Full Version: Suppressed Documents and Reports / Under-reported information
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
UK Government Refuses to Look into ‘Covid’ Fake Vaccine Safety Because If You Don’t Look, You Can’t Find

Over 107,000 UK citizens signed a petition for the UK government to open a public inquiry into Covid “vaccine” safety. But the UK Parliament is doing everything it can to bury its head in the sand.
The petition, which was started in November 2021, stated:
There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines…This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.
It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe. We believe that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began is…enough…to warrant a full Public Inquiry.
UK Government and Parliament Petitions: Open a Public Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccine Safety
At the beginning of this year, the Government responded to the petition:
The Government has commissioned a public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic and has no plans for a separate inquiry on vaccine safety. The safety of Covid-19 vaccines is monitored by the Medicines Healthcare and Regulatory products Agency (MHRA).
The MHRA has authorised Covid-19 vaccine supply following a rigorous review of their safety, quality and efficacy. The clinical trials of the vaccines have shown them to be effective and acceptably safe. [emphasis our own]
Government responded, This response was given on 5 January 2022
Axel McFarlane, who started the petition, and Mike Baker conducted a detailed and well-referenced analysis of the Government’s response:
The government-commissioned public inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic would not appear to include any investigation into possible vaccine-related causes behind the latest observed data on the various reported Adverse Events, Non-Covid Excess Deaths, the rise in Cardio-Vascular issues or the recent sudden decline in Live Birth Rates.

Read More: UK Government Refuses to Look into Covid Vaccine Safety Because If You Don’t Look, You Can’t Find
BREAKING NEWS How a University, its major funders and a Newspaper killed reliable research into the toxicity of Aluminium adjuvants in Vaccines

The strangling of Professor Christopher Exley’s work on aluminium toxicity in vaccines is emblematic of how scientific institutions have been captured by private interests – at the expense of the public.
This is a story about how a British university stifled ground-breaking public interest science, ostensibly to satisfy powerful interests – and save their own bacon.
As far as the general public is concerned universities, those hallowed halls, remain places where academics can pursue knowledge unhindered. But many universities and higher education institutions are compromised by the interests of their funders and an increasingly narrow and corporate view of science.
Professor Christopher Exley, a lauded biologist, the world’s pre-eminent expert on aluminium and a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology – a recognition few scientists achieve – last year lost research funding for his longstanding work on aluminium toxicity in diseases like Alzheimer’s and Autism, and its role as an adjuvant in vaccines.
It took place through a series of politically motivated moves that ultimately ended with his funding being completely cut off.
Aluminium is toxic
If you take the time to listen to one of Exley’s many lectures – and you should – you will learn that aluminium is ubiquitous. It is everywhere in the environment, and it is highly toxic to human beings.
In the 1980s Exley was doing research into why fish were dying in acidified lakes and rivers – he came to understand they were dying of aluminium toxicity. Aluminium, previously locked up in rocks and clays or recycled in the environment by silicic acid, through the process of acidification due to acid rain, had become bioavailable and entered into biological life cycles.
Today, we ingest aluminium through processed foods, drink it in water, cook in aluminium pots and pans (many pans are now made of anodised aluminium). It is found in baby formula, cosmetics and is a key ingredient in many vaccines.

Read More: How a University, its major funders and a Newspaper killed reliable research into the toxicity of Aluminium adjuvants in Vaccines
‘Wow!’ Fauci ‘Can’t Recall Practically Anything’ in 7-Hour Deposition

During seven hours of questioning under oath relating to a lawsuit alleging he and other Biden administration officials colluded with social media companies to censor COVID-19-related content, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he had “no clear memory of details that would shed light on his involvement in speech suppression.”
The transcript is not yet available and no reporters were allowed.
But from the attorneys general who brought the suit, the plaintiffs in the case and their attorney, and other parties to the lawsuit against the Biden administration, we have some information about the deposition provided by Dr. Anthony “I am the science” Fauci.
He has been the face of the pandemic response and stands accused of colluding with Big Tech to suppress dissent in violation of the First Amendment.
The question of whether the deposition was to be public was itself the subject of legal attention. The Department of Justice filed to block all recording and personally identifiable information for fear of public harassment, and this condition was granted.
As a result, we have no transcript (yet) and one senses a great skittishness even from those who were there to explain the fullness of what transpired. Major national media have shown no interest in getting the story.
Nonetheless, we do have information thanks to some candid tweets and an article by one of the plaintiffs. The main takeaway is that Fauci has come down with a serious case of amnesia.
Over seven hours, reported Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, he mostly stonewalled detailed questioning by answering that he has no clear memory of details that would shed light on his involvement in speech suppression.

Read More: ‘Wow!’ Fauci ‘Can’t Recall Practically Anything’ in 7-Hour Deposition
ONS’ dirty tricks to cover up deaths after UK’s mass ‘Covid’ injection campaign began

Weekly all cause death figures published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) do not stand up to scrutiny. The evidence indicates we are missing a bunch of young deaths.
Joel Smalley has been exposing gaping holes in ONS data.  “Many of us are trying really hard to report the Covid facts using the most reliable data we can access. Unfortunately, much of this data is not readily available. We have to use FOI requests and bespoke data requests (that we pay for out of our own pockets), simply to get useful data to work with,” he wrote in a recent Substack.
Considering these gaping holes, John Dee is conducting an analysis of the data using a different approach to try to quantify the harm caused by Covid injections. “If the vaccines have been wreaking havoc as much as it would appear then we need to brace ourselves for an extraordinary degree of delay and/or cover-up,” he concluded.
The ONS prefer to publish mortality data by date of registration (“DOR”) rather than date of death (“DOD”), this being a constant irritation to analysts chasing the harms and benefits of all that has transpired over the last 33 months. Whilst I touch upon the matter in several articles, this article series HERE succinctly captures the essence, revealing the ONS’ woolly reasoning as to why they do this crazy thing.
Since it is a legal requirement in the UK to register all deaths within five days then we may assume DOR and DOD counts are not going to get totally out of kilter over time and this was borne out by my analysis. The biggest headache that DOR data causes are spikes and dips in the record that are substantial during holiday periods when registry offices within each diocese are closed.
The Biggest Headache of All
Spikes and dips within the DOR data record that arise from administrative matters are easy to iron out using various smoothing techniques. A preferable approach is to obtain counts by DOD but this must be done under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI”), and the ONS charge for their time. Any normal person would consider this to be unreasonable and ask why such data are not provided to the tax paying public free of charge and as a matter of course.
bone fide dude who has been piling on the FOI and lashing cash is Joel Smalley of Dead Man Talking fame, who once again alerts us to gaping holes in the ONS data record in THIS splendid article. Scroll down his series of slides and you’ll see the death count for recent months evaporate as age declines.
There’s a good reason for this and that is deaths in young folk are supposed to be rare, such that when they do happen, they tend to attract the attention of the coroner who has to rule out foul play, suicide and incidence of notifiable diseases. Thorough investigation of young death is vital for the future health of the nation and this process naturally incurs a time penalty. Hence Joel’s holes, which are a right old headache for anybody trying to quantify vaccine harm.

Read More: ONS’ dirty tricks to cover up deaths after UK’s mass Covid injection campaign began
British Heart Foundation says its advice on the safety of the fake vaccines was ‘based on rigorous scrutiny of the latest evidence’. Well, that can’t be true or they would have warned people against having it

The British Heart Foundation has rejected a Tory MP’s claims that a senior member of its team was “covering up” negative data on Covid vaccines.
Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, made the claim in a parliamentary debate earlier this month, in which he also called for an “immediate” suspension of the use of mRNA vaccines.
He claimed that a person within a “prominent leadership role” in the British Heart Foundation had sent non-disclosure agreements to researchers to prevent data on potential harms being made public.
In a statement to the Times newspaper, the charity strongly rejected the assertion and called on Mr Bridgen to provide evidence for it.
It said its advice on the safety of the vaccines was “based on rigorous scrutiny of the latest evidence”.
There have been rare cases of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, following Covidvaccinations, but research suggests this is no more likely than following other vaccinations.
In a statement to the Times, a British Heart Foundation spokesperson said: “The scientific consensus is that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccination, including a reduced risk of severe illness or death, far outweigh the very small risk of rare side effects like myocarditis or pericarditis for the vast majority of people, especially as people get older.
“Scientific evidence shows that Covid-19 itself is much more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccine is, and people who are vaccinated have a much lower risk of getting other serious complications caused by Covid-19.
“We employ a small leadership team of senior scientists and cardiologists to oversee and administer our research funding programmes, who also continue to undertake some of their own research. We can categorically say that nobody within this leadership team has acted in the way claimed by Mr Bridgen.”
Mr Bridgen also told MPs that “the benefits of the vaccine are close to non-existent” for children, although globally researchers estimate vaccines have saved some 20 million lives.
His claims were slammed by health minister Maria Caulfield, who said he had “derided doctors, scientists and nurses”.
“Many of us worked through the pandemic and saw at first hand the devastation that covid caused,” she said during the same debate.
“There is no doubt in my mind that, despite the personal protective equipment, social distancing and infection control, the thing that made the biggest difference in combating covid was the introduction of the vaccine.”
Read More: British Heart Foundation dismisses Tory MP’s Covid ‘cover-up’ vaccine claim
Arguably the most important suppressed/underreported information on the COVID vaccines, is the following from UKColumn on 1 February 2021, featuring a "NHS whistleblower", who explains why suddenly all of these elderly people die after COVID-19 vaccination. In reality this is more a scientist than a whistleblower though - he analyses publicly accessible information.
In short, the experimental Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines causes immune deficiency, until 7 days after the victims have been poisoned with these vaccines. This can make elderly people seriously ill, who could die from the immune deficiency caused by the vaccines.

With the result that the death rates among the elderly skyrocketed - a 4-fold increase in deaths.
These deaths could last longer than the first 7 days after vaccination.

The interesting part with the NHS whistleblower is from 4:00 to 9:30 minutes,

The most important evidence this "NHS whistleblower" provides is the following graph - Pfizer vaccine causes drop in immune system up to 7 days post vaccination.
[Image: Pfizer-immune-deficiency.png]

This comes from the following scientific looking paper. You have to look very hard to find this information.
"Extended Data Fig. 1 Post vaccination changes in lymphocyte count over time".

Mark J. Mulligan et al. - Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults (12 August 2020):
MHRA is lying when it claims the harms from ‘Covid injections’ are ‘not serious’ Of course it’s lying. That’s its job

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) continues to insist that the “overwhelming majority” of adverse effects of the Covid “vaccines” are for example sore arms and symptoms of a flu-like illness. But an examination of the Yellow Card reports proves this is untrue.
It is known that 90%+ of adverse effects are not reported to the Yellow Card system but whatever the true toll in injuries and deaths, when the MHRA responsible for guaranteeing “vaccine” safety states that the “overwhelming majority” of Yellow Card reports are “sore arms, headaches, chills, tiredness, feeling sick, dizziness, weakness and aching muscles,” it is lying to the UK public.
How do we know MHRA are lying? Because roughly three-quarters of the adverse effects reported to the Yellow Card system are categorised as “serious.”
In its weekly summary of the Yellow Card reports it receives of the adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”) suffered by the British public following injection with the Covid-19 “vaccines” it has authorised, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) continues to insist that the “overwhelming majority” are:
Injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a “flu-like” illness, headache, chills, fatigue (tiredness), nausea (feeling sick), fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat.
In doing so, the MHRA — and, by extension, the UK Prime Minister, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the National Health Service and the pharmaceutical companies that have been testing this experimental biotechnology on the British public for the past two years — can all dismiss the growing fears and anger about the UK “vaccination” programme as the fearmongering of “conspiracy theorists.” Indeed, it was precisely this term that outraged Members of Parliament used to describe MP Andrew Bridgen recently after he called on Rishi Sunak to halt the UK “vaccination” programme. But is this claim by the MHRA borne out by the more than 474,000 Yellow Card reports it has received since the programme was initiated in December 2020? As you’d expect of an organisation funded by the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine investors whose products it is paid to guarantee the safety of, the answer is an unsurprising “no.”
After failing — or refusing — to differentiate between serious and non-serious adverse reactions to the fake “vaccines” during the politically-declared coronavirus “pandemic,” at the end of December 2022 the MHRA finally published the figures that distinguish between them for each of the different brands of “vaccines.” And as we should by now expect of a privately-funded government body that has repeatedly and consistently lied to the UK public since March 2020, the data contradicts their own assertions. In this article, I’m going to show how. It should be clear by now why they have lied.

Read More: MHRA is lying
A ‘Cover-Up of Evidence of Mass Murder’: The CDC Appears to be Removing VAERS Record

Something strange is going on with the VAERS system. Reports that were present three months ago are now inexplicably missing. And fewer than 4% of adverse events recorded in V-Safe have made their way to VAERS. This is the CDC’s database; Dr. Rochelle Walensky is in charge of it. And the agency’s failure to properly manage VAERS is suppressing the already-alarming safety signal of the Covid-19 shots.

Now, what is VAERS? VAERS stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As mentioned earlier, VAERS is a database put in place in 1990 under the supervision of the CDC. Reports of suspected vaccine adverse events take about half an hour to fill out, and 86% of the time, this is done by a doctor, nurse, paramedic, coroner, or healthcare professional when he or she believes the adverse event is related to a vaccine reaction. And because of its lengthy report process as well as the lack of awareness of the existence of VAERS, there is a general consensus of a severe underreporting factor for this database.

To get a better idea of what’s going on with the CDC’s handling of the VAERS system, Dr. Naomi Wolf spoke with Dr. Henry Ealy, an expert on the database…
FOI Request …

2:59:37 Bonus: Swindon heart complications, good news - Dr. John Campbell.

(Background to Swindletown @9:50 - 12:00)
Video: Bombshell Docs Reveal COVID-19 Cover-Up Goes Straight to the Top. Redacted with Clayton Morris

A BOMBSHELL new report claims [yet to be confirmed, GR] that the Department of Defense – meaning the Pentagon – controlled the COVID-19 Program from the very beginning. 

If true, it means that everything we were told was political theater, right down to the FDA vaccine approval process.

Our guest today is a former executive of a pharmaceutical contract research organization Sasha Latypova and she shows what she has researched…
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6