Dr. David Healy

Psychiatrist. Psychopharmacologist. Scientist. Author.

New England Journal of Misinformation

20 Comments

(See update at end of article).

Bri Dressen was a key figure behind the Washington DC November 2 event reported in Mandated Harms,  Her testimony at this meeting features Here and Here.

She followed up this testimony by writing to the New England Journal of Medicine which until recently was viewed as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world – Americans would say the most prestigious.

Brianne Dressen Letter

I was a participant in Astra-Zeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine trial [1]. I suffered serious and severe adverse effects after the first dose of AZC1222, was disabled and remain so today.

I write to request inaccuracies in the trial publication be corrected, and to demand complete reporting of the trial publication and results.

The authors state that 180 AZD1222 recipients “withdrew” and “all serious adverse events will be recorded from the time of informed consent through day 730.” This is inaccurate. During hospitalization due to my adverse events, the trial investigators unblinded me, saw that I had received AZD1222 and recommended that I not receive the second dose. The trial smartphone app was subsequently disabled on my phone. I did not withdraw. I was withdrawn, and AstraZeneca chose to stop collecting my data after 60 days despite the fact that I remain with persistent symptoms one year later.

The trial publication lacks complete reporting of my adverse events, and readers are not informed that the trial smartphone app did not allow study participants to record adverse events in their own words.

The authors state that “No new vaccine-related safety signals were identified” but this may be an unreliable conclusion due to test clinics and the study sponsor neither recording nor reporting adverse events that did occur in study participants like myself.

Brianne Dressen, Clinical Trial Participant, Founder react19.org

Conflicts of interest: AstraZeneca has provided me $590 for my participation in the trial. They have not paid for any of my medical bills.

References

[1] A.R. Falsey, et al,  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2105290

Email Chain

There was an almost instant response from NEJM.  Most unusually this came from the editor Eric Rubin.  Her letter was too hot to handle and had been kicked upstairs to the boss.  The boss’ response however was the standard one to letters or articles they don’t like – its the response that Joan-Ramon Laporte and I had to our modest proposal on how to help patients with Covid.

From: NEJM Letter <onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com>
Date: November 15, 2021 at 10:13:27 AM MST
To: Brian n Bri Dressen
Subject: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934
Reply-To: letter@nejm.org

Dear Mrs. Dressen:

I am sorry that we will not be able to publish your recent letter to the editor.  The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.  Many worthwhile communications must be declined for lack of space.

Sincerely,

Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
New England Journal of Medicine

From: Brian n Bri Dressen
Date: November 15, 2021 at 2:45:40 PM MST
To: letter@nejm.org, erubin@nejm.org
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Dr. Rubin,

I am sorry to hear that you will not publish my letter.  Apart from the letter itself, the far more important issue is the problems I wrote about. Will the NEJM be issuing any corrections to the Falsey et al. trial publication (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2105290)?  My letter documented how the article omitted key safety data in my case (I am aware of at least one other trial participant who suffered a similar reaction and is also missing from the AZ report) I have documentation proving trial participation as well as diagnosis of vaccine injury from the National Institutes of Health. The other injured participant also reported to the NIH. Omission of adverse reactions is a violation of a key tenet of clinical trial reporting.

Best regards,

Brianne Dressen

From: “Rubin, Eric” <erubin@nejm.org>
Date: November 15, 2021 at 2:53:52 PM MST
To: Brian n Bri Dressen , Letter <letter@nejm.org>
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Ms. Dressen,

We rarely publish case reports and we have no investigative powers. I suggest that you use standard reporting mechanisms (though, if the diagnosis was made at the NIH, they should report) and follow up with the FDA and/or CDC which can actually investigate.

Eric

From: Brian n Bri Dressen
Date: Monday, November 15, 2021 at 5:16 PM
To: Rubin, Eric <erubin@nejm.org>
Cc: Letter <letter@nejm.org>
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Dr. Rubin,

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I did not ask to publish a case report, nor have I called for an investigation. I am reporting errors in the NEJM trial publication that require correction, and my understanding is that the journal is the place to report errors in a publication. Will you be taking action?

Regards,

Brianne

From: “Rubin, Eric” <erubin@nejm.org>
Date: November 15, 2021 at 3:19:37 PM MST
To: Brian n Bri Dressen
Cc: Letter <letter@nejm.org>
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Ms. Dressen,

The best we could do is forward your letter to the manufacturer. Only they are in a position to see the primary data. But you can do that yourself and I would encourage you to do so. Only you can provide the information that they can use to investigate.

Eric

From: Brian n Bri Dressen
Date: November 15, 2021 at 4:01:52 PM MST
To: “Rubin, Eric” <erubin@nejm.org>
Cc: Letter <letter@nejm.org>
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Dr. Rubin,

It is troubling to see that only the manufacturer is in a position to see the primary data. I think I understand what you mean, but I am not sure I fully agree. As I mentioned in my original letter, AstraZeneca stopped recording data on me at day 60, so they do not have all the data on my severe and serious adverse events that persist to this day which is beyond one year. The publication claims “serious adverse events will be recorded from the time of informed consent through day 730” and I am evidence that this is not the case.

At any rate, thank you for your offer to forward my letter to the manufacturer. I would welcome that and look forward to hearing from you what they say. I have read the NEJM publication and am confident in what I have described to you as errors in the publication which require correction.  I suggest starting with a query asking whether the participants they describe as “withdrawing” actually “withdrew”. As I explained, I did not withdraw, I was withdrawn and the trial app on my phone was disabled.

Best,

Brianne

From: “Rubin, Eric” <erubin@nejm.org>
Date: November 15, 2021 at 4:35:00 PM MST
To: Brian n Bri Dressen
Cc: Letter <letter@nejm.org>
Subject: Re: New England Journal of Medicine 21-17934

Dear Ms. Dressen,

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. Our correspondence with authors is all confidential so you would not get any reply. That’s why I’d suggest that you write to them directly. You can also write to the FDA, the only agency with the capability of independently investigating claims of trial misconduct. I’m afraid that our writing about a single patient, without our being able to provide documentation, in a trial with tens of thousands of participants would not have any effect.

In Another Part of Town

Three weeks earlier, Eric Rubin had been a voting member at an FDA Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory meeting looking at the issue of approving vaccines for 5-12 year olds – Rubin .

He had voted in favour of doing so, saying:

‘We are never going to learn how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it’

If Dr Rubin has his way we will never learn how safe this vaccine is, at least not from journals that make so much money from pharma and publish articles from Surgisphere instead.

Unsubstantiated

Meanwhile, Pfizer (and Astra-Z and J&J) will be getting reports of myocarditis and pericarditis and thromboses and strokes, and Guillain Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, myasthenic disorders, optic neuritis, peripheral neuropathies and other problems following their vaccine.  Many of these came from doctors who made links to the vaccine.

The Conclusions of Pfizer’s Safety System in response to all of these – see attached document – has been:

This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues. Surveillance will continue.

The key word here is New.  These were all expected. Expected because the vaccine was known to, or was known to be likely to, cause them.  So there would be reports of them but because only things that happen to a statistically significant extent after the vaccine can, in Newspeak, be viewed as being caused by the vaccine, even when we know the mechanisms by which the vaccine does cause them, then they aren’t being caused by the vaccine – so no need for FDA or NEJM to bother their pretty little heads about this.

So unless someone turned blue and grew feathers – did a Sesame Street Sam Eagle on it, there was nothing there for anyone to pay any heed to.

The response to someone injured on the vaccine – See Here– is exactly the same as Pfizer use with BMJ, NEJM, BBC, NBC etc in response to any documents and witness statements a whistleblower might bring their way:

These documents and testimony have not been substantiated.

By this, they mean they have not gone through a Randomized Legal Trial (RLT) (randomized because juries are a crapshoot) and come out the far side of a jury verdict, where Pfizer will be arguing that if it didn’t happen to a statistically significant extent in an RCT didn’t happen.

A jury in Cheyenne Wyoming listed to this argument 20 years ago, thought it was crap and sided with Tim Tobin against GSK.

But while an RLT is a crapshoot once it starts, companies can throw billions of dollars into ensuring they never have to go through a crapshoot like the Tobin trial.

In the meantime, a whistleblower, just like someone injured on a vaccine, is going to come up against a wall of disbelief, or an unwillingness on the part of people in healthcare to entertain anything they might say. They will pretty quickly feel a pariah, a leper, end up being shunned by family and friends, and may even begin to worry whether they are going mad.

There is an ironic counterpoint to this post on RxISK this week – where a 14 year old boy and woman in her thirties are able to establish for sure what is wrong with them by googling Doxycycline and finding posts on RxISK or articles to linked RxISK post that give them enough assurance to stop Doxycycline to see if their problems clear up – which they did.  See Mental Hijack.

Update

Almost coinciding with this post, Maryanne Demasi has published an incisive piece covering these issues that contains a stunning detail she appears to have been the first to pick up.

See Are Adverse Events in Covid-19 vaccine trials…  you can guess the rest of the title.

There are many striking points in this piece but the one that bowled me over was this

In AstraZeneca’s Phase III trial of its vaccine, the one in which Brianne Dressen was a participant, the study stated;

“Deaths that were adjudicated as not related to Covid-19 were treated as intercurrent events and therefore censored at the date of death.”

Given that deaths on the vaccines happen within two weeks of a dose – first or second – and given there are thousands been reported to regulators with reasonable estimates of up to 150,000 in the US alone more than half of which happen in this two week period, this is a quite extraordinary state of affairs.

You can see I’ve struggled not to repeat myself and used incisive, striking, stunning and extraordinary – to which we can add mind-boggling.

Johanna Ryan commenting on Maryanne’s post says:

This maps very neatly onto that “all-virtual” study of fluvoxamine for Covid-19.  100% of the side effects published were infection-related ones (fever, headache, cough), while side effects routinely found in other fluvoxamine trials were entirely absent.  Including extremely common ones like dry mouth and excess sweating, which are also not-very-scary and not-very-psychological.

What is really being said here is there is no hint of suicidality or sexual dysfunction either – they aren’t in the pre-populated lists

 

 

 

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. ‘We are never going to learn how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it’

    This is terrible in three senses. That we are ‘never going to learn’ and ‘we start giving it’ and using that word ‘safe’ –

    Many people have said that the Covid-19 vaccines are not ‘real vaccines’ in the true sense of the word as they do not cause immunity but instead allow infections to be passed and allow infections to be caught. A new kid on the block invented in rapid-speed-time where all caution was blown-to-the-wind –

    Antidepressants, on the other hand, had a much more murky history with clinical trials not just showing up adverse events but actually contained suicides mis-coded primarily as ’emotionally labile’ –

    Paroxetine has had such a chequered past that the Tobin case and more recently the Stewart Dolin case hit the headlines because lawyer Baum Hedland now represent hundreds of cases where there is more or less proof of fraudulent behaviour by GlaxoSmithKline –

    The cases of Vaccine Injury are like a little spike, at present, whiffs of serious injury but with no historical background to move the injuries forward –

    It is a New-Day for the Vaccine-Injured, but they might Take-Heart that Paroxetine had its’ Winners and like King Arthur and the Knights of the ;Round Table ‘of light vs darkness and good vs evil.’ …

    Reply

    • Thanks for the ‘helping-hands’ …

      JOHN HUMPHRYS:

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-10247743/JOHN-HUMPHRYS-four-day-work-week-boost-mental-health-Thats-just-idiotic.html

      SARAH VINE:

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10235945/SARAH-VINE-anxiety-like-house-crumbling-Pills-never-fix-root-cause.html

      Such drugs create dependency. Anyone who doubts that should read the compelling column Sarah Vine wrote in these pages just a few days ago.

      She was responding to an announcement from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issuing new guidelines to doctors who were considering prescribing anti-depressants.

      They should, said NICE, consider alternative options such as therapy, meditation or exercise first.

      Sarah is one of the many who was prescribed anti-depressants. She took them for nearly ten years — and they worked. But when she realised she had become dependent on them, she tried to break free. And that was when the real nightmare began.

      Her hellish experience should be noted by all those who trot out that grotesquely overused expression ‘mental health issues’.

      They should also note the staggering increase in the number of people being prescribed anti-depressants in England today. Well over seven million. More terrifying still, about a quarter of a million of them are children between the ages of five and 16.

      Can it really be possible that life is so much more difficult for a child today than it was a generation ago? So difficult that the only answer is to embark on the nightmare journey that may lead to drugs dependency?

      Surely the question answers itself.

      OPEN EXCELLENCE
      @openexcellence
      ·
      Coming soon! The video is a two-way discussion between Stevie and Mark, in which Stevie describes her time on the drug and her protracted withdrawal and Mark explains the science behind her experience. He gives specific guidance on how to safely withdraw. https://buff.ly/312eqJm

      https://openexcellence.org/how-antidepressant-withdrawal-presents-itself-and-how-to-help-people-withdraw-safely/

      STEVIE LEWIS (ABOVE LEFT) IS A CAMPAIGNER AND BOARD MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUG WITHDRAWAL. DR MARK HOROWITZ (ABOVE RIGHT) IS A CLINICAL RESEARCH FELLOW IN PSYCHIATRY AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON AND THE NHS. THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS CO-WRITTEN BY THEM.
       
      PRESCRIBERS ILL-EQUIPPED TO RECOGNIZE, ADDRESS WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME …

      Reply

  4. Thank you so much for sharing this. It is worrisome to learn that some medical journals with a high impact factor are absolutely untrustworthy. This research malpractice leads to distorted evidence, generalized misbelief in the effects of interventions and severe damage to the population.

    The way clinical trials are published has to change dramatically. All regulatory documents should be made available soon after the trial completion and in a timely manner. Anonymized individual-patient data should also be public and independent scrutiny of clinical trials should be made possible.

    Reply

  5. The fact is that a lot of people are heavily invested in this scam, if not financially, then emotionally. Small children when they get caught out often deny their guilt so emphatically that they may come to believe that they are being wronged by their accuser. Facilitators in the health industry and the media are in that situation.

    The same, of course, applies to those who accepted the injections in good faith: in the medium term they will be unlikely to confess even to themselves that they may have made a catastrophic error, preferring to rail against “vax deniers”. Those who are running this show know that’s how sheeple think – and they also know that, whatever the outcome, if and when this gets to a Crimes Against Humanity Court, you can’t unspill milk.

    Reply

  6. Law, ethics and medicine

    Seroxat and the suppression of clinical trial data: regulatory failure and the uses of legal ambiguity

    THE MHRA’S INVESTIGATION INTO GLAXOSMITHKLINE The MHRA’s investigation into GSK was launched in October 2003, following GSK’s submission, in May 2003, of data from Studies 329 and 377, clinical trials which tested the efficacy of paroxetine (Seroxat/Paxil) in children and adolescents in the mid-1990s in 11 countries.

    https://jme.bmj.com/content/35/2/107

    This article critically evaluates the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s announcement, in March 2008, that GlaxoSmithKline would not face prosecution for deliberately withholding trial data, which revealed not only that Seroxat was ineffective at treating childhood depression but also that it increased the risk of suicidal behaviour in this patient group. The decision not to prosecute followed a four and a half year investigation and was taken on the grounds that the law at the relevant time was insufficiently clear. This article assesses the existence of significant gaps in the duty of candour which had been assumed to exist between drugs companies and the regulator, and reflects upon what this episode tells us about the robustness, or otherwise, of the UK’s regulation of medicines.

    GSK Paxil Clinical Trials | Court Documents

    Scientific manipulation via ghostwriting of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trial reports has caused significant harm to patients. Shockingly, despite overwhelming evidence of fraud, misleading conclusions about clinical data remain part of the medical literature for Paxil (paroxetine), one of the most prescribed antidepressants in United States history.

    Ghostwriting and Fraud in GSK Clinical Trials

    https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/prescription-drugs/paxil-suicide-lawsuit/gsk-clinical-trials-paxil-fraud/

    GlaxoSmithKline

    GSK statement on MHRA investigation
    https://www.worldpharmanews.com/gsk/337-gsk-statement-on-mhra-investigation

    it was only when all the data became available, at the end of the research programme, and were analysed together was an increased rate of suicidal thinking or attempted suicide revealed in those paediatric patients taking Seroxat. GSK brought this analysis to the attention of the regulatory authorities, including in the UK.
    The company rejects any suggestion that it withheld drug trial information as results from its paediatrics studies were documented and submitted to regulators in accordance with regulatory requirements.

    Results were also presented publicly, published in scientific journals and have been made available on GSK’s website.

    Clinical trial data disclosure

    GSK has been at the forefront of industry efforts to publish clinical trial findings and is committed to maintaining best practice disclosure of clinical data. GSK rigorously meets all requirements to provide data to regulators and makes extensive efforts to publish its clinical trial findings in peer review journals and at scientific meetings. GSK also discloses all trial information, irrespective of outcome, on its Clinical Trial Register.This is a record of detailed summaries of more than 2,800 clinical trials conducted to study its prescription medicines and vaccines and is available to the public at http://ctr.gsk.co.uk.

    GSK also provides relevant unpublished clinical trial data to agencies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in accordance with their current processes.

    Reply

  7. In UK parliament today the prime minister evaded answering the question of payment for vaccine harms. Nigel Mills didn’t bring up that his constituent as well as everyone else was unable to give informed consent to the vaccine – if she had been given the full information, which is still being with -held she still might have decided to take the risk – but she might not have. Pushing the vaccine with threats and misinformation and no access to trials trumps right to consent and probably years of battling for compensation for those harmed. Someone should be publishing the truth by now – it will likely include a number of suicides ,numbers of people have already been undermined when reporting adverse effects . Terrible echoes of what happens regarding adverse effects of meds.

    VIDEO 1 MINUTE 27 SECONDSVIDEO 1 MINUTE 27 SECONDS1:27

    UK ParliamentCopyright: UK Parliament
    Conservative MP Nigel Mills says “we know that serious side effects from vaccines are very rare” – but he says one of his constituents lost most of her eyesight and now lives in constant pain after a jab.

    He is asking for the government to get on with Vaccine Damage Payments, which still has not been started, saying people who have suffered these extremely rare but very serious cases are still not being paid.

    The Vaccine Damage Payment is a one off payment of £120,000, given by the UK government.

    Johnson says cases such as Mills’ constituent are “extremely, extremely rare” and he urges people to continue getting booster shots.

    But he says the government is “putting more money in to gather evidence for claims” in these rare cases.

    Reply

  8. They should understand that draconian measures to threaten those who speak out leads to even more mistrust of medics involved in the vaccination programme
    Pulse Today 24 Nov
    Home News Breaking news GPs who criticise Covid vaccine on social media ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation

    Tom Pilgrim, PA media
    24 November 2021

    Exclusive GPs have been warned that criticising the Covid vaccine or other pandemic measures via social media could leave them ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation.

    The warning, from the Medical Protection Society (MPS), comes as a GP is appealing a temporary social media ban imposed by the GMC after he was accused of spreading ‘misinformation’.

    Dr Samuel White is appealing against interim conditions imposed on his registration with the GMC following complaints about a video he posted to Instagram and Twitter in June.

    In a seven-minute clip, he discussed why he could no longer work in his previous roles because of the ‘lies’ around the NHS and Government approach to the pandemic that were ‘so vast’ he could no longer ‘stomach or tolerate’ them, the Royal Courts of Justice were told this month.

    He also raised concerns about the safety of the Covid vaccine and testing methods and claimed that ‘masks do nothing’, the hearing heard.

    Dr White, a partner at Denmead Practice in Hampshire until his resignation in February and now a locum GP, was ordered not to discuss the pandemic on social media and to remove previous posts on the subject by a GMC tribunal in August, following complaints about the video.

    He brought his High Court challenge against the GMC in a bid to quash the restrictions, which will last for a maximum of 18 months and his barrister called a ‘severe imposition’ on his freedom of speech.

    In written arguments, his barrister said that Dr White had an ‘unblemished career’ with beliefs informed by ‘libertarian principles’ and argued that his views were ‘supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion’.

    But the GMC’s written arguments said that its tribunal had recognised ‘serious concerns’ that he was using ‘language that echoed conspiracy theories about the pandemic’ and that there was a ‘risk’ members of the public would be influenced by him to ignore public health advice.

    The judge said he would deliver his judgement at a later date.

    MPS medical director Dr Rob Hendry told Pulse: ‘Personal views which may be intended for friends or family can easily be misinterpreted and become more widely available through social media, and all views expressed may be judged as professional matters.

    ‘Doctors should therefore be aware that advocating against the Covid-19 vaccine and other measures on social media platforms could make them vulnerable to investigation by the GMC.’

    GMC ethical guidance, which also applies to social media, states that doctors ‘must not impose [their] beliefs and values on patients or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of them’.

    Dr Hendry said: ‘The GMC has also publicly stated that doctors have a responsibility to provide sufficient and balanced information about Covid-19 and the risks and benefits of treatments or preventative measures, and allow patients to make an informed choice.’

    The MPS would advise GPs who are ‘sceptical’ of the Covid vaccine or the preventative measures in the national public health programme to ‘ensure they are fully up to date with scientific evidence and act in accordance with national guidance’, he added.

    And Dr John Holden, chief medical officer at the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS), said that it is ‘essential for doctors to remind themselves that the standards expected of them are not diluted simply because they are behind a keyboard’ as social media use ‘becomes ever more widespread’.

    He added: ‘We always advise doctors to exercise caution and refer to GMC guidance on social media when posting online, as they will be held accountable for opinions, advice and posts and may be expected later to justify the content.’

    It comes as GP practices and PCN-led vaccination sites are facing pressure from anti-vaccine protestors.
    Meanwhile, Covid vaccination will be a ‘condition of deployment’ for all public-facing staff in England’s health services from April next year.

    Reply

    • I find this comment interesting as it relates, in a way, to my recent experience.
      I won’t reiterate the background to my refusal of the booster jab – suffice is to say that the decision was made after consulting with our GP surgery, who, in turn, got in touch with a Consultant regarding the query. The reply ran short of saying “DON’T take it” but, reading between the lines, the intent was quite clear!
      My appointment for the booster came about 3 weeks before the actual date. I tried, almost every day, to cancel the appointment but it was impossible to get through on the given number.
      On the appointed day, I went along to explain my reason for not taking it, only to be given the reply “Thanks for letting us know – we’ll get them to send out a new appointment for you”. I DON’T WANT A NEW APPOINTMENT was clearly explained! Recently, I’ve received another appointment which I completely ignored! On the day I was phoned by a doctor from the vaccination centre asking for my reason for not turning up. Once my reason was given, he was taken aback and asked why my name hadn’t been taken off the list. – how would I know the answer to that one? I asked if he could now remove my name from the list. No, he couldn’t – the only person who can do so is MY OWN GP!
      Our GP surgery have known all along that I’m not accepting it, so why should there be a need now for me to inform them so that my name can be removed? Having read the above comment, I can see exactly why my name is still on the list and assume that there it will stay for a long time yet!

      Reply

  9. Freedom Speech of Robert F Kennedy Jnr.

    Transcribed in English and German

    http://docs.shortxxvids.com/kennedy_nov13_milan.html

    “They have taken away our freedom of speech. They have closed the churches. They have taken away jury trials against companies, no matter how negligent they are, no matter how reckless they are. No matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that company. They have taken away our property rights in the United States. They closed a million businesses for a year with no just compensation and no due process. They have taken away our right to be free of warrantless searches and seizures and surveillance by the government.”

    Reply

  11. Comment from Suzanne

    22 November 2021
    Re: Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity …https://www.bmj.com › content › bmj.n2635
    2 Nov 2021 — ‘I have advised my parliamentary colleagues accordingly. Regards,. Jim Shannon MP Strangford. ‘ …
    It would be great if J Shannon felt able to publish the responses he got from the MHRA; and Nice An MP with some integrity

    Dear Editor
    There is still no information being given out by the UK media. Very many of us are relying on The BMJ for ongoing trustworthy information about Covid.
    Jim Shannon MP N I is the only MP who has not only listened to the wise elderly people who expressed concerns but taken action as described in his r.r. I would like to ask you, Jim Shannon, if you might kindly keep us updated with the results of the actions you have taken. The media read The BMJ and would hopefully take more responsibility to inform the wider public. Thank you
    susanne

    Reply

    • I keep putting up information regarding Covid/ the vaccinations on our Facebook group page. Due to being “blocked”, I have to share on my own Facebook page and then Shane shares the link on the group. How ridiculous can things get? I can’t share a link directly to the group ( as administrator) but I can, in a comment on any post shown there, share whatever I like with the group. We will not be silenced!
      I shall await December 7th. for my freedom to directly share onto the group again.

      Reply

      • Great tactics Mary! looking forward to catchup after freedom day. Did they quiz you about your reasons for declining? An incentive given to me early on was a travel pass – not sure what happened to that carrot. So Another virus is going crazy – another push to take another booster
        to boost the booster likely? Just wonder how much vaccination bodies can take before overload.

        Reply

        • Susanne, I wouldn’t say that I’ve been ‘quizzed’ over my reasons for declining but they do ask, either with a questioning “OH?” or a ‘straight out with it’ “WHY?” Once I mention the phlebitis, things quieten down somewhat! I don’t say that I had phlebitis because of the second jab as I don’t really know if that is true. Instead, I simply say “I had phlebitis after the second jab” and leave the rest to their own interpretation! Neither do I know how it’s been recorded in my medical notes – do I simply refuse this booster as it was within the 3 – 4 months that the condition needed to clear up completely, or do I refuse any vaccination in the future if I’m not sure of the data surrounding it? Hopefully that’s not a question that will need answering any time soon. Thankfully, the condition has completely cleared up as far as it’s physically possible to tell.

          Reply

  12. Flight Attendants Share About Bad Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccine

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/flight-attendants-share-about-bad-reactions-to-ccp-virus-vaccine_4105853.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-27&mktids=a0dba2ca5b2f48254fef0bdb19481bcc&est=l6SzsH451woOqxXveBGCr08eKNzOCBPQD6a7%2Bwu4Py00ZNa3tgzNG4IgpBPtFgXZLE8%3D

    “I was forced to play Russian roulette with my employer to save my career and provide for my family,” she said. “I lost.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *