There is a part of this report which risks giving succour to the anti-vaxxers. The report says "The woman, who says she works as a band 2 ECG technician at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, holds up a poster which says 1,719 deaths and more than 1.2 million injuries have been caused by the vaccine so far" and then says "But even if all these deaths were due to the vaccines, they would still be vastly outweighed by the 150,000 deaths that have been caused by Covid ..." The key point here is that the great majority of the deaths reported by the MHRA in their remarkably detailed and thorough reports, which are freely, publicly available, were NOT due to the vaccines. Rather, there was simply a "temporal association" between the date on which the person had the vaccine and the date of their death. 131 million doses of Covid vaccine have been administered in the UK - it is sadly inevitable that some of the people given the vaccine will die within the next 7 days - this does NOT mean the vaccine killed them. I think you should have made this clear in your report. This said, the MHRA does report that a much smaller number of deaths may be associated with the vaccine - the most significant being 75 deaths caused by blood-clotting events following the person receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. The MHRA has been entirely robust and transparent in its analysis and reporting of these events. Similarly, I think you should have challenged the assertion that the MHRA reports "injuries". It does not - the common side effects of the vaccine (a sore arm, or a short period of flu like symptoms) are not injuries. It is perhaps inevitable that among the 1 million plus NHS staff there will be anti-vaxxers. They are at best misguided, at worst deliberate conspiracy theorists. They undoubtedly add to the risk faced by their patients. Take the ECG technician, for example. She will be in close contact with people for whom an ECG is necessary, either because heart problems are suspected, or because they are known to have heart problems. These patients are therefore at greater risk should they get Covid. The risk of them getting Covid is increased by the ECG technician being unvaccinated. As for Steve James, the ICU anaesthetist - well, he should simply be ashamed of himself. It is clear that many of the Covid patients on ICUs are unvaccinated, and sadly some of these go on to die. Not only have they taken an entirely avoidable personal risk, they have also taken up an ICU bed that should have been used, for example, for another patient recovering from cancer surgery, or such like. Dr James is simply wrong - the science IS strong enough, in fact it could hardly be stronger. He should be setting an example, not undermining the vaccination campaign.
Thanks for the article, Dan. The million- dollar question contained in it, for me, is the bit where you ask the question 'If the jab is at best unnecessary, and at worst dangerous, why are the government scientists, and NHS bosses so keen on it?'. The answer is because the medical profession is in thrall to scientific materialism, or the belief that only the world of physical matter exists. People who experience that there is more to existence than this (which includes cutting-edge scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, many regular scientists in their non-working personas, one third of the UK population that uses alternative medicine, and the ten million Americans who have had near-death experiences) know that disease is ultimately not solved by attacking or suppressing the symptoms, but rather by assessing the total situation at hand. Broadly they come down on the side of terrain rather than germ theory, meaning it's the state of our general health we should be looking at, and not just one particular virus.
Do I mean the whole NHS has got it wrong? I mean that there is a huge drive to perpetuate the myth of Scientific materialism, which is achieved by such means as censorship, and de-funding of research. This may seem a fantastic claim. However I offer the following suggestions to further understand it. 1. Do the research into non-mainstream Covid narratives in the alternative media, much of which is perfectly credible. (Ignore the sensationalist stuff). 2. Consider why we should believe an organisation (the Medical Profession) that for decades promoted smoking as an aid to nervousness. (They also got it wrong on numerous other occasions). 3. Contact myself for a more in-depth analysis of the situation we find ourselves in at ahewlett57@gmail.com
The bottom line is that these people are absolutely right - they should have the right to refuse vaccination if they wish. What they don't have the right to do is to put the lives of vulnerable people at risk just to exercise their personal preference.
They are free to leave their jobs if they don't like the "price" of their employment but I imagine very few of them will be sufficiently principled to do that.
The really sad thing about this, in my opinion, is that it does not apply to ALL NHS staff, whether patient-facing or not.
The question that everyone needs to ask themselves is "would I like my mum to be looked after by unvaccinated nursing or care staff?" If the answer to that question is "aarrgghh, NO!" then that's also the answer to this particular problem
The underlying problem is that vaccination is a victim of its own success. Nobody can remember what it's like to see ones kid choke to death on the false membrane of diphtheria, and I only know about it because I believe in increasing my general knowledge.
There is a part of this report which risks giving succour to the anti-vaxxers. The report says "The woman, who says she works as a band 2 ECG technician at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, holds up a poster which says 1,719 deaths and more than 1.2 million injuries have been caused by the vaccine so far" and then says "But even if all these deaths were due to the vaccines, they would still be vastly outweighed by the 150,000 deaths that have been caused by Covid ..." The key point here is that the great majority of the deaths reported by the MHRA in their remarkably detailed and thorough reports, which are freely, publicly available, were NOT due to the vaccines. Rather, there was simply a "temporal association" between the date on which the person had the vaccine and the date of their death. 131 million doses of Covid vaccine have been administered in the UK - it is sadly inevitable that some of the people given the vaccine will die within the next 7 days - this does NOT mean the vaccine killed them. I think you should have made this clear in your report. This said, the MHRA does report that a much smaller number of deaths may be associated with the vaccine - the most significant being 75 deaths caused by blood-clotting events following the person receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. The MHRA has been entirely robust and transparent in its analysis and reporting of these events. Similarly, I think you should have challenged the assertion that the MHRA reports "injuries". It does not - the common side effects of the vaccine (a sore arm, or a short period of flu like symptoms) are not injuries. It is perhaps inevitable that among the 1 million plus NHS staff there will be anti-vaxxers. They are at best misguided, at worst deliberate conspiracy theorists. They undoubtedly add to the risk faced by their patients. Take the ECG technician, for example. She will be in close contact with people for whom an ECG is necessary, either because heart problems are suspected, or because they are known to have heart problems. These patients are therefore at greater risk should they get Covid. The risk of them getting Covid is increased by the ECG technician being unvaccinated. As for Steve James, the ICU anaesthetist - well, he should simply be ashamed of himself. It is clear that many of the Covid patients on ICUs are unvaccinated, and sadly some of these go on to die. Not only have they taken an entirely avoidable personal risk, they have also taken up an ICU bed that should have been used, for example, for another patient recovering from cancer surgery, or such like. Dr James is simply wrong - the science IS strong enough, in fact it could hardly be stronger. He should be setting an example, not undermining the vaccination campaign.
Thanks for the article, Dan. The million- dollar question contained in it, for me, is the bit where you ask the question 'If the jab is at best unnecessary, and at worst dangerous, why are the government scientists, and NHS bosses so keen on it?'. The answer is because the medical profession is in thrall to scientific materialism, or the belief that only the world of physical matter exists. People who experience that there is more to existence than this (which includes cutting-edge scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, many regular scientists in their non-working personas, one third of the UK population that uses alternative medicine, and the ten million Americans who have had near-death experiences) know that disease is ultimately not solved by attacking or suppressing the symptoms, but rather by assessing the total situation at hand. Broadly they come down on the side of terrain rather than germ theory, meaning it's the state of our general health we should be looking at, and not just one particular virus.
Do I mean the whole NHS has got it wrong? I mean that there is a huge drive to perpetuate the myth of Scientific materialism, which is achieved by such means as censorship, and de-funding of research. This may seem a fantastic claim. However I offer the following suggestions to further understand it. 1. Do the research into non-mainstream Covid narratives in the alternative media, much of which is perfectly credible. (Ignore the sensationalist stuff). 2. Consider why we should believe an organisation (the Medical Profession) that for decades promoted smoking as an aid to nervousness. (They also got it wrong on numerous other occasions). 3. Contact myself for a more in-depth analysis of the situation we find ourselves in at ahewlett57@gmail.com
The bottom line is that these people are absolutely right - they should have the right to refuse vaccination if they wish. What they don't have the right to do is to put the lives of vulnerable people at risk just to exercise their personal preference.
They are free to leave their jobs if they don't like the "price" of their employment but I imagine very few of them will be sufficiently principled to do that.
The really sad thing about this, in my opinion, is that it does not apply to ALL NHS staff, whether patient-facing or not.
The question that everyone needs to ask themselves is "would I like my mum to be looked after by unvaccinated nursing or care staff?" If the answer to that question is "aarrgghh, NO!" then that's also the answer to this particular problem
The underlying problem is that vaccination is a victim of its own success. Nobody can remember what it's like to see ones kid choke to death on the false membrane of diphtheria, and I only know about it because I believe in increasing my general knowledge.