Published On: Fri, Dec 11th, 2020

Amongst fear-mongered vaccine rollout anti-climax, old people being used as guinea pigs

Share This

There’s no two ways about it: the rollout of the Pfizer “Covid-19 vaccine” was an anti-climax. Fear-mongering about mandatory jabs has been a constant feature of alternative media Covid-19 coverage for almost a year, but on the arrival of the much feared day, the diabolical plot never materialised, and the vaccine wasn’t for everyone. In fact, it was for only 5,000 people – 50 hospitals vaccinated 100 captives† – and then Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, and prime candidate for a lengthy jail sentence (or other appropriate lawful means of disposal), outlined fuzzy plans whereby ultimately the programme, still touted as “the biggest vaccination drive in British history”, would have to rely on people volunteering to receive a dose, so please would they take one for the country when the NHS lets them know a vaccine was available – whenever that would be. As mentioned, the recipients of the vaccine on this first day of rollout were very few, being either octogenarians currently in NHS custody, and some NHS staff, even though they didn’t need to have a vaccination, for the sake of not wasting vaccine (all will be revealed soon). It wasn’t indicative of being a weapon wielded by a powerful tyranny; it was merely more signalling about weakness that people could easily overthrow if they but try.

In fact, although an eye-wiping (all too clearly exhibiting duping delight) Hancock, appeared on the ITV morning programme hosted by gobshite Piers Morgan, so that so many impressionable people could watch him react to a man (slightly unbelievably) called William Shakespeare being vaccinated, hear him urge them to continue toughing it out for a few more months to the finish – although “I’ve still got this worry that we can’t blow it now Piers, we’ve still got to get the vaccine to millions of people so we’ve got to keep sticking to the rules” – and hear him talk about it making him proud to be British, he shouldn’t have fooled anyone with half a brain in his head. It was not a “finest hour” moment.

It is quite apparent, from a number of pieces of evidence, that the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout was a bad public relations stunt, and that the UK Government is – like it always has been – operating from a position of weakness, not strength, and that deployment of the Pfizer vaccine is half act of desperation, half Phase IV study – with a special eye on safety‡ in lieu of an absence of testing –  using human guinea pigs who, if they are injured or die, it can be said of them that they succumbed to their old age or pre-existing illness (in fact, the very things that are currently ascribed to “Covid-19”).

Moreover, when considering these things, one will find oneself wondering why the UK Government acted so transparently hastily, when the upshot has been so many more people set against a vaccine than there needs to have been: it’s not just the natural health practitioners, who would take up an anti-vaccination stance by default, who are appalled by the prospect of any “Covid-19 vaccine”.

An answer that springs quite readily to mind is that, as well as anything else the “Covid-19 vaccine” might be for, it is primarily being rushed out to give the impression that there is a need for it, in a climate when common belief in the coronahoax is crumbling, and ability by UK Government to maintain the fantasy for a number of people the stable side of tipping point is looking increasingly diminished.

That being said, UK Government, through its mouthpieces, exuded its usual Panem Capitol confidence. Explaining away the prioritisation of availability of the vaccine, the BBC did not of course report that it was to do with a problem of the UK Government not having the right vaccine, and making do with the Pfizer version out of anxiety for its security, and that no one would much notice if it killed or injured old people already in hospital – quite on the contrary. The vaccine was being given to old people because they needed it the most:

 Hubs in the UK will vaccinate over-80s and some health and care staff – the programme aims to protect the most vulnerable and return life to normal.

This, of course, forgets the simultaneous contradiction that must be held as also being true whereby anyone is liable to contract “Covid-19”, but then, this appeal to doublethink, or tendency to alter how “Covid-19” is most dangerous to suit convenience, is now par for the course. Last week 2+2 equalled 4, but now it equals 5, and next week it might equal 4 again: this, these days, is the norm.

Furthermore, the BBC reportage also forgets that the Pfizer “Covid-19 vaccine” is more of a treatment than a pathway to immunity. We have it from the horses mouth (none other than Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer) that it is not known if vaccinated people will not spread whatever illness the vaccine is supposed to prevent (“Covid-19” is not Covid-19), and we know that some vaccinated people will also get ill (from the efficacy study). On both counts, there is no basis for the justification that the BBC makes.

On the other hand, there are no holes to be nit-picked in the explanation that over-80s are getting the jab first because they make an ideal group to experiment on, from a point of view of being needful of covering up any potential public relations disaster.

But hold on, the reader might say, the BBC says that some NHS staff would also receive the jab, so that spoils the author’s idea. No, would be the reply to that; any NHS staff taking the vaccine in a first phase, which involves 800,000 doses (a lot to get rid of), will be doing it quite by accident and out of the sort of extremism that a World War II Japanese soldier would think normal, or because they were bullied into it by an extremist – as will be explained. The official line from UK Government is that NHS staff will not be required to have the Pfizer vaccine in the initial rollout – if at all (and again, all will be explained).

Somewhat suspiciously, the decision to downgrade priority for NHS staff, what the Health Service Journal (HSJ) called a U-turn, happened the day after the  Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the use in Britain of the Pfizer vaccine. Where one minute NHS staff were generally going to be vaccinated, and the next they were not, it could well be that exclusion for health care personnel might have been a compromise to overcome an obstacle so that there could be approval. In other words, there is an institutional objection*.

It’s a known fact that there had emerged in the NHS, in England at least, a determined opposition within the organisation, no matter how small it was, to a “Covid-19 vaccine”; here is The Times’ coverage:

Hundreds of NHS and care home staff have formed a group opposed to vaccinations, wearing masks and testing in hospitals.

The group, NHS Workers for Choice, No Restrictions for Declining a Vaccine, has gained more than 250 Facebook members in a month. They include a GP, several accident and emergency nurses, healthcare assistants, lab workers, and private and public care home staff.

We know that it was causing a reaction in the highest of places:

Matt Hancock has slammed more than 300 NHS workers and care home staff for joining an ‘anti-vaxxer’ group.

The Health Secretary branded Facebook page NHS Workers for Choice, No Restrictions for Declining a Vaccine ‘entirely inappropriate’.

However one wants to gloss over this, or even deny that there was a problem within the NHS with no means to appraise, from outside the organisation, how broadly it was felt, the optics are not good. It’s not just that NHS personnel were let off the hook, but that there appeared to be pressure to make it happen. The idea that Matt Hancock was getting vexed over a few hundred members on a Facebook page is not believable. Of course, a situation where NHS staff have won a reprieve, but old aged people receive a jab of “poison”, as the NHS Facebook objectors called it, is an explosive one, and probably why there is entirely no mention made of the downgrading of priority in the controlled alternative media.

Anyway, an explanation is still required as to how some NHS staff would accidentally be recipient of the Pfizer vaccine, and this will be furnished briefly by the Health Service Journal:

 NHS staff are no longer the top priority for receiving the first covid-19 vaccine, and most are now unlikely to get the jab before Christmas, HSJ has learned.

Several senior sources have told HSJ that people aged over 80 who are at hospitals for other reasons will now be the top priority for the first batches to arrive of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine, which are due to arrive in coming days. They will be followed in the priority order by care home staff…

Some NHS staff will still be vaccinated from next week — for example where trusts have spare vaccine and can’t achieve giving it to more care staff or over-80s, because of logistics or potentially lack of demand — but the numbers are now expected to be strictly limited.

Care home residents — despite being top of the JCVI’s list — will still not be among the first to get it, because the logistics of getting it to them have not been overcome, under the NHS’ current plans. The government and NHS have said that they will begin vaccinating care residents as soon as they think it is possible.

The last paragraph is probably surplus to the point, but it was left in because the author wanted the reader to get an early idea of the disarray that the UK Government’s vaccine programme appears to be in, with refusal by NHS staff potentially being a primary spanner in the works – hushed up, of course, as it would need to be. Don’t forget, the UK Government has had an itinerary for vaccine deployment for a long time, as an Evening Standard article from this week reports:

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) examined data on who suffers the worst outcomes from the disease and who is at highest risk of death.

It published interim guidance earlier in the year, which was later slightly amended to move anyone deemed “clinically extremely vulnerable”  higher up the priority list.

With that in mind, read again the line from the HSJ: “the logistics… have not been overcome, under the NHS’ current plans”.

If we can finally get to a point that the NHS had a need to dodge a bullet, and in fact did dodge one, it would be a pillar in the argument that the UK Government has volunteered British octogenarians to be guinea pigs while the vaccine has to be tolerated – because there is a definite sense that it is not ideal.

As well as there being problems with the logistics of delivering it, which have been introduced in the discussion without much explanation, but will be fully explained by and by, It cannot be denied that the Pfizer vaccine is problematic because in many ways it is untested. The potential for a detrimental effect on fertility was dealt with in the previous FBEL article. On top of that, the guidance for health professionals for using the vaccine (a link to which is in said previous article) reveals there is no understanding about the effect of the vaccine where a recipient is already on prescription drugs, or where the recipient has had other vaccinations. “No interaction [with other medicinal products] studies have been performed”, is what it says.

And while one could say immunologic and nervous reactions are to be expected (see footnote ‡) with the former being treatable if immediately dangerous, and the latter a temporary illness, this is in the context of the vaccine not being required – so, it’s vaccine damage all for nothing. But centrally, it is the fact that interaction studies have not been performed, and the very first target population is undoubtedly going to be on medication of one sort of another, which is why these people are essentially guinea pigs.

Cynically, it is feasible that if anything goes wrong, it can be disguised by the context so death and injury can be blamed on other things. As we can see, when NHS staff are made ill, it is all too obvious. It is not beyond the capability of UK Government to be so mendacious and conniving.

Then again, there is an enormous risk that there will be a scandal, and one must return to the question why is UK Government being so reckless. The answer, again: it is a reaction to the hoax falling apart (today’s rejection of the Dolan judicial review, which is an undermining factor while it has been hanging around, even if it might be a ruse to keep people from reacting another way, must be seen as an attempt to stop the rot).

The briefing that Hancock gave the Commons was incredibly illuminating. He gave it away that the UK Government’s plans are a bit hazy – to say the least. It is known that hospital patients, being over-80, will receive a jab in the first week, and then after that, GPs will administer vaccines, but not to general patients, but probably to care home residents. Then there is vagueness. These are his exact words (from the Daily Mail):

This week we will vaccinate from hospitals across the UK, from next week we’ll expand deployment to start vaccinations by GPs and we’ll vaccinate in care homes by Christmas.

The trouble with this is that there is a logistical problem throwing up a question of where, exactly, would GPs be performing vaccinations that need, as we will see, to be performed on an industrial scale. BBC reportage couldn’t make the matter any clearer;  the article linked to above gets into a muddle by saying that “800,000 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine that will be dispensed in the coming weeks. Up to four million more are expected by the end of the month.” The reader won’t need it explained that “the coming weeks” and “by the end of the month” are the same thing.

To cap it all, there was a no itinerary to speak of, despite there having had been one, as we have seen (again, from the Daily Mail):

Mr Hancock told MPs he could not confirm a timescale on vaccine dose numbers given the challenges faced in manufacturing the jab.

Asked by Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Munira Wilson about the number of healthy under-50s who will be vaccinated by the 2021 summer holidays, Mr Hancock told the Commons: ‘Because we’re reliant on the manufacturing process, which is itself a difficult challenge, we can’t put figures on when that rollout will be.

‘But we hope we’ll be able to lift the measures by the spring and we hope that by next summer we’ll all be having a much more normal summer.

‘I don’t want to put too much more detail on it than that, and I can’t put more in terms of the numbers because there are so many contingencies that mean what we can be sure of and work and plan to is for the NHS to be able to deliver the rollout at the speed at which the manufacturers can manufacture.’

Now, at last, some information that will help everything click into place: the problem with the Pfizer vaccine is that it is incredibly high maintenance. Because it is in vials that need to be separated into doses and diluted to become a solution, and because the vials need to be stored at a minimum temperature that is lower than usual, and because they come in packs that need to be defrosted all at the same time, so that if all the contents aren’t used in six hours after dilution, then what isn’t used is wasted, then a GP cannot carry vials in his briefcase as he does his rounds. They have to be administered at a location that has the facilities to store them.

And because the packs contain between 975 and 4,875 doses, vaccination would have to take place at a venue where enough people are a captive population, like in hospitals, or in places that can handle a lot of footfall in a short space of time – this is why Hancock was talking about using sports stadia and conference halls as vaccination centres. It is obviously imperative not to waste the doses, because this would be abject failure and inspire scorn and ridicule – and this is why some unfortunate NHS staff would have received a vaccine on “V-day”, even though they didn’t have to have one. Moreover, that the NHS staff saw casualties (see footnote ‡) will surely only add to the UK Government’s problems in terms of internal dissent.

Now, when Hancock talked about the future, and of using vaccination centres, he used some curious language. He said this would happen in the new year when more vaccines came on stream. This could be taken to mean when more batches of the Pfizer vaccine are manufactured, or it could mean – and the author thinks it does – when other sorts of vaccine become approved and available. Indeed, it is hard to see how a comprehensive vaccination programme can be achieved with the Pfizer jab, what with the logistical problems it has, and when the UK Government is following a programme of vaccination where it moves through age demographics, rather than opening up the option for all comers. The reason it is doing this is clear: there is plausibly less resistance in older age groups, who will take a vaccine and help create familiarity with being vaccinated, and, again, it offers the opportunity to study safety, and cover up mistakes without provoking or  engendering the ire of a younger population who could make things very uncomfortable in the streets for UK Government. However, it means that the Pfizer vaccine is probably too unsuited to the purpose to be viable.

So, it appears, by deduction. that UK Government is hamstrung until the AstraZeneca vaccine becomes available – and this is another factor in why the UK Government hasn’t got a plan. In fact, this idea is confirmed in the reportage (the HSJ):

But the prime minister and NHS England yesterday stressed early availability would be limited, with deliveries of only 800,000 doses secured initially. It is hoped that, as long as supplies continue, and particularly if Oxford/Astrazeneca’s vaccine is licensed, that mass vaccination including other groups will begin early in the near year.

As for the BBC, it plainly states that “the UK is still pinning its hopes on a second vaccine developed by Oxford University.”

The problem is that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is having a spot of trouble too, in that no one knows how effective it is after all, after doses given out in the trials were fouled up. The vaccine had an efficacy of 90% when one and a half doses were given – by mistake. It fell to 62% when a full two doses were applied.

This led the Lancet to basically pour cold water on the prospect of the approval at any time soon – at least, that’s the feeling abroad when interpreting a statement such as this:

The heterogeneity in vaccine dosage was fortuitous in uncovering a potentially highly efficacious formulation but was unplanned, and needs further evaluation in older adults and to confirm the unexpected results.

It appears that the half dose variation took place in a phase of the trial that didn’t include over-55s, and that would be why it is being said of the vaccine that it is not proven to work in the demographic that it would intended for at the time of any approval this year, or early next. Then there is the problem of the general low efficacy, and the question of whether it would be fit for purpose (assuming, for a second, that a vaccination for “Covid-19” isn’t a pointless exercise).

So, as we can see, the vaccine rollout has not been like a tyrannical juggernaut, but is a bit of a festival of incompetence (although the intention is always malignant), where the UK Government may have tripped over its own feet, and where its desperation has further exposed weakness. The cherry on the top of the crap pie, of course, was when Hancock was reduced to plead for cooperation when he appeared in the Commons.

Referring to the expected procedure for having a vaccination, where the NHS would inform a person about the availability of a vaccine, but it was yet an option that the person could refuse,  Hancock basically appealed to the same animating delusion that had once had people clapping for carers.

Matt Hancock has told Britons to “step forward for your country” and get the coronavirus vaccine, as the NHS today started the largest vaccination programme in British history.

“Today marks the start of the fight back against our common enemy coronavirus,” said the health secretary told the Commons this afternoon. “And while today’s the day to celebrate there is much work to be done”.

The big problem for Matt Hancock and the UK Government, of course, is that, in contrast to the early days when a good majority of people were transfixed and terrified by an appalling spectre of a supposed pandemic that has just not materialised, there isn’t the same zealousness in support, and there are more who are determinedly opposed, but most importantly, there is a rampant distrust of the “Covid-19 vaccine”.


† This is sourced from the Mail article cited above.

‡ And while we are on the subject of unsafety, it wasn’t long after the rollout that there was news of two NHS England staff members who suffered an anaphylactoid, or in layman’s terms, an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Both people, it was said, had a history of having allergic reactions, and this is why the MHRA then issued advice that people so afflicted did not receive the vaccination.

But it is a very odd situation, because polyethylene glycol is listed as a excipient in the vaccine, and is suspected as being a cause of anaphylaxis. Moreover, people with a “history of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine and/or severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis)” were excluded from the trials – so says the entry for the vaccine at

Finally, in the information about the Pfizer vaccine for health professionals it actually says:

As with all injectable vaccines, appropriate medical treatment and supervision should always be readily available in case of a rare anaphylactic event following the administration of the vaccine.

So, it seems that in these cases, the dogma of the administration of the Pfizer vaccine overruled any knowledge which should have informed a different course of action, which indicates that while there may be opponents to a vaccine in the NHS, there are extremists in support of it.

Other bad news followed on the heels of this report of allergic reaction in the shape of a story that four participants in the third phase of the Pfizer trial suffered Bell’s palsy, or paralysis of the face.  Literature on the subject tells of it being a condition caused by a viral infection, or an immune disorder, so once again, like the transverse myelitis seen in the Oxford-Astrazenca trials, it’s very likely a condition directly caused by the vaccine.

* Update, 12th December: More evidence of internal strife. The cover story is that workloads will not cope, but we’ve seen that the NHS hasn’t had a problem prioritising “Covid-19” over other “treatment”. This from The Guardian:

More than 100,000 patients will not be able to get the Covid vaccine from their family doctor after their GP surgeries decided not to take part in its deployment, the Guardian can reveal.

Dozens of GP practices in England have chosen not to join the NHS’s coronavirus vaccination programme amid concerns their workloads are already too heavy, they have too few staff and that patients could suffer if practices have to cut back other services so doctors can administer the injections.

Their reluctance to inoculate patients threatens to overshadow the start of the second phase of the vaccine rollout, which is due to start next week, with GPs taking part for the first time.

The Guardian has established that a number of practices in Manchester, Sussex, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the Thames Valley have opted out of the programme.

The alternative media will have no choice but to notice this.


It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image