Cases of myositis following COVID-19 vaccination have been documented. The clinical spectrum includes mild inflammatory myopathy, dermatomyositis, immune-mediated necrotising myopathy, and overlap syndromes. The relationship remains under study.  Be aware that mainstream will say these are “rare” so as not to “undermine” public confidence, but the facts are that widespread adverse reactions are well known.

Findings from the Literature

• A 2023 review collected 49 cases of inflammatory myositis after COVID-19 vaccination. Muscle involvement was most frequent (~80 %), followed by skin manifestations (~53 %) and interstitial lung disease (~35 %). Most patients received mRNA vaccines.

• Case reports have described anti-MDA5 dermatomyositis, overlap syndromes, and myositis combined with myocarditis following mRNA vaccination.

• Symptoms usually onset days to weeks post-vaccine. Workup often reveals elevated CK, MRI muscle oedema, EMG myopathy patterns, and in some cases, myositis-specific antibodies (e.g. anti-MDA5, anti-PM/Scl). Biopsy, when done, shows inflammation, necrosis, and MHC-I upregulation.

• Treatment generally involves high-dose corticosteroids, often with IVIG or immunosuppressants (methotrexate, mycophenolate, rituximab). Many patients improve, though anti-MDA5 + ILD cases carry higher risk.

Consent, Payments & Research Limitations

• Under UK law and GMC guidance, informed consent must be obtained before vaccination, meaning patients should receive disclosure of benefits, risks, and alternatives.

• Many report that full informed consent was not provided, particularly regarding long-term risks, rare adverse events, or ingredient details.

• In the UK, GP surgeries are paid £7.54 per COVID-19 vaccine dose (plus £10 for housebound patients) and £9.58 per influenza vaccine, along with reimbursement of vaccine cost.

• Because these payments underpin vaccine delivery further independent research may be underprioritised or underfunded, given the conflict between findings that might lower uptake and maintaining vaccine programme revenue.

Historical / Regulatory Notes

• COVID-19 vaccination was initially not recommended for younger age groups until safety data were established.

• Clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance continued well after roll-out; for example, long-term safety data collection extended into January 2023 and beyond.

Key Takeaways

• Myositis after COVID-19 vaccination is documented but rare.
• Onset typically occurs within days to weeks of vaccination.
• Management with immunosuppressants often yields improvement.
• Informed consent is mandated but often reportedly remains incomplete in practice.
• GP payment per vaccine (COVID: £7.54 + housebound supplement; flu: £9.58) introduces systemic incentives.
• Funding priorities and institutional alignment may suppress or disincentivise independent adverse event research.
• Further prospective, independent studies are needed to assess incidence, mechanisms, and long-term safety.

Key References & Research Links

1. Syrmou V, et al. COVID-19 vaccine-associated myositis: comprehensive review and case report. Immunologic Research, 2023. — PMC article: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10018601/

2. González D, et al. Anti-MDA5 dermatomyositis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case-based review. PMC article: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9166182/

3. Bolla E, et al. New-onset anti-MDA5 dermatomyositis following COVID-19 vaccination. PMC article: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11082759/

4. Ding Y, et al. Inflammatory myopathy following coronavirus disease vaccination. PMC article: europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc9634642

5. Klein CR, et al. Anti-MDA5 autoantibodies predict clinical dynamics of dermatomyositis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Rheumatology International (open access) — link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00296-024-05683-5

6. Camargo-Coronel A, et al. Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies linked to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review. Reumatismo PDF: reumatismo.org/index.php/reuma/article/download/1548/970/7027

7. Reumatismo editorial / commentary: Myositis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occurs more frequently than assumed. (Reumatismo, 2023) — reumatismo.org

“Vaccines: How the Truth Is Suppressed” by Dr Vernon Coleman – a summary

Dr Vernon Coleman argues that open debate and honest discussion about vaccination and pharmaceutical safety are systematically suppressed by the medical establishment, government agencies, and media under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. He recounts personal experiences that, in his view, demonstrate censorship, bias, and conflicts of interest within the healthcare system.

1. Exclusion from Medical Discourse

Coleman begins with an incident involving PasTest, a UK medical education company. Initially invited to speak at a conference about drug safety and adverse reactions, he was later removed from the programme without explanation. The organisers claimed “certain parties” found him “too controversial.” Coleman suspects the pharmaceutical industry or affiliated regulators were responsible. He argues that this exclusion exemplifies how industry pressure shapes which viewpoints are allowed within NHS and professional education contexts.

The conference still proceeded, featuring speakers from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, reinforcing Coleman’s view that only establishment-friendly perspectives were represented.

2. Institutional and Media Suppression

Coleman asserts that both government and mainstream media act to silence dissenting medical voices. He notes that despite public interest, newspapers ignored the story of his conference exclusion, describing attempts to contribute evidence about vaccine risks to the London Assembly’s vaccination review, only to find these submissions were omitted from the final report. This appears to be deliberate censorship intended to protect political vaccination targets rather than examine potential risks.

Mainstream journalists largely rely on official sources and pharmaceutical funding, unwilling to challenge corporate interests. Radio and TV programmes do not inviting medical dissenting views to discuss vaccines since these views conflict with official narratives.

3. Vaccination as Political, Not Scientific

Vaccination has become a political rather than scientific matter. Government incentives to increase immunisation rates, such as GP bonuses, are seen as proof that financial motives drive vaccine promotion. Evidence critical of vaccines is systematically excluded from policy-making, leading to one-sided conclusions.

There was a rare radio debate in which a GP initially denied, then reluctantly admitted, that doctors receive payments for administering vaccines— this is potentially emblematic of medical denial and misinformation.

4. Global Control and Commercial Influence

The critique extends beyond the UK, recounting how publication of any vaccine-critical writings can lead to books being banned in China after government intervention. |This illustrates global suppression of dissenting medical opinion.

The pharmaceutical industry, motivated by profit, controls the flow of scientific information. Governments and regulators, fearing financial and reputational fallout, allegedly avoid conducting research that might reveal vaccine harms. The situation is not dissimilar to other industries (e.g., genetically modified foods), where critics are forced to prove danger rather than companies proving safety.

5. Call for Transparency and Scientific Integrity

It is not the job of critics to prove vaccines unsafe, but the duty of manufacturers and public health authorities to prove safety and efficacy. He argues that such evidence is lacking, yet vaccination programmes continue unchecked. Fear of professional reprisal keeps many doctors silent, although it might be argued that there is private support from medical peers who share his concerns.

6. Philosophical and Moral Framing

Suppression of vaccine criticism reflects corruption within medicine, politics, and journalism. Quoting Jerry Weintraub—“If people are scheming to destroy you, it probably means you’re doing something right”— Many critics are actually truth-tellers punished for exposing deception.

Key Summary Takeaways

• Industry Influence: The pharmaceutical industry dictates what medical professionals and the public are allowed to hear about vaccine safety.

• Censorship: Critical voices are banned from conferences, media, and public forums.

• Financial Motives: Doctors and governments promote vaccines due to financial incentives, not science.

• Media Complicity: Journalists are portrayed as compliant or corrupted, unwilling to publish dissenting evidence.

• Scientific Reversal: Critics are wrongly tasked with proving vaccines unsafe; instead, promoters should prove safety.

• Suppressed Evidence: Policymakers allegedly ignore data questioning vaccination safety or necessity.

• Moral Appeal: The suppression of dissent is a moral and scientific failure endangering public trust and health.

Editorial note: It could be argued that the modern NHS has evolved into a business-oriented system, increasingly driven by profit, political targets, and institutional metrics rather than individual health outcomes. The frequent text reminders urging citizens to “book” or “claim” their vaccine eligibility resemble marketing strategies more than genuine healthcare communication, creating an impression of sales-driven urgency rather than patient-centred care.

The integration of vaccination programmes directly into schools—sometimes without full parental knowledge or informed consent—reinforces the perception of a system prioritising uptake statistics over ethical transparency. While mainstream political narratives tend to frame these policies as measures of “public responsibility,” “efficiency,” or “equity of access,” critics suggest they reveal a deeper alignment between healthcare policy and pharmaceutical interests. The result is an NHS model where meeting government-set performance indicators can appear to outweigh open dialogue, individual risk assessment, and medical autonomy.

Summary of “The Covid Physician” (31 January 2024)

Introduction: A Physician at Odds with the System

The author, a UK physician writing under “The Covid Physician,” reflects on the aftermath of the COVID-19 era. Remaining unvaccinated and unmasked, he claims the true danger lay not in the virus, but in government policy, coercion, and public compliance. His essay is both a personal testimony and political critique—an account of professional and societal trauma inflicted through what he calls “Reality-Enforcement through Policy.”

Reality-Enforcement and Collective Trauma

The author argues that lockdowns, propaganda, and fear campaigns induced mass psychological trauma—hypervigilance, anxiety, depression, and grief—now normalised as part of daily life. He asserts COVID-19 was “more bureaucratic policy than disease,” with global coordination reflecting an orchestrated, profit-driven agenda rather than a medical emergency. Words like “stay safe” and “build back better” were tools of manipulation, reshaping human behaviour and dividing society through “ancient Statecraft’s divide-and-rule.”

Erosion of Medical Ethics and Professional Freedom

The essay laments the corruption of medicine by the State and pharmaceutical interests. Regulators, he claims, now prioritise enforcing the official narrative over protecting ethical medical practice. Physicians who questioned policy were censored, mocked, and professionally destroyed. “A licence to heal,” he writes, “became a licence to peddle State delusions.”

He describes the medical profession as complicit in abandoning the Hippocratic Oath, calling it “Hippocrates murdered by pharmaceutical fascists.” Many doctors, he suggests, became either compliant or broken, while others—like himself—waged a solitary moral battle within an oppressive system.

Individual and Professional Survival

Haunted by “survivor’s guilt,” the author recounts colleagues who lost livelihoods for dissent. His own survival strategy was to distance himself from the NHS, retrain, and continue practising medicine guided by conscience. He urges others to “reboot from within,” resisting quietly and restoring moral medicine one patient at a time. His goal: to “infiltrate and explode the WHO from within”—a metaphor for dismantling what he views as the epicentre of medical corruption.

Global and Community-Level Manipulation

He provides examples of local government initiatives—such as “Get the vaccine or meet us!” campaigns and financial incentives for community surveillance—as proof of psychological coercion. Charities and media, he claims, were weaponised to enforce obedience and shame dissent. Meanwhile, real public health issues and vaccine harms were ignored.

He portrays the entire pandemic response as a coordinated effort by global elites to traumatise populations into submission, advancing surveillance, digital currencies, and social control.

State and Global Corruption

The UK Covid Inquiry is described as a “State ritual of lie compaction,” destined to absolve perpetrators and reinforce authoritarian control. He views Western democracy as hollow—politics, medicine, and law now serving corporate power. Global crises, from Ukraine to Palestine, are framed as distractions perpetuating “killing-for-profit.”

Path to Recovery: Reclaiming Humanity

Despite despair, the author envisions renewal through individual transformation. True healing, he says, begins with moral courage, integrity, and community rebuilding outside State structures. The goal is a “counter-revolution of conscience” where small acts of truth and compassion erode the machinery of fear.

Key Takeaways

• Covid as Policy, Not Disease: The author views the pandemic primarily as a political and psychological operation.

• Mass Trauma: Policies caused long-term collective PTSD, particularly among children.

• Suppression of Dissent: Medical professionals challenging policy were silenced or exiled.

• Moral Collapse of Medicine: The Hippocratic tradition replaced by State obedience.

• Quiet Resistance: Change must begin individually—through ethical action and patient-centred care.

• Hope through Renewal: The essay closes with a call for personal and societal reawakening beyond propaganda and fear.

“The Covid Physician” ends by framing his writings as artistic and political expression, no longer under the authority of medical institutions—an act of both defiance and liberation.

A Book Review – The Poisoned Needle – By Eleanor McBean, PhD, ND (1957)

Overview

Originally written and published in 1957, The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean is one of the earliest comprehensive critiques of vaccination policy and medical orthodoxy. The author, a naturopath and health researcher, draws upon medical records, government data, and historical sources to argue that vaccines have not only failed to prevent disease but have caused widespread harm to human health.

McBean positions the book as both an exposé and a warning — revealing what she viewed as deliberate suppression of truth by vested medical and political interests. Her message is that vaccination represents a grave error in scientific understanding and a violation of natural health principles.

1. The False Foundation of Vaccination

McBean begins by dismantling the foundational premise that immunity can be achieved through injecting diseased material. She maintains that health and resistance arise from within the body and cannot be produced through contamination of the blood with toxins or animal matter.

According to McBean, Edward Jenner’s early vaccination experiments lacked genuine scientific method and were rooted in assumption and superstition. She argues that governments and medical authorities adopted vaccination without evidence of its safety or efficacy, turning it into a state-sanctioned medical dogma rather than a scientific practice.

2. Historical Evidence and Disease Decline

Using historical records, McBean shows that the major declines in infectious diseases occurred before vaccination campaigns began. She attributes these improvements to sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and living conditions — not to vaccines.

Charts and data within the book demonstrate how diseases such as smallpox, cholera, and typhoid fell naturally as standards of living rose. In several documented cases, she notes that compulsory vaccination was followed by an increase in deaths and outbreaks, contradicting the claims of health officials.

3. Medical and Government Suppression

McBean accuses the medical establishment and government agencies of concealing the dangers of vaccination and silencing dissent. Doctors and scientists who reported vaccine injuries were often ridiculed, censored, or stripped of their professional standing.

She explains that medical journals, public health boards, and funding systems have been constructed to promote vaccination while suppressing unfavourable evidence. The result, she says, is a long-standing conspiracy of silence sustained by financial and political power.

4. The Poisoned Body: How Vaccines Harm Health

At the heart of McBean’s thesis is the idea that vaccines pollute the bloodstream with toxic substances such as mercury, formaldehyde, phenol, aluminium, and diseased animal proteins. She argues that this artificial contamination weakens the body’s vitality, disturbs its natural balance, and lays the groundwork for chronic illness.

The author connects vaccination to a range of degenerative conditions, including paralysis, arthritis, neurological disease, heart disorders, and autoimmune dysfunction. She also documents historical reports of “vaccinal syphilis” and “post-vaccinal encephalitis” as examples of the damage caused by early inoculations.

5. Deaths and Documented Cases

McBean presents numerous examples of individuals and populations suffering after vaccination. These include infant fatalities, mass illnesses among soldiers, and epidemics in highly vaccinated regions.

She cites mortality figures showing that death rates rose in parallel with compulsory vaccination laws, while unvaccinated groups often remained healthier. Her conclusion is that vaccination not only fails to prevent disease but contributes directly to its spread and to premature death.

6. The Smallpox and Polio Narratives

Smallpox: McBean challenges the entire history of smallpox vaccination, arguing that the disease declined due to improved hygiene rather than vaccination. She documents cases where heavily vaccinated communities experienced severe epidemics, while unvaccinated regions did not.

Polio: She claims that the mid-20th-century polio epidemic was largely a result of environmental poisoning, particularly through chemical exposure such as DDT, and not a contagious viral infection. McBean maintains that the polio vaccine further intensified health problems under the guise of prevention.

7. Cancer, Syphilis, and Other Disorders

McBean explores the connection between vaccination and degenerative diseases. She references early medical observations showing tumour development and other pathological changes following inoculation.

She also argues that contaminated vaccines introduced syphilis and other infections into healthy individuals, with health authorities choosing to conceal the evidence to avoid public backlash.

8. The Politics of Fear and Profit

Vaccination, according to McBean, is maintained by fear rather than science. Public health campaigns exploit emotional manipulation, warning of deadly epidemics to ensure compliance. Behind these campaigns, she says, lies a vast commercial interest — pharmaceutical companies, government contracts, and professional prestige.

She calls vaccination a “sacred cow” of modern medicine, protected by propaganda and financial incentives. The medical industry, she suggests, profits both from vaccine sales and from treating the chronic diseases that vaccination itself causes.

9. Natural Immunity and the Path to Health

McBean advocates for a return to natural health principles. She teaches that true immunity arises from vitality, nutrition, rest, sunlight, and toxin-free living — not from artificial injections.

She encourages natural detoxification methods such as fasting, clean diets, and avoidance of chemical exposure. Disease, she writes, is not an external enemy but a healing and cleansing process within the body.

10. The Moral and Spiritual Dimension

In her conclusion, McBean views the vaccine system as a moral and spiritual corruption of natural law. She condemns forced vaccination as a violation of bodily autonomy and human conscience.

She urges readers to question authority, research independently, and reclaim responsibility for their own health. To her, resisting vaccination is both a personal and ethical act — one that defends life, freedom, and truth for future generations.

Key Takeaways

• Written in 1957, this book challenges the entire foundation of vaccination science.
• Vaccines were introduced without proof of safety or necessity.
• Disease decline resulted from hygiene and nutrition, not vaccines.
• Vaccines introduce poisons that damage health and lower resistance.
• Many chronic and degenerative diseases trace back to vaccination.
• Government and medical systems conceal evidence and protect profits.
• Smallpox and polio are presented as prime examples of vaccine failure.
• Health depends on natural living, not chemical or biological interference.
• Fear and propaganda maintain public compliance.
• Bodily sovereignty and informed choice are central moral rights.

If the content has concerned you in any way, feel free to download this accompanying worksheet to clarify any processes you have following reading this book review.

You can purchase the book here.

Recorded After the Jab – Overview

The article states that no one knows how many people the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are killing now or will kill in future. It says many deaths and injuries have occurred after vaccination but are not being highlighted by mainstream media. It points readers to VAERS and OpenVAERS, noting OpenVAERS’ statement that fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported. It cites the UK Yellow Card data and notes a standard disclaimer now placed on UK Pfizer and AstraZeneca analysis prints that a reported adverse reaction does not necessarily mean causation.

The article contrasts this with how COVID-19 deaths were tallied after positive tests and suggests vaccine-proximate deaths should be treated analogously.

Reporting Systems and Disclaimers

Using UK data headings for Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the piece lists reported post-vaccination problems: strokes, heart attacks, miscarriages, Bell’s palsy, sepsis, paralysis, psychiatric disorders, blindness, deafness, shingles, menstrual problems, alopecia, and COVID-19 itself. It links to the European database of suspected adverse drug reactions. It highlights the recurring disclaimer that adverse reports do not prove causation and juxtaposes this with the method of attributing deaths to COVID-19 after positive tests.

Catalogue of Reported Events and Sources

A large portion is an itemised catalogue of links to articles, videos, and websites describing injuries and deaths following vaccination. These include case histories, whistleblower testimonies, compensation cases, regulatory notices, and numerical summaries by various outlets. Themes across the links include myocarditis, pericarditis, cardiac arrests, neurological disorders, autoimmune conditions, miscarriages, stillbirths, sudden deaths in athletes and young people, and alleged spikes in all-cause mortality and insurance claims.

“Important Note” on Clots, Deaths, and Efficacy

The article states that blood clots are not limited to AstraZeneca; it says all experimental vaccines have been associated with clots. It asserts there have been many deaths (stating over 1,000 in the UK) and a vast number of adverse events. It says these vaccines are experimental, given to healthy people, do not prevent COVID-19 or transmission, and that the risk of a young, healthy adult dying of COVID-19 is extremely small.

Examples and Compilations the Article Cites

The link list spans multiple countries and contexts: children and teenagers with myocarditis or death shortly after vaccination; adults with heart attacks, strokes, paralysis, amputations, or sudden collapse; athlete collapses; and whistleblower statements from nurses, doctors, and airline pilots. There are references to school districts training for “sudden cardiac arrest,” and to alleged increases in stillbirths and life-insurance claims. The article includes pointers to “confidential documents,” database tallies, and analyses claiming tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries.

FDA Draft Working List (Pre-Rollout)

The article reproduces (by reference) the U.S. FDA’s October 2020 “draft working list” of possible COVID-19 vaccine adverse event outcomes. It enumerates: Guillain-Barré syndrome; various encephalitis/encephalomyelitis/myelitis presentations; meningitis/meningoencephalitis; encephalopathy; seizures; stroke; narcolepsy/cataplexy; anaphylaxis; acute myocardial infarction; myocarditis/pericarditis; autoimmune disease; death; pregnancy and birth outcomes; demyelinating diseases; non-anaphylactic allergic reactions; thrombocytopenia; disseminated intravascular coagulation; venous thromboembolism; arthritis/arthralgia/joint pain; Kawasaki disease; multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and vaccine-enhanced disease. The article urges vigilance for these conditions after vaccination.

“Yet Another Coincidence” Section on Deaths

In a subsection titled “Deaths Shortly After Covid Jab – Yet Another Coincidence,” the article lists news items where people died shortly after vaccination alongside official remarks that a link had not been established or was unlikely. The juxtaposition emphasises temporal proximity while noting authorities’ statements of no proven connection.

Other Vaccine-Related Materials the Article Points To

The article links to materials about online censorship, regulatory pauses or age restrictions, mixing vaccine brands, anaphylaxis rates, and policy shifts in different countries. It includes items about spike protein concerns, calls to halt vaccination, contractual and legal matters, life-insurance positions, and characterisations of mRNA products. It also references world maps of side effects and alleged “pathogenic priming” in older adults.

Athletes and Sudden Health Events

A dedicated section lists named athletes, referees, and sports figures (teens to early 30s) who collapsed, developed heart conditions, suffered embolisms, or died, with ages and brief descriptors. The piece presents the list for readers to consider whether the jab may have been involved, highlighting the rarity of such issues in “superfit” individuals who typically undergo screenings.

Informed Consent, Recognition, and Under-Reporting

The article repeats the themes that adverse events are under-reported and that media and authorities downplay or deny links. It says governments do not practise fully informed consent and states many side effects will never be recognised. It contrasts perceived low COVID-19 mortality risk for young, healthy adults with the potential harms it associates with the vaccines, and it characterises the rollout as preceding the usual tests and observations.

Proposed Comparative Study

The piece concludes by proposing a “simple, cheap trial”: track health problems in 20,000 vaccinated people and compare them with 20,000 unvaccinated over 3, 6, and 12 months, overseen by “honest doctors.” It says such a study would yield “very interesting results” but expresses doubt that authorities will perform it.

Key takeaways (as stated in the article)

• Many deaths and injuries are said to have occurred after COVID-19 vaccination and are not acknowledged by mainstream media; readers are directed to VAERS, Yellow Card, the European database, and numerous compilations.

• Standard disclaimers about causation in adverse event reporting are presented as diverting attention; the article contrasts this with COVID-19 death counting after positive tests.

• All experimental COVID-19 vaccines are described as associated with blood clots, with many deaths and a vast number of adverse events, including among young people.

• Extensive case lists and testimonies describe myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, neurological injuries, miscarriages, sudden deaths, and athlete collapses temporally following vaccination.

• The FDA’s October 2020 draft working list of possible adverse events is reproduced and presented as a vigilance guide.

• Vaccines are described as experimental, not preventing disease or transmission; the article states young, healthy adults face very small COVID-19 mortality risk relative to vaccine risks.

• Claims of censorship, under-reporting, regulatory pauses, and legal/contractual issues are collated as context.

• A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohort comparison is proposed as a straightforward safety assessment, with doubt expressed that it will be undertaken.

Summary of Vernon Coleman’s “Proof That Face Masks Do More Harm Than Good” (Second Edition)

Overview

Vernon Coleman’s work compiles research studies, medical papers, and anecdotal evidence to argue that face masks, rather than protecting health, cause measurable physical and psychological harm. He challenges the scientific basis for mask mandates and explores broader ethical, medical, and social implications of enforced compliance.

1. Origins and Rationale

Coleman states that mask mandates were introduced without robust clinical proof of effectiveness. He notes that before 2020, public health guidance in several countries explicitly advised against general mask use for viral protection. He argues the shift in policy was political, not scientific, and contends that studies before and during the pandemic show no consistent benefit in reducing viral transmission in public settings.

2. Questioning Mask Effectiveness

The author references numerous trials and reviews which he claims demonstrate:

• No statistically significant difference in infection rates between masked and unmasked groups.
• Viral particles being too small to be filtered effectively by standard or cloth masks.
• Mixed results even in healthcare settings, where mask fit and hygiene are more tightly controlled.
• He concludes that mask policies were based on precautionary assumptions rather than proven outcomes.

3. Reported Physical Effects

Coleman lists a wide range of physical side effects he attributes to prolonged mask use:

• Reduced oxygen levels (hypoxia) and raised carbon dioxide (hypercapnia) leading to fatigue, dizziness, headaches, and slower cognitive response.

• Respiratory strain and potential exacerbation of existing lung or heart conditions.

• Microbial growth in damp or reused masks, raising risks of bacterial and fungal infections.

• Skin and dental issues, including rashes, acne, and gum inflammation.

• Particle inhalation from mask fibres or synthetic materials.

He cites studies and case reports indicating that these effects can accumulate with extended wear, particularly in occupational or school environments.

4. Psychological and Social Impact

Coleman argues that masks alter communication, emotional connection, and self-perception.

• Children, he says, may suffer developmental and social delays when facial expression is obscured.
• Adults may experience anxiety, detachment, and loss of trust in social interactions.
• Masking is a form of enforced conformity that encourages compliance rather than informed consent.
• He views the psychological cost as an overlooked consequence of prolonged mask mandates.

5. Ethical and Legal Dimensions

Coleman emphasises personal autonomy and informed consent as central medical principles. He argues that no government or employer should compel mask use without conclusive evidence of benefit. The text references legal exemptions for those unable to tolerate masks for health reasons and encourages individuals to assert such rights. He also claims that dissenting scientific views have been censored or discredited to maintain policy unity.

6. Alternatives and Recommendations

While rejecting mask mandates, Coleman recognises that some may still be required to wear coverings. He considers face visors less restrictive and more breathable, though he views both masks and visors as offering minimal viral protection. His principal recommendation is individual choice guided by personal health, not government directive.

7. Conclusion

Coleman concludes that:

• Mask mandates lack solid scientific support.
• Masks pose multiple physical and psychological risks.
• Policies enforcing them undermine medical freedom and human rights.
• Future health measures should prioritise autonomy, transparency, and evidence over fear or conformity.

Key Takeaway Points

• No proven community-level benefit of masks against viral spread.
• Reported harms: reduced oxygen, increased CO₂, microbial growth, skin and dental issues.
• Psychological effects: anxiety, impaired communication, developmental delay in children.
• Ethical concern: violation of informed consent and personal freedom.
• Coleman’s central assertion: face masks cause more harm than good and should remain a matter of personal choice.

Vernon Coleman’s Challenge to the Vaccine Narrative

In his September 2025 address, author and former GP Vernon Coleman outlines his concerns about vaccination policy, media control, and what he regards as the pharmaceutical industry’s dominance of modern medicine. He introduces the talk by noting that many of his earlier videos have been removed from major online platforms, which he interprets as suppression of dissenting medical opinion.

Government statements and loss of debate

Coleman refers to remarks attributed to Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State for Care, who allegedly told the BBC that vaccines are “100 percent safe” and that the Government intends to silence conspiracy theorists and misinformers on social media.

Coleman argues that no medical intervention can ever be “entirely without risk” and that the credibility of public health policy depends on open discussion, not the silencing of critics. He says that when officials exaggerate safety claims, they risk alienating informed members of the public.

Historical background and risk examples

To support his view, Coleman revisits a series of historical vaccine incidents described in his earlier works.

These include the 1930 BCG contamination in Germany, in which 72 children reportedly died; the 1955 Cutter polio vaccine incident in the US; and surveys from the 1960s and 1970s linking the whooping-cough vaccine with neurological reactions.

He notes that governments in several countries have compensation schemes for vaccine injury, which he interprets as official acknowledgement that adverse reactions can occur.

From this, Coleman concludes that vaccines are not entirely without risk, and that historical data demonstrate a need for transparency.

Pharmaceutical funding and professional incentives

Coleman asserts that pharmaceutical companies exert significant influence over modern medicine.
He describes how industry sponsorship extends from research and medical education to public-health messaging, creating an information environment shaped by commercial priorities.

He adds that general practitioners receive payments or bonuses for administering vaccines, which, in his view, introduces a conflict of interest by rewarding compliance with vaccination targets rather than independent judgment.

Several doctors who have written to him reportedly share this concern, stating that professional advancement and income depend on adherence to official vaccination policy.

Media control and omission of history

Coleman contends that mainstream media and official channels restrict dissenting discussion about vaccine safety.

He recounts being invited, then removed, from a PasTest medical conference on adverse-drug reactions, where he was told that certain parties considered him “too controversial.”

He argues that this pattern extends across broadcasting and print outlets such as the BBC, which he says operate under editorial rules that prevent critical perspectives on vaccination.

In his view, this selective presentation of information contributes to what he calls public “amnesia” about medical history.

He “reminds” audiences that Edward Jenner’s first son, who received an early smallpox vaccination, allegedly developed brain damage and died young, while Jenner did not vaccinate his second son.

Coleman presents this as an example of how historical complexities are omitted or simplified in favour of a single, unquestioned narrative.

The COVID-19 vaccine discussion

Addressing the pandemic period, Coleman describes the COVID-19 vaccine as ineffective and risky, particularly for children and pregnant women.

He refers to early reports from the US CDC that he interprets as showing notable rates of severe adverse reactions and cites the WHO’s acknowledgement that the vaccine does not fully prevent infection or transmission.

He lists possible effects reported by some clinicians—neurological and cardiac events, fertility concerns, and inflammatory responses—and argues that further independent investigation is required.

Coleman and several doctors he references question why debate on these issues has been discouraged, suggesting that financial and political pressures have replaced scientific evaluation.

Broader conclusions

Coleman concludes that medicine has become increasingly funded and directed by Big Pharma, with public agencies and mainstream media aligned to reinforce official positions.

He argues that, as a result, dissenting doctors and researchers face reputational risk if they question prevailing assumptions.

He maintains that the principle of scientific integrity demands unrestricted discussion and peer review of medical evidence, including data that challenge current policy.

For Coleman and those who share his outlook, restoring open debate is essential to rebuilding trust between the public, clinicians, and health authorities.

Summary of Core Assertions Presented in the Address

• Vaccines are not entirely without risk: historical examples illustrate adverse outcomes.

• Pharmaceutical companies have extensive influence over research, education, and public messaging.

• Doctors’ incentives: GPs receive bonuses or payments for vaccinations, shaping professional behaviour.

• Historical omission: mainstream narratives simplify vaccine history, producing public “amnesia.”

• Media restriction: outlets such as the BBC deliberately exclude dissenting or critical discussion.

• COVID-19 vaccine: insufficiently tested and potentially risky, especially for vulnerable groups.

• Open debate: Many doctors call for unrestricted examination of medical evidence to safeguard scientific transparency.

COVID-19 Vaccination: Current Evidence, Documented Effects, and Ongoing Areas of Research

Context

COVID-19 vaccines were developed to reduce infection, severe disease, and death associated with SARS-CoV-2. mRNA, protein-based, and adenoviral-vector platforms have been deployed internationally since late 2020. Surveillance systems such as the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, the US VAERS database, and European EudraVigilance record post-marketing safety data and are continuously updated.

Effectiveness

• Relative risk reduction (RRR): analyses for 2024–25 show reductions of approximately 30–45 % in hospitalisation compared with unvaccinated populations during high-transmission periods.

• Absolute risk reduction (ARR): varies with baseline risk. In adults aged 65 years and above with a hospitalisation risk of about 1 %, vaccination reduced that risk by 0.4–0.5 percentage points. In healthy adults under 40 years with a risk near 0.05 %, the reduction was approximately 0.02 percentage points.

• Protection against infection declines over several months; protection against severe outcomes remains longer but also wanes with time.

Reported or Studied Safety Issues

Myocarditis and Pericarditis

Identified after mRNA vaccination, occurring more in males under 30 and after second doses. Surveillance data record several tens of reports per million doses (it’s estimated that 10% of adverse reactions are recorded so these figures may be demonstrably higher). Research is ongoing into mechanisms and long-term cardiac outcomes.

Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia (VITT or TTS)

Recorded after adenoviral-vector vaccines. Incidence in monitoring systems is about two to three cases per million doses. Studies continue on immune triggers and susceptibility factors.

Neurological Events

Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy have been reported following vaccination. Incidence data are comparable with pre-pandemic background levels. Temporal and mechanistic relationships remain under investigation.

Autoimmune or Inflammatory Syndromes

Autoimmune-type and inflammatory conditions have been described. Work continues to identify possible risk modifiers and biological pathways.

Rapid-Onset or “Turbo” Cancers

Reports exist of aggressive or rapidly developing cancers detected after vaccination. Cancer registries suggest that increases are due to screening backlogs and delayed treatment during the pandemic, but this is disputed. The relationship between vaccination and tumour progression is under research (Angus Dalgliesh).

Cognitive Decline and Dementia

A 2024 South-Korean cohort study (QJM) reported an association between vaccination and subsequent diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease in individuals aged ≥ 65. Replication and extended follow-up are in progress. This association is being researched (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/).

Fertility and Miscarriage and Reproductive Outcomes

Thorp et al. analysed data from vaccine adverse-event reports to compare outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination with those following influenza vaccination. Their report identified higher proportional reporting ratios for miscarriage, foetal malformations, foetal cardiac disorders, foetal growth anomalies, stillbirth, preterm delivery, placental anomalies, and menstrual abnormalities in the COVID-19-vaccinated group. They concluded the findings warranted further research into placental pathology, spike-protein biodistribution, and inflammatory mechanisms during pregnancy.

Using three normalization methods (by time, by doses, and by persons vaccinated), the study finds consistent and strong “safety signals.”

Based on these findings, the authors argue for an immediate worldwide moratorium on COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women and caution in women of reproductive age, until long-term safety data are available. They  contend the observed signals are strong enough to merit policy change.

Full text (clickable link)

Sudden or Unexplained Death in Adults

Health authorities in several countries review mortality data to assess reports of unexpected or unexplained deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. Post-marketing surveillance systems such as the UK MHRA Yellow Card programme, the US Vaccine Safety Datalink and other registries track deaths reported in proximity to vaccination and consequently it is deemed there is limited verifiable data available save anecdotal from those who have lost loved ones suddenly following the roll out. Sudden-death cases have usually been linked to cardiovascular or other conditions rather than vaccination because that would be deemed “misinformation” so readers are advised to research for themselves. Research continues into rare cardiac or arrhythmic events, including myocarditis.

Data Limitations

• Observational studies do not establish causation; confounding and reporting biases can influence results.
• Passive-reporting databases capture all events after vaccination, regardless of proven linkage.
• Population risks vary with age, health status, variant circulation, and time since previous infection or dose.

Ongoing Research Topics

• Duration of spike-protein expression and immune activation (click the link for a spike protein detox or see here:  for information (please be aware that mainstream deems this as “baseless” so keep an open mind and research for yourself)
• Chronic-inflammation and autoimmune mechanisms.
• Long-term neurological, oncological, and reproductive health outcomes.

Summary

Evidence to date indicates limited (arguably measurable) protection against severe COVID-19, but arguably in older or medically vulnerable adults.  Adverse events have been identified and quantified through surveillance. Several associations—cardiac, neurological, oncological, and cognitive—are the subject of continuing research to determine frequency, mechanism, and potential causality. Readers can verify data directly from public databases and peer-reviewed studies to inform personal and clinical decision-making.

Further reading – here are two books which the “mainstream” claim as mis/disinformation and contrary to publicly available guidance – you can make your own minds up regarding these but bear in mind that minds have been closed due to repetitive guidance and big pharma funding; the author is not claiming anything by citing them, simply considering an alternative viewpoint; both authors have studied scientific, medical and professional literature to start asking the questions – then consider is this considering terrain theory more extensively – i.e. hygiene,  nutrition, sanitation and toxins in the environment that play a greater part in overall human health?  I leave that question open:

Can You Catch a Cold? by Daniel Roytas

Subtitle: Untold History & Human Experiments

Here are six key themes or findings from that book:

1. Challenge to contagion theory
   Roytas reviews over 200 human “contagion experiments” and claims that many fail to show consistent transmission of cold or flu from sick to healthy volunteers. He argues this suggests the standard notion of catching a cold via droplets or contact is not fully validated.

2. Historical record & lost data
   The author examines old medical literature and records, arguing that much early work that questioned germ theory was suppressed or forgotten. He suggests that alternative models of disease were side-lined as germ theory became dominant.

3. Environmental, metabolic, and stress factors
   Roytas proposes that many “cold and flu” symptoms may arise from environmental exposures (temperature shifts, pollutants), nutritional or metabolic imbalances, and stress rather than a transmissible virus.

4. Psychological / nocebo influence
   The book discusses how expectation, belief, or fear (nocebo effect) may influence symptom development or perceived illness, particularly in group settings.

5. Questioning viral isolation and proof methods
   Roytas scrutinises virology methods, especially claims of isolation, purification, and re-infection tests. He contends those methods have methodological gaps or rely on inference rather than direct proof.

6. Alternative disease framework
   The book advocates a return to older frameworks (terrain theory, detoxification, innate resilience) as potentially more valid than germ-driven models, especially when viral causation is uncertain.

Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, et al.

Here are six prominent themes from Virus Mania:

Viruses as unproven hypotheses
The authors argue that the existence, pathogenicity, and disease-causing role of many viruses (including SARS-CoV-2, measles, influenza) lack proof according to their standards. They contend that protocols claiming isolation rely on indirect methods (PCR, antibody inference, culture with host cells) rather than pure virus particles.

Critique of laboratory methods (PCR, antibodies, culture)
Virus Mania claims that molecular tools (PCR amplification, antibody binding assays) and cell culture are used to re-assemble viral genomes without having truly isolated intact virions, thus introducing circular logic in virus detection.

Diseases as cellular stress / metabolic response
The book proposes that symptoms attributed to viruses are better explained as responses to cell stress, toxicity (pollutants, chemicals, vaccines), metabolic disruption, or other environmental insults—not invasion by an external pathogen.

Disease “epidemics” as social narrative & medical industry factor
The authors assert the medical and pharmaceutical industries promote fear of viruses to justify vaccines, diagnostics, and profits. They discuss how media amplification, testing campaigns, and redefining normal thresholds contribute to perceived epidemics.

Historical reinterpretation
The text revisits past epidemics (Spanish flu, polio, smallpox) and argues that poor sanitation, malnutrition, and chemical exposures may have been more contributory than viral spread. It questions mainstream historical narratives about vaccine successes.

Call for virus redefinition & paradigm shift
The authors call for a reassessment of virology fundamentals, proposing that one should redefine “virus,” revisit Koch’s postulates, and adopt broader models of disease causation that prioritize cellular health rather than pathogen-focused models.

Please bear in mind “Vaccine Amnesia: How the Media Used to Report Vaccine Injuries” by A Midwestern Doctor from the USA

The article outlines how vaccine-related injuries and safety controversies were once covered in mainstream media but are no longer widely discussed. It presents a timeline of historical examples illustrating shifts in media reporting and public awareness.

Early Vaccine Incidents

Polio Vaccine (1950s–60s): Describes the Cutter incident, where some batches of the Salk polio vaccine caused paralysis. Mentions later discoveries of SV40 contamination and subsequent regulatory reforms.
Swine Flu Vaccine (1976): Notes the suspension of the U.S. programme following reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome, and highlights how coverage of vaccine side effects was widespread at the time.

Later Vaccine Controversies
DTP (Pertussis) Vaccine: Discusses reported cases of neurological injury and the formation of advocacy groups calling for reform. Mentions early television and newspaper investigations into these reports.
Hepatitis B Vaccine: Describes expansion of vaccination to newborns and low-risk groups, with media attention on cases alleging injury.
Anthrax Vaccine: Outlines complaints by military personnel and investigations into manufacturing and testing issues.
HPV (Gardasil): Lists reports of autoimmune and neurological issues after vaccination, and notes the presence of earlier critical news segments on the topic.
Influenza Vaccine: Summarises periodic public debates over effectiveness and risk.
Autism and Vaccines: References coverage in early 2000s television segments that discussed possible associations and government conflict-of-interest concerns.

Media Changes

The article states that, in the past, newspapers and television networks investigated vaccine safety concerns, whereas today similar stories are largely absent. It attributes this change to:

• Financial dependence on pharmaceutical advertising.
• Government partnerships with media outlets to promote vaccination.
• Professional pressure on journalists and editors not to publish critical vaccine stories.
• Decline of investigative journalism and rise of centralised media ownership.

Examples of Journalists and Media Figures

The article lists reporters who previously covered vaccine injury topics but later left mainstream outlets, including Sharyl Attkisson, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly.

Recent Context

The article compares historical vaccine controversies to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, suggesting recurring patterns in how adverse events are discussed and reported.

Conclusion

The author introduces the concept of “vaccine amnesia,” describing a societal pattern of forgetting previous vaccine controversies once new programmes are introduced. The article concludes that this forgetting enables the repetition of past mistakes and limits open public discussion about vaccine safety.