VIRUVAX: The very odd history of ‘ultra-safe’ Valneva

Did Health Secretary Sajid Javid lie to the House of Commons about Valneva’s cancellation? Why has the HMRA contradicted him? Why was Moderna close to being dumped and then reinstated as suitable for use on 6-11 year olds? Why vaccinate that age group when the chances of death among infants are almost homoaeopathic? Why is the Government’s Covid death recording so slipshod and unrealistic? Whatever happened to Kate Bingham. It’s always the same with the Viruvax story: high in disturbing questions, low in credible answers.

The French Pharma vaccine specialist Valneva appears to have developed a “more traditional” biotech jab which is both better tolerated and offers a more failsafe immunity against all C19 variants than the mRNA+Graphene bioweapons tested on western populations to date. In 2021, the UK Government ordered 100 million doses of it, but then last September did an abrupt U-turn, cancelling the order on the grounds that the company had “broken its contract”. Valneva vigorously denies the charge as “without basis”.

Interestingly, the BBC reported “within days” that the vaccine would not have received approval anyway. In previous Slogposts, I have pointed out that Health Secretary Sajid Javid also switched forward purchases of Messenger drugs dramatically from Moderna to Pfizer on his arrival in office. As regards the Valneva drug, he told the House of Commons,

“It was clear to us that the vaccine the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA [The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] here in the UK”

Javid had been in office exactly ten weeks when he offered this learned judgement. As he proved at Deutsche Bank, however, Jabbit catches on quickly when it comes to the ground rules.

On this occasion, however, his clairvoyance was totally wrong. Yesterday we saw that the very same Moderna Drug he cancelled last July is now deemed fit for use on 6-11 year olds…and underneath the bold heading is the latest on Jekyll & Hyde Valneva:

The more one digs into the serious science involved here, Javid’s prediction of September 14th 2021 looks curiouser and curiouser:

As you can see in that prose, the vaccine seems a more traditional all-rounder….just the sort of ticket, I would’ve thought, to give succour to those who – not being suckers – aren’t wild about nano-graphene debris careening around their system.

The sensational comeback of Moderna is equally puzzling, although it has to be said that BoJo the Puppet is a loyal user of the product, and – who knows – perhaps has some uncle or other who toils for Astrazeneca. As he also knighted every miscreant on the project, he presumably doesn’t want to write off This Fine British Success completely.

Equally, however, we are back among the 6-11 year olds again. Only a complete idiot would go along with the “case” for jabbing children that young with purely experimental drugs. The gains/risk analysis is beyond silly: for the first six months of C19, there were just 4 (Four – count them) deaths among 6-11 year olds in the entire United Kingdom. That rate has never moved. In my book, the rational for using DNA altering biotech on kids stands at 0 per cent.

In turn, it would do no harm at all – as the fear-mongering continues – to do a simple year by year comparison of C19 deaths rather than alleged cases.

These numbers were put up 14 hours ago by the ONS:

I very much doubt you’re going to see this chart on the BBC or in a major MSM title any time soon. There is – blatantly obviously – no pandemic any more; and Covid never became on any basis “a global killer virus”. If you haven’t already seen it, the most recent Slogpost illustrates rather well, I think, what the real purpose of the Jabberthon was.

Neverthelss, even the ‘black and white’ real world reflected in the chart above is probably an exaggeration of Covid’s mortal power.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) casually drops in this definition of causal factors in death (my emphases)

‘The doctor certifying a death can list all causes in the chain of events that led to the death, and pre-existing conditions that may have contributed to the death. Deaths with COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate are defined as deaths involving COVID-19. Deaths where COVID-19 is also the underlying cause of death are defined as deaths due to COVID-19‘.

I put that paragraph to an eminent UK-based GP and practice Nurse this morning. They concurred completely – although the quote below is the Doctor’s:

“The assumptions behind these definitions are classic Whitehall fantasy. No GP I know of has either the time or the skills to know the complete patient picture of pathogens, and the idea that anyone is likely to be able to separate underlying cause from involvement with any certainty is ridiculous”.

As a market researcher with over thirty years’ experience of using self-assigned respondent judgement about motivations and products, I have always found that methodology riddled with risks and unlikely to reproduce a real portrait of the empirical situation on the ground.

In short, a long, dark and suspicious shadow has always hung over the stats we see relating to what a Covid19 death really means. But returning now to the Slogword Virusecrecy, we can see very clearly indeed that the practice is alive, well and thriving.

It seems to me that some of Javid’s actions as Health Secretary are inconsistent bordering on inexplicable. As a nation, we have become far too relaxed about media self-censorship, secret government, grubby deals and a lack of accountability. In relation to the Valneva farce particularly, I think we need a full public enquiry with teeth. I think we need a straight answer on when the Coronavirus Act is to be repealed in full. I think we need to oppose with all our strength this demonic decision to approve mRNA vaccination for our kids.

And last but not least, I think the disappearing Procuratrice Kate Bingham has a lot of very awkward questions to answer.