NHS Doctor: Matt Hancock is “Not Fit for Public Office and Needs to be Removed Before He Inflicts Further Harm”
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • June 18, 2021
NHS GP Dr Helen Westwood, a member of HART, has written a letter to her MP Sir Graham Brady expressing her concerns about the possible Government plans for mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers and others. She previously wrote to him at the end of April and received a reply from Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi that we published on Lockdown Sceptics offering the paper-thin reassurance that the U.K. “currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. “Why does he need to use the word ‘currently’?” she asked. “Are there plans for mandatory vaccination in future?” There were indeed, and she is not impressed – to the point of calling for Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be shown the door before he does any more damage. Here is her letter in full.
Dear Sir Graham,
I refer to my earlier correspondence dated March 2nd and April 26th regarding the concerns I have about the COVID-19 vaccination program.
I am grateful to you for raising these concerns with the Minister for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment. Sadly Mr Zahawi seems to be either unwilling or unable to respond to my questions. Perhaps he is just delaying until the vaccine rollout has reached the whole adult population as it is due to imminently.
Mr Zahawi said in his letter to you that “the UK currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. Clearly the current proposals to make vaccinations compulsory for care home workers and possibly frontline NHS workers is completely counter to this. If a medical intervention is mandated for one group in society why not others? What about visitors to care homes? Delivery drivers? Shop workers? The list will go on and on.
I would like to draw your attention again to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. It states that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice”. If an individual is being coerced into undergoing vaccination, through fear of losing their livelihood, then they are not giving “free and informed consent”. In effect, the person administering the vaccine in such circumstances is committing the criminal offence of Assault and Battery. We know that the pharmaceutical companies have been granted legal indemnity by the Government but what indemnity does the vaccinator have in this situation?
In my opinion to ask anyone to undergo a medical intervention for the benefit of others is profoundly unethical. Population immunity, achieved through high vaccine take-up, is a by-product rather than the primary reason for immunising an individual. This ethical problem is particularly pertinent to the arguments given for rolling the program out to children, but is also relevant to the majority of healthy working-age adults. The mortality risk from COVID-19 in this cohort is lower than that for seasonal influenza. People are being persuaded to have these vaccines to protect society at large. Why is nobody in Government paying attention to the significant morbidity and mortality being reported on the Yellow Card system in relation to the administration of the vaccines? Young healthy people are being exposed to risks, both known and unknown, in taking these vaccines yet have little to gain in terms of personal benefit. Dr Tess Lawrie wrote an open letter to MHRA Chief Executive Dr June Raine saying that “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans”. At the very least we should be pausing to review the data before coercing young care home workers into having this vaccine when the results of the phase 3 trials are not yet known or understood.
In my discussions with patients who have undergone vaccination I have come to realise that many are unaware that these vaccines do not yet have full marketing authorisation. Sadly, the vaccine trials have now been compromised by being unblinded and control arm participants being offered the active drug. Given that these vaccines are still in their experimental phase, surely point 1 of the Nuremberg code applies: the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. How is this in any way compatible with mandatory vaccination?
According to Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister referred to Matt Hancock as “fucking hopeless”. Having heard the Health Secretary say that there is a “material difference” in the duty of care owed by the state to those who have not yet been offered the vaccine compared to those that have not taken up the offer of vaccination, I would go as far as to say he is dangerous and a menace. He is not fit for public office and needs to be removed from his post before he inflicts further harm on the people of this country. The GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance states that Doctors must “treat patients and colleagues fairly and without discrimination“. I do not think there is an exception to this based on vaccination status. Similarly the NHS constitution says that “the NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all” and that staff has a “duty not to discriminate against patients or staff and to adhere to…human rights legislation”. With regard to patients it says “you have the right to accept or refuse treatment that is offered to you, and not to be given any…treatment unless you have given valid consent”. Perhaps the Health Secretary ought to familiarise himself with these documents.
Having read my comments you will not be surprised to learn that I still do not intend to take this vaccine currently. I refuse to be bullied into undergoing a medical intervention against my will. It is against everything I would advocate for my patients. With record waiting lists in the NHS it would seem to me to be unwise to risk losing a proportion of the workforce by forging ahead with plans for making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Helen Westwood
CANCELLED: CDC’s Emergency Advisory Committee meeting tomorrow to consider myocarditis and giving Covid vaccines to our youth
By Meryl Nass, MD | June 17, 2021
CDC’s emergency meeting that was to be held June 18, called only 7 days ago to deal with bad news, was peremptorily cancelled today, at the 11th hour. In honor of Juneteenth. Really???
If the emergency they were responding to was the maiming of our youth with Covid vaccines, CDC could have called a halt to vaccinating that age group while more information was collected. They did not do that.
Had CDC’s spin doctors come up with a rationale for vaccinating young males for Covid, despite the increased risk to them (25 times the baseline rate, according to Israel’s Ministry of Health). Israel claimed the rate was 1/3,000 to 1/6,000 young male vaccine recipients. Some say, anecdotally, they have seen so many cases they think the rate is higher.
The first way this was spun was that 81% have fully recovered, and CDC is following the rest.
That sounded less good when you looked at CDC’s numbers and found they only reported data on a minority of all the cases reported to VAERS (over 800).
It sounded less good when a young woman, aged 19, just died after a heart transplant, necessitated by the myocarditis she got after a Covid 2nd dose. She was a student at Northwestern, and black. This does not bode well for mandated college vaccinations.
And now it gets even worse. Spain and Russia are advising those who were vaccinated to avoid flying due to an increased risk of blood clots.
Guess we will have to wait until CDC’s June 23-25 meeting to find out how the spin doctors explain all this.
Are the Covid-19 vaccines “safe and effective”?
Steve Kirsch | Trial Site News | June 16, 2021
A video presentation by Steve Kirsch, Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund.
Watch Video at Trial Site News
Are there any risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized on an emergency use basis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Presently three genetic-based vaccines have been authorized via the emergency order including two mRNA-based vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) as well as the adenovirus-based Johnson and Johnson product. Developed at historical speed under Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA-based technology foretells enormous implications for healthcare including the prospect of vaccines for cancer. An amazing research prowess has unfolded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic heralding profound breakthroughs that’ll benefit society for years to come. Governmental authorities have declared the vaccines both safe and effective and as TrialSite recently reported based on a change of law that waives the need for informed consent with investigational products. Both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA have declared that the risk-benefit analyses strongly indicate the risks of not getting a vaccination outweigh any risk of vaccination. They argue that the risks associated with COVID-19 are materially greater. Moreover, health authorities are on record that there is absolutely no correlation associated with the COVID-19 vaccines to any deaths as indicated by the CDC declaration. But have they sufficiently probed and pursued granular investigation into their own data? Have they undertaken the comprehensive analyses associated with what in the CDC VAERS is now close to 6,000 deaths. Are all of these unrelated to the vaccines? Steve Kirsch, the founder and executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF), a regular contributor to the TrialSite recently conducted a more systematic and thorough analysis of the VAERS and CDC adverse event and death numbers reported in conjunction with the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are disturbing to say the least. TrialSite offers no opinion here other than the presentation of the highly successful MIT-trained engineer who has invested millions of his own funds into early stage treatment options targeting COVID-19. What follows is a summary of his deep dive into VAERS presented in this video.
Official CDC Position
The CDC is on the record that the now nearly 6,000 deaths reported in VAERS since December 2020, including “A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccine.”
The analysis provided by Kirsch suggests that while nearly 6,000 are now entered into the voluntary system, he suggests the actual number could be undercounted by a magnitude of up to 5 times and a review of direct CDC excess death data indicates what the notable entrepreneur counts as 25,000 deaths that could be associated with the coronavirus vaccines.
The Presentation
The Kirsch presentation starts with an introduction to the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System known as VAERS with a review of some key indicators including reported deaths. Open to the public, he reveals by June 4th the following adverse events were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines:
Reported Event #s Deaths 5,088 Hospitalizations 19,587 Urgent Care 43,891 Office Visits 58,800 Heart Attacks 2,190 Anaphylaxis 1,459 Bells Palsy 1,737 Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet 1,564 Myocarditis/Pericarditis 1,087
A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.
At 12:15 into the presentation Mr. Kirsch reveals a data distribution revealing a dramatic spike in deaths associated with the COVID-19. Moreover in this data analysis it’s revealed that the majority of deaths occur closer to the actual time of the vaccination event indicating a higher probability of a causal relationship.
At 12:49 he presents the data findings indicating that overwhelming the incidents of heart attacks associated with the VAERS COVID-19 vaccine spike within a day to three days after the vaccination event. He also emphasizes that the indication of Myocarditis/Pericarditis actually increases with vaccination as age decreases which is counter intuitive in that young people should have less probability of experiencing such heart related troubles. Is the vaccine causally connected to this data?
At 15:51 in the presentation Kirsch depicts again the growing numbers of deaths corresponding to the release of the vaccines under emergency use authorization by mid-December 2020. At 18:55 he reveals a corresponding increase in excess deaths reported by the CDC.
Kirsch goes on at 26:13 to discuss the imperative to consider a time out in the process to at least investigate these safety data signals. At 28:09 Kirsch raises the imperative for informed consent under the Declaration of Helsinki. Although as TrialSite reported the law was changed in 2016 thus waiving the need for informed consent with investigational products deemed safe.
At 32:22 Mr. Kirsch discusses early treatment options for COVID-19. He shares that considerable research has gone on pointing to a number of potential treatments for early onset COVID-19 that can serve to help combat COVID-19. A risk-benefit comparison at 41:50 showcases at least one argument that early stage treatments currently under study should be accelerated.
The presenter offers a plethora of other information that merits review for those interested in a debate on this topic.
Kirsch commented on the findings “The narrative is that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective but the truth is that the data points to an otherwise alternative conclusion.” Kirsch declared that “if anyone was paying attention they would have picked up these safety signals by the end of January.”
Data-Driven Truth or Random Coincidence?
TrialSIte cannot advocate one position over another but rather can serve to share information that fits within the guidelines of the platform for purposes of discussion and hopefully healthy debate. This isn’t a platform for attacking others but rather one that fosters awareness, transparency and engagement. The data present in the CDC VAERS database as well as the CDC death reports do indicate a material spike in activity associated with the coronavirus vaccines. Does the CDC’s position that none of these deaths are conclusively correlated to the vaccine itself despite the data in this presentation revealing a disturbing trend of adverse events and death within a day to three days within the vaccination event? It’s not clear but TrialSite invites the CDC and others on to the platform to put forth an explanation.
The EEOC Did NOT Say Federal Law Permits Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine
Informed Consent Action Network | June 16, 2021
In the article, “Can employers require workers to get the COVID vaccine?”, Bailey Aldridge claims that, given the updated rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “your employer can require you to get a COVID vaccine.” Aldridge even claims that “The EEOC says there are no federal laws that prevent an employer from requiring employees who are physically in the workplace to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”
The EEOC’s guidance, however, does not claim that an employer can legally require an emergency use COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC guidance merely states that the “federal EEO [Equal Employment Opportunity] laws do not prevent an employer from requiring” an emergency authorized COVID-19 vaccine. That is not surprising because the EEO laws apply only to discrimination based on certain protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin.
Federal law is, of course, far broader than the narrow EEO laws. In recognizing that there are other federal laws that do prohibit an employer from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC’s guidance also states that, “These three vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) by the FDA” and that, “It is beyond the EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach.”
When one reviews the FDA’s EUA and its approved labeling, a.k.a. “fact sheets,” for each COVID-19 vaccine, they each clearly provide that: “It is [the vaccine recipient’s] choice to receive or not receive the COVID-19 Vaccine.” The reason each fact sheet includes this language is because the same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant an EUA also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”
That same section of the Act also authorized the Secretary, and only the Secretary, to provide the “consequences” for refusing to receive an EUA product and the EUAs for each COVID-19 vaccine do not include permission to terminate an employee for refusing the vaccine.
ICAN hopes that the Department of Justice will do its job and enforce the federal law prohibiting mandating an EUA vaccine and will continue to push it to enforce this important law.
The COVID vaccine and depopulation; the beginning of the trail
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | June 14, 2021
Since the rollout of the COVID vaccines, reports of bleeding, irregular menstrual cycles, and miscarriages have surfaced.
Children’s Health Defense, February 3, 2021: “Health Officials Push Pregnant Women to Get COVID Shots, Despite Known Risks” [1]:
“… as of Feb. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had already received 111 reports of adverse events experienced by women who were pregnant at the time of their Pfizer or Moderna injection…”
“The first such report was submitted Dec. 22, just 10 days after authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. Nearly a third (31%) of the women had miscarriages or preterm births, which occurred within as little as one day of injection — the majority after a single dose of vaccine.”
“The descriptions of miscarriages and premature births accompanying the VAERS reports are tragic and hair-raising.”
“For example, a 37-year-old who received her first dose of the Moderna vaccine at 28 weeks of pregnancy, just after an ultrasound showed a healthy placenta, was discovered to have ‘significant placenta issues just one week later.’ A repeat ultrasound showed that the placenta had ‘calcified and aged prematurely,’ leading to recommended hospitalization for the duration of her pregnancy.”
“A 35-year-old, also vaccinated at around 29 weeks of pregnancy, ‘noticed decreased motion of the baby’ two days after receiving the Pfizer injection. The following day, ‘the baby was found to not have a heartbeat’.”
“Two Pfizer vaccine recipients in earlier stages of pregnancy (first trimester) had miscarriages after experiencing ‘intolerable’ abdominal pain and uterine bleeding extensive enough, in one case, to require ‘emergency surgery and a blood transfusion’.”
“… the World Health Organization on Jan. 27 issued guidance advising against pregnant women getting Moderna’s COVID vaccine — only to reverse that guidance two days later, as The New York Times reported.”
“Documented risks of vaccination during pregnancy include miscarriage as well as neurodevelopmental problems arising from maternal immune activation (an inflammatory response in the mother that can harm fetal brain development).”
Concerning that last paragraph: Before the experimental RNA COVID vaccines were authorized, RNA technology had experienced failures and serious problems in clinical trials—because the immune system went into overdrive. It is this immune hyper-response that may be responsible for the recent reported miscarriages and pre-term births; the body basically attacks itself.
This RNA effect is documented in studies published before 2019. The vaccine makers and public health agencies are well aware of it.
But this is just the beginning of the story, because what is happening to vaccinated women now may be part of a much larger history, involving extensive research on medically induced birth control—also known as population reduction.
In the vaccine research community, it’s an open secret that the Rockefeller Fund, the UN, and other groups have been backing the development of vaccines that function as agents of population reduction. This work has been going on for decades.
What follows are examples of the evidence. They cite the Third World as the target, but no one should take that as a hideous sign that depopulation efforts are confined to one group of countries. These efforts are universal.
The late well-known journalist, Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times, on September 8, 1994, in his piece “Real U.S. Policy in Third World: Sterilization: Disregard the ’empowerment’ shoe polish–the goal is to keep the natives from breeding,” [2] reviewed the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues”:
“… the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”
In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people. Therefore, reduce the population.
Therefore, develop a vaccine that does that job.
Journalist Cockburn, in his LA Times piece, goes on to say that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He notes that, “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”
Here is an astonishing journal paper. November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer was a member of the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”
A birth control vaccine? Yes. A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve miscarriages. This particular vaccine was apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force was promoting.
And yes, there is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at the WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the FASEB paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of non-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG.
This hormone helps sustain pregnancy. If the immune system can be trained to attack it, pregnancy will collapse and a miscarriage will occur.
Another journal paper: The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49, 1993. “Contraceptive Vaccines.” [4] The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
“Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies…”
The authors are talking about creating an immune response against this female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”
Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity.
The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated…”
Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs.
“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven…”
Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.”
In a letter to The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992, “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics,” [5] Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.
Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.
Indeed, these are the charges leveled against past tetanus vaccine campaigns in Kenya and the Philippines. In Kenya (2014), an intense standoff occurred—with the Catholic Doctors Association and Kenyan Catholic Bishops on one side, and the Kenyan government Health Authority on the other.
Both sides claimed they tested vials of the tetanus vaccine. The Catholic groups’ lab report indicated the vaccine contained hCG; the Health Authority’s report indicated no hCG was present.
“Mass Sterilization: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine,” [6] November 8, 2014, by Steve Weatherbe, earth-heal.com: “Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.”
“According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.”
“’We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,’ Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG’.”
“Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, ‘This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored’.”
In the present situation, we have COVID vaccines. They’re being injected all over the world. Women are making reports of bleeding, disrupted menstrual cycles, miscarriages, pre-term births.
There is a long history, extending to the present day, of elite groups researching and deploying vaccines designed to terminate pregnancies, for the purpose of depopulation.
The elite groups and players behind the current “pandemic”—the WHO, UN, Bill Gates, Rockefeller Institute, etc.—are the same groups who have been developing depopulation vaccines.
This is called a clue.
It lights up like a giant sign, at the beginning of the trail of investigation into the use of COVID vaccines for depopulation.
More coming in the next article…
SOURCES:
[1] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/health-officials-push-pregnant-women-covid-vaccine/
[2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-08-me-35791-story.html
[3] https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1096/fasebj.7.14.7693535
[4] https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article-abstract/49/1/88/279720
[5] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736%2892%2991151-W/fulltext
Poll shows 79% of Democrats support employers forcing workers to get Covid-19 jabs
RT | June 13, 2021
A new poll shows that Democrats and Republicans are just about as divided on an employee’s right to choose whether to get vaccinated against Covid-19 as they are on a woman’s right to choose whether to abort her unborn child.
Nearly 80% of Democrats agreed that employers should be able to force their workers to get Covid-19 shots, according to a CBS News-YouGov poll released on Sunday. In contrast, only 39% of Republicans approved of giving businesses such authority over their employees’ medical choices. The overall response was 56-44 in favor of forced jabs.
Supporters of the two major parties are more split on vaccine choice than on Covid-19 inoculation in general. While 95% of Democrats have already been vaccinated or are at least considering it, 71% of Republicans are on board or thinking about taking the jab, the poll showed.
That result suggests some improvement in vaccine acceptance in the past two months. A Monmouth University poll released in mid-April indicated that 43% of Republicans don’t intend to get vaccinated against the virus. In the CBS News-YouGov survey, 29% of Republicans said they had ruled out the shots. Overall, only 18% of respondents said they won’t get vaccinated, while 71% said they had either already gotten a jab or planned to do so. The other 11% were undecided.
The issue of employer-mandated vaccination is heating up, as a Texas judge on Saturday issued the nation’s first federal court ruling on whether workers can be ordered to receive Covid-19 shots.
The judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Houston Methodist hospital system, in which employees argued that they faced wrongful termination of their jobs for refusing to receive Covid-19 vaccines. The ruling, which will likely be appealed, affirmed the hospital system’s right to mandate vaccination, even though the three inoculations available in the US have received only emergency use authorization, not full FDA approval.
Ironically, while Democrats are pro-choice on abortion, it’s Republicans who favor individual choice on vaccination. A Pew Research Center poll released last month showed that 80% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans said abortion should be legal.
Americans are increasingly comfortable with various activities as the country emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance, 72% of respondents said they’re comfortable with going to a workplace, up from 57% in March. And 71% said they’re fine with gatherings of friends, up from 43% three months ago.
Those who won’t get vaccinated are the boldest about returning to pre-pandemic activities, with 59% saying they’re comfortable going to large events, compared with 45% of all respondents. Among those who are fully vaccinated – and therefore presumably the most protected from infection – only 42% were willing to risk the crowds at a large event.
While 56% approved of employer-mandated vaccines, even more wanted forced jabs when their own safety might be at risk. Asked what large event venues, airlines and cruise ships should do, 65% of respondents called for mandatory worker vaccinations, and 57% agreed with making customers get their shots or be shut out.
YouTube censors Dr Noorchashm, a retired cardiac surgeon with a PhD in immunology, for “misinformation”
By Christina Maas | Reclaim the Net | June 13, 2021
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson slammed YouTube for removing his interview with a cardiology and immunology expert who said immunizing young people who have recovered from COVID is a mistake.
Dr. Hooman Noorchashm appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show where he said that vaccinating the youth was risky, calling it “a colossal error in public health judgment.” Dr. Noorchashm is a retired cardiac surgeon and Harvard Medical School professor, who also holds a PhD in immunology.
According to Noorchashm, young people should not be vaccinated, because of the fact that most of them have already been infected with the virus and recovered, meaning they already have antibodies. Additionally, young people are at a low risk of dying from the virus.
“If a person does not need or stand to benefit from a vaccine, or any medical treatment, they should not be given it because it only opens the door to harm,” he said.
“In addition, we’re doing something unprecedented during this pandemic, which is that we’re vaccinating people in the middle of an outbreak where a lot of people are either asymptomatically infected or have had recent infections.
“And that’s just a recipe for disaster as the data is bearing out.”
On Friday night’s show, Carlson explained that Noorchashm uploaded their exchange on YouTube, which was removed for violating the Google-owned platform’s policy on COVID-19 misinformation.
“Other parents have an absolute right to know these facts,” Carlson said. “But the tech monopolies would no longer allow that discussion.”
The video he uploaded on YouTube was taken down on Friday. YouTube sent him an email stating: “Our team has reviewed your content and unfortunately we think it violates our misinformation policy. We have removed the following content from YouTube.”
The doctor took to Twitter to announce the censorship, saying the video was removed because he was “contradicting expert consensus.” He then added that “in America one can no longer express a dissenting professional opinion or a personal experience.”
Carlson said: “For reasons that we can’t know for certain but are clearly sinister and certainly incompatible with the functioning democracy, Big Tech will no longer allow any questions about vaccines, even from Harvard trained immunologists, who are quoting government data.”
“They censor everything but happy talk and propaganda about vaccines, period,” he added before proceeding to give other cases of censorship of experts that have appeared on his show.
1,295 DEAD in UK Following COVID Bioweapon Shots – Italy Halts AstraZeneca Shots After Teen Dies
By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | June 11, 2021
The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report yesterday, June 10, 2021.
The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through June 2, 2021, for the three experimental COVID “vaccines” currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.
They report a total of 1,295 deaths and 922,596 injuries recorded following the experimental COVID injections.
Here are the breakdowns from the three shots:
- AstraZeneca: 863 deaths and 717,250 injuries. (Source.)
- Pfizer- BioNTech: 406 deaths and 193,768 injuries. (Source.)
- Moderna: 3 deaths and 9243 injuries. (Source.)
- Unspecified COVID-19 injections: 22 deaths and 2335 injuries. (Source.)
Meanwhile, Italy announced today that it was halting use of the AstraZeneca injections for people under the age of 60, following the death of a teenager who died from blood clots.
FDA gives Emergent BioSolutions a consolation prize: it must throw out 60 million vaccine doses but can sell 10 million, which will be labeled as failing GMP standards
By Meryl Nass, MD | June 11, 2021
Now this is a really odd FDA decision. FDA is acknowledging that the 10 million doses it is authorizing is adulterated. But adulterated doses can’t be sold. But EUA products don’t generally get sold, except to the US government. I am scratching my head. I thought all these doses were already bought and paid for, by the taxpayer.
And there seem to be another 100 million doses about which FDA has not made up its mind.
This echoes FDA’s decision last week to license a very expensive but ineffective Alzheimer’s drug, after its advisory committee unanimously voted against it.
We always knew FDA was a political organization. But now, without Biden having appointed anyone to its helm, its decisions are wilder than ever.
From the NY Times today:
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have told Johnson & Johnson that about 60 million doses of its coronavirus vaccine produced at a troubled Baltimore factory cannot be used because of possible contamination, according to people familiar with the situation.
The Food and Drug Administration plans to allow about 10 million doses to be distributed in the United States or sent to other countries, but with a warning that regulators cannot guarantee that Emergent BioSolutions, the company that operates the plant, followed good manufacturing practices.
The agency has not yet decided whether Emergent can reopen the factory, which has been closed for two months because of regulatory concerns, the people said.
The Johnson & Johnson doses administered in the United States so far were manufactured at the firm’s plant in the Netherlands, not by Emergent. For weeks the F.D.A. has been trying to figure out what to do about at least 170 million doses of vaccine that were left in limbo after the discovery of a major production mishap involving two vaccines manufactured at the Baltimore factory.
The NHS just changed how they count Covid “cases”… here’s why
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 11, 2021
The UK’s National Health Service has received new instructions from the government on how it should record Covid19 “cases”, separating those who are actually sick from those who just test positive.
From the beginning of the “pandemic” last spring, the NHS (and other countries all over the world) have defined a “case” as anyone who tests positive for the Sars-Cov-2 virus, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms.
Given that as many as 80% of those who have been infected have no symptoms, and the propensity for the flawed PCR tests to return false-positive results, this lead to likely massively inflated numbers of “cases”.
Now, though, the NHS is going to attempt to differentiate between patients who actually have the alleged disease “Covid19”, and those who are in hospital for other reasons and only “incidentally” tested positive for the virus.
According to a report in the Independent [emphasis added]:
NHS England has instructed hospitals to make the change to the daily flow of data sent by NHS trusts […] Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else.
The distinction between “with” and “from” in Covid deaths – and “with” and “for” in hospitalisations – has been one Covid sceptics all over the world have been keen to make for over a year, but this is the first time any institution has really recognised the difference. And, certainly, it’s the first time any healthcare service has endeavoured to actually catalogue them differently.
So what does the NHS expect the impact of this change to be? Again, from the Independent:
One NHS source said the new data would be “more realistic” as not all patients were sick with the virus, adding: “But it will make figures look better as there have always been some, for example stroke [patients], who also had Covid as an incidental finding”.
That’s a frank admission, and an important one.
For the last eighteen months, voices all over the alternate media have been saying the Covid numbers are unrealistic, specifically because they include people who were never actually sick. We have been called “deniers” and “conspiracy theorists” for our trouble.
But now an NHS source has actually said, going forward, the Covid data will be “more realistic” as it will discount all the patients where Covid was only “an incidental finding”. This is a bigger story than the media coverage suggests – only the Indy and Telegraph are covering it right now, and neither with the focus it deserves.
NHS England is, essentially, tucking away a covert admission that a lot of their fear-mongering statistics were never “realistic”.
Why would they do this? And why now?
Well, here’s what they claim [emphasis added]:
[The NHS said] the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness.
But it doesn’t really make any sense, when you think about it.
It will “help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme”? How so?
How does changing the definition at this point possibly help “analyse” anything? Doesn’t it confuse the issue?
Won’t it, in fact, effectively reduce the numbers of official “covid cases”? Doesn’t making the numbers “look better”, at this stage, make the “vaccine” appear more effective?
It’s also important to note that the changes in data collection will only apply to new patients, it will not be retroactive. Prof Keith Willett, NHS England’s Covid incident director, was very clear on that in a quote for the Telegraph [emphasis added]:
In lay terms this could be considered as a binary split between those in hospital ‘for Covid-19’ and those in hospital ‘with Covid-19’. We are asking for this binary split for those patients newly admitted to hospital and those newly diagnosed with Covid while in hospital.”
So, the old (and now admitted unrealistic) data, will not be subject to change. The Covid “case” numbers before June 7th are etched in stone – everyone who tested positive was a “case”.
But after June 7th they will be separating Covid cases who are actually hospitalised due to Covid19, from other patients who only have “incidental covid”.
Any good scientist will tell you you can’t change the way you measure or collect your data halfway through an experiment, and you can’t compare data gathered in one way to data gathered in another. That is not “analysing the effect” of anything, it’s altering the experiment conditions.
The difference between “with” and “for” has always existed, but by applying that filter only to new data they will make it appear that it’s a new phenomenon, caused by the vaccination programme.
It is incredibly bad science.
… but it’s also totally in keeping with the trend of altering Covid practices to create the impression the “vaccine” is having a positive impact.
We’ve already reported that WHO changed their Covid diagnosis guidelines, and their PCR test guidelines, in late 2020 and early 2021, right in line with the first vaccination programs being launched. The US CDC has likewise been repeatedly fiddling their definition of “breakthrough infection” in order to make the vaccines appear more effective.
This NHS change is just more of the same – altering the experimental conditions to achieve the desired outcome. A total, complete inversion of the scientific method, by the same people who zealously scream about “following the science”.
It is deliberate manipulation of the data, being done brazenly in the public eye.
But what impact will it actually have? Throughout the pandemic, how many patients were ever sick with only Covid, and how many had cancer, or a stroke or Alzheimers along with “incidental covid”?
Well, official figures on deaths have shown that well over 80% of so-called “Covid deaths” had at least one serious pre-existing condition, and Bernard Marx did a great breakdown of how the cause of death figures are manipulated. But that’s deaths, what about hospital admissions?
Although only anecdotal, we have been sent results of several Freedom of Information Act requests that UK citizens submitted to their local NHS trusts. These FOI requests ask for the number of people currently in hospital being treated for Covid, or numbers who died solely due to Covid or variations on that theme. Here’s 1, 2, 3, 4 them. There are a lot more available.
The numbers are uniformly small. So, it’s entirely possible that, under this new method of “analysis”, the NHS’s list of “Covid cases” will shrink to almost nothing.
Don’t worry though, should that happen we will likely never be told about it, because NHS England has made it quite plain that they might never release this data to the public. Both the Independent and Telegraph say so, with almost word-for-word the exact same sentence:
NHS England has not yet confirmed whether the data will be made public, as it must be checked and verified first.
They need to “check” and “verify” the data before we’re allowed to see it, huh? It’s almost as if they’ve got something to hide.
Tony Blair Suggests Unvaccinated Should Remain Under Lockdown Restrictions
Says June 21st date can only be met if two groups are treated differently
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | June 11, 2021
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair implied that those who choose not to be vaccinated should be discriminated against by remaining under lockdown restrictions if the UK’s June 21st “freedom day” is to be accomplished.
During an interview with ITV News, Blair was asked if he would delay the June 21st deadline, when all social distancing, mask mandates and other lockdown rules are supposed to come to an end.
Blair said that if the data suggested the June 21st date was at risk, the government should “look again at distinguishing between those people who are vaccinated and those people who aren’t because it really makes no sense to treat the two groups as if they’re the same.”
The former Labour leader then attempted to offer a rebuttal to those who would describe this as discrimination, but only succeeded in affirming that he is advocating for discrimination against the unvaccinated.
“If someone simply chooses not to get vaccinated, I mean frankly that’s their choice, you’re not discriminating against them, they’ve chosen not to do it,” said Blair.
In other words, Blair is suggesting that people who haven’t taken the vaccine should be punished by remaining under lockdown rules while the rest of the population gets their freedoms back.
Blair’s agenda in advocating discrimination against the unvaccinated isn’t surprising given that he has been aggressively pushing the use of vaccine passports for almost a year.
Back in January, Blair asserted that Britain should take the lead in presiding over a global vaccine passport system.
“It’s going to be a new world altogether,” Blair proclaimed, adding “The sooner we grasp that and start to put in place the decisions [needed for a] deep impact over the coming years the better.”
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Oil and the Israel Lobby
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alam offers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister
- SNSC secretary dismisses US response to Iran’s conditions as ‘inadequate’
- Sanaa says Taiz roads open, secure for residents, warns Saudi forces
- Iraqi resistance group urges Saudi leadership to admit defeat, lift Yemen siege
- Trump’s Retreat: How Al-Aqsa Flood Took Down the US Empire
- Israel’s Military Actions in Lebanon Grossly Violate International Law — Lavrov
- Seyed M. Marandi: US-Iran War Inevitable: Kuwait and Bahrain May Fall
- Leaders Condemn Ansarallah Attack on Saudi Arabia While Ignoring Illegal War Against Yemen
- Leaked: Britain’s Covert Iraqi Psyops Network
- Yemeni Armed Forces Warn Airlines Against Using Saudi Airports, Exempt Mecca and Medina
- If Americans Knew
- How Israel Conquered the Latin American Right
- Agents search Rep. Omar’s Washington home in criminal probe as she vows she won’t ‘be silenced’
- “The Rule Was: ‘Shoot Everyone You See'”
- Israel goes ballistic over Nobel Laureate Navi Pillay
- U.S. May Join Yet Another Middle Eastern War — TCN
- Yellow Line moves again as Israel closes in on trapped Gazans – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks Kill Seven Palestinians in Gaza Including Six-year-old Girl
- Gaza: Ceasefire Anniversary Marks Year of Failed Promises
- The American Conservative: Mike Huckabee Should Resign
- A C-Section in Shackles: A Palestinian Woman’s Harrowing Birth in Israeli Detention
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
