don’t often write about politics here, but this is about software.

As noted elsewhere [1, 2], this year we have a Free software person running:

Voting is Friday, i.e. 4 days from now.

Another new video. Here it is:

Description:

Original video link
parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/168f642a-5708-4b1a-9…
Hansard link
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-04-18/debates/9…
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic.
In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed.
I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent.
It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths.
I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question.
The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country.
It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions.
It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed.
It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said: [..]

r. John Campbell isn’t make this up. Watch this. New and damning evidence, published today:

N today’s channel of Dr. John Campbell there’s a new video that speaks of “Excess deaths, MPs request data” (in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, too).

And here is the description in case Google censors him again.

Health Secretary urged to release data that ‘may link Covid vaccine to excess deaths’
MPs and peers criticise ‘wall of silence’

Tweet from Andrew Bridgen with the letter in full

twitter.com/ABridgen

Health Secretary urged to release data that ‘may link Covid vaccine to excess deaths’
MPs and peers criticise ‘wall of silence’

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/02/health-secreta…

MPs and peers have accused the Health Secretary of withholding data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths

A cross-party group

“growing public and professional concerns” UK’s rates of excess deaths since 2020

Demand to be shown the underlying data for to support the Government’s assertion, “no evidence” linking excess deaths to the vaccines for Covid-19.

21 MPs and peers

“If those data do indeed exist, please share them; if thorough investigations have already ruled out such a link, please share the relevant reports,”

“There is no place here for blind faith.”

Written to

Health Secretary

Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)

Potentially critical data, which maps the date of people’s Covid vaccine doses to the date of their deaths,

have been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.

Data should be released “on the same anonymised basis that it was shared with the pharmaceutical groups, and there seems to be no credible reason why that should not be done immediately”.

“Questions about these trends, however, have to date been met by a relative wall of silence from your organisations and other public health officials.”

A DHSC spokesman

“We are committed to data transparency and publish a wide range of data on excess mortality. The datasets published are kept under constant review.”

“Time for serious action and answers,” Dr. John Campbell says:

AM hardly surprised that state and corporate media isn’t all over this thing; it has been too busy talking about Pfizer’s share price rather than medical issues.

If we don’t get answers, vaccine hesitancy will (in general) increase and cause a lot of trouble for society for decades to come, burdening health systems.

Companies that made vaccines for COVID-19 did not deny the blood clotting issues, nor did governments, which pulled some of these off the market. This was even in the media, hence no need to speculate about that. It’s also in official Web sites of respectable, rich countries’ governments. No “anti-vaxx” here…

As a side note: New figures from ONS came out less than a day ago. In week 3 of 2024 we have had more than 1,000 (higher number than a thousand) deaths than in week 3 of 2019, i.e. 5 years ago and before COVID-19. That’s more than a thousand additional dead people in just one week in England and Wales. Add up 52 weeks and you’re looking at a large football stadium at full capacity… just for excess deaths.

We need answers. Governments try to conceal answers because they may complicit and thus be held accountable here.

There is a General Election coming up here, so the last thing Tories want right now is a proper investigation rather than “he says, she says” about some “Boris party”.

‘ve just published this article about a rigged system designed to enrich predators who borrow and then stash money.

Schismogenesis in Bill Gated-funded sites (those machines run Windows with back doors):

NEED to clarify upfront I do not believe the 2020 election in the United States was “stolen” and I do not support Donald Trump. He disgusts me.

The United States is still “using fraudulent voting machines” with back doors, a friend has reminded me. But the media giants aren’t talking about and “associating opposition to fraudulent voting technologies/products with crazies. Other crazies will defend fraudulent voting technologies/products for no other reason than those two crazies are opposed to them…”

Techrights did at least 2 “statements” on this issue [1, 2] just to clarify voting machines are no good regardless of news sites’ rhetoric.

Quit using opaque electronic voting machines and then lessen the likilohood of armed fanatics storming government buildings in an act of overt insurrection.