Medics and Vaccine Injured Gather in Guernsey to Make Their Voices Heard

Every so often, I go to an event where my overwhelming reaction is ‘I’m just not doing enough to help’. This was never more true than at last weekend’s Healing Beyond Covid in Guernsey, run jointly by Laura Anderson of the Channel Island Integrated Health Alliance and Dr Tess Lawrie of the World Council for Health. I only have the space to give highlights, which sadly will not do justice to the speakers or the organisers.

The event began on the Saturday evening with a showing of Del Bigtree’s new film: An Inconvenient Study. Bigtree is a US health journalist and prominent vaccine critic, who made the films Vaxxed and Vaxxed II and has his own talkshow: The Highwire.

His new film has nothing to do with Covid vaccines but at the same time it has everything to do with Covid vaccines. It discusses a study investigating the overall health of US children who are completely unvaccinated compared to vaccinated children. America is among the sickest nations in the world, with 54% of children having a chronic condition, so anything that can help prevent this is worth highlighting. He challenged the prospective study senior author to prove anti-vaxxers wrong and made him promise to publish the study whatever the results.

The good news: the study was carried out. The bad news: it was never published – because it showed that unvaccinated children were far healthier than the vaccinated.

Del Bigtree recorded himself failing to persuade the senior author to publish, pointing out that it could save thousands of children from devastating chronic disease. But no. The senior author says he won’t jeopardise his career and reputation, even though he openly admits that publication is the right thing to do. Please watch the film and share widely.

Happily, Senator Ron Johnson has initiated a Senate hearing to consider publication of the study on the US Government website, as it is clearly in the public interest.

Del Bigtree also highlighted the fact that this was a retrospective study, rather than a randomised double blind, placebo-controlled trial, the gold standard for drug safety and which surely should be the gold standard for vaccine safety. However, such a trial cannot be carried out for vaccines because apparently it is unethical to ‘deprive’ one group of the vaccine, leaving them susceptible to the ravages of whatever infectious disease is flavour of the month. (Hint: supporting the immune system is both ‘safe and effective’ but brings no income for Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers.)

So vaccine safety is based only on an assumption of safety. Vaccines may protect against the infection in question, but vaccine recipients are increased sufferers of other conditions. Is the pay-off worth it? That is for every parent to decide; it is not a decision to be outsourced to a ‘health professional’ who, in the US, was paid per vaccine dose administered.

In the last few weeks, the US Government has reduced the number of mandated childhood vaccine doses from 72 to 17, in line with much of Europe, where children are noticeably healthier. It has also removed incentives for doctors linked to levels of vaccination. However, the UK, in common with the US and Europe, has indemnified the vaccine manufacturers against vaccine injury claims, so the vaccine injured have to apply to the government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. Good luck with that. A recent article from the Together Declaration shows that only 1% of claimants have been successful.

The Sunday began with Laura Anderson reminding us that we dissenters were once considered the most dangerous people on the planet (some of us still are!) But she pointed out that when you look at the calibre of those few experts who spoke out against the Covid pandemic measures and the vaccines, it should give us all pause. Some of those few were speakers at this event: Dr Tess Lawrie, Dr Chris Flowers, Professor Angus Dalgleish, Dr Peter McCulloch. Why would these eminent doctors risk their careers and reputations if they did not believe that something was fundamentally wrong?

Laura handed over to the compère, the excellent Covid-cancelled Neil Oliver. He believes there is a BC (Before Covid) and an AC (After Covid), because Covid changed the lives of so many people. I think this is very true. So many people have woken up since Covid, recognising that our government and health authorities do not have our backs; they lie to us with impunity. There is no rational substitute for a healthy scepticism of anything that is sold as being ‘in our best interests’.

Neil likes his quotations. The first concerned Dante’s Inferno: he points out that the liars were in a lower (i.e., more painful) circle of hell than the murderers. The second was from Victor Hugo, who made his home on Guernsey after fleeing Bonaparte’s regime: “Not being heard is no reason for silence.” I think all of us could support that.

Next up was Dr Tess Lawrie, who reminded us that the World Health Organisation (WHO) was now in charge of our health, not our government and certainly not ourselves. In the UK, we have in many respects formally ceded responsibility for our health to the WHO. By contrast, RFK Jr. and Donald Trump have taken the US out of the WHO. I do wonder if being a refugee from the WHO might be an acceptable US immigration reason.  

The next speaker was Chris Robilliard, a chiropractor and psychologist. He spoke about the dangers of blind faith, which closes the mind to all other possibilities. Uncertainty is uncomfortable but certainty is crippling. Instead, dialogue, challenge and curiosity are vital, all of which were in very short supply during Covid. These are not a threat to truth but a path towards it. He also reminded us that there can never be any certainty in health science.

I remember during the pandemic that the ‘credentialled scientific advisors’ assured us the science was settled, but the science is never settled. That’s not how science works: it evolves by new hypotheses, debate, trials, criticism, a revised hypothesis, more trials. Any genuinely independent scientist knows this.  

Dr Chris Flowers, a vaccine-injured doctor and key member of the Pandemic Investigation Project, told us that despite Pfizer’s denials, it own data show that it knew perfectly well that vaccines are not confined to the injection site but spread around the body. This is what they were designed to do and is why the vaccines are wrapped in a protective shell coating to avoid destruction by the immune system. Thus protected, the vaccine can cross the blood-brain-barrier and the placenta. It’s not a vaccine; it’s a gene therapy product.

Pfizer’s safety and efficacy trials were a joke, said Dr Flowers. The researchers moved the goalposts 14 times, both during and after the trial, in order to get the results they wanted. In the trial looking at deaths, there were 21 deaths in the vaccinated group and 17 deaths in the unvaccinated but the difference was not statistically significant. This allowed Pfizer to ignore deaths altogether, but we can see that vaccines certainly did not prevent deaths, while trial safety signals were ignored.

Then Pfizer pulled the ‘bait and switch’ scam. The trials had used a product which could not be given in a universal vaccine as it was not suitable for mass production. What we received (untested) was another product, based on the same design but manufactured in a very different way.

None of us could give informed consent. The vaccine leaflet that should show the common adverse effects said “Left intentionally blank”, he said. Later we were given a bar code to scan. How is this remotely helpful and informative?  

While we were still reeling from these revelations, Professor Angus Dalgleish came up to speak. He picked up on a point Chris Flowers had made about there being no studies on transmission of Covid and wondered why we were then told to vaccinate children to protect granny.

Then he turned to the vaccines and emphasised that everything we have been told about COVID-19 and the vaccines has been lies. He pointed out that scientists have been trying to design a coronavirus vaccine for 20 years but none has ever worked. Why not? Because the virus mutates too fast. Instead, because the vaccines just missed their mark, they produced ‘antibody-dependent enhancement’, which is characterised by excessive antibody activity and inflammation and can be life-threatening.

Professor Dalgleish noted that 79% of the spike protein had human homology, i.e., shared structures or genes with humans. This is likely to induce autoimmune conditions. The government scientific advisors were alerted but took no notice.

When fighting any respiratory infection, the crucial factor is the T cell response. This is why vitamin D is protective, because it boosts the T cell response. The scientific literature shows that with an effective T cell response, Covid would likely be a very mild disease. Crucially, T cells (and vitamin D) also help prevent cancer.

But vaccines ignore T cells and induce antibodies instead. The antibody induction fails with time and this is why we need boosters. None of this is new. Old textbooks show that if a vaccine needs a booster, it probably doesn’t work.

In cancer patients who have had a third vaccine dose, there is evidence of exhausted T cells, massive inflammation and other aberrant responses, as well as the new phenomenon of turbocancer, Professor Dalgleish said. This is characterised by a high liver burden (because we can’t detoxify) and more than one primary cancer. This means that the patient has developed two or more distinct and unrelated cancers at the same time – not the same as one primary cancer metastasising. It was rare prior to the Covid vaccines. Now Professor Dalgleish is seeing turbocancer in very young patients and patients who were previously in remission.

He drew our attention to The Hope Accord, which invites doctors, other health professionals and concerned citizens to call for the immediate suspension of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine products.

Most of the rest of the day was devoted to vaccine injury detox protocols so I can’t do better than refer to the websites of the Channel Island Integrated Health Alliance and the World Council for Health. The event massively overran its time, largely because it was decided that the vaccine injured needed a longer voice in the panel sessions. And who can begrudge them that?

Dr Rachel Nicoll is a medical researcher, lecturer and writer. You can contact her here.