The strange death of informed consent

David Bullard returns to the issue of vaccine mandates given what we know now about the jab


The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that, given time, they frequently turn out to be true. Think of all the ‘conspiracy theories’ that surfaced when the so-called COVID 19 vaccine was first introduced.

The fact that the pharmaceutical companies had cut a dodgy deal with governments on an agreed legal indemnity should anything go wrong and that any voices that didn’t support the official narrative were banned should have planted plenty of red flags at the time but it didn’t.

Many people, under the duress of vaccine mandates, lined up to be jabbed with a new and experimental form of drug. Then, when the ‘vaccines’ didn’t work as promised, and they caught Covid-19, they were still required to go back again for boosters.

Many were coerced into taking the jab on the basis that they wouldn’t be allowed on an aircraft if they didn’t and therefore wouldn’t be able to travel overseas on holiday (possibly the worst reason I ever heard for having the jab), or for other reasons. 

Others were forced, often despite their personal concerns, to have the jab by the bullying bosses of companies like Discovery Health (oh…the irony) and PSG Group with the threat of losing their jobs if they refused.  ___STEADY_PAYWALL___

Whatever happened to informed consent? These were scenarios worthy of some of the nastiest totalitarian regimes on the planet.

Meanwhile brave dissenting voices were silenced by the mainstream media and people voicing them were portrayed as swivel eyed loons. There were, admittedly, a fair few swivel-eyed loons around claiming that bits of chopped up Bill Gates were being injected into you or that your arm became magnetic after the jab or that 5G cell phone towers would send odd messages to your brain should you have the jab.

They were all terribly entertaining but there were far more highly qualified data analysts, epidemiologists, journalists, experienced medical professionals and concerned lawyers who voiced very reasonable concerns and whose voices were silenced by the Big Tech companies.

YouTube would remove anything that didn’t go along with the official narrative, no matter how well researched the argument may have been. The mainstream media in countries that would normally pride themselves as enjoying ‘freedom of expression' gleefully refused to carry any dissenting voices and in some places it actually became a criminal offence to say or do anything that questioned the actual threat posed by the Covid-19 pandemic or cast any doubt on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving vaccination.

Now, two years down the line, things are looking rather different as even the pharmaceutical companies are being forced to admit that many of the initial claims they made for the vaccines were mostly puffery.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had a particularly rough ride at last week’s Davos gabfest for the world’s deeply caring rich when he refused to answer questions about the claimed efficacy of the Pfizer job.

Initially it was claimed to be 100% efficient in preventing transmission, then that dropped to 70% and now it is accepted that it doesn’t stop transmission. So why is it still called a vaccine and why are some governments still so keen to keep jabbing it into the arms of as many citizens as possible? As with most things I suggest you follow the money trail.

India’s minister of state for information and technology, Rajeev Chandrasekhar posted a video of Bourla’s unresponsive Davos interview on his Twitter page saying, “Just to remind all Indians that Pfizer tried to bully Govt of India into accepting conditions of indemnity”. That’s hardly a vote of confidence in your product, is it?

In the next couple of months there are going to be some interesting legal challenges in various courtrooms around what we still like to think of as the free world.

The questions to be asked are how governments could possibly mandate a vaccine that hadn’t been sufficiently tested to be injected into citizens; and, why indemnity was granted to the pharmaceutical companies? When it became clear that the vaccines came with possible serious side effects why did they persist with their coercive policies? In many places requiring healthy children and young adults, who were at low risk from Covid-19, and those who had already had the virus, and had pre-existing immunity, to nonetheless still take the jab. Why were the public kept in the dark about the efficacy and side effects, and, and who stood to gain financially?

So what’s the latest ‘conspiracy theory’ that might turn out to be spot on in the not too distant future? Well, it’s a good one and even if it doesn’t turn out to be true it would make a damn good movie script. It goes something as follows:

China has spent the best part of the last two years locking up its citizens for weeks and months on end and only letting them out to form a long ‘superspreader’ queue to have a swab shoved up their nostrils by someone in a HazMat suit.

For millions this was a regular occurrence before they were rounded up and sent back to their rabbit hutch apartments in Shanghai and threatened with a good beating should they try to escape. This was all in pursuit of Xi Jinping’s Zero-Covid strategy and as with all things the Chinese Communist Party enforce with brute force it was for the general good.

So what happened to those millions of swabs then? Well, the theory goes that as entire populations of cities were already locked up it didn’t really matter what the result of the swab was.

Occasionally a positive test would mean that the unfortunate owner of the offending nostril would be dragged off to an unhygienic government quarantine facility but that was probably more for show since the footage was allowed out of a highly censored China. It was also designed to scare other Chinese citizens into obeying the will of Chairman Xi.

Meanwhile, so the theory goes, the nasal swabs were being taken away to one of many Wuhan style laboratories in China and used to develop a far more nasty version of the virus. The question is, once developed, how would this new germ warfare be used against the decadent West?

That question was answered when China suddenly and inexplicably abandoned Zero-Covid and allowed its better off citizens to travel internationally once more. What better way to spread an infection than by sending those already infected into places that want to welcome their spending power?

Another absurd conspiracy theory? Probably. But if it turns out to be true, remember, you read it here first.


You realise that our problems in this country are inconsequential when you look at the very real problems facing our former colonisers and land thieves in what is still known as the United Kingdom.

Last week there was almost a constitutional crisis when Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was fined for not wearing a seat belt in the back of a car. Is this the sort of man we want leading the country people were asking. If he doesn’t wear a seatbelt in a car what on earth is he going to do next? Has the man no shame?

Clearly this massive contravention makes him unfit to lead the Tories into the next election. Maybe if he had stuffed a few million quid into the soft furnishings at 10 Downing St people would have been more understanding.

The other UK crisis is the refusal to allow the Scottish parliament’s bizarre Gender Recognition Reform Bill to become law by what is known as a section 35 veto. This is the first time since devolution that the veto has been used and is causing much tension between Nicola Sturgeon (known affectionately as the Dwarf from the North) and Rishi Sunak.

The bill would allow anybody over the age of 16 to suddenly decide they were born with the wrong genitalia and to live as a member of the opposite sex for three months. Then, hey presto, without the need for any medical intervention they would be able to get a certificate saying that Johnnie was now Jennie, irrespective of the dangly bits down the front.

I’m fascinated to know what living as a member of the opposite sex involves and who monitors it. If it’s simply a matter of a chap slapping on some lipstick and wearing a dress down to the pub then it’s pretty straightforward. But would the transition to female also involve joining a book club and not watching footie on the telly while drinking beer I wonder?

The problem is that bigots regard this as a ‘pervert’s charter’ which would allow biological men to use women’s toilets and changing facilities. Many women aren’t too keen on the idea either but as the demonstrator’s placards remind us over and over again “Transwomen are Women” and ‘Transphobia kills kids” so tough luck ladies.

The results of a very recent census held in the UK reveal that only .1% of the entire population regard themselves as having been born in the wrong body. But to suggest, on that evidence, that the severely marginalised trans community are disproportionately represented in the British media would probably now constitute a hate crime under British law.