Discover more from News Uncut: Straight Talk, Hard Truths
“I NO LONGER TRUST BIG PHARMA, THE GOVERNMENT... OR THE NHS”
Former GP and self-confessed “pro-vaxxer” on helping people get jab exemption certificates, balancing absolute risk versus relative risk and why the pandemic represented an age-old battle for control
By Laura Berrill
JON ROGERS was a GP for more than 30 years. He moved into local politics serving as a Bristol City Councillor, including leading on transport, adult social care and as deputy leader. He was then placed back on the medical register at the start of the pandemic when the emergency measures were introduced. In December 2021, this was then stripped away.
But even he was sceptical early in 2020. “We were told at the start that one on 20 of us were going to die,” he says “This was false and therefore the whole stay-at-home message didn’t make sense to me.”
Dr Rogers, 67, has been involved in pandemic planning and emergency preparedness for decades and says: “We have done exercises based on death rates of 30 per cent, looking at challenges such as preserving electricity, water and other utility supplies, maintaining the ambulance service and even how we dispose of all the bodies.
“In other words, managing life when every-day normal things disappear. But when this all started, none of our country’s emergency planners were approached, just SAGE – who were modelling based on inflated figures.
“On top of this, the reaction here and in many western countries was based on the Chinese lockdown model. However, all the evidence we have gleaned in the past is that this does not work – as we are seeing in Shanghai now – and that it is vital to keep businesses and airports open. Additionally, we know that masks don’t work in reducing the spread. This had been the WHO guidance in 2019.”
In September 2020, Dr Rogers went to his first lockdown protest and noticed how badly the police were treating those attending.
He started to research others who were questioning the actions, such as Dr Mike Yeadon and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. He noticed how these voices were being shut down. This strengthened his scepticism towards the UK’s pandemic response.
He says: “At this time, I was GMC registered and started helping people at risk of losing their jobs. I wrote exemption letters for people working in care homes, the NHS or for travel. I became a director of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance which promotes informed consent and bodily autonomy.
“Vaccinations need informed choice. There are risks associated with all medications. The risks from this particular gene-based experimental therapy that was not in widespread use before and should not be described as a vaccine, include known and potentially unknown side effects. These include blood clots, myocarditis and even death.
“I weighed up the pros and cons of whether to start a vaccine course or not. I knew that if someone is under 50 there is low risk from the virus. Yet the Government and authorities wanted to mandate all health and care workers to be vaccinated, or lose their jobs.
“In my opinion, anyone who does not consent to the jab is, by definition, medically exempt. You cannot treat someone without proper informed consent. Coercion is wrong.
“The reality is that the risk from Covid to a 20-year-old is pretty much zero, but there are risks from side effects from the jab, we have seen this many times. It’s utterly outrageous what has been pushed on the young and children. We need to understand the difference between absolute risk and relative risk.”
And on this, he offered the following analogy: “Consider if someone invented a rubber body suit and this would reduce your chances of death from a lightning strike by 99 per cent. Would you wear this ‘very effective’ suit? No!
“There is a very small risk of being struck by lightning and wearing the suit all the time will be unpleasant. The fact that the suit is 99 per cent effective against lightning strikes is neither here nor there. We need to look at this Covid jab in the very same way.”
In December 2021, DR Rogers got involved in the case of a physically healthy 39-year-old man with learning difficulties who lived in a care facility.
He and his sister did not want the vaccination and the case went to the Court of Protection. Dr Rogers wrote to the court saying the man’s risk of dying from Covid was about one in 100,000 without vaccine and, best case, reduced to one in 500,000 if vaccinated. So, he had a 99.99 per cent survival rate whether vaccinated or not.
The judge decided, because both the Government and the NHS have stated that the Covid jab is ‘safe and effective’ that the man should receive it.
Dr Rogers said the man needed restraint to be vaccinated. The excuse? That he was more at risk because he was living in a care facility. Additionally, the court claimed it was ‘family prejudice against the vaccination’ and, ‘on balance, the man would benefit’. Rogers says the court would not allow his letter to be considered.
Shortly after this incident, Dr Rogers was informed by the GMC that his emergency registration had been discontinued. No reason was given, but via data protection and Freedom of Information requests, Dr Rogers was told a complaint had been made about him by a GP.
The GP alleged that Rogers had falsely completed a exemption form for a patient. Dr Rogers checked with the patient and confirmed that his exemption statement was entirely accurate. “I did absolutely nothing wrong and was given no opportunity to respond,” he says.
“I now don’t trust anything coming out of big pharma, the Government or the NHS, which is distressing because I used to believe what the NHS was telling me, as well as the drug companies and I was a pro-vaxxer. But we’re now letting the drug companies tell us only the benefits of the vaccine and health professionals don’t question it.
“It’s very difficult to comprehend the level at which we are being misled. We’ve developed a disease service, not a health service, which now just finds drugs to treat people. We’re going down the road of new expensive drugs and interventions, rather than simple prevention, repurposed drugs and healing therapies. The NHS is at a crossroads and we are questioning how effective it is.”
And Dr Rogers is clear on his final point. “We all have a choice of how we respond,” he says. “We can play the victim and not do anything about it, or we can explore the alternatives in health, education, justice and governments and see this as an opportunity to question everything.
“We’ve always had these choices and over the last two years these choices were not as clear as they are now. We’ve seen a glimpse of what this country and our lives could be like in the future and we can make a choice.
“We will win, however, as it’s simply not possible for this to succeed – we cannot live our lives in fear.”