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 We should also ask why, if the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’, AstraZeneca’s has been quietly withdrawn because of an unacceptable level of side-effects.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.