Dr Mike Yeadon – “Please warn everyone not to go near top-up vaccines”
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 9, 2021
We spoke to Dr Mike Yeadon about his views on the experimental Covid-19 vaccines, the medicine regulators approving them and his fears for the future.
From the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.
“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.
“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”
The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”
In a talk you gave four months ago, you said –
“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.
“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.
“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?
Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.The study is from one of the best labs in their field.” So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.
“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.
“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”
My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case? And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?
“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.
“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.
“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.
“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity.”
“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.
“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.
“This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”
Do you feel the MHRA does a good job regulating ‘big pharma’? In what ways does ‘big pharma’ get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA jab?
“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the MHRA.
Always good quality interactions.
“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.
“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.” The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.
“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.
“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.
“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.
“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.
“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.
“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them. As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
Leaked documents prove UK funded anti-Damascus groups: Assad’s top aide
Press TV – May 9, 2021
A senior aide to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has accused the United Kingdom of funding anti-Damascus groups to stoke further unrest in the Arab country and said Western states were exerting pressure on Syrian officials to dissent from the government.
Bouthaina Shaaban, Assad’s political and media adviser, made the remarks in a video conference organized by the German Schiller Institute on Saturday, entitled “The Moral Collapse of the Trans-Atlantic World Cries Out for a New Paradigm,” Syria’s official news agency SANA reported.
Shaaban said Syria has been waging a “double-edged” war over the past decade, one on the ground against terrorists wreaking havoc in the country and the other against a Western-backed drive for inciting dissent within government ranks.
“All that happened in Syria of destruction, death, and displacement, were because of Western intelligence institutions which, in cooperation with Turkey, trained thousands of terrorists to achieve a single goal which is destroying Syria,” the presidential aide said, adding that the West was dealing with Syria as if it were still under their colonization, ignoring its deep-rooted history and values.
Shaaban also said leaked British documents revealed that the United Kingdom “officially funded” groups of Syrian dissidents who called themselves “witnesses” to launch street movements and provide news for Western media outlets.
Assad’s political and media adviser told the video conference that, “Western governments were pressing Syrian officials to dissent and bribing some of them with money to join those against the Syrian government, assuring them the political system is going to fall and collapse.”
Syrian government troops and their allies have managed to retake some 80 percent of the war-ravaged Arab country’s territory from the Takfiri terrorists.
The Syrian army is fighting to drive out the remaining militants, but the presence of US and European forces in addition to Turkish troops has slowed down its advances.
The United States has also imposed crippling sanctions on Damascus. The Syrian government has repeatedly denounced Washington’s unilateral sanctions as “crimes against humanity,” saying the Western sponsors of terrorism must pay the price for their atrocities against the Syrian nation.
Halt Vaccine Passports! It’s illegal, medical apartheid
By Dr Mike Yeadon | OffGuardian | May 7, 2021
It is very important that people understand what is happening here. The intention is to introduce vaccine passports everywhere. But this is a disguise. It’s a world’s first digital common-format, globally-interoperable ID system with an editable health flag (vaccinated Y or N).
It makes no one safer. If you’re vaccinated, you’re protected & are not made safer by knowing others immune status.
As in Israel, you will be compelled to present a valid VaxPass in order to access defined facilities or access services. No VaxPass, you’re denied.
This system only needs 50%+ of the adult population to start up because of its huge, coercive power on the unvaccinated.
It’s illegal, medical apartheid.
If they succeed, it won’t help you to refuse. They’ll move on, leaving that minority behind.
A VaxPass System like this will give to those controlling the database & it’s algorithms TOTALITARIAN TYRANNY over us all.
The ONLY way to stop this biosecurity nightmare is to NOT GET VACCINATED FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS!!!
I fear that, if our adversaries gain this absolute control, they will use it to harm the population. There’s no limit to the evil which will flow from this strategic goal.
DO NOT ALLOW THIS SYSTEM TO START UP, because it’s unstoppable afterwards.
One example: your VaxPass pings, instructing you to attend for your 3rd or 4th or 5th booster or variant vaccine. If you don’t, your VaxPass will expire & you’ll become an out-person, unable to access your own life.
How much choice do you have?
It’s none. You are controlled. Forever.
PLEASE share this widely, on every platform you use.
Thank you,
Dr Mike Yeadon
Government Documents reveal how Brits have been manipulated into complying with Medical Tyranny
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 6, 2021
The ordinary hard working people of the United Kingdom have been played. They have been manipulated and coerced into complying with medical fascism, thanks to the psychological warfare unleashed by the UK Government and its Scientific advisors every waking hour since March 2020.
The authority’s weapons have included the television, the radio, the newspapers. But their most important weapon in ensuring the general public have complied with dictatorial tyranny and offered themselves up as lab rats in the largest experiment to ever be conducted in human history, is a weapon that everyone reading this will know personally. Because that weapon has been you.
To understand just how the authorities have managed to manipulate and coerce the British people into complying with medical fascism we must go back to March 2020. It was at this point that Boris Johnson had one simple instruction for the British people, that instruction being that “you must stay at home”. Stay at home in order to protect the NHS and save lives. This was sold to the British people by informing them that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”. But those three weeks turned into six weeks. Then those six weeks turned into twelve weeks. Then those twelve weeks turned into twelve months, and still to this day the freedoms that were taken for granted prior to March 2020 do not seem within reach.
But how on earth have they managed to get away with it? Well we only need to delve into government documents which are readily available to the public, if they know how to find them. The first document we discovered is titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ and was published on the 22nd March 2020, one day prior to the announcement that the British people “must stay at home”.
This is one of the problems they felt they has in persuading people to social distance –
A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate.
They were quite right, and are still quite right to be reassured by the low death rate, as statistics show that just 0.2% of those who develop the alleged Covid-19 disease tragically die. And even then the vast majority who do die are over the age of 85 and also have underlying conditions.
But that wouldn’t help to create the illusion of a problem if they couldn’t get people to social distance so here’s what the behavioural insight team advised the UK Government to do in response to this problem –
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.
‘Perceived’ is probably the most key word within that advice given to the UK Government on how to manipulate the British people. As this entire charade has been entirely about perception. If there was any level of personal threat then there would be no need to use hard hitting emotional messaging as people would already genuinely feel threatened. If there was truly something for the British people to be wary of then it would not need a mass media advertising campaign to make them aware of it.
But here’s an example of some of the ‘hard hitting emotional messaging’ used to manipulate the British people into complying with medical fascism –
“Don’t kill granny with the virus” warns Matt Hancock who blames spike in Covid cases on middle-class youth. This is just one example of many that have been used to increase the perceived level of personal threat.
But propaganda messages via the media weren’t enough on their own so that’s where the most vital weapon up the authorities sleeve came in – you. The ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ document has within it a section titled ‘Coercion’. No we’re not making it up, and this was one of the points made within that section –
Social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour, (therefore) consideration should be given to the use of social disapproval.
Those who fell for the propaganda and lies broadcast on every mainstream TV channel and radio station, and published in every mainstream newspaper have been the glue that has kept the destruction of life as we knew it together. Because they have policed the introduction of medical fascism for the authorities, and they don’t even realise that they have and are being used.
The document lists every single tactic used to ensure the British people complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included –
- Using media to increase the sense of personal threat
- Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others
- Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors
- Using social disapproval for those who do not comply
The document explains in full how they have managed to manipulate and coerce the British public into complying with medical fascism using psychological warfare. But how exactly are authorities going to keep up this charade now that the “miraculous” experimental vaccines are being rolled out across the country? How are they going to ensure the British people continue to comply with medical fascism now that the most vulnerable to this alleged disease have been vaccinated?
Well another document found on the Government website helps us to find the answer to that. The document is titled ‘Behavioural and social considerations when reducing restrictions’ and was released on the 10th February 2021. A document which essentially confirms the writing is on the wall for a return to normality and that the introduction of vaccine passports (freedom passes) is inevitable.
One of the points made in the document describes the issues that may arise as some interventions are lifted. With complications on messaging due to “differences across tiers” and “immunity or vaccination certificates providing exemptions” for those who are vaccinated to carry out or take part in certain activities.
Tiers? But Boris Johnson said we were going back to normal on the 21st June, why on earth would we need tiers? Because he’s a liar.
Another line in the document explains that another problem for the authorities in getting the British public to continue to comply with medical fascism is that “as perceptions of immunity grow, messaging may need to explain why continued adherence to specific protective measures is important”.
Why exactly will the British people need to continue to adhere to restrictions if they now have a miraculous experimental vaccine that will “save” them from Covid-19? After all the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock is constantly reminding us that “vaccination is our route back to normal”.
Well maybe the next part of the document can explain why, and it’s a card they have kept up their sleeve and are yet to really play, but we all know it is coming.
he document states that “17% of adults expect life to return to normal in six months or less. Modelling from SPI-M suggests this is optimistic. Additionally, the challenge of new variants may call for sudden, strict reimposition of measures”.
If you thought life was going back to normal on the 21st June then think again, it’s not in the script, quite the opposite is going to happen and we’ve just shown you the evidence in black and white.
A Third of All Recent ‘Covid Deaths’ in England and Wales Not Caused by Coronavirus
21st Century Wire | May 6, 2021
After a year of incessant fearmongering, fraudulent PCR testing and generally inflating its Covid numbers, new data analysis reveals how the government’s rampant statistical fraud still continues unabated, as increasing numbers of people whose underlying cause of death was not due coronavirus – are still being included in the government’s hallowed ‘death count.’
Despite this exposure, the mainstream media and government officials seem unwilling to acknowledge how this fundamental deception has been used as the underlying basis for nearly every single ‘public health’ measure – coming at an incalculable cost for those countries and societies placed under the yoke of so-called ‘virus mitigation’ policies.
The inflated Covid death numbers are then used by the government and media as a ‘moral trigger’ to impose rolling lockdowns, as well as other repressive and needless policies such as mask mandates, business and school closures, deregulated emergency vaccine roll-outs, and arbitrary non-science-based “social distancing” rules.
The UK Telegraph reports…
Nearly one third of recently registered Covid deaths in England and Wales are people who died primarily from other causes, the latest figures show.
Weekly death data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that, for nearly 33 per cent of people included in the overall coronavirus death figures, Covid was not an underlying cause of death but was merely mentioned on the death certificate.
The number of people who are not principally dying from Covid but are still being included in the official figures has been creeping up steadily as the pandemic has declined.
It had been running at around 10 per cent for most of the crisis but had risen to nearly a quarter by mid-April and is continuing to increase.
In the latest data, published on Wednesday, which records death registrations in the week ending April 23, some 260 deaths from Covid were recorded in England and Wales, but only 67.7 per cent (176) of those had the virus as an underlying cause.
Iran Meddling In Scottish Election – Think Tank
By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021
A think tank has claimed that Iran is using online specialists to try and influence the outcome of this weeks Scottish election. The Henry Jackson Society produced a report yesterday, that claims Tehran is using fake social media accounts to break up the UK.
The think tank offers no proof mind, but it doesn’t matter. This morning, the nation’s presstitutes are repeating the baseless claims as if they are fact. Nobody is asking for evidence. Heaven forbid someone should actually do their job.
The report states that Iran has “put considerable effort into developing its political relationships with Scottish political elites who advocate independence.” Does it name these elites? Of course not.
It also says that:
“Iran has shown itself to be a country which engages in Russian style disinformation campaigns, repeatedly establishing fake websites and internet accounts in an effort to disrupt the political systems of liberal democracies.
Judged within this context, Iran is almost certainly looking to disrupt our current elections, most likely those under way for the Scottish parliament.”
Once again, the report provides no evidence that Iran (or Russia for that matter), is using fake websites and accounts in an attempt to influence elections here or anywhere else.
This is one of the most pathetic and ridiculous stories that has ever crossed my desk. I had a good laugh at the line about Iran trying to “disrupt the political systems of liberal democracies.”
The UK is a liberal democracy is it? I’ve been listening to government ministers all weekend telling us that soon we’ll have permission to hug our parents and grandparents and meet our friends indoors.
On Sunday, I witnessed the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab tell the BBC’s Andrew Marr that social distancing and face coverings will be with us for the foreseeable future. His government is about to introduce vaccine passports for work, international travel and for socialising.
His government also plans to vaccinate the nation’s children for an illness that is no danger to them whatsoever.
A liberal democracy? Give me a break.
Iran hasn’t raised so much as a finger against a neighbouring country in centuries. It’s preposterous to claim that Tehran is trying to interfere in the outcome of the Scottish election.
Think tanks and spooks can make any claims they like. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous. The media will just rinse and repeat.
Why Is Twitter Allowed To Get Away With Interfering In Elections?
By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021
On Thursday, voters go to the polls across the UK. The media has dubbed it “Super Thursday.” Scottish and Welsh voters will elect parliaments. There’s a by-election in Hartlepool and Londoners will elect an assembly and choose their mayor.
Regional mayors will be elected around the country and there are dozens of county and city council elections too. Twitter is currently engaged in perverting the course of all of these elections. The social media giant has banned or deleted the accounts of anti-lockdown candidates all over the country.
These are people who are on the ballot. They paid their deposits and what you, me or anyone else thinks of their chances is irrelevant. They are at a serious disadvantage if they cannot use social media to campaign.
It’s not only Twitter. Facebook is doing it too. They’re also shadow banning people they haven’t booted. That’s sinister. If you tweet or post information about how lockdowns kill more people than any virus, or you blog about vaccine injuries, Twitter’s algorithms will kick in and limit your reach.
It’s not doing that to pro-lockdown/pro-vaccine candidates. Is anyone looking into this? How can elections be deemed open, fair or even transparent, when a massive corporation gets to decide who sees what messages and when?
Piers Corbyn is on The Richie Allen Show this evening. Piers is a physicist and a former Labour Party councillor. He’s anti-lockdown and has expressed scepticism about the safety of the covid jabs. He’s been banned by Twitter. How can that be acceptable?
Shouldn’t the UK’s electoral authorities be looking into this?
Look what Twitter did to Donald Trump. I’ve no time for Trump or any politician of course, but it’s outrageous that Twitter (and Facebook) banned him.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Digital, Media & Culture secretary Oliver Dowden to do something about it in this country. Twitter and Facebook can do whatever they like it seems.
Injecting a child with an experimental Covid-19 vaccine would be madness, they don’t need it
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 3, 2021
The UK Government and Health Officials are planning to give school children aged 12 and over the experimental Pfizer Covid vaccine at the start of the 21/22 school year. But they won’t stop there. Not long after they will attempt to roll this out to children as young as 6-months-old. This is madness.
It is madness because children do not need an experimental Covid vaccine because they are virtually at zero risk of contracting Covid-19, and even if they do, their chances of developing serious disease and dying is so low that the number is negligible.
According to official NHS data from March 2020 through to the 31st March 2021 just 40 Covid-19 deaths were recorded in those aged 0 – 19. But 32 of those were in children / teenagers who had serious underlying conditions. Just 8 allegedly died of Covid-19 alone in twelve months. But we cannot even be sure the number is that high due to the fact deaths are recorded as Covid just because the person has received a positive test for Covid-19 within 28 days of their death. They could have died due to a head injury and be recorded as a Covid death if they had received a positive test within the 28 days prior.
Yet for some sinister and unexplained reason the authorities are desperate to get the Covid jab into the arms of children. It’s sinister because none of the Covid jabs are licensed. They are currently under emergency authorisation.
In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.
A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.
Why are they only under emergency use authorisation? Because none of the Covid jabs have concluded phase three trials.
The Pfizer phase three trial is not due to complete until April 6th 2023.
Whilst the AstraZeneca phase three trial is due to complete slightly earlier on February 14th 2023.
But what does this mean? Well 2023 at the time of writing is up to two years away. This means that the current worldwide Covid vaccine roll-out can be described as the largest human experiment ever conducted in history. Anybody who takes this vaccine, which is only temporarily authorised for emergency use is essentially a guinea pig, or a lab rat taking part in a trial.
There’s also the fact that all the Covid vaccines being used in the UK are types of vaccine that have never been authorised for use in humans before.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs allegedly work by delivering mRNA, which Pfizer and Moderna tell us is the genetic code for the spike protein found on the surface of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, to a human cell inside a lipid membrane. Once the mRNA is inside the cell, the same machinery that is used to make our own proteins can make the spike protein. This then causes the immune system to act and initiate an immune response.
Many people are under the illusion that the AstraZeneca vaccine is a traditional vaccine – “It’s no different to the flu jab”, we hear them say time and time again. They couldn’t be more wrong. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a viral vector vaccine, and like the mRNA vaccines they have never been authorised for human use on a mass scale before.
The genetic information inside a viral vectored vaccine like AstraZeneca’s is DNA rather than RNA. This DNA is a short linear piece of double stranded DNA which contains the viral genes along with the gene for the spike protein. The viral vector first infects the cell and then delivers this DNA to the cell nucleus. The cell can then transcribes the viral genes (DNA) into mRNA using the same RNA polymerase it uses for our own genes. After transcription, the mRNA gets tagged so it can leave the nucleus and be made into spike protein by the cell machinery.
Considering the fact that children are at virtually zero risk of contracting Covid it would be madness to give them an unlicensed, emergency approved, experimental vaccine of which not one single person on this planet has any idea of what the long term consequences of having it are. Because there is no data to tell us.
But there is data on the short term consequences in the form of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in which people who have suffered an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine can report it to the MHRA. The 13th update which includes data inputted up to the 21st April 2021 shows that the reported adverse reactions to both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine include –
- 7,699 cardiac disorders,
- 10,633 eye disorders including blindness,
- A terrifying 152,273 nervous system disorders including brain damage, seizure, paralysis & stroke
- and 1,047 unnecessary deaths
That is just a snapshot as there had in fact been 722,732 reported adverse reactions to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs as of the 21st April 2021. The scary thing is the MHRA say that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are actually reported. So the true number could be anywhere from 7 million to 70 million adverse reactions to the Covid-19 jabs.
Do you honestly think these numbers justify giving the jabs to children?
Well unfortunately the authorities seem to think so as health officials are drawing up plans to offer the Pfizer vaccine to secondary school pupils from September. ‘Core planning scenario’ documents compiled by NHS officials include the offer of a single dose to children aged 12 and over when the new school year starts.
And apparently education leaders would be willing to help facilitate a vaccine roll-out at schools around the country, according to Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), the largest union for secondary school heads.
He explained that vaccinating children at school could result in higher take-up because pupils would not want to feel socially isolated by refusing to have the jab.
“The peer pressure of seeing that your friends are lining up to do it is likely to make the overall numbers taking up the vaccine higher,”.
Somebody should maybe tell Geoff Barton that what he just described is known as coercion.
The choice is yours whether or not you will allow your child to receive a dose of an experimental vaccine which neither prevents the recipient from catching Covid-19 or spread Covid-19. The only thing that these vaccines allegedly do is reduce the risk of hospitalisation and / or death. Which is why it makes no sense for any single child to have the jab, as they are already virtually at zero risk of hospitalisation and / or death according to official NHS data.
‘First they came for the elderly, and I did not speak out because I was not old.
Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out because I was not disabled.
Then they came for pregnant women, and I did not speak out because I was not pregnant.
But then they came for my children because I did not speak out for those before them.‘
Why is Britain handing huge new powers of censorship to tech giants to control what we write and say?
By Damian Wilson | RT | May 3, 2021
The UK is turning its broadcast regulator into the Hatefinder General, with a new law compelling social media companies to enforce an authoritarian crackdown on our behaviour that’s ‘unprecedented in any democracy’.
As the British nanny state widens its scope with the government’s new Online Safety Bill it is a sign that the German concept of wehrhafte Demokratie – or militant democracy – has arrived on our shores, dictating that some of our rights are sacrificed in the interests of order.
Once enshrined in law, the bill will ensure that true, online freedom of speech will follow the dial-up modem and those once omnipotent AOL subscription CDs into the dustbin of internet history. According to the authors of ‘You’re on Mute”, a briefing document from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the government’s plans “will restrict online free speech to a degree almost unprecedented in any democracy”.
But I have to admit, I’m a bit sceptical how this brand new plan is going to work. So far, it seems that Ofcom, the broadcaster regulator, will be asked to draw up a code of practice setting out the rules which social media companies will be legally obliged to follow. Ofcom will then enforce the rules with fines of up to £18 million or 10% of turnover levied on those who break them.
And what are the rules? Well, taking the guide to what constitutes hate speech as a starting point, it means not saying anything that might spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age. Phew!
Under the new bill, however, alongside the no-go areas, it will also become an offence to deliberately create and disseminate “false and/or manipulated information that is intended to deceive and mislead audiences, either for the purposes of causing harm, or for political, personal or financial gain”.
As well, the yet-to-be-revealed code will also insist that “legal but harmful” activity be blocked. How “harmful” that might be is to be judged upon the psychological impact it might cause. So be careful of those clown pics you’re posting on Facebook.
If someone told me these were the rules governing access to the internet in China, I would not bat an eyelid, so authoritarian and freedom-smothering they are even at first glance. But look at them a little closer and, well, they’re even scarier.
Ofcom’s list of hate speech minefields now includes one of the gender gestapo’s favourite areas of victimhood – gender reassignment, apparently putting a cordon around it so it may no longer be debated – and also “political, personal or financial gain”.
So how is this ever going to work in the realm of political campaigns, where the whole point is to offer flip-side views diametrically opposed to each other? As the authors of the FSU briefing point out: “No UK Government or Opposition should support proposals which give internet censors, whether this be a state regulator or ‘fact-checkers’ employed by social media companies, the power to censor the sometimes-offensive free speech which is part of any democracy. Political parties should also note that this will inevitably result in the censorship of their own activists.”
While Ofcom will act as Hatefinder General in policing its code of practice, the government is looking to tech giants like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to rise to the challenge and monitor their users for breaches of the new rules.
You may have noticed that these are the very same companies the UK continually fines and rails against over non-payment of taxes. Now they’re being asked to step up to a massive new role overseeing the way British people treat each other. Who dreamt up this model and thought it was a good idea?
Digging further, what exactly counts as disinformation or even misinformation under the new codes, which seem specifically drawn up with Covid-19 in mind and the various controversies of its origins, vaccine efficacy and countless hoaxes?
The internet is full of lies, we all know that. Not all are deliberate, but you could be caught out under the code’s definition of misinformation – “inadvertently spreading false information” – by sharing something that is not factually correct.
That this is something the government feels it needs to legislate is extraordinary. The whole thing should have been binned once Theresa May – who introduced the idea – was waved out the door of Downing Street.
Because what we need to help us navigate to the truth online is not less but more information. It’s the easy access to a diversity of views from one end of the scale to the other that is the whole point of the internet. It is not a problem that needs solving. Otherwise, we are stuck with a sanitised, government-approved version of truth that has ticked all the boxes and is now considered safe for human consumption even while some of what we are being asked to swallow is just too much.
And why are we asking tech companies to monitor this? It’s mad. The FSU has thrown up an interesting insight it gleaned from the White Paper on the proposed bill as the government extolled the virtues of YouTube’s censorship rules.
In its efforts to counter disinformation during the coronavirus pandemic, YouTube decided that any posts on its platform that offered a view that flew in the face of the opinions of the World Health Organisation would be taken offline in a bid to counter disinformation, including junk cures.
That made the worldview of the WHO the only version of the truth. And that is doubly weird because, in its efforts to suck up to China, the organisation now officially recognises traditional Chinese herbal medicine – known everywhere else as quack cures – alongside evidence-based medicine.
So we have the situation where YouTube is cracking down on junk cures expounded by users, while simultaneously promoting them through slavish adherence to the policy directives of the WHO. And now we want YouTube to take responsibility for the safety of their users across Britain? I’m not so sure this state-sponsored, tech giant-monitored censorship is such a good idea.
It allows those with no moral authority to trample over our freedoms while attempting to convince us it is for the greater good, while at the same time it patronises us, wraps debate up in a cosy blanket and whispers ‘night-night’ and rocks us to sleep protected from a world where, god forbid, we might be asked to think for ourselves.
There’s rubbish on the internet? So what? Let’s talk about it.
As the FSU says, “This is precisely why we have freedom of speech: to encourage debates about controversial issues, including the expression of unorthodox ideas that challenge what people currently believe to be true.”
This discourse is how we progress and the government needs to pause and think about that. Because the Online Safety Bill, in terms of that precious freedom of speech, is a retrograde step.
Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.
BBC gets government funding for global crusade against ‘fake news’
RT | May 3, 2021
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has given the BBC World Service an £8 million funding boost to “tackle harmful disinformation.” What that means is unclear, but the BBC has a history of waging infowars for the UK government.
Broadcast in more than 40 languages to 350 million listeners per week, the BBC World Service brings news and debate from London to the furthest reaches of the globe. Funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the British taxpayer, and some limited advertising, the service gives the British government worldwide messaging power via a news organization Raab described on Saturday as “unbiased and impartial.”
Behind the veneer of impartiality, the World Service is viewed by the British government as a tool. This year’s ‘Integrated Review’, a document that lays out London’s foreign policy and defense priorities, identified the World Service as an instrument of “soft power” for Britain – one of a range of tools to be used against “systemic competitors like Russia and China.”
Based on that report, Raab announced on Saturday that the World Service would receive £8 million in extra funding to “tackle harmful disinformation, challenge inaccurate reporting around the world and improve digital engagement.” The fresh funding comes on top of the £378 million the service has received from the FCDO since 2016.
Raab accused “some states” of producing “harmful content” and “fake news around the coronavirus pandemic,” including content “encouraging scepticism around vaccines.” Promoting vaccines has been a key goal of the British government for several months now, to the point where military intelligence units and Government Communications Headquarters spies have reportedly been deployed to wage “information warfare” against anti-vaxx internet posts.
The messaging war around the coronavirus is the only clear example cited by Raab, and his announcement speaks of a broader war against “global disinformation,” “inaccurate reporting,” and “states and criminal gangs” who “twist the news to exploit others.” These terms are not backed up with examples, and are contentious in their own right. “Fake news,” for instance, was a term made famous during Donald Trump’s presidency, and was used by both Trump and the press to describe each other’s messaging.
The BBC’s funding, as well as its vague mission to fight “fake news,” may indicate that it will engage in an information campaign for the geopolitical benefit of the British government. The broadcaster reportedly has a history of doing this, and documents leaked in March revealed that BBC Media Action, the outlet’s charitable arm, overtly cultivated Russian journalists, established influence networks within and outside Russia, and promoted pro-Whitehall, anti-Moscow propaganda in Russian-speaking areas, all at the FCDO’s behest.
FCDO Counter Disinformation & Media Development chief Andy Pryce, explained the government’s mission in no uncertain terms at a 2018 meeting, during which he said its ultimate goal was to “weaken the Russian state’s influence” via the co-option of journalists and media organizations.
The BBC isn’t the only “impartial” news service involved in the FCDO’s influence campaign. The Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF) also volunteered its services, establishing news outlets in “countries of interest” to the FCDO. A cited example of this activity is Aswat Masriya, an “independent” media outlet in Egypt, created by TRF in the wake of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.
Given the history of partnership between the BBC and the FCDO, the latest investment is likely aimed more at ensuring the British government’s version of the truth wins out against foreign powers than it is in fighting falsehood and disinformation.
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How the CIA Spawned Google
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 05.02.2025
American tech giant Google has faced regulatory scrutiny on numerous occasions amid accusations of antitrust violations. Google’s relationship with the CIA, ranging from early financial support to collaborative efforts have been decried as undermining privacy rights and free speech in the digital landscape.
Google’s creation played a crucial role in the US intelligence community’s scheme to attain global dominance by controlling information. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Would President Vance really ditch Israel?
- LAPD Pilot Will Track Vehicles In San Fernando Valley
- Britain’s Online Censorship Law Now Comes With a Crisis Plan for Your Posts
- NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases
- Using nuclear weapons, the US-Israeli alliance still can’t beat Iran
- Sunset on the Quality of Western Propaganda: Arrival of the Dr Strangelove Moment
- Ukrainian general accused of protecting crime bosses
- US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms
- GOP’s Crushing Midterm Loss Could Reshape US Political Landscape – Analyst
- Midterm loss gives Congress power to rein in US war on Iran
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- 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
