Invalidating Indigenous Immunity

December, 27, 2021 | 15 Comments


  1. Perfect –

    The argument, in short, is that iatrogenic violence (destructive, subjective or agentic, and intentional) is the natural endpoint of iatrogenic harm (destructive but objective or systemic, and unintentional)

    When the intensity of biomedical intervention crosses a critical threshold, clinical iatrogenesis turns from error, accident, or fault into an incurable perversion of medical practice (Illich, 1976, 14)

    Imperfect –

    Wendy Burn CBE (She/her) 

    Replying to @shvogt @WillReidWeb and @BlackshepSusan

    Until COVID-19 the mortality rates were reducing every year. Modern medicine extends life.

    Perfect –

    Patrick D Hahn

    These drugs were shown to be staggeringly ineffective in a long-term naturalistic trial which gave them every chance to work. And finally, in a small minority of users, they cause a state of agitation that can lead to #suicide and #homicide.

    Imperfect –

    Wendy Burn CBE (She/her) 

    Replying to @markhoro

    The problem is that so many doctors have years of experience of antidepressants working well in clinical practice. I worry that your message that they don’t work obscures important information about withdrawal. We need to get that out there and thanks for your help with this.

    Perfect –

    Patrick D Hahn

    In what sense do #antidepressants “work?” The benefits demonstrated in short-term clinical trials are virtually indistinguishable from those of placebo, and can be replicated in full by any of a variety of non-drug means, without any of the toxic effects.

    Prescription for Sorrow: Antidepressants, Suicide and Violence
    “Modern medicine extends life” …..

  2. ​Interesting,….. but I don’t agree….. If we really had “indigenous immunity” we would not need the vaccines!!..However, my sister, a radiologist who manages a clinic, thinks she is suffering from PTSD, as her work has become very stressful…in this case, she has radiology techs working under her who are 100% Trumpers, passive-aggressive, anti-vaxxers,who try to make her every working day miserable…. so where’s the Moral Injury in this case???

  3. I have noted with dismay the semantic fog our Covid Lords have created to obscure what they are doing to us, changing the meaning of key words like “Anti-vaxxer” and indeed “Vaccine” itself, without any discussion or debate.

    They’ve done the same thing with the phase “Herd Immunity,” re-defining it to specifically exclude people whose healthy immune systems have successfully conquered the virus and who have EARNED their robust, long-lasting immunity. These people have dropped all pretense of being on our side.

  4. Joan-Ramon Laporte Retweeted

    Abel Novoa

    Salud, dinero y atención primaria: !Hay que parar esto! Dejar de hacer para poder hacer. Juan Simó es el más fino analista de esta pandemia. Creo que hay que esperar un poco para dar por normalizado el SARS-CoV-2 pero en todo lo demás de acuerdo

    Translated from Spanish :

    Health, money and primary care: This has to stop! Stop doing to be able to do. Juan Simó is the finest analyst of this pandemic. I think we have to wait a bit to consider SARS-CoV-2 normalized but in everything else I agree

    What I am going to say may cost me the odd dislike. I may be accused of being a denier. It could even happen that this same entry, or the entire blog, disappeared from the net forever. Despite the risk, I must say that this must be stopped. It must be stopped because the treatment is starting to be worse than the disease itself and we are getting into a dead end. The curve, the query, South Africa and some obvious things are beginning to tell us.

  5. My response in thebmj

    30 December 2021

    Re: I am struggling to understand why patients decide not to get the covid vaccine Anonymous. 375:doi 10.1136/bmj.n3152
    Dear Editor

    I am not being facetious when I say I hope now ‘Anonymous’ understands more about the reasons people decline to be vaccinated.

    Sometimes the ‘for the moral good of all’ argument proposed so forcibly by those in authoritative positions who wish to impose what are still trials requires dissenters to stick to their guns exactly for the moral good of society when there are so many reasonable doubts included as expressed so clearly here. There is very little coercion not to be vaccinated compared with that used to coerce acceptance. The ‘consent’ is not as accepted generally in medicine It is, we don’t know how often, against persons’ genuine thoughtful differering wishes which are often based on personal research and it must be said informed by mistrust based on the scandals revealed all through the pandemic. Often enough the vaccination is accepted for social reasons and it would be an interesting study to discover how many people would have refused if the fear of exclusion and scapegoating using very powerful tools were removed.

    Ramping up disapproval against those who have complex and differing reasons is creating a frightening situation for some who decline vaccination so I would ask for more empathy for people who decline. We are not all tough, individualistic, uncaring of others but in addition to what is happening in our own countries feel the fear of those all across Europe who are suffering for their decisions but are taking a moral stance based both on the science and the right to remain a social human being without harsh judgement from those making different decisions.

    Competing interests: No competing interests

    • Very well said Susanne. I also agree with everything that Annie has quoted in her comments and agree with what Patrick D Hahn has to say in his own comment here.
      I sincerely wish all the best for 2022 to all who read these fascinating posts and comments and hope that we can all move matters forward inch by inch in the months to come.

  6. Although I’m still struggling with medical PTSD, violence from men of all colours and cultural atrocities much closer to home (I’m uk) I empathise with native people everywhere who live close to the land.

    We have our own natives here, with our own natural healing practices which are being squashed AGAIN along with attempts to strangle our spirits with nasty media articles designed to funnel the nations suppressed anger (at their quoshed life’s ambitions, covid wasn’t part of the 10 year plan) towards people who choose to trust their own immune systems (usually because of medical trauma and inherent understandable mistrust of their “data”)..

    The medical profession won’t see us, especially if we’re working class women.

    Middle class women are too busy projecting their concealed racism onto us, with further attempts to shame us as “unvaxed” (unable to control) and directly responsible for cultural atrocities that most of us do even not have direct genetic lineage to.

    I feel parallels as an invisible woman with this description.

    ”When Columbus got off the boat he asked us who we were. We said we’re the human beings, we’re the people. Conceptually the Europeans didn’t understand that, it was beyond their conceptual reality. They didn’t see us. They couldn’t see who we were. Historically speaking, we went from being Indians to pagans to savages to hostiles to militants to activists to Native Americans.
    Now its five hundred years later & they still can’t see us. We are still invisible. They don’t see us as human beings, (their answers are always interrupting and fragmented, individualized denials) but we’ve been saying to them all along that’s what we are [that’s who we are], We are invisible to them because we are still the human beings. We’re still the People, but they never call us that. They taught us to call ourselves Indians. Now they’re teaching us how to call ourselves Native Americans. Its not who we are. We’re the People. They can’t see us as human beings. But they can’t see themselves as human beings. The invisibility is at every level, its not just that we’re tucked away out of sight. We’re the evidence of the crime. They can’t deal with the reality of who we are because then they have to deal with what they have done. If they deal with the reality of who we are, they have to deal with the reality of who they aren’t. So they have to fear us, not recognize us, not like us. The very fact of calling us ‘Indians’ creates a new identity for us, an identity that began with their arrival. Changing identity, creating a new perceptual reality, is another form of genocide. It’s like severing a spiritual umbilical cord that reaches into the ancestral past. The history of the Indians begins with the arrival of the Europeans. The history of the People begins with the beginning of the history of the People. The history of the People is one of cooperation, collectivity, and living in balance. The history of the Indians is one of genocide, rather that a history of peace and balance. The history of the People under attack, the Indians, in an evolutionary context is not very long; it’s only five hundred years. The objective of civilizing us is to make Indian history become our permanent reality. The necessary objective of Native people is to outlast this attack, however long it takes, to keep our identity alive.”
    John Trudell

  7. the wisdom of the Dixie Chicks…

    Posted on Wednesday 9 October 2013

    Secure use of individual patient data from clinical trials

    by Patrick Vallance and Iain Chalmers

    The Lancet 2013 382[9898]:1073 – 1074.

    Publishing the results of all clinical trials, whoever funds them, is required for ethical, scientific, economic, and societal reasons. Individuals who take part in trials need to be sure that data they contribute are used to further knowledge, prevent unnecessary duplication of research, and improve the prospects for patients.

    Endorsement of these principles is clear in the support received for the UK-based charitable trust Sense about Science’s campaign demanding that all clinical trials should be registered and reported. However, although the campaign recognises the advantages of analyses based on individual participant data (IPD), it is not calling for open access to IPD.

    The campaign recognises that risks to personal privacy must be taken seriously. These risks are not just theoretical: a recent study was able to identify 50 individuals from public websites that contained genetic information. The research community must work with others to define what constitutes appropriate protection of identifiable information if it is to retain public trust in the use of IPD.

    Analyses based on IPD have many advantages. In 1970, The Lancet published a report based on nine trials of anticoagulant therapy after myocardial infarction. That study showed how, compared with analyses of aggregate data, access to IPD facilitated more thorough data checking; identified missing information; prompted renewed searches for key outcomes; enabled longitudinal analyses based on serial measurements in individuals; and offered greater reliability of subgroup analyses. Nearly two decades passed before others began to collaborate widely to use IPD analyses. These initiatives from collaborative trialists’ groups resulted in authoritative analyses of direct relevance to patient care in cancer and cardiovascular diseases, among others. The advantages of IPD analyses have prompted calls for wider access to such data, and we support these calls. However, robust arrangements are needed to minimise the risks of breaches of patient confidentiality. The experience gained within trialists’ collaborations is important, since, as far as we are aware, they have an unbroken record of maintaining patient confidentiality in their IPD analyses…

    The commentary goes on to discuss various ways to anonymize the data all of which have the trialists in the driver’s seat. And then there’s this…

    PV is a President at GlaxoSmithKline, holds stock or stock options in GlaxoSmithKline, and is a board member of A*Star Board Singapore and Genome Research Limited. IC declares that he has no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Martin Bobrow, Mike Clarke, and Ben Goldacre for helpful comments and critical review of this Comment.

    So why would Iain Chalmers and Ben Goldacre put their names on this article that feels so much like a Trojan Horse? Having looked at GSK’s proposed process for access myself, it gives GSK the choice of releasing the data based on the credentials of the applicant and GSK’s opinion of the worthiness of their research proposal. I don’t want access to their IPDs to do further research. I want it to check and  see if they’re cheating again like they’ve done countless times before.

    This article talks about the problem’s solution without mentioning what the problem is. It doesn’t mention the gross corruption in the publication of Clinical Trial results, and the epidemic of jury-rigged or absent trials that have turned our literature into litter-ature. It implies that we want data transparency to further scientific exploration. That’s a worthy goal, but off the point. So why would Iain Chalmers and Ben Goldacre put their names on this article that feels so much like a Trojan Horse? I don’t know the answer to that. Perhaps they can tell us why this isn’t a sell-out:

    Meanwhile, I’m sticking with the Dixie Chicks approach:

    Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick, 61, will get an upgrade to become a knight commander of the Order of the Bath.

    He was already a knight bachelor – the standard level of knighthood

    Damehood for Dr June Raine, chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. 

    ‘Meanwhile, I’m sticking with the Dixie Chicks approach’ …..

  8. This site is intended for health professionals only
    Home Special End of year reviews 2021 Review: The Government’s failed data grab
    2021 Review: The Government’s failed data grab

    31 December 2021

    In summer 2021, GPs and patients alike were aghast to learn of a new record extraction scheme. In our latest review of the year, Allie Anderson explains all

    It can be no coincidence that the acronym for the NHS’s latest scheme to harvest patients’ confidential data – GPDPR – is almost identical to that of legislation designed to protect that confidential data, GDPR.

    The great patient data grab, or General Practice Data for Planning and Research (GPDPR), was announced at the beginning of summer and will see patient data records extracted from practices and sent to NHS Digital, from where it will be packaged and sent to third parties.

    The revelation left patients and GPs alike bamboozled. For starters, the EU legislation of a similar-sounding name – the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) – is supposed to make it easier to understand how our private information is used, and by whom.

    Yet the ‘patient data for sale’ debacle seems to directly contradict this.

    Under the scheme, practices must notify patients about the plan, and then take responsibility for opting out any patients who request it both before the data grab started and at any point thereafter. Unlike the fiasco of a few years back, failure to opt out would mean NHS Digital would take all historic personal data, and this could not be reversed.

    The original opt-out deadline of 23 June – which gave patients around a month to withdraw consent – was delayed until September after the plan caused an almighty outcry.

    One of the chief concerns was that nobody had been clear about where extracted data would go, who might buy it, and for what purpose.

    Importantly, patient information is to be pseudonymised rather than anonymised.

    Confidential data like names, NHS numbers and dates of birth will be replaced with unique codes, but NHS Digital itself said this could be reversed so a patient could be identified ‘in certain circumstances, and where there is a valid legal reason’.

    It’s unclear what might constitute a ‘valid legal reason’, and the system could be open to abuse.

    However, possibly an even greater problem is that the plan might erode patient trust of GPs, at a time when that relationship is already fragile.

    Some have suggested patients, worried about privacy, will be less willing to come forward with health concerns.

    Even though GPs are not mandating the data extraction – indeed, many want no part in it – the scheme has ‘GP’ in the name, which might suggest to patients their family doctor is complicit.

    In the event of any mistakes – for example, a patient opting out but their decision not being processed, or a data leak happening – it’s not difficult to predict who would be on the receiving end of patients’ wrath.

    In a positive turn of events, the plan’s start date of September 2021 was further delayed in July.

    At the time, health minister Jo Churchill announced that a universal start date would not be set and that data would only be shared if three criteria were met.

    They are: patients’ ability to opt out and back into data sharing, and being able to have data deleted even after it’s uploaded; the assurance that de-identified data will be processed by approved researchers in a trusted research environment; and increased public awareness of the programme to ensure patients know their choices, and how their data will be used. As of now, there is no indication when it will be revisited.

    Even with these caveats, some might be concerned that this whole situation is simply the return of the doomed fiasco, which was dropped in June 2016.

    The cost to the taxpayer of that plan was an estimated £8m. It’s unclear what the bill will be for this latest Big Brother big data grab.

    But after the horrors of the last couple of years, for general practice at least, it could be severe.

    New GP data extraction ‘far exceeds’ plans, warn privacy campaigners
    24 May 2021

    Doctors threaten legal action to halt ‘unlawful’ mass GP data extraction
    04 June 2021

    Hancock asks former RCGP chair to help on derailed GP data project
    09 June 2021

    • What will be the plight of MH patients… even more so iatrogenic akathisia patients who have been labelled with a serious mental illness and a danger to society. When it is the NHS… GP’s psychiatrists and prescribing nurses who have caused the totally ‘serious mental health’ covered up harm… as a result of fraudulent trial results and more ghost written journal cover up’s… Same for Covid ‘vaccine’ harms – more and more realising just how dangerous a situation we are in.

      Meanwhile plans afoot to use our bodies to mine cryptocurrency…who is crazy now


  9. “Dr. Sam White joins Dr. Reiner Fullmich, Wolfgang Wodarg and Viviane Fischer in the 85th Session of The Corona Investigative Committee to discuss the latest law suits being filed in the UK and Internationally with some spectacular findings that reveal some startling evidence of wilful experimentation in relation to the batches of covid shots being rolled out, particularly in the US.”

Leave a Reply