Dr. Daniel Armstrong has had his name erased from the U.K. Medical Register after a medical tribunal hearing decided that a video he made entitled ‘Navigating the truth-deception duality‘ in 2023 was more than a legitimate expression of opinion, and was likely to undermine public confidence in the Covid vaccination programme and in health professionals in general.
The tribunal’s judgment is long and detailed. Having read it, I think that it is true that the opinions have undermined the medical consensus. But the tribunal relies in its conclusion on the belief that the consensus is correct. Given the outpouring of well-researched critiques of Covid vaccination over the last several years I don’t think that it is. On a very basic level, before even entering into those reports, we must bear in mind that the Government has not only instituted a vaccine damage compensation scheme but has already made payouts. We should also ask why, if the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’, AstraZeneca’s has been quietly withdrawn because of an unacceptable level of side-effects. Certainly that seriously undermines the argument that the Covid vaccine is safe; I will return to the ‘effectiveness’ question later.
For the moment I will gloss over the fact that the Covid vaccines are not actually traditional vaccines at all, but a form of untested gene therapy product, as that muddies the waters a bit
The tribunal questioned whether it and the General Medical Council (GMC) could justifiably bring weight to bear on Dr. Armstrong without interfering with his right to free speech. It asked itself (para 102.5(b)):
Is there a rational connection between the means chosen and the aim in view?
And responded to itself:
The Tribunal found that there is a rational connection between the means chosen, which is, bringing fitness to practise proceedings against Dr. Armstrong which can involve the imposition of sanctions, and the aim of ensuring public safety and protecting health. The Tribunal bore in mind that the overarching objective of the GMC in exercising its functions is the protection of the public.
It made a key statement in its summary underpinning its decision to recommend erasure from the Medical Register:
Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, which he promoted in his video using his position as a doctor to do so, was that Covid vaccines are unsafe and untested and cause harm. He directed people not to take them and asserted that the pharmaceutical industry has colluded with other industries and government. His opinion is that there is a ‘cover up’ operation in place. Dr. Armstrong was steadfast and unshakeable in his view that he is right, and that all other doctors and the GMC are wrong. He maintained this opinion throughout the proceedings.
As with all such things there may be more behind the bald statement of facts that has contributed to the tribunal’s position; certainly Dr. Armstrong’s video might be considered to be quirky. It hardly caused much public disquiet, not least as it only had 6,301 views and a lot of other doctors have said the same thing. Mind you, some of them, not least in the United States, have been defenestrated. Is Dr. Armstrong wrong to have his “steadfast and unshakeable” views?
There is ample evidence that testing was rushed through without the usual safety checks and that they are (in the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine) or may well be (with the mRNA products) unsafe. There is good evidence that testing did not conform to standards normally expected of vaccines. As Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan have revealed in their Trust the Evidence blog, meetings held in the U.K. to discuss certification appear to have been secret. There is evidence that some pharmaceutical companies may have concealed evidence. Trials used strange definitions of ‘vaccinated’; despite numerous reports of sudden-onset issues post-vaccine delivery, subjects were not deemed to have been vaccinated for 14 days, thus distorting the numbers of side-effects by placing an unknown number of those who had these into the unvaccinated group. The risks of DNA contamination were ignored. The risks of such contamination are unclear, but are potentially both serious and of long latency (Angus Dalgleish has certainly been concerned about sudden tumour reactivation – and he has also written about the questionable benefit of repeated vaccination). This is despite evidence from several studies that residual DNA was present in plasmids delivering the mRNA activator in concentrations far higher than had been deemed acceptable. It’s worth looking at Maryanne Demasi’s blog on the latest in this little sub-saga. The possibility of the vaccines themselves causing side-effects similar to the coronavirus itself was ignored. Whether the potential benefits might have outweighed the risks is at very best debatable. But, like Dr. Armstrong and Prof. Dalgleish, I have been urging caution over ‘taking’ more doses. This is for the theoretical reason, which has yet to be found false, that if the serious consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection are down to a cytokine storm induced by the spike protein, then provoking endogenous production of said protein might well do likewise. Furthermore, if the mRNA is still causing the production of the original spike protein, which successive iterations of SARS-CoV-2 no longer contain, then it is pretty pointless.
At this point ponder the following abstract (the full paper by Peter Parry and colleagues can be found here):
The COVID-19 pandemic caused much illness, many deaths and profound disruption to society. The production of ‘safe and effective’ vaccines was a key public health target. Sadly, unprecedented high rates of adverse events have overshadowed the benefits. This two-part narrative review presents evidence for the widespread harms of novel product COVID-19 mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines and is novel in attempting to provide a thorough overview of harms arising from the new technology in vaccines that relied on human cells producing a foreign antigen that has evidence of pathogenicity. This first paper explores peer-reviewed data counter to the ‘safe and effective’ narrative attached to these new technologies. Spike protein pathogenicity, termed ‘spikeopathy’, whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a ‘synthetic virus’, is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology. Pharmacokinetic transfection through body tissues distant from the injection site by lipid-nanoparticles or viral-vector carriers means that ‘spikeopathy’ can affect many organs. The inflammatory properties of the nanoparticles used to ferry mRNA; N1-methylpseudouridine employed to prolong synthetic mRNA function; the widespread biodistribution of the mRNA and DNA codes and translated spike proteins, and autoimmunity via human production of foreign proteins, contribute to harmful effects. This paper reviews autoimmune, cardiovascular, neurological, potential oncological effects, and autopsy evidence for spikeopathy. With many gene-based therapeutic technologies planned, a re-evaluation is necessary and timely.
And it concludes:
In this narrative review, we have established the role of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, especially the S1 subunit, as pathogenic. It is also now apparent that widely biodistributed spike proteins, produced by mRNA and adenovectorDNA gene codes, induce a wide variety of diseases. The underlying pathophysiological and biochemical mechanisms are being elucidated. The lipid-nanoparticle carriers for the mRNA and Novavax vaccines have pathological pro-inflammatory properties as well. The whole premise of gene-based vaccines producing foreign antigens in human tissues is fraught with risks for autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, especially when the distribution is not highly localised.
The clinical implications that follow are that clinicians in all fields of medicine need to be mindful of the varied possible presentations of COVID-19 vaccine-related illness, both acute and chronic, and the worsening of pre-existing conditions. We also advocate for the suspension of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines and lipid-nanoparticle carrier matrices, and other vaccines based on mRNA or viral-vector DNA technology. A safer course is to use vaccines with well-tested recombinant protein, attenuated or inactivated virus technologies, of which there are now many for vaccinating against SARS-CoV-2.
Which is exactly what I hypothesised. So, are the vaccines safe? At best one can say that the case is not proven, but to paraphrase what the Duke of Wellington is alleged to have said, I don’t know what effect these vaccines will have on the viral enemy, but by God, they terrify me. On the basis of what has slowly leached into the public domain over the last three years, not to mention once again the AstraZeneca withdrawal, there are significant risks. This is supported by the sudden peaks in death rate coincident with vaccine introduction as noted by a number of commentators. Those deaths (and I concede no formal analysis of causes of death has yet passed across my desk) may well be due to myocarditis, stroke, cerebral thrombosis or renal failure induced by peaks of spike protein induced by the mRNA plasmids. Is it therefore so wrong to run with the foxes against the hounds of ‘Settled Science’? Look again at the conclusion above. It calls for the suspension of gene-based vaccines but suggests using “well-tested recombinant protein, attenuated or inactivated virus technologies”. Can you get those in the U.K.? There are a number of them. The answer is no (I tried). Whether they actually work is a different matter.
The mRNA ‘vaccines’ were supposed to stop transmission, although this was rapidly disproved. You can get infected despite vaccination, as I did and as many of my neighbours did. There is evidence that they provoke the wrong sort of antibody response and therefore don’t protect against infection in the same way that proven technologies might. There is evidence that ‘Long Covid’ can result from the vaccines as well as from infection; while numerous studies have suggested that vaccines have a protective effect they fail to account in the main for the lower risk from the newer spike proteins. While it has been argued that vaccination reduces severity the evidence for such a conclusion is unclear and contested; severe disease in the form of a cytokine storm is a feature of the original Wuhan strain, but not of Omicron to anything like the same extent, so any observed drop in severe cases may simply reflect the lower pathogenicity of current strains (and these are more infectious). None of the studies I have seen account for this.
I could frighten you by drawing your attention to a paper suggesting that, along with the known immunogenic effects of spike protein, it may also be the underlying cause of Long Covid neurological symptoms. Ow. You’ve twisted my arm enough. Here it is. So if the vaccines result in the body producing quantities of spike, which by definition must be circulating freely (otherwise they would not provoke an antibody response)…
Leaving aside yet another fact, that young people are not at serious risk of serious disease, and that the evidence shows vaccination does not anyway reduce transmission, the mass vaccination of such young people is unwarranted. But it goes further than that. If the mRNA vaccines don’t work, and if they are untested gene therapy products, and if they have similar side-effect profiles to actual infection, why are we using them at all? The answer is that the establishment says we must, so we must. That the establishment is accidentally or deliberately ignoring the data and brands sceptics as dangerous lunatics raises the question of why it is doing that, and fuels every conspiracy theory circulating about the malign influence of Big Pharma and more.
So I return to the medical tribunal’s judgment, which I have annotated with my own comments:
Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, which he promoted in his video using his position as a doctor to do so [and why shouldn’t he?], was that Covid vaccines are unsafe and untested and cause harm [correct]. He directed people not to take them and asserted that the pharmaceutical industry has colluded with other industries and government. His opinion is that there is a ‘cover up’ operation in place [also correct]. Dr. Armstrong was steadfast and unshakeable in his view that he is right, and that all other doctors and the GMC are wrong [just like Galileo before the Inquisition]. He maintained this opinion throughout the proceedings.
By making the judgment has the Tribunal truly ensured public safety and protected health? Having read what I have written, and followed up with the articles I have quoted, are you convinced that the decision to erase Dr. Armstrong from the Medical Register was correct? I’m not. It’s an unwarranted, unjustified strong-arm tactic. I have never met Dr. Armstrong, but if I was advising him my advice would be to appeal.
The author of this piece, a retired consultant physician, wishes to remain anonymous to avoid being trolled, persecuted by the GMC or worse.
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.
The scepticism on vaccine death numbers from Toby Young has become almost vanishingly small.
The only way you can compare deaths for vaccines with Covid to get a risk/benefit metric is with the same standards for vaccines as for deaths attributed to Covid.
How many deaths occur within 28 days of a Covid vaccine? The government have flat out refused to provide this data, saying that all vaccine related deaths are recorded under the MHRA’s Yellow Card system. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing what the effects of this experimental treatment are at least until the clinical trials have concluded.
The resistance to this incoming tyranny is starting to look infinitesimally small.
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/03/30/f-o-i-request-shows-2207-died-within-28-days-of-having-the-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-during-february/
F.O.I Request shows 2,207 died within 28 days of having the Covid Vaccine in Scotland during February
It’s not quite correct WRT just during Feb… But I think it IS over 500 a month dying WITH experimental COVID jab in just Scotland alone..
I took that FOI to mean since the beginning of vaccination. I then went to the governments coronavirus website
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
and from there used 9th December as the start of vaccination and found that approximately 3,300 had died in Scotland within 28 days of a positve test over the same period. This was a while ago I did this though so may require double checking.
The above link was sent in reply to a comment I made earlier in the week.
Others looked and it seemed the timeframe (just one month) was off but the numbers weren’t
I’m guessing we still need the numbers for dying without COVID and without being jabbed.
Thanks for posting the Daily Expose article, I was going to do so myself. I posted it yesterday as well.
I want to add the caveat again that there is no way of verifying if that document is real or not. The only way to be certain would be to submit a FOI request yourself.
I don’t know if Daily Expose is a reputable website either, so we need to be careful with things like this before making any claims.
With that said:
Extrapolating the quoted Scottish numbers across the whole of the UK would give 25,524 deaths.
63,182,000 – UK population
5,463,300 – Scottish population
Death rate in Scotland for the entire population = 0.00040397 (2,207/5,463,300)
0.00040397*63,182,000 = 25,524
If anyone has a better way of doing it, let me know.
The problem with this is the age breakdown.
This is an issue that gets rapidly bigger the younger people get so using an all-age average isn’t going to be that accurate.
I agree, it’s a mess.
Also, I feel extremely bad even talking about this. I hope no-one thinks I’m ever being callous. This BS is breaking my heart, which is why I’m doing all I can to warn people.
But it’s not just deaths. As Sucharit Bhakdi has pointed out – less severe outcomes can also be associated with a thrombosi(e)s.
Govt .Yellow Card Vaccine deaths and Adverse Reactions can be found in The Light newspaper monthly.
The best alternative is to avoid a jab.
Yup: that’s my strategy!
The more newspaper headlines containing the words Vaccine and Risk the better.
It just gets worse doesn’t it ?
I mean we’ve gone from complete denial that there was any risk to the vaccines – to admitting that there maybe a tiny risk – to now offering a completely different vaccine to under 40’s because of a potential risk of blood clots from the previous vaccine that was being given to all the over 40’s.
Anyone out there still eager to roll-up there sleeves for this vaccine must be completely insane. I wouldn’t take an asprin from these people if it was offered to me nevermind an experimental jab that appears to have so many question marks hanging over it.
Nobody has started on the more “normal” thrombosis associated with all the spike protein producing vaccines yet. Obviously COVID can also cause these….but it’s quite hard to catch COVID right now. You can’t avoid them in the vaccines though.
“I wouldn’t take an asprin from these people”
In the end – detail apart – this is the sane position, given the stack of reasons not to trust the political and financial issues involved and the sheer lies that have been told.
I mean – buying ‘guaranteed’ snake oil from the producers who have been given immunity against harms on the recommendation of a PR firm that has spent billions on shares in it?
You’d have to be mad.
To Toby: I think they meant when they say the risks outweigh the benefits in the under 40s is that VIPIT is more likely (death or not….even if not death, a debilitating stroke that leaves you long term disabled aged under 40 has to be included as a major harm) than a healthy under 40 dying of COVID.
Of course, healthy doesn’t mean low risk. The obese are at far greater risk, so the younger, slimmer and fitter you are, the greater the relative risk of the vaccine. If you are a fit 40, 50 or 60 something, the vaccine may still not make any sense.
And then of course there are all the other risks of the vaccine, that nobody mentions. The people spending a week or more in bed. That’s not normal! And that’s at the mild end of the spectrum.
Its not just deaths. You don’t want to end up in hospital for a vaccine you don’t really need even if it doesn’t kill you.
“This might not kill you but you might need 2 weeks in hospital to fix it” isn’t appealing.
The 2 people i know of that have had clotting issues weren’t killed. One ended up in hospital for tests, the other was there over a week until it resolved.
And all of this for a vaccine thats far less effective than the others.
“resolved” – If you’ve small blood clots in the brain, do they not invariably do irreparable damage? Perhaps the impact is not readily discernable, but you’re less of the person you were, and the specific damage may take its toll years later.
Wrong. The Az and JJ vaccines may have an immediate effect because of their delivery system. But in the medium and longer term the mRNA vaccines are far more pernicious. The immune system can eventually identify the problem with the AZ and JJ vaccines. But the gel surrounding the mRNA vaccines disguises the effect and the problem may well appear much later in say the brain before the immune system attacks with potentially deadly consequences.
Yes and people will probably end up on lifelong medication for problems they didn’t have before taking the vaccine.
If I was still under 40 I’d be demanding my freedom, not an alternative jab.
My group of sheep (friends) are in the 40 bracket, boy will they be glad they took the AZ poison these last two weeks….
That’s OK; I’m in my 60s and I have a great alternative to AZ – nada!
Me too – absolutely no chance of me having any of the so-called vaccines.
The more I read the more I disagree with them.
Why anyone who is otherwise healthy wish to have these is beyond my comprehension.
i agree. What is also baffling is how little it’s mentioned that the Jabz are being rolled out in spring and summer for a winter seasonal disease!
Could this be the amazing reason why they are so ‘effective’.?
Funny that this news didn’t come out just before “Super Thursday”, when it might have slightly flattened the wave of “vaccine” “success” Boris’s party was riding.
Funny too, that the bad news is being broken on results day, when so many people are distracted by the theatre of party politics.
What an excellent opportunity to ‘help’ those in a particular populous country where the media say there is a crisis by giving them all the dodgy AZ jabs that would have been given to under 40s… and when I say giving, I mean not challenging them to fulfil the UK’s order and agreeing that they can keep the stuff for themselves…
‘If we assume that at least a half of the 35 million Britons who’ve been inoculated got an AZ jab…’ – Why don’t you look it up? It’s 22.6M AZ jabs (twice the amount of Pfizer). There are a ‘reported’ 49 blood clots biut it’s not just blood clots when calculating risk vs. reward of the vaccines. There’s anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, blindness, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and capillary leak syndrome to consider. The Yellow Card currently shows 1102 deaths immediately following vaccination – that’s 6.3/day for AZ and 2.6/day for Pfizer (longer rollout). There were 9,942 (with multiple AEs) single Yellow Card reports in the week April 21-29th alone – which represents only 0.3-0.6% of reporting. For a 0-19 year old, the chances of dying of COVID is 0.00015%. Chances of dying from the vaccine – 0.2%. While the true number of deaths from vaccines (and this won’t include those who developed and died ‘from’ COVID as a result of a weakened immune system following the vaccine – which will go down as COVID deaths) won’t be known until it’s too late for the majority – anyone can look at the ONS and Yellow Card data and judge for themselves. What you will find is that the death toll from COVID for a healthy under 65 year old for the whole of 2020 (Eng & Wales) was 1,549 – once you factor in the 33% over reporting and the under reporting of the Yellow Card, only the highly innumerate would conclude that the rewards of a vaccine outweigh the risks. A healthy under 65 year old is statistically more likely to die from the vaccine than COVID.