023 7 March 2023 Paul Greatrix, Registrar Registrar’s O ffi ce Trent Building University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD Dear Registrar, In con fi dence I am making a disclosure in the public interest under the Whistleblowing Code. A summary and full details of my disclosure are included in the following pages. Relevant documents including research papers form part of this disclosure and are included in PDF format at the continuation of this text. There are 128 pages in total. Links to webpages are also included below and these too should be considered as part of my disclosure. I ask for con fi dentiality, as I am entitled to do, while you investigate my disclosure. Thereafter I do not require anonymity and trust you will publish this letter, and the attached documents in full, along with the fi ndings of your investigation. My disclosure relates to recommendations and omissions, made by senior University sta ff and the University as an employer and corporate body, falling under these sections of the University’s Whistleblowing Code: 4.3.ii: that a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with their legal obligations; 4.3.iv: that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered; and 4.3.vi: that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the above sections has been, is being, or is likely to be, deliberately concealed. I trust that you will investigate as required under appropriate legislation and the University’s Whistleblowing Code. I have provided you with my personal contact details separately. I am happy to provide further information if necessary. With sincere thanks, Page of 1 9 023 Personal background From 2009 until February 2023 I was employed as a tutor in the School of Education. My work involved teaching international students, helping to improve their English language ability and preparing them to become postgraduate research students in a variety of disciplines. I was pleased to receive the Vice-Chancellor’s Medal, in March 2022, in recognition of my voluntary work with a food distribution charity. I am an alumnus of the University, gaining distinction grades on both the PG Dip PCET teaching diploma (2007) and the PG Dip in Education Research (2018). I have grave concerns about the University’s recommendations during the period from March 2020 onwards. I am making this disclosure under the University’s Whistleblowing (Public Interest Disclosure) Code and the applicable legislation. My statements relate to demonstrable facts. References are provided wherever possible and a reference list is included on page 9 below. I am not raising a personal grievance nor am I providing a personal opinion. I am morally and legally obligated to make this disclosure. I am aware that despite legislation designed to support them, whistleblowers are sometimes ignored or subjected to ad hominem attacks (He ff ernan, 2011). I am aware also that the issues of cognitive dissonance, wilful blindness and ‘the bystander e ff ect’ mean that whistleblowing in the public interest is not always successful (He ff ernan, 2011; Desmet, 2022). However, I trust that you will thoroughly investigate the issues as detailed below. Summary of my disclosure In recommending multiple doses of covid-19 vaccines for sta ff and students, the University has behaved unethically and has committed moral and legal wrongdoing (malpractice). With respect to the University’s ‘get vaccinated’ campaign and messaging in 2021 and 2022, the University failed to consider individual risks/bene fi ts, individual informed consent, the available alternative treatments, or the consistently very low infection fatality rate (IFR) of the illness. Given that the vaccines employ novel technologies, and that no medium- or long-term safety data was available, the University has failed to apply the precautionary principle. In making medical recommendations to individuals, including during class time, University sta ff members including teaching sta ff may have been practising medicine without a licence or appropriate medical quali fi cations. The University repeatedly recommended products from two pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca and P fi zer) with which it maintains close links but which have extensive criminal records for fraud, corruption, bribery, racketeering and criminal marketing. The University did not mention those links or criminal records in its ‘get vaccinated’ messaging. In relation to covid-19 vaccines, the University failed to communicate to its sta ff and students vital information about known risks and harms, including data on serious adverse reactions, which it had in its possession As a consequence of its recommendations and omissions, the University may have caused lasting physical harm to sta ff and students. Vaccinations In December 2020, covid-19 vaccines, which are commercial, injectable genetic products, became available. For the UK market, almost all of these are manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies P fi zer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna. Sene ff and Nigh (2021, p 39; paper attached) explain that these products are unprecedented in eight important ways: Page of 2 9 2023 ‘ First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection First to use mRNA vaccine technology [in the case of the P fi zer and Moderna products] against an infectious agent First time Moderna [US mRNA product developer] has brought any product to market First to have public health o ffi cials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary e ffi cacy data First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans First injection of genetically modi fi ed polynucleotides in the general population’. In 2021 and 2022 the University promoted vaccination with these products to all sta ff and students without mentioning, in its messaging, any of the eight points listed above. Posters were displayed in all University buildings recommending that sta ff and students ‘get vaccinated’. This and similar messages also appeared on postcards and in regular emails from senior University sta ff (sent to everyone at the University) and on the electronic displays of cash tills in campus cafés and shops. Teaching sta ff were urged to use class time to promote vaccine take-up among students and a ‘champion toolkit’ PowerPoint fi le (Brewitt, 2021; attached) and other resources were provided to assist in this promotional work. At the time of writing (Feb 2023), this advice to students remains on the University’s website: ‘Vaccination is the most important defence against Covid-19. Take up the free vaccine when it is o ff ered and remember to get both doses to ensure you are fully protected’ ( www.nottingham.ac.uk/coronavirus/current-students/covid-19-vaccine.aspx#FAQs ). No references or citations are provided by the University for the claims made in that statement. This advice directly contradicts the statement made in Jan 2022 by Albert Bourla, CEO of P fi zer, that ‘The two doses of the vaccine o ff er very limited protection, if any.’ ( www.youtube.com/ watch?v=lhMbKyDq9_w&t=98s ). The AstraZeneca vaccine is no longer available in the UK, although the Government has not explained why. ( www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/ coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-vaccine/ ). In March 2021, the European Journal of Clinical Investigation published a study by John Ioannidis at Stanford University. He estimated the infection fatality rate (IFR) for SARS-CoV-2/covid-19 to be ~0.15% (Ioannidis, 2021; attached). This is a very low IFR, indicating a negligible risk for most people, and comparable to that of seasonal fl u (ibid.). A more recent peer-reviewed paper, published in Environmental Research , analysed data from 38 countries. The IFR for the global non-elderly population was revised further downwards, with the analysis yielding ‘median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years’ (Pezzullo et al., 2023; attached; p 1). The University’s ‘get vaccinated’ campaign and email messages did not mention this consistently very low IFR nor the fact that SARS-CoV-2/covid-19 is not listed (since March 2020) as a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) by the British Government. The very low IFR and Page of 3 9 2023 corresponding very high recovery rate for healthy people led physician and microbiologist Dr Marcus De Brun to determine in April 2021 that ‘Healthy people do not require genetic vaccination’ ( https://cassandravoices.com/science-environment/science/healthy-people-do-not- require-genetic-vaccination/ ). The University’s campaign did not mention the many other successful treatments (including prophylaxis treatments) for SARS-CoV-2/covid-19 which were already available and well documented in the medical literature by early 2021. These treatments include generic medicines with good safety records, including Vitamin C ( https://c19early.org/c ), Vitamin D ( https:// c19early.org/d ), zinc ( https://c19early.org/z ), and aspirin ( https://c19early.org/e ). To date, some 2,400 academic studies have been published on these treatments and the papers, with detailed analyses and meta-analyses, are being collated in real-time by academic researchers at https:// c19early.org . However, the University has only ever recommended the novel genetic vaccines as a treatment for this illness and has never shared this link with sta ff and students. The University’s messaging also made no mention of the extensive criminal records for fraud, corruption, bribery, racketeering and criminal marketing held by P fi zer and AstraZeneca, the two main vaccine manufacturing companies. In 2009 P fi zer paid a record fi ne of US$2.3 billion in the US to settle a case of fraudulent marketing of antibiotics and painkillers ( www.salon.com/ 2009/09/03/pharma_2/ ); in 2010, AstraZeneca paid US$520 million in fi nes to settle charges that it illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel to children and elderly patients. ( https:// abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel- schizophrenia/story?id=10488647 . These are just two examples; the long criminal records of these two ‘repeat o ff ender’ corporations are a matter of public record ( www.corp-research.org/ p fi zer ; www.corp-research.org/astrazeneca ). Overall, since 2000, P fi zer has incurred US$4.661 billion in penalties, including US$3.374 billion for unapproved promotion of medical products; US$1.110 billion for government-contracting- related o ff ences; US$103.8 million for drug/medicine safety-related o ff ences; US$60 million under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and US$34.7 million for kickbacks and bribery o ff ences ( https://violationtracker.goodjobs fi rst.org/parent/p fi zer ). In the same period, AstraZeneca has incurred US$1.381 billion in penalties, including US$594 million for unapproved promotion of medical products; US$556 million for government-contracting-related o ff ences; US$198 million for drug/medicine safety-related o ff ences; US$21 million under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and US$5.52 million for kickbacks and bribery o ff ences ( https:// violationtracker.goodjobs fi rst.org/parent/astrazeneca ). The University maintains industry partnerships with both AstraZeneca and P fi zer. The School of Medicine’s webpage currently (Feb 2023) includes these descriptions: ‘ AstraZeneca: A global pharmaceutical company pushing the boundaries of science to deliver life-changing medicines. Some of our studies into respiratory disease have received investment from AstraZeneca. We’ve also worked with them on trials on thrombosis and haemostasis.’ ... ‘ P fi zer: One of the world’s premier innovative biopharmaceutical companies, discovering, developing and providing over 170 di ff erent medicines, vaccines and consumer healthcare products. P fi zer have helped fund our studies into respiratory disease.’ ( www.nottingham.ac.uk/medicine/research/research-industry-partnerships.aspx ) Senior University sta ff are aware of the criminal records of these two corporations but did not mention them when advising sta ff and students to ‘get vaccinated’ with their novel products. Knowledge of these ‘repeat o ff ender’ criminal cases and large fi nes and penalties would have been helpful to sta ff and students in making decisions about their health. Page of 4 9 023 The University’s ‘get vaccinated’ campaign also made no mention of the lack of any medium- or long-term safety data for the vaccines, or the novel, genetic nature of the two types of injection (mRNA and viral vector DNA). mRNA is a completely new vaccination technology, never previously used in human beings (Sene ff and Nigh, 2021). The precautionary principle should apply with regard to any new technology, but was ignored by the University in this case. The attached report by Dr Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, details serious covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions in the UK (Lawrie, 2021). These harms, unprecedented in number, were clear to many researchers by the spring of 2021. Dr Lawrie's report was completed in June 2021 and sent to all health authorities and relevant government departments. It was also sent to senior University of Nottingham sta ff ; for example, it was emailed to Sarah Speight, Pro-Vice Chancellor, in June 2021, and a printed copy was handed to HR sta ff and a senior professor during a meeting at King’s Meadow Campus in February 2022, after which it was retained on fi le. The University has, to my knowledge, never mentioned this expert report in its covid-19 communications with sta ff or students. Again, knowledge of the information in this report would have helped sta ff and students greatly in their decision-making about vaccination. In her report, Dr Lawrie reviews the data collected by the Government’s Yellow Card scheme, which serves as a warning system for medicines in the UK. She concludes: ‘It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem in fl ammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)’ (p 6). Dr Lawrie continues: ‘The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian e ff orts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term e ff ects. As the mechanism for harms from the vaccines appears to be similar to COVID-19 itself, this includes engaging with numerous international doctors and scientists with expertise in successfully treating COVID-19’ (p 7). Dr Lawrie is a GP and an independent researcher experienced in analysing health data and formulating policy recommendations for health authorities including the WHO. The information in her report should have been shared with sta ff and students once it had been received, reviewed and veri fi ed by appropriately-quali fi ed members of sta ff . Instead, the University continued to recommend that healthy sta ff and students should receive multiple covid-19 vaccinations including ‘boosters’ (third doses). The number of reported adverse reactions for these novel products is much higher than for any other medicine. In Jan 2023 the Yellow Card reporting system showed these data (collected up to 23 Nov 2022) for adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccines: P fi zer: 177,925 Yellow Card reports received; 71 per cent (125,711 reports) are categorised as ‘serious’, including: 2,640 disorders of the immune system, 7,950 vascular disorders; 14,380 cardiac disorders; 17,670 blood disorders; 23,070 respiratory disorders; 31,790 reproductive system and breast disorders; 58,340 musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders; and 84,730 disorders of the nervous system. Page of 5 9 023 Of the above, 65 per cent of the serious adverse reactions were reported by people aged under 50. ( https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/idaps/TOZINAMERAN ) Astra-Zeneca: 246,866 Yellow Card reports received; 77 per cent (190,997 reports) are categorised as ‘serious’, including: 3,481 disorders of the immune system; 14,078 vascular disorders; 11,599 cardiac disorders; 7,922 blood disorders; 23,070 respiratory disorders; 20,983 reproductive system and breast disorders; 105,331 musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders; and 183,978 disorders of the nervous system. Of the above, 48 per cent of the serious adverse reactions were reported by people aged under 50. ( https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/idaps/CHADOX1%20NCOV-19 ) Moderna: 47,045 Yellow Card reports received, 72 per cent (33,896 reports) are categorised as ‘serious’, including: 738 disorders of the immune system; 1,641 vascular disorders; 2,862 blood disorders; 5,438 reproductive system and breast disorders; 14,152 cardiac disorders; 17,071 musculoskeletal and tissue disorders; 23,070 respiratory disorders; and 24,861 disorders of the nervous system. Of the above, 65 per cent of the serious adverse reactions were reported by people aged under 50. ( https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/idaps/ELASOMERAN ) According to the UK Government, the ‘passive’ Yellow Card scheme is estimated to report only around 10 per cent of the actual serious adverse reactions to vaccines ( www.gov.uk/drug-safety- update/yellow-card-please-help-to-reverse-the-decline-in-reporting-of-suspected-adverse-drug- reactions ); therefore the fi gures quoted above are likely to represent only a small fraction of the real total. In April 2022 a paper entitled ‘Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs’ was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (Sene ff , Nigh, Kyriakopoulos and McCullough, 2022; attached). The authors state that: ‘We present evidence that [covid-19] vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis [cancer formation]. We show evidence from the VAERS [US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/bene fi t assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health’ (p 1). Page of 6 9 023 The authors conclude: ‘In this paper, we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety pro fi le of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN- α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to e ff ectively combat future infections. Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations. Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike glycoprotein mRNA to produce high levels of spike-glycoprotein-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious in fl ammatory consequences. Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces ... In the end, billions of lives are potentially at risk, given the large number of individuals injected with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and the broad range of adverse outcomes we have described’ (pp 14-15). In an editorial for the April 2022 edition of the journal Surgical Neurology International (attached) , neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock notes that ‘Hospitals are being fl ooded with vaccine complications ... A dramatic number of these people are now dying, with the spike occurring after the vaccines were introduced’ (Blaylock, 2022; p 11). The above papers, Dr Lawrie’s report, and the website https://c19early.org have been brought repeatedly to the attention of key sta ff in the University but no action has been taken to update the advice given to sta ff and students in regard to the vaccines or other treatments. This British documentary fi lm includes interviews with key scientists and doctors researching this issue: www.oracle fi lms.com/safeande ff ective (Oracle Films, 2022). It also includes personal testimony from several members of the public who are now su ff ering severe health problems that are temporally linked with being vaccinated with the covid-19 products. Finally, the Doctors for Patients group (DFPUK) published this press release and video in Dec 2022: https://doctorsforpatientsuk.com/press-release/ . The authors state: ‘Many doctors, in the UK and internationally, have become increasingly concerned about the safety pro fi le of Covid-19 vaccines and the continued rollout of these products to the public, including pregnant women and children. Several doctors in DFPUK have submitted multiple Yellow Card reports of adverse events to the MHRA, and have signed letters to the JCVI, MHRA, the RCOG, Prime Minister and others to express their concerns, but have seen little or no response or action taken. They have, therefore, now compiled the video above [see webpage] in which they share their individual perspectives, clinical experiences and serious ethical concerns, in the hope that urgent action will fi nally be taken by the authorities’ (Doctors for Patients, 2022). Although the University repeatedly recommended covid-19 vaccination to all sta ff and students, it has not shared with them any of the above evidence of serious adverse reactions and harm. In recommending these vaccines to individuals, the University appears to have been practising medicine without a licence or any medical quali fi cation to do so. Concluding remarks To recap, in 2021 and 2022 the University ran a ‘get vaccinated’ campaign involving posters, emails, postcards and other messaging, targeted at sta ff and students. The University did not pass on to its sta ff and students key information, which it had in its possession, about the known Page of 7 9 2023 risks and harms of these products including the many tens of thousands of reports of serious adverse reactions temporally linked to vaccination. The University’s campaign did not tell sta ff and students about the novel nature of the vaccine technology, about the lack of any medium- or long-term safety data for these products, or about the consistently low IFR of the illness. The University recommended only these novel vaccines, and did not provide information about or recommend any of the other treatments for SARS-CoV-2/covid-19 which are fully documented in the medical literature and widely used in many countries. In recommending the novel, commercial vaccine products, almost all of which in the UK were provided by P fi zer and Astra-Zeneca, the University did not provide any information about the extensive criminal records of those two corporations or its own partnerships with them. It is a matter of public record that P fi zer and Astra-Zeneca have long practised fraud, corruption, bribery, racketeering and criminal marketing. In recommending these novel vaccines without any medium- or long-term safety data being available, the University ignored the precautionary principle. The University’s ‘get vaccinated’ campaign, and its fi nancial and other relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, require thorough independent investigation. Concluding notes The foregoing, along with the attached documents, references and links, forms my disclosure under the Whistleblowing Code. The following are additional remarks which I hope the University will take into consideration; I make these comments as a concerned professional teacher. Personal anecdotes cannot provide scientists and investigators with objective data, and I understand the problem of con fi rmation bias. In addition, correlation does not imply causation (although it can provide the basis on which to form a hypothesis about cause and e ff ect). Notwithstanding these points, I would like to note here that several of my former colleagues experienced new illnesses temporally linked to (that is, following) ‘covid-19 vaccination’, some of them very serious. These illnesses include cardiac disorders, blurred vision, neurological problems, ongoing fatigue, cognitive/memory issues, and, importantly, apparent infection with SARS-CoV-2/covid-19 itself, the disease against which these people were meant to have been immunised by the P fi zer, AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines. The University has at is disposal the resources needed to properly research the health outcomes and types and levels of adverse reactions to these products among its own sta ff and students. A control group is available, since not all sta ff and students have received these injections. Such a study would help to clarify the situation and add greatly to the literature; a long-term project, tracking health outcomes over several years, is possible, but such a research project has not yet been commenced. As stated above, the University maintains strong partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, including the vaccine manufacturers P fi zer and AstraZeneca. Several physician-led groups including the World Council for Health and the FLCCC are currently working to help those a ff ected by adverse reactions to these products, including making recovery protocols available ( https:// worldcouncilforhealth.org/ ; https://covid19criticalcare.com/ ). The University may consider forming working partnerships with these organisations too, so that the best medical research and advice can be disseminated as widely as possible in the academic community and beyond. Page of 8 9 023 References ( key texts* are attached ) Blaylock, R. L. (2022). COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surgical Neurology International. Vol 13, issue 167.* Brewitt, T. (2021). Champion toolkit for sta ff (PowerPoint presentation slides). University of Nottingham, Human Resources Department.* c19early.org (2023). COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 2,400 studies. https:// c19early.org Desmet, M (2022). The Psychology of Totalitarianism . London: Chelsea Green Doctors for Patients (2022). UK Doctors Call For Government Investigation of mRNA Covid Vaccines. https://doctorsforpatientsuk.com/press-release/ He ff ernan, M. (2011). Wilful Blindness: Why we ignore the obvious at our peril. London: Simon & Schuster. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021). Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Vol 51, Issue 5.* Lawrie, T. (2021). Urgent preliminary report of Yellow Card data up to 26th May 2021: Letter to Dr Clare Raine at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency . The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.* Oracle Films (2022). Safe and E ff ective: A Second Opinion (documentary fi lm) www.oracle fi lms.com/safeande ff ective Pezzullo A. M., Axfors, C., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Apostolatos, A. and Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). Age-strati fi ed infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population. Environmental Research Issue 216.* Sene ff , S. and Nigh, G. (2021). Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Vol 2, Issue 1.* Sene ff , S., Nigh G., Kyriakopoulos A. M. and McCullough P. A. (2022). Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs. Food and Chemical Toxicology. Issue 164.* Page of 9 9 Surgical Neurology International • 2022 • 13(167) | 1 ! is is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. ©2022 Published by Scienti " c Scholar on behalf of Surgical Neurology International Editorial COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Russell L. Blaylock Retired Neurosurgeon, ! eoretical Neuroscience Research, LLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi, United States. E-mail: *Russell L. Blaylock - Blay6307@gmail.com ! e COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by o $ cial lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies. [3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-quali " ed individuals with enormous wealth, power and in % uence. For the " rst time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scienti " cally based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the " rst time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health o $ cers and hospital administrators. [23,38] ! e media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scienti " c experts in the " eld of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the " elds of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology. ! ese blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scienti " c citations from some of the most quali " ed medical specialists in the world. [23] Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of P " zer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly quali " ed scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine. Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most cited experts in his " eld, who has successfully treated over 2000 COVID patients by using a protocol of early treatment (which the so-called experts completely ignored), has been the victim of a particularly vicious assault by those bene " ting " nancially from the vaccines. He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment. www.surgicalneurologyint.com Surgical Neurology International SNI: Infection Editor Ali Akhaddar, MD, IFAANS Avicenne Military Hospital, Marrakech, Morocco Open Access *Corresponding author: Russell L. Blaylock, ! eoretical Neuroscience Research, LLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi, United States. Blay6307@gmail.com Received : 06 February 2022 Accepted : 11 February 2022 Published : 22 April 2022 DOI 10.25259/SNI_150_2022 Quick Response Code: Blaylock: Update on Covid-19 pandemic events Surgical Neurology International • 2022 • 13(167) | 2 [44] Despite this, he is under an unrelenting series of attacks by the information controllers, none of which have treated a single patient. Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever o ff ered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have di " culty breathing. # is is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications. Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal—loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest.[2] A good example of this outrage against freedom of speech and providing informed consent information is the recent suspension by the medical board in Maine of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license and the ordering of her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for prescribing Ivermectin and sharing her expertise in this % eld. [9,65] I know Dr, Nass personally and can vouch for her integrity, brilliance and dedication to truth. Her scienti % c credentials are impeccable. # is behavior by a medical licensing board is reminiscent of the methodology of the Soviet KGB during the period when dissidents were incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to silence their dissent. OTHER UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS Another unprecedented tactic is to remove dissenting doctors from their positions as journal editors, reviewers and retracting of their scienti % c papers from journals, even a & er these papers have been in print. Until this pandemic event, I have never seen so many journal papers being retracted— the vast majority promoting alternatives to o " cial dogma, especially if the papers question vaccine safety. Normally a submitted paper or study is reviewed by experts in the % eld, called peer review. # ese reviews can be quite intense and nit picking in detail, insisting that all errors within the paper be corrected before publication. So, unless fraud or some other major hidden problem is discovered a & er the paper is in print, the paper remains in the scienti % c literature. We are now witnessing a growing number of excellent scienti % c papers, written by top experts in the % eld, being retracted from major medical and scienti % c journals weeks, months and even years a & er publication. A careful review indicates that in far too many instances the authors dared question accepted dogma by the controllers of scienti % c publications—especially concerning the safety, alternative treatments or e " cacy of vaccines. [12,63] # ese journals rely on extensive adverting by pharmaceutical companies for their revenue. Several instances have occurred where powerful pharmaceutical companies exerted their in ' uence on owners of these journals to remove articles that in any way question these companies’ products. [13,34,35] Worse still is the actual designing of medical articles for promoting drugs and pharmaceutical products that involve fake studies, so-called ghostwritten articles. [49,64] Richard Horton is quoted by the Guardian as saying “journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” [13,63] Proven fraudulent “ghostwritten” articles sponsored by pharmaceutical giants have appeared regularly in top clinical journals, such as JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine—never to be removed despite proven scienti % c abuse and manipulation of data. [49,63] Ghostwritten articles involve using planning companies whose job it is to design articles containing manipulated data to support a pharmaceutical product and then have these articles accepted by high-impact clinical journals, that is, the journals most likely to a ff ect clinical decision making of doctors. Further, they supply doctors in clinical practice with free reprints of these manipulated articles. # e Guardian found 250 companies engaged in this ghostwriting business. # e % nal step in designing these articles for publication in the most prestigious journals is to recruit well recognized medical experts from prestigious institutions, to add their name to these articles. # ese recruited medical authors are either paid upon agreeing to add their name to these pre- written articles or they do so for the prestige of having their name on an article in a prestigious medical journal.[11] Of vital importance is the observation by experts in the % eld of medical publishing that nothing has been done to stop this abuse. Medical ethicists have lamented that because of this widespread practice “you can’t trust anything.” While some journals insist on disclosure information, most doctors reading these articles ignore this information or excuse it and several journals make disclosure more di " cult by requiring the reader to % nd the disclosure statements at another location. Many journals do not police such statements and omissions by authors are common and without punishment. As concerns the information made available to the public, virtually all the media is under the control of these pharmaceutical giants or others who are bene % tting from this “pandemic”. # eir stories are all the same, both in content and even wording. Orchestrated coverups occur daily and massive data exposing the lies being generated by these information controllers are hidden from the public. All data coming over the national media (TV, newspaper and magazines), as well as the local news you watch every day, comes only from “o " cial” sources—most of which are lies, distortions or completely manufactured out of whole cloth—all aimed to deceive the public. Blaylock: Update on Covid-19 pandemic events Surgical Neurology International • 2022 • 13(167) | 3 Television media receives the majority of its advertising budget from the international pharmaceutical companies—this creates an irresistible in ! uence to report all concocted studies supporting their vaccines and other so-called treatments. [14] In 2020 alone the pharmaceutical industries spent 6.56 billion dollars on such advertising. [13,14] Pharma TV advertising amounted to 4.58 billion, an incredible 75% of their budget. " at buys a lot of in ! uence and control over the media. World famous experts within all # elds of infectious diseases are excluded from media exposure and from social media should they in any way deviate against the concocted lies and distortions by the makers of these vaccines. In addition, these pharmaceutical companies spend tens of millions on social media advertising, with P # zer leading the pack with $55 million in 2020. [14] While these attacks on fr