Spread the word far and wide.

UK Government have to go through certain procedures which could take years before a vaccine can be administered to the public.

“The best way to defeat a virus is with a vaccine”

Spoken by the clueless Matt Hancock, the health secretary who has no background in such matters. There has NEVER been an effective coronavirus vaccine in history!

If there had they would have already invented it by now.
 
The flu shot is not  a success story either.
It seems to be a repeated failure year after year.
There are medical and academic studies that show a correlation between increased illness AND getting the flu shot in many cases.
 
 
Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub&fbclid=IwAR21BMILvybdobXPsUnIWFGZQ-hQtARZ4IEp19LS3EGU92AMhTn0jRLNFOY
 
All being suppressed.
 
Where is our democratic and human right to openly discuss and question?
 
With all these problems wouldn’t Matt Hancock and UK Government be more cautious and at least more reserved about this fait accompli CV19 vaccine? 
The CV19 vaccine is certainly viable from a profit point of view but is it from a ‘save lives’ point of view?
 
 
This statement from Hancock is a scandal.
 
He said they are stock piling these vaccines BEFORE they have been APPROVED. 
This Astra Zeneca/Oxford University vaccine has NOT been APPROVED but has received A LOT of UK Government money.
Is the UK Government paying for these vaccines whether or not they are effective?
Since WHEN did a commercial organisation which is FOR-PROFIT make a drug in order to have stockpiles BEFORE it was approved?
 
This is a disgraceful state of affairs.
 
Already they are BREACHING a number of protocols with regards to safety and testing on vaccines and pharmaceuticals.
Has this vaccine passed the ‘Gold Standard” protection?
 
Are they going to be open and transparent with a Gold Standard testing?
In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) can be very expensive to run.
They can take many years to complete, and even then may not last long enough to assess the long-term effect of an intervention such as vaccine immunity, or to detect rare or long-term adverse effects.
 
Will this vaccine be monitored on an ongoing basis by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through the Yellow Card Scheme, as is the monitoring process required by UK law before a vaccine is licensed for use in the UK?
 
Has this vaccine followed the UK Governments ‘UK Vaccine Network’?
 
The UK Government has published no information and their website has not been updated since 2019.
 
Working group 2: Understand how a vaccine will impact on an epidemic disease outbreak.
Working group 3: Produce a process map for vaccine development, from discovery to deployment.
Working group 4: Look at the manufacture of vaccines.
And WHAT IS THE URGENCY?
The virus is on its way out.
The majority of the population were NEVER at any serious risk.
It specifically targets one specific demographic overwhelmingly, the elderly with MULTIPLE comorbidities and within that demographic specifically targets nursing home residents thus far. 
 
The general population, children, middle aged people, teenagers, 20s and 30s were NEVER at any serious risk of hospitalisation to CV19.
 
Studies are showing there is more of a threat of the seasonal flu than CV19.
 
Remember this:
no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from any vaccine-related injury to your health such as brain damage or death associated with the administration of a vaccine.
 
Given the fact that this vaccine has not adhered to the procedures and processes of vaccine safety before being licensed to administer and has  skipped and spectacularly ignored all guidelines and  given that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for ANY damages as a result of this vaccine including death and you will have to just have to accept whatever the effects, are you willing to take a huge risk to your life and wellbeing by taking this shot and accept whatever the effects?
 
Will the government and globalists honour our basic human right to refuse anything that we believe or know will cause detrimental affects to our health & wellbeing?
 
There are strong musings if anyone uses their rights and refuse this vaccine they will have access to their bank accounts stopped. Thus stopping your ability to purchase food and water in order to live. Isn’t this not only blackmail of the most evil kind but also cold blooded murder.
 
Given also that the public have been misinformed about past vaccines and the CDC, a for profit company, have blatantly covered up detrimental side effects  such as denying that vaccines cause autism in babies which has only recently been admitted after many years of denial.
 
The CDC-  as of March 2nd, 2020, the CDC has admitted in federal court that they do not have any evidence proving that vaccines given to babies don’t cause autism. For years they claimed that the studies had been done, the evidence was clear, and that there was a consensus: “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Yet, this was a lie.
 
 
How many people were involved in flu vaccines prior to this reported outbreak?
 
 According to Dr. Alex Vasquez, in September 2019, Italy rolled out an entirely new type of influenza vaccine.
 
This vaccine called VIQCC is different than others.
Most available influenza vaccines are produced in embryonated chicken eggs. VIQCC, however, is produced from cultured animal cells rather than eggs and has more of a “boost” to the immune system as a result. VIQCC also contains four types of viruses – 2 type A viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) and 2 type B viruses. It looks like this “super” vaccine impacted the immune system in such a way to increase coronavirus infection through virus interference that set the stage for what happened in Italy.

Is the rush to a vaccine the best solution?

According to Dr Murray the attempt to create a vaccine for SARS-CoV showed that vaccines were able to offer protection against infection, but came with a cost of disruption to the immune system. This altered immune function led to severe lung inflammation when test animals were exposed to the virus.
The final statement of the study cannot be highlighted enough: “Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated. 

Despite this, the UK Flu vaccination programme has been stepped up for   2020/2021 by govt.  https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/national-flu-immunisation-programme-2020-2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0hPgrf9uaBKOrsRht0LaVay0aASW87kRyx5cBJplVt5Nsd_mqppYU345U 

How vaccines are tested, licensed and monitored

(From Oxford Uni website) https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development How vaccines are tested, understandably, people are often concerned to know how rigorously and extensively vaccines have been tested.

This is especially true for new vaccines.

This page aims to outline the process involved in developing and licensing a vaccine for use in the UK. The standard for testing and monitoring of vaccines is higher than it is for most other medicines, because they are one of the few medical treatments given to healthy people (mainly healthy children).

This means that the level of acceptable risk is much lower than it might be for a cancer treatment, for example. It can take many years for a vaccine to pass through all the stages described. 

In the case of the MenB vaccine, for example, it took nearly 20 years from the first idea to the vaccine being licensed for use.

These are some of the stages a vaccine will have gone through before use: Literature review: looking at what has been done before. Theoretical development or innovation: coming up with a new idea, or a variation on an existing idea. Laboratory testing and development. This involves ‘in vitro’ testing using individual cells and ‘in vivo’ testing, often using mice.

The vaccine has to pass rigorous safety tests at this stage, and demonstrate that it works in animals. Phase I study – an initial trial involving a small group of adult participants (up to 100 people).

This is carried out to make sure that the vaccine does not have major safety concerns in humans, and also to work out the most effective dose. Phase II study – a trial in a larger group of participants (several hundred people).

Phase II trials check that the vaccine works consistently, and look at whether it generates an immune response.

Researchers also start looking for potential side effects.

Phase III study – a trial in a much larger group of people (usually several thousand). Phase III trials gather statistically significant data on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy (how well it works).

This means looking at whether the vaccine generates a level of immunity that would prevent disease, and provides evidence that the vaccine can actually reduce the number of cases.

It also gives a better chance of identifying rarer side effects not seen in the phase II study.

Licensing – expert review of all trial data by the UK government (through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency  – MHRA) or European regulator (European Medicines Agency  – EMA).

At this stage the regulators check that the trials show that the product meets the necessary efficacy and safety levels. They also make sure that, for most people, the product’s advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Phase IV studies – post-marketing surveillance to monitor the effects of the vaccine after it has been used in the population.

These may be requested by a regulatory body, or carried out by the pharmaceutical industry. 

The vaccine and the trials used to test it must meet the regulations laid down by the following authorities: ICH-GCP  (International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice) – international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects.

Declaration of Helsinki  (1964; 2008) – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects EU Clinical Trials Directive  – enshrined in UK law by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations (2004) RCPCH Guidelines  for the ethical conduct of medical research involving children (2000) In addition, for trials in the UK, the vaccine and the trial must receive individual approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), while the trial itself must be approved from the following authorities: An NHS Research Ethics Committee (see more information on the NHS Health Research Authority website ) The local NHS Research and Development office, who support and advise researchers in meeting the requirements of the UK regulatory framework. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), for certain types of trials monitoring.

Although vaccines undergo  testing before they are licensed for use in the UK, it is important that the safety of vaccines is monitored on an ongoing basis, as with all licensed drugs.

In the UK this is undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through the Yellow Card Scheme.

Reports of suspected side effects are sent to the MHRA by drug companies (who are obliged to pass on any reports of suspected side effects that are defined as serious), health professionals, and, since 2005, patients themselves.

How many times has the pharmaceutical industry been caught red handed in making false claims and misrepresenting studies? The author of this website suggests  reading informative books such as this one:

Who is responsible for monitoring vaccine safety?

What does the MHRA do with these data?

The data are evaluated each week, and the reported side effects are compared against the expected side effects as detailed in the information sheet for the vaccine.

If a previously unidentified reaction emerges, or the frequency of reactions is not in line with what is expected, then the MHRA will investigate carefully. What happens next?

This will depend on the kind of side effect identified, but options include insisting that details of the new side effect are given in the product information leaflet or giving out warnings identifying groups of patients who should not be given the vaccine. In rare circumstances, the vaccine may be withdrawn from use.

 You can find detailed information on the scheme here , and data on Yellow Card reports for individual products here . Page last updated:  Monday, October 29, 2018 https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development

Report a problem with a medicine or medical device.
 
Report a suspected problem (‘adverse incident’) with a medicine or medical device using the Yellow Card Scheme as soon as possible, for example if: a medicine causes side effects someone’s injured (or almost injured) by a medical device, either because its labelling or instructions aren’t clear, it’s broken or has been misused a patient’s treatment is interrupted because of a faulty device someone receives the wrong diagnosis because of a medical device a medicine doesn’t work properly a medicine is of a poor quality you think a medicine or medical device is fake or counterfeit Anyone can report a problem.
 
UK VACCINE NETWORK
 
The UK Vaccine Network brings together industry, academia and relevant funding bodies to make targeted investments in specific vaccines and vaccine technology for infectious diseases with the potential to cause an epidemic.
Role of the group:
Vaccines are widely recognised as an important mechanism in controlling infectious disease outbreaks. However, outbreaks of some of the world’s deadliest diseases only occur intermittently, and often in the world’s poorest countries, meaning that there may not be a strong market incentive to for the pharmaceutical industry to develop vaccines for such diseases.
 
The UK government is taking concerted and coordinated action to address this market failure.
The UK has committed to invest £120 million between 2016 and 2021 for the development of new vaccines for such diseases, in line with the expert advice provided by the UK Vaccines Network.
 
The focus of the Network is to support the government to identify and shortlist targeted investment opportunities for the most promising vaccines and vaccine technologies that will help combat infectious diseases with epidemic potential, and to address structural issues related to the UK’s broader vaccine infrastructure.
 
Membership The UK Vaccine Network is made up of leading experts from academia, industry and policy. All members are invited to join the Network in a personal capacity, not as representatives of specific organisations or bodies.
Chair Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care Members Adrian Hill, Andrew Pollard, Bryan Charleston, Ceri Lyn-Adams, Charlie Weller, Charlotte Watts, Chris Whitty, Christian Schneider, Eleanor Riley, Fiona Tomley, Gary Entrican, Ian Hudson, Jean Lang, Jeffrey Almond, Joann Prior, Johan Van Hoof, John Edmunds, Jonathan Pearce, Julian Bonnerjea, Mahesh Kumar, Massimo Pamlarini, Michael Francis, Miles Carroll, Neil Ferguson, Nick Adkin, Paul Cosford, Peter Openshaw, Simon Foster, Stephen Inglis, Steve Chatfield, Sue Middleton, Tarit Mukhopadhyay, Timothy Atkins, Xiao-Ning Xu.
 
Working groups.
The Vaccine Network operates through a series of working groups. Each group has a specific focus and they feedback their findings to the Network. A full list of contributors for each working group is listed at the bottom of this page.
Working group 1: Identify and prioritise human and zoonotic diseases Chair: Miles Carrol, Public Health England.
 
Working group 1 identifies and prioritises human and zoonotic diseases with epidemic potential in human or animal populations, for which vaccines can have an outbreak altering impact.
 
The group also looks for gaps in knowledge about these diseases (including basic pathogen biology and host immunology), and where human and veterinary vaccinology can learn from each other.
 
The group’s findings are used to inform the investment strategy for the £120 million budget.
 
 
Working group 2: Understand how a vaccine will impact on an epidemic disease outbreak Chair: Eleanor Riley, The Roslin Institute.
 
Working group 2 aims to develop a systematic, shared understanding of under what circumstances a vaccine is likely or unlikely to have an impact on an epidemic disease outbreak.
This includes outbreaks where the pathogen is not currently known, and what vaccine technologies could play an important role in future outbreaks.
The group has created a decision tool based on this work.
 
Working group 3: Produce a process map for vaccine development, from discovery to deployment Chair: Tarit Mukhopadhyay, University College London.
 
 See the process maps.
 
Working group 4: Look at the manufacture of vaccines Chair: Jeffrey Almond, University of Oxford.
 
Working group 4 considers questions around the manufacture of vaccines, such as: where could a small scale or large scale facility make a difference in the UK? what could we build, and where/with whom could or should we collaborate with? what existing facilities are there that could support scale-up for manufacture of small stockpiles?
 
Competitions:
 
The Department of Health and Social Care is funding a number of projects to develop candidate vaccines for priority pathogens and to develop technologies and processes to support vaccine manufacturing and delivery in low and middle income countries (LMICs).
 
 
 
 
 
Fast tracked vaccines WITHOUT studies are being implemented( that could provide early warning signs of runaway immune response), partially funded by Gates and taxpayers money via govt’s.
 
 In the next 2-3 months dangerous vaccines are to be given to the public in a mass vaccination campaign in a way that you have no choice but to comply; you’re stuck in your house and you’ll beg for the vaccine to get back to“normal”. So the side effects are not revealed until the vaccine has already been widely distributed.
The planned vaccine will be an MRNA vaccine.
MRNA has direct coding. It will do what it is programmed to do. In this case the RNA can cause direct DNA mutation which can lead to cancer and autoimmune diseases.
On the 12th September 2019, at the joint EU-WHO “Global Vaccination Summit”,they announced the “10 Actions towards Vaccination for All”, with a “feasibility study” set to run from 2019 through 2021.
 
 
Pre-planning
An exercise  was planned for global pandemic preparedness for a dangerous pathogen and pandemic which began in Sept
2019, created by WHO and World bank; members on its board include Chinese CDC, Fauci, Gates Foundation Wellcome trust and others.
 Many countries were given until July 2019 to submit  a cost effective plan that would allow them to be part of the global preparedness plan for a pandemic that would have two tests between Sept 2019 and Sept 2020.

 
How is it possible that all the same players involved in a global pandemic exercise are the same players who are involved in the CV pandemic that is happening in the same time frame?
 
The ultimate objective of the  Global Preparedness Plan board, which includes the Chinese CDC, Dr Goa, is to:

To create a Universal vaccine

https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf

Progress indicator(s) by September 2020 include,The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide
training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate
release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.

This would explain the expansion of vaccine manufacturing worldwide that occurred just prior to the test/pandemic.

In the UK, In 2018 Imperial College formed a partnership with CEPI, the Centre for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations contributed £8.4 million to partner Imperial College to develop vaccines in 16 weeks instead of 10 years. They called this platform, ‘RapidVac’ and the disease they called Disease X.

Imperial college are responsible for flawed models of the CV 19 and also created a ‘FOR PROFIT’ offshoot of a public vaccine manufacturing initiative just a week prior to the public announcement by World Health Organisation.

 

What do they have in store for those who object?oria/new-covid-19-restrictions-will-be-needed-for-anti-vaxxers-20200616-p55330.html

Leaflets outlining the truth about this pandemic have been created  and are available for download on this website.https://www.vigiliae.org/coronavirus-leaflets-for-download/?preview=true

Or direct from Google Drive. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OL46yPuP095YeOWgpRPHpkh_hOqKnm4S/view

PDF link https://cvpandemicinvestigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Coronavirus-AC-Leaflet.pdf

Also linked to another informative website in the leaflets menu.

COVID-19 Investigation Report – CHALLENGING THE NARRATIVE

Testing for CV19

In the beginning the public were diagnosed by symptoms only, then blood test that test for antibodies was introduced, this tests any viral or bacterial antibodies that could be from any known health problem and our immune system created these antibodies when in recovery, then the PCR test were used which use saliva which has also unverifiable results.

PCR tests were claimed to be insufficient for testing diseases by the test creator.These Test kits were claimed  to be for experimental use only by the CDc,s own website.

After this came on-site test kits which have a ten minute diagnosis, unapproved yet allowed to make up the final numbers in the claims of CV19.

None of the above are capable of making a CV19 diagnosis.

This doctor explains in more detail and offers a reward for anyone who can prove that CV19 exists.  https://www.awakeningchannel.com/post/dr-offers-5000-for-proof-that-the-cv19-exists?fbclid=IwAR3e4q0Ov0oO-FLEYMIgaUGhRzhNg6PHNRoGDy3funTKRKaFdxHUcaQ5EAg

 

0 Comments

Post your comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>