Lets Discuss Bereavement: Part 2 [Update]

The SAFER trial; why were University of Oxford involved in this?

Update: People were asking ‘how could third parties know the shot status of patients?’. The NHS shares data with third parties unless you explicitly opt out, not that the NHS has shown care over privacy.

Previously I wrote an article discussing a recent bereavement, and mentioned finding a study amongst the deceased’s paperwork that would cause your blood to boil.

If you haven’t read the prior article, the deceased was ‘vaccinated’, and based on the timing my strong suspicion is they had gotten the AstraZeneca shot, a shot designed by the University of Oxford.

As you’ll see from the notes below, this holds major relevancy.

Note: To prevent reverse page data leakage, some of the images have been black and white thresholded.

GP Surgery Invites Them To Take Part In A Trial

I was handed documents found in their house, showing their local GP Surgery had invited them to take part in the SAFER Trial:

Page 1 of GP invite

Page 2 of GP invite

It even came with the unsigned consent forms (note it only says ‘University of Cambridge’ top left, this will become relevant later on):

Page 2 is noticeably incomplete (the signature box is redacted because information from the other side of the paper was leaking through); notice the absence of name or date:

What is the SAFER Trial?

SAFER stands for Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (online PDF available here).

It is a trial designed to screen for the heart condition known as ‘atrial fibrillation’. Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is described as an abnormal heart rhythm consisting of rapid and irregular beating of the atrial chambers of the heart, and can cause stroke.

For authenticity, I will be referring to the scanned copy of the information booklet I got:

First Anomaly: Notice how the first page mentions boldly that it is from the University of Cambridge, and that funding is from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, but…

…It only mentions very quietly that actually it also involves the University of Oxford on page 2? Why is that buried? Where’s the University of Oxford logo?

It mentions ‘University of Oxford’ only once more on page 6 (where it also reveals co-sponsorship by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group, also not mentioned on the first page):

What are University of Oxford so ashamed about that they have to hide behind the University of Cambridge?

Well, one possibility is this:

A search for Atrial Fibrillation on OpenVAERS.com producing 14,028 results

And this:

And also this:

Yes, some of those are mRNA shots, rather than genetically modified adenovirus shots (which is what AstraZeneca make), however, genetically modified adenovirus shots are no sweetcake: AstraZeneca was one of the first shots to get suspended in 18 countries very early on (March 2021):

This is likely to do with Pfizer’s pressure to eliminate the competition (Pfizer sponsors a lot of media outlets, see the end of this video), however it also means University of Oxford already knew there were issues with their shots. Quick, hide behind the University of Cambridge to avoid the angry mobs! Zoiks!

It is no secret that AstraZeneca shots cause Vaccine-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis, as an example of the impact it has on the cardiovascular (blood) system.

That is to say, the COVID-19 poison shots are associated with Atrial Fibrillation, which would of course imply, the AstraZeneca shot.

And Atrial Fibrillation has a particularly relevant angle in my family’s death circumstance, note the third cause of death, the part about ‘Osteoporotic Fractured Neck of Femur’:

Whilst you might blame Parkinsons, as the report does, it turns out Atrial Fibrillation (AF) can also cause… Osteoporotic Fractures (and death after fracture):

Of course, it remains speculative whether or not the deceased had Atrial Fibrillation, but this seems to fit all-too-well to be mere coincidence.

What’s the selection criteria for the “SAFER” study? Well, the cover story listed on the trial is that the survey is targeted due to age (70 and over):

However, I have other family members over the age of 70 who didn’t receive an offer to join this trial. You might think maybe the trial is only based in Cambridge and only offered to people living there, however the family member who was offered, wasn’t based in Cambridge, so it nixes that theory.

There is, however, one thing different about the family members who weren’t offered: They didn’t take any of the COVID-19 shots. Hmm, how particularly interesting. Another suspicious smell in a large pile of smells.

The trial looks like an attempt to do ‘damage control’ on adverse event outcomes by trying to pre-emptively intercept serious conditions so they don’t all end up in one giant lump of excess deaths.

Does this make your blood boil, dear reader?

---

Subscribe for free to get more content from The Daily Beagle.

Raise awareness?

And leave a comment below?