GOVERNMENT REJECTS INQUIRY INTO JAB INJURIES

Some MPs insist injections are safe and effective and have saved thousands – but others are challenging such claims

By Mark Sharman

A CALL for a public inquiry into Covid-19 vaccine injuries has been rejected at a Parliamentary debate – on the grounds that the subject is already included in Baroness Hallett’s overall investigation into the pandemic.

No doubt the result will frustrate the 107,000 people who signed the e-petition forcing the debate, but two outstanding and opposing talking points emerged:

1: The Government is holding the hard line that jabs are safe and effective and have saved thousands of lives, that deaths and injuries are extremely rare and that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) figures are accurate and trustworthy.

2: Certain Conservative MPs are listening to alternative views with care and compassion and will continue to challenge all of the above.

Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch), Danny Kruger (Devizes) and Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) have all taken up the cause of the vaccine injured and are questioning Government policy.

Mr Kruger, in particular, should have made national headlines when he publicly tweeted this section of his speech: “I put on record that, in hindsight, I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated and indeed compensated.*” 

Mr Kruger also solicited a positive response from Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Dr Caroline Johnson, who confirmed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JVCI) are to review the policy of vaccinating children against Covid which, he tweets, ‘never seemed proportionate to the risks and is now surely unnecessary’.

Both were ignored by mainstream media.

On the flip side is Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington who, in defending the Government, displayed a worrying intransigence. He based his evidence almost entirely on discussions with the MHRA, while admitting he does not listen to what protestors have to say.

Consider these exchanges:

Sir Christopher Chope: “My honourable friend has obviously done a lot of preparation for the debate. Did part of that preparation include looking at Oracle Films’ “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” (jointly produced by News Uncut) which was produced about a month ago and has already had more than one million views online? Most people think it highly persuasive.”

Elliot Colburn (above): “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.”

_____________________

Danny Kruger: “My honourable friend talks about the independence of the MHRA and I very much hope he is right about that. Is he aware that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it regulates? Does he have any concerns about the objectivity of its work?” (A British Medical Journal enquiry states that 86 per cent of MHRA funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry).

Elliot Colburn: “No, I see nothing to concern me about the independence of the MHRA. Indeed, I saw a group of anti-vax protesters outside the House today, holding up signs saying, “Vaccines kill.” ….it seems a bit of a strange business model for a pharmaceutical company to kill off everyone it is trying to administer a vaccine to. I have seen absolutely nothing to concern me that the MHRA has any problems with independence.”

____________________

During the debate Sir John Hayes, Conservative MP for South Holland and the Deepings, pointed out that ‘while vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, these vaccines are qualitatively different’, while Andrew Bridgen (below) referred to excess deaths of up to 25,000 in the UK in this year alone, both points highlighted in Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion. 

Elliot Colburn merely praised vaccines in general as ‘safe and effective’ and a British invention, while it was stated that there was no evidence that Covid vaccines were linked to excess deaths.

And predictably, Dr Johnson, came up with the tried and tested line: “The UKHSA estimates that vaccinations had averted up to 128,000 deaths and 262,000 hospitalisations by the end of September 2021 and many more since then.”

News Uncut says once again that this is a figure plucked from thin air. It is impossible to quantify with certainty how many people might have died had they not been jabbed.

And on excess deaths, many reasons have been put forward, but never Covid vaccines. Surely any investigation worth its name would look at all suspects, even if only to eliminate them?

This substack is not against vaccines, but world-wide evidence is pointing to a possible medical disaster.

How much more damage may be caused before we can hold an eyes-open, honest debate with no pre-conceived views? Anything less adds weight to the theory: This is a cover-up.

*Further to Danny Kruger’s call on re-instating care workers, New York City has been ordered to reinstate a group of sanitation workers fired for refusing to get a Covid-19 vaccine. A state court judge ruled the mandate was unlawful. Workers will return with $40,000 each in back pay.