On 24 October 2022, a debate was recorded at The House Of Commons in London, namely, Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety.
Elliot Colburn, Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, claimed the House had considered the e-petition number 602171, relating to "the safety of covid-19 vaccines."
Elliot Colburn mentioned in his opening speech: "There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines. . ."
He then goes on to claim: "This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout."
He then suggests sincerely: "It is the duty of the [British] 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.”
He goes on and proudly claims: "The petition has amassed over 107,000 signatures, including signatories from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency."
And then the usual, mutual back-slapping: "I put on record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee Clerks and the team behind the scenes for organising today’s debate, and particularly to the "Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency"—the MHRA —which recently briefed me on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy."
And then the big—"BUT!" There is always a but: The Government should "not" launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety; it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money and is not necessary.
Hmmm.
It turns out, the "Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency"—MHRA, the organisation which briefed our very sincere Mr Colburn on vaccine safety and its surveillance strategy is. . . wait for it—86% funded by BIG PHARMA and other invested industries! so it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Elliot Colburn, Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington does not believe the British Government should launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety, even though he claims, there has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines. He also claims: This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout. He also claims, it is the duty of the [British] Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe.
He also believes 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. He goes on proudly claiming: A petition has amassed over 107,000 signatures, including signatories from his own Carshalton and Wallington constituency.
However—The Government should "not" launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety. . . At this point, I had images of bulky brown envelopes running around my head!
Mr Colburn was asked by Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch if he had watched the film “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” The film shines a light on Covid-19 vaccine injuries and bereavements but also takes an encompassing look at the systemic failings that appear to have enabled them. Looking in particular at the leading analysis of pharmaceutical trials, the role of the MHRA in regulating these products, the role of the SAGE behavioural scientists in influencing policy and the role of the media and Big Tech companies in suppressing free and open debate on the subject.
Mr Colburn's answer was amusing if not a tad expected: "I have not seen that publication, although I have read a lot of the significant amounts of material that have been shoved through my constituency office door by a large number of anti-vax protesters, who have flyposted my office on no less than a dozen occasions, and intimidated my 18-year-old apprentice and the people who live above my constituency office. Given that the content of that literature includes climate change denial, moon landing denial and so on, I am inclined to ignore it completely." Hmmm. . .
He continues: "It is impossible to vaccinate every person in the country, nor should vaccines be thrust upon people without their consent." At this point of the debate, Mr Colburn fails to mention the fact that 40,000 care workers in the UK were rounded up and sacked from their jobs because they refused a Covid-19 vaccination during the pandemic.
He goes on: "People have a right to know what is put in their bodies and have the autonomy to decide whether to have a vaccination. It is therefore the job of the state to ensure not only that vaccines are safe for use and continually reviewed, but that knowledge of why they are safe and effective is communicated well to our constituents." This is probably why he believes the Government should "not" launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety. . .
"With that in mind, I will briefly outline the steps taken to review the safety of covid-19 vaccines before the roll-out, and the continuous monitoring of vaccine safety. All vaccines must be tested through a series of clinical trials to establish their efficacy and safety and must have a product licence before they can be made available for widespread use in humans. The MHRA is responsible for regulating all medicines and medical devices in the UK by ensuring they work and are acceptably safe. Starting in 2020, a dedicated team of MHRA scientists and clinicians carried out a rigorous, detailed scientific review of all the available data in the development of covid-19 vaccines, including from laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine, and it considered the conditions for the vaccine’s safe supply and distribution." Once again, he forgets to mention that his wonderful MHRA, the organisation which also briefed our very sincere Mr Colburn on vaccine safety and its surveillance strategy is—86% funded by BIG PHARMA and other invested industries! So any scientific review done by MHRA is not worth the paper it is printed on—The child is marking their own homework!
He goes on: "In early June 2020, the MHRA set up an "independent" expert working group to begin some of the most important safety work. In August 2020, a second working group was formed with different expertise, this time to advise the MHRA on the benefits and risks of the vaccines in development. The groups were formed of 48 experts from outside the MHRA, including virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists and toxicologists. In September 2020, the MHRA started preparing laboratories for independent batch testing of the vaccine. Although the vaccine manufacturers carried out their own comprehensive testing regimes on the batches of products they produced, it is vital that tests focusing on safety and quality are conducted independently too." Well, sorry Mr Colburn, but, last week the EU Commission asked several leaders of big Pharma how could they begin clinical trials on their vaccination just 3 days after China officials released part of the Covid DNA segment on January 11 2020? The Moderna CEO, Stephane Bancel claimed work on their vaccine had started in 2017 more than 2 years before Covid-19 had apparently been discovered. The MHRA would have surely known this too.
He continues: In the UK, independent testing is performed by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, which is part of the MHRA and works alongside WHO, which is funded by Bill and Malinda Gates, amongst others. Before any batch testing can reach the public, the NIBSC must conduct a rigorous assessment to check that it is consistent with characteristics derived from results from batches previously shown to be safe, and from effective clinical trials or routine clinical use. That work began in November 2020. The covid-19 vaccines were developed in a coordinated way that allowed some stages of the assessment processes to happen in parallel, which enabled the producers and regulators to condense the time normally needed. That rolling review allowed the MHRA to review data as it became available from ongoing studies, rather than waiting." Sounds watertight but wait. . . We now have proof from a leading executive of a vaccine producer who has gone on record as saying, "'they did not."' test the vaccine to see if it prevented patients from contracting the Coronovirus!!!! Yet the British Government, WHO, and the MHRA were telling us to get vaccinated, not for ourselves but for the sake of Grandma, Pa and the kids. Yes, they didn't provide what they were marketed for. Yuk! these same people sacked 40,000 care workers and thousands of others for refusing a vaccination which probably had less effect than a placebo? Press conference here
Covid-19 Vaccination: Safety debate here
No comments:
Post a Comment