Bristol, May 2024
At a recent meeting of the Bristol Medico-Chirurgical Society the GMC employment liaison officer for the SW of England was asked why the GMC curtails free speech between doctors and patients. He denied this was the case but then added that “Of course you can’t just allow doctors to say what they want over things like vaccines.” There was a howl of protest from the doctors, and he tried to backpedal on his statement but it was too late. The GMC viewpoint was clear… despite treating no patients and having no knowledge about Covid vaccinations, the ex-civil servants of the GMC would not permit worried doctors to speak out about their concerns.
So why do these doctors want to have their say about the gene therapy masquerading as vaccination that is still being foisted onto the public? It is the experience that they have had of bad reactions to these ‘vaccines’. These reactions are so common that almost anyone you chat to, can tell you a story about someone they know who suffered. These range from nasty flu-like symptoms and increased incidence of infections post-vaccination, through arthritis to sudden death in otherwise healthy individuals.
Perhaps some of this is hearsay or gossip, but much we have experienced ourselves, and one thing we have certainly noticed is the distinct lack of activity by the authorities who should be examining the situation. In the past it was de rigueur for a post-mortem and an enquiry to be carried out for every suspicious death within a short time of any medical intervention. This is no longer the case and when suspicion of vaccine harm is raised it is more than likely that the doctor raising the alarm will be disciplined for speaking out of turn. Despite myocarditis being a known side effect of the covid vaccine for more than 2 years, there are zero guidelines for pathologists when doing a post mortem in a sudden death of a vaccinated person. Since the covid “vaccinations” are experimental and previously untried in human beings, the pharmaceutical firms, regulators and the government should be keeping a very close watch on all the harmful effects and continuing this vigilance over a period of some years. This does not appear to be the case.
That there is a problem is clear from the government’s own massaged figures showing far more adverse reactions than from any conventional vaccine. And yet the Covid Inquiry has delayed the session on vaccines.
For the “vaccines” to be good science, they should be testable. The test of a vaccine must include the cost/benefit analysis. The benefits are usually obvious: the recipient should no longer be susceptible to the infection and they should not pass it on to other people. The costs include the monetary expense incurred but also the potential harm to the person who is vaccinated.
In the case of the Covid vaccinations the benefits have become blurred. Initially it was hoped that the vaccine would convey protection for a long period of time but even the official UK Health Security Agency states that the protection wanes very quickly. The figures are incomplete and vague, but Pfizer and AstraZeneca appear to have waned in protecting against symptomatic infection down to about 20% by four months and at six months the protection becomes negative, the recipient becoming more likely to be infected than the controls! The agency provides no information about mortality or transmission citing insufficient data. The UK is usually a frontrunner with information of this kind due to its nature as a nationalised health system. Do other countries have better information? The Florida administration has been condemned by pundits for suspending inoculations for the 18-35 years group. But given the lack of information about efficacy and in light of the knowledge of side-effects the Florida Department of Health would appear to be taking a sensible position.
The vast majority of people in the UK have come in contact with Covid-19 and have some natural immunity. Adding extra boosters increases the risk of developing reactions and interfering with the natural immunity whilst even possibly driving the emergence of new variants. The time has come in the UK for a moratorium on the Covid-19 vaccine programme.
The debate is difficult. Doctors against vaccination have been struck off or suspended when they have spoken out or refused to take part in the vaccination programme whilst those in favour have received vitriol online. That is not how science can progress. Pfizer wanted the data on reactions to be kept secret for many decades. If the vaccines cannot be tested, they are not science, they are simply untested and potentially dangerous technology.
This statement from concerned healthcare staff shows the bravery and deep compassion of the people taking part. They are in danger of losing their employment and damaging their futures but still they feel obliged to register their concern.
Read on but do so with an open mind and please ignore the propaganda fed to you by the government.
Professor Paul R Goddard, BSc (pharmacology), MBBS, MD, FRCR, FBIR, FHEA
Leave a Reply