Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread


sancho panza

Recommended Posts

via Hoederkemp

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-have-we-doctors-been-silent/

AS an NHS hospital doctor, I have had a front-row seat as the drama of the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded. It has been a year and a half of confusion, frustration and anger for me as I’ve watched our profession drawn into complicity with what I anticipate will be regarded as one of the most egregious public health disasters in history.

I have watched as ‘the science’ has been presented on the national stage flanked by Union Jack flags as an unassailable truth. For something so apparently inviolable, it seems to shift and change disconcertingly from week to week, and for those of us looking beneath the pomp to the plain data, we see the rather unexciting (and unchanging) truth: the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, as it turns out, has a much lower infection fatality rate than early predictions. It is less deadly than the seasonal flu in children. The Office for National Statistics has reported the mean age of a Covid-attributed death in the UK to be 80.3 years, slightly older than deaths from other causes (78.2 years over the comparable time period).

What has been most upsetting for me has been the unquestioning compliance from the medical community as increasingly draconian, non-evidence-based and destructive virus control measures have been implemented. Some of the overt corruption, financial conflict of interests and politicisation has been laid bare in editorials in prominent medical journals such as the BMJ. But the vast majority of doctors have had no interest in asking questions or looking further.

My concern over our professional passivity turned to alarm as our compliance required us to support the roll-out of an experimental vaccine to a trusting population.

Contrary to the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine, pronouncing an experimental medical intervention ‘safe and effective’ now does not seem to require any peer-reviewed evidence of safety or clinically meaningful efficacy. The vaccines have not been shown in clinical trials to reduce transmission, hospitalisation or death. The phase 3 trials are not over and the safety data is not complete; the earliest trials will run into 2023.

The consent form for the Covid-19 vaccine does not disclose its status as an unlicensed experimental product. The risks remain largely unknown, although it is becoming clear that the vaccine has resulted in death or injury in a rising number of healthy people. A growing number of vaccine-induced syndromes are being recognised, including immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia, myocarditis and menstrual irregularities, among many others being published in the literature. At the time of writing, there have been more than 380,000 reports, 1.2million injuries and 1,700 fatalities submitted under the MHRA Yellow Card scheme.

The Prime Minister himself has communicated the latest evidence, that two doses of the vaccine do not stop one contracting the virus, nor do they stop person-to-person transmission, they merely reduce the severity of symptoms. Despite this, it is clear the public are being subjected to a relentless media campaign of shame and coercion, that they must take this experimental product ‘for the greater good’ lest they be viewed as selfish cowards. A vaccine passport is now likely to be rolled out under ‘Plan B’, which proposes to return unlawfully usurped fundamental human rights and freedoms to only the vaccinated. Workers in the care home sector have had their livelihoods tethered to their compliance with the vaccine mandates, and a recent announcement confirms that this will soon include NHS employees. Not only is there no scientific basis for these mandates, these coercive actions breach the Nuremberg Code, as does the unprecedented lack of animal safety data for a novel medical product. A betrayal of the Nuremberg Code constitutes a crime against humanity.

It does not end there. The campaign marches on, and now includes the vaccination of children against a disease that has a statistically negligible chance of harming them. In the world of evidence-based medicine we doctors must weigh risks and benefits, we must ensure the risk of harm is far exceeded by the potential for protection or cure. In this case, with no real risk to healthy children from the infection, any harm is utterly unjustifiable. And the risk of harm is very real and measurable. Vaccine-related myocarditis is now a recognised injury, the risk inversely proportionate to age. Although rare, myocarditis can be fatal, and fatality is more common in the younger population. For reasons that have nothing to do with health, and despite the JCVI advisory board concluding that the health benefits do not outweigh the risks to children, the government is advising that we administer a medicine that carries a risk of serious injury to children who are healthy and who have no significant risk from the disease it purports to protect them against.

Despite all this, and despite our training to look at scientific literature and data with a critical eye, the silence from the medical community in the UK has been deafening. Yet we are the ones who should be shouting all of this from the rooftops. This is a duty of care and an oath we have forgotten.

It is typically those of us most conditioned by the expectations of society, utterly obedient and deferent to authority, who gain entry to medicine. One can see the path: we were good, compliant children and then good, compliant students. Now we are good, compliant doctors. I’m beginning to understand that goodness is measured in a different way, and obedience is not a virtue.

Obedience is learned through fear, threat and intimidation; it is in fact trauma programming and achieved through small control gestures when we were young and helpless. Now we are adults but still operating under these childhood programmes of beliefs and fears. We still feel helpless and beholden to a higher authority. We still submit to an authoritative decree even when it overrides our inherent moral compass.

The horrors of the classic Milgram experiment demonstrated that we live in a deeply traumatised culture, and the same conditioning, in my view, has shaped the medical community and its silence.

Even on the occasion when my counter-narrative evidence cannot be denied by a colleague, the usual response is: ‘It’s coming from the government; our hands are tied.’ But the truth is that most of the time doctors don’t want to see the evidence; their subconscious has prevented them seeing that the parent-like authorities of government, Sage and the MHRA, upon which we project a childlike trust, might be misguided, corrupted or dishonest.

And so we comment to each other on all the changes we are witnessing months into the vaccine roll-out: the unseasonal surge in hospital admissions, the post-jab autoimmune conditions and coagulation disorders, the numbers of ‘double-jabbed’ patients admitted with severe Covid infection, the numbers of lives ruined by lockdown and other Covid control policies. I challenge any doctor to deny that all of this simply feels wrong. To avoid this uncomfortable, authentic, human feeling – important information that should be acted upon – we will reach for something rote. ‘Anecdote is not evidence’ and ‘association is not causation’ will be the justification for carrying on, no questions asked, even though most of the damaging control measures implemented from on high were not based on any evidence at all. Meanwhile, an already struggling NHS has been damaged beyond repair by many of these policies. We are overwhelmed by the demand that we cannot meet, and the complexity of the crisis feels far beyond just one hospital Trust. The locus of responsibility to investigate remains above us and we wait for someone with more authority to come round and make sense of it.

And as we remain silent, the destruction continues.

Most of us went into medicine for the right reasons: to help the vulnerable, to reduce suffering. I know my colleagues are kind and well-intentioned and that their faith in our unelected public health policymakers is the result of a lifetime of conditioning. For those of us who have looked at the data and see the truth, I understand the fear: the risk of non-conformity is immense; careers, reputations and livelihoods are at stake. I recognise an even larger threat: a threat to our chosen profession, our life purpose, the possibility that we have been following a false god in our honest intentions to help the ill. We are at a difficult crossroads, but the choice for me is clear.

Although I am not on the front line in the ‘fight’ against coronavirus, and have had nothing to do with the vaccine campaign, I feel complicit in this public deception. I can no longer hide within a system that has proved itself to be weak-willed and unwilling to stand against the irrevocable erosion of inalienable human rights and freedoms in the name of public health safety. It is past the time for us to grow up, stand up and speak out.

  • Agree 6
  • Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder
27 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

via Hoederkemp

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-have-we-doctors-been-silent/

AS an NHS hospital doctor, I have had a front-row seat as the drama of the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded. It has been a year and a half of confusion, frustration and anger for me as I’ve watched our profession drawn into complicity with what I anticipate will be regarded as one of the most egregious public health disasters in history.

I have watched as ‘the science’ has been presented on the national stage flanked by Union Jack flags as an unassailable truth. For something so apparently inviolable, it seems to shift and change disconcertingly from week to week, and for those of us looking beneath the pomp to the plain data, we see the rather unexciting (and unchanging) truth: the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, as it turns out, has a much lower infection fatality rate than early predictions. It is less deadly than the seasonal flu in children. The Office for National Statistics has reported the mean age of a Covid-attributed death in the UK to be 80.3 years, slightly older than deaths from other causes (78.2 years over the comparable time period).

What has been most upsetting for me has been the unquestioning compliance from the medical community as increasingly draconian, non-evidence-based and destructive virus control measures have been implemented. Some of the overt corruption, financial conflict of interests and politicisation has been laid bare in editorials in prominent medical journals such as the BMJ. But the vast majority of doctors have had no interest in asking questions or looking further.

My concern over our professional passivity turned to alarm as our compliance required us to support the roll-out of an experimental vaccine to a trusting population.

Contrary to the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine, pronouncing an experimental medical intervention ‘safe and effective’ now does not seem to require any peer-reviewed evidence of safety or clinically meaningful efficacy. The vaccines have not been shown in clinical trials to reduce transmission, hospitalisation or death. The phase 3 trials are not over and the safety data is not complete; the earliest trials will run into 2023.

The consent form for the Covid-19 vaccine does not disclose its status as an unlicensed experimental product. The risks remain largely unknown, although it is becoming clear that the vaccine has resulted in death or injury in a rising number of healthy people. A growing number of vaccine-induced syndromes are being recognised, including immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia, myocarditis and menstrual irregularities, among many others being published in the literature. At the time of writing, there have been more than 380,000 reports, 1.2million injuries and 1,700 fatalities submitted under the MHRA Yellow Card scheme.

The Prime Minister himself has communicated the latest evidence, that two doses of the vaccine do not stop one contracting the virus, nor do they stop person-to-person transmission, they merely reduce the severity of symptoms. Despite this, it is clear the public are being subjected to a relentless media campaign of shame and coercion, that they must take this experimental product ‘for the greater good’ lest they be viewed as selfish cowards. A vaccine passport is now likely to be rolled out under ‘Plan B’, which proposes to return unlawfully usurped fundamental human rights and freedoms to only the vaccinated. Workers in the care home sector have had their livelihoods tethered to their compliance with the vaccine mandates, and a recent announcement confirms that this will soon include NHS employees. Not only is there no scientific basis for these mandates, these coercive actions breach the Nuremberg Code, as does the unprecedented lack of animal safety data for a novel medical product. A betrayal of the Nuremberg Code constitutes a crime against humanity.

It does not end there. The campaign marches on, and now includes the vaccination of children against a disease that has a statistically negligible chance of harming them. In the world of evidence-based medicine we doctors must weigh risks and benefits, we must ensure the risk of harm is far exceeded by the potential for protection or cure. In this case, with no real risk to healthy children from the infection, any harm is utterly unjustifiable. And the risk of harm is very real and measurable. Vaccine-related myocarditis is now a recognised injury, the risk inversely proportionate to age. Although rare, myocarditis can be fatal, and fatality is more common in the younger population. For reasons that have nothing to do with health, and despite the JCVI advisory board concluding that the health benefits do not outweigh the risks to children, the government is advising that we administer a medicine that carries a risk of serious injury to children who are healthy and who have no significant risk from the disease it purports to protect them against.

Despite all this, and despite our training to look at scientific literature and data with a critical eye, the silence from the medical community in the UK has been deafening. Yet we are the ones who should be shouting all of this from the rooftops. This is a duty of care and an oath we have forgotten.

It is typically those of us most conditioned by the expectations of society, utterly obedient and deferent to authority, who gain entry to medicine. One can see the path: we were good, compliant children and then good, compliant students. Now we are good, compliant doctors. I’m beginning to understand that goodness is measured in a different way, and obedience is not a virtue.

Obedience is learned through fear, threat and intimidation; it is in fact trauma programming and achieved through small control gestures when we were young and helpless. Now we are adults but still operating under these childhood programmes of beliefs and fears. We still feel helpless and beholden to a higher authority. We still submit to an authoritative decree even when it overrides our inherent moral compass.

The horrors of the classic Milgram experiment demonstrated that we live in a deeply traumatised culture, and the same conditioning, in my view, has shaped the medical community and its silence.

Even on the occasion when my counter-narrative evidence cannot be denied by a colleague, the usual response is: ‘It’s coming from the government; our hands are tied.’ But the truth is that most of the time doctors don’t want to see the evidence; their subconscious has prevented them seeing that the parent-like authorities of government, Sage and the MHRA, upon which we project a childlike trust, might be misguided, corrupted or dishonest.

And so we comment to each other on all the changes we are witnessing months into the vaccine roll-out: the unseasonal surge in hospital admissions, the post-jab autoimmune conditions and coagulation disorders, the numbers of ‘double-jabbed’ patients admitted with severe Covid infection, the numbers of lives ruined by lockdown and other Covid control policies. I challenge any doctor to deny that all of this simply feels wrong. To avoid this uncomfortable, authentic, human feeling – important information that should be acted upon – we will reach for something rote. ‘Anecdote is not evidence’ and ‘association is not causation’ will be the justification for carrying on, no questions asked, even though most of the damaging control measures implemented from on high were not based on any evidence at all. Meanwhile, an already struggling NHS has been damaged beyond repair by many of these policies. We are overwhelmed by the demand that we cannot meet, and the complexity of the crisis feels far beyond just one hospital Trust. The locus of responsibility to investigate remains above us and we wait for someone with more authority to come round and make sense of it.

And as we remain silent, the destruction continues.

Most of us went into medicine for the right reasons: to help the vulnerable, to reduce suffering. I know my colleagues are kind and well-intentioned and that their faith in our unelected public health policymakers is the result of a lifetime of conditioning. For those of us who have looked at the data and see the truth, I understand the fear: the risk of non-conformity is immense; careers, reputations and livelihoods are at stake. I recognise an even larger threat: a threat to our chosen profession, our life purpose, the possibility that we have been following a false god in our honest intentions to help the ill. We are at a difficult crossroads, but the choice for me is clear.

Although I am not on the front line in the ‘fight’ against coronavirus, and have had nothing to do with the vaccine campaign, I feel complicit in this public deception. I can no longer hide within a system that has proved itself to be weak-willed and unwilling to stand against the irrevocable erosion of inalienable human rights and freedoms in the name of public health safety. It is past the time for us to grow up, stand up and speak out.

Hi @sancho panza, I am so impressed that you are gonna let your job go over the pressure to be jabbed, good on you for standing up to this crap.

 

  • Agree 4
  • Love / Hugz 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder
5 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

The fightback beginning in earnest.This looks like Workers of England Union,could likely force the hand of the big boys Unison(my union and Unite)

 

https://nhs100k.com/index.html

image.thumb.png.65cfd2fe51e249db063d35fe6f90f804.png

image.thumb.png.d1fa72659b0b9fb31016094b8c72b0b8.png

I would stand outside my front door and clap for that.

Well done, I think you might just win this.

  • Agree 4
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.72733b0a8db96ed878dd6dc1d072fd18.png

To anyone stupid cunt who was pro lockdown, this is your doing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/16/nhs-delays-height-pandemic-linked-thousands-extra-non-covid/

Nearly 10,000 more people than usual have died in the past four months from non-Covid reasons, as experts called for an urgent government inquiry into whether the deaths were preventable.

Fears are growing that NHS delays at the height of the pandemic left large numbers of people with previously treatable conditions suffering illnesses that have now become fatal. 

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that England and Wales registered 20,823 more deaths than the five-year average in the past 18 weeks. Only 11,531 deaths involved Covid.

It means that 9,292 deaths - 45 per cent - were not linked to the pandemic. 

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: “I’m calling for an urgent investigation. 

“If you look at where the excess is happening, it's in conditions like ischemic heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver and diabetes, all which are potentially reversible. 

“This goes beyond just looking at the raw numbers and death certificates. We need to go back and find if these deaths have any preventable causes. 

“This could be the fallout from the lack of preventable care during the pandemic, and what happens downstream of that.

“We urgently need to understand what’s going wrong and an investigation of the root causes to determine those actions that can prevent further unnecessary deaths.”

Weekly figures for the week ending November 5 showed that there were 1,659 more deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year. Of those, 700 were not caused by Covid.  

The excess is likely to grow as more deaths are registered in the coming weeks. 

Data from the UK Health Security Agency show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer. 

The number of deaths in private homes is also 40.9 per cent above the five-year average, with 964 excess deaths recorded in the most recent week, which runs up to November 5. 

Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said: “Numbers of deaths from all causes do usually increase at this time of year, but the total number remains above the average for the corresponding week in the five years 2015 to 2019.  

“So, on that definition, we still have excess deaths, as we have had for 18 straight weeks now, and not all those excess deaths are due to Covid-19.  

“And we’re still seeing considerable excess numbers of deaths in people’s own homes, compared to the 2015-19 average, with most of those deaths not involving Covid-19. 

“In the most recent week, there were 891 excess deaths at home that did not involve Covid-19 – that’s about 127 a day.”

The NHS is still struggling to clear the backlog of treatment created by the pandemic, with one in 10 people in England - 5.8 million - currently waiting for an elective procedure, the highest number ever recorded.

A report published this week from the Royal College of Nursing warned that more than 120,000 people had been forced to wait for at least four hours in accident and emergency departments in October, an increase of more than 50 per cent since October 2019.

Ambulances are also taking longer to reach patients, with heart attack sufferers now waiting an average of 53 minutes before help arrives - nearly three times the NHS target. The number of patients treated in corridors has risen nine-fold since October 2019.

Data from the continuous mortality investigation from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries is also starting to show some non-Covid excess, with nearly 100 extra deaths in the most recent week.

The investigation has previously said that recent excess non-Covid deaths were linked to the ageing population, with more people expected to die this year than last.

Edited by Hancock
  • Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hancock said:

image.png.72733b0a8db96ed878dd6dc1d072fd18.png

To anyone stupid cunt who was pro lockdown, this is your doing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/16/nhs-delays-height-pandemic-linked-thousands-extra-non-covid/

Nearly 10,000 more people than usual have died in the past four months from non-Covid reasons, as experts called for an urgent government inquiry into whether the deaths were preventable.

Fears are growing that NHS delays at the height of the pandemic left large numbers of people with previously treatable conditions suffering illnesses that have now become fatal. 

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that England and Wales registered 20,823 more deaths than the five-year average in the past 18 weeks. Only 11,531 deaths involved Covid.

It means that 9,292 deaths - 45 per cent - were not linked to the pandemic. 

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: “I’m calling for an urgent investigation. 

“If you look at where the excess is happening, it's in conditions like ischemic heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver and diabetes, all which are potentially reversible. 

“This goes beyond just looking at the raw numbers and death certificates. We need to go back and find if these deaths have any preventable causes. 

“This could be the fallout from the lack of preventable care during the pandemic, and what happens downstream of that.

“We urgently need to understand what’s going wrong and an investigation of the root causes to determine those actions that can prevent further unnecessary deaths.”

Weekly figures for the week ending November 5 showed that there were 1,659 more deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year. Of those, 700 were not caused by Covid.  

The excess is likely to grow as more deaths are registered in the coming weeks. 

Data from the UK Health Security Agency show there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, circulatory conditions and diabetes since the summer. 

The number of deaths in private homes is also 40.9 per cent above the five-year average, with 964 excess deaths recorded in the most recent week, which runs up to November 5. 

Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said: “Numbers of deaths from all causes do usually increase at this time of year, but the total number remains above the average for the corresponding week in the five years 2015 to 2019.  

“So, on that definition, we still have excess deaths, as we have had for 18 straight weeks now, and not all those excess deaths are due to Covid-19.  

“And we’re still seeing considerable excess numbers of deaths in people’s own homes, compared to the 2015-19 average, with most of those deaths not involving Covid-19. 

“In the most recent week, there were 891 excess deaths at home that did not involve Covid-19 – that’s about 127 a day.”

The NHS is still struggling to clear the backlog of treatment created by the pandemic, with one in 10 people in England - 5.8 million - currently waiting for an elective procedure, the highest number ever recorded.

A report published this week from the Royal College of Nursing warned that more than 120,000 people had been forced to wait for at least four hours in accident and emergency departments in October, an increase of more than 50 per cent since October 2019.

Ambulances are also taking longer to reach patients, with heart attack sufferers now waiting an average of 53 minutes before help arrives - nearly three times the NHS target. The number of patients treated in corridors has risen nine-fold since October 2019.

Data from the continuous mortality investigation from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries is also starting to show some non-Covid excess, with nearly 100 extra deaths in the most recent week.

The investigation has previously said that recent excess non-Covid deaths were linked to the ageing population, with more people expected to die this year than last.

This needs filling in the 'no shit Sherlock' section.

Nice find H.

The one thing I would question is whether the purported deaths from covid are really dying due to covid.

I'm seeing very few patients who are symptomatic with covid these days.Very few.Trips to Resus with anything covid related over last two months=0.

The covid section of the hospital I mainly work at is full of people with respiratory issues but nothing like your classic covid presentation from 2020.

  • Informative 8
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Hancock said:

I wish theyd show there faces, respect for not taking the vax but hiding doesnt help their cause.

Mainly fear of being isolated and bullied I suspect.The NHS has form here.As does this govt.

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/michael-gove-backer-won-164m-in-ppe-contracts-after-vip-lane-referral

A Conservative party donor who supported Michael Gove’s Tory leadership bid won £164m in Covid contracts after the minister referred his firm to a “VIP lane” that awarded almost £5bn to companies with political connections, new analysis reveals.

The disclosure draws Gove into a furore over alleged cronyism that has led critics to accuse the government of running a “chumocracy” where MPs’ friends, contacts or acquaintances have won huge contracts without proper process or transparency.

 

Meller Designs, based in Bedford, was awarded six personal protective equipment (PPE) supply contracts worth £164m from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) during the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Until January this year it was co-owned by David Meller, who has donated nearly £60,000 to the Tory party since 2009. This included £3,250 to support Gove’s party leadership bid in 2016, a campaign on which Meller worked as chair of finance.

When the contracts were awarded, Gove was a minister at the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for government procurement, and in charge of the office of the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, which referred Meller Designs for PPE supply.

The company was among 47 awarded contracts for PPE totalling £4.7bn after referrals from politicians and officials, according to a Guardian analysis. Several were linked to MPs, all of them Conservative. Due to the health emergency, many contracts were awarded without competitive tender.

The list of 47 companies awarded contracts via the VIP lane was published by Politico on Tuesday before its official planned release by the DHSC after a freedom of information request by the Good Law Project, which is challenging the propriety of some contracts.

The VIP or “high-priority” route was a fast-track process set up by DHSC procurement teams for offers to supply PPE from companies referred by ministers, MPs, NHS officials or other people with political connections. A report by the National Audit Office last year found that firms referred to the VIP lane had a 10 times greater success rate for securing contracts than companies whose bids were processed via normal channels.

Labour has repeatedly accused the government of favouring people with Tory party connections in the awards of multimillion-pound contracts during the pandemic.

The list of companies includes 18 whose contracts were processed through the fast track after being referred by a Conservative MP, minister or peer. When questions were first asked about the process last year, the government responded that referrals were a way of filtering credible offers that came to MPs and ministers. However, only companies referred by Conservative politicians are on the list of those awarded contracts.

The then health secretary, Matt Hancock, referred four firms subsequently awarded contracts; Andrew Feldman, a health department adviser at the time, referred three of the companies; Theodore Agnew, a Cabinet Office minister, referred three; and the Tory backbenchers Julian Lewis, Andrew Percy, Steve Brine and Esther McVey referred one each.

Another Tory peer, the lingerie businesswoman Michelle Mone, is stated to have referred one company, PPE Medpro, which was awarded two contracts worth £200m via the VIP lane. Corporate services including accounting and directorships were provided to the company by Knox House Trust (KHT), an Isle of Man firm run by Mone’s husband, Douglas Barrowman.

Mone, who made her career and fortune with her Ultimo lingerie company, last year denied to the Guardian via her lawyers that she had “any role or function in PPE Medpro, nor in the process by which contracts were awarded to PPE Medpro”. Mone’s lawyers told the Guardian she maintains her denial of involvement.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader and the shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, said in relation to Gove: “It shows just how engulfed in corruption this government is that the minister in charge of procurement and ensuring that contracts are awarded to the best bidder and represent value for money for the taxpayer was helping his own donor to get VIP fast-track access to contracts.

“It is time this … government published the full details of every PPE and testing contract awarded to companies with links to the Conservative party, Conservative ministers and Conservative MPs.”

A spokesperson for Gove denied that the referral involved any impropriety, saying he passed on offers to supply PPE. “The former minister for the Cabinet Office played no role in the decision to award any PPE contract, and all ministerial interests were properly declared to officials,” they said.

A spokesperson for David Meller said he had nothing to add to a previous statement provided by Meller Designs, which said it had approached the government offering to supply equipment and was “extremely proud” of the role it played in supplying “more than 100m items of PPE”.

The Cabinet Office has refused Freedom of Information Act requests from the Guardian to release correspondence between Meller and Gove during the pandemic.

 

A lawyer for Mone and Barrowman said: “Baroness Mone is neither an investor, director or shareholder in any way associated with PPE Medpro. She has never had any role or function in PPE Medpro, nor in the process by which contracts were awarded to PPE Medpro.” They added that she did not accept that PPE Medpro was “referred in as alleged” or “that our clients misled anyone”.

The DHSC has stressed that ministers were not involved in decisions to award contracts, and that all company offers referred were subjected to a due diligence process. A government spokesperson said: “At the height of the pandemic there was a desperate need for PPE to protect health and social care staff and the government rightly took swift and decisive action to secure it. Ministers were not involved in awarding contracts.”

Lord Feldman said the companies were referred to him by third parties and he passed them on to officials. He was “neither responsible for nor played any part in the decision to award these contracts … never had any commercial relationship with them or their owners” and “did not request, or indeed know, that these offers has been assigned to the high-priority lane”.

The Cabinet Office said Lord Agnew had been referring on companies that had approached his office. Uniserve said the DHSC had approached it directly and that it had no connections with Agnew.

McVey and Lewis said the companies they referred were local to their constituencies. All other MPs and peers have been contacted for comment.

  • Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cross psot for the record

The vaccine antibodies are different I believe to the antibodies created by natural immunity and they have different characteristics

Sorry for the outdated copy below from jan 21 but it illustrates the point that I'm trying to make perfectly.There are more recent pieces based on better data but I'm short on time this morning.

https://ruo.mbl.co.jp/bio/e/support/method/antibody-isotype.html

IgG
IgG is the most abundant antibody isotype in the blood (plasma), accounting for 70-75% of human immunoglobulins (antibodies). IgG detoxifies harmful substances and is important in the recognition of antigen-antibody complexes by leukocytes and macrophages. IgG is transferred to the fetus through the placenta and protects the infant until its own immune system is functional.

IgM
IgM usually circulates in the blood, accounting for about 10% of human immunoglobulins. IgM has a pentameric structure in which five basic Y-shaped molecules are linked together. B cells produce IgM first in response to microbial infection/antigen invasion.
Although IgM has a lower affinity for antigens than IgG, it has higher avidity for antigens because of its pentameric/hexameric structure. IgM, by binding to the cell surface receptor, also activates cell signaling pathways.

IgA
IgA is abundant in serum, nasal mucus, saliva, breast milk, and intestinal fluid, accounting for 10-15% of human immunoglobulins. IgA forms dimers (i.e., two IgA monomers joined together). IgA in breast milk protects the gastrointestinal tract of neonates from pathogens.

IgE
IgE is present in minute amounts, accounting for no more than 0.001% of human immunoglobulins. Its original role is to protect against parasites. In regions where parasitic infection is rare, IgE is primarily involved in allergy.

IgD
IgD accounts for less than 1% of human immunoglobulins. IgD may be involved in the induction of antibody production in B cells, but its exact function remains unknown.

 

From Jan 21-Health reporter quoting interview with Matthew Woodruff, an immunologist at Emory University.

https://qz.com/1954762/can-you-spread-covid-19-if-you-get-the-vaccine/

The reason we don’t know if the vaccine can prevent transmission is twofold. One reason is practical. The first order of business for vaccines is preventing exposed individuals from getting sick, so that’s what the clinical trials for Covid-19 shots were designed to determine. We simply don’t have public health data to answer the question of transmission yet.

The second reason is immunological. From a scientific perspective, there are a lot of complex questions about how the vaccine generates antibodies in the body that haven’t yet been studied. Scientists are still eager to explore these immunological rabbit holes, but it could take years to reach the bottom of them.

From what we know so far, Covid-19 vaccines cause the body to produce a class of antibodies called immunoglobulin G, or IgG antibodies, explains Matthew Woodruff, an immunologist at Emory University. IgG antibodies are thugs: They react swiftly to all kinds of foreign entities. They make up the majority of our antibodies, and are confined to the parts of our body that don’t have contact with the outside world, like our muscles and blood.

But to prevent Covid-19 transmission, another type of antibodies could be the more important player. The immune system that patrols your outward-facing mucosal surfaces—spaces like the nose, the throat, the lungs, and digestive tract—relies on immunoglobulin A, or IgA antibodies. And we don’t yet know how well existing vaccines incite IgA antibodies.

People who get sick and recover from Covid-19 produce a ton of these more-specialized IgA antibodies. Because IgA antibodies occupy the same respiratory tract surfaces involved in transmitting SARS-CoV-2, we could reasonably expect that people who recover from Covid-19 aren’t spreading the virus any more. (Granted, this may also depend on how much of the virus that person was exposed to.)

But we don’t know if people who have IgG antibodies from the vaccine are stopping the virus in our respiratory tracts in the same way. And even if we did, scientists still don’t know how much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus it takes to cause a new infection. So even if we understood how well a vaccine worked to prevent a virus from replicating along the upper respiratory tract, it’d be extremely difficult to tell if that would mean a person couldn’t transmit the disease.

 

Edited by sancho panza
  • Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/25/vaccine-safety-update-19/

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on November 19th, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,271,009 events based on 386,517 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,784.

  • Pfizer (24.2 million first doses, 20.6 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 185 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 39,607 people vaccinated (611).
  • AstraZeneca (24.8 million first doses, 24.1 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 105 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 22,103 people vaccinated (1,122).
  • Moderna (1.5 million first doses, 1.3 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 85 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 78,947 people vaccinated (19).

Overall, one in every 131 people vaccinated (0.76%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures.

  • Thrombosis/Embolism (All types)= 7,391
  • Anaphylaxis = 1,427
  • Acute Cardiac = 17,753
  • Herpes = 4,468
  • Blindness = 439
  • Deafness = 633
  • Spontaneous Abortions = 626 miscarriages + 17 foetal deaths
  • Migraines & Headaches = 125,498
  • Central Nervous System Haemorrhage (Stroke) = 2,745
  • Guillain-Barré Syndrome = 529
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy = 1,844
  • Vertigo/Tinnitus = 10,338
  • Seizures = 3,006
  • Paralysis = 1,226
  • Tremor = 11,732
  • Epistaxis (Nosebleeds) = 3,198
  • Reproductive/Breast Disorders = 46,414

Further analysis can be found via the UK Freedom Project.

Yellow-Card-table-211124.jpg

  • Informative 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cross post from the vaccines thread for the record.

Note to self,need to have a dig around the Pfizer whistleblower

via Robert Malone twitter feed

Big Pharma has some questions to answer about the trials.

https://maryannedemasi.com/publications/f/are-adverse-events-in-covid-19-vaccine-trials-under-reported

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD

Phase III controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing vaccine efficacy and safety in humans. 

These are the trials upon which authorities have assured the public that Covid-19 vaccines are “safe and effective.”

The benefits of the vaccines in reducing disease severity and hospitalisations are well-known, but what do we know about the adverse events? 

Data on adverse events is vital for effective decision-making by regulators, policy makers, doctors, and patients. 

But there are serious concerns about publication bias or selective omission of data, whereby adverse events are less likely to be published than positive results. 

A systematic review in PLOS journal analysed 28 studies and found that adverse events were less likely to appear in published journal articles than unpublished studies (e.g. industry-held data).

Experts now suggest that the pivotal Covid-19 vaccine trials may have under-reported adverse events in several ways.

Virtual monitoring with digital apps

In the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccine trials, participants were given digital apps to record adverse events remotely - a more convenient, time efficient and cost-effective way of gathering patient data. 

A major problem however, is that the pre-determined options on the digital apps have a narrow focus on particular adverse events.

For example, the app only allows a participant to record what the company deems as ‘expected’ events such as fever, pain at injection site, temperature, redness, swelling, fatigue, headache, diarrhoea, chills, muscle and joint pain. 

But if they experience a serious adverse event like myocarditis or early signs of transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a myopathic disorder, myocarditis or thrombosis, there is no option for them to record it on the app.

Case in point: Brianne Dressen, a participant in the AstraZeneca (AZD1222) trial. She suffered a severe adverse event after her first injection and became disabled. 

 

Brianne Dressen
Brianne Dressen

 

But her smartphone app did not allow her to record the particular type of adverse event, nor did it allow her to record her symptoms in her own words. 

Once hospitalised, Ms Dressen was ‘unblinded’ from the trial. She was informed that she had been given the AstraZeneca vaccine, not the placebo, and advised not to have the second injection. 

The investigators subsequently “withdrew” Ms Dressen from the trial, they disabled her smartphone app, and all her data from that day onwards, were never documented despite still experiencing disability today.

Ms Dressen was concerned about the lack of reporting of her adverse event (and others) in the trial’s publication in the top-tiered New England Journal of Medicine.

She wrote to the journal seeking to “request inaccuracies in the trial publication be corrected, and to demand complete reporting of the trial publication and results.”

 

Dr Eric Rubin, editor in chief, NEJM
Dr Eric Rubin, editor in chief, NEJM

 

Editor-in-chief Dr Eric Rubin refused to correct the inaccurate data in his journal. The full email exchange has been made public

If vaccine manufacturers selectively withdraw subjects who experience serious adverse events (as in the case of Brianne Dressen and others) it may explain why the trials mostly found “statistically significant” increases in minor adverse events (fever, chills, headaches) but not in serious harms.

Blaming an underlying condition

When Pfizer recruited 12-15 year olds for its mRNA vaccine trial, the published data in the New England Journal of Medicine, stated that there were “no serious vaccine-related adverse events.” 

One of the participants in the trial was 13-year-old Maddie De Garay. She was randomly assigned to the vaccine group and following her first injection, Ms De Garay suffered a severe adverse reaction, leaving her in a wheelchair and fed by a nasogastric tube. 

 

Maddie De Garay and her mother
Maddie De Garay and her mother

 

She was referred to hospital for a full assessment and a doctor diagnosed Ms De Garay with a “functional disorder”. 

Put simply, this doctor decided that a pre-disposition to “hysteria,” was to blame for her physical disability - not the vaccine - and on this basis, she was referred to a mental health facility.

Dr David Healy, a psychiatrist based in Ontario, Canada, subsequently conducted a thorough review of Ms De Garay’s medical records, including an interview with her family and found no such history of pre-existing conditions or mental illness.

 

Dr David Healy, Psychiatrist
Dr David Healy, Psychiatrist

 

“This trial designation is not just wrong, but quite unbelievable,” said Dr Healy who feared that the erroneous diagnosis would jeopardise Ms De Garay’s treatment and progress.

“It is perhaps even sociopathic as it appears that, in order to maintain Pfizer’s position, this young woman is not getting the treatment that would be ordinarily indicated for the kind of problems she has. Instead based on a claimed ‘functional disorder’, she has been directed to a mental health facility,” said Dr Healy.

“If there is any chance that you have a pre-existing condition, then they do not blame the vaccine,” he says. “And so they can claim there were no serious vaccine-related events because they do not believe her reaction was 'vaccine-related'. It is quite unbelievable.”

Dr Healy says he has seen it before - in Study 329 - which looked at antidepressants (SSRIs) in children and adolescents. A 15-year-old boy was dropped from the trial after being diagnosed with an “intercurrent illness”.

It was only by chance, that later, Dr Healy found out that the trial participant developed homicidal behaviours two weeks after taking the SSRI, which Dr Healy says was almost certainly induced by the drug. 

But because the young boy was diagnosed with an “intercurrent illness” in the trial, it meant that the investigators did not have to write up a narrative explaining why this patient was dropped from the trial.  

In AstraZeneca’s Phase III trial of its vaccine, the one in which Brianne Dressen was a participant, the study stated

“Deaths that were adjudicated as not related to Covid-19 were treated as intercurrent events and therefore censored at the date of death.”

Dr Healy said, “This may well be a sink-hole into which deaths from the vaccine have vanished. Patients with strokes, heart attacks or thrombotic events may have all vanished here, the justification being that they must have had a dodgy heart or another pre-existing [or intercurrent] illness.”

Failure to count deaths

When publishing deaths in the AstraZeneca trial for example, investigators excluded any deaths that occurred immediately after the first dose of the vaccine, up to 14 days after the second dose of the vaccine.

In other words: 1) first injection, 2) wait for three weeks before having second injection, 3) wait a further two weeks. That is a total of five weeks where deaths were not published. 

The investigators say it is because participants are not “fully immune” until two weeks after their second dose. That is true. 

However, ignoring deaths in that five-week period fails to capture any deaths that might be caused by the vaccine. 

Dr Healy was very critical of this method of data collection.

“Randomised controlled trials are not supposed to allow decisions like this. All deaths should be reported. The company can say that they do not think the deaths were caused by the vaccine, but we need a chance to know how many there were and decide if these need further investigation,” said Dr Healy.

It is important to know what happens in that five week gap because real world data obtained from the CDC (as at 25 June 2021) shows that the majority of reported deaths after a Covid-19 vaccine, occur within 30 days.

This surveillance data cannot establish a causal link with the vaccine, but the signal is considered significant, especially if deaths are not being captured in the controlled trials.

 

 

rs=w:1280

 

 

The lesson from “controlled trials”

Data about the safety of vaccines are just as important as the efficacy, although, the media and public health officials often focus on the latter.

So far, reports of serious, life-threatening adverse events linked to the vaccines have not been found in the “gold standard” controlled trials. They were only detected once hundreds of thousands of people had been vaccinated.

Myocarditis, for example, only emerged from Israel once they started rolling out the Pfizer vaccine to the population.  And reports of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) linked with the AstraZeneca vaccine first emerged from European surveillance systems, not controlled trials.

If all Covid-19 vaccine trials are funded, designed, conducted, and analysed by the manufacturers - which is known to distort the results to favour the sponsor’s aims - then more should be done to gain access to the data to allow for independent scrutiny.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animal Spirits

Nordea's latest research note has been removed from the website and the authors have been suspended according to Bloomberg/Reuters reporting.

Image

Link to full copy still available on the web archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211124005013/https://corporate.nordea.com/article/69942/nordea-weekly-papers-please-and-how-to-trade-them

Edited by Animal Spirits
  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Animal Spirits said:

Nordea's latest research note has been removed from the website and the authors have been suspended according to Bloomberg/Reuters reporting.

Image

Link to full copy still available on the web archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211124005013/https://corporate.nordea.com/article/69942/nordea-weekly-papers-please-and-how-to-trade-them

foolish way to write a public note.  They could have done the same thing in a much more deniable way./

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...