Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
This post is written mainly to provide context for a forthcoming post titled A time to speak [Update: link at the end of this post].
“Safe and Effective”
It is not well-known that The Blue Guide, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s guidance for the Advertising and Promotion of Medicines in the UK states on p34, in its chapter on “Advertising to Persons Qualified to Prescribe or Supply Medicines,” that (emphasis added):
Advertising which states or implies that a product is “safe” is unacceptable. All medicines have the potential for side-effects and no medicine is completely risk-free as individual patients respond differently to treatment.
In 2020, I did not know about The Blue Guide. But I did know all too well that all medicines have the potential for side-effects and that no medicine is completely risk-free. And that any new vaccine developed over a period of months could not possibly, by definition, have long-term safety data.
Nor did I know in 2020 that, in the 1980s, US drug companies had demanded full immunity from liability for all vaccines because the vaccines were — in the words of the vaccine companies — unavoidably unsafe. But I was aware that there was at least some risk with vaccines. I had assumed that there is actually some basis for having to wait for 15 minutes at the pharmacy after a flu vaccine.
I also didn’t know in 2020 that hardly any vaccines are subjected to true placebo-controlled trials. And thus that the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is a very long way from what I had assumed that it would be. And when I discovered that, it seemed odd to me. After all, if a company had a product that was actually safe and effective, it would not be so very difficult to run properly conducted randomised controlled trials against a true placebo, not least to discredit “anti-vaxxers”. And I don’t buy the specious “placebo-controlled trials are unethical” line…
…not least because it only seems to be trotted out in the context of vaccines (as distinct from other medical products)…
The main purpose of this post is to point to evidence that shows that, at least in relation to the so-called covid vaccines,1 “safe and effective” is actually two lies.
I will take “safe” and “effective” in reverse order. And I will stick to the sort of evidence that anyone can understand. No expertise is required here. Not that it was ever necessary — or indeed a good idea — to “leave this to the experts”.2
Effective: “The covid vaccines saved many lives”
In 2022 there were headlines like this one, with words like “estimates” and “suggests” doing a lot of heavy lifting:
But such “mathematical modelling” studies start with the assumption — which, if you look into it, has no robust real-world data to back it up — that the vaccines concerned are effective at preventing a deadly disease. And so it is hardly surprising that the conclusion reached is… that those vaccines have saved many lives. As my father, who knew a fair bit about such things, first told me, “Garbage in. Garbage out.” There’s even an acronym for it: GIGO.
It is perhaps not so surprising that nonsensical vaccine efficacy claims3 such as those above are being revised…
But that new study, reported in a newspaper that openly takes £millions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also relies on modelling, albeit with a less generous assumption of how effective the vaccines are at preventing a deadly disease. And so it is hardly surprising that the conclusion reached is… that those vaccines have saved lives, albeit far fewer than first thought. For anyone who wants it, a detailed critique can be found here. Among other things, deaths caused by the injections are not factored in.
There is a fundamental issue here: there is still no robust, real-world data to justify such claims. Leaving aside whether the clinical trials were conducted fairly, they were in any case brought to a premature end, with the placebo group receiving the vaccine.
And, stepping back, claims that “the covid vaccines saved many lives” — or even any lives at all — simply do not fit with bigger picture data such as this:
Leaving aside the fact that many “covid-19 deaths” were actually non-covid deaths with a dubious positive covid test result, it is difficult to discern any significant effect during “the year of the vaccine”.
There is of course a flattening of the cumulative death curve from around the end of February 2022. But that came in the context of:
The arrival of the omicron variant, first identified in November 2021, that was more transmissible but had an intrinsically lower case fatality rate
And:
The decline in the number of covid tests carried out as outlined in this chart on p13 of this UK government report:
It is surely reasonably to ask:
How different would the “cumulative confirmed covid-19 deaths” chart have looked if there had been no vaccine at all?
And indeed:
How different would the “cumulative confirmed covid-19 deaths” chart have looked if diagnosis had been on the basis of actual symptoms as distinct from a test with which, in the words of its Nobel Prize winning inventor, “you can find almost anything in anybody”?
Oh, and if you are wondering about the figures from China, consider e.g. these charts…
Safe: “The covid vaccines are safe”
As I noted in this series of questions I put together in October 2021…
…from very early on there was no shortage of indication of vaccine harm, not least from the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS):
Again, no expertise is required to see that there is potentially a serious problem here, especially when the bulk of the recorded deaths occur within 72 hours of injection (bottom left).
And the fact that such issues were not being openly discussed by public health officials and the mainstream media was surely indicative.
Since 2021, the evidence of harm — based on official figures — has continued to mount.
See for example these posts based on UK government data:
And this one featuring life insurance data from the US:
The rise in excess deaths is doubtless multi-factorial, but covid vaccination as a major component seems undeniable, particularly from Ed Dowd’s analysis.
Official US government data shows that the number of Americans with a disability has continued — and continues — to rise:4
And that the increase started in 2021, i.e. not the year of the “pandemic” but the year of the so-called vaccine.
As Ed Dowd points out, population growth at around 4% does not explain disability growth approaching 20%.
The above data — and so much more — is consistent with the fact that most healthcare workers no longer want covid injections. They know what is happening, and they know what happens to medics who speak out about it. And most are keeping quiet, perhaps partly because vaccination is so lucrative.
Here is an example of financial incentives in the US:
The population of America is over 300 million. It’s not hard to do the math…
From a UK perspective, here is an article from Pulse, a monthly news magazine which has been distributed without charge to general practitioners since 1960:
I guess Pulse is largely funded by its advertisers — mainly pharmaceutical companies as far as I could tell.
As noted here, in The love of money section of the January Updates post, during the covid era GPs were even able to claim “a further supplement of £10… per vaccination dose to eligible children and young people aged 12-15”.
Novel technology synthetic mRNA injections with no long-term safety data. For a disease that poses essentially no risk to children. With an extra bonus payment of £10 per child.
Let that sink in.
I am reminded of Nye Bevan, who boasted that he was able to accomplish his goal “by stuffing the doctors’ mouths with gold.”
No wonder so many doctors want to “move on”.
But, as Tony Hinton, a UK retired NHS Consultant Surgeon, puts it:
I’m not sure of the exact number ‘saved’ but I am certain the number has a minus in front of it.
And for those who prefer personal stories to statistics, there is no shortage to choose from, even just from previous articles on this Substack, which represent the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
![[SPCI-9] "We were told... a story of a lethal virus, a story that only vaccines could save us, a story where vaccines were safe and effective and rigorously tested. But what if that story was wrong?"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!n3ER!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F88c96883-aa46-40d2-b99c-e6cf9591df2e_1440x1168.png)
The bigger picture
I am reminded of these words…
If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.
…which come from this book, originally published in 1869, long before the advent of radio, television, or the internet:
And this quotation, often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, the German Minister of Propaganda from 1933-1945:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the… consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
These words, often attributed to Mark Twain, also spring to mind:
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Although it appears rather more likely that he actually wrote that:
A truth is not hard to kill, but a well told lie is immortal.
But in any case, a big part of the problem is that many people have invested in the big lie of that “mRNA injections are safe and effective”:
In terms of the UK, Molly Kingsley of UsForThem points out here that:
The UK Government, including a succession of health ministers… have fallen over themselves to effuse over, and claim credit for funding, the development of the UK’s mRNA platform, including via… a substantial direct investment in BioNTech; and a 10 year mRNA vaccine partnership deal with Moderna the value of which was too sensitive for the public to know, each of which assumed that taxpayer support for the development of mRNA products would be integral to plans for wooing and reinvigorating the UK’s life sciences sector, and boosting economic growth in the process
The Tony Blair Institute… has spilt much ink lauding mRNA technology as a “new frontier in medical science” and advocating for the UK to “[cement] its place as a world leader in mRNA technology”…
The UK medicines regulator, MHRA… has steadfastly maintained that the mRNA platform is and has always been safe and effective
The UK’s official vaccine advisory body, JCVI… on the back of that ‘safe and effective’ stamp, u-turned on its original hesitation about authorising Covid-19 mRNA jabs for kids to authorise a mass roll-out of the Pfizer vaccine to 16 and 17 year olds…
The UK’s Chief Medical Officers… bulldozed through the mass rollout of the C19 mRNA jabs to kids in other age groups against the backdrop of public concern over both safety risks and the apparent lack of clinical benefit for those children….
To say nothing of the many people, including experts and doctors and nurses, who believed and promulgated the manifold covid era lies and endorsed or even promoted the covid injections without thinking much about what they were doing.
While the recent statement from the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (featured in this post) could reasonably be described as something of a limited hangout, at least we now have a top-level official acknowledgement that mRNA injections are neither safe nor effective.
I wonder when we will hear something similar from the UK government — or Opposition; or the Tony Blair Institute; or the MHRA; or the JCVI; or the UK’s Chief Medical Officers…
As to experts, I am reminded of the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman and his statement that:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
I doubt that statement would go down well in some churches, not least the one I attend. But Feynman surely has a point. Particularly in the context of the past few years.
I am reminded of the God who makes foolish the wisdom of the world.
And not least of the many church leaders, few of whom I guess would claim to be experts on medical matters, but who nevertheless endorsed the covid era lies in one way or another, and in some cases went on the record to promote the so-called covid vaccines…
…a theme to which I shall return in A time to speak [Update: link below]:
Related:
And:
Also…
This series of posts…
![[SPCI-1] "It seems to me there was no need to depart from the usual response, except for shielding of higher risk groups"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!SNo-!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdeda76c5-1519-4396-986e-667a6a9a5e2f_654x632.png)
…and especially:
![[SPCI-8] "The catastrophic rollout [of] the covid vaccines is arguably the biggest avoidable public health disaster in human history, and in my view constitutes a crime against humanity"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!lowR!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1ae46d64-bf4b-4e31-9116-bc2e26e38ab4_2010x1822.png)
And this series of posts:
![[I] Exposing the UK Covid-19 Inquiry (Module 4)](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!LWy3!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8388da85-e410-4fb8-8058-3b7d2f0bde3a_748x730.png)
Dear Church Leaders homepage
Some posts, including a version of this one, can also be found on Unexpected Turns
Revealing Faith: Seeing and believing the revelation of God
The Big Reveal: Christianity carefully considered as the solution to a problem
Although, on the basis of the evidence, I have come to see that “safe and effective” as two lies applies rather more widely. Not least to e.g. Merck’s Gardasil for HPV.
The problem is not with expertise per se, but the fact that many people we describe as experts do not actually think much for themselves but instead rely on what other people say without checking the evidence. There is also the problem that many prominent experts and expert bodies have conflicts of interest, not least financially. And the fact that experts who disagree with the official line are often censored. It is hardly surprising that all experts agree when the ones that don’t are silenced.
A simple calculation based on population and the infection fatality rate of covid in early 2020 is sufficient to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of such claims.
For context (c/o Ed Dowd):
These are the six questions on which the disability data is based:
Any yes to one of the six questions asked is then considered disabled. This is a statistically imputed portion of the current population survey (CPS) done monthly. It has nothing to due with social security claims.
**Hearing Disability**: Is anyone in the household deaf or do they have serious difficulty hearing?
**Visual Disability**: Is anyone in the household blind or do they have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?
**Cognitive Disability**: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does anyone in the household have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?
**Ambulatory Disability**: Does anyone in the household have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?
**Self-Care Disability**: Does anyone in the household have difficulty dressing or bathing?
**Independent Living Disability**: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does anyone in the household have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?
If a respondent answers “yes” to any question, they are asked to identify which household members have the condition. These responses are used to establish disability status for labor force statistics. Note that the CPS disability measure is distinct from Social Security disability status, as it is designed for statistical purposes only and does not assess eligibility for benefits.