Dear Dr X
Just over a year ago, as I made efforts to inform myself, you were kind enough to respond to my questions about taking the C-19 jab.
You may recall saying to me, ‘These drug companies would not run the risk of being sued for supplying dodgy drug products.’ I replied that the drug companies had been given immunity from civil action and criminal prosecution. You seemed not to know this. In this regard, I am writing to describe what has happened in the interim.
For a very unpleasant and lengthy period, the British people were begged, bribed, browbeaten and bullied into accepting C-19 jabs. Most submitted – at least to one jab – but a few million of us were highly dubious, and declined. Consequently, we were pejoratively labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’ and pressured, abused, socially outcast and even forced out of jobs.
I declined the jab for three reasons: firstly, I was neither vulnerable nor afraid and had faith in my immune system; secondly, I do not believe it is possible to develop an effective jab against cold and flu viruses; and thirdly, my instincts told me that everything about the lockdown regulation and development of C-19 jabs was wrong, irrational and political.
Oddly enough, this ‘anti-vaxxer’ took all of the childhood inoculations that the NHS of his day provided to counter illnesses such as TB, polio, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis B, and his child has taken all of those and more. This is because those illnesses are genuinely nasty and potentially fatal – people do not get ‘mild’ cases of tetanus, whereas the overwhelming number cases of C-19 have been just that. It is also the case that the true vaccines took decades to develop and test – measles 46 years, polio 45, HPV 33, hepatitis A 22.
The official line is that the C-19 jabs were authorised after about six months of testing – I think the Salem Witch Trials were longer, and were a more open process. Last autumn in the USA a group of 200+ conscientious doctors, scientists and public health officials, ‘Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency’, took the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to court to force them to obey their legal obligation in respect of a freedom of information (FoI) request about the trials that Pfizer had conducted on its C-19 products.
The case was heard by District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. The FDA had made public commitments to be fully transparent so there was no dispute as to whether the information would be released, just the time-frame. The FDA stated that with 450,000 pages to release, and with personal data therein that required redaction, only 500 pages a month could be released. At that rate it would take 75 years to discharge their FoI obligations.
Judge Pittman delivered his ruling in early January stating that the FDA’s position was anathema to the spirit of the legislation, ordering them to release 55,000 pages a month. The process commenced on March 1, 2022, and the FDA’s obligation should be fully discharged by the end of this year.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency have assembled a broad alliance of scientists and experts to assimilate and analyse the material, and after three months, the results have been alarming.
It is important to note that as C-19 jabs were authorised in an emergency situation, the ‘trial’ is still in progress, and the effects the jabs have on people must be fully recorded. So, this matter has two spheres to consider: firstly, the trials that were run in 2020 that persuaded the FDA (and our own MHRA, CHM and JCVI) to approve the jabs; and secondly, the trials run in 2021 – and ongoing – that are necessary to allow those drug authorisations to remain valid.
After some 150,000 pages of Pfizer’s documents, some very fishy and worrying facts have emerged – here is one assessment. It turns out that ‘these drug companies’ did indeed ‘run the risk of supplying dodgy drug products’.
What happens now? Doubtless, the likes of Dame June Raine, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Wei Shen Lim and many others anxiously scan the internet for news of what the FDA papers reveal. I mean ‘the internet’ specifically, because none of this is being reported on television or in newspapers.
If it is established that Pfizer’s trials were fraudulent, their immunity from civil and criminal action becomes invalid. Sadly, even with ample evidence to evince serious doubt about the legitimacy, efficacy and safety of these drugs, governments have taken no steps to cancel any authorisations. Why? It is impossible to say. All I know is that my instincts have proved correct, and that in the past two years my trust and confidence in our government, our public health officials and the NHS has completely evaporated.
Tragically, for reasons of avarice or something more sinister, we have been subjected to a huge fraud, one that has generated grave implications for health, welfare, livelihoods, relationships and general wellbeing.
I respect you as a conscientious GP and wish you well.
Sincerely,
James Rogers
