I’ve not written much on pandemic-related issues recently, though being aware of the risk of “putting the bad times behind” that is now so obvious in daily life. It’s so tempting to try to forget the whole thing, but so dangerous… a bit like the Vietnam War or Iraq really.
I have commented occasionally on the twilight-world that attitude has produced, in which almost nobody takes any precautions against respiratory infections (no windows open in church when it’s cold this winter, and scarcely a mask in sight), but if somebody sneezes once they go into self-isolation for a couple of weeks “just in case.” In some instances they have kept on testing at home, and go into isolation when, because of booster-suppressed immunity, they regularly test positive for COVID, with or without symptoms… or even if they meet someone who tests positive without symptoms.
And yet nobody wants to talk about these inconsistencies, because (I suppose) they remember the nightmare of the last three years, and know in their hearts that something was very wrong about the response. Besides, it would take them forever to distinguish emerging truth from the recycled lies. Before, they didn’t want to discuss it with me because they thought I was wrong, and now because they know I was right. I’m an embarrassment either way. “It is more blessed to be average than right.”
But one article has prompted me, for some reason, to put the kettle back on the hob. It was this one from Norman Fenton’s Substack.
Fenton and Martin Neil have already responded to the BBC’s hatchet job on MP Andrew Bridgen’s recent parliamentary speech about vaccine damage. This adjournment debate was of so little interest to politicians that both sides of the House, in their sparse entirety, walked out as it started, apparently marshalled by a shifty Uniparty MP. Only the Speaker and the couple of individuals required by protocol remained to hear Bridgen summarise a number of research papers pointing to vaccine damage, and calling for a proper investigation. This was of course refused by the Government Minister amidst “safe and effective” waffle and claims that the vaccines had saved “tens of thousands of lives” in Britain. You will appreciate the total irrelevance of a preventative drug’s successes if it also kills a few hundred healthy individuals. Even thalidomide worked well for most people.
The BBC’s hour-long follow up “discussion” of this unattended debate said many bad things about Bridgen and his misuse of the research from a biased panel, even as Bridgen himself was on the phone to a BBC apparatchik stating his willingness and availability to take part in the programme to respond, but being refused. Amongst other things, Fenton and Neil’s response pointed out the irony that when one speaker mentioned Greta Thunberg, he was shut down “because Thunberg is not here to respond.”
Anyway, in the present substack, Fenton posts comments from the lead author of the main paper Bridgen cited, which he was said to have misrepresented. Here is Dr Joe Fraiman’s YouTube statement:
So the BBC deliberately suppressed the fact that Bridgen was not misrepresenting the science, by misrepresenting and suppressing the very scientist who performed it.
Incidentally they seem also to have suppressed Dr Fraiman’s rebuttal of the Health Minister’s unsubstantiated claim of tens of thousands of lives saved by vaccines. Using the JCVI’s own data on the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one admission, fewer than 9,000 admissions have been prevented by the vaccines. That’s assuming 100% vaccination rate, which of course is false. And those of us who followed the ONS stats during the COVID period will remember what a small proportion (allegedly 25% according to the ONS summary) of patients admitted to hospital actually died of (or to be precise, with) COVID in the end. That makes fewer than 2,000 lives saved by vaccines, not “tens of thousands.”
Consider, by comparison, that by February 2022, over a year ago, about 2,000 deaths after vaccination had already been reported by the Yellow Card system. That attribution is no more reliable than the attribution of hospital deaths to COVID, of course… but the difference is that the Yellow Card system is known to underestimate actual prevalence by one or two orders of magnitude.
So we have the Government, and the entire political class in Parliament, and its mouthpiece the BBC, and the rest of the press, and the ONS, and the “official” medical and scientific communities, all taking active steps to silence the scientific evidence about vaccine side effects. Perhaps they’re all acting independently, but from the effect it might just as well be a conspiracy. How can one put it both politely and without exaggeration? Our Establishment, from top to bottom, is comprehensively lying to us about a matter that concerns us all personally.
The purpose? One might conjecture that the Government is loath to pay out compensation for those who have died or been permanently injured by the mRNA con-shots. But I read today that, conservatively, at least £21billion was lost to fraud over the course of the pandemic, and that excludes tens, or hundred, of billions more simply wasted on ineffective measures like masks, mass-testing, furlough payments, and all the rest of it.
As of last month the Government had paid out only £4million under the vaccine damage scheme, which in any case only compensates those with an arbitrary 60% disablement to the tune of £120,000. For the amount they have written off in fraudulent payments, they could have paid out 175,000 vaccine-damaged ordinary folk. If they hadn’t spent our money on NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine they could have compensated 38,000 more, and kept our national defence intact. And if they cancelled Net Zero I suspect they could give everyone in the country £120K and avoided a winter of strikes by the impoverished as well. Though most would rather they didn’t print the money in the first place, and so help limit inflation.
But just like the égalité of Macron’s infamous $80,000 disappearing watch compared to raising the French pension age and beating up protestors, or just like the environmentalists’ private jets compared to vaccine passports for a working-man’s budget week in Spain, so the British concept of “fair play” is now only seen in Victorian novels. And they’ve been cancelled for racism. Instead, we must simply parrot, “Vaccines are as safe as the Bank of England”… as we get our cash out as quickly as possible to buy gold.