Andrew Johnson, an alternative knowledge researcher who runs www.checktheevidence… , has posted a list of questions sent to two UK health organisations, along with their responses. Johnson became quite concerned about “the continued propagandising of this so-called pandemic”. He therefore sent questions to Derbyshire Primary Care Trust, an organisation responsible for the health of about 1 million people, and the Department of Health (DH), a government body which “exists to improve the health and wellbeing of people in England.”
Johnson states, “I studied the swine flu related information coming out in the alternative media – there are a few ill-founded and poorly researched stories being disseminated, but there are also some serious questions which health organisations need to properly address, so I did my best to collate 17 questions and attempt to get answers to them.”
In his letter to the organisations, Johnson mentioned the 1976 Swine Flu Scare, which seemed unfold in similar way to the one we are seeing now. He states:
“In their responses, there was no real comment on the 1976 swine flu scare. There was no comment on people who sued the US government after they were vaccine-damaged. There was no mention, for example, that the US officials lied about the statements of people like Mary Tyler-Moore (a celebrity at the time), whom they said had taken the vaccine, but she had not – she went against the advice of her doctor.”
Another issue Johnson raised was the information leaflet distributed to all UK households. “I have never before known a time when a health leaflet of this type was distributed to all households – at a cost of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of pounds. The NHS leaflet says ‘no one will be resistant’ to Swine Flu (bottom of p. 4). This is clearly false – as there is always some natural immunity to new infections. In their response, the DH stated
When the swine flu information leaflet was written it was correct to say that there was no immunity to the virus in the community. This referred to specific immunity to this particular virus. The Department now has the benefit of experience from the first wave of this new flu infection. Therefore, it seems there may be some specific partial cross immunity in the elderly population from previous flu infections.
“I contend that the leaflet is misleading – and could have alarmed people unnecessarily.”
Johnson continues, “The evidence now suggests that, almost 6 months after the supposed outbreak in Mexico, there is no apparent threat over and above an ordinary flu strain. In the UK, it seems the Swine Flu has claimed hardly any lives (though the media seem overly keen exaggerate this).”
Johnson also asked if the UK Government had sourced vaccine doses, and if so, from which companies. The response from the DH stated it had sourced them from GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter Healthcare and also:
The Government signed the advance purchase agreements for the vaccines in June 2007 and accepted liability for their safety as a contingency.
Johnson responds, “It is a significant admission that agreements were made with Pharmaceutical companies 2 years ago, long before the current scare. Of course, some would argue this is all part of the ‘pandemic response plan’. However, previous threats of Avian Flu and SARS have simply not materialised, so what basis was there for making these agreements?”
The DH response also said:
All governments signing up to an advance purchase agreement were expected to provide an indemnity for the vaccine, and neither manufacturer would sign the contracts without it. The Government’s decision was based on the best procurement and legal advice. Accepting liability in this way is in line with Government accounting rules, and was cleared by the Public Accounts Committee at the time
Johnson comments, “I was staggered to learn that the UK Government has accepted any potential liability for damage caused by the products of some of the world’s richest companies! I can’t think of another situation where a government accepts such a potentially costly liability. Of course it’s ludicrous to go as far as suggesting that, in some way, the pharmaceutical companies held these governments to ransom over the issue.”
Another point he mentions is the potential cost of the vaccine and administering it to patients. “The response from the DH stated that the Doctor’s practices will be paid £5.25 for each vaccine dose administered. This would mean a cost of about £315 million to administer it to the whole of UK population. Then we add in the cost of the vaccine itself and we are perhaps approaching a figure of half a billion pounds. This is a huge financial commitment for a pandemic which has no credible evidence to back up its reality! Therefore we see the promotion of toxic treatments – like unproven Swine flu vaccines (just look at the ingredients) rather than non-toxic therapies or prophylactic vitamin supplements!”.
On the use of vaccines in general Johnson comments, “A number of doctors question the whole use of vaccines. Dr Rebecca Carley, Dr Leonard Horowitz and others point out the toxic constituents in vaccines and the damage to health they can cause. More recently, in the UK, we have had more reports of damage to health – and even death – being linked to other vaccines, such as the HPV. The trouble is, many health professionals don’t consider the evidence and they get caught up in the details of cost and funding. ‘They’re just doing their job’ and are therefore more likely to be blinded to the basic issues which the questions I posed were designed to address. The problem is seemingly that those ‘in the system’ cannot discuss or analyse the most damning evidence. As employees of the system they have to ‘get with the programme’ or their jobs can be at risk.”
Another question Johnson posed was regarding a World Health Organisation (WHO) “checklist document”. The document states
During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in essential services. These decisions need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with international legislation (International Health Regulations).
Johnson asked if Britain is a signatory to this ‘checklist’ or if any legislation was in place which would mean that this “checklist” could be applied to UK citizens. The DH responded:
The WHO document to which you refer is simply intended as guidance to assist member states in their flu pandemic planning.
“This suggests Britain is a member state, but they made no comments on any UK legislation – or what the ‘International Health Regulations’ referred to in the WHO document are (or who makes those regulations).” He also asked to why the current pandemic was regarded as serious, they said:
A flu pandemic is serious because, depending on the virulence of the virus, there is the potential for a large number of deaths. Even if it is less virulent, very large numbers of people can be affected, causing significant social disruption due to absence from work. For example, healthcare could be affected. Distribution of food using road transport from large supermarket depots could be disrupted due to absence. The seriousness of a flu pandemic is not just due to the potential for the virus to cause premature death.
Johnson comments, “This refers to the definition of a pandemic in general – but no one anywhere has provided any credible evidence that the swine flu is a dangerous pandemic. This is the key point in all of this. No research is quoted, no figures given – nothing!”
In conclusion, Johnson says: “In working through these questions and answers, I can only conclude that (1) There is no credible evidence that a pandemic is imminent. (2) The DH have not investigated the issues raised by criminal charges against Baxter Healthcare and the related issues. (3) They are not critical of scare-mongering stories in the media. (4) They are planning to use unproven therapies (5) They have underwritten private companies for liabilities for the vaccine. Viewed in this way, I agree with what many others have said. The actions of these bodies are not concerned with protecting our health – they are concerned with handing over control of our health to private companies, funding them in this activity.”
The full article including the letters written, questions and responses can be read at www.checktheevidence…