Amid warnings of a third wave of Covid infections in the U.K., fuelled largely by the fear of the Indian Delta variant and, of course, the prospect of new variants, such as the one recently discovered in Russia, Westminster City Council has advertised a new contract opportunity for the construction of “temporary body storage facilities” in the event of an “excess deaths situation”. Here is some of the information provided on the Gov.uk website.
The Authority seeks to procure a framework agreement for temporary body storage in the event of an excess deaths situation for the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, led by Westminster City Council. The framework agreement will appoint a single provider and will be for a period of four years. This will be a contingency contract, only called upon in the event that an excess deaths situation arises in the future and existing local body storage capacity needs to be augmented.
The over-arching aim of this tender is to provide a single framework supplier that will be able to provide temporary body storage facilities to house deceased in the event of an excess deaths situation. The deceased will be stored with dignity and respect, at locations to be determined based on local London needs at the time and will require some design elements to accommodate local site conditions and constraints, while being capable of rapid deployment, construction and commissioning to an agreed standard. This framework will be procured by the Authority as the pan-London lead, but all London local authorities may call off against the framework.
This will be a contingency cover framework and as such, there is no minimum guarantee of any level of spend or call-off under the framework agreement.
The Council estimates that the total value of this contract (excluding VAT) will be around £6 million and it is not set for renewal. But how likely is it that this is just another local government overreaction?
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well seeing as the MHRA get 86% of their funding from the pharma industry good luck with that. We’ve seen exactly how *seriously* they’ve taken their role as regulator these last few years ( see table in article ).
Then there’s the small problem of the ‘revolving door’ between industry and regulators;
”Beyond the FDA, Ian Hudson, chief executive of the UK’s MHRA between 2013 and 2019, now serves on the board of biotech company Sensyne Health and is a senior adviser for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Before joining the MHRA, Hudson held various senior roles at pharmaceutical giant SmithKline Beecham.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538
You’d have to be several sandwiches short of a picnic if you volunteer to participate in a pharmaceutical trial.
But then the Global Authorities knew that, which is why they effectively mandated or coerced millions to participate in the last one.
I used to work for a small pharmaceutical company and took part in several Phase 1 trials. I bought a (cheapo) motorbike with the
paymentscompensation.These trials were all of the form: Blood test. Take these pills. Don’t drink alcohol. Collect your urine for a week. Blood test.
To be fair I probably saved a load of money with the ‘don’t drink alcohol’ bit…
Never did me any harm. Baaaaah!
Thanks for this; very interesting. It’s the kind of content that makes the DS so important.
My default assumption behind any government or Big Pharma or related activity is that it’s not safe for me.
Hearing Dame June Raine talk unashamedly about tearing up the rule book didn’t sit well with me either.
Medics Day 2022- Somerville College Oxford: Speeches from Dr June Raine and Dame Kate Bingham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQfzTqPUm4 35’37”
The MHRA is lost, to regulatory capture. Indeed, June Raine stated so in a speech I think last year, noting that they were now “enablers” rather than checkers.
I made an FoI request to MHRA way back, asking whether they considered the jabs to be experimental, and if they were gene therapy.
No to both questions was the answer.
I then quoted to them FDA documents which stated clearly that they ARE experimental and ARE gene therapy (confirmed by Moderna in their documentation). I noted that either they or the FDA must be lying, and asked which of them it was.
No reply.
The MHRA just another institution meant to protect us which will now do anything but.
Interesting piece from Peter Doshi .…..which I think underlines the points made..
As the people who are targeted into taking the ‘drugs’ are so out of touch and uninformed of the reality….it means Pharma companies and associated bodies can literally get away with murder…
“We tried to improve COVID vaccine labeling — the FDA said ‘no thanks’“
Health care providers rely on product labeling for accurate, unbiased and up-to-date information on medical products. But current Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labels for the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are obsolete, misleading and out of touch with regulators elsewhere. Whatever one thought of the initial shots, people are now getting boosted indefinitely with little reliable information about scientific developments.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4037145-we-tried-to-improve-covid-vaccine-labeling-the-fda-said-no-thanks/
“So what are the odds it has a process for investigating adverse events arising in clinical trials?”
As part of my job I have run randomised controlled trials and the procedure for reporting adverse events is entirely different to the post-marketing yellow card system.
It is incredibly stringent….if any trial participant is hospitalised or dies during the trial period then the entire trial gets suspended until an investigation is done and the steering committee is satisfied that it was nothing to do with the treatment being tested.
This is why the covid jab trials made no sense to me. Because the procedures that are laid down are robust, but they were clearly not being followed. Which I guess is the problem.
As they made use of “Emergency Use Authorisation”, it leads to the question as to whether the “trials” were valid at all, once the emergency is over. If you applied the method used for other products, based on the recorded results available, would they result in a valid outcome? And would it be scrapped, or only allowed in certain circumstances?
If you haven’t figured it out yet, the “trials” were a charade, as evidenced by Brook Jackson.
If you look at the actual contracts (available by FOIA) you will see that the “Covid-19 vaccines”, were ordered by the US DoD as a “large scale manufacturing demonstration”
These contracts specify the vaccines as “demonstrations” and “prototypes” only.
In other words, the US Government and DOD specifically ordered a fake theatrical performance from the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Just to make extra certain that the pharmaceutical companies were free to conduct the fakery, the contracts include the removal of all liability for the manufacturers and any contractors along the supply and distribution chain under the 2005 PREP Act and related federal legislation.
How odd – I can’t seem to edit it to non-bold.
Maddie de Garay was dropped from the Pf trial for becoming extremely ill, left to pay her own medical bills, then gaslit and told it’s in her head. There are others I believe.
It seems that the protocol is now seen as optional, or just too expensive to pay attention to.
Pharmacovigilance isn’t vigilant. I worked within the MHRA on their case management system (we dubbed it case manglement due to poor data integrity). The organisation is an absolute shower and their tech is woeful.
Then I also remember listening to the whole of WHO’s (2019?) symposium on PV where they basically admitted the situation worldwide was utterly pants and there really wasn’t a capability worth speaking about.
I worked with the FDA in the USA in the noughties on a medical device. Their timeline for approval was a minimum of 10 years following safety and efficacy clinical trials. This is why I have never and will never take this experimental jab.
Standing ovation at Wimbledon’s Centre Court for Dame Sarah Gilbert who designed the Oxford COVID vaccine.
Iremember how embarrassed she looked. Quite right too. Probably made a Dame
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
How can human drug trial be considered to be safe when no drug is 100% safe? What puzzles me is why anybody volunteers for a trial. Are they paid? In the case of Covid, where the vaccine was quickly approved as safe and effective, the control group could not take the vaccination otherwise long term effects could not be evaluated. It is even more concerning when it comes to drug safety for specific groups. What would convince pregnant women to take part especially after thalidomide?