I have written a number of times to the MHRA. One time I even got a signed response back from the Raine herself, which is more than she's done for 800 vaccine-injured people who wrote to her.
I'm waiting to hear back again, with their definition of the term 'safe and effective'. But what next? How do I actually get Raine or the MHRA in court for deliberate harms to children and adults? How can I complain / act in such a way it actually does make a difference? I want them to stop the vaccines and instead offer help to the vaccine-injured. How do we get that practical outcome to occur?
You'd need deep pockets and savvy lawyers wishing to help who genuinely know the bounds of the law.
There's a couple of ways, but it depends:
1) Find evidence she or the others have engaged in criminal conspiracy (for example, covering up harms, censoring information, putting lives at risk, etc), and either:
1a) Engage in a private prosecution under a criminal law and attempt to get them convicted of breaching that law, or
1b) Engage in a civil lawsuit and financially bankrupt them
Alternatively, you need to find people 'above her' who can pull strings to have her removed/replaced if you can convince them to switch sides. Unfortunately the General Medical Council is largely pro-vaccine, so getting them to pull medical credentials would be a difficult fight. She however was likely installed there by a government department or MP, who you might be able to convince to remove and replace her - if you can find sufficiently damning evidence she was engaging in part of a criminal conspiracy.
The more vigilante approaches would be a leaflet campaign (note: this runs a defamation lawsuit risk) highlighting her criminality to her immediate peers by ensuring they receive copies individually in a way that cannot be ignored. Alternatively, being persistent in manually sending letters to people individually working there highlighting the risks and harms of the shots, as well as show casing the injured and piercing their conscience (assuming any there have one).
Usually emotional connections are more effective, such as immediate family. So she might avoid the scour of her colleagues, but can she avoid the shame of her family once they know what she has done?
Any leafleting campaign should be factual, blunt and polite so it cannot be accused of being abusive (the 'victim carding' defence) or harassment. On emotional grounds, questions are better than statements. On factual grounds, easy-to-digest facts and figures even the most simpliest layman are the most effective.
Refer to the COVID-19 shots question document that terrified virologists as an example (note: it is mainly aimed at Americans so you won't be able to re-use it for British purposes):
" If, as you have stated publicly, your role is enabling pharmaceutical companies, who in Britain would now be able to perform the role of Frances Oldham Kelsey in protecting the public?"
That's a good reference, however it is best to assume your audience are laymen - even (and especially) those in industry, as they've not had the difficulty of having their assumptions tested.
For me I had to look up 'Frances Oldman Kelsey'. If they have to look anything up or do anything, odds are they won't do it, which means you lose them when it comes to impact of the question.
It is why my questions document provides the glossary of terms at the beginning (in defiance of glossary norms) explaining even seemingly obvious things like what FDA stands for, as my goal is to educate the reader so they are able to understand the 'jargon' used as well.
You might reframe your question to say:
Frances Oldham Kelsey refused to authorise thalidomide, a drug infamous for causing birth defects[citation number], on the grounds there was insufficient safety data[citation number]. Given that the SARS-CoV-2 shots cause XYZ deaths[citation number], and ABC cardiac injuries[citation number] in children, compared to 2 in a million deaths[citation number], shouldn't the MHRA refuse to authorise the SARS-CoV-2 shots?
It is longer, but it qualifies who Frances is, what they did, why what they did was important, contrasts the harms of the shots to the disease harms, before contrasting MHRA's behaviour to Frances.
Okay, I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe the answer is to think like a Parliamentary inquiry? Ask the questions any half-decent journalist / MP would have already asked. I've been using FOIA but maybe not tight enough, although I've tried to keep it precise.
For example, I could ask:
(1) "At what point did you (rain) know that the injections stopped neither infection nor transmission?"
(2) "How much money did MHRA receive from Pfizer and from Moderna and from BMGF in financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021?"
(3) "Which employees (including rain) of MHRA currently sit or have previously sat on boards of pharmaceutical companies? Which employees sit or have sat on the boards of Pfizer or Moderna?"
(4) "Does rain, or anyone connected to her, own shares in pharmaceutical companies? If so, which companies?"
Any other key questions you'd suggest, Underdog? Your brain is remarkably adept at this stuff. I value your advice.
These questions have likely already been asked via FOIA. I need to find out how to search the already-published answers, and then hone my questions to get rid of any ambiguity.
MHRA already said all the batches were identical and there were no placebo batches, which seems unlikely given the How Bad Is My Batch data. What question can I ask to pin that down further?
You can't use Parliamentary Inquiry tactics, because those are legally compelling, where-as you're a member of the public. Any answers they give will be voluntary. People only really disclose information to people they like or trust, so any "accusatory" questions will generate zero traction.
On my own experiences, I practically never get any official acknowledgement to 'out of the box' questions. The purpose of the document isn't to get answers - because any answers will be self-incriminating or violate conceptual thinking (hence why the virologists fled) - the goal is to get them to psychologically internalise the questions so they themselves start asking it.
Questions are much more effective at generating internal dialogue than statements. If I stated XYZ number of people died, they would just rationalise it away by parroting a mantra like 'benefits outweigh risks'. A list of stated facts is dry, boring, easy to ignore.
If I ask 'Is it acceptable XYZ people die when the death rate is normally ABC?', I'm not asking them to validate the facts, or even give me an answer, I'm asking them does it jive with their own internal morality on what is acceptable?
The answer is often 'no', which is why virologists could not answer it, because they either had to choose between lying (which they know is wrong, and would be evident with the evidence), or admitting the truth (that the policy they've been advocating is morally wrong). Each question is stand alone; you don't need to know any of the other questions or data for it to be valid. You don't need to be an expert to answer them; the answer is already inferred in the data supplied.
To reiterate: your goal isn't to get answers, it is to change minds.
"I could ask:"
FOIA is like pulling teeth, and they will slow walk it. Many will overrun the 20 working days period. The ICO (who oversees FOIs) will also slow walk it. The fastest you will get a response is usually 3 months. I've got a non-answered FOIA I filed at the CIA which has been rolling around for 7+ years. You need legal chops like Judicial Watch have to make an FOIA work.
MHRA won't answer your financial conflicts question because they've publicly declared there are none. I think we all know there are, but MHRA can play the pedantry game where if they reclassify finances from Pfizer etc as "not" being conflicts of interest then they don't have to disclose to any queries about conflicts of interest.
It would be much more effective to supply the data showing the shots kill children more so than SARS-CoV-2 does (that data is in the Questions Document) and asking if they feel comfortable working for an organisation that isn't held to account for promoting a shot that murders children?
Yes, you can PM me. If you reply to the Substack Newsletter you receive from The Daily Beagle (any will be fine), in theory I should receive it and will be able to reply.
I also sent copies to various Canadian political parties. I also sent one copy to MP Steve Baker (who was head of the 'Covid Research Group' at the time). It has not been sent to UK government departments because many have postal-only, or online form (with no upload submission) only requirements.
Posting 40 pages of document material (which is mainly geared for internet usage) would require it to be sent as a parcel at parcel rates, and with the exception of this Substack which not yet financially viable, my work generates no income, so it isn't something I can afford to do.
The UK, politically, emotionally and psychologically, is a completely different beast to that of the US. Where my document gained traction in the US where freedom is more highly valued, in the UK 'intellectual certitude' (academic ivory tower thinking) is dominant, they instead opted to censor the datasets showing the failings of the shots.
A new document would need to be drafted aimed at addressing the odd psychology of the British, with UK and Europe oriented evidence. I'm going to be honest though, not even I understand how their thinking works and I live here!
Thank you! I'll think on your suggestions. I imagine the only 'emotional buttons' they have are self-preservation. Higher emotions such as shame probably aren't very functional.
Alex Belfield got 7 years in prison for 'stalking' which involved nothing more than tweets and emails, I believe. No stalking involved. Designed, like Alex Jones' billion dollar fine or Tommy R's two prison sentences and bankruptcy, to frighten people and put them off questioning or confronting those in power.
I was involved in a peaceful and orderly constituency meeting with our MP, which was then spun by the national media as 'a situation where anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists' had 'ambushed', verbally attacked and threatened the MP.
Sometimes the agenda isn't obvious without hindsight, so I must be cautious, as you say, not to create an opportunity for the perception that Raine (or any other) is the victim here rather than the perpetrator.
They're (Gottlieb, I think) talking about Fauci needing a 'security detail', so they very much want to make the perpetrators out to be the luckless victims here. :(
Just to tack on: That said, the moral of this story is complaints *in general* do work. So don't feel limited to just TV advertising complaints, as I was giving the advertisement as an evidenced example. You'd think the UK government would defend the Smart Meters - but ultimately had to pull down the house of cards.
Complaints can work in general, the trick becomes knowing who or what to complain to.
Funnily enough I haven't seen any TV adverts directly by pharmaceutical companies for the shots in the UK.
They're all indirect, via the NHS. The problem is their wording is crafty - they don't name anything specifically, just 'a shot' - and they're not selling a product per se, so it doesn't count as advertising. Because they're not naming anything specifically, the claim cannot be assessed.
I have written a number of times to the MHRA. One time I even got a signed response back from the Raine herself, which is more than she's done for 800 vaccine-injured people who wrote to her.
I'm waiting to hear back again, with their definition of the term 'safe and effective'. But what next? How do I actually get Raine or the MHRA in court for deliberate harms to children and adults? How can I complain / act in such a way it actually does make a difference? I want them to stop the vaccines and instead offer help to the vaccine-injured. How do we get that practical outcome to occur?
You'd need deep pockets and savvy lawyers wishing to help who genuinely know the bounds of the law.
There's a couple of ways, but it depends:
1) Find evidence she or the others have engaged in criminal conspiracy (for example, covering up harms, censoring information, putting lives at risk, etc), and either:
1a) Engage in a private prosecution under a criminal law and attempt to get them convicted of breaching that law, or
1b) Engage in a civil lawsuit and financially bankrupt them
Alternatively, you need to find people 'above her' who can pull strings to have her removed/replaced if you can convince them to switch sides. Unfortunately the General Medical Council is largely pro-vaccine, so getting them to pull medical credentials would be a difficult fight. She however was likely installed there by a government department or MP, who you might be able to convince to remove and replace her - if you can find sufficiently damning evidence she was engaging in part of a criminal conspiracy.
The more vigilante approaches would be a leaflet campaign (note: this runs a defamation lawsuit risk) highlighting her criminality to her immediate peers by ensuring they receive copies individually in a way that cannot be ignored. Alternatively, being persistent in manually sending letters to people individually working there highlighting the risks and harms of the shots, as well as show casing the injured and piercing their conscience (assuming any there have one).
Usually emotional connections are more effective, such as immediate family. So she might avoid the scour of her colleagues, but can she avoid the shame of her family once they know what she has done?
Any leafleting campaign should be factual, blunt and polite so it cannot be accused of being abusive (the 'victim carding' defence) or harassment. On emotional grounds, questions are better than statements. On factual grounds, easy-to-digest facts and figures even the most simpliest layman are the most effective.
Refer to the COVID-19 shots question document that terrified virologists as an example (note: it is mainly aimed at Americans so you won't be able to re-use it for British purposes):
https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Revision-4-1/COVID19ShotQuestionsRevision4_1.pdf
Essentially your goal is to work out where their emotional buttons lie and start pushing them.
Another potential question I could ask:
" If, as you have stated publicly, your role is enabling pharmaceutical companies, who in Britain would now be able to perform the role of Frances Oldham Kelsey in protecting the public?"
That's a good reference, however it is best to assume your audience are laymen - even (and especially) those in industry, as they've not had the difficulty of having their assumptions tested.
For me I had to look up 'Frances Oldman Kelsey'. If they have to look anything up or do anything, odds are they won't do it, which means you lose them when it comes to impact of the question.
It is why my questions document provides the glossary of terms at the beginning (in defiance of glossary norms) explaining even seemingly obvious things like what FDA stands for, as my goal is to educate the reader so they are able to understand the 'jargon' used as well.
You might reframe your question to say:
Frances Oldham Kelsey refused to authorise thalidomide, a drug infamous for causing birth defects[citation number], on the grounds there was insufficient safety data[citation number]. Given that the SARS-CoV-2 shots cause XYZ deaths[citation number], and ABC cardiac injuries[citation number] in children, compared to 2 in a million deaths[citation number], shouldn't the MHRA refuse to authorise the SARS-CoV-2 shots?
It is longer, but it qualifies who Frances is, what they did, why what they did was important, contrasts the harms of the shots to the disease harms, before contrasting MHRA's behaviour to Frances.
Okay, I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe the answer is to think like a Parliamentary inquiry? Ask the questions any half-decent journalist / MP would have already asked. I've been using FOIA but maybe not tight enough, although I've tried to keep it precise.
For example, I could ask:
(1) "At what point did you (rain) know that the injections stopped neither infection nor transmission?"
(2) "How much money did MHRA receive from Pfizer and from Moderna and from BMGF in financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021?"
(3) "Which employees (including rain) of MHRA currently sit or have previously sat on boards of pharmaceutical companies? Which employees sit or have sat on the boards of Pfizer or Moderna?"
(4) "Does rain, or anyone connected to her, own shares in pharmaceutical companies? If so, which companies?"
Any other key questions you'd suggest, Underdog? Your brain is remarkably adept at this stuff. I value your advice.
These questions have likely already been asked via FOIA. I need to find out how to search the already-published answers, and then hone my questions to get rid of any ambiguity.
MHRA already said all the batches were identical and there were no placebo batches, which seems unlikely given the How Bad Is My Batch data. What question can I ask to pin that down further?
You can't use Parliamentary Inquiry tactics, because those are legally compelling, where-as you're a member of the public. Any answers they give will be voluntary. People only really disclose information to people they like or trust, so any "accusatory" questions will generate zero traction.
On my own experiences, I practically never get any official acknowledgement to 'out of the box' questions. The purpose of the document isn't to get answers - because any answers will be self-incriminating or violate conceptual thinking (hence why the virologists fled) - the goal is to get them to psychologically internalise the questions so they themselves start asking it.
Questions are much more effective at generating internal dialogue than statements. If I stated XYZ number of people died, they would just rationalise it away by parroting a mantra like 'benefits outweigh risks'. A list of stated facts is dry, boring, easy to ignore.
If I ask 'Is it acceptable XYZ people die when the death rate is normally ABC?', I'm not asking them to validate the facts, or even give me an answer, I'm asking them does it jive with their own internal morality on what is acceptable?
The answer is often 'no', which is why virologists could not answer it, because they either had to choose between lying (which they know is wrong, and would be evident with the evidence), or admitting the truth (that the policy they've been advocating is morally wrong). Each question is stand alone; you don't need to know any of the other questions or data for it to be valid. You don't need to be an expert to answer them; the answer is already inferred in the data supplied.
To reiterate: your goal isn't to get answers, it is to change minds.
"I could ask:"
FOIA is like pulling teeth, and they will slow walk it. Many will overrun the 20 working days period. The ICO (who oversees FOIs) will also slow walk it. The fastest you will get a response is usually 3 months. I've got a non-answered FOIA I filed at the CIA which has been rolling around for 7+ years. You need legal chops like Judicial Watch have to make an FOIA work.
MHRA won't answer your financial conflicts question because they've publicly declared there are none. I think we all know there are, but MHRA can play the pedantry game where if they reclassify finances from Pfizer etc as "not" being conflicts of interest then they don't have to disclose to any queries about conflicts of interest.
It would be much more effective to supply the data showing the shots kill children more so than SARS-CoV-2 does (that data is in the Questions Document) and asking if they feel comfortable working for an organisation that isn't held to account for promoting a shot that murders children?
The Question Sheet is very useful and could be adapted. How did you use it? Who did you send it to and how did they respond?
Do you have a protonmail account or other way I can PM you?
Yes, you can PM me. If you reply to the Substack Newsletter you receive from The Daily Beagle (any will be fine), in theory I should receive it and will be able to reply.
"How did you use it?"
I gave a copy to YouTuber Louis Rossmann (he's credited on the document, see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/i-once-spoke-with-youtuber-louis) and I sent it to the 24 US States in my push to overturn the Federal vaccine mandates (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/have-i-been-able-to-redpill-people).
I also sent copies to various Canadian political parties. I also sent one copy to MP Steve Baker (who was head of the 'Covid Research Group' at the time). It has not been sent to UK government departments because many have postal-only, or online form (with no upload submission) only requirements.
Posting 40 pages of document material (which is mainly geared for internet usage) would require it to be sent as a parcel at parcel rates, and with the exception of this Substack which not yet financially viable, my work generates no income, so it isn't something I can afford to do.
The UK, politically, emotionally and psychologically, is a completely different beast to that of the US. Where my document gained traction in the US where freedom is more highly valued, in the UK 'intellectual certitude' (academic ivory tower thinking) is dominant, they instead opted to censor the datasets showing the failings of the shots.
A new document would need to be drafted aimed at addressing the odd psychology of the British, with UK and Europe oriented evidence. I'm going to be honest though, not even I understand how their thinking works and I live here!
Lol! "The odd psychology of the British" Good thing I'm a native, eh! :)
Thank you! I'll think on your suggestions. I imagine the only 'emotional buttons' they have are self-preservation. Higher emotions such as shame probably aren't very functional.
Alex Belfield got 7 years in prison for 'stalking' which involved nothing more than tweets and emails, I believe. No stalking involved. Designed, like Alex Jones' billion dollar fine or Tommy R's two prison sentences and bankruptcy, to frighten people and put them off questioning or confronting those in power.
I was involved in a peaceful and orderly constituency meeting with our MP, which was then spun by the national media as 'a situation where anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists' had 'ambushed', verbally attacked and threatened the MP.
Sometimes the agenda isn't obvious without hindsight, so I must be cautious, as you say, not to create an opportunity for the perception that Raine (or any other) is the victim here rather than the perpetrator.
They're (Gottlieb, I think) talking about Fauci needing a 'security detail', so they very much want to make the perpetrators out to be the luckless victims here. :(
What about big pharma adverts? Is that a thing in the UK?
Just to tack on: That said, the moral of this story is complaints *in general* do work. So don't feel limited to just TV advertising complaints, as I was giving the advertisement as an evidenced example. You'd think the UK government would defend the Smart Meters - but ultimately had to pull down the house of cards.
Complaints can work in general, the trick becomes knowing who or what to complain to.
Funnily enough I haven't seen any TV adverts directly by pharmaceutical companies for the shots in the UK.
They're all indirect, via the NHS. The problem is their wording is crafty - they don't name anything specifically, just 'a shot' - and they're not selling a product per se, so it doesn't count as advertising. Because they're not naming anything specifically, the claim cannot be assessed.