I’ve decided to publish a post from someone who posted on Facebook. The reason I’ve decided to do this is simple. The author and originator mirrors some of my thoughts and concerns and I think it’s worth spreading!
Last night, in my review of some of the sources and channels that I follow, I kept encountering the same video interview of you – the one that I have annexed to this post.
Having recently heard suggestions that you are considering making a comeback into British politics, I thought I would watch it and hear what you have to say. Your message was a simple one – “If you’re not vaccinated ….. you’re an idiot”
Link to video below;
When the whole Covid saga first started to develop, not knowing anything that I now know, I was in very much a ‘wait and see’ space. I have taken care of and been responsible for my own health for many years now. Having spent the last 25 years learning about energy, healing and consciousness, I trust myself and my own connection to the Infinite realms for healing. Subject to this, I pay regard to doctors. I admit that certain medical practices can work well, but the fact of the matter is that I rarely need the services of a doctor. I’m not on any medication despite being of an age where I’m lumped in with those who are considered to be ‘at risk’. I feel that who I am, what I have learnt, and the responsibility and care that I take for my own physical wellbeing, stands me in the best stead.
One of the most important lessons that I learned in my earlier years as a member of the Bar was the truth of the aphorism ‘act in haste repent at your leisure’. On countless occasions I had clients who came to me seeking an injunction who later regretted having obtained it. Over time, I learnt to steady them and go through the range of possible consequences of their intended actions with them – to see if there wasn’t a better way through than an emotionally charged reaction. This learning came to mind and so I didn’t rush to get a vaccine when they were first offered.
Of course we don’t exist as islands and many of us have others to take into consideration. My son, who lives in Brazil, became cross with me and expressed his frustration “at people who weren’t taking this thing seriously”. He insisted that everyone should take responsibility for informing themselves. So, in the end, I started down that perilous path.
I had heard that the proposed injections were experimental, so that was one of the first things that I looked into. I went to the UK Government’s website and looked to see what it said about the Astra Zeneca jab. When I saw that it contained – “Recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein. Produced in genetically modified human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells” – I have to say that every level of my being said a loud and clear ’No’. As I looked into things further, I discovered one thing after another that caused me to have grave misgivings about what was going on.
In those early days, these injections weren’t vaccines according to the longstanding definition of that term. The Cambridge English dictionary defined ‘vaccine’ as “a substance containing a virus or bacterium in a form that is not harmful given to a person or animal to prevent them getting the disease that the virus or bacterium causes.” I’m glad I kept a copy of that definition as I see that it has now been changed to “a substance that is put into the body of a person or animal to protect them from a disease by causing them to produce antibodies (=proteins that fight diseases)”. It doesn’t feel the same does it?
I am not competent to say whether or not the injections are more correctly described as gene therapies or bio-weapons but I have certainly seen these alternatives being asserted by a number of reputable scientists from different disciplines. I see that it is said by the fact checkers that they cannot be called gene therapy because they do not alter human DNA. Quite frankly, at this stage, I don’t know whether they do or they don’t alter DNA but I do know that I need to be able to trust and rely upon the person who says what they are and what they do. This is a major hurdle for me and one that I have been unable to get past.
It was clear to me that in agreeing to an injection I would be agreeing to allow my body to be penetrated and affected with the potential of long term consequences. It dawned on me that there was an obvious parallel to be drawn with intercourse. Am I the only woman to have experienced a man being less than honest in order to get what he wanted? (The sexual metaphors are indeed interesting to observe – I see the change of the definition of vaccine to be akin to self-declaring gender – ie. it’s a vaccine because we say it is.)
So, it became important to ask the question whether the other parties to the vaccination have anything to gain from the process? As the answer to that seemed in most cases to be yes, I realised that I would be well advised to follow the precept ‘caveat emptor’ (or, ‘buyer beware’).
This reinforced the importance of the original question – are the other parties to be trusted? Trust is something which is felt and I honestly didn’t have that feeling. I looked further to see whether there was good reason for my misgivings or whether they would be allayed by what I found.
I started to look further into the vaccines and discovered that the actual virus had not been isolated by anyone anywhere in the World. (More recently I’ve learnt that it still hasn’t – despite this having been an early stage requirement of what was considered the Pandemic Preparedness Plan prior to these events.) This is the basis for some people asserting that the virus doesn’t exist.
There are others who say that the virus does exist but it is not a naturally occurring virus and is the result of research by the Americans and/or the Chinese (what they call Gain of Function research – this is where we get into the territory of biowarfare and bioweapons). They say that the original SARS-CoV-2 virus is man-made and has been produced using a cloned monkey virus manufactured in the Vero monkey kidney cell line. There comes a point where these things go way beyond my simple understanding!
When I moved on to researching the coding that was common to all of the vaccines and used to encode the virus that may or may not have been identified, I found that everyone was using a code given to them that had been formulated in China. I was unable to establish whether or not there was any independent verification of this code, or any testing of what it did. When I realised that these injections were being given to airline and military personnel and security forces around the World, serious alarm bells rang. I would think most people know the story of Troy and of the Trojan horse. Why was no-one else raising this concern? Were they all in thrall to China? Or, in league with some greater global initiative? Or, were they simply negligent to a point that I would regard as criminal?
In considering the vaccine manufacturers, I might have felt comfortable with AstraZeneca – I once worked for it in its former incarnation as ICI. Most of us are aware that AstraZeneca declared that they did not intend to profit from the vaccine. It therefore gave the appearance of acting with the ethics and integrity that we would hope for. Little though is known of the role and financial interests of the vaccine developers’ company Vaccitech in the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership. Vaccitech was a private company at the time but is now listed. In those early days its main investors included Google, and Huawei (a detail which might interest those suspicious of the vaccines as an interface for technology.) Another overlooked point is the plan to allow AstraZeneca vaccines to become profitable following the initial wave.
I have grave concerns about Pfizer. There is a litany of cases that have been successfully brought against them in the past – not just in respect of drugs produced by them which have caused harm. As you will perhaps know (but it’s worth repeating) in 2009 they paid the largest fine for health care fraud in American history ($2.3 billion) to resolve allegations that they had illegally caused false claims to be submitted to the government and paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe their drugs.productshttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
I’m not saying that Pfizer should be disqualified by reason of what they did in 2009 but I am saying that I would expect the Government and its advisers to be on notice that higher levels of due diligence were necessary in their dealings with them. Could I find any evidence of that?
What I discovered shocked me. It seems that Pfizer take great care with the drawing of their contracts which include provisions that absolve them from all liability for the vaccines which they produce and often require extraordinary security to be provided to ensure that they will be paid.
I was alarmed when I read that the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration – Australian Government Department of Health) seemed to have approved the Pfizer vaccine without independent investigation or consideration of any documentation relating to the clinical trials. Sometime later I came across a Freedom of Information request that had been served on the MHRA in June 2021 seeking to establish whether this had also been the case in the UK. The MHRA’s response was dull reading and designed to not give anything away. It did not inspire me with the confidence I was seeking. The person who had submitted the FOI request felt that there was a lack of transparency.
In Europe, some MEPs asked for the detail of the European Union’s contract with Pfizer to be disclosed to them. What they were eventually given consisted of pages of redacted material.
I have lost track of all of the different Freedom of Information requests that I have encountered that have been filed by doctors and scientists seeking transparency from Pfizer and from the various Health Agencies around the World. In America there were legal proceedings brought by a group of doctors and scientists calling themselves ‘Public Health and Medical Professionals For Transparency’ which were resisted by Pfizer. Pfizer sought to claim that certain information needed to be sealed for 55 years. The judge did not agree and ordered documents to be released in batches over time.
American Attorney Aaron Siri is a lawyer who specialises in vaccine injury. He and other lawyers in that field are overwhelmed with clients and claims. He has obtained Pfizer documents from the FDA showing in just the first 2.5 months following EUA authorization, Pfizer received 158,893 adverse events with 25,957 being “nervous system disorders”. He gives more details here https://aaronsiri.substack.com/…/fda-produces-the-first…
[I have had to omit a material paragraph relating to concerns expressed by the BMJ as Facebook were blocking me from posting with that content]
Most remarkably, despite Pfizer’s lack of transparency and these revelations not only of irregularity but also of lack of oversight, everything has carried on as before. Our Government hasn’t paused for breath or mention of any of it. In these circumstances, am I really expected to ignore the possibility that there aren’t other agendas at play here? Some talk of eugenics and population control. I’m not surprised that these old fears are being raised but have no evidence to offer. There is though an old saying that ‘money talks …’ and a more recent saying of ‘follow the money’.
Unlike many, I am aware that the MHRA is not a Government body – it is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (there is a difference). The MHRA receives external funding. Here is just one example – back in 2017 it received the best part of a million pounds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation (see https://www.gov.uk/…/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for…)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also shows up as one of the top ten funders of the BBC’s Media Action https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
I’m not leaping to conclusions or making assumptions here. I haven’t a clue what is going on. In attempting to inform myself in the hope of reaching a place where I might be confident about the vaccine, all I have succeeded in doing is revealing a quagmire of possibilities. It is proving impossible for me to establish anything with any certainty. Even so-called fact-checkers can’t be relied upon. Many of them it would seem may be working to protect the opinions of other interested parties – just as some Facebook factcheckers have recently admitted in legal proceedings in America.
In the UK, The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 require the Secretary of State for Health to implement the recommendations of the JCVI regarding national immunisation programmes. Yet, the Government went against the advice of the JCVI when it extended the vaccine programme to children. I’m not even sure if that’s legal (it’s not a field where I ever professed any expertise).
Very few people seem to be aware that, even by the Government’s own standards, COVID-19 (Corona) stopped being considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK as far back as March 2020. https://www.gov.uk/…/high-consequence-infectious…
It doesn’t seem to matter what is revealed about the deaths and harm that people are suffering which is attributable to the vaccines – the majority of politicians seem unconcerned at the human cost in their quest for …. ?goodness knows what?.
Revelations of poor practice and possible fraud, are not met with any concern. It is clearly apparent that people still catch the virus and can die with/from it no matter how many injections they have. Does no-one pay attention to the figures showing that the Countries which are most highly vaccinated are faring demonstrably worse than those with lower vaccination levels and alternative treatments? Why do the powers that be continue to think that vaccines are the only answer? Why are the media pushing this agenda and why do they never seem to investigate any irregularities?
Well, I’m sorry if you are blind to it all, but it has a bad smell to me; and, at the end of the day, I have to be able to trust and take responsibility for myself. One thing that is clear from all of the videos that I have seen is that those who are unfortunate enough to be harmed by the vaccines are often disregarded, despite their having acted pursuant to their being called to do ‘the right thing’.
I see from the figures that have been produced by Drs Ioannidis & Axfors at Stanford, that I (and presumably you) are within the category where our survival rate from Covid is 99.41% Does that really justify putting foreign matter, from a source that has not gained my trust, in my body? Especially when I’ve had a good life, am not afraid of death, and understand that death is not the end.
There is so very much more that I could say about what I’ve discovered from my research. I haven’t even begun to mention Moderna, but my feeling is to leave the results of my researching here and ask you the question – ‘Do I really sound like an idiot to you?’
And, as a human being, I cannot finish without saying to you from the very depth of my being – ‘Shame on you Tony, for seeking to further divisions within our society, for failing to listen to those with a contrary view, for ignoring the suffering of those who have been adversely affected and those who have been killed by the vaccines’.
Did you not learn about the Nuremberg Code when studying to become a lawyer? Do you not know that the express purpose of that is to prevent the potential horrors of medical experimentation on humans without proper safeguards. Safeguards which state that the person being experimented on should have legal capacity to give consent; and should be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion;” Are you not concerned that by your actions and statements you may be infringing the rights of free men and women?
There is an irony here – that Cherie’s specialism as a lawyer is in Human Rights. Please ask her to explain to you the provisions of Article 6 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Bioethics & Human Rights 2005, which has much in common with the Nuremberg code and recognises our bodily autonomy.
Please give my regards to Cherie. I have good memories of dining with her in our student days and later when we were both doing our pupillages. She may remember that she stood next to me for the Call photograph at Lincoln’s Inn in June 1976.
Please give thought to what I say ….
Alexis Zane (aka Fay Stockton)
Note to Reader: I’ve lost touch with Tony since he and I were both commoners – students together doing our Bar Exams at the Council of Legal Education in 1975/76. If you know how to reach him please forward this. He won’t know me by the name Alexis Zane but Fay Stockton may ring a dim and distant bell.