Why is the Government still charging ahead with spring and summer booster Covid vaccines with absolutely no scientific justification?
Last week I applied to attend a Policy Exchange forum on ‘What is the future for vaccines policy?’ with speakers from the U.K. Health Security Agency (Dame Jenny Harries), Government (former Health Secretary Sajid Javid MP), the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (Thorrun Govind) and the British pharmaceutical industry (Susan Rienow), who also happens to be U.K. President for Pfizer. The Policy Exchange is the ‘conservative’ think tank which published A Fresh Shot, The Future of Vaccines Policy in England in December 2022.
I was eager to hear if any revelations were going to be discussed. My application was initially accepted, but after I filled in all my details they must have had second thoughts and the next day I was informed that the event was oversubscribed and I would not be able to attend in person. I was, however, given a link to watch online, where I observed many empty seats.
The event, even by our current dystopian standards, was quite extraordinary with unbelievable self-congratulatory speeches all confirming the brilliance of the Covid vaccine programme, the plans for spring and summer boosters and how this will be applied to all future threats.
The five people who were allowed to ask questions were all graduates from the Uriah Heep school of obsequiousness.
There were no facts, no mention of the side-effects, no seeking any justification for this mass psychotic madness.
Jenny Harries spoke with a strange supercilious detachment from reality, never once addressing any negative aspects in spite of the Yellow Card data and statistics of which she must be aware. Susan Rienow reacted like a cartoon figure with dollar signs where her eyes should have been.
This confirmed that the U.K. Government and its agencies – including so-called think tanks – are in serious and dangerous denial leading to many deaths by medical negligence (you may argue incompetence but the facts are out there so it is negligence, and as some of the 63,500 excess deaths last year were a direct result of unnecessary vaccinations, it is criminal negligence to boot). They are also wasting billions of pounds when NHS time is desperately needed to help those left physically and mentally impaired by the pandemic, let alone the vaccine injuries.
I have argued strongly before that the boosters are not needed at all as the vaccine is still against the Alpha and Delta variants, which have long since left the planet.
There is no crossover protection as the response is one of classic antigenic sin or immunological imprinting. The Omicron-variant vaccines so beloved of Pfizer and Moderna not only fail to protect from new variants but actively encourage them by Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), which explains why on some data boosted patients are 50% more likely to catch Covid after their vaccination than those who refuse.
I have also pointed out that the booster is worse than no vaccine at all as it induces T-cell suppression and antibody class switching which is why I and my colleagues throughout the world are seeing an explosive rise of cancer relapses in boosted cancer patients. I initially reported my experience in melanoma and lymphoma patients but others are reporting the same in young people, with many different types including colorectal, prostate and very rare tumours, often close to the injection site.
I have been admonished for reporting anecdotes and not doing a proper study which no one will fund, so let’s look at the Government’s own figures released in October last year and ignored. They show that there are more Yellow Cards for Covid vaccines than all the other vaccines over 50 years. The rate of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) i.e., those which result in death or serious hospitalisation or severe disability ,is 1 in 800 for all vaccines, which the MHRA calls ‘very rare’.
So let’s look at the effectiveness, i.e. the number of vaccines required to prevent hospitalisations and severe disease requiring intensive care (ITU). For those aged 50-59 the figures are 43,600 boosters required to prevent one hospitalisation and 256,000 to prevent one ITU admission. But at an SAE rate of 1 in 800 there are 321 in ITU with vaccine injuries! The figures for 40-49 are a ludicrous 932,000 and 92,600, with 1,175 in ITU with vaccine injuries. Remember this is for a virus which at its worst killed patients of an average age of 82.
Last weekend cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra and I went to talk to a GP forum in Scotland, where we had been warned there would be severe objections to these dangerous lunatics from England. The expected challenges never happened as doctor after doctor thanked us for explaining the science of why so many of their patients’ lives have been ruined by the vaccines.
At least we are starting to bring some hard facts into the indefensible mass Stockholm Syndrome event we have had to endure these last three years.
Angus Dalgleish is an expert in immunology and Professor of Oncology at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London. This article first appeared in TCW Defending Freedom.
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.
Is the original ‘Covid-19’ still supposed to be around, or are we allegedly dealing with mutants, strains and variants? The whole thing has become so ridiculous it exhausts me now.
Truth is, which ever strain/variant/thing is on the cards, they’ll make it as dangerous as they want it to be. It’s what ever suits the pace of their transition to Chinese-style communism.
I read this BMJ paper yesterday.
As soon as I got to the bit about comorbidities, unfortunately near the end of the paper, I realised it was total junk.
‘Some of the increased risk could be explained by comorbidities. Information was not available about comorbid conditions in the data we analysed’ (Ref. above)
Oh for heavens sake! Once you have understood dodgy death registration, you have understood pretty much everything about this global weird out.
But if you haven’t even bothered to look at comorbidities, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
And this kind of paper, written about also in the Spectator, is indicative of the scale of the problem within the medical profession; the lack of balance, perspective, even within highly regarded medical and current affairs publications.
Medics won’t tend to have stats backgrounds. Most academics that use statistics wouldn’t have had any formal training. Most papers that contain statistical analysis are junk.
https://influentialpoints.com/Training/statistical_mistakes_in_research_use_and_misuse_of_statistics_in_biology.htm
“Statisticians suggest that at least half the published papers in biology contain serious statistical mistakes”
Just like the so-called vaccine trial results, the media ( and apparently the idiots writing this paper) have no comprehension of the difference between relative and absolute risk.
Even if we took the results on face value, which you can’t because of the way comorbidities have been omitted, the absolute risk could move from 0.23% to 0.38% IFR.
Are the incessant attempts to justify more restrictions not perfect evidence of a desire for power rather than any actual danger.
They also didn’t pair them based on symptoms. Everyone in the study started with a Pillar 2 positive test.
If we assume that B117 is basically the same (for the sake of argument) and its meteoric rise to fame and prominence was just founder effect then the people getting B117 more were the 10% doing 80% of the spreading.
These people are less likely to bother with the T&T program or to get tests in Pillar 2 unless they think they might actually have Covid. So they may have had more symptoms and worse symptoms when they entered the game. We know they were positive at lower cycle counts (the study said that). If you knew the true number of mild and asymptomatic B117 infections the IFR estimates might come much closer together.
A lot of sloppy work in academia doesn’t matter because its on esoteric subjects, but it certainly does here. Peer review should have picked up the errors, but obviously failed-an ever increasing tendency as more & more papers are published. Reviewers are anonymous. But I bet they came from the authors’ small circle, think like them, quote from each other’s research and generally don’t want to upset the variant cart.