As it’s Easter holiday week, we thought we’d put ANH’s founder, Rob Verkerk PhD, in the hot seat to answer a few key questions stimulated by the last two “Speaking Naturally” guests. At ANH we’ve always been big advocates of informed consent, so it seemed a perfect kick off question as any nuance of informed consent for the current covid interventions appears to be ‘coercively’ absent
Note: You will see an advertising banner beneath our videos that play off the Brighteon platform (when they are not maximised). This advertising helps support the Brighteon platform that doesn't charge subscribers for their content, is committed to free speech, yet is also respectful of copyright-related law. We'd like to clarify that no advertising revenue from Brighteon is received by the Alliance for Natural Health Intl.
For those who prefer to listen check out the ANH podcast:
ANH founder, Rob Verkerk PhD, sits in the Speaking Naturally hot seat to answer questions stimulated by previous guests, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche and Dr Knut Wittkowski
On informed consent and the lack of transparency around diagnostic testing and vaccines there are many questions to be answered by governments
The withdrawal of citizens basic rights and privileges through the use of vaccine passports
How worried should people be about the issue of blood clots in relation to vaccination?
Listen to the podcast or watch video
Q: It’s a year into the pandemic. Where are we at with informed consent?
Governments always said they wouldn’t engage in coercion and one of the reasons for this is because coercion is very specifically excluded from any definition of informed consent. A citizen’s (patient's) informed consent requires adequate information, the capacity to decide, and the absence of coercion. It also includes the right to informed refusal of tests and therapies that a person doesn’t want. Informed consent is both built into medical codes of practice, as well as the legal systems of most countries, including the UK, EU countries, and the USA.
Moreover, informed consent applies as much to diagnostic testing as it does to any medical treatment, including vaccination — and the inherent risks. Yet researchers were concerned enough to publish in October last year their findings that the significant risk of covid-19 ADE (pathogen priming or antibody dependent enhancement) should have been more prominently and independently disclosed to vaccine trial subjects and for those being vaccinated thereafter. Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards, yet is being abused with respect to covid-19.
We should also take note of where we were going before COVID came along with regard to ideas like patient or person-centred care. It was very much about shared decision making between health professionals and the individual and the democratisation of health. Now, that’s all been pretty much thrown to the wind with governments and politicians taking over the duties previously conferred on medics as supreme authorities in health.
The marketing campaigns accompanying vaccine roll out are also unparalleled. That means the media becomes another significant player in the creation of the medical narrative. Often controlling not only what is said, but also, through censorship, what isn't to be communicated. They not only falsely advertise one particular medical intervention - in this case vaccines - without giving adequate information about risks, benefits or alternatives, they also serve to encourage laypeople to coerce their family members, work associates and neighbours to receive the same treatment they’ve received. In effect, the vaccine promotional campaigns have served to delegate coercion to members of the public. Perhaps so governments can then argue they haven’t abused their powers with regard to informed consent and coerced citizens directly?
Questions are finally being asked whether governments, the British government in particular, have achieved the removal of so many rights and freedoms through the unethical use of covert psychological strategies (referred to as 'nudges') in the public messaging campaigns. Few people are aware of the work of the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), conceived in 2010 as the world's first governmental institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy. Basically, sanitised and sanctioned methods of mass emotional and psychological manipulation. You won't be surprised to find that several members of BIT sit on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, a subgroup of SAGE, that advises the government about 'how to maximise the impact' of its covid-19 communications. This is the reason for all the fear and guilt messaging the public have been bombarded with for the last 12 months. It's all been about control and creating a compliant population that doesn't object to loss and restrictions, not health. Having started as a 7-person team at the heart of the British Government, BIT - also known as The Nudge Unit - is now a 'global social purpose company' with offices around the world. Their work spanned 31 countries in the last year alone. No doubt 31 countries with 'successful' and harmonised pandemic policies.
That argument for informed consent and the right to refusal falls apart when you then deny rights or withdraw normal privileges from those who’ve not been vaccinated. This is where the very notion of vaccine passports or COVID status certification opens a Pandora’s box in this area. That's one of the reasons why the World Health Organisation (WHO) continues to oppose vaccine passports, yet hedges its bets by then backing vaccine certificates as a way of providing health records for the vaccinated. They then don't have to be accused of being discriminatory towards those who are unable to access vaccines in less industrialised countries. Sounds like a political play on words to us.
In the UK there is growing and robust opposition to the introduction of any covid certification system. Two public consultations on the subject down, and one still open till 3rd May, yet the Government seems hellbent on ploughing on regardless. US citizens can take some heart from White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki’s statement on Tuesday 6th April, that the US won’t support a federal certification system of virus status. The US State system allows for more independent governing, allowing the Florida State Governor Ron DeSantis to ban the use of vaccine passports along with a host of other states.
Many EU countries feel differently. In fact, the digital green certificate that is being pushed hard by President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has been developed collaboratively with the WHO. More revolving doors. Resolution 2361 (2021) the Council of Europe - although non-binding in law - advocates that any approach to vaccination should neither be mandatory or non-discriminatory. Vaccine passports will discriminate against the unvaccinated if they are used to determine rights or access to venues, airports or even workplaces.
Blood clots and AstraZeneca vaccine
Q: What going on with blood clots and the AZ vaccine?
The whole discussion around vaccines triggering blood clots is based on comparing the numbers found in populations in the pre-covid era compared with those exposed to vaccines. Interestingly, it’s just one of the vaccines that’s been heavily under the spotlight, that of Oxford/AstraZeneca. Initially, it was a handful of cases and it didn’t seem as if these cases were more severe compared with background levels. But attention has been focused on a very specific kind of blood clot affecting the brain known as a thrombocytopaenia. It was the Paul Erlich Institute in Germany that first identified a clear autoimmune reaction that caused a massive reaction in the platelets within our blood — the tiny blood cells that are responsible for forming clots. These reactions were found to occur between 4 - 20 days after vaccination and they were very similar to the reaction induced rarely by the drug, heparin, the autoimmune reaction to which is called heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, that causes blood clots in the brain.
We're entirely donation funded. Your support allows us to continue our work
It’s now very clear that it’s primarily women under 55 who are affected by the vaccine-induced thrombocytopaenia, the rate varying depending on country between 1 in 125,000, to 1 in 1 million, of the Oxford/AstraZeneca population depending on country and population group.
As we and others have suggested for some time, the 2- or 3-months-worth of phase 3 trial data that were used to grant emergency authorisation for the vaccines were not sufficient to detect any autoimmune diseases. Dr Yehuda Shoenfeld, often referred to as the father of autoimmunity, raised the red flag earlier than many others, yet his concerns were largely discounted.
It remains unclear exactly what the trigger is for this reaction; for example, how much is caused by the delivery system for the vaccine or its antigen. The positive side of it remains its rarity, however, we have to await further data and see more time elapsed before anyone is in a position to judge the importance, not only of this, but also the induction of other autoimmune conditions.
Recapping immune escape and selection pressure
Q: It’s a few weeks on from Dr Vanden Bossche’s proclamation regarding what he called immune escape? There’s been a lot of discussion - and a lot of criticism - where are we now in understanding the complexities of this host-pathogen interaction?
During the interview we revisited these two topics that have been brought into sharp relief by the recent revelations from whistleblower, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche — immune escape and selection pressure. Rather than write more here, you will find a further explanation of these issues in relation to an over-reliance on vaccination in Rob Verkerk’s new article entitled, “Why we need more eggs in the covid basket”.