You are the enemy

Secrecy, distrust, paternalism and authoritarian rule

TOM JEFFERSON

We have debated whether to stop reporting the MHRA’s COVID-19 vaccine oversight minutes.

Their heavily formatted content is shameful, degrading, and (at least to us) embarrassing. If they are a true reflection of what went on, apart from the farcical, nonsensical statements, they show little debate, no compassion, and no thoughtful reflection. However, the fact that the minutes were not corrected suggests they were not read, checked, and taken seriously. Withdrawing the minutes on a Saturday “to ensure accurate and transparent records” seems like a high-handed approach to resolving an embarrassing incident.

Therefore, the minutes seem like a political device to support decisions already made, and their secret nature makes reconstructing what happened conjectural.

You would have a reserved agenda in any typical meeting with truly confidential items. Sometimes, members who disagree with the conclusions insist on minuting and formally recording their disagreement.

We find the rush to grant CMA to both experimental vaccines (as recognised in the Pfizer APA) incomprehensible. So are the circumstantial data on effectiveness the Expert Working Group was “told” about and the slip-sliding of decisions on the vaccines’ harm profile.

Viral load, a key variable in understanding the risk of person-to-person transmission, was discussed in August 2020, but we can find no record of it in the later minutes. So viral transmissibility, a key indication for the use of the vaccine, was never discussed, probably because it was never tested. The muzzling and near coercion of minors to be vaccinated was predicated on their supposed role in transmitting the bug to their elders.

Understanding modes of transmission is the key to an evidence-based approach to limiting, managing, or stopping the spread of disease, including viral circulation. This is why we started our work on these topics in 2020 and did not get to vaccines until David Jory alerted us to the local epidemic of Bell’s Palsy.

---

Even then, we looked at regulatory documents, not marketing reports in biomedical journals (also known as publications of pivotal trials).

The absence of data on use in pregnant women and the exclusion from the initial protocols of the categories that were supposed to benefit seems not to have been remarked on.

If vaccines were the potential solution to the state media panic, we would have proceeded with a gradual approach to testing more than one vaccine, especially given the lack of knowledge of their biodistribution and effects. Spreading the risk of failure is always a good tactic, but reading the minutes, we get the feeling that there is never any question of failure.  We would have avoided triumphalist fake nationalistic statements about the excellence of “our” science like Johnson’s and Hancock’s. These imply that everyone else’s is of inferior quality and that science is a national endeavour. It’s a neon-lit boomerang if ever you have seen one as big as this.

If and when conditional marketing authorisation was granted to more than one vaccine, our choice would have been the most cost-effective. This term encapsulates benefits, harms, and costs, which must be weighed across the products. There is no such thing as “safe and effective,” as these are relative, not absolute concepts. There are trade-offs.

Once the choice had been made, our contracts would have reflected that choice.

Alternatively, we would have asked manufacturers to meet the cost-effective threshold, principally by generating evidence and adjusting costs.

All this should have been gradual, open and transparent, as that is how you earn and maintain people’s trust.

What happened can be guessed at, but three scenarios are possible.

1. Believing the main narrative and gripped by panic and in the capable hands of modellers and media, you have no idea what is happening. So you subvert the precautionary principle and go for something, anything. “Just in case”.
2. You are friendly with the merchants of Temple, and you can see great opportunities for advancement, money, riches, influence, trade and revolving doors.
3. You are not sure, but you are not stupid, so you spread the risk across two to three products. You continue publicly touting these products as safe and effective, although you have no idea what these terms mean.

This tragic dysfunctionality of government and enablers is reflected in the actions of the UKHSA, its partner in obfuscation and disservice to the public they are supported to serve.

The old geezers struggle to understand how much public money has been wasted. Looking at the spreadsheets is like opening a Russian doll.

---

However, here is the crux: none of the uncertainty was reflected in the state media, government and pharma communications, and (last but not least) informed consent. Our consent is null and void as it was informed by what governments knew then.

In 2000, the Blair government created NICE to move away from these cabals, and all of the subject matter of this post should have gone through NICE, not through obscure squirrel-infested channels.

We were kept in the dark behind a wall of state media nonsense because the system regards you, the taxpayer, at best as plebs to be moulded and kept ignorant, as the minutes show, to avoid “hesitancy” and, at worst, as enemies.

How else can you interpret this statement relating to the provision of the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine:

“Contract end date is being withheld on grounds that release would be contrary to public interest (Reg 50(6)(a)) and commercial sensitivity(Reg 50(6)(b) and (c)). The date is variable based on production and delivery. Given significant challenges to overcome, the end date may

set unrealistic expectation for the public/market. Also, given significant competition to bring to the market a successful vaccine, provision of the contract term is valuable information to competitors that may impact negotiations/ future competition.

Sub-contractor details are being withheld on grounds that release would be contrary to public interest (Reg 50(6)(a)). This is very sensitive given potential for targeting and disruption of the activities at facilities which are critical to success and delivery of contract”.

---

“Targeting and disruption” presumably means the risk of civil unrest, citizens attacking deliveries, or sabotaging this and that. You are the enemy; you pay and do not ask questions. If you do not know when the supplies run out, you do not know when you must fork out more cash.

However, all of this was quite clear from the outset.  When Boris Johson said, ’This enemy can be deadly,’ he was predicting the future with the aid of his modellers. Whereas he thought the coronavirus was the enemy, we now know he was referring to you.

---

This article (You are the enemy) was created and published by Trust the Evidence and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

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.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.