Zantac Lawsuit


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

Friday, January 21, 2022

11:11

 


COMING SOON

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 <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>

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

MHRA

--


Bob Fiddaman

 




Monday, January 03, 2022

MHRA FOIA REGARDING VACCINE INJURIES AND DEATHS

 



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 

To: info@mhra.gov.uk

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

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*

Author/Blogger/Researcher

--

From: Pharmacovigilanceservice <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>

To: "fiddamanwork@gmail.com" <fiddamanwork@gmail.com>

CC: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>, FOI_Policy <FOI_Policy@mhra.gov.uk>

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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

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 <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>

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?

Sincerely,

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.

Disease-Mongering

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.

Vaccines

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





Tuesday, November 30, 2021

High-Profile Medical Experts or the Facebook and Media Clan?



If high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care had something to say about the vaccine clinical trials, would you be interested or would you much prefer to visit Facebook's COVID-19 Information Centre for vaccine resources? (Fig 1)

Fig 1

If this question would have been posed before the outbreak of COVID_19, most would have answered with, "It's a no-brainer." Today, however, sees a different position. Facebook's flagging of posts seems to convince many of those already jabbed that nobody but their fact-checkers could possibly be right. This is dangerous and no matter how much you try to convince the double-jabbed that there is something not quite right with what we are all being told, the wind grows stronger and blows the piss back in your face (pissin' in the wind)

I'm certain once this blog post is finished and shared on Facebook the standard (Fig 1) will accompany it within seconds. So, how to we tap in to those who take the Facebook flags as Gospel? Personally, I think many are way too far down the government and drug company driven hyperbole. It would take a severe adverse reaction or even death to a loved one to alter their opinion.

The following information is taken from the RxISK website, RxISK is owned and operated by Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd. (DBM), based in Toronto, Canada.

It is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.

The exact same group of people that the majority of the double-jabbed are choosing not to listen to, opting instead to believe and follow the 'science' of Facebook's COVID_19 Information Centre for vaccine information.

I've yet to see Facebook's flags take it's 'clickers' to any information regarding the vaccine clinical trials, moreover, how trials are run (historically)

The latest from the RxISK team, 'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', is educational for those who don't move in the same circles as I. It can either be ignored or can be used to educate - out of the two, I prefer education over ignorance, we all should.

Sure, it rehashes what the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated seem to dismiss on a whim but it drives home the seriousness of what we see unfolding in the world today, it shows how easy it is to hoodwink an apathetic public, despite evidence there is something drastically wrong with the narrative, of which the majority seem to have gobbled up from apparent government "scientists", mainstream media outlets and social media platforms whose spokespersons seem to be the red-sofa types, you know, the Piers Morgan's, Jeremy Vine's and Dr Hilary Jones' of this world.

Morning and daytime TV has a targeted audience. With COVID-19 impacting routines and consumers spending more time at home, daytime television viewing has increased significantly. What better way to spread a message, eh? It doesn't have to be the truth.

The aforementioned will, just like the double/triple/quadruple vaccinated, refuse to even read  'There was a Young Woman who Swallowed a Lie', It goes against everything they believe in and have told their viewers - to do a U-turn at this stage would mean they'd lose face, something that Messrs Morgan, Vine, and Jones rarely do.

The high-profile medical experts on the RxISK website write:

"Governments are considering mandating, or already have mandated an unproven technology, against a background of vaccine approval and pharmacovigilance processes that leave a lot to be desired even in the case of proven technologies.

"The techniques used to evaluate these novel agents are not new but have been corrupted and no longer meet the norms of science."

If, by some strange twist of fate, a double/triple/quadruple vaccinated person is reading this blog post, it's at this point a switch is flicked in their heads and they choose to not read on, this is pretty much how Fig 1 works.

However, I'll persist.

The patient-centered care team at RxISK continue with:

"Icon is the CRO that co-ordinated the trial of a vaccine that is sometimes now called Comirnaty, and more generally called Pfizer. Icon subcontracted to other companies, at some point engaging Platinum Research Ltd, which includes Ventavia, the CRO with concerning trial practices that was the subject of Paul Thacker’s Nov 2 BMJ paper. Icon boast that the main trial was conducted with unprecedented speed and pitch for further business based on this.

"Icon staff wrote the papers reporting the results of these trials submitted with BioNTech as the sponsor. Of the 29 listed ‘authors’ on the main trial, there are 3 Americans, 4 who run for profit clinical trial centres overseas, and 19 company people of whom 17 are linked to Pfizer and 2 to BioNTech. There are few clinicians on these papers, and likely none have met any of the trial subjects, particularly those who have been harmed."

If this has not whet your appetite to read on then the lengthy post may not be your thing. However, you'll be missing out on something that can educate you, your children and your children's children.

The post from RxISK is split into many parts, I highly recommend reading it, if not all at once, then bookmark it and read it at your own leisure (maybe in-between listening to Dr Hilary Jones harp on about the importance of getting vaccines and booster 1,2,3,4 etc.

Learn about:

 - Mandating Unproven Technologies

- Vaccine Efficacy

- Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence

- Vaccine Safety 

- Pharmacovigilance

- Mandates

- Choking on the Lie 

- Why Young Women?

Remember, and keep repeating to yourself, RxISK is run by a group of high-profile medical experts with international reputations in early drug-side-effect detection and risk mitigation, pharmacovigilance, and patient-centered care.

Bob Fiddaman





Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Podcast with Akathisia Stories

 


Akathisia Stories, a co-production of MISSD and Studio C, is a podcast series that features interviews and news concerning the adverse drug reaction akathisia and medication-induced suicide. 

MISSD, the Medication-Induced Suicide Prevention and Education Foundation in Memory of Stewart Dolin, is a unique non-profit organization dedicated to honouring the memory of Stewart and other victims of akathisia by raising awareness and educating the public about the dangers of akathisia. MISSD aims to ensure that people suffering from akathisia's symptoms are accurately diagnosed so that needless deaths are prevented. The foundation advocates truth in disclosure, honesty in reporting, and legitimate drug trials.

On this episode, we hear from author, blogger, researcher, and self-described humanist and humourist Bob Fiddaman.  His eponymously titled blog has focused on drug company and regulatory malfeasance since making its debut in 2006.  At the time, Bob, an Englishman living in Birmingham, was taking himself off of Seroxat, a GlaxoSmithKline-produced antidepressant known here in America as Paxil.  After making a protracted attempt at tapering off of the drug, he eventually decided to go cold turkey, a course of action he strongly advises against. 

Full show here

Podcast extra here


Bob Fiddaman





Thursday, November 11, 2021

Pfizer Double-Down With Children Promo and Accusations



On Nov 1, Pfizer published a video featuring children on their Twitter page. The video (below) shows children who are thanking all the children who enrolled in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, the results of which saw authorisation given by the FDA, despite protestations from safety consumer groups. It's unknown if the children who appear in the short video are child actors.

In the main, the reaction to the video was one of discontent from members of the public. One commentator wrote, "This is one the sickest things I’ve seen in a long time … but from the most fined company in human history I guess I shouldn’t expect any better."

I, myself, drew attention to Pfizer's past history regarding children, in particular a trial carried out in Africa in 1996.

This from The Guardian Aug 2011 

"Pfizer was sued after 11 children died in a clinical trial when the northern state of Kano was hit by Africa's worst ever meningitis epidemic in 1996. A hundred children were given an experimental oral antibiotic called Trovan, while a further hundred received ceftriaxone, the "gold-standard" treatment of modern medicine.

"Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone. But later it was claimed that Pfizer did not have proper consent from parents to use an experimental drug on their children and questions were raised over the documentation of the trial."

The lawsuit took over 15 years for Pfizer to settle, surprising then that they would use children to promote the safety and efficacy of a relatively new product of theirs.

BMJ ARTICLE

Pfizer chiefs were left red-faced after an investigative piece appeared in the BMJ (2 November 2021) raising serious concerns about poor practices at a contract research company (Ventavia) helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial.

Armed with information from a whistleblower, investigative journalist, Paul D Thacker, highlighted:

  • Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
  • Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
  • Protocol deviations not being reported
  • Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
  • Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
  • Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

Pfizer remained quiet after the BMJ article surfaced...but not for long.

On Nov 9, they tweeted out a meme accompanied with the following message, "It’s easy to get distracted by misinformation these days, but don’t worry…Science has got your back."

Because of the backlash received from their 'Superheroes' video, Pfizer blocked any public comments on this one.

It seems odd that Pfizer would engage in such a way. History shows that when any drug company comes under fire for falsifying clinical trial information (albeit by proxy) they usually remain quiet. Pfizer doubling-down here is a rare move.

It seems this is the way in which Pfizer are going to tackle critics of their vaccine.

'PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS'

On the same day they launched the meme via Twitter, CNBC published an interview with Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla. They eye-catching headline from CNBC reads:


Berkeley Lovelace Jr, the journalist who authored the piece, wrote:

People who spread misinformation on Covid-19 vaccines are “criminals” and have cost “millions of lives,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Tuesday.

Speaking with Washington D.C.-based think tank Atlantic Council, Bourla said there is a “very small” group of people that purposefully circulate misinformation on the shots, misleading those who are already hesitant about getting vaccinated.

“Those people are criminals,” he told Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe. “They’re not bad people. They’re criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.”

This, to me at least, is yet another rarity. Some would suggest that Bourla is concerned about the whistleblower findings published in the BMJ and is deflecting here.

It's a strange allegation to make given that Pfizer, in 2009, agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

At the time, Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, had this to say:

"Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws."

Pot, kettle, and black anyone?

Bob Fiddaman



Wednesday, November 03, 2021

Senator Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Mandates and Injuries

 



Yesterday's Expert Panel discussion on Federal Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Injuries can now be viewed in full. It runs at just under 3 hours and 20 minutes.

I grabbed some screenshots that I posted yesterday during the meeting. The full video can be viewed here.


 

Tuesday, November 02, 2021

Make A Stand - Call out the Financially-Driven FDA

 


With mainstream media outlets, seemingly, ignoring severe conflicts of interests between FDA Panel members with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer, it's no surprise that parents across the world will be soon telling their 5-11 year-old children to roll their sleeves up to be injected with a vaccine that, if government figures are to be believed, the majority of adults have already taken.

We can go one step further and quote the President of the United States, Joe Biden - president's don't lie, right, they never have, they never will.

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Biden added, "This is a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."

These two statements by Biden will serve to put the US public at ease. Thanks' Joe. Nothing like reassurances from a world leader.

You'd have to be from the Planet Zog not to challenge Biden's claims, either that or be totally brainwashed by the leaning-left political media.

I shake my head at times, not at Biden, not even at CNN, my head shakes in disbelief at members of the general public whom have been so taken in by this absurd narrative.

Biden is wrong when he says ,“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Biden is also wrong when he claims, "This is a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."

Nonetheless, many of his voters will stand by these claims because, well, they elected him and he's much better than the other guy who was President.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he is, just a load of support on various social media outlets in the shape of various memes.

Biden has doubled-down and dangled a huge 'come gobble me carrot' in front of the FDA. Telling them, and the rest of the world, that the Administration has procured enough vaccine to support vaccination for the country’s 28 million children ages 5-11 years old, this before the FDA panel of 'experts' gave it the thumbs up. More about this decision below.

When something is wrong, say it's wrong. Biden isn't personally going to visit your home and condemn you for your lack of support. Trump isn't going to phone you up in the middle of the night and tell you, "I told you so."

This political allegiance baffles me. Just because you give someone your vote does not mean that you can never publicly chastise them for making such absurd claims as Biden has made regarding a virus and injections.

More people (that voted for him) need to call him out. They need to drop this false sense of loyalty they hold, they need to stop deflecting this misinformation by changing the subject to Biden's predecessor.

I don't care what you think about the opposition - it's history, let it go and focus on the bullshit staring you in the face. You're not being disloyal if you do this, you're part of the problem, however, if you don't.

Fast forward...

Last Friday (Oct 29) the FDA authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 to include children 5 through 11 years of age, despite protestations from  an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorisation or licensure are transparent for the public.

The 8 hour meeting between interested parties can be viewed here.

Remarkably, we had one either side of the fence, a party representing reasons for and reasons against. Those in the reasons for camp, namely the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, have financial ties and/or relationships with Pfizer.

These include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a member who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a member who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children.

It's also important to note that the former FDA Commissioner ,Scott Gottlieb, is on Pfizer’s board of directors.

It was pretty obvious how they would vote in favour, imagine if they didn't, Pfizer would have asked some serious questions about their loyalty.

Any such 'deliberation' between consumer safety advocates and FDA panels is therefore, surely, compromised by such a conflict of interests.

Those safety advocates faced an uphill battle from the get go given Biden had already told the heavily influenced Pfizer/FDA Panel that his Administration had already procured enough vaccine to support vaccination for the country’s 28 million children ages 5-11 years old.

This incestuous relationship between regulators and drug/juice manufacturers is clearly there to be seen yet it's only independent journalists and safety advocates that seem to be highlighting this. For this, they are labelled 'anti-vax' or other anti-narrative slurs.

Panel members with clear financial ties to manufacturers. Hey, no problem, no bias to see, right?

One of the most insidious mutterings I've heard in a long time came from Infectious disease specialist, and current editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Eric Rubin, who said, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. And that’s just the way it goes." 

Meantime, millions of parents will be telling their 5-11 year-olds to roll up their sleeves in one of the biggest child experiments the world has ever seen.

This is absurd and its only a small proportion of people speaking out about it. 

Even if you've had the juice, this cannot sit right with you. 

Coming full circle

As Biden supporters stand by idly and don't condemn his misinformation, we now have two other sides of the fence. Those who have been juiced and those who haven't. The juiced, in the main, won't see the conflict of interests as an issue, they won't see the fact there is no long-term safety data for 5-11 year-olds as an issue either. The won't see any problems with the FDA and, indeed the CDC, not having access to Pfizer's clinical trial case report forms (Raw data). Even if they did take issue with any of the above it would be highly unlikely that a majority would say what an utter disgrace this was. Thinking it is and uttering to oneself that kids need and should be protected from financial bias isn't good enough, it won't take you to those pearly gates as 'good people', quite the opposite if you believe in Heaven that is.

Weighing up benefits and risks should be about benefits and risks to the intended recipients and not about the benefit and risks of making a financially driven decision, which is clearly what has happened here. It's political, it's money-driven, it's utterly repugnant.

Finally, if none of the above stirs any kind of response other than a shrug of the shoulders, one should study the following slide. Correlation will never equal causation if we have data collecting agencies who don't follow up any adverse reaction reports.


Slide presentation from Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom. Nov 2, 2021

Bob Fiddaman

Special thanks to independent journalist Maryanne Demasi, PhD for her piece, 'A 'one size fits all' approach to vaccinating kids aged 5-11yrs?

Here is a Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom.







Tuesday, October 05, 2021

Hotel Quarantine Part 2 ~ The Video Evidence

 

I'd like to make a complaint, Pleeeeeeeeasssssse

Following on from Part 1 which I posted yesterday.

A few days ago I requested that any security guard who escorts me to the elevator and any guard that escorts me to the smoking area, provide me with a negative Covid test. This may seem flippant but they all know I'm negative having had, to date, a negative test result in Panama before I flew, a negative test result upon my return to the hotel after I 'absconded', and and negative test result on Day 2 of my stay here.

A person in authority told me it would be impossible for security staff to provide me with such evidence and gave me assurances that all the security staff here are tested every two days. I told him I didn't want any of them standing near me.

This same person said to me, "I know what you're going through as I lost my dad a few years ago." I replied, "You couldn't possibly know what I'm going through, you did not have to isolate in a room by yourself after your father died."

After returning from seeing my father die I began to get hungry. I phoned down to reception to ask what time dinner would be brought to my room. "Between 7pm and 9pm" came the reply.

At 10 after 9 my food had still not arrived so, once again, I phoned reception who, in turn, phoned the kitchen. Within 10 minutes the kitchen informed me that nobody had told them I had returned from seeing my father die and no meal had been prepared for me. A sandwich was sent to my room instead, along with some vegetarian bitesize chunks and around four chips.

Because of this, I phoned a Chinese Takeaway and had a meal delivered. The morning after I phoned reception and asked for a minifridge, I could not eat all the Chinese food I had bought and paid for so wanted to keep it fresh so I could eat it later that day. I was informed they had no minifridges.

During my stay here, and even before I arrived, social media has been a great tool - people offering help, legal advice and even publishing agencies reaching out to me. I've been able to upload videos to show people just how frustratingly unprofessional the security staff are here and, more recently, the hotel staff at St John's Hotel, Solihull. Obviously, this is my opinion as I'm in the thick of it all.

A couple of nights ago two security staff came to my door and accused me of smoking in my room, they told me an alarm had gone off in my room which detected smoke. I gave them assurances that I was not smoking and invited them in, they declined, probably due to the fact that 'guests' in quarantine here are treated like they actually have Covid. One of the guards then 'sniffed' at my open door, as she was doing this an alarm went off in the hallway. Obviously the hotel alarm system was acting up, instead of apologizing for the inconvenience and accusation that I was smoking in my room, the same woman doubled-down and said, "You're not even allowed to open your window to smoke". She, along with her timid associate then left.

The morning after I phoned reception to send a guard up to my room so I could be escorted to an elevator. I wanted to go outside for a cigarette. A guard never came so I walked into the hallway outside my room and asked a guard who was sitting if he could radio down and get me a guard. This was the only way to communicate as, by then, reception was not answering my calls.

When I arrived downstairs, I was told they were 'busy checking new guests in to the hotel', hence the delay in sending one of the 12 or so security guards to my room.

Because I had walked into the hallway without an escort I was reported and the following day was told I was now on the 'Bad Behavioural List'. This decision was made without hearing my side of the story.

Before I left Panama I was forced to sign up to a government approved quarantine hotel, I didn't even know what hotel it would be until after I paid the £2,270. On the form I was asked if I had any dietary requirements. I noted that I had a cheese allergy, in as much that the mere sight of it makes me want to vomit.

Here's an example of the choices of food I am given at St Johns Hotel.



Before I speak more about the food here, I have some videos for you all. These videos have been posted on Facebook and links have been provided on Twitter (as Twitter only allows small video files)

The first is me requesting a bucket of ice be sent to my room to keep the takeaway fresh that I had been forced to order.


The next video shows how security staff come to my room to take me for a cigarette outside. On this day I didn't have a lighter so had to borrow one. I had to wear surgical gloves. Make note of the 'boss' of security warning me that I will get into trouble for using my phone to film. Filming is not against the law unless children are involved.


This video shows me returning to the hotel after my cigarette


Because the food isn't to my liking, my two lovely sisters put together a package for me and delivered it to the hotel, they was not allowed inside the hotel, they had to drop it off outside to a waiting security guard. They have a twisted sense of humour, just as I do, hence the three bottles of 'Corona'. Nice touch too to include a photo of me, my dad, and my partner.


The snacks above came in handy, particularly after I was served this. It was sweet and sour noodles, no meat. I threw it in the bin. To be honest, I've had better tinned spaghetti.


On another occasion, I was sent sausages in a bap for breakfast, although the appearance looked unappetizing, I was so hungry that I didn't really care what it looked like...that was, until I bit into it.



Here's another 'breakfast' - two potato fritters in a bap.


Once my story hit the front page of the Birmingham Evening Mail, the service here, which was poor at best, became worse. It now takes security staff longer to come to my room when I want a cigarette. I've been told that it's because they are 'busy'

Here's an example of that. The following was filmed because I didn't want security to tell me I had broke the rules again and to be told I have another naughty mark against me (Bad Behavioural List)


Because reception were, seemingly, busy, I popped my head outside my room door to asking the sitting security guard to send somebody up to escort me to an elevator. Notice he is not wearing a mask and puts it on after talking with me.


After about 25 minutes, reception rang my room and said they would be sending someone up. The 'boss' at reception, seemed to be annoyed with me. If anyone reading this knows his name, can you please let me know.


This morning this was delivered to my door.



Well worth the £2,270 I've been forced to pay, doncha think? Here's an example of what guests normally get to choose from at St Johns Hotel

I had to complain. Here's what happened when I did. The same reception manager took my complaint badly, it seems. I was shaking at this point. I'm beyond breaking and really don't know what to do anymore. This man knows about the Birmingham Mail article, most of the staff and security guards know about it too. They also know that I'm recently bereaved and am dealing with that bereavement in the confines of my small room. Although I raise my voice in this video, I think anyone in my position would. The 'boss' at reception' treats me like I'm something he's wiped off the bottom of his shoe, at least that's the impression I get. What do you think?


And here's what happened after I returned from having a cigarette


**Update
Because of the power of social media, A journalist just telephoned the hotel to ask to speak with me. I have now signed a contract with an agency who are going to deal with all media interest, as it is growing rapidly.

The manager of the hotel has also spoken on the phone with me this morning and has sent a proper plate and stainless steel cutlery to my room so I don't have to eat from a box with plastic utensils anymore. Further, she has kindly provided me with the use of an umbrella to use when I go outside for a cigarette. She also told me to write down and request what food I want rather than pick from the limited menu they have here. I appreciated and thanked her for showing some common sense and compassion.

It's now lunchtime and I have just been sent my sandwich of the day (Egg mayonnaise) - there's more in here than I normally get.


St John's Hotel can be followed on Twitter here

Bob Fiddaman




Monday, October 04, 2021

Hotel Quarantine Part I

 


Quite often headlines can be misleading, however, the on above isn't.

My story made the front page of the Birmingham Mail this morning, it can also be read online here.

Hopefully, it will be picked up by the national newspapers and this can go viral...because it needs to.

I'm not after sympathy nor adulation for doing what any other normal human-being would do. What I want are answers on why I have been forced into a 10-Day quarantine stay at a hotel where security guards outnumber guests, where food is served in boxes with plastic cutlery, where "fixed penalty" warnings come if you as so much walk a few feet outside your room door and, fully masked, dare to approach a security guard from his slumber to ask if you can be escorted outside (in the rain) for a cigarette. Where, you get a knock on your door to be told that you have been added to the 'Bad Behavioural List' for not adhering to rules and regulations, despite not being allowed to offer a defence in why you did what you did.

The 10-Day Quarantine imprisonment is, I believe, a money-making scheme. I'm not paying for a stay here, I am, it appears, paying for a large number of security staff who stand around for most of the day in the hotel lobby or sit at various ends of floor landings.

The average cost of a 10-night stay at The St John's Hotel, Warwick Road, Solihull works out at around £85 per night, that's £850 for 10 nights. The price I have been forced to pay is a staggering £2,270.

My story begins in Panama, Central America, where I reside with my long-term partner.

I've been living in Panama on and off now for the past three years or so. I work from home so can pretty much live anywhere in the world. Living abroad has its pitfalls, particularly when you receive news of friends and relatives who are gravely ill.

My father has been unwell for sometime, prostate cancer was diagnosed some years ago and his health has, over the years, been slowly declining. He chose not to have the treatment for his prostate, in having the hormonal treatment he believed his life would be shortened. my two sisters and I respected his wishes.

Dad was taken ill with a chest infection over a week ago and admitted to hospital where further investigation showed he had acute kidney failure, suffered a heart attack in hospital and had a blood clot on either his heart or lungs (the hospital could not determine which organ)

His health was declining rapidly and my sisters contacted me in Panama to let me know. A flight was booked as early as possible, the stumbling block being a Covid test I had to undertake first, a wait of 24 hours for the results of said test.

I also had to fill in forms before I could fly back to the UK. An ESTA because I was passing through the USA, a 10-Day Quarantine Hotel Package and a Passenger Locator Form which would let Border control know exactly which country I was flying from. Prior to all of this I had to obtain a special stamp in my passport to leave Panama, that took another 24 hours.

My flight was long and arduous, David to Panama City - Panama City to Orlando - Orlando to Frankfurt - Frankfurt to Birmingham. With layovers it was around 23 hours.

Birmingham Airport

On arrival at Birmingham Airport (17.10 hrs) Sept 30 I was pulled to one side after showing security my passenger locator form, I was the only one. I was told to sit in a chair whilst Border Control were informed. Other passengers drifted by, occasionally looking over at me, probably assuming I was about to be busted for carrying drugs up the crack of my butt. However, it appears, I was singled out for something far more sinister - I had travelled to the UK from a red-list country, Panama.

Once Border Control came to see me I informed them that my father was gravely ill and was in the process of being sent home to die at the wishes of my two sisters. I asked the Officer if I could go straight to see my dad rather than go straight to the quarantine hotel. He didn't know so made inquiries. About 10 minutes later he came back, shaking his head, and informed me Border Control did not have the authority to make such a decision and any such decision would have to go through the head of security at the hotel.

From this point, I was escorted onto a shuttle-bus and then escorted by two Airport staff through the back of the airport. I was then taken to a full sized coach and told to "sit at the back" - I was the only passenger on the coach. I chose to sit on the fourth row. The coach then drove the short distance to St Johns Hotel in Solihull.

Bad Driving

As we approached the hotel, the driver erred and crashed his coach into overhanging branches. He reversed out, drove up the road, did a U-turn then drove back to a different entrance at the hotel. He crashed again. If I wasn't so miserable because of my father laying at home on what was to be his death bed, I would have laughed. It's one thing to be given a whole coach to oneself (I felt like Justin Bieber) but another to be chauffeured around by a driver who, seemingly, couldn't judge the width and length of the vehicle he was operating.

"Fuck this", I told the driver as I jumped off the coach and headed toward the hotel reception. "Bring my suitcase in when you've learned how to park." I told him.

The Security Guards

I checked-in and was handed a bunch of papers which basically showed what I could and couldn't do during my 10-Dat stay. I counted around 8 security guards who were all congregated around me. I asked to speak to the head of security, luckily for me he was sat close by.

I informed him about my dying father, he seemed affable enough and asked me if I had any evidence, which is fair enough. During my flight Dad had been moved from South Warwickshire Hospital to his small flat in Alcester, he was, in essence, sent home to die. They had stopped all his medication.

I had previously obtained a letter via email from the consultant at the hospital spelling out all of dad's ailments, which I have mentioned above. However, after calling a liaison officer, the head of security informed me he needed more evidence as the letter had not stipulated dad was dying. I contacted my sister who sent me more evidence, this time it was in black and white that dad had been sent home to die. I gave this new 'evidence' to the head of security - what came next astounded me.

I was told that I may or may not be granted a temporary exemption and even if I was it would only be for four hours - in a nutshell, I would have to guess when I thought my dad would die. I was then informed that a decision to allow me a temporary release could take up to four hours. I informed the head of security that I would not wait 4 hours for a decision, nor would I pick a 4 hour timeline when I thought my dad might die. I phoned my son and told him to drive to the hotel. I then informed the head of security I would be leaving as soon as my son arrived. I was advised that this went against "rules and regulations" and that I would face arrest and a heavy fine. He empathised somewhat but empathy should not ever be followed with the word "but". Eg, "I am sorry your father is dying "but" there are rules and regulations."

I approached reception surrounded by the Hi-Viz wearing security and offered them my passport, this was letting them know I was only going to see my dying father and not secretly digging a tunnel to escape. They would not accept my passport. I then held it high and told the hotel staff and influx of security guards that I was leaving under severe duress.

From Solihull to Alcester

My son, the youngest of three, parked around the corner, we thought it best as we didn't want the cackle of security guards noting down his vehicle registration number. He drove me to Alcester and I was soon by dad's side. He couldn't open his eyes, was unresponsive to conversation and was breathing erratically. I kissed his forehead and he managed to raise an eyebrow. I held his hand and felt a slight squeeze. Dad was communicating with me, he was saying his goodbye and, I guess, thanking me for being there. I 'd like to think that anyway.

My two sisters were exhausted and went to sleep on dad's bed whilst my youngest son, and later my eldest son who had travelled up from Colchester, stayed with dad in the living room where he lay on a bed provided by the hospital.

My sisters woke after a few hours sleep then I rested my eyes for a while, I'd been awake now for almost 36 hours. I slept for a while then woke.

Dad took his last breath just after midday, my two sisters and I, my son, and dad's brother, all by his side.

Back to Hotel Quarantine

I said my goodbye's to my family and was driven back to St Johns by my eldest son. Upon arrival I was told I had to have a Covid test before I could enter my room. Results would take about 20 minutes.

A negative test and I was soon back in my room.

A while later, I needed a smoke, so went through the procedure of dialling "0" and requesting that a security guard be sent up from downstairs so he/she could escort me to an elevator. During my smoke break and under the watchful eye of security, I was approached by two West Midlands Police Officers.
"Come to arrest and fine me?", I joked.

They had received a message from security that I had 'absconded' the night before. I didn't need to tell them why, they already knew. Long and short of it all, they didn't arrest me or hand me a fixed penalty fine. They did, however, ask for the name of the funeral home my father was now at, which I gave them.

Around 6.30 that evening I was feeling hungry so phoned reception and asked when dinner would be being brought up to my room, they told me between 7-9pm.

At ten after nine I called reception again to tell them I had still not had my dinner. Two minutes or so later, the kitchen phoned me to tell me that nobody had told them that I had returned to the hotel and they had no dinner, a sandwich was sent to my room instead.

JUST EAT

Thanks goodness for modern technology, moreover the Just Eat app. I ordered from a local Chinese. The food is delivered to a security guard who sits outside the hotel, it's then transferred to reception for another security guard to bring up to my room. I was soon diving in to my Beef Curry and fried rice, sadly I'm not allowed plates in my room or any stainless steel cutlery, more about that tomorrow, so had to use my fingers to eat.

Feeling tired and very sad and lonely, I decided to close my eyes, I'd been on the go since leaving Panama and fell into a deep sleep within seconds of my head hitting the pillow.

Tomorrow, I'll be posting more. It will feature:

- How I requested that all staff show me Covid test results before they escort me anywhere
- How no fridge or microwave can be provided for my room
- How someone in authority said to me "I know what you're going through" and my reaction to that.
- How social media has been a pick-up tonic for me during these sad times
- How security staff came to my room and accused me of smoking, at the same time an alarm went off in the corridor - no apology
- How I have an allergy to cheese yet the food I'm offered is, in the main, cheese based
- How I was told that I had been place on the 'Bad Behavioural List'

In the meantime, please read my story in the Birmingham Evening Mail, it made the front page in print so hopefully it gains some traction and may show others just how draconian these Covid measures have become.

I also have video footage that I will be sharing that makes for interesting viewing.

Until then...

This post is dedicated to my father, Douglas Richard Fiddaman.

Rest in Peace, Pops. I love you.

Bob Fiddaman
















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