Courageous critical thinking unable to penetrate medico-political dogma at vaccine safety debate
An enquiring evidenced rebuttal to the Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate held on 24th October 2022
It took just three minutes for Elliot Colburn MP, to attempt to skilfully steer those observing the 24th October 2022 Covid-19 Vaccine Safety petition debate, into a ‘them and us’ duality by dismissing all evidence of vaccine safety concerns and using the defamatory ‘anti-vaxxer’ term to full effect.
The observers, including healthcare professionals and those advocating for the vaccine injured, once again outweighed the number of attending MPs echoing the circumstances at the All Party Parliamentary Group for vaccine injuries meeting at Portcullis House the week before.
Elliot Colburn MP declared how it would be a ‘waste of taxpayers’ money’ for the Government to launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety. This opening statement, was a surprising way to show compassion for the 470,000 people who have experienced a Yellow Card worthy adverse event, including 2330 deaths, following covid-19 vaccination. The rapidly increasing proportion of the UK concerned about the emerging evidence of vaccine damage, being way more than the small fraction of the population that knew about and signed the 107,000-strong petition.
Thankfully, incredibly well researched critical thinking and common sense was championed by a courageous handful of MPs as detailed previously by independent media.
Full Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate transcript available HERE.
Even the most sceptical observers heard 90-minutes of clearly demonstrable need for thorough review of vaccine safety. The debate introduction called on ‘the duty of government to ensure that the prescribed medication interventions of its response to coronavirus are safe.’, clearly eliciting the urgent need for an official independent investigation.
During the discourse, vital topics were raised including,
the questionable rationale for vaccinating children
the concept of regulatory capture
the influence of Big-Pharma
vaccine injury recognition and compensation
informed consent
excess mortality
and the ongoing booster programme
The debate was overshadowed by political events of the day and side-lined by mainstream media, once again. The presumptive overtone was that of blindly trusting and passive acceptance of ‘approved experts’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary right across the globe. So many of us were left exasperated and deeply contemplative of how to penetrate the corridors of power with valid representations of reality?
As tweeted by Mark Dolan GB News, so many ‘facts’ have been proven wrong in hindsight so ‘forgive me for having questions’. Questioning safety and assessing risk are essential skills for our survival in life.
As Sir Christopher Chope MP articulated during the debate:
“The Government seem to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the deputy chief medical officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective.”
In amplification of his concern, Sir Christopher added “in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all.” with agreement from Sir John Hayes MP that “these vaccines are qualitatively different.”
Those adversely effected and many families grieving those who died after taking the ‘vaccine’ are continually met with disbelief, ridicule and left unsupported, relying on family, friends and those healthcare professionals with enough integrity to pick up the pieces, whilst waiting for those in power to shift out of vaccine injury denial.
Among other statements read verbatim from the Medicines and Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA) website, as part of Elliot Colburn’s position, he cites “Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19.”
A naive proclamation which ignores the considerable evidence for other treatment options, and is devoid of any understanding or respect for the natural self-healing intelligence of the human body. Such basic tenets, could and should have been part of the public health campaign aiming to educate and empower our communities with health sustaining knowledge during the last two years.
In exploring key themes raised, critical thinking can be exercised, and wider evidence integrated which takes us far beyond the scope of Elliot Colburn MP, about whom Sir Christopher commented that:
“Showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture—the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA.”
MHRA Yellow Card Scheme
Whilst Elliot Colburn MP mentioned that he had recently been briefed by the MHRA “on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy”, it appears that other MPs, scientists and healthcare professionals who have been asking urgent and poignant questions of the MHRA for many months were not included.
In response to the planned ‘vaccine’ roll-out, the MHRA developed a dedicated covid-19 interface as part of the Yellow Card Scheme focused on the capture of suspected side effect reports for the vaccines, a vital arm of their ‘safety monitoring strategy’
The UK Health Security Agency publish ‘The Green Book’, detailing information for healthcare professionals on immunisation. In Chapter 9: Surveillance and monitoring for vaccine safety, key segments of the guide state:
“Yellow Cards are important in generating possible new signals of safety concerns.”
“It is a matter of clinical judgement.”
“A Yellow Card should be submitted when a causal association is suspected between the product administered and the condition experienced by the patient.”
“Important information on vaccine safety is routinely collected through the Yellow Card scheme and from other sources, including medical literature, post-marketing safety studies, epidemiological databases and other worldwide organisations.”
“Spontaneous reports of suspected ADRs are received from UK doctors, pharmacists, dentists, coroners, nurses, midwives, health visitors and patients.”
However, during the debate, Elliot Colburn MP continued his commentary by proclaiming,
“The person reporting could have no knowledge of the relationship between that symptom and the vaccine.”
“I could get on the phone to the yellow card scheme right now and say that I have a side effect from a vaccine—I could completely make it up.”
With all due respect, healthcare professionals have such limited time and patients are often intimidated by the lengthy Yellow Card Reporting procedure, especially when feeling unwell, so it is highly unlikely that many would ‘completely make it up’.
Under reporting is one of many barriers to the recognition of vaccine adverse events including the limited scope of information available to medical professionals, politicians and patients, alike.
The Commons Library Resources for covid-19 vaccines and research briefings written for MPs and Lords, make no mention of the alarming study data that is being globally reported. Neither are the experiences from highly esteemed, professionally qualified medical and scientific bodies, who are closely monitoring these dynamic developments, available in the mainstream arena.
Highly impactful are the ongoing challenges for patients in accessing timely healthcare, especially in primary care settings as reported by HealthWatch. Those vaccinated people experiencing symptoms of concern, are left in a quandary often with little self-care and triage assessment knowledge.
Choosing between being scared to interface with the NHS for a number of reasons and navigating the common belief that experiencing symptoms is a good sign indicating immune stimulation, opens up untold potential risk.
The open availability of a balanced discussion is obscured further by the suppression of numerous whistleblowing medics like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Sam White, risking everything to raise the alarm, and adds vice-like constraint to healthcare professionals of integrity who are already fearful of raising valid concerns.
It is important to remember that this global experiment has only just begun. The lack of long-term safety data renders the outcome of an acute reaction unknown and could be the prelude to a chronic adverse reaction.
These are just a handful of the many factors contributing to the perfect storm. Each propagating the inevitable cascade of individual health instability and the lack of reporting a vaccine adverse event due to fearing the consequences. The outcome, an astounding failure in duty of care.
Repeating history
Dr. Alison Cave, Chief Safety Officer, MHRA speaking at a recent GS1 UK Medical Devices Conference explained that the Yellow Card Scheme is very important during covid. However, seated alongside her, Baronness Cumberlege mentioned that in compiling the Cumberlege Report, they discovered that the “yellow card had been almost binned and no-one had taken any notice”.
This government commissioned report published in 2020, detailed failings in the use of pelvic mesh, hormone pregnancy tests and sodium valproate prescribing, and has theme titled chapters named:
‘No-one is listening’ – The patient voice dismissed
‘I was never told’ – the failure of informed consent
Conflicts of interest – ‘we deserve to know’
Duty of Candour – ‘preventing future errors’
Redress – ‘We want justice’
Patient safety – doing it better
Has anything changed since the publication of this report?
Causation, temporal relationship or coincidence?
To establish patterns of concern, reviewing context is everything.
Dr. June Raine DBE speaking for the British Pharmacological Society (see 13:50min) mentioned the value of ‘first-hand reports’ and that,
“We had expected 100,000, we’re now over 400,000 (yellow card reports for covid vaccine). We can’t employ enough scientists and clinicians and statisticians to deal with each one and so the tools of AI support picking up trends and then minds can be usefully employed.”
This comment from Dr. Raine, does not appear to express concern in receiving 4-fold, now nearly 5-fold, adverse event reports than expected and planned for by the MHRA prior to vaccine roll-out.
At the Sept 20th 2022 MHRA board meeting, there was much talk of activities ‘in progress’ and ‘getting there’ and Dr. Alison Cave speaking about NHS Digital tracking the patient journey being hopeful ‘for the future, but will take time’. We also heard about recruitment and retention issues in the MHRA, so it needs to be established exactly how thoroughly the Yellow Cards are being investigated?
In the MHRA adverse event reporting explanatory text, there is a very high tolerance of coincidence. Thousands of nervous system reactions including seizures, strokes, paralysis and tremors, or the tens of thousands of reported respiratory, vascular, skin and reproductive health issue are far from inconsequential. All reports will have been submitted due to the patient or clinician experiencing ‘first-hand’ a likely association of events to warrant completing a Yellow Card.
Apart from the few accepted correlations of harm resulting in fatalities, MHRA state:
“The pattern of reporting for all other reports with a fatal outcome does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.”
It is hard to comprehend that close monitoring and review is occurring when out of the 2330 fatalities (up to 26th Oct 2022), 368 reports are recorded as age unknown, 130 are sex unknown, 55 with brand unknown. (See Table 11 & 12)
How can a thorough investigation of a fatality have occurred without knowing the age or sex of a patient? Basic data gaps such as these imply serious lack of follow-up, and hence valid claims of safety can not be made.
What happened between the time the patient walked in for a ‘vaccine’ and the perceivable nature of a serious injury or death occurred? That journey is key to explore, and intensely…
In contrast to this, we heard from Elliot Colburn MP that,
“MHRA continually monitors the use of vaccines to ensure that their benefits continue to outweigh any risks”.
We need to understand who is meaningfully and thoroughly monitoring the use of these ‘vaccines’ and who decides the ‘benefits outweigh risks’ on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ basis especially when we hear that significant proportions of health research may be fraudulent.
Weighing up harms and benefits
Following his MHRA briefing, Elliot Colburn MP explained about the “rigorous scientific testing that occurs prior to a vaccine being distributed in the UK.” and that a new model of authorisation had been employed without corners being cut to allow vaccine development at speed. He further mentioned,
“That covid-19 vaccines were developed in a co-ordinated way that allowed some stages of the assessment processes to happen in parallel.”
When speaking at the Adrian Root Memorial Lecture at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) in July 2022, Dr. June Raine, was asked the following by an attendee (See 57mins):
“You mention phase 1, 2, 3 trials were allowed to overlap a bit, can you say something about weighing up the harms and benefits of doing that”.
After a thoughtful pause, Dr. June Raine replied “I would be very honest and say that we haven’t gone back to examine what might have been harms and benefits. Clearly you are in the situation of rather incomplete knowledge”.
Though appreciating the candour, this admission doesn’t inspire confidence.
This disclosure throws considerable doubt on the statement by Andrew Gwynne MP that,
“The covid-19 vaccines went through several stages of clinical trials before being approved, and met strict independent standards for safety, quality and effectiveness.”
The MHRA state that,
“For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions.”
With so many variables and emerging concerns gathering pace, clearly there is considerable audit and review required to integrate the findings of ‘post-marketing data’. Independent ethically driven enquirers who are analysing the safety standards being employed by the MHRA have been seeking information on these subjects via several freedom of information requests.
And, yes, it is time to open the AstraZeneca files, in Pfizer fashion.
Informed consent and ‘acceptably safe’
Danny Kruger MP explained,
“An essential principle of medical ethics (is) that people must be able to give informed consent before any treatment, and I worry about whether we can say that consent was fully informed in all cases.”
Elliot Colburn MP added to the expected narration with,
“The MHRA is responsible for regulating all medicines and medical devices in the UK by ensuring they work and are ‘acceptably safe’.”
Who makes this judgement if most medications are considered to be ‘unavoidably unsafe’? Hence the vital role of diverse and neutrally presented evidence to facilitate informed consent for the individual to be able to take the level of material risk of their personal choice.
Under reporting and unprecedented levels of harm
Danny Kruger MP also raised the well-recognised issue of under-reporting of adverse events, as qualified by MHRA themselves in 2018,
“It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.”
This trend is corroborated in the USA, first highlighted by the Lazarus study undertaken at Harvard which showed that ‘fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported’. Recently updated in the light of covid, as highlighted by Alliance for Natural Health reporting on a pre-print study showing Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) deaths are under reported by a factor of 20.
During the debate, Sir Christopher Chope reported that,
“The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On 20 July, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination..” “That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.”
The current MHRA Yellow Card Reporting Summary, up to 26th Oct (published 3rd Nov 2022) demonstrates that overall 1-in-114 people injected with a covid-19 ‘vaccine’ in the UK experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event.
This statement is derived from the total number of first doses administered in the UK thus far which is 53,813,490 (all brands) divided by the number of adverse event Yellow Card reports received which is 470,023.
This calculation is based on the premise that one person can only receive a first dose once, and makes the assumption that one Yellow Card Report (which could contain more than one 'reaction type') is submitted per person.
The adverse event may have been as a result of the booster in a specific individual, but essentially this ratio, 1-in-114, highlights 'people impacted' at whatever stage of their vaccine schedule.
Although as Elliot Colburn MP points out many of these reports will include ‘expected side effects’, the level of implied ‘coincidence’ or tolerated adverse impact is astounding.
As the MHRA appear to have an extremely high threshold for concern, notwithstanding a very limited accepted set of safety signals, perhaps looking towards the larger population and the more comprehensively reported VAERS in the USA, may shed light.
A search in the VAERS database up to 18th Nov 2022, outlines the total number of reports for all vaccine types where a patient died. We find that out of 42,048 entries since 1990, a total of 35,534 involved the covid-19 vaccines in just under the last two years (84.5%). The VAERS database allows the enquirer to read considerably more descriptive context to the entry than the MHRA Yellow Card data publications provide. These are very sobering accounts.
A comprehensive exploration of worldwide pharmacovigilance for the covid-19 vaccine has been compiled by the World Council for Health.
Red flags were raised by independent scientists, researchers and medics throughout last year, including to the US Food and Drug Administration, in Sept 2021, for a full hour of 3mins back-to-back presentations. (see 4:00hr-5:00hr mark).
Amongst hundreds of angles of concern, research indicating that vaccinated young adults are more likely to die and vaccine mandated medical professionals dying by the dozen in Canada, are just the tip of the iceberg…
As part of the parliamentary debate, Steven Bonnar MP stated that,
“Government must conduct an immediate and complete scientific investigation and ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of their response to coronavirus are indeed safe.”
Seems a very reasonable proposition…
Conflicts of interest and independent regulation
During discussion about the MHRA, Danny Kruger MP asked his colleague,
“Is he aware that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it regulates? Does he have any concerns about the objectivity of its work?”
A decade ago, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, founder of the Cochrane Collaboration & Database wrote in his book ‘Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime’, that he had ‘investigated the 10 biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, and found out that their business model fulfils the criteria for organized crime according to US law’.
Concerns about conflicts of interest have been written about in the British Medical Journal, and an examination of the pharmaceutical industry violation tracker makes eye-opening reading.
It is clear that the MHRA financially collaborate with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The 100 Days Mission report to the G7 by the pandemic preparedness partnership, aims to reduce vaccine development time further from the 300-day covid vaccine (which already streamlined the usual several years of conventional back-to-back clinical trials process), to a mere 100 days, and this is being championed by the UK as announced at the G7 Summit in 2021.
During the LSHTM lecture, Dr. June Raine details how MHRA activities are,
“Transforming from watchdog to an agile, enabling regulator”
Within the insightful Q & As post-speech, Dr. Raine shares the MHRA’s aim to “take regulation out of the way” and to expedite the introduction of new vaccines by new ‘Innovative Licensing’ trials legislation and move further into genomic screening, perhaps to find ‘faulty people’ rather than ‘faulty products’. Therefore drifting further into the distorted and misplaced reductionist mindset and further away from what is actually required for a healthy human population.
Returning to the vaccine safety debate discourse, Sir Christopher Chope contributed common sense by asking,
“Why was it necessary for the vaccine manufacturers to seek an indemnity against liability for negligence from the Government and the taxpayer?”
Vaccine manufacturers seeking an indemnity against liability for negligence has been a theme for decades, and is currently still being pursued by the Advisory Committee of Immunisation Practices (ACIP) of the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) voting unanimously to add the covid-19 vaccine to the childhood schedule.
Despite obvious funding conflicts, Elliot Colburn MP shared that,
“In the UK, the independent testing is performed by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, which is part of the MHRA.”
However, he could,
“See nothing to concern me about the independence of the MHRA.”
Danny Kruger MP persisted with asserting the need for a public enquiry due to,
“The compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it.”
Pharma business model and profits
Elliot Colburn MP shared that he had seen,
“Anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill,” and, “Would you not believe that pharmaceutical companies kill?” It seems a bit of a strange business model for a pharmaceutical company to kill off everyone it is trying to administer a vaccine to.”
Are these such outlandish concepts, though?
With Pfizer roughly quadrupling their vaccine price to $110-$130 per dose, and with liability indemnity, the outcome of administration and safety becomes a matter of conscience. Bill Gates elucidates that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, with more than a 20-to-1 return.
Robert F Kennedy Jr talks extensively about how vaccines are profitable to the companies that make them, which is amplified by the profits from selling drugs and devices to then treat illnesses that the vaccines cause.
As shown in covid-19 vaccine clinical trials, the vast majority of children are expected to experience pain, fatigue, headaches and fever. So for the children injected alone, how many millions of doses of symptom managing medications have been administered? Let alone the vast spectrum of new or ongoing health concerns in adults.
This whirlwind doesn’t abate when we consider the government press release on 7 May 2021 stating that the UK has access to a total of 517 million doses of vaccines from 8 different developers, and the EU has purchased vaccine doses that cover their population 10-fold. How does this make any sense?
Misinformation and censorship
The parliamentary commons library offers a briefing on covid-19 vaccine misinformation, which does not stray from the officially accepted position, one which is devoid of the immense concerns raised by the majority of MPs who attended the vaccine safety debate.
Professor Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project talks about,
“People being increasingly sceptical and doubtful about vaccines, partly fuelled by digital technology and excessive information at their fingertips. This questioning is a tipping point phenomenon. We have relied on the social contract for a very long time as we had a relatively agreeable public. But the challenge now is that these smaller pockets of dissent are all getting connected…”
Despite limited disclosure of potential risks in NHS publications, ongoing social media censorship, and the prevailing media silence on the other side of the coin, could it be that people are sceptical due to what they are personally witnessing ‘first-hand’? No amount of media manipulation of the mainstream narrative will appease that.
In his speech, Sir Christopher Chope MP defiantly concluded,
“Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them.” “We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.”
Alarming signals abound
Natalie Elphicke MP highlighted that,
“a number of medical, regulatory and ethical issues persist”
and echoed concerns of persistence in reported side effects.
Alongside the overwhelming coverage of these red flags by independent media, in elderly, children and sports people alike, Natalie Elphicke MP mentioned that,
“Constituents have raised with me their considered and researched concerns about their experiences, including variations in the menstrual cycle; the long-term impact on fertility—whether people can have children—cardiovascular concerns; muscle issues, including carpal tunnel syndrome; the triggering of serious autoimmune responses, and much more besides.”
Amongst the tsunami of worldwide studies and collated accounts, very recently a safety panel of the European drug regulator (EMA) now recommends adding "heavy menstrual bleeding" as a side effect of Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA injections, after consistent health regulator dismissal of women’s experiences for the past 18 months.
On 7th October, the Florida Surgeon General issued new COVID jab guidance, recommending men between the ages of 18 and 39 abstain from the COVID jab, as data shows an 84% increase in heart related death among men within 28 days of injection. Dr. Joseph Ladapo tweets,
“Parents, don’t hold your breath… CDC & FDA abandoned their posts. Keep sticking with your intuition and keep those COVID jabs away from your kids.”
Andrew Bridgen MP asked the debate floor,
“Why we are vaccinating healthy children who are at minimal risk from covid. Surely that is in breach of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. We are not in a situation where we can ask young people to risk their lives to protect older people. In a civilised society, that cannot be the way it works.”
With 27% of children living in poverty in the UK, why is the focus for their wellbeing not prioritising nutrition, and enabling caring, safe environments where health can thrive?
Why are babies in the UK being considered for the covid-19 vaccine?
Has the precautionary principle been dropped from our society wholesale?
As the parliamentary vaccine debate continued, Danny Kruger MP doubled down on concerns about vaccinating children saying,
“Extending the vaccination programme became an operation in public persuasion—an operation in which dissent was unhelpful or even immoral, and an operation that justified the suppression and even vilification of those who raised concerns.”
It appears that the imperative societal duty of care that we have for pregnant women has all but been dispensed with, as demonstrated by Dr. June Raine when she mentioned in her speech at the LSHTM that, on reflection, she regrets,
“not having preclinical reproductive toxicology data at the time of authorisation which led to an unclear recommendation for pregnant women.”
Andrew Bridgen MP commented that,
“Contradictory evidence was issued on two separate days. One piece of advice said that pregnant and breastfeeding women could have the vaccine, and then another Government body said that that was not safe and that it did not recommend it.”
Alarm bells have been heard from obstetrics and gynaecology physicians including, Dr. James Thorp who shares,
“I’ve seen many, many, many complications in pregnant women, in moms and in fetuses, in children, offspring…fetal death, miscarriage, death of the fetus inside the mom. What I’ve seen in the last two years is unprecedented.”
Confidence is not inspired, in any direction.
All-cause mortality and excess deaths
The prevailing trend of excess deaths were raised during the debate. As a result, a clearer dismissal without evidence there could not have been.
Andrew Bridgen MP asked,
“What is the Government’s analysis of the excess deaths that we are suffering in this country, across Europe and in the Americas? Even a casual glance at the data shows a strong correlation between vaccine uptake and the excess deaths in those regions. Surely, we must have an investigation. Tens of thousands more people than expected are dying.”
In support, Sir Christopher Chope MP commented that,
“Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by covid-19 vaccines.”
Dr. Caroline Johnson MP simply replied later in the debate that,
“there is no evidence that those deaths were caused by the covid vaccine.”
This tragic institutional denial is especially evident in Canada where the leading cause of death is ‘unknown cause’. How can the world’s leading scientists, law enforcement, medics and coroners be satisfied with that conclusion?
Ongoing risk
As the unknown impacts stack up, the compounding factors roll-on unabated. Sir Christopher Chope commented that whilst we await the UK Covid 19 Inquiry chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett,
"people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health, and the risks and rewards.”
Notwithstanding that the mRNA injection is not by definition a vaccine but a novel delivery platform, the brands are now being offered in a ‘mix and match’ format for booster doses, including the newly formulated bivalent vaccines.
Commonly there is co-administration of the flu vaccine, despite the product information stating that no interaction or concomitant administration studies have been performed.
Danny Kruger MP suggested that,
“There are questions to be asked about the effects of vaccination on the immune system.”
Indeed, the answers to these questions are swiftly required as studies show that the elderly are more at risk of covid-19 infection post booster due to impaired T-cell response, and non-elderly adults show a much lower pre-vaccination infection fatality rate than previously suggested.
Andrew Bridgen MP and Danny Kruger MP agreed that natural immunity is valid and important and asked why were people who were likely naturally immune then given the ‘vaccine’? This is a crucial aspect in weighing up informed consent decisions.
Even the FDA are being urged to publish follow-up studies on covid-19 vaccine safety signals by the British Medical Journal. That the ‘benefits must outweigh the risks’, is an assertion that is clearly in question.
Healthcare workers in the firing line
The treatment of healthcare workers who refused the ‘vaccine’ and instead chose to protect their bodily autonomy has been shocking, and as humbly stated by Danny Kruger MP,
“I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated.”
Elliot Colburn MP stated that vaccines shouldn’t,
“…be thrust upon people without their consent. People have a right to know what is put into their bodies and the autonomy to make the decision on whether or not to take a vaccination.”
But how many healthcare professionals, bullied in to ‘correct conduct’ gave way under duress, side-lining their personal choice or lost their jobs with untold consequences for both patients and staff due to this choiceless choice.
Andrew Bridgen MP asked,
“Did the Government know, when they mandated vaccines for care and NHS workers, that the vaccines had not been tested to find whether they prevented transmission?”
He was referring to the much-publicised interview of a Pfizer representative by a committee of the European Parliament a few weeks ago.
We now hear of the New York Supreme Court reinstating unvaccinated employees who were fired, and the Alberta Premier apologising to the unvaccinated.
It appears that there was no sound scientific basis for the representation that healthcare workers had to be vaccinated to ‘prevent transmission to the vulnerable’ as a condition for employment. The likelihood that the true absolute risk reduction of vaccination is very much less than 95%, seems ever more egregious.
In reference to children, but actually relevant throughout, Danny Kruger MP summed up by commenting that it all,
“…feels like a profound break with medical ethics.”
Representing vaccine injured
Sir Christopher Chope MP reminded those present that NHS literature states that in the event of an adverse reaction,
“You should seek medical advice.” But that “The Government refuse to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although they have set up long covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored.”
As we await the 2nd reading of the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill on 2nd Dec, what happens to those who are suffering as a result of their choice to be vaccinated as advised?
Are we listening to the anecdotal life experiences of thousands upon thousands of people world-wide?
Advocacy and support groups like UKCV Family are filling the breech, whilst the private funds of individuals looking for alternative health support dwindle. Independent healthcare professionals with insight and integrity are learning how to help the many who require considerable care, as through NHS services there is often no meaningful help available.
Sir Christopher raised some of the serious and valid limitations of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS), previously discussed in the Sept 6th 2022 debate. The conversation recommended that the VDPS be revised to meet current needs to avert distressing and costly legal action against the government, but with current momentum this seems unlikely to be avoidable, and likely inevitable.
The VDPS £120,000 maximum payment, for being over 60% disabled is notoriously challenging to access. It has not been revised since 2007. According to Sept 2022 figures, Maggie Throup MP reported that there were 2,458 live cases, of which 1,203 claims are awaiting returns on requested medical records, 181 claims are with medical assessors, and 261 claims are awaiting requests for medical records. According to Sir Jeremy Wright MP cases are currently being processed at the rate of 13 a month. At that rate, it would take more than 15 years to process all the cases.
Sincere gratitude is felt for those medical, legal and political advocates for vaccine-injured people, who have themselves been personally and professionally negatively impacted whilst advocating for critical thinking, integrity and duty of care in this field.
The need for respectful advocacy is echoed by two US legal titans, Robert F Kennedy Jr with Alan Dershowitz who in conversation in July 2020 explained that people learn the hard way and research when either themselves or a child are injured.
“Those people should be allowed to speak. Those people should not be gagged…. they should be treated with compassion and understanding and patience and intellectual openness toward their stories. They shouldn’t be vilified. They shouldn’t be gaslighted. They shouldn’t be ignored and right now, particularly at a point in our history, where we’re talking about giving lots of people a vaccine their stories are more important to hear than ever.”
Actions speak louder than words
As a clinician, Dr. Caroline Johnson MP, Under Secretary of State for Department of Health and Social Care at that moment, reassured the debate floor that she would ‘look at the evidence-based medical process’.
Where is the definitive evidence for these statements liberally reeled off during the debate commentary? And if the supportive evidence is not forthcoming, we really need to ask why has this narrative been so robustly constructed?
“All vaccines used in the UK covid-19 vaccine programme are safe.” - Dr. Johnson MP
“Serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare and catching covid-19 without vaccine protection remains overwhelmingly more dangerous than getting the vaccine itself.’ - Andrew Gwynne MP
“The proof is that they work, they are saving lives and they protect us and others.” - Elliot Colburn MP
“In the UK, people are still dying because they have not been vaccinated.'“ - Andrew Gwynne MP
“Vaccination is the best course of action, because the danger of injury from coronavirus significantly outweighs the chance of harm from vaccines.” - Steven Bonnar MP
After all we have explored above, it takes a certain type of naivety or perhaps arrogance to still state that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. The Alliance for Natural Health agree as they explain sharing two key studies, and in collaboration with international colleagues are launching a legal action campaign.
In the meantime, Dr. Johnson MP concluded that the,
“…government have already commissioned a public inquiry into the pandemic, and covid vaccines will be reviewed as part of that inquiry. There are no plans for an inquiry solely on vaccine safety.”
In reflection
Was this a debate or more accurately a very well utilised opportunity for valuable demonstrations of cognitive dissonance and serious concerns to be placed on public record?
In any case the situation is not appropriate for debate, but more a matter for swift medical, scientific, regulatory and legal duty of care action with the utmost urgency applied.
The incredibly revealing discourse did nothing to quell concerns, but merely amplified and galvanised awareness of the vast chasm that exists between the official narrative and the real world based in true lived experience.
The official outcome of the debate was that vaccine adverse effects will be investigated, at a non-urgent time in the future, in a ‘module’ of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry which Dr. Johnson MP details,
“Will not consider individual cases; instead, listening to such accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and any lessons to be learned.”
If the current situation is left running until then, the outcome for both individuals and society would likely be catastrophically untimely, especially if the inquiry length and breadth is comparable to the 8 years taken to complete The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the publication of which coincided with a recent media distracting prime minister resignation.
The layered assumptions and true gravity of the recent ‘Covid-19 crisis’ will be extensive in the unravelling.
Conclusive remarks
Dr. Caroline Johnson’s concluding comments implied lacking integration of any concerns about the safety data for the ‘vaccines’ raised during the course of the debate, as she stressed that,
“Collectively we must do everything we can to protect those who are most vulnerable and to reduce pressure on the NHS.” and she encouraged “everyone who is eligible to come forward for their covid booster and seasonal flu jab today.”
She included mentioning the convenience of having,
“…both covid and flu vaccines at the same time, where possible, to reduce the number of appointments needed.”
More statements to endorse the officially endorsed consensus reality, listened to by the brow-beaten public who will likely do as they’re told to try to get on with their lives.
Despite Elliot Colburn MP feeling ‘lambasted by colleagues’ during the debate, perhaps it was a karmic twist of events considering his introductory tone. Perhaps he may have experienced a taster of what it is like to be vaccine injured and seeking help, and for medical professionals in dire conflict as their obliged professional position and duty of care real-life opinion collide.
Danny Kruger MP bravely articulated that,
“Indeed, across the general population, it is plausible, though not definitive, that the vaccine is responsible for more harms than we know about. There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are.”
Holding the line of accountability are courageous individuals and independent media outlets reporting real world consequences, with integrity, in the face of complete obfuscation from the official authoritative bodies who appear to have completely neglected their duty of care to the public at large.
In a recent article, Robin Monotti Graziadei writes that,
“Vaccines are false virtue signalling symbols of mass consumerism.” And calls for “ending the production of superfluous vaccines, and most of all let's stop injecting healthy people with any energy consuming factory produced deep refrigerated single plastic syringe using vials of substances which will make a number of them ill, some severely ill, even ill for the rest of their life in some cases, requiring further resources where none were necessary. Vaccination belongs to another era, to an age of ignorance.”
The medicalisation of health including vaccination, has had a very well researched and common sense counter-narrative for decades, weighted heavily with tragic anecdotal experiences and enduringly censored. We clearly have a gargantuan shift to make on all levels of our reality.
‘First do no harm’ is the cornerstone of medical ethics and professional practice, to be patient advocate and respecting the right for an individual to make an autonomous decision about their own health.
In this unprecedented situation, as a society, it is vital to listen to those who have much more to lose than gain by sharing their experience and carefully considered perspective. Whether that be career jeopardising expert opinion, ridicule eliciting personal suffering or just applied common sense.
And if that is not the view then surely critical thinking has fully given way to authoritarian filtered scientism, ‘the improper use of science or scientific claims’, an incredibly dangerous and precarious position for all UK citizens.
We do not accept that outcome.
Useful Links
VIDEO - Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate - 24th Oct 2022
TRANSCRIPT - Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate - 24th Oct 2022
MHRA Yellow Card Adverse Event Reporting Scheme
Yellow Card Adverse Event Reporting Summary - Current - MHRA
VIDEO - Baroness Cumberlege & Dr. Alison Cave at the GS1 Healthcare Conference 2022
VIDEO - Dr. June Raine speaking - Adrian Root Memorial Lecture at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) in July 2022
VIDEO - Dr. June Raine speaking - British Pharmacological Society - Dec 2021
VIDEO - https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/exclusive-mhra-board-meeting-20-september-2022
DOCUMENT - World Council For Health - Covid-19 Vaccine Pharmacovigilance Report
INQUIRY - Covid-19 Public Inquiry
PARLIAMENTARY BILL - Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
TRANSCRIPT - Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme Debate
LEGAL ACTION - https://www.anhinternational.org/news/feature-the-narrative-around-the-safety-of-covid-shots-is-cracking/