Intro by Fabian Ubiquitus
The following is taken from the website of the honorable British Medical Journal here.
The doctor who wrote it isn’t an “anti-vaxxer” (whatever that is exactly), a “conspiracy theorist” or “Covid denyer” or any of other other puerile labels hastily attached by the Vaccine Faction to anyone with the guts to speak out.
He is a conscientious medical doctor working on the front lines and observing at first hand what is happening to people who take the experimental vaccines and pseudo vaccines being recklessly pushed on them by the government.
As he rightly points out, if so many serious adverse reactions are already occurring in the short term, what lies in store for the vaccinated in the long term?
We would point out also that if so many, varied and extremely serious adverse reactions are occurring in the immediate-term that were not predicted and of which we were not forewarned, how sloppy has been the research and trials that preceded the release of these biochemical agents?
As the long term tests and trials were not done, nobody knows what is going to happen in the long term.
It is usual to do the trials and tests before releasing a medicine for general use. That way, if the research is done properly, we have a reasonable idea of how great are the risks and likelihood of adverse events.
An understanding of the true extent of the risks can then be assessed against how great are the risks of the disease.
The third factor is an understanding of whether the vax actually works in terms of doing what is claimed for other jabs (polio, measles, meningitis etc etc) and that is RENDERING YOU IMMUNE to the disease. By immune it is generally understood to mean what it says in Dictionary.com:
- protected from a disease or the like, as by inoculation.
- of or relating to the production of antibodies or lymphocytes that can react with a specific antigen.
- exempt or protected.
- not responsive or susceptible.
In the case of the Covid vaccines and pseudo vaccines, we get the following:
True extent of the risks:
short-, medium- and long-term adverse effects not known. We simply cannot evaluate how much of a risk we are taking when we get the jab. A crude analogy is that of playing Russian Roulette without knowing how many bullets are in the chamber (one, two, four, none etc).
How dangerous is the disease being vaccinated against:
the government spin tries to paint the bug as deadly even though for the vast majority it isn’t. Untreated, however, it can be deadly for the elderly and already very ill and so forth, although the “with COVID” fatality stats issued by the government are clearly designed to mislead as had been covered by no end of commentators.
However, this second factor is where probably the greatest deceit lies: the painting of Covid19 as deadly.
Treatments for Covid have been know from the outset but suppressed or steadfastly ignored in every government ad, pronouncement or briefing so as to create the myth that the vaxes are “our only chance” or “our only way out of this”.
This is simply a calculated, cynical bare-faced lie. Known remedies, had they not been withheld ,would have reduced to near zero the risk of fatality from this very treatable bug. The best analogy I can think of is hiding or secretly destroying ninety percent of the food supply then declaring a famine and convincing everybody how great is their personal risk of dying of starvation.
So if the known, safe and effective treatments (that have been getting very effective results where conscientious frontline doctors have used them) had not been suppressed, we would not have had a situation in which we would be deciding whether to be vaxed because the bug would have been routinely dealt with using known medications that have been around for decades and have in all that time had no safety issues. The serious illnesses would have been at least eighty percent fewer and fatalities almost zero.
We would in, other words, have been making an informed choice as to whether to use an unproven vaccine still in the experimental stage and only authorised for emergency use and thus of uncertain risk levels (yet producing enough adverse events to cry out for caution) against the almost zero risk from a routinely treatable bug.
In fact there would have been no emergency to justify the use of experimental vaccines recklessly rushed into the marketplace.
In other words, this entire emergency with its rushed and highly suspicious vaccines, lockdowns, illnesses, fear relentlessly drummed into us by the media, fatalities, economic destruction, and so forth ad nauseam, this whole scenario derives not from the alleged pandemic but from the government’s negligence or malice aforethought in keeping the highly workable, effective and safe remedies away from the public.
The government alleges that 12000 people have been killed by this bug. Well, if those numbers are to be believed, then around 90,000 (80 percent) or more of those would not have died had the remedies been made available and backed by the same investment of money, resources and energy as that devoted to the vax roll out, the test and trace and the propaganda blitz designed to terrify the people.
Thus the government has killed around 90,000 people through its own wilful negligence and when the full effects of the booby-trapped vaccines make themselves felt over the next few years, God-alone-knows how many more.
And bear in mind too, as if the above mentioned ineptitude and homicidal skulduggery were not enough, there is STILL a third factor to be taken into account were FULLY INFORMED consent been permitted, uncertainty as to whether the unneeded vaxes even work in terms of rendering you immune to the bug.
But our conjecture is all very well, so let’s hear what a medical doctor working with this fiasco on the front lines has to say. And as you read this bear in mind the pressure that is put on medical staff to keep quiet, so much so that any doctor or nurse speaking out knows they are doing do so at considerable personal risk. It speaks volumes both of their heroism and of the seriousness of what they are witnessing.
Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?
Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 08/04/2021.
by K Polyakova, Consultant, London
I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.
Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.
Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it?
There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?
Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.
Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.
I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid.
Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.
What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.