2022-07-02
Given the greased ease with which completely novel and largely untested (and it now turns out largely ineffective and quite possibly very dangerous) "vaccines" have slid past the regulatory authorities worldwide in record time (with a little help from the WHO who kindly redefined the term "vaccine"), it seems a fair question to ask.
Of course for now this remains a conspiracy theory, in as much as no official party has deigned to give the notion any credence - but are the cracks beginning to spread?
The British Medical Journal is, one might suppose, as close to an establishment organ as it is possible to get without boasting full membership, yet here they are openly asking the question, albeit rather late in the day.
"Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate"
We could stop right here.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune" is a truism well founded on worldly experience, and the risks associated with this situation should already be deemed unacceptable; but to continue ...
"The BMJ asked six leading regulators, in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, the UK, and US, a series of questions about their funding, transparency in their decision making (and of data), and the rate at which new drugs are approved. We found that industry money permeates the globe’s leading regulators, raising questions about their independence, especially in the wake of a string of drug and device scandals"
Of course, the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
"The BMJ found that the majority of regulators’ budget—particularly the portion focused on drugs—is derived from industry fees"
Read, understand, and write sincerely to your MP.
