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 We should also ask why, if the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’, AstraZeneca’s has been quietly withdrawn because of an unacceptable level of side-effects.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.
Truly frightening. People have no idea what they’re taking, whether it’s effective, which company provided the jab…
My 18 year old brother, a nursing student, got his first vaccine yesterday and when I was explaining (again) my scepticism to the fam he informed the group he didn’t see “how getting a little bit of the virus put in him was a bad thing.” He’s far from daft as well, but it’s sadly the case that so few have any idea of what they’re signing up to!
What’s worse is that the pressure from his university lecturers was apparently immense – immense yet somehow they’re condemnation If evil anti vaxxers never led to even a fundamental understanding of what the “vaccine” does? Frightening, truly frightening.
I pray my brothers and their wives. I feel so sickened by the whole thing and the experimental nature of all this
They do get a nice little badge though!
:Do you ever get the impression that you are not being told the full, unvarnished truth?
All the bloody time. I know many others tht think this but of course the sheeple ———? Wot can say?
have you seen this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Vz7tZLuBI
Really worth a view. I am sharing it as much as I can because it puts across the ways in which Covid has been used to manipulate the masses in a very succinct manner that is difficult to refute.
Look to the wisdom of the body. If an individual receives the shot and the body prioritizes cleaning up that particular crap over cleaning up or blocking Covid then the latter will win and gain entry and/or strength, as it were….. depending on any comorbidities. So it really is on a case by case basis.
Another fascinating piece of analysis by Will. Many thanks.
When you look at these figures in their entirety, they are really very unimpressive.
So where does that leave the currently jabbed when the next generation of vaccines comes along? Do they retake the new ones? Can you mix and match?
This is steadily building into an almighty mess.
For me, a balanced approach over the last three months was for the vulnerable to consider having one of the vaccines. I’m now of the opinion that no one should go anywhere near them.
With every passing day I’m becoming more of what they call an ‘anti-vaxxer’. But I don’t care about labels, only the science.
Could not agree more with you. 70 y.o., I have said no thanks. Then had the nhs track me down to find out why I declined. That was easy. Biologicals still in trial, no animal studies done before giving to humans, minimal safety and efficacy data. Studies conclude in 2023. If they really want proof these great biologicals work, let’s see real testing not swabs. Anyone who has been vaccinated please step forward to be exposed to the wild virus. We only need a couple hundred thousand of you to prove our “belief” you now have immunity to the wicked virus. Volunteers please. Oh, and why did so many vulnerable elderly die in nursing homes post vaccine. Four homes in Devon that we know about. Not a word in MSM about these incidents, other than it was “coincidental”.
And here’s your badge! These are for adults!? You actually see these people proudly showing their ‘badge of honour’ all over MSM.
Tragic isn’t it.
Yes it may be 62% effective – for the survivors
It is not surprising that protection against infection in care home residents is poor, The elderly and infirm are not good at making antibodies (I have no antibodies following the vaccine) and it is the antibody response which largely prevents infection. The value in the elderly is the T cell response which fights the infection and prevents it becoming severe. I think there is good evidence from steeply falling death rates that the severity of infection in the elderly is falling.
Thank you once more for digging into data. It is good to see a clear increasing influence of articles like the above.Previous articles on ATL ,I’ve now seen quoted in several influencing twitter accounts on three continents. The latest reshape of LD has been criticized by some but I think contrary,the influence of LD seems to have increased.And we still have the general BTL to add new things coming up.Also good to see VIPIT mentioned with the Science article in todays news. This is major development coming.
I actually quite like the reshape – I think it’s worked well, and played to each of the contributor’s strengths.
The problem for me has been the editorial failure to face up to the vaccine questions – a sort of Banquo’s Ghost for this site.
Agree about the reshape. I think it’s more focused in terms of hard content, and less of the repetitive generalized moaning.
The big downside is that when the clock strikes thirteen all the previous day’s excellent replies including especially the wonderful sciency stuff from Swedenborg is permanently deleted.
Do you think the Free Speech Union should be told?
Indeed.
But here is an unanswered question. What us the outcome if you do nothing? What percentage is that. You are starting from a premise that this is working. That’s not science that’s opinion. If you are only comparing jabbed muppets you cannot know if its working well until you have a group that is untouched to see how bad the virus is. Also you have no idea the prevalence of the virus. We know the pcr test is bollocks. So again you are just guessing.
… which is what absolute risk reduction addresses. Thus the suspicious nature of its absence as a metric.
Mother of god. Surely this “study” was not accepted for publication? It does not even make sense. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Never truer words spoken.
It’s a non peer reviewed pre-print. As far as I’m concerned it shouldn’t be getting top billing in the news (I’m looking at you BBC). When you consider how the incredible amounts of solid peer-reviewed work on Ivermectin have been ignored by the press and Government, you can be in no doubt of the agenda at play.
Another major gotcha here, is that this study took place December through March. While this is the period the vaccines were rolled out, it’s also the period that would expect to see seasonal decline. Added to that the gradual adjustments to PCR cycles, how can such a defined figure as 62%, possibly be reached?
Indeed. I was wondering about the PCR cycles – amid all the noise, have we found/been told how many cycles are now used in the UK?
Anyone want to comment on Portugal and Israel?
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=e92000001&areas=w92000004&areas=s92000003&areas=isr&areas=prt&areas=n92000002&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-09-01&values=deaths
UK, Portugal and Israel have taken very different approaches since Christmas, but Portugal appears to have had the fastest decline in rates of both infections and deaths.
Why?
I haven’t double checked but interesting Brazil connection where some Ivermectin is used. It also seems the high spike picture. The virus goes rampant in a LD or non LD country , high spike but the quickly,quickly down again. Perhaps the social Darwinistic “let it run” is the best in the long run.
https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1376653082436775936
Ivermectin use in Portugal, now the Southern European country with the lowest daily Covid deaths per capita: “I started using it in November, with fantastic results. The treatment has gone viral “
This chap has written a good article comparing the various US states, coming to the tentative conclusion that the ” One and done” approach causes the least harm or minimises the overall no of deaths:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2021/03/24/comparing-open-vs-closed-covid-policy/
Yes indeed, Portugese use of ivermectin is beating the pants off the UK’s use of vaccines. Now how does that get reflected in the soon to be introduced EU green pass for travel?
Thanks Will for another great article. Very concerning.
Some of the data in Table 3 seemed odd and I haven’t found a full explanation through an admittedly-quick scan of the pre-print paper.
I noticed that the un-vaccinated case data has not been broken down in the same way as that for the vaccinated cases. There might be a good explanation for this, but on the other hand, there might be an even better explanation
.
A simple way to compare the two data sets is to recombine the vaccinated data.
So then we have:-
723 unvaccinated ‘events’
1335-723=612 vaccinated ‘events’
Person days at risk:-
338,003 unvaccinated
670,628 – 338,003
= 332,625 vaccinated
So, approximately equal ‘population’ sizes.
Just based on this the vaccination has reduced the likelihood of an ‘event’ (ie positive PCR test with a variable cycle threshold – hardly a ‘gold-standard’ test unless you put varying amounts of ‘base’ metal in your gold reference or ‘standard’) by:-
1 – (612/332,625 x 338,003/723) = 14%
Hardly a large effect, and much smaller than the required 50% – is this the even better reason perhaps?!
But there’s something else…
What is the ‘control’ population? I might have misunderstood the paper, so I hope someone will check this and correct me, but it appears that the researchers took data from previously performed PCR tests, chosen I think to match the long term care facilities (LTCFs) from which the vaccinated person data was taken. Fair enough, but the data were from March 2020 when the first wave was at its height. So we are comparing data from completely different environments, especially as the incidence of covid was falling rapidly during the vaccination period for whatever cause.
Apologies for the rushed and sketchy analysis, but I wanted to get this out as soon as possible to perhaps prompt others better qualified than I to look into it in more detail.
No apologies required. There is always a crying need for detailed scrutiny. I’m afraid I’ve got to the stage where I’m data-fatigued after a year of the obvious distortions of the facts when the reality is pretty obvious.
I’m a bit suprised on an absolute risk basis that its as high as 14%. Perhaps as you comment that is because they have missused March 2020 PCR data.
Note again the omission of the key statistic : absolute risk reduction.
Beyond that are the key bottom lines :
… and one should add the blatant exclusion of potential prophylactics such as Ivermectin from any proper consideration or comparative analysis.
Very true. Portugal’s performance v UK since winter peak. As well as showing usual decline in seasonal respiratory disease it demonstates that wide spread use of ivermectin is at least as good as vaccines measured on death rates. Measured on just about every other criteria it beats the pants off them.
Are we ever told the full unvarnished truth about anything by this lot? You simply can’t trust a thing put out by them or their cronies in MSM. I wouldn’t believe a weather bulletin coming from these lot even if I was stood out in it.
The adjusted hazards ratio makes absolutely no sense to me looking at the infected vaccinated / unvaccinated numbers per 10,000.
Even controlling for every major demographic factor that’s some serious numberwang to reduce the ahr to zero for the vaccinated.
In fact I’d go so far as to suggest it is not possible without fraud in some cases – just look at the row for 14-20 days:
28-26 infected vaxx/no-vaxx – this is somehow transmorgified into a risk factor of 0-77 respectively. How is this even possible when the input values are so damn close?
“Do you ever get the sense that you’re not being told the full, unvarnished truth?”
Er….. since about 23rd March 2020.