I just saw this story at TGP:
The doctor’s name is Angus Dalgleish. This is his letter as published in the Daily Skeptic:
There follows a letter from Dr. Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s University of London, to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ. It was written in support of a colleague’s plea to Dr. Abbasi that the BMJ make valid informed consent for Covid vaccination a priority topic.
Dear Kamran Abbasi,
Covid no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of Covid in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling.
The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy. (We predicted these side effects in our June 2020 QRBD article Sorensen et al. 2020, as the blast analysis revealed 79% homologies to human epitopes, especially PF4 and myelin.)
However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practising oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel.
Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters. They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster – one developing leukaemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long Covid since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.
I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes that many suggest, especially as the same pattern is being seen in Germany, Australia and the USA.
The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control – and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments.
This must be aired and debated immediately.
Angus Dalgleish MD FRACP FRCP FRCPath FMedSci
Angus Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London.
The Argument AGAINST All 'Vector' Technologies
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=247500
It seems to me that what is missing from Dalgleish's warning is a full understanding and consideration of the possible benefits of vaccination. Just because a vaccine has potential side effects, including deadly side effects, doesn't mean that public health authorities shouldn't recommend it.
Let's say testing shows that a vaccine for Novel Gorilla Flu will reduce the mortality rate for the disease from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10,000, but will kill 5 in 100,000. In this hypothetical 90 lives in 100,000 will be saved if there is universal vaccination, but 5 in 100,000 will be lost, which otherwise would not be.
Should public health authorities be permitted to mandate vaccination in the belief that saving a net of 85 lives in 100,000 is a public good? Or should they be prevented from mandating vaccination because they know in advance that 5 in 100,000 lives will be lost which otherwise would not be?
If the authorities decline to mandate vaccination, perhaps only 1/2 the population will decide to take the vaccine, resulting in 100 deaths out of 100,000 in the unvaccinated 1/2 of the population, with only 5 lives saved. In the vaccinated 1/2 of the population only 15 lives out of 100,000 will be lost.
Who makes this choice? Anthony Fauci? Public health authorities? Governors? Legislatures? Individual doctors? Individuals who are informed of the odds? Individuals who are not informed? Blog post readers?
My hypothetical is simplistic. The ethical considerations become far more complex when risk of transmission in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons is factored in, or when the possible benefits of natural immunity and herd immunity or the risk of re-infection are considered. Or when the possible benefits and detriments of alternative strategies such as masks, lockdowns, social distancing or quarantining are considered. Or when risk of death for different age groups or co-morbidities are factored in.
And then there is the ethical precept of 'Primum non nocere': first, do no harm. The ethical rules are not straight forward when an action carries risk, but a non-action may carry more risk.
I mention all of the foregoing largely to remind myself that the decisions made by governments and public health authorities and doctors and individuals over the past almost three years were not easy ones, and may have even been justified, even if they may have turned out to be wrong in some cases. And I mention the foregoing as one who after taking the first two Moderna jabs (primarily to go to a wedding, not because I wanted to) has steadfastly declined to be jabbed again.