“Is it now time for MHRA to be reformed and turned into a fully transparent, patient first regulator, as called for by the petition linked below?”
No. It is time for all the pathocrats responsible for approving, perpetrating and covering up this iatrogenic homicidal atrocity, wherever they may lurk across the UK and international medical industrial complexes - MHRA, NHS, GMC, CDC, FDA, WHO, GP clinics, civil service, government departments, foreign and domestic NGOs, pharma HQs, mainstream media and much more - to be charged with corporate manslaughter, mass murder, crimes against humanity and conspiracy to commit genocide. Not least because “1400 reported deaths” is a fraction of total deaths and disabilities.
Any self-described industry watchdog, information resource or activist organisation suggesting or recommending anything less at this point in the timeline is taking a highly suspect position that should be viewed as complicit in a coverup and an accessorial liability to crime.
I just wanted to say, even as someone who’s understood this for a couple of years the beautiful simplicity of that stack was very, very powerful. To the extent I wish the whole country would be forced to read it.
(Simplicity is not to say it was easy to research or easy to write given the context, but the simple listing of historical fact and without superfluity was hard hitting)
As someone who has a wide reach, do you know why more of these petitions aren’t being initiated within the scientific community willing to speak out.
“E.g. given the prizer and murderna (sorry, just think it’s a good play on words) jabs were generally therapy, why wasn’t the issue of geneotoxicity testing done?”
It might end up with complicated questions, but think it would be a way to get some detailed discussions going in the house
Perhaps you could make an enquiry to Dr Ben Goldacre, Director of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford's Bennett Institute, which is backed by the Wellcome Trust? The Astra Zeneca product was after all developed by the University of Oxford's Jenner Institute:
This is a copy and paste from the substack of Jeff Childers, an American Lawyer.
" As I reported last week, Governor DeSantis’s Covid Grand Jury issued its first interim report. At the time, I said everyone should read it, but of course that isn’t possible or likely, so I’ll continue to highlight the most important and meaningful parts. Without argument, the most important disclosure in the report was its explanation of how the vaccine lie was perpetrated by the government — aided and abetted by a willing, sold-out media.
Of course you remember the phrase “safe and effective.” How could you forget? That phrase fueled every single vaccine mandate. Well … it was always a lie, even before they found out the shots didn’t work, right from the start, and the Grand Jury Report explained exactly how they did it.
This is critically-important: the federal agencies like the CDC and the FDA played a rhetorical shell game on America. And the corporate media helped them hide the definitional pea. First of all, when government officials called the vaccines “safe,” they were using a legal term of art.
In other words, when they said safe, they deceptively relied on a highly-subjective legal definition that doesn’t actually mean “safe” — but never said so.
Here’s how the Grand Jury Report explained it:
image.png
In other words, the vaccines were never considered “safe” in general. When Fauci said the jabs were safe, he meant they were “safe” compared to the relative risk posed by the virus (“relative freedom from harmful effect” and “the condition of the recipient”). All the CDC and FDA had to do was decide the virus was more deadly than the bubonic plague — which they did — and then virtually anything could be considered safe, no matter how risky it really was.
Even worse than helping the agencies mislead people with a legalistic definition of an everyday dictionary word, the media never even asked the agencies to explain the risk/reward matrix. So they got away with using a totally-subjective standard that wasn’t tied to anything — certainly not to anything scientific.
The media could have explained all this to us at the time, but they didn’t. They are pathetically useless and I hope every reporter who helped promote this lie gets fired.
So they can spend time in honest self-reflection, of course.
The term “effective” is nearly as bad. When the government said the vaccines were “effective,” they used a weasel definition for that word too. Legally speaking, the term “effectiveness” can be based on a regulatory determination arising from clinical trials, as you would expect, or from “other data.”
‘Other data’ is undefined.
There weren’t any clinical trials proving effictiveness — Pfizer never even tested for that. The regulators relied on “other data” to conclude the shots were effective. The media never asked the agencies to explain what their “other data” was that caused them to determine the vaccines were so “effective.” From the report, citing federal statute:
image 2.png
It was all wordplay, right from day one. They tricked us by secretly using a different definition for common dictionary words, a stealthy different definition than what we thought they meant. They will blame us for not knowing the legal meanings of those words and stupidly assuming they were using lay definitions. But they are experts, you see, so how can you expect them to speak plainly?
They got away with it last time. But now we know. They won’t get away with it any more. The term “safe and effective” has become a hissing and a byword."
If the Government can ignore a verdict from the International Court of Justice, how much attention are they going to pay to a petition with 4.5K signatures?
“Is it now time for MHRA to be reformed and turned into a fully transparent, patient first regulator, as called for by the petition linked below?”
No. It is time for all the pathocrats responsible for approving, perpetrating and covering up this iatrogenic homicidal atrocity, wherever they may lurk across the UK and international medical industrial complexes - MHRA, NHS, GMC, CDC, FDA, WHO, GP clinics, civil service, government departments, foreign and domestic NGOs, pharma HQs, mainstream media and much more - to be charged with corporate manslaughter, mass murder, crimes against humanity and conspiracy to commit genocide. Not least because “1400 reported deaths” is a fraction of total deaths and disabilities.
Any self-described industry watchdog, information resource or activist organisation suggesting or recommending anything less at this point in the timeline is taking a highly suspect position that should be viewed as complicit in a coverup and an accessorial liability to crime.
And they'd be getting off lightly at that..
Signed.
I just wanted to say, even as someone who’s understood this for a couple of years the beautiful simplicity of that stack was very, very powerful. To the extent I wish the whole country would be forced to read it.
(Simplicity is not to say it was easy to research or easy to write given the context, but the simple listing of historical fact and without superfluity was hard hitting)
As someone who has a wide reach, do you know why more of these petitions aren’t being initiated within the scientific community willing to speak out.
“E.g. given the prizer and murderna (sorry, just think it’s a good play on words) jabs were generally therapy, why wasn’t the issue of geneotoxicity testing done?”
It might end up with complicated questions, but think it would be a way to get some detailed discussions going in the house
Perhaps you could make an enquiry to Dr Ben Goldacre, Director of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford's Bennett Institute, which is backed by the Wellcome Trust? The Astra Zeneca product was after all developed by the University of Oxford's Jenner Institute:
https://warwickvegan.substack.com/p/bad-pharma
Re: 'Safe and Effective.'
This is a copy and paste from the substack of Jeff Childers, an American Lawyer.
" As I reported last week, Governor DeSantis’s Covid Grand Jury issued its first interim report. At the time, I said everyone should read it, but of course that isn’t possible or likely, so I’ll continue to highlight the most important and meaningful parts. Without argument, the most important disclosure in the report was its explanation of how the vaccine lie was perpetrated by the government — aided and abetted by a willing, sold-out media.
Of course you remember the phrase “safe and effective.” How could you forget? That phrase fueled every single vaccine mandate. Well … it was always a lie, even before they found out the shots didn’t work, right from the start, and the Grand Jury Report explained exactly how they did it.
This is critically-important: the federal agencies like the CDC and the FDA played a rhetorical shell game on America. And the corporate media helped them hide the definitional pea. First of all, when government officials called the vaccines “safe,” they were using a legal term of art.
In other words, when they said safe, they deceptively relied on a highly-subjective legal definition that doesn’t actually mean “safe” — but never said so.
Here’s how the Grand Jury Report explained it:
image.png
In other words, the vaccines were never considered “safe” in general. When Fauci said the jabs were safe, he meant they were “safe” compared to the relative risk posed by the virus (“relative freedom from harmful effect” and “the condition of the recipient”). All the CDC and FDA had to do was decide the virus was more deadly than the bubonic plague — which they did — and then virtually anything could be considered safe, no matter how risky it really was.
Even worse than helping the agencies mislead people with a legalistic definition of an everyday dictionary word, the media never even asked the agencies to explain the risk/reward matrix. So they got away with using a totally-subjective standard that wasn’t tied to anything — certainly not to anything scientific.
The media could have explained all this to us at the time, but they didn’t. They are pathetically useless and I hope every reporter who helped promote this lie gets fired.
So they can spend time in honest self-reflection, of course.
The term “effective” is nearly as bad. When the government said the vaccines were “effective,” they used a weasel definition for that word too. Legally speaking, the term “effectiveness” can be based on a regulatory determination arising from clinical trials, as you would expect, or from “other data.”
‘Other data’ is undefined.
There weren’t any clinical trials proving effictiveness — Pfizer never even tested for that. The regulators relied on “other data” to conclude the shots were effective. The media never asked the agencies to explain what their “other data” was that caused them to determine the vaccines were so “effective.” From the report, citing federal statute:
image 2.png
It was all wordplay, right from day one. They tricked us by secretly using a different definition for common dictionary words, a stealthy different definition than what we thought they meant. They will blame us for not knowing the legal meanings of those words and stupidly assuming they were using lay definitions. But they are experts, you see, so how can you expect them to speak plainly?
They got away with it last time. But now we know. They won’t get away with it any more. The term “safe and effective” has become a hissing and a byword."
If the Government can ignore a verdict from the International Court of Justice, how much attention are they going to pay to a petition with 4.5K signatures?