LAST week found Professor Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School complaining in the Spectator about censorship of debate and the death of the science, scalded by an ad hominem attack in BMJ Opinion on the scientists of the Great Barrington Declaration – such as himself, Sunetra Gupta and Jay Battacharaya – who had advocated against prolonged global lockdown.
It was ironic then to see Kulldorff’s article tweeted by Spectator editor Fraser Nelson, who described it as ‘fascinating’.
Why? My reply tweet to Nelson explains.
I reminded him that it was he who hosted a blog in 2017 in which he allowed Seth Berkley, the director of Gavi, the Global Vaccine Alliance (a huge, secretive, Bill Gates-initiated and Swiss based public-private global health partnership which aims to increase children’s access to immunisation in poor countries) to call for the exclusion of ‘anti-vaxxers’ from social media.
As I tried to point out to Nelson at the time, this was not just about these allegedly very bad people (whoever they were), it was effectively about the protection of a vaccine industry and its products from any public criticism whatsoever. While it is not surprising that the industry would wish to silence its critics, it is just as absurd that anyone would wish to take such egregious self-advocacy seriously.
By 2019, with this continuing hate campaign directed at its critics – many of whom are ordinary citizens who may have suffered the ill-effects of various vaccine products – we were already on the edge of a precipice. Before anyone had even heard of Covid, the European Commission had started to plan for a vaccine ID passport system to be fully in action by 2022, while the British Prime Minister, under the cover of warning against the perils of a totally digitised ‘nowhere to hide’ society speech to the United Nations, had also taken the opportunity to denounce so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’.
‘There are today people today who are actually still anti-science’, said Boris Johnson. ‘A whole movement called the anti-vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have eradicated smallpox. And who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very children they want to protect.’
This ‘hate-speak’, in today’s parlance, transgressed against basic principles of medical ethics, freedom of expression and basic decency, holding up sceptics to ridicule, though many of whom were likely to be (or have been) the victims of vaccine science. The Prime Minister should know that, at very best, the anti-vaxx aspersion is a simplistic claim. Indeed, he should have been aware of his own government’s publication of the Cumberlege review which condemned in general terms the bullying and gaslighting of patients. Though this did not refer to vaccines, the same principle applies. The irony is that at the very same time, Johnson was busy constructing a highway for injected products which citizens would be deterred from refusing on pain of public derision or bullying: ‘There’s all these anti-vaxxers now,’ Johnson told medical workers in London last year. ‘They are nuts, they are nuts’. How easy then to go that one deterrent step further – to citizens losing their most basic rights and freedoms.
What’s more this was for ‘far from perfect’ products in any respect. Already in August 2020 it was known that they would not work when the editor of the BMJ let this drop:
‘So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce the severity rather than protect against infection, provide only short-lived immunity . . . This would be good for business, bad for global public health.’
And that, today, is exactly what we have plus a new vaccine booster treadmill in an attempt to compensate for this inadequacy or to create a constant demand.
It was also known they could not be safe – how could they be – such novel products with only the most minimal testing?
In the space of the year since we are heading to 2,000 reported Yellow Card fatalities, which is 100 times the number of fatal vaccine reports the MHRA normally expects. The MHRA knows this will be a fraction of cases: most people would not know how to report, would think it was the wrong thing to do, be intimidated, too unwell . . . or dead.