Zantac Lawsuit

Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Filing a Gardasil claim ~ What You Need to Know


There's much confusion from those injured by the HPV vaccine, Gardasil. Many questions, often not even known by medical professionals or government officials in the US.

Luckily, Californian based attorneys, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, PC, have uploaded a Gardasil Injury Compensation Guide to their website.

Baum Hedlund has filed over a dozen lawsuits thus far against Merck on behalf of young men and women who allege their injuries were caused by the Gardasil vaccine and they continue to evaluate new potential Gardasil cases and get them on the path for compensation.

I've covered some of the plaintiff stories on this blog (links at the bottom), many of which sees both women and men now unable to live normal lives due to severe adverse injuries caused by Merck's HPV vaccine. All of those reached out to the team at Baum Hedlund who, in turn, listened to their heart-breaking experiences before filing lawsuits on their behalf.

Baum Hedlund have been standing up for victims of pharmaceutical wares for many years now, more recently they were victorious against the giant corporation, Monsanto, who, knowingly, marketed and manufactured 'RoundUp', used by farmers, gardeners, maintenance workers, agricultural workers, and many others as an all-purpose weed killer.

To date, they have negotiated over $10.9 Billion Monsanto Roundup Settlements for victims who developed varying cancers after coming into contact with the toxic weed killer.

They've also recently filed a lawsuit against Gerber, Hain, Walmart, and other major baby food companies for knowingly selling infant and baby food products containing dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.

They are renowned globally for litigating high-stakes cases against major corporations, particularly in the commercial transportation, pharmaceutical drug, and consumer product industries.

With vaccine injuries poo-pooed by mainstream media, it's great to see a team of passionate advocates doing the right thing. They've always put clients first, I should know, I've followed their work since the early 2000s when they successfully negotiated a deal for plaintiffs who suffered debilitating withdrawal problems at the hands of GSKs Paxil.

I've even seen them in action when I went to Chicago for the Wendy Dolin v GSK Paxil Suicide trial.

They are friends for life.

The Gardasil Injury Compensation Guide answers many questions for those seeking help with their injuries and with Baum Hedlund there is no financial risk in pursuing a Gardasil injury claim.

It's a win/win for those seeking help.

Here is a link to the guide

And if you want to print off the guide to show to someone you may know injured by Gardasil, go here.

Bob Fiddaman


Gardasil Stories Covered On This Blog

Thursday, August 20, 2020 - Baum Hedlund Take a Stand Against Vaccine Maker

Thursday, September 17, 2020 - Californian Law Firm Lead the Way in Gardasil Litigation

Friday, January 22, 2021 - Fifth Gardasil Vaccine Lawsuit Filed

Thursday, February 04, 2021 - Gardasil Vaccine Can Cause Infertility, New Lawsuit Alleges

Friday, April 02, 2021 - Gardasil Lawsuits Continue

Monday, April 19, 2021 - Vaccine Manufacturer Used "Spiked" Placebo to Hide Injuries Between Vaccine and Control Groups, Lawsuit Alleges

Thursday, July 22, 2021 - The Gardasil Vaccine Lawsuits Keep Piling Up

Thursday, May 26, 2022

Toxic Baby Food, the Subject of Lawsuit


7-year-old Noah Cantabrana

The Honourable Amy D. Hogue, a California state court judge issued a ruling on May 24 in favour of the parents who allege their seven-year-old son developed severe neurodevelopmental disorders after consuming baby foods that contain dangerous amounts of heavy metals. Moreover, it was ruled that Plaintiffs experts’ opinions that heavy metals are capable of being a substantial factor in causing ASD and ADHD are admissible.

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed the first baby food lawsuit in California and possibly the nation against several baby food companies alleging they knowingly sell products tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury.

Lorenzo and Melissa Cantabrana's 7-year-old son, Noah suffers from neurodevelopmental disorders after consuming substantial quantities of baby foods from the following baby food manufacturers:

It's alleged that the above knowingly sold tainted baby food to unsuspecting parents.

Noah was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder ASD when he was a 2-year-old. He also shows signs of ADHD. 

Noah has outbursts and meltdowns that can last for hours, has social interaction and communication issues, and often has trouble sleeping through the night.

“My son is facing lifelong challenges because he ate foods that we believed were safe,” says Melissa Cantabrana. “If the labels said anything about heavy metals, I never would have fed them to Noah. Parents have a right to know what is in the foods we put on the dinner table for our kids. These companies deprived us of that right. It’s shameful and they need to be held accountable.”

Baum Hedlund attorneys, Pedram Esfandiary and R. Brent Wisner, who represent the Cantabrana's

“It is clear to us that the baby food industry does not care about the health of young children,” says attorney R. Brent Wisner. “By continuing to sell their poisonous foods to unsuspecting parents, these companies are willing to put the most vulnerable segment of our population at risk for severe neurodevelopmental disorders.”

“The industry could make this heavy metals problem go away with relative ease if they sourced better ingredients and adequately screened their products before they reached store shelves,” adds attorney Pedram Esfandiary. “The reality is these companies will not change their behavior without decisive government and legal action. We can’t just sit around and wait around for that to happen, so this litigation will have to be the tip of the spear when it comes to protecting children’s health”

Key findings from a 2021 U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform Report showed that several major manufacturers knowingly sell baby foods containing as much as 180 parts per billion (ppb) inorganic arsenic, 6441 ppb lead, and 10 ppb mercury. They also manufacture their products using ingredients containing as much as 913.4 ppb arsenic, 886.9 ppb lead, and 344.55 ppb cadmium. 

Being interviewed on Spotlight on America, Melissa Cantabrana said,“I was just like blown away, It made me really angry…to think that these heavy metals are in baby food. And I immediately thought we don't have autism in our family. I instantly knew this is it. This is what I'm talking about.” Cantabrana told Spotlight on America that she sought legal help from Baum Hedlund’s Pedram Esfandiary and R. Brent Wisner, attorneys with first-hand knowledge of litigating cases against large corporate defendants like Monsanto Company (see Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit)

The Honourable Amy D. Hogue's ruling now means the case can move into the discovery phase, which allows for internal documents from the defendant companies to be released to the plaintiffs.

You can read more about this case and more potential lawsuits here.

Bob Fiddaman

Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Akathisia Awareness Rolls Out on The Tube

New adverts on the London Underground fuelled a Twitter storm about akathisia and related psych drug harms. The campaign is sponsored by MISSD, a non-profit that raises awareness of akathisia. MISSD was founded in 2011 by Wendy Dolin after the tragic death of her husband, Stewart, who died six days after taking Seroxat (called Paxil in the US). Akathisia isn't a garden variety "side effect." Akathisia can precipitate your death. 

The current campaign consists of more than 1,000 train posters informing passengers that antidepressants and antipsychotics can cause akathisia which can cause self-harm, violence, and suicide. It's fitting that these adverts are on the Tube, given that both akathisia and the London Underground System have been around for more than 100 years. Tube trains rolled out in 1863, and akathisia was first identified in 1902. Yet, judging by recent tweets, it seems that several psychiatrists have been asleep longer than Rip Van Winkle when it comes to akathisia awareness. (More on this below.)

More importantly, the Tube is an appropriate place for these posters because Tube stations close to psychiatric hospitals tend to have a higher incidence of suicide (Farmer et al., 1991; O'Donnell and Farmer, 1994). Suicide prevention charities, like the Samaritans, are probably aware of this since they also run Tube adverts. It's quite poignant then that these adverts, rigorously scrutinized by the advertising company's review team that works closely with Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP), are running on the Tube. 

Spot the Difference 

The original Tube advert MISSD submitted to the advertising review team/CAP is not the same as today's advert. You can spot the differences below. 

Original Poster

CAP Approved Poster 

MISSD has run mass transit adverts in the US without ever needing to change the copy for approval. But the UK's rules and regulators are different from those in the US. If MISSD didn't make the changes, these akathisia awareness posters would never run on the Tube. The changes include:

1. Target antidepressants and antipsychotics by explicitly naming them;

2. Add the word "rare," and;

3. Remove the phrase "Nobody is immune to akathisia." 

The specific mention of antidepressants doesn't bother me. SSRIs harm thousands of people, and SSRIs often induce akathisia. Withdrawal akathisia is also one of many components people can experience when suffering from Protracted Withdrawal Syndrome. 

But what does trouble me is baseless censorship by the powers that be. We'll never know who comprises the advertising review team/CAP. Are medical professionals reviewing the adverts? If so, what institutions are they from, and do they have financial or ethical conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry?  

Many different drugs do cause akathisia. Psych drugs aren't the only culprits. Could the advertising review team/CAP explain to these moms why the akathisia risks posed by Roaccutane are less worthy of publicizing?

While they're at it, maybe the advertising reviewers can also explain what research they used to insist on the word, rare. Most logical people would not state that 50% and 80% are rare occurrences.

While MISSD prefers their standard advert that runs in the US, the non-profit decided it was better to run the current London campaign, which directs viewers to for more info, than no England awareness campaign. I agree. Medical organizations, suicide prevention charities, and many doctors have worked to keep akathisia risks in the dark. (Kind of like the recent sodium valproate story, a controversy that broke a few days ago yet has been known by British drug regulators for many years.)

Twitter Storm and Feigned Concern 

The majority of tweets sparked by the MISSD advert supported the awareness campaign. One advocate on Twitter who supports MISSD's mission did share her discomfort regarding the word "violence." But honest discussions about iatrogenic harms should include violence when it is a drug-induced effect. The parents of these 22 children who died in a school bus crash in Switzerland could share their thoughts on SSRI-induced violence. So, too, could the surviving relatives of these ten families. 

I suspect pharma has settled SSRI homicide cases out of court, but we'll never hear about those. However, one case that was made public was against GSK (then SmithKline Beecham). Donald Schell, 60, took two Paxil tablets before shooting his wife, their daughter, his granddaughter and himself to death on Feb. 13, 1998. A jury returned the following verdict:

Speaking of pharma brings me to this photo taken by Professor Anthony David, who saw MISSD's poster when he was riding on the Victoria line. David tweeted the adverts are "not helpful and should be removed." 

In 2018, David was appointed Director and Sackler Chair of the new UCL Institute of Mental Health. The Sackler Trust is the "charitable giving" arm created by the Sackler family--the same family responsible for Purdue Pharma's "uncharitable taking" of hundreds of thousands of lives lost due to the company's illegal opioid promotion.

Given the immense harm the Sackler family yielded for profit, it's inconceivable that UCL continues its financial relationship with the Sackler Trust. Moreover, I can't help but wonder if David is proud to carry the "Sackler Chair" title? Is he also proud of all the other money he's taken from other pharmaceutical companies who prescribe the types of drugs that can cause akathisia? They include Janssen, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.

Judging from his tweet, it's challenging to believe David cares about akathisia awareness and prescribed harm any more than the universities that continue taking Sackler's blood money and advertising their crime family partnerships. 

David's tweet invoked many responses from akathisia experts by experience and families whose relatives died avoidable akathisia-induced deaths. The tweet has had more than 230 responses, 99% of which criticise David's proclamation that the adverts should be removed.

One of David's colleagues at UCL, Prof Robert Howard, opined the poster was "Uninformative, confusing and frightening." Howard added the defamatory comment, "There's generally some kind of grift accompanying this kind of health disinformation. Calling it secondary gain would be too kind."

For those who don't know, 'Grift' is slang for "a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling." (UPDATE AT END OF POST)

Howard also tweeted that MISSD's website has "a lot of disinformation," but when asked to point out what was disinformation, he failed to respond. Further, neither Howard nor David have ever explained why they feel the poster is uninformative, unhelpful, and should be removed. They also haven't suggested ways their profession can increase awareness of this critical adverse drug effect. Howard's defamatory comments remain on Twitter today. 

Another Psychiatrist, Robertas Strumila, really scraped the bottom of the barrel when he responded to David's original tweet with this:

Strumila, based in Montpellier, France, later deleted his tweet after a backlash of comments from the prescribed harm community, many of whom have experienced debilitating side effects from antipsychotics. Strumila has never apologised, and Howard and David have never condemned his tweet.

Former Royal College of Psychiatrist President Wendy Burn, also tweeted about MISSD's adverts. Burn criticised them and tweeted, "Most people don't know what akathisia is." 

Um, FYI: Awareness-raising means making people conscious of a problem or issue. This fact, however, seems lost on Burn.

There are four types of akathisia, one of which is actually called Withdrawal Akathisia. MISSD covered this when presenting to RCPsych's International Congress in 2019, a conference session in which Burn herself introduced MISSD to the audience. Withdrawal akathisia has also been discussed in medical journal articles and research papers. The onset of akathisia can start when the dose of the drug is increased or decreased or the drug is stopped. That Burn didn't know you can suffer from akathisia after stopping these drugs is likely one of the reasons she states she hasn't seen it in her practice. Maybe her time needs to be "carefully balanced" between Twitter and taking the 1-hour MISSD Akathisia 101 course that can help her better recognize akathisia.

That assumes, of course, that Burn and other doctors want to recognize and warn patients about akathisia and other adverse drug effects. Lest we forget that in 2020, Burn made a startling revelation to Equally Well UK, an initiative that states it seeks to promote and support collaborative action to improve physical health among people with mental health challenges. 

According to the field of psychiatry, psychotic disorders are severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions.

Answer me this, what can be more abnormal than one human failing to warn another human that a product may cause harm or, even death?

UPDATE: Prof Rob Howard decided to remove the defamatory post and has now issued a fauxpology on Twitter.

Bob Fiddaman

Poster Ad story in the media

Remember, akathisia can be caused by many different categories of drugs, not just antidepressants and antipsychotics, but also antibiotics, anti-hypertensives and many others.

If you are a doctor, pharmacist, coroner, journalist, or member of the public, and you wish to learn more about akathisia, take the FREE online accredited course here.

Friday, March 25, 2022

NEJM's Data Deceivers


NEJM states: "Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes."

Effective mission statements are supposed to be succinct, I presume NEJM chose to omit the other relevant sentence readers would want to understand, which is: "We don't care where the data comes from as long as it supports our chosen narratives."


a person who causes someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.

New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

Eric Rubin, NEJM editor-in-chief

There have been nine editors-in-chief from 1921 to the present at the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The current editor-in-chief is Eric Rubin, the former chair of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases. (Immunology is the study of the immune system.) Before Rubin, NEJM's editors-in-chief was Jeffrey M. Drazen, an asthma and lung disease expert. Aside from Rubin, no NEJM editor-in-chief has had a background in Immunology and Infectious Diseases. 

The Boston Tea Party (Outsiders rarely invited)

Rubin was selected after a NEJM "international" committee conducted a global search. The committee was chaired by Dr. Lynda Young, past president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Dr. Beverly Woo, of the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, served as vice-chair. Other committee members were:

Dr. Alain Chaoui, FAAFP, President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. Karen Antman, Dean, Boston University School of Medicine;

Dr. Harris Berman, Dean, Tufts University School of Medicine;

Dr. Edward W. Campion, Executive Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine;

Dr. Lois Dehls Cornell, Executive Vice President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. George Q. Daley, Dean, Harvard Medical School;

Dr. Jack Evjy, Past-President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. Terence Flotte, Dean, School of Medicine, UMass Medical School;

Dr. Danny Jacobs, President, Oregon Health and Science University;

Dr. Thomas Lee, Chief Medical Officer, Press Ganey, and NEJM Catalyst Leadership Board Founder;

Dr. Joseph Loscalzo, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, and Physician-in-Chief, Brigham and Women's Hospital;

Dr. Graham McMahon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education;

Dr. Erika von Mutius, Professor of Pediatric Allergology, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital of the University of Munich, Institute for Asthma and Allergy Prevention, Germany;

Dr. John Noseworthy, Chief Executive Officer, Mayo Clinic;

Dr. Chana Sacks, Images Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and;

Dr. David Spriggs, Associate Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Director of the Gynecologic Oncology Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

The vast majority of this "international" search committee works in the Boston area.

For historical reference, the first quarterly edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Collateral Branches of Medical Science (Boston) was published in January 1812. It was a result of a collaboration between John Collins Warren, a Boston physician, and his colleague James Jackson. In 1921, their journal merged with the Boston Medical Intelligencer to become the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal; it also began weekly publication that year and was purchased by the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Rubin became NEJM's editor-in-chief in September 2019, approximately three months before the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, China. On January 7, 2020, Chinese authorities identified coronavirus as the cause, and it was temporarily named "2019-nCoV." Rubin's September 2019 appointment as editor-in-chief at the NEJM was quite timely.

Not Long Before Controversy

Dressen is a preschool teacher from Saratoga Springs, Utah, who received the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine during a clinical trial in November 2020. She has since experienced extensive adverse effects from the vaccine

On November 2, 2021, Bri Dressen participated in a US Senate meeting at which issues were raised about coronavirus vaccine harms and related mandates. Dressen was a clinical trial participant for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. 

After having just one dose, Dressen experienced adverse effects. The effects were so severe and long-lasting that she had to quit her job as a preschool teacher and hire a nanny to care for her two young children. Here's her testimony.

Dressen followed up her testimony by writing to the NEJM. She felt compelled to do so after reading an article the journal published in September 2021, entitled 'Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine'

In her initial email, Dressen pointed out the article's inaccuracies. Surprisingly, her email was directly answered by NEJM editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. Rubin told Dressen the NEJM would not publish her letter. He claimed, "The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received."

Dressen contacted NEJM because they published inaccurate information that the journal should correct. She did not contact NEJM to request that her letter be published. However, the email exchange between Dressen and Rubin shows Rubin would not address these inaccuracies. Their email exchange can be read here.

Dr. Fernando Polack  is a Specialist in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. His work is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack ~ Mira Vos! Argentina

Polack was the lead author in another NEJM article entitled, 'Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine', the conclusion of which was "A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines." BioNTech and Pfizer funded the trial.

As Covid hit Argentina, Polack became involved in a trial of immune plasma taken from patients who had recovered from Covid. This plasma was then given to patients who had recently contracted Covid. In May 2020, Polack speculated that this would make Covid like an ordinary cold.

The trial's conclusions boasted a positive outcome, and the results were published  in a February 2021 peer-reviewed article in--you've guessed it--the NEJM. NEJM reviewers concluded, "Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19."

BioNTech or Pfizer didn't fund this trial; The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded it.

A subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) didn't agree with Polack and the NEJM reviewers. They cited, "Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes."

Who is Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack?

Take a step into the unknown and read Fishy Business in the Rio de la Plata, an article by Prof.David Healy, Psychopharmacologist, Scientist and Author.

Who are NEJM's Reviewers?

This is a list of people who served as NEJM's reviewers between January and June 2021. Readers of medical journals should be aware that these reviewers, like most--if not all--reviewers, are reviewing ghostwritten material and have never seen the raw data from clinical trials. Many reviewers are probably still unaware that the material they review is written by pharmaceutical companies or PR companies hired by pharmaceutical companies. Further, if some reviewers are aware, or made aware, of these data sources, it's likely they do not care.

Are these NEJM reviewers data deceivers who refuse to reveal the truth about the source of the "data" they review? Are they disinterested in reviewing raw data? Are they dispassionate about ensuring the validity of the data they promote? Regardless of the reasons, I contend NEJM reviewers are likely data deceivers because they've been seduced by the financial and professional benefits that come from serving as "prestigious" NEJM reviewers.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of ghostwriting, I recommend the following introductions, 1, 2, 3

Bob Fiddaman

Monday, March 07, 2022

GUEST POST: P-450 Test and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity


I've heard many stories over the years regarding the troubles people have experienced whilst taking brain pellets marketed as 'antidepressants.' Kerri's guest post (below) is yet another example of how patients are pushed from pillar to post, often having to find their own way to resolve matters relating to brain pellet adverse events because of a severe lack of knowledge from prescribing physicians.

The three pellets featured in Kerri's story were, at a point in time, blockbuster products raking in billions of dollars for the drug companies who marketed and manufactured them, namely Lilly (Prozac) and GlaxoSmithKline (Paxil) and Pfizer (Zoloft). Three apparent drugs that are supposed to help but, as is my experience, cause more problems than the original 'illness' they are prescribed for. They all, allegedly, work in pretty much the same way. Drug company reps will tell you that A is better than B and C because, well, because that's what they are paid to do. They have no scientific evidence that one is more tolerable and causes less side-effects than the other.

I find it difficult to believe that neither Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer  knew nothing about the problems caused by the three products mentioned below, moreover, the journeys many millions face when taking them.

This is just a small part of Kerri's journey. She writes to warn others and to create an awareness that all is not lost if you, or someone you know, suffers the same fate as she.

Bob Fiddaman


I was taught to trust the doctors. I was taught to trust the prescriptions.  I was taught to trust the assessments I received from hospitals. And I did…but, this trust of these medical recommendations nearly killed me.

My name is Kerri Lynn and I was born in Long Beach CA, but was raised in the upper Midwest. I grew up in a dysfunctional home and early on, I gravitated towards addictive tendencies.  I strived to make good choices at this time, however, my best efforts to live life on life’s terms were mostly self-destructive.

"I was restless, irritable and discounted all the time being newly sober and I needed help facing life, or so I thought." 

At 13, I discovered drinking.  I partied all the time until my addiction stopped working for me.  I chased other self-destructive behaviors and relationships.  My out-of-control nature led to an ultimatum from loved ones: I had to find a solution how not to be self-destructive.

Pain and circumstances drove me to seek help from 12-Step Recovery.  This was really a challenge and about 60 days into this sober journey, I sought help from my family doctor.  I was restless, irritable and discounted all the time being newly sober and I needed help facing life, or so I thought.  My first prescription was for 20 mg of Prozac. 3 Days into this first prescription, I was unable to walk or talk.  I was severely anxious and my brain was racing and telling me to do delusional things like run outside naked.  I experienced Homicidal and Suicidal Ideation (I have come to understand that these are the symptoms of Serotonin Syndrome/Akathisia). I was panicking due to my reaction to this prescription, though I had no awareness that it was the prescription that was causing these symptoms.  I had to reach out to a former counselor to sorts things out.

I met with my former counselor the following Monday. I finally revealed I was taking Prozac, and he immediately called my prescribing physician to get me off this prescription.  This was the beginning of a 13-year nightmare with prescribed medications.

40mg of Paxil was my next prescription.  A year into taking this antidepressant, I woke up one morning and could not emotionally feel anything. I was terrified.  I called my doctor again and he tried yet another substitute of Zoloft.  At that point, all hell broke loose.  My doctor tried Paxil one more time and this sent me to the hospital.  Between 2000 and 2006, I was Hospitalized on 3 separate occasions due to drug toxicity or cold turkey drug withdrawal. 

"I exhausted every potential care and specialty option locally."

During these nightmare days, I was entertained with my expanded medical vocabulary.  I learned words like suicidal ideation, disassociation, delusion, hallucination, profuse night-sweats, rapid irregular heartbeats and agoraphobia.  We must not forget the bladder loss or rectal haemorrhaging, nor the black outs that would last more than 24 hours, when they would randomly introduce new medications.  And my favorite suffering were the overwhelming panic attacks.

Sadly, my entire investment in the “healing process” to this point only led to my condition becoming more and more dire.  The medical assessments only were dealing with a random set of symptoms that were mostly caused by the prescription and I could not break the cycle, no matter what I did or took.  Almost every diagnosis made things worse and added to my growing list of “untreatable symptoms.”  I exhausted every potential care and specialty option locally.  I even spent 2 weeks at the world renown Mayo Clinic only to achieve an inaccurate diagnosis once again of Visceral Extreme Hypersensitivity.  When I return to my home, I felt defeated and my local hospital would no longer allow me to make appointments, unless first reviewed by management over the phone.  These doctors thought I was crazy.

It is always darkest before the dawn.  I was under the care of many physicians.  Many were a significant part of the problem and few were graciously a part of what would be my life-changing solution.   I was blessed to be introduced to the Cytochrome P-450 test which analyses DNA and genetic strengths and deficiencies.  From this accurate genetic assessment, it was discovered that I have both fast and slow processes in my liver and kidneys.  This finally expressed a causality between reception and rejection of various medications.  It was also determined accurately that I am missing the GSTM-1/ Glutathione Gene.   It was finally determined that my true ailment was Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and all previous diagnoses actually placed me in grave risk by triggering my symptoms. The synthetic nature of the drugs being prescribed to me were actually poisoning me and triggered my multiple chemical sensitivity.  During the course of 13 years of prescriptions, my body has been damaged so that I will most likely be significantly chemically sensitive for the remainder of my days. 

"It is my hope that my story can guide people to new strategies so that nobody ever has to suffer like I did."

My hope is that by sharing my story that we can come to a new responsibility about how we seek and receive diagnoses.  The medical profession has a mission statement of seeking to do no harm.  This is not always the case.  From my experience, a measured suspicion is the best approach.  I now take the responsibility of doing my own medical research.  I trust my instincts and I am my own advocate.  Through my difficult journey my local provider actually became the first hospital in the country to study the P-450 genetic test.  I strongly recommend this assessment be the starting point.  Don’t utilize the P-450 as a last resort.

I am now 11-years medication free and stable.  I have to live the rest of my life being critically aware of my environment and surroundings due to my chemical sensitivity. However, today I have a strategy for living that works. It is my hope that my story can guide people to new strategies so that nobody ever has to suffer like I did.

~ Kerri Lynn


You can listen to Kerri's story in her own words here via the brilliant Akathisia Stories, a co-production of MISSD and Studio C.

You can read more about Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) tests here


Test limitations

Although they have potential, CYP450 tests have limitations:

Tests are available for only certain medications. Also, each test is specific to only one medication, so a change in medication may require another test.

Testing can't predict which medication will work best for you — it can only provide clues.

Not all insurance companies cover the costs of these tests.

Monday, January 31, 2022



My on-going communication with the British drug regulator, the MHRA, has hit a bit of a roadblock. This isn't due to any lack of response, it's more to do with MHRA language that is meaningless and excessively abstruse. It's utter nonsense.

In early January, I requested information from the MHRA regarding their Yellow Card Reporting System, moreover, for reports filed for adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Their initial response needed clarification such was its ambiguity.

In a nutshell, the MHRA was telling me that a reporter, like you or I, could have a family member take a vaccine and some weeks later suffer heart problems and die. After talking with a GP or a heart specialist we can then decide if the vaccine played a part in the death of a loved one or not. We can make our own minds up whether we think the vaccine caused the death or whether the death appeared out of nowhere and isn't vaccine related.

The rub being, if we conclude it wasn't vaccine related, the MHRA will agree with us. However, if we believe the death to be vaccine related, the MHRA won't agree with us because, "In any individual case it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the reported drug or vaccine was causal, contributory or simply coincidental." (See Yellow Card Reporting System Shown the Red Card)

The MHRA responding to FOIAs often throw up more questions than answers, none more so in this instance.

The MHRA told me they assess "Yellow Card reports using an internal follow up algorithm to determine whether any additional information such as test results, other drugs and/or medical history is required."

So, I asked what algorithm software they use. I was told, in a rather short email, the following:

"We can confirm that this is not a software algorithm."

To my knowledge, an algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. So, I pursued this further and asked the MHRA:

From: Bob Fiddaman

Sent: 24 January 2022 18:31

To: Pharmacovigilanceservice <>

Subject: Re: GENQ-00150010 Follow up questions

Thank you.

Presumably then, it's a process or set of rules?

Could you please forward me this process and/or set of rules.



Their reply, received this morning , has left me bamboozled.

from: Pharmacovigilanceservice <>

to: Bob Fiddaman

date: Jan 31, 2022, 7:09 AM

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

The process around follow up is dependent on a number of factors, including the level of information within the original Yellow Card report and the specific issue reported. The follow up process doesn’t fall under a specific procedure and is assessment specific, therefore we are unable to provide you with the defined process or set of rule you have requested.

Kind regards,

Pharmacovigilance Service Team 

Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


I have to say, this seems, to me at least, the MHRA are being deliberately obtuse.

To recap:

If you suspect the COVID-19 vaccine caused a death of a loved one, the MHRA will tell you it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the reported drug or vaccine was causal, contributory or simply coincidental. But, if you change your mind and say you don't think the vaccine caused the death of a loved one, the MHRA will accept this.

Moreover, the MHRA use an internal follow up algorithm to determine whether any additional information such as test results, other drugs and/or medical history is required. However, this isn't software and it "doesn’t fall under a specific procedure and is assessment specific." They won't tell me how it works or, if indeed, it actually does. They cannot provide me with the defined process or set of rule(s).

The MHRA are in the habit of labelling question-askers 'vexatious', the definition of which is: causing or tending to cause annoyance or frustration.

Tell me, who is being vexatious here? Who is having their cake and eating it too?

Bob Fiddaman

Friday, January 28, 2022

Freedom Convoy | Ontario - The Power of Truckers and Music


This blog offers its full support to the truckers currently standing up for humanity across Canada.

Now watch the video.

Bob Fiddaman

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Baby Foods Contain "Staggering Amounts" of Toxic Heavy Metals, Lawsuit Alleges


Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, the Los Angeles law firm who recently secured jury verdicts worth an estimated $2.424 billion against the agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto, are now honing in on the baby food manufacturing industry after filing a complaint on behalf of Plaintiffs Melissa and Lorenzo Cantabrana, who allege their young son, Noah (pictured above), was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and shows signs of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) after consuming baby foods. 

The complaint alleges several companies knowingly sold baby foods that contain “dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals. The companies (listed below) face a possible further 800 or so lawsuits as more and more parents have come forward.

The defendant companies include:

Nurture (Happy Family Organics and HappyBABY) 


Hain Celestial Group (Earth’s Best Organic)


Plum Organics

Walmart Inc. (Parent’s Choice)

Sprout Foods

A Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives, concluded in February 2021 that “Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.”, the full report can be viewed here.

According to Baum Hedlund, these lawsuits will show that several baby food companies knowingly manufacture and sell products that contain "staggering amounts" of toxic heavy metals. According to experts, including epidemiologists, neuroscientists and toxicologists, claim the metals found, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, are known to be severe neurotoxins with the propensity to cause lifelong brain damage and neurodevelopmental disorders, including ASD and ADHD in children.

“We believe these companies continue to show callous disregard for the health of vulnerable young children, all in the name of maximizing profits,” says Baum Hedlund attorney for the Cantabrana family, Pedram Esfandiary. “It’s been nearly a year since this explosive report was released. One would think that efforts would be made to protect kids from the known dangers of these toxic metals, but these companies have done next to nothing; they simply don’t care. This has to change, and we are confident the litigation will compensate our clients for their injuries and protect future generations from the harmful products the defendants pander as ‘food’.”

Noah was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder ASD when he was two years and nine months old. And he shows signs of ADHD. .He is now seven years old.

As a baby and toddler, Noah consumed high amounts of baby foods manufactured by all of the defendants listed above.

“My son is facing lifelong challenges because he ate foods that we believed were safe,” says Melissa. Noah's mother. “If the labels said anything about heavy metals, I never would have fed them to Noah. Parents have a right to know what is in the foods we put on the dinner table for our kids. These companies deprived us of that right. It’s shameful and they need to be held accountable.”

You can read more about Noah's plight here.

Bob Fiddaman

Friday, January 21, 2022




Bob Fiddaman

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Yellow Card Reporting System Shown the Red Card


In football (Soccer), a yellow card is used by the referee to discipline players for misconduct or failing to follow the rules.

The Yellow Card Reporting Scheme (MHRA) is supposed to provide an early warning that the safety of a medicine or a medical device may require further investigation. In other words, whatever you report will be assessed and logged by the MHRA.

Up until today, I didn't think there were any caveats, imagine my surprise when I open an email from Brian Burch, Signal Assessor, Vigilance Risk Management of Medicines, MHRA, who tells me reporters of adverse events can now decide whether or not they think the medicine, device or, indeed, vaccine, caused that adverse event. Upon doing so the MHRA will then take the relevant action to reflect this on their database.

So, in a nutshell, you or I could take a vaccine and some weeks later suffer with heart problems. After talking with a GP or a heart specialist we can then decide if the vaccine played a part in the heart problem or not.

We don't, it seems, even have to talk to a healthcare professional. We can make our own minds up whether we think the vaccine caused the heart problem or whether the heart problem appeared out of nowhere and isn't vaccine related.

The MHRA will accept our final word on the matter...but only if we don't wish to lay blame on the vaccine.

If we think the vaccine did cause the adverse event, the MHRA, according to Burch, will try to determine whether the reported vaccine was causal, contributory or simply coincidental.

Here's the rub (straight from the written word of Burch)

"In any individual case it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the reported drug or vaccine was causal, contributory or simply coincidental."

Yet, they will accept a patient or healthcare professional report that suggests it wasn't vaccine related.

If it's 'very difficult, if not impossible' for the MHRA to determine a casual, contributory or coincidental link, why do they assume a layperson, such as you or I, can determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event?

Nonetheless, you or I can do the job of the MHRA (probably after speaking with our 'pro-vax' healthcare professional) - Do we have a large number of healthcare professionals who would support our inkling that the vaccine, they may have administered, caused us injury?

One has to ask, if this poor system of reporting vaccine adverse events should be shown the red card.

Anyway, here's the FOIA follow-up response Burch sent to me earlier. It comes on the back of their original reply which can be viewed here.


From: Pharmacovigilanceservice <>

To: Bob Fiddaman

Subject: GENQ-00150010

Follow up questions

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

Thank you for your recent correspondence where you asked the following:

1. Is a follow-up question/s sent to every single person who reports (via the yellow-card reporting system) an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

2. Is it the position of the MHRA that a UK citizen can determine whether or not an injury was caused by a pharmaceutical product?

Follow up questions are not sent to every single individual who reports a suspected adverse reaction to a Covid-19 vaccine. The MHRA assesses Yellow Card reports using an internal follow up algorithm to determine whether any additional information such as test results, other drugs and/or medical history is required. The MHRA will then contact the original reporter, where contact details are available and permission is granted, to request this information.

The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. The MHRA accepts reports of any suspected adverse reactions as determined by the reporter of the Yellow Card. In any individual case it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the reported drug or vaccine was causal, contributory or simply coincidental. Should a reporter of a Yellow Card, upon reflection or receipt of additional information, no longer suspect that the drug or vaccine was the cause of the adverse reaction(s) reported the MHRA accepts this information and will take the relevant action to reflect this on our database.

I hope this information is of use, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Burch

Signal Assessor

Vigilance Risk Management of Medicines



Bob Fiddaman


Monday, January 03, 2022



The following is an email response from the MHRA regarding a series of questions I posed them about vaccine injuries and deaths. Their answers (below) have prompted a follow-up email to them which is also included in this blog post.

Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request

From: Bob Fiddaman 


According to your weekly records, accessed 21 Dec, 2021 -

As of 8 December 2021, for the UK, 141,866 Yellow Cards have been reported for the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, 239,314 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 22,270 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 1,333 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.

For the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 3 to 7 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered.

In the week since the previous summary for 1 December 2021 we have received a further 2,603 Yellow Cards for the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, 673 for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,750 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 26 where the brand was not specified.

*1.* Of the 141,866 Yellow Cards have been reported for the COVID-19

Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, how many have been:

A: Fatal

B: How many of the fatal reports did the MHRA follow-up with the reporter

C: What test, if any, was carried out to determine whether or not the

vaccine was the cause of death or not

*2.* Of the 239,314 that have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine

AstraZeneca, how many have been:

A: Fatal

B: How many of the fatal reports did the MHRA follow-up with the reporter

C: What test, if any, was carried out to determine whether or not the

vaccine was the cause of death or not

*3.* Of the 22,270  that have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine

Moderna, how many have been:

A: Fatal

B: How many of the fatal reports did the MHRA follow-up with the reporter

C: What test, if any, was carried out to determine whether or not the

vaccine was the cause of death or not

*4.* Of the 26 that have been reported where the brand was not

specified,  how many have been:

A: Fatal

B: How many of the fatal reports did the MHRA follow-up with the reporter

C: What test, if any, was carried out to determine whether or not the

vaccine was the cause of death or not


*Bob Fiddaman*



From: Pharmacovigilanceservice <>

To: "" <>

CC: MHRA Customer Services <>, FOI_Policy <>

Subject: RE: FOI 21/1342 CSC 81313 Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

Thank you for your FOI request dated 21st December 2021.

The number of fatal reports is included in the Vaccine Analysis Prints published each week. Please note that a report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports. The relative number and nature of reports should therefore not be used to compare the safety of the different vaccines. All reports are kept under continual review in order to identify possible new risks.

All Yellow Card reports we receive are promptly entered onto the MHRA's Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) database so that they are available for a process called signal detection. During signal detection, reports are evaluated, together with additional sources of evidence, by a team of safety experts to identify any new safety issues or side effects. We apply statistical techniques that can tell us if we are seeing more events than we would expect to see, based on what is known about background rates of illness in the absence of medication or vaccination. This aims to account for factors such as coincidental illness. We also look at the clinical characteristics to see if new patterns of illness are emerging that could indicate a new safety concern.

For the COVID-19 vaccines, we supplement this form of safety monitoring with other epidemiology studies, including data analysis on national vaccine usage, anonymised GP-based electronic healthcare records, and other healthcare data to proactively monitor safety. These combined safety data enable the MHRA to detect side effects or safety issues associated with COVID-19 vaccines. As well as confirming new risks, an equally important objective of monitoring will be to quickly rule out risks - in other words, to confirm that the vaccine is not responsible for a suspected side effect and to provide reassurance on its safety. We also take into account the international experience based on data from other countries using the same vaccines. For further information on how we use the data we collect, please view our COVID-19: vaccine surveillance strategy.

As with any serious suspected ADR, reports with a fatal outcome are fully evaluated by the MHRA to consider whether the medicine or vaccine may have caused the event or whether the event and fatal outcome were likely to be purely coincidental and due to underlying illness. To ensure the comprehensive assessment of fatal reports, we follow-up all fatalities where necessary for further information.

As mentioned above, for all the fatal reports concerning COVID-19 vaccines, a follow-up letter is sent to the reporter to request further information, including a copy of the Post Mortem (PM) report and the certified Cause of Death. Once we receive this follow up information, it may change the classification of the case. In some instances, the reporter may not consider the death to be related to the COVID-19 vaccine. The classification of these cases would therefore be amended within our database and these updates reflected in the following weekly Coronavirus ADR publication.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


Follow-Up response

From: Bob Fiddaman 

To: Pharmacovigilanceservice <>

Thank you for this information.

As a follow-up question, I am interested in the following paragraph you wrote me:

"As mentioned above, for all the fatal reports concerning COVID-19 vaccines, a follow-up letter is sent to the reporter to request further information, including a copy of the Post Mortem (PM) report and the certified Cause of Death. Once we receive this follow up information, it may change the classification of the case. In some instances, the reporter may not consider the death to be related to the COVID-19 vaccine." "The classification of these cases would therefore be amended within our database..."

Questions under the terms of the FOIA

1. Is a follow-up question/s sent to every single person who reports (via the yellow-card reporting system) an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

2. Is it the position of the MHRA that a UK citizen can determine whether or not an injury was caused by a pharmaceutical product?


Bob Fiddaman


I'll let you know when/if they respond

Bob Fiddaman

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering

Fear-mongering is a form of manipulation which causes fear by using exaggerated rumours of impending danger. It is used by many but often those who use this manipulation don't know they are being played by an insidious industry who hire some of the most ingenious marketing teams in the world.

Unfolding in the UK at present is a manipulation, make no bones about it.

England, Scotland and Wales have pre-ordered a product, they did so based on what scientists told them. That product has to be used by a certain date, in as much in the same way as the food you buy in the supermarket does. It was not purchased under 'sale or return' terms.

When all goes to plan, the product rolls out, in this instance the vaccine (even though it's not actually a vaccine I will use this term to avoid confusion)

The initial fear-mongering started with the Chinese media. How can we forget the images of the streets of Wuhan and also surrounding hospitals with citizens laying dead on the floor. The whole world saw those images - they were meant to. Unbeknownst to many this was probably the second phase which had been triggered by a disease escaping from a laboratory in the Hubei Province. There are still some that argue this isn't true and that it came from an infected Pangolin or Bat purchased, or indeed handled, in a wet market, ironically situated in the capital of the Hubei Province, Wuhan.

Any mystery surrounding a virus leak gives the real origins of the virus valuable time. Whilst everyone was focused on the Wuhan wet-market, the players could cover their tracks so to speak. It's a bit like hearing the police want to interview you for a crime you committed, you hear this second-hand so it gives you time to find a reliable person who will lie for you (an alibi)

The virus coming from inside a lab was, at first, deemed conspiratorial. Sky News Australia's documentary, 'What Really Happened in Wuhan', put the conspiracy theory slur to bed when it premiered in Australia on Sep 28, 2021

The lab leak was Phase 1, prior to the leak there would have been plans put in place as one has to prepare for all possibilities.


Phase 2 was the daily media coverage - this needed to be out there 24/7. Cast your minds back to early 2020. You were around the TV soaking it all up, right? The 24/7 coverage showed us all the images coming out of Wuhan. Citizens, we were told, were keeling over in the streets and dying. Wuhan residents, we were told, were being confined to their own homes, in some instances the media told us many residents were being boarded up in their own homes. This gave us the illusion that this deadly virus was our worst nightmare come true.

Next Slide Please

There is nothing more powerful that images to spark a reaction. The body plummeting from one of the Twin Towers, the young immigrant boy washed up on a beach, the man lying dead on the street in Wuhan whilst being surrounded by men in Hazmat suits 

Nothing more powerful, right. This virus is real, it's killing people and now, according to whatever news media you followed, it's here.

Images like the one above had to be shown, as did much of the video footage in Wuhan hospitals. If footage wasn't shown then compliance would have been much more difficult to sell.

But sell it they did and we were all soon locked down in our homes - and what did we all do during those initial lockdowns? Well, we tuned in to fear, our human voyeurism wanted to take a look inside the window of each UK county - who were being responsible, who were ignoring the social distancing rules that had been implemented?

Well, our voyeur instincts were quenched by Prof. Chris Whitty who, just like the mainstream media had done in Phase 2, used imagery to reel in the viewers. It was bad in North East England but no so bad in South West England. There were a rise in cases in Merseyside but a fall in cases in Wiltshire. It all made for great theatre, it also caused a divide. (Phase 4)

The Great Divide

University of Illinois history professor Peter Fritzsche wrote the book Hitler’s First Hundred Days - When Germans Embraced the Third Reich". In it, he highlights how in the spring of 1933, Germany became a one-party dictatorship. This whole process, according to Fritzsche, took just 100 days. Here's part of the blurb from his book:

"Fritzsche examines the events of the period — the elections and mass arrests, the bonfires and gunfire, the patriotic rallies and anti-Jewish boycotts — to understand both the terrifying power the National Socialists exerted over ordinary Germans and the powerful appeal of the new era they promised."

Sound familiar?

From the get-go we have been told we need to help flatten the curve by washing out hands, social distancing and staying indoors. This, we were told, would, in essence, make the virus go away. The 'science' behind this, we were told, was robust. We all watched as the daily death toll was announced on TV, not only in the UK but in Europe too where Italy and Spain seemed to be taking the brunt of deaths, particularly their elderly residents. It was harrowing TV. Slowly but surely news was coming out that the elderly in the UK were dropping like flies, it was all very grim indeed and, we were told, we had a vital role to play in keeping away from our elderly relatives. We, for the most part, complied.

The curve eventually flattened, we know this because Prof. Chris Whitty showed us images. It was, indeed, great news. Alas, the great news soon turned sour as the curve began to rise again. Something else was needed to help flatten it.


And here we are today. Promises were made with the vaccines - two jabs and the curve will flatten, the NHS won't be so under pressure, the elderly will be protected. At every corner we were being gently massaged - we would be rolling our sleeves up to protect others, not really to protect ourselves...but it does protect you as well, we were told. What we wasn't told, from the get-go, was the actual truth. You can still transmit the virus after two jabs and you can still fall foul of the virus. People, in the main, seem to have forgot that.

The scientists advising the decision-makers are, once again, painting a bad scenario with the newest strain of the virus, Omicron. We are now seeing a repeat on our TV screens and news resources of what happened when the original virus broke, allegedly from an infected Pangolin or Bat. The fear-mongering has been ramped up again but many have had enough. Constant calls for mandates are making the natives restless - the govt and their advisors have been fully aware of this, in fact, they were probably fully aware of any outcome before Phase 1 kicked in to action.

Now, we are told, restrictions will be placed on people who don't comply. Non-agreeable citizens of Australia, Germany, Austria, Greece, and Canada are having revolvers pointed in their direction - if you don't comply, you will suffer as a result, not because of the 'Pangobat' virus, but we, as your leaders will make it tough for you. Celebrities have joined in, announcing on their weekly chat shows or column inches that the unvaccinated should be punished. Most, if not all, give out wrong data to their viewers, listeners, and/or readers. When challenged they use what drug company marketing teams use, they belittle those questioning their position with negative terms such as 'anti-vaxxer', tin-foil hat' and/or 'conspiracy theorist'. Morning red sofa TV shows fair no better as they roll out the key opinion leaders, no tough questions from the likes of Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield or Lorraine Kelly. The target audience for these shows is the wimpish, the type that prefer a Posh and Becks story or like to look at Hollywood celbs who are aging, this makes them feel better about themselves. Those, who despite being shown evidence to the contrary, will roll up their sleeve on a whim whilst proclaiming, "We are doing it to protect the NHS." The nauseating compliant.

Drug companies are not allowed to advertise their wares in the UK, in fact the only two counties that allow Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) is the US and New Zealand. Drug companies have always found ways around this, often hiring spokespersons of celebrity status to talk about an illness, at the same time dropping in the name of a product that can 'help' that illness.

Rest assured, Pfizer are very much behind a lot of what we see unfolding in the UK. Many of the scientists advising parliament will have some sort of historic association with Pfizer, many will hold shares in the company. It's hardly an even playing field is it?

Who needs drug company adverts when the British press and celebrities or washed-up newsreaders are doing the job for the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and, to an extent Astra Zeneca (We don't hear about them anymore) - 'Reporters Expose Pfizer Misinformation And Power To Demand Eye-Popping Vaccine Profits' tells us more about this.

Also, bear in mind that almost every single 'scientific data' you read about in scientific journals wasn't actually written by the author who added his/her name to it. Chances are it was written by a PR firm hired by the likes of Pfizer, just as we saw with GSK and Paxil.

If you want to continue rolling your sleeves up then I'm fine with that. I'm not so fine with parents being hoodwinked by the 'science' and then dragging their kids to get jabbed though. Again, it's not really my business but it deeply saddens me that grown-ups just can't admit that they've been duped. Cognitive dissonance, perhaps, or maybe a strong case of Stockholm syndrome?

If the non-boostered are counted as unvaccinated, which is happening in many other countries, then expect more hospitalizations of the 'unvaccinated'. This will, in turn, be 'evidence' to show the boosters are working.

You see what they're doing yet?

Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering is a tactic whereby politicians, celebrities, and mainstream media outlets widen the catchment area of a disease on behalf of the drug industry so they can entrap more consumers with what people deem to be a cure for the disease. Many politicians, celebrities and mainstream media outlets don't know they're being used as advertising tools for the drug industry, who have some of the most genius marketing teams in the world. The drug industry has never been interested in finding a cure, to do so would be financial suicide. Don't fall into the trap of thinking a particular pharmaceutical product saved your life, chances are you are still taking that product - that is not a cure, it's a product that is making a very handsome profit for the industry. The drug industry is, basically, an insidious profiteering racket that has mastered the art of manipulation.

~ Bob Fiddaman, Researcher of Drug Company and Regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years

Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.