📢 GUINEA PIG BRITAIN: the UK Government cannot censor the fact that it expects a 'high volume of adverse events' from Pfizer's SARS-COV-2 RNA vaccine.

by Dr Kevin P Corbett MSc PhD

The Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protocol says Phase 3 is 24 months duration:

https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

As Phase 3 outcomes are NOT available at the present time (13 Nov 2020) should this vaccine be 'rolled out' in the UK before that data has been collected/analysed/reported/peer reviewed/published? 

Many would argue no but few will say so in public. 

Many more should publicly argue no.

The UK Government is well aware of these issues and the potential serious and adverse medical problems arising. In advance of this 'rollout' they have put out tenders and already agreed contracts for Artificial Intelligence systems to pick up adverse events (see below).

The UK Government knows they will be culpable legally: in one Government tender they explicitly refer to "EXTREME URGENCY" and "HIGH VOLUME OF EXPECTED ADVERSE EVENTS". They are trying to cover their backsides.

So why aren't the UK population being explicitly told of these very real dangers?

Are the public mere experimental guinea pigs?

Who would take this vaccine knowing the clinical significance of the wording in the UK Government's tender document (see below)?

There is media denigration of those people speaking out on these very important health and human rights issues who are then being most wrongfully and criminally labelled as 'antivax', 'pseudscientists' and most recently as 'dangerous'.   

You won't find much detailed critique of the Pfizer vaccine in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Mirror or any other mass circulation UK newspapers. You certainly will not see such mentioned on the BBC or Sky.

Yet all of these channels should be covering these issues. When one tries to raise them in those media one gets nowhere, fast.

They are too busy slandering and libeling those of us who speak truth to power in front of the public. Like Kate Shemirani, who was arrested in front of me for speaking out on these issues in public by a terrorist crack team of London's Metropolitan Police.

Whilst detained by the police Shemirani's house was searched (warrant said: 'for antivax material') and subsequently, although never charged, through the post she received two harsh 10,000 GBP fines, all of which have no underpinning in law, yet must, and certainly will be, fully rebutted through the courts.

To compound insult to injury, the Metropolitan Police almost certainly leaked her personal details to some despicable BBC World hacks who subsequently proceeded to enlist one of her disaffected family members in a libelous 'anti-vax' 'anti-conspiracy theory' expose.

This evil targeting happened most likely because Shemirani spoke out cogently against the Government line on 'Covid', 'Vaccination' and '5G' and because, most importantly, she is a nurse therapist who treated her cancer using non-allopathic approaches, has a phenomenally attractive persona, demonstrable leadership ability and an enormously popular public following. This is a very dangerous cocktail for a government of science illiterate politicians who are overly concerned about igniting an effective political rebellion or worried that such could even be very near. Remember Brexit? Remember the Berlin Wall?

The UK Government's 'science' approach to the so-called 'novel' Coronavirus, 'SARS-CoV-2', and its hastily cobbled together 'new' disease category, termed 'Covid19', is a house-of-cards-built-on-sand.

Furthermore, this pernicious, insidious, blatant censorship and targeting which we are now experiencing is not just coming from the mainstream media who - like those in government they obey - are little more than science illiterates. It is also coming from what I call 'saloon door' journalists.

Saloon-door journalism buckles under the perceived power of corporate-funded and government-approved biomedicine. This is especially noticeable when those journalists confront their interviewees who may wear physicians' white coats or be titled 'Professor'. These journalists may then buckle to the Covid19 propaganda as they have no real science grammar with which to critique the pure propaganda they are being fed.

It happened most recently when one ex BBC journalist starting promoting mask wearing after an interview with a 'professor' and without knowing that the Government SAGE group never advocated mask wearing. This was proved with Tilbrook's Judicial Review. Advocating mask wearing was a political move initiated solely by the UK Government, part of their CoronaHysteria PsyOp.

This is the real problem when our journalists are science illiterate, and wouldn't know a research design if they fell over it in daylight. So they cannot critique the basis upon which the so-called 'facts' are created then spoon fed into their gullible ears by the 'experts'. Or even be aware that (as Jacques Ellul said) modern science is often no more than just propaganda. This year we have seen so much of that with the 'novel' Coronavirus.

There is also speculation within the 'so-called' 'critical' or 'sceptical' media that reflects a discourse which near normalises the notion that criticising vaccination can be rationalised as somehow 'dangerous'. (What about all the Government PsyOp advertising and propaganda that we have had to put up with this year's CoronaHysteria?)

For example, London's Lockdown Sceptics has reported a call for a new Act of Parliament, coming from the British Academy and the Royal Society, to criminalise those who publicly question Government's health diktats so making us liable for arrest, prosecution and jailing.

The spurious argument for this Stalinist (or is it Maoist?) move that is parroted totally ignores any concept of consent in healthcare practice. It wrongly presumes 'dangerousness' to the public health as stemming from a evidence-based critique of (vaccine) science and an exercise of one's right of refusal to subscribe to allopathic medicine and/or vaccinate. Benefit the Volk. Suppress the Individual. Our Chinafication. It then most spuriously moves quickly along to 'containment' of these 'dangerous' views (as if an 'infectious virus') by enacting more and more draconian diktats in order to 'protect' the public good: https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/11/11/latest-news-190/#royal-society-calls-for-anti-vaxxers-to-be-jailed

Let us hope that some media and journalists are more than 'saloon doors', and will not swing with the official propaganda tide when, or if, the authorities hammer home any further attempts to legislate against freedom of expression and scientific integrity.

There needs to be mobilisation to ensure journalists do not buckle so as to maintain space(s) for expression and publication. Yet why is there is no broad front emerging in the UK of pro bono lawyers willing to support those already facing draconian and illegal arrests/fines for appearing at rallies and telling the scientific truth directly to the public?

We all benefited in the UK from pro bono legal advice with the Greenham Common, Anti-Apartheid and the Miners' Strike protests? So why is this not happening now in the UK? Are the anti-lockdown protests somehow a bridge-too-far for our legal profession to cross? Do we have to have deaths at one of these rallies for members of our legal profession to wake up and see our rights are going down the drain and to duly offer us proper legal services and advice before we speak truth to power and then get arrested like Kate Shemirani? 

The British Army have been mobilised into UK cities as I write this to coerce testing of schoolchildren and teachers e.g. in both Birmingham and Liverpool. 

This is more than Boris Johnson's typical bluster as it sends out a special message to the populace of an 'emergency' underway thus coercing public compliance visibly through the physical presence of uniformed officers swabbing, processing and 'caring'. 

Other cities are now planned for 'door-to-door' promotion of testing and the 'deployment' of crack teams to 'distribute' the vaccine. This fulfils the Government promise to mobile Army units in order to 'rollout' the vaccine alongside our relatively well remunerated General Practitioners who will receive a further special financial incentive to give these jabs to their asymptomatic so-called 'patients'. 

In the above I am borrowing from some information given to me by Dr Janet Menage (UK) who has written a British MedicaJ Journal Rapid Response on the topic of the above cited Government tender: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4258/rr

Dr Menage notes that Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority now seems to be really the MHPA i.e. a Products rather than Regulatory.

Dr Menage also points out to the Ted-tenders electronic daily: Supplement to the Official Journal of the EU details a contract negotiated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (MHRA), dated 14.9.20 (1).

Dr Menage further points us to this statement in the tender: “The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed”. [my emphasis]

Dr Menage finally points to this explanatory statement in the tender: “For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool…… it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health”.  [my emphasis]

Please click on the link below to see how the UK Government knows this Pfizer vaccine is dangerous and how they expect it to cause morbidity and mortality:

(1)    https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0