Revealed: How the BBC is Deliberately Suppressing the Truth (And Endangering the Lives of Millions)

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA





The pro-vaxxers, as I call them, deny that vaccines can cause problems, even though governments have paid out billions of dollars of taxpayersí money in compensation to previously healthy people who were made ill or killed by vaccines.

In the UK, the NHS helpfully lists the side effects which might occur with the flu vaccine. They say that flu vaccines are very safe and the side effects they list are muscle aches, a slightly raised temperature and a sore arm where the needle went in. They do say that very rarely individuals may have an anaphylactic shock reaction, though they forget to mention that this can kill you. And donít worry, they say, the people who vaccinate you will be trained to deal with allergic reactions. Oh yes? It wonít be just a junior nurse or care assistant, then? Or a soldier? Or the AA man?

I didnít see nausea and headaches, though they are listed on the CDC site in America.

Oddly, the NHS also seems to say that none of the flu vaccines contains live viruses so they cannot give you flu. They worry a lot about that, the pro-vaxxers.

There are incidentally very few or no anti-vaxxers, though the drug company spokespersons like to pretend there are.

There are, on the one hand, people like me, who like to examine medical issues according to the facts and there are the pro-vaxxers who accept what the drug companies tell them. A good number of pro-vaxxers are closely linked to the drug industry and not a few receive money from it. The rest are just woefully ignorant simpletons.

By drug industry, by the way, I am referring not to the dealers who market Columbian marching powder but to the international companies which make legal prescription drugs Ė which are responsible for far, far more addicts, illnesses and deaths.

We should, of course, remember that the nasal vaccine, the one given to children, contains attenuated or weakened live viruses.

It is possible that if a child has a weakened immune system Ė as might be the case if theyíd been imprisoned and kept indoors a lot or had for absolutely no good reason been wearing a mask for a long time Ė then a vaccine virus might conceivably cause the flu.

And because attenuated viruses arenít quite dead, they could change or even become live and they could mutate and they could result in other people being infected. So it is possible that if a child has the nasal flu vaccine they could transmit the flu virus to Granny Ė who might die as a result. Thatís the sort of warning governments like to give these days so I thought I ought to follow their example.

I have dealt with the nasal flu vaccine in a previous video but at the moment I am more interested in the injected vaccine because the NHSís official list of flu vaccine side effects, as presented to reassure patients, seems a bit on the skimpy side to me.

So here, in contrast, is the official list of side effects for one flu vaccine. This list is intended for the use of health professionals. Some of these side effects will be commoner than others, of course. But if you get a side effect then it doesnít matter if itís common or not.

If I had wanted to be sly, in a politician sort of way, I could perhaps have found the side effects from half a dozen flu vaccines Ė and since the lists wouldnít have been the same I would have had a longer list. But Iím not a politician. So, here is the list of some of the possible side effects with just one flu vaccine taken at random. Iíve made my list alphabetical since thatís a reasonably traditional and fair thing to do. Itís obviously, therefore, not something the BBC would consider.

Allergy reactions including anaphylactic shock which can kill of course, so thatís not one you want because it would be a real disappointment to be perfectly healthy, have a flu jab and then die. Iíve had an anaphylactic shock reaction and it was no fun at all. Not recommended. No one really knows how common it is but itís a fair guess that several hundred people a year have them as a result of vaccination.

Arthralgia Ė pain in your joints
Asthenia Ė a lack of energy and weakness
Convulsions Ė definitely not something you want
Diarrhoea Ė messy but probably wonít kill you
Ecchymosis Ė a bruise
Encephalomyelitis Ė inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, you donít want that one
Erythema Multiforme
Fatigue
Fever
Guillain-Barre Syndrome Ė which can cause paralysis, so thatís one to avoid
Headache
Induration - hardening
Influenza type illness
Malaise
Myalgia Ė pain in your muscles
Nausea
Neuralgia
Neuritis
Pain
Parasthesia
Pruritis
Rash
Redness
Shivering
Sweating
Swelling
Syncope Ė loss of consciousness, not a lot of fun if youíre a steeplejack, bus driver or almost anything
Tenderness at injection site
Thrombocytopenia Ė thatís a blood disorder which you definitely donít want
Urticaria
Vasculitis which may be associated with transient renal involvement Ė renal of course is kidneys so thatís not a good one to have
Vomiting Ė which like diarrhoea can be very messy

Those are the side effects listed being associated with one particular flu vaccine. But Iím not allowed to tell you about those because the list is only really available for health professionals who are considered better able to deal with them. So I shouldnít have told you about those side effects. So forget I did or Iíll probably be in trouble. Again.

Oh, and of course, this list isnít complete because it is always possible that additional problems may develop a year or more later. And some side effects, particularly rare ones, may not be recorded Ė even if they are deadly.

And the upside of the flu vaccine?

Well, there is a chance that the vaccine may lower your chances of getting the flu.

No guarantee, of course.

Some flu jabs donít work terribly well at all.

In a good year, the vaccine can reduce your risk of needing to see the doctor with the flu by between 40 and 60 per cent. In other years the effectiveness is much lower than that. Thatís the truth according to the CDC in America. The flu vaccine can sometimes be effective in just 14% of patients. So six out of seven patients take all those risks for absolutely no benefit.

But the pro-vaxxers, who find truth rather uncomfortable and not quite to their taste it seems to me, may forget to tell you that any of that.

A lot of pro-vaxxers arenít very good at science and are pretty crappy when it comes to facts.

And now, here is a confession for which I am grateful to Richie Allen, the host of the Richie Allen Radio Show Ė the best wireless experience since Radio Caroline ruled the airwaves in the 1960s.

On 23rd September, on a BBC programme called Radio Five Live, which I confess Iíve never listened to and which probably has three listeners, someone called Emma Barnett said something quite extraordinary.

`We actually donít, as a matter of editorial policy, we donít debate with anti-vaxxers, whether theyíre right or wrong. We actually donít do that.í

Staggering.

Note Ms Barnettís words Ė `right or wrongí.

Only if you had never done any research could you think that this policy is a good one. The world of vaccination can really only be divided into two groups: the pro-vaxxers, who are blind to the truth and keen to suppress it because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable, and the truth seekers who are open-minded and who possess scientific curiosity.

Boris Johnson has described us truth seekers as nuts and since that comes from a man who has proved himself to me to be an imbecile in that he appears to have deliberately rejected the real scientific evidence, a traitor in that he appears to have betrayed the people he is paid to look after, and Britainís first self-appointed dictator that can probably be regarded as a compliment.

Iíve never heard of this Emma, indeed the only Emma I was previously aware of was Emma Hamilton who was the mistress of Lord Nelson and who died in 1815 though I donít suppose being dead would prevent her having a job with the BBC. Indeed, it might be considered an advantage.

What qualifications do you need for a job like this?

O level arrogance? Ability to make a nice cup of tea?

Where do they find people prepared to take a job with these strictures? Do they import them, give them a bag of chips and point them at a microphone? I have no idea.

Anyway, thatís what young Emma had to say about the BBCís attitude towards the truth about vaccines on the BBC. Iím quoting it because no one except Guardian readers and Bill and Melinda Gates listen to anything on the BBC Ė itís a cultural backwater which has been stagnant for decades.

So there we are.

The BBC Ė paid for with our money, well not actually mine because I donít give them any Ė seems to be deliberately and openly suppressing the scientific truths about vaccine. Emma almost seems sort of proud of it. `We donít do that.í She talks about it as though sheís talking about not spitting on the pavement or shoplifting or passing wind in public. Itís as though she feels the corporationís prejudice and anti-scientific approach gives her the right to assume the high moral ground.

The fear, of course, is that many people may die as a result of the BBC policy.

If the pro-vaxx argument goes unquestioned then problems may never be solved. Thousands of people are seriously and often permanently injured because vaccines are not properly tested or because drug companies hide evidence. I wonder if little Emma understands what transverse myelitis involves? Or how parents feel when a perfectly healthy child has a vaccination which leaves them permanently brain damaged. One life lost and two lives permanently scarred. I wonder if she understands that governments promote vaccination for economic reasons not health reasons. Does she have any idea how much vaccine companies cheat and lie?

This policy of a blanket ban on those who question vaccination means that any who fight for the truth will be dismissed not as truth seekers but as anti-vaxxers.

To me Emma seems utterly hubristic and, at the same time, shamelessly pathetic. And the organisation employing her is worse. There is an arrogance, an assumption at the BBC that the people who question vaccination, and who argue that there are risks which may exceed the benefits, are lunatics. They seem to believe that the science has been sorted in favour of vaccination. But that is wrong and narrow-minded.

My first book, which was published in 1975, was called The Medicine Men and it was about the damage the drug industry often does Ė and the way it has bought, literally bought, huge parts of the medical establishment. The BBC thought The Medicine Men was so important that they gave the book a 15 to 20 minute segment on their main news programme. The Guardian newspaper serialised the book. That was in the 1970s.

My how things change.

How did the BBC suddenly know better than the science? Who told them that vaccines are so good that there is no need to debate their value, their safety or their effectiveness? I bet you thereís a drug company lurking somewhere.

I donít think Whitty, Vallance and Hancock will debate with me in the UK, even though I have written extensively about these things for decades, because they know they will look foolish. I can prove that vaccines kill and injure and often donít work at all.

The BBCís unjustifiable arrogance rather explains why the BBC, despite constantly harassing me to pay their licence fee so that they can add it to the loot from Bill Gates, wonít now invite me to discuss vaccination on any of its programmes.

But why wonít the BBC bosses allow criticism of vaccination on its airwaves?

Could it possibly be because the BBC knows damned well that any moderately competent doctor who knows the scientific truths about vaccine safety and ineffectiveness could utterly destroy the BBCís stale, cosy and entirely fake pro-vax argument live on air?

Could it be that the bean counters at the BBC are frightened that this might upset the BBCís cosy relationship with arch pro-vaxxers the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

And why do staff such as Emma Barnett allow this to happen? Whatever happened to editorial integrity and independence?

Have BBC staff sold their integrity and honour for big fat salaries, perhaps? Is this why BBC staff tend to be very highly paid? Is it vanity? Get your picture in the Radio Times and a chance to sidle up and get Gary Linekerís autograph in the staff canteen?

Half asleep, I could shred the pro-vax arguments and leave them beyond repair.

Iím not what the BBC would call an anti-vaxxer but I can prove that some of the companies making vaccines have been found guilty of fraud and bribery. I can prove that billions of dollars have been paid out in compensation to people injured by vaccines.

But maybe little Emma and her colleagues arenít interested in any of those uncomfortable truths which relate to real people, science and death.

I think that decent broadcasters would walk away from an organisation which has such oppressive policies Ė out of tune with an obligation to the public. The BBC is a propaganda department for, among others, the powerful, rich and fraudulent vaccine industry.

Did they cover the importance of morality and ethics when you studied broadcasting, Emma?

Why does the BBC feel the need to have such outrageous prejudices?

Who makes up the BBCís biased, prejudiced and bigoted policies? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation perhaps?

What an utter disgrace this organisation is. It exists to educate and inform the public. It is surely supposed to be fair and unbiased. Lord Reith would weep.

Many BBC presenters probably donít know who the hell he was. But heíd weep. Heíd weep. He is identified with the BBCís aims to educate, inform and entertain.

In my view if you deliberately suppress scientific truths that would be inconvenient to one of your financial partners then you deserve all the opprobrium that is available.

You may have heard that one of the volunteers in the AstraZeneca trial for a covid-19 vaccine suffered from transverse myelitis Ė a rare and potentially serious disease that can cause paralysis.

Well, now a second volunteer has allegedly fallen ill. Apparently another case of transverse myelitis.

This isnít all that surprising.

Thatís two serious problems in just 18,000 volunteers. So far.

The British authorities apparently allowed trials to continue but trials were stopped in the US. And AstraZeneca is reputed to be already making billions of doses of its rubbish. Sorry its vaccine.

But wait!

Stop the presses.

AstraZeneca says in an internal document that the two cases were `unlikely to be associated with the vaccine, or there was insufficient evidence to say for certain that the illnesses were or were not related to the vaccine.í

So, according to AstraZeneca it is just an unlucky coincidence that two of their guinea pigs happened to develop exactly the same rare disease at almost exactly the same time.

That was handy because the halt in the trial had resulted in the share price of AstraZeneca falling by 11.3 billion dollars.

And although the pro-vaxxers insist that this was all just a coincidence the fact is that transverse myelitis is one of the top vaccine injuries for which patients receive compensation. The total at the moment , in the USA, is apparently around $150 million in damages. Thatís just for transverse myelitis. And it is a nasty disease. The symptoms can include pain, muscle weakness, bladder and bowel problems and paralysis. Tragically, two thirds of those who have transverse myelitis remain permanently damaged.

Apart from apparently being very unlucky, what sort of company is Astra Zeneca?

The BBC wouldnít let me on their airwaves to tell you this but in 2014, Astra Zeneca agreed to pay $110 million to settle two lawsuits brought by the state of Texas, claiming that it had fraudulently marketed two drugs. AstraZeneca has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve thousands of lawsuits and it has been charged with illegal marketing, including corrupt data in studies for marketing a drug to children, a sex scandal and a poorly run clinical trial that could have compromised patient safety and data reliability.

Studies which showed that a drug produced harmful results were never published and were covered up. A company email revealed: `Thus far, we have buried trials 15,31,56. The larger issue is how do we face the outside world when they begin to criticise us for suppressing data.í After years of investigations Astra Zeneca paid a $520 million fine in the US and paid $647 million to settle global lawsuits.

These are the people the Government and the BBC want us to trust.

Could the BBC be legally responsible when people who have been denied the truth, fall ill? Surely the BBC has a legal responsibility to provide both sides of a scientific discussion with a voice?

The WHO, the private health office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, says AstraZeneca is the leading candidate for the billions in profit that lie ahead.

So, thatís alright then.

Oh, and other drug companies are, as I warned they would be, playing around with a DNA/RNA flu vaccine.

But somehow I doubt if you will hear about the dangers of that on the BBC which doesnít seem to give a stuff for the health of the British public.

Please viewers, I beg you, do not ever give the BBC a penny of your money again. Theyíve been losing listeners and viewers for years Ė donít do anything illegal but letís speed up the demise of the BBC.

The BBC is a self-confessed biased organisation and I donít think it is a stretch to describe it as corrupt.

Why do I say that?

Well, the BBC refuses to allow presenters to discuss the downside of vaccination. It is deliberately and knowingly refusing to allow any debate on an issue which affects the health, and possibly life, of everyone.

And the BBC has financial links with the worldís arch pro-vaxxers Ė the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Corruption is fraudulent conduct by those in power Ė often involving money.

So you decide:

The BBC deliberately and cold-bloodedly suppresses the truth about vaccines (because the pro-vaxxers arenít going to tell you about the dangers) and has financial links with people promoting vaccines.

Is that corruption?

The sooner we get rid of the BBC the safer and healthier we will all be.

If you believe that the BBC is corrupt then anyone who gives money to the BBC is surely guilty of supporting and funding corrupt activities. People who support criminals can be charged. Why canít the BBC and its staff be charged?

Please make sure everyone you know Ė and even those you donít know Ė watches this video with the clip of little Emma letting the cat out of the bag. The whoopsie of the year, perchance, and congratulations to my friend Richie Allen for catching it on his machine.

Send a copy of this video to your MP and demand that he or she votes to defund this terrible organisation. Send copies to everyone at the BBC who tweets or who has a Facebook account. Swamp the self-satisifed, smug bastards with some simple truths.

And send leaflets on vaccination Ė based on the lists on my website Ė to every politician, every BBC presenter and every pro-vaxxer.

Remember: anyone who is a pro-vaxxer is an ignorant, deluded and dangerous fool.

Oh, and thatís not all.

Thereís one more little scandal that I doubt if young Emma, her colleagues and the prejudiced oafs at the BBC would want to trouble you with.

For months I have been pointing out that Patrick Vallance, Britainís Chief Scientific Advisor, used to work for GlaxoSmithKline Ė a huge drug company which is in the running to make a vaccine for which, I am told, it is planning to charge the EU around 10 euros a pop.

If they got the deal for all 7 billion people on the planet that would be 70 billion euros. And, of course, some want us all to have vaccines every three months so thatís 280 billion euros a year for ever.

And then there will probably be another 280 billion euros for flu vaccines. And, oh boy, soon youíre talking real money and Bill Gates will be frothing at the mouth in anticipation.

By the way, you can read all about GlaxoSmithKline on my website. What a company. In medical terms they are what we call a steaming pile of the stuff you get out of the exhaust pipe of a horse.

Thereís material for information leaflets on www.vernoncoleman.com

I said previously that I would be very surprised if Vallance didnít still have financial links to GSK.

Well, guess what Ė he does.

Vallance, the British Governmentís Chief Scientific Adviser is reported to have £600,000 worth of shares in GSK Ė a big vaccine manufacturer.

And no one in the British Government, or indeed Her Majestyís Opposition, if indeed there still is one somewhere, seems to think that this is wrong though to me is seems very iffy. Iíd be upset if I found that an adviser in the Ministry of Defence had shares in a particular tank or bomb manufacturer. Or if a local council planning officer had links with a particular builder. But perhaps Iím just a bit old fashioned about these things. Old fashioned values donít seem to be much prized in public life these days.

How much longer are we going to put up with this? We can win this war but we have to take the attack to the traitors.

And thankfully, there is more and more great stuff appearing online. Another doctor, enraged by the nonsense spouted by governments and their advisors, has started on BrandNewTube. His name is Dr Colin M Barron, and I have mentioned him before in these videos. He has now recorded his first video. Itís entitled `Why I Support Anti Lockdown Protestsí and itís well worth watching. Calm, cool and very clinical he cuts the lockdown policy to ribbons without breaking a sweat. Great stuff, my friend. And Iím delighted to see that more doctors are joining BrandNewTube which is rapidly acquiring a medical colony. Please make more videos then I can retire and go back to writing books. Iím serious.

And print out leaflets dear viewers, and share them. Go to my website, find the Health button, press it and lo and behold the material from which to build your own leaflets will lie before you.

And make sure every living person you can reach sees this video.

Copyright Vernon Coleman 25th September 2020

Vernon Colemanís international bestselling book, Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying is available as a paperback and an eBook. Itís a safe bet that no one at the BBC has read it. Theyíre probably all too busy reading Mein Kamp to try and get some management tips.





Home