I refer you to my previous blog to the UK's Department of Health in which I explain how medical authorities are not informing the general public about the serious adverse reactions, and patient harm, that is being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines.
The same applies to the mainstream media (MSM) who are failing to inform us about what is being officially reported on the Government website by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA.
This is the preamble, taken from yesterday's blog.
"A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, and would not cause serious patient harm.
"Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.
"The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data shows that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.
"The weekly MHRA review consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that side effects reported to the drug regulator represents only a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.
"I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that causes serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.
"But this does not happen when pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause public harm. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without informing us about these reported side effects.
The BBC is the UK's "public service" broadcaster. It has a primary responsibility to inform the general public, who also funds it through the licence fee, about important official statistics, perhaps more so than any other mainstream media (MSM) outlet. The BBC has totally failed to mention these officially reported 'side effects' for the last 6-7 months. Consequently I have complained to the BBC and asked them to respond to the following questions.1. Can the BBC confirm that MHRA statistics, relating to Covid-19 vaccines and published on this Government website, comes from official government source, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?
2. Can the BBC confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?
3. Can the BBC inform me how many deaths and/or serious adverse reactions, either caused or suspected to be caused by a pharmaceutical drug, it considers necessary before it takes action to inform the general public?
4. Can the BBC tell me when, and how it has been informing the general public of these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as reported by the MHRA? In particular, can the BBC provide me with the information it has given to its viewers, listeners, readers about these MHRA statistics during the last 6-7 months?
5. Can the BBC tell me how knowledge of these official statistics has modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public?6. How does the BBC seek to ensure that the general public, and licence fee payers, are in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before it recommends and promotes them, so that its viewers, listeners and readers are able to make a balanced and informed decision?
7. Can the BBC inform me about any action it has taken to verify and investigate these serious adverse vaccine reactions, and in particular to interview the family and friends of those people who have died shortly after the Covid-19 vaccination?
8. Can the
BBC assure me that before more people receive a Covid-19
vaccine it will begin to inform the general public and licence payers about official reported adverse reactions, and in particular that 1,403 people have died shortly after
after taking the vaccine?
Doubtless it will take several weeks for any response to be forthcoming from the BBC. When this is received I will immediately reproduce their response, here, in full; alongside my response to their response!
So watch this space!
14th July 2021
Thank you for watching this space! I have now received a response to my complaint from the BBC, and as promised I am reproducing it here, in full.
"Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about BBC News coverage of Covid-19 vaccines. We have published a number of articles about the common side effects, such as the one below. The article also contains further links to earlier pieces we have written about side effects:
Another article we'd like to highlight is the one below from 3 April. On that day the MHRA published its weekly yellow card report and did not include the data on deaths. We pressed them for further information and it was only then that they revealed that seven people had died after receiving the Astra Zeneca jab and we reported this:
Yellow card reports of serious side effects have to be investigated and it isn’t always possible to establish a link with vaccinations. When there is evidence that serious side effects are considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine, we have reported the risks clearly and responsibly.
This piece outlines that it isn’t always easy to establish if a serious illness is coincidence or caused by a vaccine:
As we have imported, a member of BBC staff is suspected of dying from vaccine-related causes:
You might also be interested in these articles:
We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.
So they thanked me for 'sharing my views'. So as I also promised I will now respond to their response! You will see that the BBC Complaints unit has not answered most of my questions.
Q1. The BBC did not confirm that the MHRA statistics came from an official government source, and did not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation.
The BBC did not confirm that that the
MHRA has received over 1 million reports of
serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly
receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines. They say they knew of 7 deaths in April 2021: but by then the MHRA had reported many, many more than 7 deaths.
Q3. The BBC did not inform me
about how many reported deaths and/or serious adverse reactions were necessary before it took action to inform the general public. It appears that they are content that they reported on 7 of the 1,403 deaths.
Q4. The BBC's response outlines what they have done to to inform the general public about these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines. It is clearly inadequate. They referred to 7 published articles which I hope you will take the time to read: not because of the information they contain, but the lack of information, the lack of any understanding of how serious the problems are, and how they constantly discount the seriousness of the data - always content to use the arguments of the conventional medical establishment (CME). The BBC has clearly NEVER the accumulating MHRA statistics on deaths and serious adverse vaccine reactionsthat have been available to them during the last 6-7 months.
- They reported on a BBC staff member who died following a Covid vaccine: please note that they stated in this article (May 2021) that her death would be 'probed': two months later there has been no evidence of any probe!
- They have reported on just one death in Northern Ireland.
- They reported on just three deaths in Scotland.
- For each of these the BBC articles have argued that (i) there was no proven link to the vaccine, (ii) the benefits outweigh the risks; (iii) it was still important that people got the vaccine - and of course they have continued to support and promote the vaccines on behalf of the drug companies.
- They continue to discount the seriousness of the potential link between the vaccines and patient harm, content to accept and repeat at face value the usual arguments of the CHE.
Q5. The BBC did not respond to whether MHRA's official
statistics had modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19
vaccines, or its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the
general public. So it quite clearly has not done so. According to the BBC the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, and MHRA data does not change their opinion on this.
Q6. Nor did the BBC response say how it sought to ensure that the general public were in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before continuing to recommend and promote them so that people were more able to make a more balanced and informed decision.
- The BBC's response suggests that they believe these 7 articles, published over a period of 8 months, have been sufficient to inform the general public about 1,403 deaths, and over 1 million reports of side effects.
- Indeed, the BBC seems content to discount any patient harm caused by the vaccines, and regardless of MHRA data, to continue urging everyone to take the vaccine.
Q7. The BBC did not inform me about any action they had taken to verify and investigate the serious adverse vaccine reactions revealed by the MHRA statistics. Even in the 7 articles they referred to the main focus was clearly to heavily discount even the few deaths, and adverse reactions they have mentioned. Each one of these 'statistics' is a human tragedy, but they have not seen fit to verify, publicise, or investigate the trauma 'side effects' cause; they have made no attempt to interview grieving families, or the friends of the people who have died following vaccination.
Q8. The BBC's response has failed to assure me that it will begin to inform the general public about officially reported adverse reactions - before more people suffer from them.
- When I wrote my complaint 1,403
people had been reported as dying shortly after
after taking the vaccine. Since then this figure has risen to 1,440 - with another report due to be made in two days time. So 37 more people have died unaware that the official data that the BBC refuses to publicise.
- The BBC is still informing us, each and every day, about deaths caused by the virus (or more accurately deaths that follow within 28 days after a positive Covid-19 test). They do not discount this figure - no suggestion that most of these deaths are people who had serious underlying health conditions - no caveat linking these deaths to the virus.
There is nothing in these 7 BBC articles that constitutes an adequate warning to the general public that 1,440 people have been reported as dying shortly after the vaccination, that far from the vaccine being safe 'death' was a possible side effect. And no mention either that it is well known that only 1% of adverse drug/vaccine reactions are ever reported!
There is nothing in the BBC's response to my complaint that suggests they are aware, or even want to be aware, of the seriousness of this situation. The response is disinterested. It defends their stance without any attempt at justifying it. The BBC are clearly satisfied with the dismissive explanations of the CHE.
The BBC regularly and exclusively interviews and quotes members of the conventional medical profession - the "experts". Yet these "experts" are the very same people who support these vaccines; who encourage people to get vaccinated; who are culpable of telling us that the vaccines are "safe". What, then, is the likelihood of any of these "experts" performing a volte face, agreeing that the vaccines they said were safe are not safe, that they have serious side effects they have not told us about, that 1,440 people have been reported as dying from these 'safe' vaccines?
There is a further concern about the BBC's handling of the pandemic - their feeble acceptance of CME excuses for not informing the general public about official MHRA data. In what other walk of life would the BBC be aware that 1,440 people have died, and many others have suffered serious harm, without looking beyond the explanations given by those who are closely implicated to the situation? There appears to be one rule for the CME, and another for every other industry.
This BBC response to my complaint is confirmation that it has become the mouthpiece of the CME, the willing promoter of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine can kill, it can cause serious illness and disease; but the BBC meekly accepts any explanation/excuse the CME comes up with. It does not question. It has failed to ask members of the CME who have an alternative (more critical) view. It declines to interview the victims, or their families. It just carries on justify and promote harmful/lethal medical treatments.
I will respond to the BBC's response, but without any expectation that this 'public service' broadcaster will change its mind, and accept its responsibility to the general public. After all, this would mean they would not have to do the same thing as our doctors - admit they have been promoting unsafe, experimental vaccines, that they were wrong, that people have suffered, many have died. And that this has happened as a direct consequence of the BBC's failure to tell us what we needed to know.