Many of our readers will be aware of the claims of a rise in cancers since the vaccine rollout, particularly among the young. Last week we published an article discussing the scientific rationale why a rise in cancers might be expected after the vaccine rollout. The data published by the UK on this topic is contradictory but data from around the world is signifying there is a genuine problem.
News
Covid-19 Response and Excess Deaths
On 18th April, Andrew Bridgen finally secured a full length debate on this vexed topic, the original text of which is available here. Full length in theory, but shortly before the debate was due to begin, the deputy Speaker told him he only had 15 minutes instead of the 30 minutes he had prepared. After a complaint to the Speaker’s office the compromise was 20 minutes.
Book Review – Will Ellsworth-Jones’ We Will Not Fight (2008)
Like with so much history that is shrouded by the mists of time, the detailed tales of the thousands of British men who refused to fight in the First World War make for fascinating reading. These conscientious objectors came from all walks of life – socialists, communists, pacifists, Quakers, Jehovah’s witnesses, Methodists, the Bloomsbury Set – and found a unity of purpose in their protest, allowing them – for a time being at least – to put aside quite substantial ideological differences.
Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths
You can watch the entire debate on Parliamentary TV archives, Timestamp: 14:33:25. Click on this Timestamp from the pull down menu on the righthand side of the web page.
Have people died from ‘long covid’?
The deniers of vaccine harm have only two ways of addressing the excess death problem. They either deny that it exists or try to blame it on covid or ‘long covid’. HART have previously addressed why covid is not an adequate explanation for the problem because the timing of the non-covid excess has been synchronous in places that had no significant covid until 2022.
Cancer concerns
The covid vaccines skipped safety testing for cancer risk. Pfizer said genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and biodistribution studies were “not considered necessary.” Even while their trial info sheet said “Due to the urgent need for a vaccine against Covid-19, with agreement from the MHRA, some of the tests usually required for a newly manufactured vaccine have been modified, in order to make the vaccine available more quickly for assessment.”
Censorship & persecution of dissident voices continues across the world
Those who, like the members of HART, have been speaking out for three or four years about the perils of lockdowns, the lack of access to proper medical care and the utter debacle of the unsafe and ineffective vaccines, keep hoping the tide is turning. But for every stone upturned another boulder seems to descend to crush the truth.
What authority would scare and shame an already frightened population?
In the knowledge that people are already in a state of heightened anxiety, what government would choose to further frighten and shame them? When citizens have amended their lifestyles in order to function under difficult circumstances, what government would seek to actively disrupt these necessary and understandable adaptations?
Have the MHRA admitted causation for any vaccine harm?
The MHRA are far too slow to react to harm and admit causation. There is a history here. When the 2009 swine flu vaccine caused narcolepsy the UK institutions were very slow to react. It was Scandinavian countries who highlighted the problem in 2010. That year the MHRA were measuring for other effects but not narcolepsy. In 2011, they said they needed to await epidemiological studies. It took until 2013 before Public Health England admitted a problem in the UK.
Medical Ethics have gone AWOL…again!!
Regular HART readers may remember last summer, we highlighted problems with a trial of a new Moderna mRNA booster which was recruiting in the US and the UK including healthy children from 12 years upwards. A letter was sent by the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council, signed by 125 health professionals and academics, to the CEOs and Chairmen of the 35 UK centres involved, pointing out the emotionally charged recruitment leaflet, the lack of compliance with Helsinki Agreement, and even the offer of money to children on trial completion, in contravention of research governance guidance.
Pick of the Week: 29/03/2024
This week’s selection of articles 🔗 The Curious Case of Hydroxychloroquine: Professor Robert Clancy, Quadrant Online, 5th March 2024 This article is based on a talk Robert Clancy gave at a conference entitled “Medicine at the Crossroads in the Covid Era”. In seeking for a theme for his talk he decided, “few topics could be […]
When money and ethics collide
Last month, HART wrote an article on the spring booster programme, including linking to an article in Chemist+Druggist on the pending availability of private covid vaccines in pharmacies up and down the land. A company called Pharmadoctor was the first into the ring but has been followed by others including Boots, the oldest of the UK high street chemists, whose strapline on their website is: We serve your wellbeing for life.
A Letter to the CEO of Boots the Chemist
If the NHS does not advise giving a vaccine, how is it ethical to sell them? 27th March 2024 To: Sebastian James, CEO, Boots UK; Graham Thoms, CEO, Pharmadoctor Dear Mr James and Mr Thoms, Re: Private Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children I am writing to draw your attention urgently to the major breach of […]
The Smallpox vanishing Act
The primary beliefs of vaccinology are that it is possible to educate the immune system to protect against disease, that vaccines are safe and that smallpox was eradicated. It is quite possible to be very confident about the first points and still be able to question the evidence for the last one.
BIT Coining it – The private profiteering of state-sponsored propaganda
Once upon a time (2010 to be precise), somewhat unexpectedly in a Rose Garden in Westminster, a bromance blossomed. The honeymoon couple – call them Cameron and Clegg – fell out of love in short order, but the unhappy union limped on for a fixed term of five years and a day, during which time many a policy decision was made that was neither fish nor fowl, neither blue nor yellow.
