SO many of us watching the Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate on October 24, 2022 were left exasperated and deeply contemplating exactly what it will take to penetrate the corridors of power with valid representations of reality.
During the debate, incredibly well researched critical thinking and common sense was championed by courageous MPs as detailed previously in TCW. The debate transcript is available here, demonstrating how even the most sceptical of observers heard 90 minutes of evidence outlining a clearly urgent need for thorough review of vaccine safety.
The debate concluded with the Government saying that there were no plans to specifically investigate the petition relating to the safety of the Covid vaccine as requested that it was the ‘duty of government to ensure that the prescribed medication interventions of its response to coronavirus are safe.’
Instead, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Dr Caroline Johnson, stated that a ‘module’ of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry would, at a non-urgent time in the future, consider evidence to ‘understand the impact of the pandemic and the response,and any lessons to be learned’.
Conservative MP Elliot Colburn, moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, even declared that it would be ‘a waste of taxpayers’ money’ for the Government to launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety. His opening statement was a surprising way to show compassion for the 470,000 people who have experienced a Yellow Card worthy adverse event, including 2,330 deaths, following Covid-19 vaccination.
The presumptive overtone of the debate was of accepting blind trust in the ‘approved experts’, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the contrary. This I have examined ina full, detailed critical exploration of the debate which you can read here.
As we await the second reading of the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill tomorrow, a thorough statement by statement review of the debate, exploring the mounting evidence of grave concern, is warranted.
We need to stop andreally look at the sentences that whizz over our heads and fall into our consciousness as presumed truth. In this essay, I ask where is the definitive evidence for these and many other assertions – see below – liberally reeled off by the Petition’s antagonists 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 Caroline Johnson MP
· ‘The proof is that they work, they are saving lives and they protect us and others’ – Elliot Colburn 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
I also delve into vital topics raised including the Yellow Card adverse event reporting data, whistle-blower persecution, misinformation and censorship, vaccinating children, pregnant women, the elderly and healthcare workers, and the vast emerging global evidence of harms including excess deaths.
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? The incredibly revealing discourse did nothing to quell concerns, rather it amplified and galvanised awareness of the vast chasm between the official narrative line and the real world, based on true lived experience.
In the full essay, I report on Dr June Raine’s response to a question put to her at a lecture for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in July 2022. The enquirer asked the Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency how the MHRA looked into the weighing up of harms and benefits from overlapping of Phase I, II and III vaccine trials. Spoiler alert: MHRA appears to have not gone back to examine this . . .
Those adversely affected, and many families grieving for those who died after taking the ‘vaccine’, are continually met with disbelief. Many people report feeling left unsupported by medics and the government, 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.
We have recently been informed that ‘vaccine’ effectiveness in preventing transmission was never fully studied, a key theme of coercion and informed consent decision-making upturned.
As the booster programme and flu vaccine co-administration continues unabated, the concept of regulatory capture and the influence of Big Pharma are subjects of paramount importance to study. With Pfizer roughly quadrupling their vaccine price to $110 – $130 per dose, and with liability indemnity, the outcome of vaccine administration and safety becomes a matter of conscience.
With that explored in my evidenced rebuttal, it surelytakes a certain type of naivety or perhaps arrogance to still state that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. As the Alliance for Natural Health has put it, the narrative around the safety of Covid shots is cracking. Here they set out the basis for launching a legal action campaign.
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.
Despite Elliot Colburn MP feeling ‘lambasted by colleagues’ during the debate, perhaps it was a karmic twist of events considering his introductory tone. 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, duty of care and real-life opinion collide.
‘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.
In any case, the situation demands more than debate. It is a matter for swift medical, scientific, regulatory and legal duty of care action with the utmost urgency applied. 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.
You can read my full essay here.