‘A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth’ – Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
WEDNESDAY December 2– ‘Yea, Lord, we greet thee, born this happy morning!’ Christmas had come early; our saviour was born, except that he had come to earth as a glass vial stored at -70°C. The high priests of our national religion, ‘our beloved NHS’, had ushered in a new dawn and, singing our songs of praise, we worshipped at the altar of medicine.
This obsessive devotion seems to be the accepted norm in the UK, but its dangers and a concomitant unwillingness to deviate from the diktats of the authorities were identified in George Orwell’s prescient novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, particularly in two of the words used to create control of our thoughts by the authorities:
‘ . . . speculations which might possibly induce a sceptical or rebellious attitude are killed in advance by [an] early acquired inner discipline. The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments . . . Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough . . . The key word here is blackwhite. Applied to a [person], it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.’
So, with the vaccine announcement last Wednesday, we are faced with another battleground: ‘crimestop’ and ‘blackwhite’ on one side, good sense and reason on the other.
The belief that we are all stupid and unquestioning devotees of our national religion is demonstrated in this section from the NHS page on the coronavirus vaccine:
‘Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through.
‘Vaccines will only be used if they are approved by the MHRA . . .’[my emphasis].
That first sentence is the key here, using a lexical sleight of hand to imply that ‘approved’ and ‘licensed’ are synonyms. They are not: if the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) are satisfied the vaccine is safe and efficacious, what stops them licensing it? The only answer to that question can be that the vaccine has not gone through the clinical trials and safety checks which are required before a medicine can be licensed.
In short, the coronavirus vaccine has not been shown to be safe and efficacious and an unlicensed vaccine is being rolled out, using the MHRA’s new concept that a completely new medicine can be foisted on us without rigorous safety checks by means of this mendacious ‘approval’ device. Heretofore, all vaccines used in the UK had to be licensed; this has been abandoned and, with it, any vestige of trust in either the MHRA or the NHS.
Do they think we are ignorant fools who cannot read? Why must we put up with being deceived by people whose salaries we pay?
As a freelance health researcher, my main concern with this vaccine is its nature as an RNA vaccine. This is a new technology and no such vaccine has ever been used on a population. When we introduce foreign RNA into the body, we are in great danger of disrupting the body’s subtle mechanisms for gene expression (often referred to as ‘switching genes off or on’) with a potentially unstoppable cascading effect through the body, leading to more prevalence of any disease – not just autoimmune diseases, which had been my initial concern. Such effects would not be expected to be found for some time after vaccination – perhaps years or decades – so the complete lack of any medium or long-term safety trial is extremely worrying.
However, this is just the latest example (and there are many, many examples of this) of the wilful disregard of scientific evidence protocols by the NHS and Public Health England while they mendaciously trumpet their mantra of ‘evidence-based medicine’.
I have come to hope over the last few days that this might, and should, be an issue on which the pro-vaxxers and vaccine sceptics can unite in opposition.
This is not one of those vaccines that is generally considered to have eliminated polio or smallpox, reduced deaths from measles or any other of the many and much-lauded benefits of conventional viral-based vaccines.
It is something very different: a vaccine which is so dissimilar to viral-based vaccines, that being in favour of it simply because one is generally pro-vaccine is as illogical as being in favour of reducing speed limits on motorways because one is pro-vaccine, or being in favour of nuclear power because one is pro-vaccine.
Being pro-vaccine does not equate to believing that pharmaceutical companies or Government health agencies can always be trusted.
So believing the nonsense spouted by the MHRA and NHS about the supposedly ‘proven’ safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine needs to be treated by pro-vaxxers with the scepticism with which some people view all vaccines.
The first point to make is that the trials for this vaccine (as well as the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines) were not designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe Covid-19 symptoms i.e. leading to hospital admission, ICU admission or death. The trials were also not designed to test if the vaccine can interrupt transmission.
These are the very things which the public thinks the vaccine is protecting them from – severe symptoms, death and/or transmission of the virus – so it is clear that the Government is foisting a substantially untested vaccine on us under completely false pretences.
The ‘Information for Healthcare Professionals‘ document provides a lot of information on the vaccine, most of it direct from the manufacturers. This is similar to the ‘Summary of Product Characteristics’ (SPC) documents for any medicine, which are for health professionals (as opposed to the normally whitewashed ‘Patient Information Leaflets’).
These are always extremely useful documents, which make it absolutely clear whether a vaccine or drug has been tested in various circumstances and exactly what the adverse effects might be, and their likelihood. They often directly contradict NHS or Government propaganda about a drug’s safety testing, particularly safety in pregnancy.
In contrast, the December 2 Government press release headed ‘Covid-19 vaccine authorised by medicines regulator‘ is a very long page which makes absolutely no mention of pregnancy, breastfeeding, fertility or adverse effects.
This is the stuff which was lapped up by every journalist, newspaper, TV and radio station last week and regurgitated for their gullible audience.
My concerns from the ‘Information for Healthcare Professionals’ document make a long list:
1. Adverse effects from the injection which the trials identified as ‘very common’ were pain at injection site (more than 80 per cent of participants); fatigue (more than 60 per cent); headache (more than 50 per cent), joint pain (more than 20 per cent), muscle pain (more than 30 per cent); chills (more than 30 per cent); fever (more than 10 per cent). These ‘were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days’. Based on looking at many vaccine SPC documents, these percentages of adverse effects are alarmingly high. If ‘moderate’ in intensity, most of them would require time off work for potentially several days. None of them can honestly be dismissed as minor symptoms.
2. No drug interaction studies have been undertaken (although, actually, this is the norm with almost all pharmaceutical drugs). But with a traditional, viral-based vaccine, past experience will probably give researchers an idea of possible interactions whereas, in this case, we have absolutely no idea of even what type of drugs might interact unfavourably.
3. No animal reproductive or development toxicity tests been carried out, so we have no clue as to potential problems with reproduction or foetal development.
4. Safety of the vaccine during pregnancy has not been determined, which is why Section 4.6 states: ‘For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.’
5. It is not known whether the vaccine is excreted in human milk, which is why Section 4.6 also states that it ‘should not be used during breast-feeding’.
6. Section 4.6 also states, under the heading ‘Fertility’, that ‘It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.’
That last one is very unusual, to the extent that I’ve never before seen it as a separate heading. A recent article on LifeSite News gives a clue why this is, in the words of Dr Michael Yeadon, a former head of Pfizer’s respiratory research, and Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a health policy adviser:
‘Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2.
‘Syncytin-1 . . . which is [a protein] derived from human endogenous [i.e. already in the body] retroviruses (HERV) is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy. [This] is also found in homologous [i.e. similar] form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses.
‘There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile’ [my emphasis].
We can thus infer from the strange insertion of the ‘Fertility’ section that Pfizer knew about this potential problem and their statement is designed to wash their hands of it – the MHRA chose to approve the vaccine knowing this was the case, so they are to blame for infertility, not Pfizer. And Pfizer are completely correct here – the MHRA and the Government will be culpable.
We need to be absolutely clear here that, if the inability to form a placenta does turn out to be an effect of this vaccine, we have no way of knowing whether that inability is temporary or permanent.
In other words, any woman of childbearing age having this vaccine might find that it makes her in effect infertile and that effect might be permanent. And anyone who promotes this vaccination, or does not object to its use whilst knowing about this potential problem, is complicit.
That warning in the Health Professionals document that ‘women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose’ is way off the mark, since it is only advice and the ‘2 months’ is completely arbitrary and ignores the possibility that the vaccine might cause permanent infertility.
But there is no way that the Government could bring themselves to say that no women of childbearing age should ever have the vaccine. Can you imagine the nurse in the vaccination centre asking a woman if she was still menstruating, or asking an older woman if she was intending to have any more children?
As if this whole thing wasn’t a big enough money-spinner for Big Pharma, we now have to envisage a dystopian future where IVF is the norm, which will then gradually move towards a situation where natural pregnancy is weird, and only for poor people who decided not to have the vaccine years ago. Even without this, fertility already appears to have become a huge problem in this country.
The Government should tell the truth about this potential situation and ban use of RNA Covid-19 vaccines for women of childbearing age. But who can imagine that happening when ‘the vaccine is our saviour’ is the mantra which we are supposed to be absorbing and repeating?
Fertility is the main reason – amongst many others – why pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers urgently need to form an alliance in opposition to this vaccine.
The Moderna vaccine is also an RNA vaccine, so the same applies to that vaccine. And what about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine? All of these vaccines are designed to create the same end result – the formation of antibodies against the Covid-19 virus – so they all have the inherent risk of inactivating Syncytin-1.
What about the possibility of these vaccines inactivating other endogenous viruses? And, come to that, the possibility of any vaccine for any virus inactivating endogenous viruses which are essential for physiological processes? That might be a question requiring investigation by anyone who is generally pro-vaccine, but is outside the scope of this article.
As an aside, the fact that Syncytin-1 is derived from an endogenous retrovirus (i.e. one which the body itself carries) gives the lie to the whole idea that all viruses originate from outside our bodies and that they are all potentially dangerous foreign invaders.
There are also unanswered questions about the trial itself:
1. Why were trial participants considered to have contracted the virus based solely on a positive PCR test result and a single symptom?
2. Why were viral cell culture tests not undertaken on those test subjects, to determine whether they actually had the virus?
3. What PCR cycle count was used and why?
4. Was the same cycle count used for the vaccine and placebo cohorts?
5. If not, what were the different cycle counts used and what were they?
A positive PCR test result does not indicate infection, simply the presence of viral RNA, which might, indeed, indicate a current infection, but is more likely to indicate exposure to the virus some time ago – possibly many months. The PCR test was never intended to be a diagnostic tool, but as a research tool greatly to increase the amount of viral RNA so that research could be undertaken on it. The way that it works is that every magnification cycle doubles the viral RNA so, after 10 cycles it has been increased by 1024 times, after 20 cycles by over a million, after 30 cycles by over a billion and after 40 cycles by over a trillion (1,099,511,627,776).
Therefore, the greater the number of cycles, the more likely one is to find what was originally only a tiny amount of viral RNA, and vice-versa. In other words, this is not an either/or result, like a pregnancy test, but a result which can easily be manipulated to suit any desired outcome.
So, equating a positive PCR test with an ‘infection’ is seriously flawed and equating it to a ‘case’ is, at best, absurd and, at worst, an extraordinarily mendacious sleight of hand which can be used to justify anything we like. We know what we all mean by a ‘case’ of an illness: someone who is ill and has symptoms. This is the opposite of a lack of illness with no symptoms, which we would always categorise as being ‘well’.
So, at the risk of appearing too cynical, it seems to me that the answer to (1) and (2) could well be: ‘Because that will get us more “cases” quicker and enable us to get the vaccine to market quicker’, the answer to (4) is probably ‘No’ and perhaps the answer to (5) is: ‘the placebo cohort had a higher cycle count, so placebo subjects were more likely to be found supposedly to have the virus’?
Short of a whistle-blower stepping forward, we are likely never to know the real answers, but it is still worth thinking about those ways in which the trial could have been conducted to benefit Pfizer.
Based on all that information, we should expect all of us who value our freedom to speak out very strongly against the use of this unlicensed – and potentially extremely dangerous – vaccine on a frightened and docile populace.
Given Messrs Hancock and Johnson’s apparent enthusiasm, in general, for vaccination, any truly ‘conservative’ voices will be blown away in the gale of fervour from the Government, but at least we will have spoken up for good sense and reason.
That long Government press release to which I referred above includes rousing quotes from all the usual Government suspects, the most nauseatingly hubristic one being this from Business Secretary Alok Sharma: ‘In years to come, we will look back and remember this moment as the day the United Kingdom led humanity’s charge against this terrible disease.’
This vaccine is unlikely to be made compulsory in England, but compulsion is almost certain to creep in through the authoritarian back door – no flying without a vaccine; no entry to theatres, cinemas, music and sports venues without a vaccine; then no entry to shops and places of work, etc, etc.
Indeed, Nadhim Zahawi, the Covid Vaccine Minister, is giving strong hints that this is the Government’s intention, as reported in the recent Daily Mail article by the always-excellent Laura Perrins.
There will not be even a whisper of protest from MPs – our mealy-mouthed ‘representatives’ in thrall to the NHS god and its Pfizer vaccine icon. And this includes the supposed ‘rebels’, who voted against the new Tier system.
Our freedom will have disappeared, probably for ever.
What will we be left with? George Orwell gave us an answer in Nineteen Eighty-Four, when O’Brien tells Winston the Party’s vision of the future: ‘There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.’
Winston had no choice but to succumb to the Party’s authority. We still have that choice and we must resist all bans and compulsions, or we will never be able to resist the boot stamping on our faces.
Finally, let’s muse on just why this vaccine has been ‘approved’ (for which read ‘not licensed because it is not safe or effective’) with such unseemly haste. Surely it could not be primarily (or solely) designed to recoup Mr Johnson’s support in the country and – in particular – stave off any challenge to his leadership?
What a cynical move that would be, from a vain and deeply insecure man: salvage your career at the expense of endangering the nation’s health.
If Mr Johnson had any moral or ethical compass, he might have kept in mind Jordan Peterson’s view that ‘our ethical decisions determine the direction of the world’.
Instead, apparently lacking any sense of ethics, he seems to be determined to move the world in the wrong direction, in nearly every respect, by means of his wholly unethical decisions on every policy which his scatterbrained mind manages vaguely to comprehend.
He has, in short, become an agent of that very un-Conservative ideology of boots stamping on our faces.
Shame on him!
It seems that there is a group of senior Conservatives, led by the blond buffoon and the glassy-eyed replicant known as Matt Hancock who, lacking in nuance and any sense of irony, have not noticed that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a dystopian novel warning us of a potential totalitarian future.
They appear to think it is an instruction manual.