A few thoughts on COVID19 vaccination

23rd February 2022

The first thing I want to say here is that there should be nothing in science that is beyond analysis and potential criticism. Because, once this happens, we can find ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed. A place of unquestioned acceptance of the accepted narrative, with criticism enforced by the authorities.

Unfortunately, I believe this is the place we have reached with COVID19 vaccination. Here is just one example from the UK.

‘GPs have been warned that criticising the Covid vaccine or other pandemic measures via social media could leave them ‘vulnerable’ to GMC* investigation.’1

*GMC = General Medical Council. This is the body that can strike doctors from the medical register so they cannot work as a doctor.

‘Vulnerable to GMC investigation’. What a deliciously creepy phrase that is, dripping with unspoken menace, whilst pretending to be helpful. It sounds like something the Mafia would come up with.

‘I would keep quiet about this, if I were you.’ Baseball bat tapping gently on the floor. ‘No, this is not a threat, think of it as advice from a friend. We don’t like to see anybody making themselves, or their family, vulnerable, and getting seriously injured now, would we?’

It seems that, unless you prostrate yourself before the mighty vaccine, and intone ‘Our vaccine, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…’ and suchlike, you will be attacked from all sides … simultaneously. Indeed, to suggest that vaccines are not perfect in every way is the twenty first century’s equivalent of blasphemy.

he said Jehovah. Stone him.’

This does make any discussion on vaccines somewhat tricky. To criticize any individual vaccine, indeed any aspect of any individual vaccine, is also to be instantly defined as an anti-vaxxer. Then you will be furiously fact-checked by someone with a fine arts degree, or suchlike, who will decree that you are ‘wrong’.

At which point you will be unceremoniously booted off various internet platforms – amongst other sanctions open to the ‘vulnerable’. This includes, for example, finding yourself struck off the medical register, and unable to earn any money:

            ‘Hell, we ain’t like that around here. We don’t just string people up, son. First, we have a trial to find ‘em guilty, only then do we string ‘em up. Yeeee Ha!’

Spit … ding!

Yes, it seems you must support the position that all vaccines are equally wonderful, no exceptions. Try this with any other pharmaceutical product. ‘He doesn’t think statins are that great, so he obviously believes that antibiotics are useless.’ Would this sound utterly ridiculous?

But with vaccines… All are the same, all are great, not a problem in sight? I said, NOT! a problem in sight. However, I genuinely believe there are some questions which still have not been answered and simply because of the different types of vaccines that are available, no, not all vaccines are the same.

Just for starters, vaccines come in many different forms. Live, dead, those only containing specific bits of the virus, and suchlike. Now we have the brand new, never used on humans before, messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. So no, all vaccines are not alike. Not even remotely.

In addition to the major difference between vaccines, the diseases we vaccinate against vary hugely. Some are viruses, others bacteria, others somewhere in between, TB for example.

Some, like influenza, mutate madly in all directions. Others, such as measles, do not. Some viruses are DNA viruses – which tend to remain unchanged over the years. Others, e.g. influenza, are single strand RNA viruses, and they mutate each year.

Adding to this variety, some of those viruses which mutate very little, also have no other host species to hide in. Smallpox, for example. Which means that the virus was unable to run away and hide in, say, a chicken, or a bat. Others are fully capable of flitting from animal species to animal species. Bird flu and Ebola spring to mind.

Some vaccines just haven’t worked at all. For over thirty years, people have tried to develop an HIV vaccine, and have thus far failed. Early trials on animal coronavirus vaccines also showed some concerning results. Here from the paper ‘Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization.’

The gene encoding the fusogenic spike protein of the coronavirus causing feline infectious peritonitis was recombined into the genome of vaccinia virus. The recombinant induced spike-protein-specific, in vitro neutralizing antibodies in mice. When kittens were immunized with the recombinant, low titers of neutralizing antibodies were obtained. After challenge with feline infectious peritonitis virus, these animals succumbed earlier than did the control group immunized with wild-type vaccinia virus (early death syndrome).’2  

Yet, despite all this massive variety flying in all directions, with some spike protein vaccines found to increase the risk of death (in a few animal studies), attach the word vaccine to any substance, and it suddenly has miraculous properties that transcend all critical thought. Vaccines move in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform.

Yes, of course, some have worked extremely well. The polio vaccine, for example, although I have seen some valid criticisms. Smallpox… I am less certain about. Even though it is held up as the greatest vaccine success story of all. Maybe it was. Smallpox has certainly gone, for which we should be truly thankful. It was a truly terrible disease.

My doubts about the unmatched efficacy of smallpox vaccine simply arise from the fact that diseases come, and diseases go. The plague, for example. This was the scourge of mankind at one time. It tore round and round the world and leaving millions of dead in its wake, over a period of hundreds of years.

We do not vaccinate against the plague, yet it is virtually unknown today. Cholera killed millions and millions, thousands each year in the UK alone. Now … gone. In the UK at least. This had nothing to do with vaccination either. Measles. There seems little doubt that the measles vaccine is effective. But vaccination cannot explain the fact that measles deaths fell off a cliff and were bumping along the bottom for years and long before we started vaccination programmes.

In the US vaccination did not begin until 1963. So, what happened here? The virus did not mutate, so far as we know. It did not mutate because apparently it cannot. Or, if it did, it would no longer be able to be infective. At least not to humans:

‘While the influenza virus mutates constantly and requires a yearly shot that offers a certain percentage of protection, old reliable measles needs only a two-dose vaccine during childhood for lifelong immunity. A new study publishing May 21 in Cell Reports has an explanation: The surface proteins that the measles virus uses to enter cells are ineffective if they suffer any mutation, meaning that any changes to the virus come at a major cost.’3

So, measles didn’t change, but it did become far less damaging. From around ten deaths per one hundred thousand in the first two decades of the twentieth century, down to much less than one.

Why? What I believe happened with measles is primarily that the ‘terrain’ changed. Nutrition greatly improved. Vitamins, perhaps most importantly vitamin D, were discovered and added to the food supply. Rickets and other manifestation of vitamin D deficiency were rife in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Virtually gone by 1940.

Of course treatments improved as well, although antibiotics (to treat secondary bacteria pneumonia following measles), did not come into play until the late 1940s, at the earliest.

What we see with measles is simply the fact that infectious diseases have far less impact when they hit a healthy, well nourished person (healthy terrain), than when they hit an impoverished and undernourished child caught in the war in the Yemen, for example.

So, yes, vaccines have played a role in improving human health and wellbeing, but we shouldn’t inflate their impact to the point where they have become the unmatched saviours of humankind. They have certainly not been the only thing that reduced the impact of infectious diseases. They were probably not even the most important thing. ‘Yes … how dare you say this… string up the unbeliever, I know, I know.

Moving on, and and I think this is even more pertinant to the disucssion that follows. If we cannot accept the possiblility that, at least some vaccines, may have significant adverse effects, if we will not permit anyone to look into this, in any meaningful way. Then we can never improve them. Criticism is good, not bad.

Speaking personally, I do not criticize things that I do not care about. Primarily, because I don’t care if they improve, or not. I only criticize things when I want them to be as good as they possibly can be. It is a character trait of mine to hunt for flaws, and potential problems. Both real and imagined.

Some criticism is, of course, close to bonkers. Suggesting that COVID19 vaccines contain transhuman nanotechnology and microchips of some kind that will become activated by 5G phones … to what end? ‘World domination Mr Bond. Mwahahahahaha etc.’ Quantum dots? Yes, these do exist. But they would be pretty useless at collecting informaiton, and suchlike. Give it fifty years and … maybe.

The problem here is that wild conspiracy theories are simply gathered together with reasonable science-based criticism, to be dismissed as a package of equally mad, unscientific woo-woo tin-foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, gibberish.

Which means that, when people (such as me) suggested that COVID19 mRNA vaccination could, potentially, lead to an increased risk of blood clots – this was treated with utter scathing dismissal. I did not understand ‘the science’ apparently. Fact check number one. ‘Oh, look… clots.’

When people questioned the ‘fact’ that the safety phases of the normal clincial trial pathway had been seriously truncated, and that some parts were just non-existent, they were told that they knew nothing of ‘the science’ either.

I looked on the BBC website to find out the ‘official’ party line on vaccine safety information, sanctioned and approved by HM Govt, and SAGE I presume. It was an article entitled ‘How do I know if the vaccine is safe?’ The information rapidly contradicts reality. They say:

  • There are different approved types and brands available and all have undergone rigorous testing and safety checks
  • Safety trials begin in the lab, with tests and research on cells and animals, before moving on to human studies
  • The principle is to start small and only move to the next stage of testing if there are no outstanding safety concerns

The article then looks at fast track approval for vaccines against new variants

  • The UK’s drug regulator says new vaccines can be fast tracked for approval if needed.
  • No corners will be cut, with safety paramount.
  • But lengthy clinical trials with thousands of volunteers will not be needed4

What is wrong here? Well, ‘if the principle is to start small and only move to the next stage of testing if there are no outstanding safety concerns,’ then this principle was not followed. After pre-clinical and animal testing, we move onto trials in humans. Phase I, then II and then III.

Phase I may include as few as twenty people to check that humans don’t simply drop dead on contact with the new agent (it has happened).

Phase II may include a couple of hundred individuals, and usually lasts a few months… a bit more safety, and an attempt to establish the potential size of any health benefit.

Phase III may have up to thirty or forty thousand participants. This phase often lasts for several years.

Well, with the Pfizer Biontech vaccine, the concept of waiting to move to the next stage of testing did not truly occur. Because phase II and III were combined… and the phase III trials have now been, effectively abandoned. They were not supposed to finish until May 2022 at the earliest, and now apparently, they are not going to finish at all. At least not as a double-blind placebo controlled trial.

Yet, we are still informed by the BBC, in all seriousness, that no corners were cut, or will be cut. The fact is that corners were absolutely one hundred per cent cut. Slashed to the bone would perhaps be more accurate. To pretend otherwise is simply to deny reality.

It normally takes around ten years for any drug, or vaccine, to move through the clinical trials process, with each step done in series. COVID19 vaccines took around six months from start to finish, with critical steps done in parallel, and the animal testing was rushed – to say the least. To claim that no corners were cut is nonsense. Nonsense that we are virtually forced to believe?

It is possible/quite likely/probable that vaccine development can be shortened, but please do not tell us that all the normal processes were followed.  No-one is that easily fooled.

‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four[NK1] . If that is granted, all else follows.’ That freedom disappeared pretty early on in the COVID19 pandemic. I enjoyed the slant that ‘Important quotes explained’ had on the quote from Orwell’s 1984.

By weakening the independence and strength of individuals’ minds and forcing them to live in a constant state of propaganda-induced fear, the Party is able to force its subjects to accept anything it decrees, even if it is entirely illogical.

Of course, it could be that despite the speed with which these vaccines were pushed through nothing important was missed. It is almost certainly true that the standard ten years from start to finish in vaccine and drug development can be compressed, if everyone really wished. Bureaucracy expands to fill the space available.

But in general we are talking about a ten-year process, cut down to six months, or thereabouts. An additional concern is that this happened using mRNA vaccines, which represent a completely new form of technology. One that has never been used on humans before at all, ever.

We are not talking about the sixth drug in a long line of very similar drugs e.g. the statins.

  1. Lovastatin
  2. Fluvastatin
  3. Simvastatin
  4. Pravastatin
  5. Atorvastatin
  6. Cerivastatin
  7. Rosuvastatin etc.

Statins all do pretty much the exact same thing thing, in exactly the same way. Yet, each one fo them still had to go through the entire laborious clincial trial process. Years and years.

‘Can we not just skip this phase….please?’

‘No.’

‘Please?’

‘No.’

Hold on one moment, just step back, what was that at number six on this list, I hear you say… cerivastatin. You mean you’ve never heard of it. Well, it got through all the pre-clinical trials, then the animal trials. It then sailed through the human Phase II and III trials without a murmur. It was then was launched to wild acclaim. In truth that may be over-egging its real impact, which was a bit more ‘who cares, do we really need another one?

Here from a 1998 paper: ‘Clinical efficacy and safety of cerivastatin: summary of pivotal phase IIb/III studies.’

‘In conclusion, these studies indicate that cerivastatin is a safe and effective long-term treatment for patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and also suggest that higher doses should be investigated.’ 5

Here from 2001, and an article entitled: ‘Withdrawal of cerivastatin from the world market.’

‘Rhabdomyolysis was 10 times more common with cerivastatin than the other five approved statins. We address three important questions raised by this withdrawal. Should we continue to approve drugs on surrogate efficacy? Are all statins interchangeable? Do the benefits outweigh the risks of statins? We conclude that decisions regarding the use of drugs should be based on direct evidence from long-term clinical outcome trials.’ 6  

Yes, as it turns out, cerivastatin caused far more cases of severe muscle breakdown, and death, in a significant number of people. Which meant that it was hoiked from the market.

The moral of this particular story is that, even if you DO do all the clinical studies, fully and completely, one step at a time, over many years, in a widely used class of drug, your particular drug may still be found in the long term, not to be safe. Not even if it is the sixth of its class to launch.

The cerivastatin withdrawal is not an isolated event. You can, if you wish, read this paper ‘Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature.’7. So, what happens if you try to compress the entire ten year clinical trial process into around six months, on a completely new type of agent?

… Well then, it may be time to cross your fingers and hope for the best. But please do not insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of anyone else, by trying to tell me that vaccines have undergone: Rigorous testing and safety checks. Compared to what, exactly? Certainly not any other drug or vaccine launched in the last fifty years. ‘We rushed them through, and launched two years before the phase III clinical trials were due to finish.’ would be considerably more accurate.

Two plus two does not equal five, it never has, and it never will. However much you try to browbeat me, and everyone else, into accepting that it does. Indeed, as I write this, the simple fact is that not a single phase III clinical trial has yet ever been completed, on any mRNA COVID19 vaccine, and possibly not ever will be, in truth.

To repeat, this does not mean that mRNA vaccines may not be entirely safe. However, it has become impossible to to claim that we have not seen significant adverse effects from the mRNA vaccines. Effects that were not picked up in any phase of the clincial trials. Here, from the Journal of the American Medical Association in February. One of the most highly cited medical journals in the world:

‘Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men.8

I highlighted the first bit here. Namely, the words ‘based on passive surveillance reporting in the US.’ Whilst this adverse effect was not seen, or reported in the clinical trials it was picked up by the passive surveillance reporting system a.k.a. spontaneous reporting systems.

Drug adverse event reporting systems

Frankly, it is surprising that anything at all is ever seen using passive surviellance. In the UK we have the passive/spontaneous reporting system, known as the ‘Yellow Card system.’ In this US (specifically for vaccines) there is ‘VAERS’ (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

When I use the term ‘spontaneous reporting’, I mean a system whereby someone may (or more likely may not) report an adverse effect to a healthcare professional. They may (or more likely may not) fill in a form, whereupon it goes through to VAERS, who then look at it and can decide whether or not the adverse effect may (or more likely may not) be due to the vaccine. Same basic principle in the UK.

How good are these types of spontaneous reporting system in picking up adverse effects?

Well, as far as I am aware, only one serious attempt has been made to look at how many drug and vaccine-related events were actually reported in the US. Here, from a study by The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:

‘Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but under-reported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.’ 9

Fewer than one per cent of vaccine adverse events are reported. Their words, not mine. Even though, in the US, unlike the UK, there is a legal responsibility to report adverse events – I believe.

When the authors of this report tried to follow up with the CDC and perform further assessment of the system, with testing and evaluation, the doors quietly, but firmly, shut:

‘Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.’

This study was done over ten years ago, but nothing about the VAERS system has changed since, as far as I know, or can find out.

In the UK the Yellow Card system may be better, or it may not be. No-one has carried out the sort of detailed analysis that was attempted in the US. However it has been accepted that:

…all spontaneous reporting schemes have a problem with numbers: the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) itself says that only 10% of serious reactions and 2 – 4% of all reactions are reported using the Yellow Card Scheme. This means that most iatrogenic* morbidity goes unreported.’ 10

*Iatrogenic means – damage/disease caused by the treatment itself.

Frankly, I see no reason why the Yellow Card system would be any better than VAERS. The barriers to reporting are exactly the same. As the US report states:

‘Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.’9

In other words, reporting an adverse event takes an enormous amount of time and effort. You don’t get paid for doing it, you certainly don’t get thanked for it, and you have no idea if anyone paid any attention to it. All made worse if you are not sure if the adverse event was due to the vaccine, or not.

I have filled in yellow cards three times, and several hours of work followed each one. As directed, I searched though patient notes for all previous drugs prescribed, the patient’s medical conditions, a review of the consultations and on, and on. Back and forth from the pharmaceutical company the questions went. Until the will to live was very nearly lost.

If you wanted to devise a system to ensure that adverse effects were under-reported, you could not devise anything better. Yes, doctor, please do report adverse effects to us. The result will be endless hours of work, with no attempt to report back that what you did had the slightest effect, on anything. Thank you for your continued and future co-operation. And yet this, ladies and gentlemen, is the system we have in place to monitor and review all drug and vaccine-related adverse effects.

Which becomes even more worrying because, as mentioned before a couple of times so far, nothing else of much use is going to come out of the clinical trials. With the Pfizer BioNTech trial, crossover occurred in Oct 2020. By crossover I mean the point at which they started giving the vaccine to those in the placebo group as well. End of randomisation, end of useful data. End of … well of anything of any use.

mRNA vaccines and myocarditis

Anyway, getting back to the JAMA study. Even with all the formidable barriers in place to reporting adverse events, JAMA reported an increase in the rate of myocarditis of around thirty-two-fold, as reported via the VAERS system.

I should make it clear that this was the increase seen in the most highly affected population. Males aged eighteen to twenty-four. [Myocarditis = inflammation and damage to heart muscle]. The risk was lower in females, and also in other age groups, although still high. But, to keep things simple, I am going to focus on this, the highest risk group, as far as possible.

The first thing to say is that a thirty-two-fold increase probably does sound enormous. Another way to report this would be, a three thousand one hundred per cent increase, which may sound even more dramatic?

However, myocarditis is not exactly common. In this age group, over a seven-day period, you would expect to see around one and three-quarter cases per million of the population. Multiplying this by thirty-two still only gets you to fifty-six cases per million.

Which is not exactly the end of the world. In addition, most cases may fully recover. Although, having just said this, I have no long-term data to support that statement. The closest condition we have to go on as a comparator, is post-viral infectious myocarditis. And this has a mortality rate of 20% after one year and 50% after five years.11

Which means that myocarditis is certainly not a benign condition of little concern.

Anyway, at this point, you could argue that if around only one in twenty thousand men, in the highest risk population, suffer from myocarditis post-vaccination, then this does not represent a major problem.

It could indeed be worse to allow them to catch COVID19, where the risk of myocarditis is even higher than with vaccination. In reality, we may be protecting them from myocarditis through vaccination. This certainly seems to be the current party line. I might even agree with it…. maybe. So, as is my wont, I looked deeper.

I looked for the highest rate of (reported) post-viral infection myocarditis, in younger people. I believe it can be found here. ‘Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis’ 12

Here, the reported rate was around four-hundred-and-fifty cases per million. On the face of it, this is much higher than the fifty-six cases per million post-vaccination. Approximately ten times as high. But … there are, as always, several very important buts here. There were two key factors that alter the equation.

First, in the JAMA post-vaccine study, the time period for reporting myocarditis was limited to seven days after vaccination. Any case appearing after that was not considered to be anything to do with the vaccine and was thus ‘censored’. In the study above, the time period was far longer. Anything up to ninety days post-infection was counted. A period thirteen times as long.

In addition, although it is difficult to work out exactly what was done from the details provided, the four-hundred-and fifty study only looked at young people who attended outpatients at hospital. These would have been the most severely affected by COVID19, or who had other underlying medical conditions. So, they represent a small proportion, of a small proportion …. of everyone who was actually infected. The vast majority of whom would only have suffered very mild symptoms, or none at all.

In short, we are not remotely comparing like with like here. I find that we very rarely are. We are not only going to vaccinate a small proportion, of a small proportion, of the population who are at high risk of myocarditis. We are going to vaccinate virtually everybody. So, the two populations are completely different.

Leaving that to one side, where else can we look for a comparison between the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis vs post-infection myocarditis. The CDC published this statement.

‘During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.’ 13 

Their figure appears to have been entirely derived from a paper published in the British Medical Journal: ‘Risk of clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study’ 14. Different age groups were studied here which, again, makes any direct comparison tricky.

This study found a sixteen-fold increased risk, rather than a four hundred and fifty-times risk. A sixteen times risk is around half of the post-vaccination myocarditis risk reported in JAMA, in the eighteen-to twenty-four-year-old group.

Again, though, there were major differences. In the BMJ paper the observation period for inclusion of myocarditis considered to be ‘caused by’ COVID19, was one hundred- and forty-days post infection, not seven days. Twenty times as long for cases to build up.

Equally, after looking at nine million patients records over a year, slightly over two hundred thousand were diagnosed as having had COVID19. Of these, only fourteen thousand had post-infection problems, known as clinical sequelae. In this sub-group, which represents, one point two per-cent of one per-cent of the total, population there were so few cases of myocarditis that they didn’t even appear in the chart published in the main paper. You had to go to supplemental tables and figures 15

To be frank, there are far too many unknowns and uncontrolled variables kicking around here to make any accurate comparisons. However, I do not think it would be unreasonable to suggest that the risk of myocarditis post-vaccination, from these studies, is roughly the same as if you are infected with COVID19.

Once again though, we need to take a further step back. All of our figures here only make sense if all – or the majority of cases of myocarditis – are actually being picked up. What if they are not?

Worst case scenario

SAGE – the UK Governments scientific advisory group for emergencies – have been accused of scaremongering, and only presenting worst case scenarios for COVID19 hospital admissions and deaths. They are not the only ones. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

However, as Sir Patrick Vallance – one of the key members of (SAGE) – has stated, in response to such criticism.

‘It’s not my job to be an optimist’: Sir Patrick Vallance takes swipe at critics accusing scientists of scaremongering over Covid saying ministers need to ‘hear the information whether uncomfortable or encouraging.’ 16

SAGE believe it is their role to highlight the worst possible scenarios, the highest possible death tolls, and such like. So, let us now do the same, and focus on the worst-case scenario regarding mRNA vaccines and myocarditis. Whether ‘uncomfortable or encouraging’.

The worst-case scenario starts like this. If the VAERS system only picks up one per cent of vaccine related adverse effects, this means that we can start by multiplying the JAMA figures by one hundred.

Thus, instead of fifty-six cases per million, the reality is that we could be looking at five thousand six hundred cases per million, post-vaccination. Or very nearly one in two hundred.

If, in this model, we then include the possibility that post-vaccination myocarditis is as damaging as post-viral infection myocarditis, it means that one in four hundred eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds could be dead five years after vaccination.

Do I think that this is likely? I have to say that no, I don’t, really. Although this is where the figures, such as they can be relied upon, inevitably take you. Just to run you through the process a bit more slowly.

  • Relying on the VAERS system, JAMA reported a thirty-three-fold increase in myocarditis post COVID19 vaccination. An increase from 1.76, to 56.31 cases per million (in the seven-day period post vaccination)
  • It has been established that VAERS may pick up only one per cent of all vaccine related adverse effects
  • Therefore, the actual number could be as high as five-thousand six-hundred cases per million ~ 1 in 200.
  • Myocarditis (post viral infection) has a mortality rate of 50% over 5 years. So, we need to consider the possibility that post-vaccination myocarditis will carry the same mortality.
  • Therefore, the rate of death after five years could be one in four hundred (males aged 18-24)

There are approximately sixteen million men aged between eighteen and twenty-four in the US.

Total number of deaths within five years (men aged eighteen to twenty-four in the US)

16,000,000 ÷ 400                 = 40,000

(Divide by five for the UK) = 8,000.

Now, if I were in charge of anything, which I am not, which is probably a good thing, I would hope to have been made aware of these worst-case scenario figures. I would then immediately have begun to do everything I possibly could to verify them.

For starters I would want to know two critical things:

1: Is the VAERS system truly only picking up one per cent of vaccine related adverse effects?

2: Does vaccine related myocarditis lead to the same mortality and morbidity as caused by a viral infection?

If the answer to both of these questions were, yes, then I would have to decide what to do. And that could not possibly, be nothing. At least I would hope not. Yet, nothing appears to be exactly what is currently happening.

As you can tell, I still cling to the concept of ‘first do no harm.’ Today, with COVID19, it seems this this idea has become hopelessly naïve. The current attitude seems to be. ‘We are at war; you must expect casualties’ ‘Also, careless talk costs lives.So, my friend, I advise you to keep your ‘vulnerable’ mouth shut, if you know what is good for you.’

Well then, I just hope for everyone’s sake, that these figures are completely wrong. They are, after all, only a model. A worst-case scenario created using the most accurate information available at this time. However, as per the SAGE underlying philosophy, I believe it is important to present the information whether uncomfortable or encouraging.

The thing that most concerns me the most is that we have a worrying signal emerging about the mRNA vaccines. A signal surrounded by a lot of noise, admittedly. Yet, the ‘official’ response continues to be to sweep the entire thing under the carpet. ‘Nothing to see here, move along.’

Postscript

As with regard to the GMC, and the threat of sanctions, as you can see, I am only following their guidance

‘Healthcare professionals must also be open and honest with their colleagues, employers and relevant organisations, and take part in reviews and investigations when requested. They must also be open and honest with their regulators, raising concerns where appropriate. They must support and encourage each other to be open and honest, and not stop someone from raising concerns.’ 17

What do you do if it is the GMC itself that may be stopping someone from raising concerns. Should I report the GMC to the GMC? I imagine they will find themselves innocent of any wrongdoing. Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes?

1: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/breaking-news/gps-who-criticise-covid-vaccine-on-social-media-vulnerable-to-gmc-investigation/

2: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/2154621

3: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150521133628.htm

4: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016

5: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9737644/#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20these%20studies%20indicate,higher%20doses%20should%20be%20investigated.

6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59524/

7: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740994/

8: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

9: https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

10: https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psb.1789

11: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/#:~:text=Immediate%20complications%20of%20myocarditis%20include,and%2050%25%20at%205%20years.

12: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341797/

13: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

14: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1098  

15: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2021/05/19/bmj.n1098.DC1/daus063716.wt.pdf

16: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10341547/Sir-Patrick-Vallance-takes-swipe-critics-accusing-scientists-scaremongering-Covid.html

17: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/candour—openness-and-honesty-when-things-go-wrong/the-professional-duty-of-candour


273 thoughts on “A few thoughts on COVID19 vaccination

  1. andy

    I only got as far as forty or fifty lines in, and got to thinking how well this is written and argued out. Bnt now it’s all over anyway. So two things will happen: 1) normality will return after a period or
    2) Further loss of liberties will occur, freedoms to talk, travel and chose, made purely on the grounds that they can do this . And so are doing it.
    A month or two will show.

    Reply
    1. anglosvizzera

      Alhtough, now that they’re offering the “vaccine” to children aged 5 and up in the UK, it isn’t yet over, is it?

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Professor Azra Ghani Chair in Infectious Disease Epidemiology at imperial college gives me the impression that testing and isolation could go on for ever.

        Reply
  2. John

    The NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) and HCPC (Healthcare Professionals Council), which are to nurses, midwives, paramedics and others that the GMC is to physicians, would probably follow the GMC on this as well.

    Reply
  3. steve479

    Thank you again to Dr Kendrick for a masterpiece of basic facts which hopefully will be listened to by those in the medical profession who claim to “First do no harm” and to provide INFORMED consent.
    I have no medical qualification or expertise. I am a retired health & safety professional and was UK H&S Manager for a blue-chip industrial company with nurses working for me. However, my important knowledge and expertise comes from my extensive research over the last 11 years, since my daughter had an extreme adverse reaction to the HPV vaccine, I am also co-founder of the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) representing over 650 UK families. I have been invited to present at conferences in Tokyo, London, Istanbul and Chicago.
    I have had meetings in UK & Scottish Parliament and meetings with the MHRA senior team including June Raine. Most of my facts have had to be obtained by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests because the ‘facts’ presented by UK government health authorities to the public cannot be trusted. Unfortunately they are believed to be truthful by the majority of health professionals and the public. The MHRA Yellow Card adverse event reporting system has been operating for approximately 30 years – I have obtained the data relating to reported vaccine injuries by FOIA request. The MHRA acknowledge that only 1-10% of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs or AEs) are reported but these figures are for ‘drugs’ – it is almost certainly nearer 1% for vaccines since doctors are informed they are ‘SAFE & effective’. My daughter was seen by 28 doctors before we were even told about the Yellow Card reporting system – despite us being certain it was the vaccine at fault (onset of severe illness was immediate). In less than 1 year there have been more deaths and serious adverse reactions reported for Covid vaccines than the combined sum of all of the deaths and serious AE of all of the other vaccines combined over 30 years.
    USA Dr Peter McCulloch is also hugely qualified to comment – please do your own search. Dr Kendrick hasn’t mentioned Invermectin – he would probably have his GP license withdrawn if he did. But there are thousands of health professionals that swear by its effectiveness against Covid. French Drs Nicole & Gerard Delepine have very convincing evidence – please do your own search.
    I could provide thousands of items of evidence that the Covid pandemic has been a huge hoax but then I would be labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Just like the anti-vax protesters are labelled ‘right wing terrorists’! The truth is that the majority of them are families of those seriously injured by vaccines and those that have witnessed these injuries, including many nurses.
    I would beg everybody and especially health professionals to question the government’s health agency narratives (globally) and do their own thorough research.

    Reply
    1. Marion

      I am so sorry to hear about your daughter.

      I agree with every word you say – we can no longer trust the government or the nhs and we absolutely should do our own research in any medical procedure or drug that is offered – including vaccines, of course. What has happened across the world over the last two years has been a criminal scam of vast proportions. But still the morons wears their masks and still the mask and distance rules signs are displayed in shops, even if some only read ‘please’ now rather than ‘must’. I have no idea how or when the brainwashed masses are going to come to their senses (what little sense they ever had). Distressing and worrying times. But please, if anyone reading this is still – still! – wearing a mask, please, please for the love of god, stop. You are without doubt perpetuating the nonsense and giving this vile government fresh ammunition with which to take away still more of our freedoms.

      Reply
      1. johnsymes

        I suspect this kind of speaking ex-cathedra and sneering at the “brainwashed masses”, “the morons”, will be exactly mirrored by the political and company spin doctors. It is not very edifying.

        Reply
        1. Mario

          You suspect so do you? Do you have another name for those morons who wear masks anywhere, now, or in fact at any time because this rotten government told them to? Believe me, I am not ‘sneering’. My loathing of these people goes far, far deeper than that.

          Reply
      2. Chancery Stone

        Do you expect to win people over to your ‘thinking’ by calling them morons, the brainwashed masses and accusing them of having no sense? Would you like to be addressed thus? And no, I don’t wear a mask and haven’t since the start of the pandemic, but I fail to see how verbally battering people who do is remotely helpful.

        Reply
        1. An Italian Australian at the tropics

          Is “mentally challenged” a more acceptable term than “moron”?

          In the last few decades, the classical iconic figure of a mentally challenged person was a fat guy wearing a football (American football) helmet everywhere, change the helmet with a mask…

          Reply
    2. anglosvizzera

      I’m sorry to hear about your daughter. Have you followed Dr Chris Exley’s research on aluminium adjuvants in vaccines, also regarding HPV vaccines which have a high level of aluminium? He advised parents to try the high-silicon mineral water protocol which has been quite successful for many affected by the HPV vaccine. Sadly he’s been thrown out of Keele university after 40 years, because he raised concerns about vaccines and their harms, but he’s not keeping quiet. He has a new blog here, although is now unable to continue with his research…

      https://drchristopherexley.substack.com/p/the-aluminium-aluminum-industry-is

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Thank you for the blog link, I have no time to read it, but I better had because it will be important. Nolife for me 😉. I was told by an NHS clinician the link between aluminium and alzheimer’s has been debunked, but I didn’t want my chess board to get a visit from the pigeon.

        Reply
        1. anglosvizzera

          Yes, I remember a few decades ago aluminium was said to be a cause of Alzheimer’s Disease and then, suddenly, that was debunked. However more recent research by Exley showed that the brains of those who died with a diagnosis of AD had huge amounts of aluminium in them. He did a trial on a number of AD patients over 12 weeks or so, using the high-silicon mineral water, one litre a day, and they either improved or their condition failed to progress. They also found aluminium excreted in their urine. There are a lot of papers about it if you search, a cheap and safe intervention (in the UK Volvic and Fiji water are recommended, both available from Waitrose.)

          Reply
      2. steve479

        We worked with Prof Exley on our documentary Sacrificial Virgins. He does tremendous work to expose the truth. Our daughter has been drinking high silica mineral water for several years.

        Reply
        1. anglosvizzera

          Ah, yes, excellent documentary. Has your daughter benefited from the protocol? I often wonder if everyone has been helped by it or just some.

          Reply
    3. Prudence Kitten

      “Dr Kendrick hasn’t mentioned Invermectin – he would probably have his GP license withdrawn if he did”.

      Then allow me to draw aside the curtain and reveal this paper. Apparently a classic example of the well-known technique of doing a study that shows X = Y, and publishing a paper indignantly denying that X = Y.

      “New JAMA Paper Show Ivermectin Blows the Covid Vaccines Out of the Water”
      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/no_author/new-jama-paper-show-ivermectin-blows-the-covid-vaccines-out-of-the-water/

      Reply
    4. Prudence Kitten

      “I could provide thousands of items of evidence that the Covid pandemic has been a huge hoax but then I would be labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’”.

      Only by people who have no use for science. The whole problem we are having is that the terminology and, indeed, the authority of science has been bodily stolen by profiteers, careerists, and politicians. (The three groups overlap substantially).

      Science relies critically and absolutely on evidence. One single piece of reliable evidence is sufficient to refute a theory – no matter how widely accepted, popular, or convenient for the powers that be.

      In “business” (the process of transferring money from other people to oneself as quickly and effortlessly as possible, with an acceptably small risk of imprisonment) and politics, language is mainly used to persuade – often by deception. Truth is not an accepted value. Unlike the case with science, one piece of reliable evidence has no effect, as it is immediately buried – and anyone who attempts to revive it is discredited as a “conspiracy theorist”.

      The path on which Western nations have embarked, where corporations take over language and the definition of “truth”, is deadly for both science and medicine. Instead of doctors being concerned first of all to do no harm, and then to do as much good as they can for patients, the “medical industry” works in close cooperation with Big Pharma to maximise profits and protect them from any attack. The concepts of health and sickness are redefined to serve corporate ends.

      By the way, governments and political parties are corporations.

      Reply
    5. Bruno

      Thank you for your insightful comments. I am very sorry to read about your daughter’s adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine. I have no medical or let alone any epidemiological background either, but since the beginning of this crisis, I have allowed myself to be guided by elementary common sense, and simply decided to wait before getting injected. As we say in French I thought there was “eel under rock”, aka something a bit suspicious. Needless to say the more time passes, and scientific evidence comes out, the less confidence I have in these almost forced injections. Even less now that this very recently published Swedish study has demonstrated that the Rna of these mRna products can and do modify the genome (DNA) of human liver cells by reverse trancriptase:
      https://www.mdpi.com/1518306

      Reply
    1. anglosvizzera

      I find that most “authorities” are on one side or the other but, like Dr K, my own belief is that the answer lies in a mixture of the two.

      Reply
  4. John

    Thanks for this. Anyone who precdes the word “science” with teh definbite article is close to being a cult member. All we can really do is wait and see

    Reply
  5. Ian Roselman

    It sure makes me glad I never became a doctor. I do have some experience of teaching, where the GTC (or whatever they have morphed into now) has similar powers over the teaching profession. I believe one woman was banned from teaching because she had once worked as a stripper in a nightclub. Scandalous! I don’t know the answer to this but it involves a culture change to allow professional people to follow their conscience and not be enslaved to “guidelines” which are in truth dictates from unassailable (and undemocratic) authorities.

    Reply
    1. steve479

      I hadn’t seen nomoresilence.world – I have now. It should be a prerequisite for INFORMED CONSENT & FIRST DO NO HARM.

      Reply
  6. robertliddell1

    Dr Kendrick
    Thank you for another splendidly written and thoughtful article.
    As a retired GP I am proud that at least one member of my profession can still think and write so well, and be, well, brave. GMC threats are no joke, and I hope your bravery will not backfire.
    Regards
    Bob

    Reply
    1. .gjx.

      I heartily agree that Dr. Kendrick deserves our deep thanks for asssembling this case and holding himself in a ‘vulnerable’ spot for so long. As a layman and a business decisionmaker, I appreciate his willingness to draw inferences from messy data and to publish even casual lines of thought just so we can begin to handle these questions.
      But having read the good doctor’s blog for many years now, and his book(s), I observe that his writing is showing signs of the stress it has caused him. Of course he is right to hypothesize that the GMC might be comparable to a mafia. It would not be the first medical board to act such, and that danger exists with every bureaocracy. The stress is real and among intelligent people all the more effective when it is veiled and understated. I am saddened that I’m picking up on those feelings in Malcolm’s writing. I send him my prayers for strength and fortitude, and compliments for the clarity of his thinking despite the appearances of adversity.

      Reply
  7. Bill Sanderson

    Having had my two shots I was dismayed to hear of the vaccine’s limited effectiveness and its speedy decline in usefulness. So I decided not to have the booster, feeling more than little foolish in having the initial injections. I have recently heard of two friends who have developed heart problems post-vaccination, and I just have to hope that it’s a coincidence. Thank you as always for your investigation and analysis, delivered in such a way that I can follow what you’re telling me.

    Reply
  8. susan

    Thankyou so much for keeping me sane this last 2 years. I too would be accused of being an anti vaxxer especially after reading Dissolving Illusions, the forgotten history of vaccines. An absolute must read. Sanitation and good nutrition – not the eatwell plate – are the best curbs on viral spread.

    Reply
    1. KhageDaminal

      Thank you, Dr. Kendrick.
      Your curious, scientific mind, fed by what I presume to be a desire to get at the truth no matter where it leads, is admirable, appreciated, and is probably shared by many of your colleges.
      What sets you apart, what makes you special, is your courage.
      I love you for that, and wish you the best.

      Reply
    2. Prudence Kitten

      I would suggest that we can all maximise our health with a few things: grass-fed organic fatty meat, pure water (if you can get it), sunshine, sleep, and exercise. Also minimising stress and exposure to pollution, although those are much harder to achieve.

      Reply
        1. Prudence Kitten

          Very true. I meant “unpolluted water”, but I expressed myself poorly – very easy to do when one is trying to be concise.

          Reply
  9. Kye

    This a interesting article but it’s too long, most people like me don’t have time to read it all so don’t, it would reach more people if it was more compact. I think Mercola does the same thing, his articles are good but too long, most of my friends say similar, interesting info but I don’t have time to read it all, one could spend all day reading such articles. Well done for the effort though

    Reply
          1. Kye Mackay

            ah interesting answer if not a tad sarcastic which is not necessarily , I already saie it was a good article and my point was it might reach more and do more good if it was read by more people if it was more compact, there are many interesting blogs websites out there including yours but its hard to find time to read all of them fully

          2. AhNotepad

            Kye, to be complete you also said, you have a business to run, and a life. This could be read in a number of ways, as we cannot get the intonation in a blog, as possibly sarcastic, maybe you didn’t mean to be, but you can always read it in bits. I cannot read all I would like to on these subjects, though I do spend several hours a day doing it (no TV), but can’t remember most by the next day.

        1. anglosvizzera

          I think there are “interesting” blogs and “essential” blogs, particularly as you mention “having a life”. I think Dr K’s blog posts fall into the “essential” category if one wishes to enjoy a long and healthy life! Well worth reading even for busy people, and entertaining enough to keep one interested.

          Reply
        2. Dec

          Kyle, It is difficult to get the balance right when there needs to be background information and reasoning to counter three word slogans. This is the problem we have in general in education , short tag lines to be learnt parrot fashion. No match for reasoned explanations from core principles but quicker! Work, life, balance😀

          Reply
        3. Prudence Kitten

          Business does take a lot of time and energy. But life is also important. Dr Kendrick offers much good advice that may help to make your life long and healthy; a few hours spent studying may yield a thousandfold (or greater) return.

          One of the greatest causes of today’s widespread sickness is people’s desire for simple, cut and dried answers. Such as pills and potions.

          Reply
          1. Prudence Kitten

            A couple of my favourite quotations come to mind. I like quotations: the best ones distil a lifetime’s experience and learning.

            “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong”.
            – H. L. Mencken, “The Divine Afflatus,” (1917). Often misquoted, e.g. as “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong”.

            “There was once an interview with Jeff Greenfield in which he was asked why I was never asked onto Nightline. He gave a good answer. He said the main reason was that I lacked concision. I had never heard that word before. You have to have concision. You have to say something brief between two commercials.

            “What can you say that’s brief between two commercials? I can say Iran is a terrible state. I don’t need any evidence. I can say Ghaddaffi carries out terror. Suppose I try to say the US carries out terror, in fact it’s one of the leading terrorist states in the world. You can’t say that between commercials. People rightly want to know what do you mean. They’ve never heard that before. Then you have to explain. You have to give background. That’s exactly what’s cut out. Concision is a technique of propaganda. It ensures you cannot do anything except repeat clichés, the standard doctrine, or sound like a lunatic”.
            – Noam Chomsky (interview with Laura Flanders, 24/4/2012).

        4. Professor Pork-Sausage

          Never mind shorting the blog posts. That would be dreadful, but please Dr K, consider doing your own YouTube channel. Have a look at Dr Suneel Dhand as an example. You would reach a wider audience which you deserve, and they need.

          Reply
        5. An Italian Australian at the tropics

          The problem is, many people who didn’t have time to get informed now don’t have a life anymore. Literally.

          Everyone is different, by my family’s and my health have the precedence over anything else.

          I find dr Kendrick’s articles a great way to stay informed without reading a whole book, so they are in fact a shorter way of doing it.

          Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      Maybe you would have time to look at “Doctors for Covid Ethics”, as with this blog, it’s not mandatory watching but will add to your knowledge. https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/doctors-for-covid-ethics-an-interdisciplinary-symposium-iii-the-truth-shall-set-you-free.

      Don’t try to discuss with people who believe the narrative, I saw a comment which described it:

      “It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. You move, the pigeon knocks over the pieces, shits all over the board, and struts about like it won.”

      Reply
    2. Dan Anderson

      A good rant can’t be short. sometimes it’s not just one thing, but everything. I’d say MK could have said a lot more

      Reply
    3. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      Vaccines are part of a securitised narrative set outside revision as history or science by shadow powers set outside or above accountability under the law. The Wizard of Oz or suchlike.
      Ostensibly as the wall between civilisation and all the plagues of ancient ignorance, barbarism and serfdom, but actually inaugurating systemic afflictions under a one way social ‘contract’ that runs something like donating our body to science – while still alive. This reveals serfs had it quite good overall (watch Terry Jones series on Medieval history – The Serf).

      Tip. If you stop – become present – and read a random paragraph as a quality of depth, you will gain more that trying to skim the surface as if you have to understand what you read as an extension of what you already think you know.

      Quality as discernment, need not wait for a perfect world.

      Reply
    4. jeresavo1

      Sometimes i find it hard to finish the blogs in one go. That i see as my problem. To expect the dispenser of free, critical, incredibly researched material to tailor their postings to suit me would be just silly. This one took me two visits, first at tea break and 2nd at lunch. Very rewarding & compelling. Thanks to the good doctor.

      Reply
  10. Craig E

    The Pharma companies couldn’t have planned it better if they tried. Astrazeneca’s first trial results were a pooled analysis of Phase I, II. III trials. Their only truly double blind trial (South Africa) produced dismal results.

    None of the Pharma companies had transmission prevention as a primary outcome. The bar was low for prevention of sympomatic covid as an endpoint. Follow-up for efficacy was around 2.5 months, which surprise surprise, turned out to be peak efficacy.

    There were some troubling omissions in the Pfizer trial in terms of many more participants in the vax arm being kicked out for protocol deviations.

    In the Pfizer/Moderna trials for adolescents and children, no-one in the either arm got severe covid but a few had to drop out due to grade 4 AEs. Efficacy was inferred via antibody levels.

    The adverse event tracking is woeful. Agencies are ‘reviewing’ AEs and deaths post-vax and overwhelmingly concluding no link despite the fact that autopsies are not conducted by these agencies.

    You need 4x x jab per year just to keep your head above water…. and when you convert the relative risk reduction into absolutes, there is little benefit. And for a non-sterilising vax this makes our current covid crop the most ineffective in history.

    Meanwhile we have been counting deaths ‘with’ covid and farcically counting those who were admitted to hospital for something other than covid as covid hospitalisations.

    While I acknowledge some suffer at the hands of covid, the fear-mongering and measures over 2 years is, and was next-level stupidity.

    Reply
    1. Dec

      Did they even look at all cause mortality, i.e. did the Vax cause more harm overall, protects against its target but caused other fatal issues ?

      Reply
    2. Dr Leigh Gold

      My first Pfizer vaccine caused tinnitus within a few days which, thankfully, disappeared before I received the second vaccine 12 weeks later. My GP at the time said the tinnitus had nothing to do with the vaccine but was Ménière’s disease. Hmmmmm. The second vaccine caused intense headaches almost immediately which lasted 6-7 weeks before family members noticed an abnormal personality change and I became aware of dragging my right foot. A scan showed abnormality and I was admitted to a Merseyside Neuro hospital. A subdural haematoma was diagnosed and debates were held between the medical staff as to whether burr holes should be administered to relieve pressure and bleeding. Fortunately the consultant decided conservative treatment would produce a better outcome. After 6 days I allowed home. A subsequent visit to the same GP who diagnosed Ménière’s disease elicited the response “A pure coincidence old boy, nothing to do with the vaccine”……yeah, right. Repeated requests to get the booster? 😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣

      Reply
      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        Yes. And the trial took a lot longer to complete, not enough participants could get sick quickly enough. Final result, 19 infections in the vaccine arm, 20 in the saline placebo cohort.

        The othe AZ trials all used the menACWY quadivalent meningitis vaccine as the control.

        Reply
    3. johnsymes

      Disproportionate exclusions from the vaccine and placebo groups is not the only significant problem with the Pfizer paper. The end point of the original study was symptomatic infection with a positive test. There were 8/ 21,720 in the vaccine group and 162/ 21,728 in the placebo group, from which a vaccine efficacy of 95% is obtained (corrected as infection relative risk per 1000 person years).
      However there were 1,594 people in the vaccine group versus 1,816 with placebo who were suspected of having covid but did not have a positive test, and were therefore excluded from the analysis. If you assumed all these people actually did have covid, and added them to the 8 and 162 previously, the vaccine efficacy would be 19%. Obviously, some of these would have has flu or similar, but some would have has covid for sure.
      The true figure for vaccine efficacy must therefore lie somewhere between these 2 values. Worryingly, you could not find this out from the published paper, but only by reading the Pfizer submission to the FDA.

      Reply
      1. Sasha

        What about the 40% relative increase in all cause mortality in the vaccine group? RFK, Jr made the claim in his book. I looked at the tables but wasn’t able to see it. Do you know anything about that? Thanks

        Reply
    4. Andy

      “There were some troubling omissions in the Pfizer trial in terms of many more participants in the vax arm being kicked out for protocol deviations.”
      Rumour has it some of them were kicked out for being dead.

      Reply
    1. Jim Sks

      Just because the whole thing is a fraud won’t stop them from injecting people with the “cure”.

      Moderna’s HIV genetic conconction is already in clinical trials.

      Reply
  11. jan van ruth

    it is not either myocarditis from infection OR from vaccination.
    more likely it is myocarditis from infection AND myocarditis from vaccination.
    the OR situation would only occur if the vaccine would prevent infection, which it clearly does not, in fact it does quite the contrary….

    Reply
    1. Eggs ‘n beer

      Definitely not. The additional risk increases exponentially with each dose. The booster shots are giving far more AEs than the second shot, which had five times the rate of AEs than the first dose.

      Reply
    2. beyondspin

      Might also be that those first infected were more prone to myocarditis after vaccination due to a cytotoxic t-cell response to the spike presented by mRNA transfected cells. Though, you’re correct that vaccines don’t stop infection, so even if vaccinated, one could still get infected and thus still get viral myocarditis. Anyway, the paper first referenced above was a very flawed pre-print, which I discussed in my blog post here: https://beyondspin.wordpress.com/2022/02/11/the-new-tobacco-science/

      ##

      Reply
  12. Elizabeth Rostaing

    Another fantastic column
    I hope many people can read this and avoid being vaccinated
    Let’s start asking questions and start thinking again!!

    Reply
  13. imp66

    Another bang on the money article, Dr. K.! I too adhere to the notion of “first do no harm”, so have ignored all ” invitations” to take any COVID related “vaccine”. The so-called “settled” science of COVID has joined the climate “emergency” authodoxy and are at near religious status. Woe betide the boy who dares question anything! “Good old wobey!” (to borrow from Billy Connolly). Keep on truckin’, Doc.!

    Reply
  14. kalochorio

    “Now, if I were in charge of anything, which I am not, which is probably a good thing, I would hope to have been made aware of these worst-case scenario figures”. I wish you were in charge. We might then get a bit of honesty and/or logical analysis of the evidence, rather than the current policy of smoke and mirrors, around the salient facts.

    Reply
  15. Tony McKenna

    Thank you again. I think this is the definitive article on the “pandemic”.
    One small typo, I think.
    ” In this US (specifically for viruses) ” should read,
    “In the US (specifically for vaccines)”
    Tony

    Reply
  16. Marcia T

    I do think that sound bites are what’s got us into this problem. Granted, there’s so much information available in the world these days it can be overwhelming, but we need articles like Dr. Kendrick’s in order to begin to understand the nuances of the problems we’re dealing with. I’m thankful every time he writes anything, no matter how short or long, and just hope he continues to write and practice medicine. Thanks again, Malcolm, for the information and the references!

    Reply
  17. Alan Richards

    I think it’s important to realise that Dr Kendrick is talking here about just one serious adverse event.

    Pfizer’s own post marketing study dated 30 April 2021 listed 9 pages of adverse events of special interest, including death. Statistician Matthew Crawford calculated an incidence of death of 430 per million injections and 7,000 serious adverse events per million injections.

    This study was obtained by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency and is available here.

    Click to access 5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

    Reply
  18. nestorseven

    Thanks for another down-to-earth article. So what if I am an anti-vaxxer? These days, they treat anyone who doesn’t believe in vaccinations (mRNA injections are not anything close to vaccinations) as being akin to a German citizen during the 1930’s-40’s who might disagree with the Nazis in any way. This is outright totalitarianism.

    Where are the long term studies that prove vaccinated people are healthier than those who receive no vaccinations? They do not exist, much like the true data does not exist for determining the safety and efficacy of mRNA injections…and it never will exist. And the true data will never exist to support the PCR tests which supported the fake pandemic through pretending to create millions of “cases”.

    Imagine the playing field here for big pharma. 10’s of millions of children all scheduled to get 60-70 vaccinations and then you add 1-2 injections of mRNA poisons every year. After 40 years of this nonsense, are children living healthier lives? No.

    Continuing…now your playing field is the entire world’s population, over 7.7 billion people. At one or two or three injections every year, the profits will be in the hundreds of billions. And as a bonus, the crap you inject into everyone has the potential to render their immune system inoperative to some degree and suddenly you have a whole new class of super sick people with cancers, heart problems, lung issues and hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of other ailments. Now you can usher them into the medical system and treat them with endless testing, procedures and drugs. Now, big pharma profits will be in the $$trillions…every year.

    I have come across stories about people running up $1 million in medical expenses over many months trying to get their lives back after being injected with mRNA poisons. Imagine 10’s of thousands of new cancer patients running up 1/2 million dollar bills using useless chemo and radiation? I do not for a moment think that this is not part of the plan.

    Ever wonder why thousands of drugs get approval and end up only to be tossed in the garbage or rendered no more effective than previous drugs? Because when you put a “new” drug on the market, it is usually touted as being a miracle drug or somehow better than previous drugs. Therefore, big pharma can charge gargantuan prices and our stupid insurance system gladly pays the bill or the patient does. They make enormous profits the first few years until the drug is taken off the market or replaced by yet another over-priced clone.

    This is a game I refuse to play. No vaccinations, mRNA injections, PCR tests or other nefarious big pharma drugs. I vow to go to my grave entirely big pharma drug free. I do not believe for one second that any big pharma drug will keep me healthy, help me live longer or reverse any disease.

    Reply
    1. Andy

      Not forgetting that after giving you the first drug you then need another one to mitigate the adverse effects of the first one. Rinse and repeat.

      Reply
  19. thecovidpilot

    “However, I do not think it would be unreasonable to suggest that the risk of myocarditis post-vaccination, from these studies, is roughly the same as if you are infected with COVID19.”

    Vaccination is optional. Covid is not. So does the risk from vaccination come on top of the risk from covid? Put another way, are the vaccinated at double the risk of the unvaccinated if they should contract covid?

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      Interesting, why is covid not optional? With the correct care, mostly nutrition, I would suggest it definitely is optiional.

      Reply
        1. AhNotepad

          This is an example of the need for accurate terms. SARS Cov-2 is the reputed virus, Covid-19 is the symptomatic disease. I agree, exposure to a virus is not optional, even if you stand 6 feet apart, wear a face covering, or wash your hands repeatedly, or all three. Covid-19 I suggest is optional, and can be mitigated by most people’s immune system, or maybe with a bit of assistance from the well known, and now banned substances.

          Reply
        2. An Italian Australian at the tropics

          I’ve been exposed plenty, in fact pretty much all my vaccinated friends have been infected and sick, but not even a sniffle for me.

          No social distancing here, I’m a w… ahem, an Italian Australian, so people expect to be hugged and kissed twice whenever we meet, and yet here I am, unaffected.

          Now that I think about it, the last time I had a cold was about 15 years ago, before I changed my lifestyle and adopted a low carb first, and a keto carnivore diet lastly. Plenty of sunshine doesn’t hurt, too.

          Strangely enough, everyone in my keto carnivore circle is not vaccinated and hasn’t got covid either.

          Reply
          1. Eggs ‘n beer

            et tu, Brutus? Well, Brutus was a w.. Italian. But likewise, I seem immune too. Which doesn’t mean I haven’t been exposed to it, just that there was no risk of infection. Just like I’ve been exposed to many ‘flu variants over the last 40 years but never caught it. And I didn’t start to go keto or take D and K until Covid came along. The only people I know who’ve had severe cases are the vaccinated. All the infected unvaxxed, including those with various, and multiple, co-morbidities have been mild. Touch wood.

          2. AhNotepad

            I think you don’t catch a disease, but earn it by neglect in some respect. As I understand it, people living in poverty generally suffer more than the affluent, this must indicate that neglect is the cause.

          3. Gary Ogden

            An Italian Australian at the tropics: Me, too! The last time I was sick was 2005. Shortly thereafter I changed my diet. Since then I’ve had two very minor episodes of sinus congestion, which resolved within about 36 hours. With carnivore (almost two years now) and B vitamins, I not only don’t get sick, but feel better.

    2. beyondspin

      Those first infected maybe more prone to myocarditis after vaccination due to a cytotoxic t-cell response to the spike presented by mRNA transfected cells. Though, since these mRNA vaccines don’t stop infection, even if vaccinated, one could still get infected and thus still get viral myocarditis. Anyway, the paper first referenced above was a very flawed pre-print, which I discussed in my blog post here: https://beyondspin.wordpress.com/2022/02/11/the-new-tobacco-science/

      ##

      Reply
  20. lorrainecleaver7

    Well said Dr Kendrick. Wish more would speak out. My 17 yr old son thankfully refused the vaccine and had Covid in November which lasted two days. I’d given him it and, for me at 55, it was a few body aches and a strange skin sensitivity on my back, like sun burn almost. Tiredness lasted a couple of weeks and then nothing. I had deep mistrust of the medical mafia anyway, long before covid reared it’s ugly head. Something to be grateful for I guess.

    Reply
  21. Duane Kiel

    The variety and amount of data and opinion on the covid vaccine issue are formidable. Your work allows an informed decision to be “shot” or not. Thank you.

    Reply
  22. Charlene Cullen

    Thank you so much for being a voice of reason, care and diligent analysis. And for the time you spent researching this rather than accepting what is pushed by Big Pharma and every organisation (health and government) they pervade. Thank you for summing up so beautifully everything I have come to understand over the years about, not just the Covid Vaccines, but also other longstanding vaccines.
    I hope you may be attending the Public Health Collaboration Conference this May…..there are a few of you who I pesonally would love to give a standing ovation to- for your tenacity and truth over the past two years.

    Reply
  23. Alan Richards

    Of course Pfizer has all the bases covered. It acquired Trillium Therapeutics in August 2021 and Arena Pharmaceuticals in December 2021. Following quotes from their website.

    “Trillium’s portfolio includes biologics that are designed to enhance the ability of patients’ innate immune system to detect and destroy cancer cells.”

    “Arena’s portfolio includes diverse and promising development-stage therapeutic candidates in gastroenterology, dermatology, and cardiology, including etrasimod, an oral, selective sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator currently in development for a range of immuno-inflammatory diseases including gastrointestinal and dermatological diseases.“

    Reply
  24. John Watkinson

    Great essay again Malcolm. Regards John W

    On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:40 AM Dr. Malcolm Kendrick wrote:

    > Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 23rd February 2022 The first thing I want > to say here is that there should be nothing in science that is beyond > analysis and potential criticism. Because, once this happens, we can find > ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed. A place of unques” >

    Reply
  25. JDPatten

    Dr. Kendrick,
    Measles:
    How particular was measles reporting in the early 20th century?
    Did they differentiate between “death from measles” and “death with measles” or, for that matter, from “death after measles”?
    No, really… because measles is well known to cause havoc with a child’s various acquired immunities, leaving him/her open to all manner of illnesses that would otherwise, without measles, have been shed easily.
    Particular case in point: 1952. 7 year old child gets measles, spends 2 weeks in bed with severe case. An ear infection follows on. (This was often the case back then.) Measles case is essentially done. The ear infection proceeds to erode the child’s tympanum and conducting bones. Drainage soaks his pillow. Child proceeds to delirium. Finally, a doctor visits with his kit bag neatly supplied with the new penicillin.
    Life saved. Mine.
    That narrowly avoided death might well have been reported as death from exacerbated ear infection. Clearly, however, had it not been for that case of measles, the ear infection almost assuredly would not have even been noticed.
    What would you have written on that hypothetical death certificate?

    So, did measles reporting early in the century include deaths from, with, and after? And did growing medical sophistication allow later reporting to isolate strictly for “deaths from”?
    Does that explain the shape of your graph?

    Reply
    1. thecovidpilot

      I got very sick with some sort of salmonella as a child because I was pushed into a septic pond. I was so nauseous that I didn’t eat for ten days, yet was conscious and alert the whole time, despite a fever that reached 103F. No antibiotics were given–just aspirin and I was watched over carefully by a camp doctor who was actually a 4th year medical student. I was given cold compresses and lots of bedside care. When my mother found out, she was aghast.

      I had measles and chickenpox and mumps and all sorts of childhood diseases. I got a little extra sick with a relapse once.

      Now, with calcifediol available online, if one is prepared, no reason for relapses or secondary infections to be serious.

      Medicine is conservative and cautious, so I don’t expect it to embrace calcifediol any time soon.

      Reply
    2. Martin Back

      Interesting. I got measles in 1950 at the age of two. I don’t remember it, but apparently it was a severe case and they thought I might die. However, I did get repeated and very painful ear infections later on as a child. I never realised the two diseases might be connected.

      Reply
  26. Serhii Kushchenko

    Dear author, the problem is not vaccines per se, but degradation of people caused by a too comfortable life. The proportion of morons in the population has reached a level that threatens the collapse of society. Officials of the Ministry of Health staged this lawlessness with the connivance of a crowd of idiots. That crowd bears the bulk of the blame, not bureaucrats. The degraded population will have to bear the responsibility after some time. I expect furious wars, famine, cold and epidemics. We’ll see how strong the rollback of scientific and technological progress will be.

    Reply
  27. johnplatinumgoss

    First let me say thank you for raising this important issue and allow me to bring to the table a little hope. The GMC considers itself to be the law, and sole administrator of the law, regarding medical practice, as it has been for many years. No doubt it even had some validity originally. Perhaps it could be made to have validity again.

    Admittedly, there are mass murderers like Doctor Harold Shipman who needed to be struck-off. But the suspension of Dr Mohamed Iqbal Adil for telling the truth about lack of treatment for his patients and lack of medically necessary procedures due to the Corona yerunda is a different matter.

    Dr. Kendrick’s concluding remark is integral in this debate.

    “What do you do if it is the GMC itself that may be stopping someone from raising concerns. Should I report the GMC to the GMC?”

    Since Dr. Sam White put his career on the line to challenge what has been happening, and after winning his case against the GMC, a police crime number has been obtained.

    https://theirishsentinel.com/2022/01/18/uk-crime-investigation-number-6029679-21/

    This was on 20 December last year. Cited in the investigation is Charlie Massey, Chief Executive and Registrar of the General Medical Council (GMC). Also cited was Cressida Dick and June Raine, head of the MHRA. Many are doubtless pleased to know that in a short period of time, Cressida Dick has gone, all the nonsense restrictions and mandates (apart from “vaccination”) are either gone, or on the way out. The suspension of Dr. Adil has been lifted. People are waking up.

    https://johnplatinumgoss.com/2022/02/12/power-elites-cressida-dick/

    You may have noticed the changes, but would be forgiven if you are not aware of the police crime number. That is because we have a media which does not take questions. That problem is being addressed and further good news is that the heads of BBC and Sky Television are also cited on the crime number. Because of the multiple crimes, and the serious nature of them, it took several hours to report these criminal activities. If you are one of the global criminals you might like to check if your name is there too. I know Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates are on the list.

    If you are a doctor, or medical practitioner of any kind, and were genuinely unaware that the vaccines were causing harm and death, now is the time to renounce your former malpractices and put a stop to this genocide straight away. You have a responsibility of care. Especially for children. Nobody should administer a so-called “vaccine” without first checking with the website howbadismybatch,com and nobody should administer any Oxford/AstraZeneca “vaccines” because no proper information exists on vaccine damage. You have been warned.

    If you continue knowing the damage that is being done and encourage or allow the injection of these knowingly toxic and experimental drugs without finding out what effect they might have it amounts to willful neglect. If someone dies it is “gross negligent manslaughter” at the very least.

    Be proud of this nation, be proud of former police officer, Mark Sexton, Dr. Sam White, Dr M. Adil, Philip Hyland, Lois Bayliss and many others who through their actions have saved us from certain continued restrictions and years of nonsense to come. It took courage.

    Now though is the time for you to show courage. to behave responsibly and as one. Protect the brave among you. Otherwise you will end up as members of a slave society. If you fear for your jobs now think about the following, because it is already starting to happen. Diagnosis is increasingly being done over the phone, over the internet, according to computer programmes. Doctors will soon be replaced by this technology.

    Yes, you might have enjoyed the freedom this scam has given you – more hours on the golf-course, empty surgeries, time to finish that unfinished novel, more time with your family and so on. That was not what you signed up for. And if it continues, as well as replacing you and your kind forever, the computer systems diagnosing and prescribing will be no more than an administrative arm of Big Pharma delivering to an unsuspecting public experimental gene-therapies (aimed eventually to make us all robots) and other poisons, together with loads of statins and other harmful and expensive medicaments, while those questioning the validity of such science will be suspended, struck-off, or worse.

    Is that the medical world you want for future generations?

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      I would tend to avoid such terms as genocide and also terms such as ‘slave society’ and the idea that we eventually be made into robots. It is all too extreme and puts off those with reasonable doubts.

      I have serious concerns, yes, but I do not think we are in the midst of genocide, the creation of a slave society. Nor that there is any wish to turn us all into robots. I think such comments make it far too easy for people to dismiss you as a ‘deranged conspiracy theorist’ or words that effect. Hopefully, the facts will become clear.

      I considered not putting this comment up, as I know it will be used – successfully – against me. It has tested my belief in free speech.

      Reply
      1. thecovidpilot

        Is there any point at which you would use the term ‘genocide?’

        (I assume that you are keeping an eye out for some such case and have a degree scale. The alternative is blinders, isn’t it?)

        You haven’t said much about Canada’s or Australia’s moves towards dictatorships. Quarantine camps? Seriously? Emergency powers because truckers occupy a bridge? Seriously?

        Then there is the soft oppression of physicians’ free speech. And everyone else’s, too, who questions official narratives.

        Then there’s the gulag in Washington, DC, where protestors are being jailed for trespassing in areas that used to be toured by the public. Held without bail because of their politics. Four protestors were murdered by the Capitol Police during the protest. Just like the Stasi.

        The pot is heating up. Will the frogs just rationalize away the increased temperature?

        Reply
        1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

          I would use certain terms if, and when, I thought they would make people listen, and I had the data to support them, rather than dismiss me and run away. Currently, the word genocide = tin foil hat.

          Reply
      2. johnplatinumgoss

        Thank you for putting the comment up in the interests of free speech. Let me exonerate you. The thoughts, and language used, are mine, and I take full responsibility. I agree that words like “genocide” are emotive.

        Reply
        1. Prudence Kitten

          But anyone who does not feel emotional after learning the facts is either a psychopath, a Vulcan or a Boddhisatva.

          Reply
        2. AC Osborn

          The thoughts and words may be yours, but the concepts are not.
          They are straight from the WEF and that nice Mr Schwab and his band of merry men.
          I must admit I am a little surprised that Dr Kendrick uses the same kind of rhetoric that the media use to denegrate anyone who questions the Vaccines to describe his fellow doctors, scientists and pathologists that record what they have found not only in the Vaccines but in the vaccinee’s blood as well.
          Of course they could all be lying for some reason, but what we need is calls from the likes of the good doctor for more people to reproduce if possible those very odd findings

          Reply
      3. David Bailey

        I agree Malcolm – it is far better for you to stick to the medical facts, and not stray into wild speculation, particularly about the motivations behind all that has happened.

        If you can help stem the mad rush to get everyone vaccinated with a hardly tested product, that will be a sufficient achievement!

        Reply
  28. David Bailey

    Malcolm,

    Thanks for a pretty comprehensive discussion of the risk of myocarditis after vaccination. I hadn’t realised that myocarditis is actually a dangerous condition over a longer time interval.

    Although you mentioned blood clots in passing, you didn’t discuss them in detail. Does that mean you do not think there is an appreciable risk of blood clots from taking the vaccine?

    If there is any truth to the rumours that young athletes are dying from heart attacks in significant numbers, this would seem to be worth some sort of discussion.

    I have seen at least one explanation for the blood clots from COVID vaccines that seemed plausible to my non-medical mind.

    All the various COVID vaccines work by modifying cellular DNA/RNA in the body to produce spike protein. Hopefully these are normally muscle cells and only some soreness results, however if the injection ends up modifying epithelial cells, or their precursors, you could end up with these cells – lining a blood vessel wall – being attacked by the immune system and forming a clot in a blood vessel.

    Reply
  29. Jeremy May

    Someone (let’s call them ‘A’) had a pop at me for referencing another doctor on another of Dr K’s blogs. I was told in no uncertain terms that the other doctor wasn’t really a doctor and he’d historically encouraged (paraphrase ‘A’) ‘the spearing of arms with experimental, toxic proteins’. Yes, ‘A’ had a downer on the unreal doctor.

    However, I have continued to watch the other doctor, who, since I started following him about 25 videos ago, has used official ONS statistics (also from the USA and elsewhere) and interviews with ‘real’ doctors to inform watchers how we were progressing as different variants swept through.
    Recently he’s interviewed two (that I’ve seen, perhaps there are more) young, fit guys who appear to have suffered incredibly distressing side-effects after a second dose of vaccine. Both guys developed myocarditis and both, initially at least, were treated appallingly by the medical profession. Shamefully even. Both I think are finally on the mend.
    I also watched the other doctor interview a Dr Pilz who, among a long list of qualifications, has a PhD from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam. Both he and the other doctor appeared desperate to say exactly what they wanted, largely about natural immunity to covid, but you could see them holding back for fear of ‘professional reprisals’.
    It is obvious to me that the other doctor has been holding back for months, maybe years. To some degree he has trodden the ‘official’ line, while not actually believing it. But, in so doing has enabled himself to keep bringing us his message. In other words, if he’d said what he really thought, You Tube would have bounced him.

    I applaud you Dr K for so eruditely, and with no little courage, expressing what so many other medics and HCPs are holding back from saying.
    If anyone tries to bring you to book for speaking the truth they need lining up against a wall and injecting.
    (Sorry, this is a bit long for Kye)

    Reply
    1. Bev Courtney

      I watch the “other doctor” regularly, too. I agree that he is toeing the narrative line to avoid being put down. Some of his recent comments make that obvious and that he has changed his tack of late, which I’m happy to see.

      Reply
  30. Annmarie

    Thank you for a beautiful, honest, fact based analysis of this myocarditis with virus vs vax issue. Thank you for not truncating your words for brevities sake.

    Reply
  31. james

    ” I only criticize things when I want them to be as good as they possibly can be. It is a character trait of mine to hunt for flaws, and potential problems.”
    That dear doctor is the proper scientific attitude. It is the scientific method.

    Reply
  32. David Ingram

    Once more I agree with you. I note that to disagree with our government analysis was a criminal offence between about April 2020 and September 30th 2021. Our media and most trade unions including the BMA do not seem to have fully appreciated this.

    Reply
  33. Arfur Mo

    I suspect that if Big Pharma hadn’t been granted total legal immunity, they would have voluntarily pulled the (mRNA specifically) covid drugs many many months back.

    Reply
      1. Arfur Mo

        It should do – and I think there is cumulative evidence there. However, too many politicos and Big Pharma stooges have their noses in the trough.

        Reply
  34. DAVID MCALONAN

    Excellent material again Malcolm because I was beginning to worry that you might be going a bit ‘soft-line’. However, after trolling through all the comments, I see that you are steering clear of the genocide angle. I partly concur but only because genocide as such is very extreme…but then so is the totalitarian regime model taking place in ‘civilised’ countries. We can only speculate…we know things are being manipulated and morphed into something wrong, but we don’t have the wiring diagram and we don’t want to read the non-existent manual. Anyway, mini-rant over, I have read and re-read your ‘Clot Thickens’ book and it has given me some measure of hope having suffered a massive infarction at a young age of 45 so I would hope that I can plug another worthy tome that speaks to your current blog. I think that it is essential reading regardless of stance and medical faith. DISSOLVING ILLUSIONS. DISEASE, VACCINES, AND THE FORGOTTEN HISTORY. By Suzanne Humpries and Roman Bystrianyk. It is concise, historically correct, well referenced, honest, and disturbingly frightening. If we could teach sheep to read, then we might be on to something good, but that’s a massive ask. Still, arbeit macht frei and all that.

    Reply
  35. Martin Back

    Thank you Dr Kendrick for pointing out that the COVID19 vaccinations have not been tested to the same stringent standards as most medications. Also that the VAERS/Yellow Card system badly under counts any adverse effects discovered after the vaccine is released.

    We also have a VAERS-type system in South Africa, although the MSM keeps very quiet about it. I only heard it mentioned once in two years, and that was an interview with one of the personnel involved. The interviewer asked if the reports of adverse effects were taken seriously.

    “Oh yes,” came the reply, “We treat them very seriously indeed. A panel reviews each and every report, and we email the person reporting several times if necessary to get as much data as we can.”

    And I thought, no wonder nobody wants to report an adverse effect. Doctors are busy people, they haven’t time for all the digging out of facts and figures and filling in the paperwork. And anyway, the panel is probably fishing for evidence to prove that it wasn’t the vaccine at fault after all.

    For anyone interested, here is a FAQ and Case Reporting Form.

    Reply
  36. Cookie

    I’ve always wondered why some vaccines work wonderfully well while others don’t?

    Could it be a simple as the way we deliver the vaccine?

    If a virus takes a particular pathway into our bodies shouldn’t we deliver the vaccine the along the same pathway to get a response from our bodies that would naturally happen in a certain way?

    Just a thought.

    Reply
    1. anglosvizzera

      Different vaccines work in different ways but generally, as you say, viruses and bacteria enter the body through certain pathways and it would make some sense for a “vaccination” to be administered in a similar way so as to stimulate the innate immune system (memory cells like T and B) rather than aiming straight for antibody production via the adaptive immune system. The children’s live nasal flu virus is one that does get into the body in the usual way. I would imagine that it’s safer to do that than inject a load of potentially toxic chemicals directly into the body and thus bypassing the usual mechanisms for protection from toxins.

      Reply
  37. jeanirvin

    I’ve read it all once but will read it again. A lot of very pertinent information! Thank you for the hard work you have put in to get it to us.

    Reply
  38. Zak

    Are there any women in the crowd?
    No, No… (high voice)
    Priest looks around suspiciously
    No, no… (muffled low voice)
    :))))

    Reply
  39. johnsymes

    I read this paper, and I do not think the conclusions can be relied upon (vaccinations cause more death than covid for all age groups). They used UK covid death data (and have assumed this gives a correct figure, ie ignores the debate of with covid or of covid) and compared this to a figure for vaccine deaths in the US.
    The figure for US vaccine deaths is obtained from a complicated mathematical model (one of the authors is a mathematician). They use a regression model to correct the all-cause mortality in a series of months in 2020 to predict the vaccine related deaths in the corresponding month in 2021 by making a correction for the increased rate of vaccination that has occurred in the intervening time. All the variation in deaths with time is caused by vaccination. Like all models, it can only be speculative.

    Reply
    1. thecovidpilot

      The question isn’t whether covid causes more deaths, because we will all be exposed to covid continually. The question is whether vaccines add to adverse outcomes or benefit.

      Reply
  40. Sherard Wilson

    Christine Stabell Benn’s TED talk is very interesting on the different effects, on infant mortality, of live and non-live vaccines.

    Reply
  41. Gary

    I notice that you briefly mention ‘terrain’ theory and can see that it and germ theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, what do you make of the claim that SARS Cov-2 has never been identified, isolated, sequenced or whatever? (or any other virus for that matter). And obviously therefore, any (PCR) test for an unknown pathogen must be – to use Arthur C. Clarke’s phrase out of context – ‘indistinguishable from magic’.
    From what I’ve read, nothing purporting to be a ‘virus’ has ever been isolated, shown to induce illness or transmit between two people. Arrows pointing to virus-like particles in electron microscope images is apparently the best they can do.

    Reply
      1. Prudence Kitten

        A very sane attitude, and one that is exactly in line with the proper scientific attitude. As Wittgenstein remarked (in a rather different context, admittedly), “About that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent”.

        The Greek term “epoche”, espoused among others by Michel de Montaigne, describes a refusal to make decisions or judgments until one has sufficient evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch%C3%A9

        Dr Kendrick also has Sherlock Holmes on his side: “It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data”,

        Reply
    1. Eggs ‘n beer

      I’m not sure how true all those points are. However something seems to be causing a similar set of symptoms in a large number but small percentage of the population. A very small percentage of people die from association with these symptoms. Certain elements of the population are more prone to severe symptoms and death – the elderly, the fat, diabetics and other co-morbidities. Experience shows that even those with such co-morbidities have much improved outcomes if the terrain is bolstered in advance by D, K2, C and especially if you clobber ‘it’ early enough, ivermectin and HCQ. So, like the 5G, nanoparticles, graphene oxide and different vaccines for each dose (although the Japanese did find magnetic batches) I try to ignore such issues akin to how many angels can dance on a pinhead as a distraction from the importance of curing the patient and stopping people from taking the vaccine, the effects of which are much more difficult to treat.

      Reply
  42. Dan Anderson

    Malcolm Kendrick speaks his mind even when warned. He starts out with his premise:  “there should be nothing in science that is beyond analysis and potential criticism.”
    Then MK goes about it, having being warned by the phrase ‘Vulnerable to GMC investigation’.  He sticks his head into the mouth by name.
    He says the V-word that can’t be questioned, and questions it. “blasphemy” he called it himself, of himself. 
    MK laments, as if some Shakespearean oratory about the greater world that damns us all to crawl if we stand too tall. 
    MK praises Caesar as he buries him – saying “vaccines have played a role in improving human health and wellbeing, but..”  then  dives into mRNA and viral history, cites the plague, cholera, measles, questioning the present with the past, and the past with the present. MK has graphs, dates, numbers, about to sound like Bogart in the Caine Mutiny that…” methodically, by systematic elimination, using mathematical deduction, proving “beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that..” there is collusion, conspiracy against his kind, the lone man not saluting. Might he be the one to say the ‘king has no clothes on?” He does. MK stands alone at the bus stop after the bandwagon has loaded and gone onward. He stands alone with a finger in the dike. Have safeguards been ignored going  warp speed and fast tracked? 
    Did I mention statins? MK did,as if part of his DNA. Call it name dropping on the way to questioning the seeking of truth. Who can track the truth in the morass of Yellow Cards or VAERS? 
    MK looks at affairs of the heart. Is it a broken heart or myocarditis in the young man’s chest? Who knows?  Do no harm the MD’s rule says. Never waste a crisis & don’t just stand there, do something the politician’s rules says. What’s the worst case scenario? This is war, “full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.” Hard to see the truth with your head in a hole, anyway, when not wanting to see. 
    MK’s ending disclaimer by invoking GMC’s ideal guidance adds insult to injury, for the hypocrite hates a mirror. 

    Reply
  43. Ruth Baills

    Corruption is the word that comes to mind. Evil at play to destroy society. Thank you Dr Malcolm Kendrick again for you thought provoking blog. Much appreciated and value your opinion and the time you take to inform us of the truth.

    Reply
  44. shenacampbellmaccom

    One of – if not THE – best article on the delusion of vaccines I’ve ever read. I predict that this, or a version of it, will be obligatory reading on medical courses in the future. After the enlightenment (or awakening) is further down the road than it is currently.

    Reply
  45. shena

    One of – if not THE – best article on the delusion of vaccines I’ve ever read. I predict that this, or a version of it, will be obligatory reading on medical courses in the future. After the enlightenment is further down the road than it is currently. Worth making the time to read.

    Reply
  46. Chancery Stone

    “in the JAMA post-vaccine study, the time period for reporting myocarditis was limited to seven days after vaccination. Any case appearing after that was not considered to be anything to do with the vaccine and was thus ‘censored’.

    I decidedly refute that from personal experience. I haven’t been Covid vaccinated because I have a mast cell disorder and tend to react unpredictably to ‘foreign invasion’ but decided to trial the flu vaccine to see how I reacted to it. (I’d never had one before). I had the first one in 2020, when the pandemic was fresh, and reacted badly but lived (heart arrhythmia, nausea, very low blood pressure and had to sit there for an hour). This year past I had it again and other than a little dizziness and nausea I did fine. I thought I’d mastered vaccines. However the sore arm some get from vaccines decided this time to be epic. My arm swelled up, went very red and became very hard and hot to the touch. This persisted for about 2 weeks and then dissipated. I also had a three day migraine. Baddish reaction but manageable. If only…

    I had that second flu vaccine on the 7th of December 2021. Now, more than two months later, I am still getting pain at the injection site. Suddenly, erratically, deep in my skin/muscle, it feels exactly like a bad B12 injection (if you’ve never had one, they always hurt like hell. There is no good way to get a B12 injection, and a bad one is close to excruciating). A few days ago it hit me randomly in the street so severely I cried out; it was like being punched on an injection site. So, you can very much get reactions to vaccinations WELL after you’ve had it. I have no idea what is going on with mine, and I have not reported it to the Yellow Card system. I used to diligently report drug reactions to them but gave up. It just felt like I was feeding information into a black hole.

    Saying that vaccination side effects must occur within 7 days to qualify as a reaction can only be described as medical bullsh*t.

    Reply
    1. Eggs ‘n beer

      You’re not reading it properly. The seven day limit refers to that particular study for adverse events from the Covid vaccine only. Not for anything else.

      That’s one of the very many reasons why comparing and analysing covid data is so difficult. You’re always trying to compare apples with malt whisky.

      Reply
  47. les online

    Was ‘Covid-19’ a cover operation ?
    – To counter the pre-2019 95% aversion to ‘genetic therapy’ intervention treatments ?
    – To obtain individuals DNA for national Data Bases ?
    – To provide a means to impose Digital IDs ?
    – To inject Other Things into your body ?
    – Cover for testing the toxicity or tolerance levels of other injected substances ?
    – Other Reasons (Or All of The Above ?)
    If the injections were meant to fail, as Jon Rapport writes, surely it wasnt just a scam to make money, was it ?
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/02/23/another-article-too-hot-to-handle-even-vaccine-critics-wont-run-with-it/

    Reply
  48. Leila

    It is strange how as soon as you label something a vaccine then you cannot say a bad word about it. People jump to its defense, even if it has caused them injury. I wonder how it is that it became such a miracle to the majority of people they stopped questioning anything relating to vaccines. If I attempt to say to anyone this is new technology never used before they come back with things such as oh it’s been in trials for years they just never had the funding before to use it on the public…and other comments/
    Also somehow this mRNA technology is amazing yet somehow it doesn’t seem to do very much as far as I can see. I would say it’s probably the worst ‘vaccine’ I’ve ever witnessed. All the boostered people I know are catching COVID very soon after their booster shots…

    Reply
  49. Shaun Clark

    Malcolm, You are getting better and better at this blogging, and not forgetting that of your ‘Clot’ book writing too! Anyway, I would love to tie you to a chair and dribble fine single malt into your mouth to hear what you really want to be saying, but maybe, just maybe, that could be happening all too soon without the precious nectar? Sláinte!

    Reply
  50. colinbannon

    The 1% rate of side effects is widely quoted, but surely needs a little context. I would not have reported expected vaccine side effects, why would I? I would however, certainly have filled in a yellow card in anyone with myocarditis after a vaccine, or any other unexpected side effect after a new prescription. For young healthy folk in particular, it doesn’t take that long. Im sure reporting is not 100%, but equally certain the 1% when applied to unexpected side effects, is a massive exaggeration.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      The one per-cent figure comes from research on the matter. Your belief that it is wrong comes from…. where? Your own personal experience. You may be right, but I am afraid that it is incumbent upon you to prove it. I would agree that reporting an adverse effect does not take long, until the mass of follow up paperwork begins. This has not been your experience? Your comment suggests you have filled in yellow cards for a number of people with myocarditis post-vaccination. So, you have seen a lot?

      Reply
      1. colinbannon

        No, I retired from General Practice 8 years ago when I developed MS. I had, over the decades, filled in plenty of Yellow cards and certainly would if if someone developed myocarditis after a vaccine. I think not to do so would be worse than lazy. The reference from which you derive the 1% figure refers all all vaccine side effects. I would not have reported side effects that were expected or mild – and these surely, would be the bulk of the 99% of missing reports. To suggest that 99% of hospitalisations after myocarditis following a vaccine during a pandemic are unreported is speculative to put it mildly.

        Reply
        1. johnplatinumgoss

          This is the second time I have had to write this comment. The first disappeared into thin air. But it is important.

          The problems are today in the US with the VAERS system it can take up to half an hour to complete a form and hospital emergency departments for example can be too busy. The other problem is that there are so many, vastly, more reports to do that in any time since vaccine adverse reactions started in 1990. Check out charts 3, 4 and 5 on this blog.

          https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/06/04/weekly-summary-5-28-2021/

          In the UK one company, Genpact, in collaboration with the MHRA and the British Government is making true figures difficult to obtain. Child deaths (94 extrapolated) and child adverse reactions (10,920 extrapolated) are lumped together with all other deaths and adverse reactions reported to the MHRA – so they have had to be extrapolated.

          You might like to ask yourself why a health regulatory authority and your own government would want to conceal these figures!

          Reply
          1. Steve

            You also might like to ask yourself why your government would use the police, security services and military units to monitor and ‘nudge’ its citizens views ?

        2. anglosvizzera

          Did not you read this part in Dr K’s post where he quotes from a report where they point out the percentages of serious reactions that are reported? That leaves 90% of SERIOUS reactions being unreported and 96-98% of all reactions unreported.

          “…all spontaneous reporting schemes have a problem with numbers: the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) itself says that only 10% of serious reactions and 2 – 4% of all reactions are reported using the Yellow Card Scheme. This means that most iatrogenic* morbidity goes unreported.’ ”

          Report – https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psb.1789

          The government’s own website says that everyone should receive a document when given a Covid “vaccine” explaining how to report a “side effect”, yet many people I’ve spoken to said that they don’t recall seeing that, or that they didn’t bother to actually read the leaflet, “Oh it went straight into the recycling”, or “I think I put it in a drawer somewhere”! Many of those people have, indeed, had long-term debilitating “side effects” and therefore did not report them until I introduced them to the MHRA’s Covid Yellow Card scheme.

          See last sentence of Paragraph 1 here, where it says,

          “Everyone receiving a vaccine should be provided with an information leaflet, which will provide a link to the Yellow Card site, and which should help to reduce any under-reporting.”

          https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-the-commission-on-human-medicines-expert-working-group-on-covid-19-vaccine-safety-surveillance/report-of-the-commission-on-human-medicines-expert-working-group-on-covid-19-vaccine-safety-surveillance

          Reply
          1. David Bailey

            I know two people who probably suffered an adverse reaction to the ‘vaccine’. The first was a very fit man aged 82, whose first shot caused immediate intense pain in his shoulder. He attributed this to a mechanically misplaced needle, but a private doctor that he visited felt it was probably a vaccine reaction. Neither of them filled in an adverse reaction form.

            He now receives injections into his shoulder bursa to make the pain bearable so he can ride his mountain bike and use a climbing wall. You could argue this was a trivial adverse effect, but the guy is very focussed on keeping fit, and without private care, I think he would have had to give up both activities and lost his fitness.

            The other is a much more tragic case. A woman in her early 50’s was taken to hospital with an intense headache a short time after receiving the jab (sorry I can’t be more precise). She was sent home with pain killers, and had to return to hospital, when they discovered an aneurism in her brain, which was operated on and has left her with no movement on her left side.

          2. Eggs ‘n beer

            My mother-in-law, after the second Pfizer (which her eldest son got her to take without informing the rest of the family), a series of mini-strokes treated with an anticoagulant, aspirin and statins. We threw the statins away and stuck to the limits of the other two prescribed by the hospital rather than accede to he GP’s insistence that she continue the aspirin indefinitely. She seems ok now. And for the sceptics who say that a 90 y/o might be expected to have strokes, she’s never been on any medications, we had to tell her how to take the pills. Swallowing with water rather than chewing them.

            A friend, 50, who cannot sing anymore after the Pfizer. Not getting the booster.

            Another friend who has neuropathy after the first shot. Doesn’t want the second shot but needs one to work.

            A 25 y/o friend who collapsed after both shots. Needed for work.

            Daughter, 26, POTS after Pfizer number 1. Collapses randomly so we’re on instant call for grandchildren duties. Husband now at risk of losing his job when he doesn’t get his booster. (She was the family rebel. Now firmly on our side of the fence. Furious with what she now recognises as government lies)

            Son’s soccer mate, 22, severe myocarditis.

            Then there are those who are uninterested in why they’re sick, dizziness, chronic tiredness, insomnia etc, say six more people. And we have to keep a straight face when they ask why we aren’t vaccinated. Along with all the vaxxed who’ve caught covid, some quite severely including two fit females in their 20s.

      2. thecovidpilot

        I believe that the 1% figure was the lower level and 10% was the upper level on underreporting for the case where there was no pushback against reporting adverse event. (Of course, now there is tremendous pushback because the hospitals and public health authorities push the vaccine snake oil.) I know of doctors who have no idea of even how to report an event.

        One must bear in mind that the 1% figure was used as part of a marketing campaign to sell the ESP:VAERS system to the FDA. The FDA ultimately opted not to purchase the system which would have minimized underreporting. A 3% figure came from an actual controlled trial of the ESP system, with the range very broad between 1% and 10%.

        My own SWAG is that 30% of VAERS reports are causational and that the underreporting is about 3% of the total. So that would mean an 11-fold factor to multiply VAERS numbers by.

        Reply
  51. Andrew H

    Excellent as always. Interestingly the drop in cholera and typhus was an unintended benefit of the improved wastewater and sewage systems – something I know a lot about – by the brilliant civil engineers of the time, like Joseph Bazalgette in London. Most of his network – which was future proofed to the extreme – is still in use today. The Tideway scheme in London will bring it up to date and to the 22nd century. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/04/story-cities-14-london-great-stink-river-thames-joseph-bazalgette-sewage-system.

    Reply
  52. Prudence Kitten

    Might Dr Seneff’s latest paper be helpful?

    Click to access Seneff_costBenefit.pdf

    COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022.
    Kathy Dopp, MS Mathematics and Stephanie Seneff, PhD
    13 February 2022.
    Abstract
    As of 6 February 2022, based on publicly available official UK and US data, all age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death. All age groups under 80 years old have virtually no benefit from receiving a COVID-19 inoculation, and the younger ages incur significant risk. This analysis is conservative because it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and other vaccine-induced injuries can lead to shortened life span. When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised. Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated”.

    Reply
          1. Tom Morgan

            CovidPilot: I think that someone who is trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate would like to know the info in the Dopp/Seneff paper. Would I have a lower mortality risk if I vax or not. If I understand the abstract (haven’t atempted the actual paper, yet) the paper concludes that indeed, for all age groups, the risk due to getting vaxxed is greater than dealing directly with the virus. Do you disagree with this interpretation of the paper?

          2. thecovidpilot

            Tom,

            “I think that someone who is trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate would like to know the info in the Dopp/Seneff paper. Would I have a lower mortality risk if I vax or not.”

            But that’s not what Dopp/Seneff are asking. They are asking if you are at higher risk if you get covid or if you vaccinate, which is the wrong question. Vaccination doesn’t prevent you from catching covid nor does it lower your risk of myocarditis–at least in older men.

    1. johnsymes

      One of the authors here is a mathematician. I did read the paper and have some understanding of the use of regression analysis and ANCOVA models. If you cannot assess the validity of their methods, which are very complicated and use many assumptions, you cannot quote the abstract as if it is God’s own truth. This is a modelling study with all the problems this implies.

      Reply
      1. Prudence Kitten

        You may have noticed that I worded my comment as a question. Regardless of whether you believe the paper is correct, it is surely useful to broach the subject. If others (such as you) disagree with its methods, you are free to improve on them.

        As for “quoting the abstract as if it were God’s own truth”, I did no such thing. I quoted the abstract.

        Reply
    2. thecovidpilot

      Looking at the data, it looks like vaccines provide benefit against covid death. None of the age groups are over-represented in covid deaths.

      I then looked at covid vaccine fatality rates from the Seligmann paper that Seneff referenced. It looked to be based on estimates. Although I find the estimates conservative, those estimates won’t persuade people with a pro-vaccine bias.

      The thing that ought to persuade people with a pro-vaccine bias is that there has been a studied attempt to avoid gathering data with a wide net, then filtering afterward. Instead, filtering is done by making it time-consuming to report data and by censoring people who speak out to alert others to look for harms. Those with a pro-vaccine bias won’t see this as a major problem.

      There has been no guidance from public health about how autopsies ought to be conducted when covid vaccines are suspected to be the cause of death. Even vaccine advocates ought to find this alarming.

      Minimal evidence was required to accept vaccine benefit, but maximal evidence is required to accept vaccine harm. This is not how data ought to be gathered for a risk/benefit analysis.

      Those of us who are vaccine skeptics keep access to sources of anecdotal reports of vaccine harm, while those who are vaccine advocates do not. The two groups see very different pictures of things.

      Reply
      1. Eggs ‘n beer

        “Looking at the data, it looks like vaccines provide benefit against covid death. None of the age groups are over-represented in covid deaths.”

        So what? The data from the clinical trials has an excess death rate of 23.5% in the vaccine group. That’s all that matters. You’re more likely to die if you’re vaccinated.

        Actually it gets better for the unvaxxed, as we can improve our odds of surviving Covid using D, K, C, Zn as prophylactics and HCQ and ivermectin if we catch it. After which we almost certainly have life-long immunity. There are no clear protocols as to what to do when you suffer vaccinosis.

        Reply
        1. An Italian Australian at the tropics

          >we can improve our odds of surviving Covid
          >using D, K, C, Zn as prophylactics and HCQ
          >and ivermectin if we catch it.

          Only if they’ll still be legal and available, the last two already aren’t.

          Reply
          1. Gary Ogden

            postkey: Quercetin is a zinc ionophere; it enables zinc to more easily enter cells. Zinc inhibits the enzyme used for viral replication, thus it may be a useful prophylactic. I don’t think zinc has been banned yet, although they’re probably looking at a connection to Putin to slap sanctions on it.

          2. An Italian Australian at the tropics

            Zinc is poorly absorbed, but providing you get enough copper with it, you can safely use more, I believe it’s toxicity starts at a few grams per day.

            If they ban it, we can still eat oysters… 😁

          3. Gary Ogden

            An Italian Australian at the tropics:
            That means eating liver is good, since it is rich in Cu.

          4. Mr Chris

            Gary
            Hope liver is OK because I like it in the form of paté
            We have to tuck into oysters since Putin says this is a characteristic of the decadent West

          5. An Italian Australian at the tropics

            Zinc and copper are antagonists and need to be balanced. Too much copper and low zinc is linked to anxiety for example, while too much zinc prevents copper absorption.

            Liver is high in both, and also has a good amount of selenium, it’s Nature’s multivitamin and multimineral, cheap and effective, a small amount twice a week is plenty for all our needs.

  53. rtj1211

    Dr Kendrick

    Perhaps the most controversial bone of contention concerning SARS-CoV2 vaccines is the belief that vaccinating everybody is more cost-effective than treating the minority that got serious symptoms of Covid19.

    At the start of the ‘pandemic’, a lot of doctors did what good doctors do and look to see if any existing well-known drugs could be ‘repurposed’ to be used as either a prophylactic or a therapeutic agent. Robert Kennedy Jnr’s book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ documents with a certain level of rigorous detail the results of such work around the globe. What he also documents is how Fauci, BMGF and other ‘Establishment agencies’ worked together to ensure that such work was lambasted, sidelined and prevented from being adopted as standard medical practice. To be brutal, a prima faciae case of ‘conspiracy to commit mass murder’ could be postulated and, at the very least, lifetime bans from being engaged in healthcare policy formulation, regulation, funding etc etc should be being considered.

    The case that struck me as truly astonishing was in Peru, where Covid19 cases dropped 14 fold upon use of ivermectin within populations and then it promptly increased 13 fold when that sensible action was officially banned.

    Examples like that abound all over the globe.

    Ultimately, the vaccination route must be compared with the prophylactic/therapeutic route using cheap, off-patent, well characterised long-established drugs.

    The evidence as I read it is fairly damning, inasmuch as the evidence to me seems that the entire case of mass vaccination is utterly repudiated by the clinical data assembled for a variety of compounds, not limited to ivermectin…

    Reply
  54. Steve

    Cor blimey! What a read.
    Thanks Dr K for putting into words what a lot of us believe re. the vax.
    Still not clear, apart from the money and power, why they are doing this to us !

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Steve: One of the major reasons is they are certain they must do something; they know not how to stand there, nor would they understand why this, at times, is the best course. In the U.S. this has been driven by partisan politics the entire time, with dire consequences.

      Reply
      1. Steve

        Gary.
        I disagree. For the first three to six months, I give them the benefit of the doubt because things ‘appeared’ to be novel and dangerous. After that time it was very clear that Covid was not novel or particularly dangerous to the overwhelming majority of people. It was then that the gene vaccine appeared and was pushed by the establishment with the assistance of their corrupt MSM stenographers. It doesn’t add up, it has never added up. They are still doing it.

        Reply
    1. Eric

      Ok, let’s pick that linked article apart: insurance giant, 10.9 million policyholders? No way, they are a dwarf with a whopping 121,00 policy holders:
      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BKK_Provita
      From their homepage: We are Germany’s first veggie-friendly, climate-neutral health insurance company and part of the common good economy. BKK ProVita – The health insurer for life.

      You have to know that in Germany, you can choose your public health insurer. They compete on the fees (differences in fees are in the tenths of a percent of taxable salary) and extras like coverage of homopathic medicine. This one offers all kinds of alternative and esoteric methods.

      The German association of GPs and a real giant in the public insurance system, AOK, have already said that their methodology was flawed. Problem seems to be they looked only at the billing codes, not the diagnoses. What is more, since about 80% of vaccinations were done outside of the GP system, the insurers wouldn’t even know if a billing code was preceded by a vaccination in most cases.

      Reply
      1. thecovidpilot

        “The result: From the beginning of 2021 to the middle of the third quarter, 216,695 BKK policyholders were treated for vaccine side effects.”

        Do German employers provide health insurance for their employees?

        “This one offers all kinds of alternative and esoteric methods.”

        You’ll see alternative medicine associated with hospitals in the States and not just in California.

        ” What is more, since about 80% of vaccinations were done outside of the GP system, the insurers wouldn’t even know if a billing code was preceded by a vaccination in most cases.”

        So, does that mean that there would be a lot of underreporting? Was the reporting based on GP system patients? Or would there be confounders? Or maybe both?

        only BKK Provita was used?

        “the joint data pool of all BKK health insurance funds was used” …

        https://uncoverdc.com/2022/02/23/german-insurer-warns-more-vaccine-side-effects-than-previously-known/

        “Schöfbeck remarked that the data he and his team evaluated cover only 10.9 million policyholders and just seven and a half months—yet the vaccination campaign in Germany has been active for 14 months.”

        Should there be more active checking for vaccine harms?

        Reply
        1. Eric

          German employers fund about half of the health insurance cost, but the employee can choose the insurer. Cost is roughly 14-15% of taxable income up to a ceiling of € 64,000 / year, so employer pays about 7% of salary on top, whereas employee have another 7% taken out of their salary. BKK stands for Betriebskrankenkasse = company health insurer, there are also health insurers for professions such as TK (technician’s health insurer) or catchall local insurers (AOK). All these limitations have not been in place for about 30 years, i.e. anyone can join any insurer or switch ot the turn of the year or when they change jobs.

          BKK Provita is a small insurer (~120,000 policy holders in 2017) that somehow has access to billing data from sister BKK’s.

          Covid vaccinations were paid for by the federal government. If it was done at a vaccination center or by a mobile team, the GP would not know about it unless the patient told them. If the GP did it, they would also have been reimbursed by the government, so I suspect the insurer wasn’t told about it.

          Apparently, the data the insurers get contain one or more IDC diagnoses and one or more billing codes. So if a patient called their GP and said they had been vaccinated the day before and had a sore arm and a slight fever told them to take an Aspirin and to report back if it didn’t improve after a few days, that could be reported as IDC for undesired side effect of use of vaccine and billed for as one consultation.

          This is from journal of the Pysicians’ Association (run through deepl or google translate or whatever you use):
          https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/132101/Aerger-um-Kassenaussagen-zu-Impfnebenwirkungen

          Apparently, the PEI does not have access to the data but will start a study in cooperation with health insurers. The association of BKKs said it will cooperate with PEI, and that their member BKK Provita did not use their data (!).

          I’ll provide the deepl translation of the last bit of the article (with one paragraph translated by myself which deepl screwed up):

          The federal chairman of the Association of General Practitioners (Virchowbund) said today that BKK Provita mixes two completely different areas in its analysis: medical diagnosis coding with ICD codes and reporting to the PEI.

          “The ICD code U12.9, which is recommended for documentation, should be reported, for example, for ‘Adverse reactions to the use of COVID-19 vaccines, unspecified,'” Virchowbund chief Dirk Heinrich stressed.

          “Adverse” and “unspecified,” however, encompass the full range of expected, mild, and transient consequences of vaccination, such as mild swelling at the injection site or increased temperature due to the immune response, he said.

          According to Heinrich, there is therefore no question of a “danger to human life,” as the fund puts it. The ICD codes also serve the purpose of billing for medical services. If, on the other hand, there is a suspicion of side effects “above and beyond the usual level,” physicians are obligated to report them to the PEI.

          “That’s a glaring difference that the health insurer is throwing under the bus here. Just as you can’t simply equate the number of suspected cases with the number of confirmed side effects,” Heinrich continued. “In addition, the ‘evaluation’ lumps together a whole range of ICD codes, according to the motto: the more, the better.”

          “This undifferentiated gaslighting fits however completely obviously into the brand image of the insurer, which recruits with Homeopathy and Osteopathy as elective and reimbursed treatments and advertises itself as ‘the most vegetarian friendly health insurance company’. Apparently they want to appeal to the vaccination-critical clientele.”

          Leif Erik Sander of the Medical Clinic with a focus on infectiology and pneumology at Charité Berlin pointed out via Twitter that vaccination reactions, as physiological reactions of the immune system, could be unpleasant.

          These are occasionally more pronounced with the COVID19 vaccine and occur more frequently than with some other vaccines, he tweeted. “This is very well known. Vaccine complications, on the other hand, are very rare.” For the terminology “vaccination reaction” (not reportable), “vaccination complication” (reportable), people can get information from the RKI, he said. © dpa/may/aerzteblatt.de

          Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

          Reply
          1. thecovidpilot

            Thank you for translating.

            ” physicians are obligated to report them to the PEI.”

            Without enforcement, legal requirements will be routinely ignored.

            I suspect that BKK Provita actually used codes from sister companies via unauthorized channels.

            Surely, BKK Provita cast a wide net, which is the correct way to proceed. Likely they also failed to filter properly, which ought to be done by the public health authorities, but isn’t, because they don’t want to spread or provide ammunition for antivaxx “misinformation.”

            The very concerning point is that the public health authorities are turning a blind eye to vaccine harms. None of them has offered guidance as to how to investigate suspected vaccine deaths and the FDA has done a criminal job of investigating non-fatal vaccine harms such as were testified to in the Ron Johnson Second Opinion hearing.

        1. Eric

          Here’s reporting from Bavarian Public Radio (BKK Provita is based in Bavaria):
          https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/bkk-verbreitet-irrefuehrende-zahlen-zu-impfnebenwirkungen,SyShuY4

          Il’l provide the two most pertinent paragraphs, but goole translate will give you an idea of the rest.

          In its current safety report for 2021, the Paul Ehrlich Institute registered a total of 244,576 suspected cases of adverse reactions following Corona vaccination. For comparison, BKK Provita (headquartered in Bergkirchen near Dachau) had evaluated billing data from physicians according to the ICD codes included. These codes are used to classify diagnoses. In this case, the ICD codes included adverse reactions and complications following vaccination. According to the health insurer’s evaluation, 2.5 to 3 million people in Germany were likely to have received medical treatment for adverse effects following a Corona vaccination in 2021. The BKK Provita regards that “as a considerable alarm signal, which must be absolutely considered with the further use of the vaccines.” Data basis of the evaluation is according to the BKK Provita a sample from the data base bitInfoNet, in which the account data of all operating health insurance companies are seized. The BKK umbrella organization had stated that this data did not come from its own sources.

          According to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, it cannot assess the data “because the institute has not yet had access to the original data and also has no information on the evaluation method.” The information in the letter is “general and unspecific”. For example, it does not state how many cases relate to mild reactions and how many relate to – reportable – severe reactions. Local and transient general reactions, which occur in many vaccinated individuals, are known and expected vaccine reactions and are not reportable. In general, he said, billing data do not equate to adverse reactions. “Furthermore, it is not clear from the letter whether a causal relationship with vaccination has actually been established.”

          Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

          On the other hand, there are the reports of ICD codes with reference to side effects or complications after a vaccination. However, when a physician uses a corresponding ICD code, it does not mean that he or she has examined or treated a patient for a suspected vaccine side effect. It is sufficient to issue a sick not for the employer if the patient feels unwell for a day or more because of known vaccination reactions such as fatigue. This also counts as “medical treatment,” as family physician and internist Christian Kröner explains on Twitter.

          When asked by BR, BKK Provita explained that in the evaluated data, 136,609 cases in 2021 were also issued a certificate of incapacity for work. In total, 216,695 cases had been classified as vaccination side effects in the sample.

          Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

          Reply
          1. thecovidpilot

            So the PEI is complaining that it lacks the raw data, yet doesn’t complain about the studied attempt by public health authorities to avoid gathering raw data about vaccine harms? Why was there no guidance to pathologists and coroners about how to conduct an investigation into a suspected vaccine death?

            Why is the PEI silent about this obvious lapse everywhere?

        2. Eric

          Just to give you a frankly contrived example, if my GP had advised me to eat more veggies and I ate oven grilled cauliflower which gave me stomach cramps and diarrhea and I called my GP to get a day off, this might end up coded as IDC Y59.9V (unintended side effects of vaccines or biologically active substances) and billed as a consultation. From the reporting I’ve seen, BKK Provita would have counted this.

          Reply
  55. Gary Ogden

    Thank you, Dr. Kendrick. Corners were not cut; they were demolished with a nuclear bomb. You are correct that there is a legal obligation for treating physicians to report suspected vaccine injuries in the U.S., but there is no enforcement mechanism, and none have ever been charged with failing to do so..

    Reply
  56. Dexter Scott

    Anecdotally, a coworker of mine in his 30s told me today that he got myocarditis from his booster shot. He said two other guys in his running group also got myocarditis – and I have no idea how big that group is. They track their heart rates on their watches like good tech nerds. They now have resting rates over 100 instead of around 50 before the jab, and are constantly short of breath. These guys are in an age group that is “less susceptible” to myocarditis than males under 20. If it is this common in previously healthy guys over 30, it makes me wonder how high the myocarditis rate in the “more susceptible” under 20 cohort really is.

    Reply
    1. Martin Back

      I know a woman in her 70s who is fit, active, and not overweight, and who has lived with an irregular heartbeat for some years. After her second jab it got much worse, to the extent she was afraid she would pass out while driving. She saw a cardiologist who recommended an angiogram which found nothing. (The angiogram cost an absolute fortune, thankfully mostly covered by medical aid. It would have wiped me out.)

      I said it was due to the vax and forwarded her an article of a formerly super-fit French free diver who got the identical symptoms after his second jab. Oh no, it’s definitely not the vax came the reply. It’s probably my cholesterol (she is on statins). Well, I’m no doctor, but I’m pretty sure it was the vax not the cholesterol, and I’m pretty sure an angiogram was not needed, and I’m pretty sure the cardiologist knew this but couldn’t resist the chance to make a bit of extra cash.

      Reply
    2. Eric

      First of all, if they really suspected myocarditis, they should have seen a doctor. Secondly, I wonder if they started running too early after a jab. I don’t think it is in the recommendations to avoid intense excercise for a week, but then mainstream medicine continues to ignore the fact that there is some degree of immune suppression, especially after the first and third shots so you are more likely to catch a low grade Covid infection in the week after vaccination. And Covid infection and intense exercise will do exactly that: heart isses.

      Lastly, is there a self reporting scheme in your country? In Germany, you can send it an adverse effect report with the national vaccine institute online, no need to go through a doctor or local public health. There is also a free app called SafeVac that will query you in increasing intervals after a vaccination. These data also go to PEI. Coming to think of it, I am yet to see a publication about those data

      Reply
        1. Eric

          PEI gets what is called yellow cards elsewhere. Everyone including the patients or their relatives can report online.

          BKK is just an abbreviation of public health insurers that used to be tied to an employer or a group of employers. They aren’t any longer but still seem to share some administrative infrastructure.

          BKK Provita, a small one among these, was complaining about underreporting of side effects, not billing data. PEI does not have accesss to their billing data, and from my understanding, a GP could also use this code for someone complaining about side effects of a measles shot. They were not complaining about deaths.

          Reply
    3. Eric

      Regarding side effects, after my first and second shots (BionTech), I had them at vaccination drive at my office and cycled home afterwards (15 km hilly terrain, moderate exercise). All I had was a slightly sore arm (no magnetism!) and a slightly woozy feeling the next day. The second time, I was so annoyed with the woozyness, I decided to dig up my 750 liter composter and transfer the contents into a new raised bed. No ill effects, and the woozyness and sore arm had passed by the time I finished.

      For the booster shot (Moderna), no excercise and no sore arm. I was actually quite happy the day of the vaccination, it was a mellow feeling like after drinking half a glass of wine that lasted all day. No sore arm the next day but I kept feeling slightly off like I was fighting an infection for the next two weeks. This shot was at an improvised vaccination center set up by the town that used poorly ventilated rooms and crammed too many people inside to keep reasonably safe distances. I was wearing an FFP2 mask the whole time, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I caught a bit of the virus there and kept fighting it.

      Just looked at my SafeVac app, it stopped querying me six days after the booster and will ask about general health at six and twelve months only, so I didn’t get to report those two weeks of feeling off. For the first and second shot, it queried for 8 weeks after each shot and went to general health monitoring every half year. Go figure, somebody didn’t want the details about the booster shot.

      Reply
  57. Omi. DF

    Dr Kendrick: this post argues that the 70 pct decline in the share prices of Moderna and Pfizer reflects risk of fraud litigation. While both companies were legally shielded from any adverse effects of the vaccines, the shield does not apply to the “ purposeful failure to state or release material facts which non-disclosure makes other statements misleading” aka fraud. “. It looks like lawsuits shareholders and life insurers could hold both companies to account https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/02/bankruptcy-for-moderna-definitely-pfizer.html

    Reply
    1. Eric

      Have you bothered to read that linked article carefully or look up stock charts?

      Pfizer is 19% down from its pre-Xmas absolute peak ever, but it is still doing a lot better than the average of 2020. Moderna had an odd peak in August and has been almost linearly declining since but is up 8% today because of a positive earnings report. Pfizer looks like a normal chart to me, Moderna like a startup that was hyped last summer. The decline is normal, it is a one-trick pony after all, and the chart doesn’t look like any particular liability panic set in recently.

      Reply
  58. Darag Rennie

    I always love your sense of humour, Malcolm.

    I thought to share this article with you, have you heard of Sam and Mark Bailey from New Zealand? https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/warning-signs-youve-been-tricked-by-virologists/

    Best

    *Darag* Darag Rennie MBChB +64 (0) 275 047 280 *Darag Rennie *

    *A Book About Life* *Light, Love, Laws & Lies *

    *About your health:* *Evolving Food Pyramids *

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 23:38, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick wrote:

    > Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 23rd February 2022 The first thing I want > to say here is that there should be nothing in science that is beyond > analysis and potential criticism. Because, once this happens, we can find > ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed. A place of unques” >

    Reply
  59. Jeremy May

    So, let’s assume that there is another pandemic in two years time.

    The 2019 WHO Pandemic Response Plan, or whatever it was called, was worth a hill of beans. I admit, I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard that it did NOT contain lockdown strategies, nor did it suggest producing a miracle vaccine without testing it adequately.
    We have China and HUGE money to thank for those two respectively.
    And MSM who are ‘guided’ by the same folks that own pharma. How convenient.

    We need a new plan, but first….
    Prove (can we?) that lockdowns didn’t work. Or if they did in the short term, they caused appalling collateral damage, or will do ultimately.
    Second, ‘out’ big pharma and the money behind it (Shhhh. Black Rock, Vanguard?). They persuaded governments the world over to take on something (allegedly) half-baked. Wealthy governments that is, the ones that could pay their asking price.
    I’ve also heard whispers there was less targeting of third-world countries. ‘Not profitable enough dear boy’.
    Did Pfizer really make $38 billion from covid vaccines?? Blimey. But… is Pfizer a buy or sell?
    Sell – Omicron is a natural vaccine. There may be lawsuits? Boo.
    Buy – We might need 4,5,6th boosters next winter. Hoorah.

    MSM. Don’t know what to suggest there.

    You’ll notice I’ve hedged my bets here with facts and figures. My livelihood isn’t on the line so I can get away with it. I’ll let others shout at me, then put me right.

    Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Yes, “working together for a common cause”. The cause is whatever game the evil elite are playing at the time. It has NOTHING to do with the well being of people in general. Virus Mania explains these nutters keep trying to get a pandemic going. It’s not a pandemic of disease, but a pandemic of fear. This is an unlawful act, and criminal in that is intent to cause harm.

        Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      The only point I think is that those who claim lockdowns work, is for them to debate their case. Whatever the outcome, in most places they would still be fundamentally unlawful.

      Reply
    2. Steve

      Jeremy.
      Lockdowns did/didn’t work ? The first step in any proof would be to define what a lockdown entails.
      For example, here in the UK, the Police and emergency services were essentially exempt. Essential shop workers were excluded. International travel for specific groups was exempt. Delivery drivers were exempt. NHS staff were exempt.
      So did we lockdown or not ? Did such a lockdown strategy prevent Covid spread.

      Reply
  60. Heidi Dawson

    As disturbing as I find the content of your emails, please don’t give up – you are what stops some of us non-medical types from feeling like we’re going mad!

    Heidi Dawson
    CEO/Lead Facilitator
    Glint

    07887 613670
    http://www.glint.org.uk

    [cid:image001.png@01D82A38.DDC9BA70]

    Moments of Light Ltd, t/a Glint, a very social enterprise
    Company registration no. 8422619; Registered Office: 90 New North Road, Huddersfield, HD1 5NE

    Reply
  61. Ed Little

    Brilliant, as always. Long and brilliant. I’ve long been fascinated by the subject of vaccination about which there are some deeply interesting, challenging, provocative and stimulating books, often mostly based upon a completely different philosophy of the nature and meaning of life, health and disease. This article reminded me of those: books dedicated to encouraging people to think, reflect, challenge themselves and use their critical facilties to breaking point, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes life. Otherwise what’s the point in living?

    Reply
  62. Karl

    I’ve seen 3 numbers for the under reporting factor for VAERS – 4x 41x and 100x – rather big range. But we also now know that they have been withholding information. There is a standard for experimental treatment called ‘informed consent’ – I don’t think they followed that at all.

    So any intervention has a benefit and a risk – I can only guess at the magnitude of the total risks of the vaccine. But what is also missing – the elephant in the room – is comparing the benefit to other interventions with well known risks. The idea that there was only one tool available to reduce risks is simply wrong.

    Reply
  63. Styke

    It amuses me that so many highly educated people believe vaccines are a gift to humanity.
    All vaccines are poisons. Read the ingredients, if you can find them. The only good thing that came from this experimental jab is it’s exposing the Pharma cabal for who they really are and have been since their inception. The genocide they have been committing for well over a hundred years would be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious issue. People must stop worshipping at the altar of Pharma. You’re better off relying on witchcraft.

    Reply
  64. Mark Heneghan

    My recent post seems to have vanished into thin air too. It basically said that I have been triple vaccinated, having weighed up the evidence at the time, that I and many colleagues felt pretty rough after the booster, that mass vaccination doesn’t seem to have prevented the current infection, and that forcing people to be vaccinated goes against all the principles of patient autonomy. I mentioned that patients only lose autonomy in special circumstances, eg when the mental health act is invoked, and that people refusing vaccination are certainly NOT in that category. I also suggested that we doctors have a duty to assess evidence ourselves when advising patients, rather than passing on predigested advice from ivory towers, and that if we haven’t had the time to assess the evidence, to admit that we don’t know. Maybe my post was too long, but I doubt it, looking at some of the others.

    Reply
        1. Prudence Kitten

          Try posting under a pseudonym, Mark. Anything will do. And just make up the email address, as long as it is in the right format.

          Reply
      1. Prudence Kitten

        I suffered from this for some time, until I adopted a pseudonym. If I post under my real name, none of my comments appear to this day, so I must be on some kind of blacklist.

        Obviously not Dr Kendrick’s doing. There is an unpleasant and very threatening trend for ISPs and other suppliers of Internet infrastructure to censor material both on Web pages (as here) and in email. For a year I was unable to connect to John Helmer’s blog (presumably because he writes honestly and in a well-informed way about Russia). Now it seems to be working again.

        Recently I have had a number of emails undelivered, as explained by repeated messages from Yahoo and other intermediaries. I think the problem is that they scan all emails they handle, and block any that contain anything they dislike.

        Here is an example (redacted). I received similar messages for several days, but as far as I know my message was never delivered.

        =====================================================================

        This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
        A message that you sent has not yet been delivered to one or more of its
        recipients after more than 24 hours on the queue on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

        The message identifier is: 1nLN8I-0001qc-SG
        The date of the message is: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 10:38:25 +0000
        The subject of the message is: The Dunning-Kruger effect in practice (auto-translated from Swedish)

        The address to which the message has not yet been delivered is:

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Delay reason: SMTP error from remote mail server after pipelined MAIL FROM: SIZE=270373:
        421 4.7.0 [TSS04] Messages from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx temporarily deferred due to unexpected volume or user complaints – 4.16.55.1; see https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes

        No action is required on your part. Delivery attempts will continue for
        some time, and this warning may be repeated at intervals if the message
        remains undelivered. Eventually the mail delivery software will give up,
        and when that happens, the message will be returned to you.

        Reply
    1. David

      I’ve at last found a GP in a nearby city who publicly and bravely expressed doubt about UK COVID policy in 2021. The practice is taking on new patients too.

      If only more people had such a GP within easy travel distance. The current GP epitomises the ‘new’ pharma-led NHS and has done since I registered in 2014 …

      N.B. if it’s of any help to others, GP catchment areas no longer apply in England unless you want to exercise the right to home visits. If you now search within say a 20 mile radius, you have 4x the choice of GPs that you did within the old 10 mile limit.

      Reply
  65. elizabethhart

    Re muzzling doctors from questioning the Covid jabs, it’s the same in Australia.
    AHPRA, the regulator of ‘health practitioners’ here, issued a Position Statement dated 9 March 2021, which states: “Vaccination is a crucial part of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many registered health practitioners will have a vital role in COVID-19 vaccination programs and in educating the public about the importance and safety of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure high participation rates.”
    Health practitioners are also warned: “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.” (Search for AHPRA position statement 9 March 2021 to download PDF.)
    Who defines what is “the best available scientific advice”? We know what a disastrous quagmire of conflicts of interest is “the best available scientific advice”…
    In regards to ‘anti-vaccination’, in practice, any questioning of Covid jabs in Australia is regarded as ‘anti-vaccination’, as tennis star Novak Djokovic discovered when he tried to come here recently to participate in the Australian Open. The Immigration Minister banished Djokovic from Australia because he “has previously stated that he ‘wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine’ to travel or compete in tournaments”. For being an individual wanting to retain his bodily autonomy, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke considered the presence of Djokovic “may be a risk to the health of the Australian community”, presumably as Djokovic might inspire Australians to make their own informed decision about the Covid-19 jabs, counter to government diktats. (See the court judgement here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2022/2022fcafc0003 )
    What does the antagonism against Novak Djokovic mean for critical thinking Australians who have similarly made their own informed decision to refuse to consent to Covid jabs that don’t prevent infection nor transmission, injections which purportedly provide questionable ‘protection’ of very limited duration, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people?

    Reply
    1. Martin Back

      In South Africa SAHPRA banned ivermectin and HCQ before vaccines were available. On the grounds that they didn’t work. Well, so what? Aspirin and cough mixture don’t work, but you are still allowed to take them.

      When they banned ivermectin and HCQ was when I became aware that there was something more afoot than the health of the population, particularly in a poorer country like South Africa where a cheap anti-viral, even if it was only 5% effective, would be a boon.

      Either they wanted the population to get sick to amp up the fear factor of COVID19 for the sake of control, or they didn’t want the people getting better and not needing vaccination, thus decreasing the amount spent on vaccines and hence the kickbacks they pocket.

      Then there are the secret Pfizer contracts, which in at least one case are known to specify that a country may not promote or research any anti-viral apart from a vaccine. There is more sickness and corruption among the elite than in a leper colony.

      Reply
      1. Madge Hirsch

        France banned the over the counter sale of Hydroxychloroquine BEFORE the virus even started making headlines. Suspicious eh?

        Reply
  66. ImpObs

    How many Dr’s, or (especially) members of the GMC, or even prominent virologists for that matter; can explain the intricacy of the innate and adaptive immune systems, explain a respiratory infection and immune response from first principles? (see Stanley Pearlmans papers for e.g.) And then explain the same from first principles for the mRNA transfections, without melting down into a cognitive dissonence induced mental episode? Not many I’ve found.

    These fields become either too genralized, or so finely focussed, so “over specialized” they have forgotten basic biology, immunology 101 if you like. This is evident even on prominant platforms and podcast, TWIV for example contradict themselevs weekly to stay “on narrative”.

    Antibodies are not a corrolate for immunity for SARS-CoV2, or indeed for any RNA virus, yet all we hear from the mainstream, and in 90% of the literature, concentrates on antibodies. When Science communication has become so bogged down in oversimplification as to be 180 degrees wrong, and unquestionable without serious risk to reputation/career we are in deep trouble.

    Reply
  67. Carolyn

    Thank you. There are a couple of queries I have which I will look unto.
    Firstly there is a phenomenon whereby vaccines can enhance the effects of the wild virus; how do we know that this is not enhancing the propensity for myocarditis?
    Secondly, I’m struggling to see the argument that the underlying risk of myocarditis from Covid is roughly equal to that from the vaccine.

    Reply
  68. Norman

    The closer one looks, the more ghastly it appears to be: https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/what-they-allegedly-didnt-know-about?utm_source=url

    Moreover, what’s this rumour I hear that by May 2022 most developed countries will be subject to a WHO-led worldwide medical dictatorship? If WHO decrees something must happen, like mandatory vaccination, it will happen, i.e. in the countries that have signed up to this.

    Under the umbrella of WHO/GAVI, the de facto world Secretary of State for Health now seems to be a distinctly ruthless non-medic and non-scientist called Mr Bill Gates. He doesn’t even have a B.Sc in biosciences.

    ‘You couldn’t make it up’ is much too weak a phrase for what’s now happening.

    Reply
    1. Tom Morgan

      Norman: Thanks for posting the link to the ‘ghastly’ article – ghastly indeed. The type of problems listed in the article are of a particularly pernicious type: the mRNA ‘vaccines’ MAY be doing any number of subtle and not so subtle amounts of damage to a variety of organs and tissues. No one knows, now, just how bad things might turn out to be, and for how many people. All because the powers that be could stand around looking like they were doing nothing – oh, no not nothing. So the entire world has been subjected to medical procedures that are untested, with unknown long and short term effects. Even if I avoid taking anymore mRNA treatments, the horse is out of the barn. Are some of my 72 yo aches and pains due to the shots? Was my recently acquired tinnitus caused by Covid, or the ‘vaccines’?
      I find it particularly disturbing that the medical community (in my state of Massachusetts) is pushing these shots onto a couple of my relatives that already have some serious underlying conditions. One has cancer and is currently doing fine on her current regimen ( and in all likelihood has been exposed to Covid already) – will that be disrupted? The other has a serious kidney problem. Both have had 2 initial shots and now 2 boosters. Feels a lot like Russian Roulette.
      This whole business has turned my ordinary skepticism of medical advice into full blown “Get that stuff away from me – I don’t trust your advice on anything, now.”

      Reply
  69. Vivien Stratton

    I have emailed the GMC. My father was a GP (and loved his telescope and his science) and would have been ashamed of this appalling organisation. I have not mentioned you, by the way! Thank you for this info….

    Which country to we live in? Aaaaaargh….

    Warm wishes for all you do….

    Vivien Stratton
    07768 448 522
    vivien@vivienstratton.co.uk

    From: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick”
    Reply to: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick”
    Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 10:39
    To: Vivien Stratton
    Subject: [New post] A few thoughts on COVID19 vaccination

    Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: ” 23rd February 2022 The first thing I want to say here is that there should be nothing in science that is beyond analysis and potential criticism. Because, once this happens, we can find ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed. A place of unques”

    Reply
  70. Shadiya Kingerlee

    Thank you for taking the time and trouble that you do. This is an excellent, if lengthy, post. Though as the old saying goes – “if a job’s worth doing”, and all that, so I wouldn’t take any heed of calls for brevity for the sake of the masses.

    Reply
  71. Fast Eddy

    Super article!

    Meanwhile – we have a miracle – this guy entered the USA unvaccinated! HOW????

    Joeli Vidiri tragedy: All Black dies in US after catching Covid-19 on wedding trip

    Vidiri was unvaccinated, his wife wrote, and his health deteriorated rapidly after he then contracted pneumonia, and was hospitalised.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/joeli-vidiri-tragedy-all-black-dies-in-us-after-catching-covid-19-on-wedding-trip/WPEIZMWTGOGAU44KJUN4LPHHBY/

    The White House announced that vaccines will be required for international travellers coming into the United States, with an effective date of November 8, 2021.

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html

    Reply
    1. Barry Kissane

      Very sad story for this man and his family. Interesting question regarding vaccination status, but perhaps it depends on what is meant by “unvaccinated”. The precise details of his (non) vaccination are reported second-hand via his wife. In some places now (eg parts of Australia) people whose vaccination has not been boosted are described as “Not up to date” and thus potentially described as “unvaccinated”. There have also been earlier reports and commentaries of deaths after vaccination being described as ‘unvaccinated’ people dying, as they are only regarded as “vaccinated” after a defined period of some sort. So perhaps “vaccinated” has become more difficult to define?

      Reply
      1. Fast Eddy

        Or maybe the MSM is as usual – lying – and trying to scare people into injecting themselves with experimental garbage.

        He’s been there a month – he would not be allowed in unless he was fully vaxxed. Rather unlikely that he had lapsed into unvaxxed in less than a month.

        Reply
  72. Fast Eddy

    I highly recommend Igor’s Blog… he backs all of these alarming articles with good research references:

    Worst Fears Realized: Pfizer mRNA Transcribes into DNA
    mRNA Vaccines Actually are “Gene Therapy”, Study Shows

    https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/worst-fears-realized-pfizer-mrna

    Moderna Patented CANCER GENE is in Sars-Cov-2 “Spike Protein”
    https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/moderna-patented-cancer-gene-is-in?utm_source=url

    How did Moderna’s Patented Sequence End up in Sars-Cov-2?
    And why Moderna “took only two days” to create the “Covid Vaxx”?
    https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/how-did-modernas-patented-sequence

    Reply
  73. thecovidpilot

    I’ve been pondering why some people are keen to take up the official narrative and some are not.

    The keeners seem to be at least three types: 1) they cannot stomach reality and prefer to live in a fantasy world, 2) those who are philosophically inclined towards authoritarianism, and 3) those who follow the herd.

    The notters seem to be open to considering all kinds of ideas and tend philosophically towards libertarian and are individualistic.

    Reply
    1. Prudence Kitten

      Some of us are constitutionally rebellious – born members of the “awkward squad”, in Army language.

      As an INTP in Myers-Briggs classification, I ak far more interested in answers to problems, and systems that unite known facts, than in social approval or disapproval. I find most authority very disagreeable, because I don’t see why any human being should feel my superior.

      I am not – nor do I want to be – an alpha male, dominant enough to order others around and punish them for disobedience. Nor do I feel like a beta male – subordinate, obedient, humble, reconciled to my lowly status. Instead, I am a gamma male: someone who prefers to cooperate with others on equal terms.

      That gives one a long head start in race for freedom of thought.

      Reply
    2. Prudence Kitten

      I don’t think it is quite a matter of “following the herd”, as humans – being apes – are not herd animals by “troop” animals. It is more a question of being with the majority, or the “in group”. People to whom those things matter are not very much swayed by morality or religion, except inasmuch as those allow them to be with the majority.

      Reply
  74. Mark Preston

    Dear Dr Kendrick,
    Having shared this informative article
    with a friend they replied by sending me this in response. https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.1
    It is from last August and only draws those who have had one dose of “vaccine”. I wonder if you might have any comments on the usefulness of the paper.
    Kind regards
    Mark Preston

    Reply
      1. Fast Eddy

        Didn’t read that … cuz it’s The Guardian and also … when a cold or flu circulates why doesn’t every person catch those….

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s