for their contribution to the design of the mRNA vaccines. Notably, the original inventor, Robert Malone was not included. Karikó and Weissman’s main contribution was to include a synthetic nucleotide – pseudouridine – to reduce immune attack, increase protein production and to increase the longevity of the mRNA. How long did they make it last you may ask? Nobody knows!
Dr Drew Weissman wrote in 2018 of his concerns regarding the “non-trivial” safety concerns of the mRNA technology. He included concerns about:
1. Where in the body mRNA would act
2. How long it would last
3. Autoimmunity
4. Toxicity of recycled pseudouridine nucleotides
5. Lipid nanoparticle toxicity
6. Clotting issues from naked RNA
Since 2020, he failed to raise concerns about any of these issues and instead advocated as if every single one of these concerns had been remedied.
They received their prize while both wearing large white face masks indicating their total lack of faith in the product.
The vice chair of the Nobel Committee claimed:
“giving a Nobel Prize for this COVID-19 vaccine may make hesitant people take the vaccine and be sure it’s very efficient and safe.”
This rather implies that the latest stunt is nothing more than a publicity/marketing exercise to ‘nudge’ consumer confidence. It is hard to imagine that anyone who resisted the billion dollar advertising campaign and behavioural nudges of 2020/2021 will be susceptible to this cheap trick. It is interesting how Ivermectin could be smeared by the FDA as being horse paste despite scientists being awarded a Nobel Prize for its use in medicine, specifically against parasitic diseases in humans. People’s thinking on these subjects is being constantly manipulated by those in power and is nothing if not entirely inconsistent.
Until recently, the most shameful Nobel Prize was awarded to the inventors of the lobotomy procedure. To avoid another similar disaster the committee has waited at least ten years before awarding a prize to ensure that breakthroughs stand the test of time. For some reason, that rule was ignored in this case. Perhaps the motivations were political. The question has to be asked as to whether these two characters are being set up to be the fall guys in due course.
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 13, 2021
By a strange paradox, most Kennedy researchers who believe that Oswald was “just a patsy” spend an awful lot of time exploring his biography. This is about as useful as investigating Osama bin Laden for solving 9/11. Any serious quest for the real assassins of JFK should start by investigating the man who shot Oswald at pointblank in the stomach at 11:21 a.m. on September 24, 1963 in the Dallas Police station, thereby sealing the possibility that a judicial inquiry would draw attention to the inconsistencies of the charge against him, and perhaps expose the real perpetrators. One would normally expect the Dallas strip-club owner Jack Ruby to be the most investigated character by Kennedy truthers. But that is not the case. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 