Vaccine mandates feature prominently in the news at the moment. These are contentious for some health personnel, nurses and doctors among others, who are refusing to be vaccinated and willing to lose jobs if need be.
France and the United States, countries not typically associated with an authoritarian approach, have made Covid vaccines compulsory. Some countries have introduced vaccine passports. Even in countries where vaccine passports are not being introduced, the vaccines are promoted to young people as the passport to a social life – implying that they will be shunned if not banned for not being vaccinated. There are proposals for playgrounds with QR codes in several countries.
Some Australian politicians have openly said that we are heading for a vaccine economy – those who are not vaccinated will not be able to participate. Perhaps they’ll be shipped to an island.
For a light take on this written 8 years ago see Medystopia. Today’s version would see Australia perhaps mending bridges with China by inviting them to build an island in the South China Sea to house the anti-vaxxers. Or with France by doing a deal to house the people soon to no longer be Australian citizens on a French Polynesian island.
The image above is of journalists being detained while reporting on an anti-vaccine demonstration in Melbourne. This probably works because of the contrast between a wispily dressed damsel in distress and knights in armour – even if they’re not about to rescue her.
There is only a small group of people behind RxISK. Everybody, so far as this author knows, is fully vaccinated as are their extended families, including mine – with all vaccines except for HPV in one case and one other exception.
Some people suffering from conditions like protracted SSRI withdrawal have asked us whether the vaccines might be risky for them. There is no good data on this but we have put none of them off getting vaccinated. Many people who have been injured by medicines and have been featured on these pages, such as Altostrata, are enthusiastically pro Covid vaccines.
This post is not going to delve into the evidence for or against Covid vaccine efficacy. The complexities in this area have been handled well by Peter Doshi, a senior editor of BMJ in Decisions without Data as well as in two presentations at FDA Advisory Committees and HERE.
There have been shifts in vaccine confidence in recent years, which have been covered in a recent post Shifting Vaccine Confidence and handled in several books – Maya Goldenberg’s Vaccine Hesitancy (see also Urato Review) and Stuart Blume’s Immunization, which lay out the shifts in how vaccines are viewed without engaging in disputes about whether they work or not.
These references try to find some middle ground rather than take sides. This post though is about taking sides on a problem that at present is going relatively unmentioned.
Half a year ago we opened up the issue of reporting adverse events to RxISK following a Vaccine – Report Covid Vaccine Effects to RxISK. We didn’t push it, as it wasn’t clear RxISK could do much and has had a lot of other things on its plate. To date we have had some but comparatively few reports.
This dearth of reports could mean that very little is going wrong on vaccines. Except, I and several other people know others who have died shortly after the vaccine, and others again who have been injured.
Those who die clearly are not going to report. Their families are unlikely to report either because the close to universal experience so far from those whom I know who have had pulmonary emboli or heart trouble or other serious conditions has been that doctors pretty well instantly deny that these difficulties could have anything to do with a vaccine – even when the events are widely accepted as being linkable to vaccines.
There are an extraordinary number of reports of deaths to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System – VAERS.
Senior FDA and CDC officials give the impression that they take these seriously and are looking for signals of harms but so far have found none.
This is misleading. VAERS is not set up to find problems. It is not clear if those who set it up anticipated that by not being able to find problems, VAERS might become a means of denying there are any problems.
This is even more the case for vaccines than with the equivalent system for drugs.
In the case of both vaccines and drugs, the names of people are removed from reports and neither CDC, in the case of vaccines, nor FDA, in the case of drugs, follow people up to establish whether the vaccine or drug is likely to have caused the problem.
Even though the names are removed from reports of problems on drugs, the hundreds of thousands of reports from tens of thousands of drugs means that proportional reporting rates can be calculated – how common is this problem on this drug compared with the same problem on all other drugs.
Proportional reporting rates throw up what regulators and others call a signal. They give the impression that much much more research is needed to establish if there possibly could be a real fire behind this smoke created by too many people burning anecdotes.
If FDA and CDC had just left people’s names on the reports and called them up by phone they would have been able sort out whether the drug likely caused the problem far better than any controlled trial could – see Clinical Trials are not Safe .and People Count even in Trials and finally They Used to Call it Medicine.
If CDC had called any of the pathologists who did post-mortems stating a clear link between a vaccine and death, they could have confirmed that the vaccine can cause a problem. They might have been able to establish that 10% of reported deaths are likely linked to the vaccine and a further 26% possibly linked, as Norway did earlier this year.
The vaccine reports don’t allow the signal detection we can do with drugs. This is partly because there are much fewer vaccines. It is also because the reports of problems on Covid vaccines swamp reports from all other vaccines over the past 30 years combined. This has the effect of washing out all possible signals.
Unless things change, reporting to VAERS is a waste of time. CDC will remain unable to see the haystack for all the needles it is made up of.
In the case of drugs, doctors don’t acknowledge side effects for a few reasons. Their medical insurers tell them never to link a drug they gave to a problem their patient has.
Guidelines only mention the benefits of treatment and steer clear of hazards.
Regulators have approved nothing for treating hazards.
When it comes to adverse events, doctors are increasingly painted into a corner for both drugs and vaccines. They are up against their health service managers, insurers, guidelines, regulators, and increasingly consumers who will trample over them to get the supposed benefits of treatments – even where the evidence for benefits is nil (SSRIs for young people).
It seems invidious to say it but reports to VAERS offer cover to politicians and doctors and others who can convey the impression that the folk in CDC are at it night and day rigorously analysing the reports that come in to them and at the first hints of a problem will press pause – so we can all take stock.
CDC folk are supposedly are the experts and so for even a doctor to say there are or might be problems before that would be plain unethical. In fact, its the other way around. CDC, and FDA and all bureaucrats depend on professionals to make these judgement calls – this is the essence of professionalism – although fewer and fewer doctors seem able to make the judgement calls needed.
The political imperative seems to be to downplay any mention of any problems and hype the benefits.
This transformation of something in the real world into a sacrament (something that can only do good and cannot harm) is a role usually taken by pharmaceutical companies, helped by wearing the right Vestments (Guidelines) and burning the incense of regulatory approval.
The consequences seem to be a loss of trust in Public Health Systems who now, astonishingly, seem to be less admired and trusted than pharmaceutical companies.
Getting back to the real world isn’t easy. In the case of drugs, which governments don’t promote, pharmaceutical companies are legally obliged to consider any reports of problems and work out if their drug caused it – which they do and sometimes change their drug labels to hint that Zoloft or whatever might cause X or Y – even when the doctors who gave the drug say there is no link and even though companies might open themselves up to legal liability. Companies do this usually when there is no way to explain things other than their drug caused it.
Having said that some companies (GSK), if faced with a compelling case their drug can cause a problem have tried claiming that if the problem hasn’t been shown to happen to a statistically significant extent in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) then, however convincing the case, its a matter of deceptive appearances. This is like saying there is no evidence that alcohol makes anyone drunk. Ludicrous though it is, the argument works with lots of experts and regulators and politicians.
Governments aren’t going to attempt to assess causality, especially in this case as they rather than companies are liable.
What this totally foreseeable scenario suggests is that we should have had mandatory reporting of vaccine adverse events and mandatory assessments of causality – before we mandated the giving of vaccines.
To make reporting work, people who are injured, or relatives of those who have died, need to leave their names on the reports and indicate a willingness to be examined and cross-examined (CE).
The wounds and deaths linked to the vaccine are a huge source of distress but equally great is the silencing and gaslighting health and media systems currently inflict on those who have been injured or the relatives of those who have died. Difficult to see how Joe – may god protect our troops – Biden can support this.
Several sites have made important steps forward in this area:
C19VaxReactions – this is based primarily in the US and
VaxTestimonies.org – which is based in Israel.
Nomoresilence.world – which is UK based but features stories from everywhere.
Earlier this year Katinka Newman did something similar for antidepressants with Antidepressantrisks.org.
These need strengthening with featured people committing to being examined and open to being cross-examined. The CE word brings most people out in allergic bumps but this is critical to credibility.
Anyone – a doctor or pharmacist – doing an examination or cross-examination would need to leave their name attached along with details of their background and also indicate a willingness to be cross-examined in turn as to their conclusions. Those in the firing line should be free to record the cross-examination. If we end up with no-one willing to cross-examine, this will speak volumes in its own right.
Establishing causality in medicine is a judicial process undertaken by people with names.
Leaving names in place and inviting examination and cross-examination means the reporting cannot be to VAERS or EMA or any regulatory body, who are obliged by current rules to remove all names in the interests of patient confidentiality. This act, which is invaluable for the pharmaceutical industry, transforms reports into anecdotes or hearsay.
Unless governments get a grip on the mistake they are making in anonymizing reports, the reporting will have to go to an independent body.
Leaving your name attached should not raise confidentiality issues – in that you are revealing nothing about any other medical issues. You were essentially a healthy volunteer when you went for the vaccines. You are now reporting on the outcome of a risk you took hoping to benefit family and friends and your country. By definition you have been pro-vaccine and patriotic.
To make the cross-examination useful, reports need to be as comprehensive as possible. They also ideally need to be accompanied by a print-out of a medical history (or some record of a deceased relative’s history – perhaps an autopsy report). This would clearly remain confidential but would need to be seen by anyone examining your account of what happened.
Anyone examining an account of what happened ideally should also leave a report on their background and credentials for interviewing you.
This process will not establish how many people are injured by or die after a vaccine but it will make very clear that there are linked injuries and deaths. Once this happens, and pro-vaccine patriots do not feel they are been gaslighted, we can work out a way to estimate the frequency with which some of these problems are likely happening.
Ideally this process should be picked up by family doctors whom people should be able to go to and expect to be met by sympathetically. Some of these doctors will be very quick to note any hint of threat or hostility from you, but completely miss their own threatening and hostile demeanour, and all too aware of threats from above to court-martial them if they don’t stay onside and rule out any link between your injuries and the vaccine. See Patient Experiences reporting Adverse Events.
Pharmacists may be better suited to a job – that ultimately risks putting low-salt doctors out of business – For low Salt see Can Doctors Save their Jobs and They Used to Call it Medicine/Girl Who Eats Salt.
Mandates like these would put us all in a better position to judge the validity of mandatory vaccination. The absence of measures like these (and some other measures) makes it more difficult even for those who are pro vaccines to support mandatory vaccination.
Since the above was written, the US group running the harms website above have established a research website – because, as they said, no-one else was doing anything.
It should not need noting but this is a pro-vaccine post and site. It is dealing with issues that pro-vaccine people have had. No-one who is anti-vaxx has made any contribution or could make any contribution to the points raised here.
More next Week.
If any living being was to be harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines, who would be LIABLE?
– Those in vaccine research
– Big Pharma
– Those who administer the vaccines
– Political advisors
– The FDA, MHRA, WHO
They will all be scurrying underground for cover or blame it on something else!
When someone tells me something is SAFE, I cover all bases and just don’t take anything anyone tells me as GOSPEL.
Tamiflu by Roche was a widely touted to protect against the severe consequences of influenza, but a 2009 Cochrane Review found that the available information didn’t support that claim. Part of the issue was that the clinical trial data just wasn’t available for them to reach any conclusions one way or another. In 2012, two of the authors of the Cochrane review, Peter Doshi and Tom Jefferson, published follow-ups in PLoS Medicine and an OP-ED in the New York Times, not just about Tamiflu,
but about the whole issue of the secrecy surrounding clinical trial data:
Drug Data Shouldn’t Be Secret
New York Times
By PETER DOSHI and TOM JEFFERSON
April 10, 2012
In the fall of 2009, at the height of fears over swine flu, our research group discovered that a majority of clinical trial data for the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu — data that proved, according to its manufacturer, that the drug reduced the risk of hospitalization, serious complications and transmission — were missing, unpublished and inaccessible to the research community. From what we could tell from the limited clinical data that had been published in medical journals,
In response to our conclusions, which we published in January, the C.D.C. defended its stance by once again pointing to Roche’s analyses. This is not the way medical science should progress. Data secrecy is a disservice to those who volunteer their bodies for clinical trials, and is dangerous to those being asked to swallow approved medicines. Governments need to become better stewards of the scientific process. The European regulator’s announced intention to release clinical study reports after it finishes reviewing a manufacturer’s application is an important precedent. But the F.D.A. — guardian of arguably more trial data than any other entity in the world — appears stuck in the era of data secrecy. We should not have to wait for patients to be hurt by the medications they take, as recently happened with the diabetes drug Avandia, before reviewing this wealth of data
The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience
Peter Doshi , Tom Jefferson,Chris Del Mar
Published: April 10, 2012
There are strong ethical arguments for ensuring that all clinical study reports are publicly accessible. It is the public who take and pay for approved drugs, and therefore the public should have access to complete information about those drugs. We should also not lose sight of the fact that clinical trials are experiments conducted on humans that carry an assumption of contributing to medical knowledge. Non-disclosure of complete trial results undermines the philanthropy of human participants and sets back the pursuit of knowledge.
Potentially valid reasons for restricting the full public release of clinical study reports include: ensuring patient confidentiality (although this could be remedied with redaction); commercial secrets (although these should be clear after drugs have been registered, and we found no commercially sensitive information in the clinical study reports received from EMA with minimal redactions); and finally, industry concerns over adversaries’ malicious “cherry picking” over large datasets (which could be reduced by requiring the prospective registration of research protocols). None appear insurmountable.
With the EMA’s stated intentions on far wider data disclosure, we hope the debate may soon shift from one of whether to release regulatory data to the specifics of doing so. But until these policies go into effect—and perhaps even after they do—most drugs on the market will remain those approved in an era in which regulators protected industry’s data . It is therefore vital to know where industry stands. If drug companies have legitimate reasons for maintaining the status quo of treating all of their data as trade secret, we have yet to hear them. We are all ears.
Why is nobody asking the healthcare workers why they are refusing the jabs?
It’s the elephant in the room that those (who are already vaccinated) seem to shrug their shoulders at.
Media figures show how that the majority of healthcare workers have been vaccinated but this doesn’t hold up to what is being discussed on the lesser-known media platforms. People, including healthcare professionals, are being forced to use these lesser-known platforms because the giants are either flagging their posts as non-factual or, worse, banning the users from posting.
We often hear about the ‘science’ and are often told not to believe in the “Google Doctor’s” who claim to have the answers.
Here’s the rub:
Most people I know, and I include myself in this, have used Google (or the older search engines) to find out whether or not the SSRI they have been taking causes problems with other people. Most people arrive on my blog via Google and I’m sure the same can be said for the Internet Support Forums for folk suffering SSRI withdrawal.
If it wasn’t for the search engines, many of those suffering SSRI withdrawal would just be listening to their GPs – and history tells us that GPs know diddly when it comes to withdrawal.
If it wasn’t for search engines, the Fiddaman blog wouldn’t exist, it would just be a guy from Birmingham with a gripe against drug companies and regulators.
It is those harmed by products who do the leg work, it is those harmed that educate themselves.
The unharmed are the shoulder-shruggers, they fit into the “It will never happen to me” bracket.
Many of the SSRI community have decided to take the vaccine, deciding that the science behind it is accurate. This is, of course, their prerogative. They have put their faith in the very same corporations whom they have been harmed by with other products.
I find this baffling.
Going back to the Elephant in the room, these two videos show a town hall meeting of healthcare professionals from Minnesota. They air their grievances to Erik Mortensen (Republican Party)
Neither of the two videos have been highlighted in the mainstream media. Those who oppose the vaccine (for whatever reasons) have posted the videos on social media, in the main they are shared by others who oppose the vaccine. The vaccinated, however, remain silent.
Both videos can be accessed on the following blog posts.
I’m guessing those who respond will be those who have chose not to take the vaccine.
Both are jaw-dropping, both highlight what is going on in the real world and not the world seen through the media lens or any clinical trial setting.
Are Nurses Conspiracy Theorists?
Are Nurses Conspiracy Theorists Part II
The questions remains: Why is nobody asking the healthcare workers why they are refusing the jabs?
For an organization dedicated to pointing out the risks of medical therapies, you sure tiptoed around this one. How from any sane perspective is it possible to consider for even a second mandating a vaccine with so many reported casualties?? Your response is timid.
You didn’t spot the more next week final line?
I was in two minds whether or not to go for the booster jab that they say will soon be offered to us ‘oldies’. The reason for the hesitation is the fact that around six weeks ago I apparently had a “touch of phlebitis” according to the surgery nurse. I was told that it will take three to four months to completely clear up.
On contacting Doctor Google, I found out that “if you’ve ever had a blood clot you should consult your GP before accepting the booster jab”, or the first two I assume except that I’d never had such a problem at that point! So, off went an email this morning to our group coordinator at the surgery. She replied that she’d sent my query to the GP and would contact when in receipt of a reply. Mid afternoon the reply came. She’d been advised to contact a consultant who stated that if I had the booster then I should exercise regularly and drink plenty of fluids, also, if there was a hint of swelling or “heat in the leg” – their words! then I would need to attend A&E immediately. Now then – waiting in a&e in this area can take hours, long enough for the “heat in the leg” to develop into something quite nasty! The consultant’s final words, of course, were that the final decision rests with me.
Having expected a reply of “take the booster when it’s offered – it will provide you with better cover”, to get the reply as stated above was rather a shock and I certainly shall not be accepting the booster jab.
Thanks for posting the warning for others Mary. Could have been a close shave if you hadn’t realised the need to check. So How are all the thousands of people being targeted for boosters going to be checked for a history of clots. Your GP needed to ask a consultant for advice after you had flagged up a concern yourself.. Good that she did but There are schemes being used where people can just turn up in all sorts of venues to get vaccinated. They can’t have all been checked for contra indications from medical records or what they might remember happened years ago?.
Funnily enough, in today’s mail was the invitation for the booster!
I’m still amazed at the consultant’s words of warning – it seems to me that that particular consultant is rather wary of the Covid vaccine or even aware of possible side effects that are not shared with the public?
Bob asks why noone is questioning the NHS staff who refuse the vaccine – maybe this consultant is one of that number and, it seems, will not remain quiet about the dangers for some of us. He/she knows no more of my medical history than that which had been shared yesterday in that request. I haven’t been seen by a consultant – merely by a surgery nurse whose care was thorough. I have no idea what was added to my medical notes as a result but it is obvious that whatever was written warranted a warning should I go ahead with the jab. As Susanne says, how many people, who have already suffered with blood clots, are willingly going ahead for these vaccines without the hint of a warning? It is most unfair that this is so. We all try to do what is in the best interest of society – all, that is, except the ones who hide facts from those who should be told the truth.
There are gene tests that predict risk of clotting but no-one is told about this.
There are likely similar for cardiac defects.
There is a known risk for relapse of multiple sclerosis with all vaccines
and significant aggravation of migraines with all vaccines
and generally a neurological immune reaction
but no-one is being told about this.
More in next week’s post
There is evidence being collected of adverse effects in GP surgeries everywhere.. It is alsmost two years since the pandemic began .Surely in a research crazy society some researchers would have thought that when vaccines were developed it would be a golden opportunity to investigate effects. I reckon this information is being collected and sat on without taking that step of contacting individuals themselves which could create even more mistrust of vaccines – or conversely depending on the results – more trust. Individuals are asked by name usually after consent gained by a GP to participate in all kinds of studies which require sharing personal information. Despite the cynicism people are still altruistic in this respect.
The narcism of psychiatrists- publicists so called researchers such as Simon Wessely ; colleagues in Sense about Science and so on will probably lead to even more cover ups, harms, deaths and suicides . We need to know the truth – too often, it gets disclosed by whistleblowers and journalists
Trial By Error: A Letter to Psychological Medicine about Error in MUS Paper from Sir Simon and Colleagues
13 April 2021 by David Tuller
By David Tuller, DrPH
virology blog About viruses and viral disease
Trial By Error: Open Letter to The Lancet, version 3.0
13 August 2018 by David Tuller
the Times Sir Simon Wessely, chair of psychological medicine at King’s College London, described Professor Whitty as “calm, collected, courteous, confident and clever” and “made for the post” as chief medical officer. (Check out Whitty’s past)
My first reaction to the post was that It is a bit shocking to find open debate seems to be being censored on this post . the stance is not really middle ground but pro vaccines. Unless it means anti vaccers or undecided whatever are not allowed a voice just this time ,rather than not at all. (I’m not totally anti vaccines ) I don’t think the reputation of the Rxisk campaign would be harmed if debate was open. After all as editors you have made your own stance clear .
ORDER TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
BIG PHARMA › NEWS
More Than 726,000 COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS as CDC, FDA Overrule Advisory Committees’ Recommendations on Third Pfizer Shot
VAERS data released Friday by the CDC included a total of 726,965 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 15,386 deaths and 99,410 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 17, 2021.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free. (I am a reader of DEFENDER as many other stuff but no self interests)
It’s also free to listen to the accounts being given on Radio phone In’s in UK . People are allowed to say so much about adverse effects then the presenters get nervous start bigging up the vaccines and shut them down.Usually on all night chanels when fewer people will be listening
The focus is on the harms of the vaccines and how people get gaslighted by the system. This is entirely of a piece with the RxISK approach to fluoroquinolones, SSRIs, doxycycline, stimulants and other drugs. Common to all these are harms that in addition to being harmed people are increasingly harmed by the denial there are any harms.
Its only once the harms are out in the open that it becomes possible to give informed consent.
A 21st century version of Venus in Furs – its only when the harms are recognized and not just recognized but the atmosphere permits them to be raised and taken into account that it will possible to have mature relationships – and mature relationships don’t ordinarily involve mandates.
In the case of vaccine injuries we now have several groups doing something that RxISK has been trying to make happen for a decade, as the post illustrates. There is a chance to change the debate about harms – how we assess them. It might be a turning point.
Having the voices of the harmed drowned out by people telling other people what to think and how to behave is not the object of the exercise – as the third part of the lecture series on dh.org will make clear next week.
A second response to Suzanne. There are lots of site debating multiple angles on the vaccine story. But almost none on harms – the post points to the only ones who try to establish what exactly is happening people. This is important – its not something to be drowned out by people who haven’t had a vaccine for one reason or the other. Its the kind of thing that will drive Dr Wessely mad where he can feel comfortable swotting anti-vaxxers away all day long.
A second response to Suzanne? “… [I]t’s not something to be drowned out by people who haven’t had a vaccine for one reason or the other.”
The covid vaccines, under U.S. FDA law, are classified as gene therapy, not as vaccines. First time ever that any such prophylactic for an infectious disease ever has been rolled out. No animal studies were performed prior to roll-out, globally, as an EUA-only product. Although some remain undisclosed per se by the mfr’ers, these shots have been found to contain, to list only a few, graphene oxide (as a primary excipient), luciferase, Lipid SM-102, lead, and possibly Trypanosoma. The adverse events reported to VAERS, literally, are off-the-charts.
Putting only parts of these “pieces” of facts together should tell anyone that the odds that these shots, on balance, pose the utmost serious risk of harm to the public are a bit too high for anyone seriously to discourage those who conscientiously object to the shots to speak up on this post. After all, what IF these shots are found to compromise intractably the overall integrity of a recipient’s immune system functionality? How does anyone argue that we know for a fact that these shots do not do just this? We know nothing; we remain the covid gene therapy shot “experiment” that is unfolding.
We all understand that the purpose here is to catalog “harms” which everyone opting for these shots has experienced … Yet, those already dead from the shots no longer are available for us to hear from, so there is that “selection bias” with whichto deal. What is mind-blowing is that anyone expects an answer, or salvation from tyranny, to fall out of the sky simply because injured “covid vaccinees” voice their experiences.
Were I a responsible physician as Dr. Healy most assuredly has proven himself to be over the decades, I would be agonizing over only two aspects attendant to my clarification as to who is “welcome” to contribute to this post: (a) the reckless abandon inherent in a derring-do display of encouragement for everyone to receive a covid shot and (b) the almost certainty of having to corner a priest pronto for absolution for such an action as more time passes and more deaths caused by the shots pile up.
It is important not to confuse, as I have done, Prof Chris Whitty, Government Chief Medical Officer for England, with Sir Andrew Witty, who is not medically qualified, but who was at the helm of GlaxoSmithKline plc when GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S.
COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown
At this point, I would like to go back in time to 2009 and Ferguson/Imperial College’s analysis of swine flu, H1N1: they claimed this virus would take the lives of 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, 457 people died from the virus.
In response to the threat of swine flu, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed the Pandemrix vaccine, with disastrous consequences. An alleged sixty patients who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine were allocated £60 million in compensation by the UK Government. Most of the victims were children. As one report has it: “It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy in about one in 16,000 people, and many more are expected to come forward with the symptoms.”
A later British Medical Journal (BMJ) report deemed that GSK and health authorities had failed to warn the public of the vaccine’s alarming “safety signal”.
The vaccine was developed by GSK and patented in September 2006. Pandemrix contained a flu strain recommended by the WHO. After reports of brain damage began to emerge, the WHO revised their advice to urge “restricted use” for people under the age of 20. Pandemrix is no longer licensed for use, but at the time, the Gordon Brown-led Labour government had granted GSK indemnity. Details of that agreement have never been made public.
From 2012 to March 2018, Sir Patrick Vallance was president of research and development at GSK.
He went directly from GSK to his post as the UK Government chief scientific adviser.
Just as Sir Patrick Vallance was linked to GSK, so Chris Whitty, the UK Government’s Chief Medical Advisor, was on the interim board of CEPI until the permanent board was announced in 2018. Should we be surprised that the UK Government has invested £50 million in CEPI while being advised by Whitty?
Whitty also received Gates funding in 2008: $40m for malaria research in Africa. The fact that Whitty was involved in the kick-start of CEPI, Gates’ immunisation monopoly project, should therefore not come as a huge surprise.
Not only was Chris Whitty previously sponsored by Bill Gates and on the interim board of CEPI; he now chairs the UK Vaccine Network (UK VN). The UK VN brings together “industry, academia and relevant funding bodies to make targeted investments in specific vaccines and vaccine technology for infectious diseases with the potential to cause an epidemic”.
Under Chris Whitty’s administration — Whitty is co-lead for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) — the NIHR and UK Research and Innovation are giving another £20 million to CEPI for Covid–19 vaccine development. This is in addition to the £50 million already given by the UK Government to CEPI.
Tom Jefferson: The UK turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for leadership: revolving doors?
December 6, 2017
Improving the quality of evidence is desperately needed as shown by the scores of examples of clinical trials that have been abandoned or distorted that have come to light in the last decade.
Can one walk away from leading industry, or rubbing shoulders with it, and perform an important public health function with impartiality?
I have written three books highly critical of the medical profession. Vaccines were not even on my radar. They are now.
It is my understanding that Dr. Jenner’s inoculation brought an end to what may have been the most terrible disease ever to afflict mankind. That’s great. It is also my understanding that Dr. Jenner could have become the richest man in the world had he patented his discovery. He chose not to. He gave it away to the world for free. That’s great, too.
It does not follow that any preparation manufactured by criminal organizations which also manufacture and control the evidence purporting to show their wares are safe and effective (and do so on our dime) is equally effective, or indeed has a positive benefits-to-cost ratio at all.
I have noticed a sinister bait-and-switch regarding the debate over vaccines. After saturating the public with hate campaigns against anti-vaxxers (which always struck me as out of proportion to any damage they may have caused) the term “anti-vaxxer” now is being applied to anyone who has the temerity to want any say over what gets shot into his veins.
you mean anti-mandators have made themselves anti-vaxxers?
The media has made anti-mandators antivaxxers.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines “anti-vaxxer” as:
“a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination”
Just as well RxISK is pro-mandates
mandatory adverse event reporting
and mandatory assessment of causality
before rolling out any other mandates
meaning the Pro anti-depressants have made anti-psychiatry themselves … ?
‘This directly contradicts the many misleading statements from the anti-psychiatry movement that such discontinuation is usually very difficult’
‘this can also be done safely over a couple of months.’
Depressed people who come off their meds are nearly a fifth more likely to relapse compared to those who stay on the drugs, study finds
Professor Guy Goodwin, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford who wasn’t involved in the study, said: ‘This is an encouraging study that largely supports how GPs treat patients in the UK with recurrent depression.
Continuing to take antidepressants has a ‘sustained advantage over placebo’, supporting the view that antidepressants can work for many people, he said.
Professor Goodwin added: ‘What is just as important is that patients who wish to discontinue SSRIs [antidepressants] can do so without major problems from withdrawal effects.
‘This directly contradicts the many misleading statements from the anti-psychiatry movement that such discontinuation is usually very difficult, much as we know that sometimes it is.’
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, regius chair of psychiatry at King’s College London, said the findings mirror earlier studies which found benefits for staying on antidepressants for at least six months after you had recovered from a depressive illness.
He said: ‘Now we know this applies for an even longer period. On the other hand, the other good news is that if you do want to come off antidepressants for whatever reason, this can also be done safely over a couple of months.
‘So now patients taking long term antidepressants can make an even more informed choice than before.
Prescription for Sorrow…
This is an account of staggering corporate mendacity and greed, and of news media which all too often behave like lapdogs rather than watchdogs. But it is also a tale of courageous doctors, reporters, litigators, and ordinary men and women whose lives were turned upside-down by these drugs—all of whom were relentless in their drive to uncover the truth. – Jim Gottstein, JD
Mark Horowitz has done a good job in disassembling this study and this is his thread –
This is said as a throwaway comment in the BBC article but it is a fundamental flaw that completely undermines the study. If 17% of the discon group had w/d sx confused for relapse, no diff between groups:
Coming off anti-depressants may not cause relapse – study
— all in the United Kingdom; and the Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (D.M.).
In other ‘Mandate’ News poor old Bob is in transit from Panama to Birmingham and likely to quarantine from a Red List Country and desperately trying to see his dying dad
Hearts, McMaster and Mandates, travelling…
Thanks for link Annie Have made comments on Daily Mail – anyone can do this 223 responses so far Re jannered, london, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
(dont know what /who jannnered is and I dont live in London)
‘Totally disengenuous to call professionals who disagree with the way this has been reported anti psychiatrists. The majority are mainstream psychiatry who prescribe drugs approriately but with honest warnnings about side effects and withdrawal effects – none have been mentioned by the researchers or Simon Wessely The people who have experienced them should have been included. For further information on the issue see (Professor) David Healy blog and Rxisk blog . Simon Wessely comments but does not have the appropriate experience , he has caused a lot of distress by getting so much wrong re MS and PTD suffered by soldiers after combat
It is disengenuous to undermine professionals who do not agree with these findings – anti-psychiatry They in the majority belong to the mainstream of psychiatry and are not anti medication either. An example is the world renowned Professor David Healy For info see at David Healy blog and Rxisk blog
susanne comment on ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care
List of authors.
Gemma Lewis, Ph.D., Louise Marston, Ph.D., Larisa Duffy, B.Sc., Nick Freemantle, Ph.D., Simon Gilbody, Ph.D., Rachael Hunter, M.Sc., Tony Kendrick, M.D., David Kessler, M.D., Dee Mangin, F.R.N.Z.C.G.P., Michael King, Ph.D., Paul Lanham, B.A., Michael Moore, F.R.C.G.P., Irwin Nazareth, Ph.D., Nicola Wiles, Ph.D., Faye Bacon, B.Sc., Molly Bird, M.Sc., Sally Brabyn, M.Sc., Alison Burns, B.Sc., Caroline S. Clarke, Ph.D., Anna Hunt, M.Sc., Jodi Pervin, B.Sc., and Glyn Lewis, Ph.D.Sep 30, 2021
The Study Lacks Credibility
There are countless reports by people who are suffering serious including long term adverse effects of going through withdrawal and of ofessor those who have managed to taper off anti depressants with help from Rxisk.org , Prof Peter Grotzche and other psychiatrists and ‘user/ex user ‘ experts. Yet none of these have been mentioned or their data been used or referenced. A trawl through groups set up to advice and support would have provided easily available reliable information. Dee Mangin of Hamilton University is associated with Rxisk.org and Professor David Healy, (David Healy blog) of Hamilton Family Medicine Dept who has carried out decades of work on these issues.
As Patrick D. Hahn mentions Jenner. Thought best to post this separately as a reply as it can stand on its own regarding Mandates in general.
Having been interested in the history of medicine for some two decades or more I am no-longer surprised by orthodox medical history being of somewhat Disney coloured narratives and often bearing little resemblance to the contemporary records of the time in which events took place. Small-pox was a horrid disease and thus people at first welcomed a safer form of protect than that of variolation but things didn’t pan out in the way that the authorities demanded, and for all the same reasons and sins that are being repeated today.
There was no ‘choice’ on Jenner’s part as inoculation was not patentable at that time (not to be confused with royal habit of sometimes give a nod of approval to some nostrum or other by way of a ‘litteræ patentes’)
Jenner was certainly no philanthropist and manage to get from Parliament £10,000 in 1802 (equivalent £999,957.71 today) and £20,000 (equiv. £1,886,099.09 today) in 1807 alone. , He also made a lot of money supplying vaccinators with his inoculant who in turn made a very good living administering it.
What a difference a decade makes. Where I had to have help from a medical librarian to be able to read contemporary accounts of 19th century small-pox vaccine debates, now there are many that have been scanned and put online. So you’ll quickly be able to see how sanitized the orthodox medical version of mass small-pox vaccination against this nasty disease is. To the point that these lessons has been lost and the same mistakes are being repeated with Covid and for the same reasons.
The scan of the book: “The story of a great delusion in a series of matter-of-fact chapters” by William White gives a good account up to the date of 1885.  Yet, the juggernaut rolled on under its own momentum. For those that don’t have time to read it I’ll give the punch line of the final chapter in my own words, and hoping it preserves the essence…
Today we know that viruses can only do what their genetic code enables them to do. This book lays out that even back in 1885, it was realized by very many, that if a virus meets a host which ignores the nature of things in the blind pursuit of profit and if authorities ignore the signals in order to side step their obligations, then it is the host that ultimately suffers from ignoring the reality of nature.
I thought I’d satisfied my curiosity but it was awoken again around 2011 when the paper “Chasing Jenner’s Vaccine: Revisiting Cowpox Virus Classification” was published. It looked at the sequencing of this family of viruses (CPXV) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152555/
Just as the first modern study (1939) of the virus used for small-pox vaccines found it only weekly similar to cow-pox, this 2011 study showed the five modern vaccine viruses are also hybrids (for want of a better commonly understood term) which also show an only weak relationship to cow pox but a stronger one to horse-pox. I then remembered that Jenner had mentioned horse-grease occasionally but I had concentrated mainly on the 19th century studies and surveys rather than what Jenner said. So, I returned and reread much of what I had collected together. Time to ruffle a few feathers…
Jenner knew and other people knew, that Jenner knew, that cow-pox per sa doesn’t provide any immunity to small pox! It had puzzled me earlier as to why I could not find any in-vitro studies showing cow pox conferring immunity. So why was Jenner’s inoculate effective and what was he actually supplying and making so much money from doing so? Well. You’ll have to at least read White’s book to find out. But (and it appears to be a missing part of the jigsaw puzzle)…
There are many confounding reasons why small-pox might be less of a scourge in some regions with low vaccination rates and whilst being worse in some areas of high vaccination. Many attempts tried to tease some sense out of the data such as the “Testimony Before the Royal Commission on Vaccination” (S420: 1890) https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S420.htm and “To Members of Parliament and Others. Forty-five Years of Registration Statistics, Proving Vaccination to be Both Useless
and Dangerous”. (S374: 1885) https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S374-509.htm
Back then as today, the biggest problem to me always seemed to be the difficulty of getting someone to understand something when his position or livelihood depended on him not understanding it, let alone a whole committee. Yet, they could have been missing something else not then discovered, this is where I come back to the ‘but.’ Is it possible that a missing part of the jigsaw held the answer to the puzzle? Was the mass vaccination effort not lowering overall mortality as expected because of what is termed in virology as ‘original antigenic sin’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin This is where the immune system after encountering one virus is trapped into ineffectively responding to other similar viruses as though they are exactly the same. Also, perhaps from the phenomenon of pathogenic priming or ADE which could make contracting the animal poxes more dangerous. Even today, people occasionally become seriously ill with cow-pox – but I’ll avoid going off on that tangent here. Vaccinated area were often reported as starting to suffer from more sickness etc., than before. It is perhaps impossible that we will ever be able to tell now from the original data with some of it so corrupted, for as Alfred R. Wallace states in his letter to November 1883 issue of The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review.
“I have also been struck by the (apparent) want of honesty in the defenders of vaccination, in repeating over and over again statements which are not true, and in actually falsifying the records of small-pox mortality by entering all doubtful cases as “unvaccinated.” https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S368.htm
If one were to use ‘find and replace’ to replace small-pox with covid in all these old accounts I wonder if anyone would spot their true antiquity?
Alfred Russel Wallace Page, vaccination, anti-vaccination, Westminster Review, 1889, S374
 The story of a great delusion in a series of matter-of-fact chapters
by White, William 1831 to 1890 ;Pub: 1885 https://ia804509.us.archive.org/14/items/storyofgreatdelu00whitrich/storyofgreatdelu00whitrich.pdf
Finally: Another book from the period of compulsory vaccination:
Vaccination a Delusion: Its Penal Enforcement a Crime by Alfred Russel Wallace (Provided by the Official Evidence in the Report of the Royal Commission) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58918
I am grateful to Thebmj for their coverage of Covid. It has been an invaluable place to go for in depth reliable information and debate all through the pandemic Despite some historical horrors I couldn’t have done without it.
The unofficial vaccine educators: are CDC funded non-profits sufficiently independent?
BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5104 (Published 07
Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ
Mandate madness in the US: we should thank, not vilify, the unvaccinated
Re: Covid-19: New York’s health workers agree to vaccinate as mandate bites
(Strange understanding of ‘agree’ They were coerced into it) Kind of like people ‘agree’ to take medications when a threat of coercion hangs over them if they ‘disagree’
Most of what we have been programmed to believe is wrong.
What are the political agendas behind this Covid-19?
This Covid-19 is another one of History’s worst decisions.
Where is the humanity in our leaders?
Greed, corruption and megalomaniacs, at it’s best!
The devastating policies will leave it’s mark on this universe for a long time.
Will our world ever be the same again?
The state of appalling affairs is due to mankind’s idiocy.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—George Santayana, philosopher and writer
‘Want of Honesty’ Lancet investigation has been shut down
REVEALED: 26 out of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed theory that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers
The Lancet letter published in March 2020 called claims that Covid-19 originated in lab ‘conspiracy theories’
It was signed by 27 scientists from across the globe working in virology and other medical science fields
The widely-read letter effectively ended all debate about origins of the global coronavirus pandemic
Investigation by The Telegraph has found 26 out of 27 had connections to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology
By CHRIS JEWERS FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 11:24, 11 September 2021 | UPDATED: 18:11, 15 September 2021
Of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab, 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors, a new investigation has revealed.
On March 7 last year, the influential journal published the letter in which the 27 scientists said they ‘strongly condemned conspiracy theories’ surrounding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic that has impacted all corners of the world.
All debate into whether Covid-19 had man-made origins or leaked from the lab in Wuhan – the Chinese city that was ground-zero for the virus – was effectively shut down by the letter.
‘Who best to TARGET for booster vaccines’ He has the cheek to talk about ‘evidence based ‘ after the shameful exposure of their investigation into origins of the virusted ted
New COVID-19 content is now available (No thanks – how could someone with my limited knowledge pick through it – or trust it ayway))
….. it has become increasingly clear that effective vaccines must be matched by an evidence-based vaccination campaign. Real-world data is vital to this process; a good example has come from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine this week,
EAVE-II is an impressive database by anyone’s standards. Covering 99% of the Scottish population (that’s 5.4 million people), it holds linked data on vaccination, primary care, RT-PCR testing, hospitalisation, and mortality records. Two headlines to note: first, it appears (reassuringly) that “The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination programme was associated with low numbers of post-vaccination serious COVID-19 outcomes at 14 days or longer since vaccination.” Second—and of interest to those wondering who best to target for booster doses—older age, an increasing number of underlying comorbidities, recent admission to hospital, being in a high-risk occupation, a care home resident, male, socioeconomically deprived, and an ex-smoker were all associated with vulnerability to severe COVID-19 outcomes.
….. it might be the case that 21st-century, digitally-driven methods of data collection, analysis, and dissemination will prove just as important in the fight against SARS-CoV-2.
Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet Psychiatry
(it might equally be the case that fraud and deceipt will be easier to hide from the majority of us,)
Really disappointed. Your blog starts with facts such as how aggressively authoritarian responses have become, including a photo of journalists being detained (which sounds like something out of communist China) but goes on to imply assent to this new genetic therapy by pointing out you’ve all had the jab (which you then go onto admit has had some really sinister side effects for some, because it’s killing some and disabling many.) People are being silenced, shamed or shunned, including the use of the word “anti vax” which is an abusively undermining term, for asking questions (which again makes us sound like we’re in communist China). “No one who is anti-vaxx has made any contribution or could make any contribution to the points raised here”. That says it all really. Having been seriously harmed by doctors and drugs I find it baffling that I’m being denounced (exiled), again, for having serious concerns about a new very untested genetic therapy, in a really roundabout way. You go from opening dialogue about VERY heavy handed tactics; including socially coercive advertising tactics for children and mandating health professionals (forcing them) to put something possibly harmful into their body, to shunning those of us who have really serious concerns about what you’re admitting is a faulty reporting system for side effects.
Maybe the next post will take a different angle? It will be interesting to see exactly where it takes us. I agree that reading this post is unusual – but generally that is for a purpose. Maybe more of you who are harmed should have spoken out in response to this one as I, for one and I’m sure very many more will agree, fully understand why you will not have the vaccine under any circumstances and you have every right to stand your ground on this. I’m sure you’ll agree though that this is personal choice, therefore those of us who have had no previous problems and wish to take it must be allowed to do so without feeling any guilt.
I’m just tired Mary and definitely agree this is a personal choice issue.
The wrong types of people may be messing quite successful with colourizing the semantics but I read ‘anti-vaxx’ in the sense of those not wanting any vaccine/inoculation of any type for any disease.
Here is my take on that ending foot note in red and if DH doesn’t comment then I’ll suppose we’re roughly on the same wavelength.
Whether anti-vaxx (in what I consider to be the proper sense of the word) stems from philosophical or religious reasons is in my view belonging to a different premise from the medical premise (i.e., inoculation can sometimes have a place and with caveats ) from which to start debating. Debating any issue which allows mixing of premises will never reach resolution.
Therefore, arguments from philosophical or religious premises can only come to a successfully determination were this medical premise is kept apart and visa versa. In a nutshell then, pro-vaxx and anti-vaxx in the same sentence is really a false dichotomy in my consideration. Still, we can tease out DH’s intent by the context. [We could do with a few new words to be coined to make this nomenclature of classifying where an individual stands clearer. Hesitant, undecided etc. doesn’t cut the mustard with me. Creating new academically defined and agreed upon words from Classical Greek might be better]
Having read much about different philosophies and religions, I don’t find myself considering any belief as being right or wrong – just different to my own. Therefore, I have formed the opinion over many years, which is, that I consider it important for these philosophical and religious views to be debated also — but not here. [There are forums too for those and can be googled]
However, when it comes to scientific sounding pontifications trotted out for profit before safety and obfuscations of data for the same, then Rxisk -I think- is the place for such a debates where we focus upon true medical science aspects of medical interventions and sharing of ideas about what we can do to change things for the better.
The current agreed consensus is that “anti vax” is used to diminish the validity of a certain opinion.
Global Covid Summit
GLOBAL COVID SUMMIT – ROME, ITALY
International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists
(view in Italian) (view in Slovak) (view in Dutch) (view in Spanish) (view in Croatian)
[UPDATE: as of 5pm ET on 10/2 over 9,100 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration. Please join us by reading and signing below.]
We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;
WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;
WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;
WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;
WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;
WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;
WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;
WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:
RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.
RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.
RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.
RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.
RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.
RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.
Thank you for signing the Declaration.
Please share it with your colleagues.
How much TRUTH are we being told about Covid-19?
Please read the following to get a better understanding of what is really going on about this Covid-19. Why are these lawyers remaining anonymous? This information should be made PUBLIC for everyone to access.
The human rights industry exposed.
Where are the human rights lawyers when you need them? There are many who are in their profession, for all the wrong reasons, as far as I am concerned.
04 October 2021
Psychotherapist and Mediator (retired)
Re: Half of people who stopped long term antidepressants relapsed within a year, study finds Elisabeth Mahase. 374:doi 10.1136/bmj.n2403
The reporting (1) of the long-awaited ANTLER study (2) has raised great alarm amongst those of us who, for years, have been working to support people who wish to come off antidepressants – and have been raising awareness of the actual patient experiences of taking antidepressants ‘as prescribed’. The study itself (2) actually reinforces and confirms just what we have seen happening – to all too many people. Almost all of the references in the NEJM paper (2) are up to 2016 when the ANTLER study protocols were established, so there feels to be a complete time-warp – with the study seemingly designed to conclude that long-term antidepressants are ‘a good thing’ and omitting, even in the Discussion, the emerging evidence of issues with antidepressant withdrawal…….
When I read this and then that the mRNA ‘vax’ encodes the body to produce the spike protein as a target for the immune system, well… no way.
I think we are all being hoodwinked, don’t you?
I don’t believe anything that comes out of doctors, politicians, pharmacists, epidemiologists, scientist or anyone else’s” mouth!
It reminds me of that movie, Marathon Man with Dustin Hoffman where the torturer asks him: Is it safe? ~ I believe we should all be asking that question! Relief or discomfort~ the decision is in your hands! What is one to do when the gun is being pointed at ones head and you have been given no choice whatsoever!
If you do not have the jab, we will take all your civil liberties away from you!
What kind of blackmail is this?
Once you have been harmed by medicines/vaccines, there are many who err on the side of caution.
What other harms do the vaccines induce? if it happens straight away, one will correlate it to the jab however, if it takes time for a problem to manifest/evolve, people will not correlate it to the jab.
What is happening to the people is indeed, a travesty of justice.
Blood clots, myocarditis , cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, blindness, death…………..
and the list goes on.
Is the vaccine curing the disease or inducing other health issues?
Thank you kindly Chris for the videos you posted.
People should not be used as guinea pigs! These vaccines are causing so much HARM that is not exposed on the news or media. I wonder how many people would think twice if they saw the above video? People don’t deserve to be maimed or die as a result of having something that is deemed ‘safe!’
If this covid-19 vaccination encodes the body to produce the spike protein as a target for the immune system should all people who are medically compromised avoid the jab at all costs? I am also worried about healthy people developing health issues as a result of having the jab.
This is gold harvest season for many professionals.
There should not be any cover-up’s from the media or anyone else for that matter!
Do we just wait until further damage is done?
I cannot believe that many people are consenting to the covid-19 vaccine, without understanding the risks or harms these jabs can induce?
If one has already inflammation in the body should they not err on the side of cation?
Another recent upload of a horror skin reaction:
I can’t say I’m enthusiastically pro Covid vaccines. I’m not enthusiastic about any vaccine. I procrastinate about getting jabs just like everyone else. But in my opinion, vaccines in general have the best risk-benefit profile of any medical intervention. So, like the Rxisk team, I get my shots.
In my view, the risk of a covid vaccine for someone whose nervous system is sensitized by drug mishaps, such as withdrawal syndrome, is far less than the risk of getting a covid-19 virus infection.
Aside from the danger of the the infection itself, if you need to be hospitalized, the treatments are extremely uncomfortable. People who require intubation are treated with strong sedatives, including combinations of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics, as well as antivirals and possibly antibiotics.
But even a milder infection can be quite serious. If a few days of flu are horrible, try a few weeks. Full recovery from covid-19 can take months, even for young people (I know some).
If people don’t like having a long-term condition such as withdrawal syndrome, they’re not going to enjoy the potentially chronic post-covid conditions that seem a lot like myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) (possibly caused by a virus), mononucleosis (definitely caused by a virus), or dysautonomia. Nobody knows how to treat any of these conditions.
The covid-19 vaccines do not seem to be more dangerous than any other and, from what I can see, have had unprecedented, continuous evaluation, not afforded to the usual drugs, by many expert sources besides public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies. There is no pharma plot there, though they are making sure they get their cut of government dollars.