All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

[dutchman]

Just had a second letter from my GP's surgery asking me to book a vaccination against this imaginary illness, the same surgery which is apparently 'too busy' to see patients who may have a genuine medical problem.

[rebbonk]

I had one yesterday. Straight in the bin!

[rebbonk]

[dutchman]

[dutchman]

People harmed by Covid jab to tell of ‘devastating results’



Coronavirus vaccines went “horrifically wrong” for many people after the government told the public they must have the jab, the Covid Inquiry will hear on Tuesday.

The fourth module in the ongoing inquiry is looking into the development of Covid-19 vaccines and the implementation of the rollout programme.

In opening statements on Tuesday, representatives of those harmed will tell Lady Justice Hallett [pictured] that the “devastating results” could have been prevented if the government had acted sooner to warn people of the dangers.

Latest figures show more than 17,500 people have applied to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS), believing that they – or their loved ones – have been injured by the jabs.

However, there have only been 188 payouts so far, with hundreds of people rejected for “not being disabled enough”.

Kate Scott, of Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK (VIBUK), one of the inquiry’s core participants, whose husband Jamie was injured by the AstraZeneca jab, said: “It is still an uncomfortable truth for many, but vaccine injury and death are very sadly a part of the pandemic story.

“Every vaccine-injured or bereaved person in our group stepped forward and had the vaccination as the government asked us to do, but it went horrifically wrong for us and our families and caused devastating results.”

The majority of successful vaccine harm claims relate to the AstraZeneca jab, which was found to induce vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT), a dangerous type of blood clotting which can be fatal.

The mRNA jabs, such as Pfizer and Moderna, have also been linked to increases in heart problems.

Many countries across Europe halted the AstraZeneca rollout in 2020 after noticing a rise in adverse reactions, particularly in younger people, but critics claim Britain was slow to act.

Kelly Hatfield, of VIBUK, whose father Kenneth Purnell died after an adverse reaction to the vaccine, said: “We trusted the government, we trusted the science and have suffered devastating consequences.

“Families like mine have been ignored for too long. It’s time for accountability and reform.”

Currently, the VDPS only offers a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000 to people who have been severely injured – but only if they reach the level of 60 per cent “disablement”.

VIBUK said it was seeking immediate reform of the VDPS and that a “fair and adequate compensation scheme is essential to support people who took something the state told them was safe and effective”.

They are also asking for the Government to acknowledge the “real and lasting impact” of vaccine injuries.

Gareth Eve, of Co Durham, who lost his wife Lisa aged 44, said: “The impact of losing my wife and son’s mother Lisa is immeasurable and impossible to put into words.

“She was my best friend, teammate and soulmate. Life is incredibly lonely, sad and hard without her by my side. The way vaccine injured and bereaved have been consistently ignored and gaslighted only adds to the pain.”

Halina and Antony Reid, of Leeds, whose son Alex died from VITT at just 28 years old, added: “Our son’s death from the AstraZeneca vaccine has left us broken, devastated and childless.”

UKCVFamily, which also has core status at the inquiry, said it planned to release hundreds of case studies of people harmed by the jabs.

Founder Charlet Crichton, who was permanently injured by the vaccine, said: “We are looking forward to finally having the opportunity for our voices to be heard by Baroness Hallett and the Covid Inquiry team so that the neglect and mistreatment of those impacted by the vaccines will never happen again.”

[rebbonk]

U.K. government knew vaccine injuries were expected

* The U.K. government was aware of the potential for serious injuries caused by Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccines before their approval, anticipating indemnity costs ranging from £75 billion to £300 billion.

* The vaccines were not subjected to the usual rigorous, long-term clinical trials, with officials justifying this through an "emergency" rationale, raising concerns about the haste and potential harm.

* Unlike the U.S., the U.K. did not grant pharmaceutical companies full statutory immunity, allowing for potential civil claims and even criminal liability under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).

* The ECCTA introduces new measures for holding large organizations criminally liable for fraudulent activities, including failing to prevent illegal promotion of drugs or misrepresentation of safety data.

* The article emphasizes the need for a full investigation into the decisions made during the pandemic, highlighting the importance of holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions and ensuring transparency and justice.

In a shocking revelation that has sent shockwaves through the U.K., former Secretary of State Alok Sharma has admitted that the government was fully aware of the potential for serious injuries caused by Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccines before they were approved for public use. Documents presented at the ongoing Covid Inquiry reveal that the government anticipated indemnity costs ranging from £75 billion ($92.36 billion) to a staggering £300 billion ($369.3 billion) to cover vaccine-related injuries. This admission raises serious questions about the ethics of mandating these experimental injections, particularly for children, and the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry’s claims of safety and efficacy.

The £1.7 billion bill: A calculated risk

The Covid Inquiry has laid bare the cold, hard truth: the U.K. government knew that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, rushed through regulatory approval under unprecedented timelines, carried significant risks. According to internal documents, the government estimated a worst-case scenario of £1.7 billion ($2.1 billion) in payouts for vaccine injuries. While this figure pales in comparison to the £300 billion upper limit discussed in initial negotiations with Pfizer, it underscores the fact that officials were well aware of the potential for harm.

The Telegraph reported that the vaccines were not subjected to the rigorous, long-term clinical trials typically required for such medical interventions. This lack of thorough testing was justified under the guise of an “emergency,” but the consequences of this haste are now coming to light. As Mike Fairclough, Britain’s most outspoken headmaster, aptly noted on social media, it was “pure evil” to expose children to such unnecessary risks.

No full immunity: A silver lining for accountability?

Unlike the United States, where pharmaceutical companies were granted full statutory immunity from civil claims, the U.K. government pushed back against Pfizer’s initial demand for complete legal protection. This decision means that, in the U.K., pharmaceutical companies can still be held liable for vaccine-related injuries.

This is a critical distinction. In the U.S., victims of vaccine injuries have little recourse, as pharmaceutical companies are shielded from lawsuits. In the U.K., however, the door remains open for civil claims, and under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), companies can even face criminal liability if they fail to prevent fraudulent activities related to their products.

Fraudulent activities, as defined by the ECCTA, include illegal promotion of drugs, failure to report safety data and manufacturing violations. If it can be proven that Pfizer or other vaccine manufacturers knowingly misrepresented the safety and efficacy of their products, they could face severe legal consequences.

The ECCTA: A new era of corporate accountability

The ECCTA, which came into force in October 2023, represents a significant shift in how corporate fraud is addressed in the United Kingdom. Under Section 199 of the Act, large organizations can be held criminally liable if they fail to implement “reasonable prevention procedures” to stop fraudulent acts committed by individuals associated with them.

The government’s guidance on the ECCTA, published in November 2024, outlines six key principles for businesses to follow:

1. Top-level commitment: Senior management must lead the charge in developing and endorsing fraud prevention measures.

2. Risk assessment: Companies must identify and document potential risks, including opportunities, motivations and rationalizations for fraud.

3. Proportionate prevention procedures: Measures must be tailored to the specific risks faced by the organization.

4. Due diligence: Companies must conduct thorough checks on individuals and entities performing services on their behalf.

5. Communication and training: Policies and procedures must be clearly communicated and reinforced through training.

6. Monitoring and review: Prevention measures must be regularly updated to reflect evolving risks.

For pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, this means that any failure to disclose known risks or misrepresentation of data could result in criminal prosecution. The guidance makes it clear that what constitutes “reasonable” prevention procedures will be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

A call for justice and transparency

The revelations from the Covid Inquiry are a damning indictment of the government’s handling of the pandemic and its partnership with Big Pharma. The fact that officials were willing to gamble with public health, particularly that of children, for the sake of expediency is nothing short of scandalous.

Natural health advocates have long warned against the dangers of rushed medical interventions and the overreach of pharmaceutical companies. This latest development underscores the importance of holding these corporations accountable for their actions. The ECCTA provides a glimmer of hope, but only if it is enforced rigorously and without bias.

The public deserves transparency, accountability and justice. It is time for a full reckoning of the decisions made during the pandemic and the harm caused by those who placed profit over people. The truth must come to light, and those responsible must be held to account.

Source: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-01-27-uk-government-knew-vaccine-injuries-were-expected.html

[rebbonk]

The truth is slowly coming out...

Chris Whitty was ‘sceptical’ about mandatory Covid jabs for healthcare workers
Decision was ‘100 per cent a political one’, Chief Medical Officer for England tells inquiry

Professor Sir Chris Whitty has told a public inquiry he was “sceptical” about making Covid vaccines mandatory for healthcare workers.

The Chief Medical Officer for England told the Covid Inquiry the decision to implement the mandate was “100 per cent a political one”.

Care home workers were mandated to be vaccinated against Covid-19 from November 2021 and were among the first to be given the jabs during the original rollout.

However, this scheme, known as vaccination as a condition of deployment (VCOD), was controversial. Proposals to widen the scheme to include all healthcare workers were later abandoned and the need for care home staff to be jabbed was lifted in 2022.

Prof Whitty said such a decision was a balance between the risk of having a vulnerable person cared for by someone who may pass on an infection to them and respecting a person’s own autonomy.

“There’s a range of opinions on this and for what it’s worth – but I don’t think it’s worth very much – I’m rather more sceptical than some people that this is a good idea, but that’s a view as a citizen,” Prof Whitty told the inquiry.

He added that as a doctor he had several opinions on why mandatory vaccination had some advocates.

These include that it is already enshrined into law that a person who is a risk to others can not do certain jobs, such as a lorry driver with epilepsy; doctors already have a “medical responsibility” as outlined by the General Medical Council’s guidance for doctors to protect patients from you giving them diseases, which explicitly includes vaccination; and historically some doctors with certain infections would not be able to do certain procedures.

Prof Whitty told the inquiry that the Covid mandatory jab ruling, therefore, was not novel but was still controversial.

“Every drug and vaccine has side effects, and some of those may be rare, but still severe, and that has to be taken into account in the decisions that are taken about mandation,” he added.

“I was sometimes worried that people were just thinking, ‘people should just get vaccinated. What’s the problem?’

“And my view is that this is a medical procedure, and, more importantly, there will be side effects and they may well be rare around serious and that is an important part of the balance of risk.”

Prof Whitty added that mandatory vaccination “has not got a very happy history” and pointed to the example of compulsory smallpox vaccination of children in 19th-century England, which led to a decline in vaccine uptake and the world’s first “anti-vax” movement.

Prof Whitty said: “Smallpox is an example, and, in my view, what happened after mandation [of the coronavirus vaccine] in the social care system in England, I think probably will be added to that catalogue.

“But then the arguments on the other side are perfectly strong ones and if your own relative died from Covid and you knew that they caught you from someone who chose not to get vaccinated, I think you would have a strong view in the other direction.

“I accept, obviously, as a citizen, this is a balanced and difficult decision, but I just think it’s important that the medical facts are in front of people, including the side effects, as part of that balance of decision.”

Professor Dame Jenny Harries, CEO of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and a deputy Chief Medical Officer in the early phases of the coronavirus pandemic, also had reservations about mandatory vaccination, it emerged.

In an email sent on Feb 15, 2021, Dame Jenny said she was “quite outspoken” on the mandatory vaccination policy.

“I am hugely supportive of getting care homes protected, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this policy is going to result in more benefit than harm,” she wrote in the email, shown to the inquiry.

‘Hugely risky’

She added at the time that her own “gut feeling” was that this was a “hugely risky” endeavour as it could lead to “potential racial antagonism” because many carers in critical areas are from “minority ethnic backgrounds”.

Speaking to the inquiry on Monday, she said she was “leaning away” from the mandatory vaccination policy at the time in her personal opinion.

“That was one of many views at the time and there were many good logical reasons, which I also understood, for why you would want to maximally protect a care home immediately,” she added.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/20/chris-whitty-sceptical-mandatory-covid-jabs-care-workers/