December 8


Safe, effective and free

On 9th September 2021 President Joe Biden informed his subjects citizens that his patience was wearing thin. His suggestion was that frustration about the unvaccinated was shared by a lot of people:

Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective and free.

For months now I have been wondering how to put forward my concerns about the expansion of vaccine passports in many countries around the world, the ever-expanding mandates for different groups of society, and more recently the increasing calls for compulsory vaccination for all.

The roadblock I keep coming up against is the suggestion that many vaccinated people offer:

Why worry about it? These passports aren't a problem once you get vaccinated. You get all your freedoms back, and life pretty-much returns to normal.

One option is to point out the obvious... that before long the vaccinated will become classified as unvaccinated once again, their passport will turn red. They will be required to get a booster shot to regain their freedoms once again.

The answer to this might be:

No problem. I'm happy to get a booster shot. After all, the vaccines are safe and effective. The benefits outweigh the risks.

So I find myself in a position of having to return to the issue of vaccine safety and efficacy, almost a year to the day after I began researching for my book "Vaccine Roundup".

Do your own research

When I first started questioning the hurried Emergency Use Authorizations for the hastily produced new technology vaccines I tried to look at information from a wide range of sources.

I didn't want to trust any single source, without supporting evidence from others.

I encourage you to do the same.

This post is not intended to convince you of anything, other than to do your own research, and draw your own conclusions.

I'm going to ask more questions, rather than offer too many of my own opinions. I'll give you some sources which might be helpful in beginning your research. Follow wherever this leads you, think critically about what you find.

  • Who is providing the information?
  • What agenda might they have?
  • How do I confirm what they say?
  • Who can I trust?


Are the vaccines "safe", as we are constantly told by our governments, global health bodies, media, scientists, doctors, panels of experts, and, of course, the companies who actually manufacture the vaccines?


QUESTION: Are you aware of the databases in most countries which track adverse reactions to vaccines and other pharmaceutical products?

QUESTION: Do you know how many adverse events have been reported to your own country's database?

QUESTION: Are you aware of the wide range of events reported, from very mild, up to and including death?

Let’s begin with a quick look at reporting systems for adverse event reporting following vaccine administration.

These systems are supposed to flag up any issues or dangers with with medications. If a new drug produces lots of reports of a particular adverse event, this can be followed up, and a safety assessment made. In the past adverse events systems have been responsible for many drugs or vaccines being either paused, or halted completely, due to safety concerns.

Most of these systems are passive, in that they don’t actively follow up every vaccine recipient and see if they have any problems. They rely on doctors or hospital administrators to complete reports of events they deal with. In many cases individuals can also record their own adverse events too.

Several studies have been done to try to assess how accurate these systems are. One study from Harvard in the US, looking at the US system VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), estimated that the system records somewhere around 1% of less serious events, perhaps 10% of more serious ones. 

The key takeaway is that these systems are considered to under-report problems to a significant, but unknown degree.

In the past vaccine rollouts have been halted if there have been links to 50 or less potential vaccine-related deaths. Of course, it goes without saying that correlation doesn’t prove causation, but in the past where there has been any doubt, the sensible approach is to err on the side of caution until more is known.

So, where are we now?

These are actual figures, as reported at the start of December 2021

    • 19,532 deaths from a total of 927,738 adverse event reports
  • Yellow Card reports (UK)
    • 1,814 deaths from a total of 395,049 adverse event reports
  • EudraVigilance (EU)
    • 31,014 deaths.

These systems generally aren’t very user-friendly, and a casual user will give up long before coaxing any meaningful data out of them. For this reason, inspired individuals or groups take the data and present it in a way that is much more accessible.

In the USA:

You’ll find the US government VAERS system here. Good luck with it. It’s hardly what you would describe as intuitive:

However, you’ll find exactly the same data here, scraped from the government website, but presented in a more meaningful way:

This particular page is the infamous “red boxes” page which gives a very easy-to-read at a glance overview of current numbers. Scroll down that page for a couple of startling graphs, which I have featured in a previous post here.

In the UK:

Here is the UK’s MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) Yellow Card website:

and here is the UK government’s weekly update page about adverse reactions:

Neither page offers data in a format that is easy to understand.

Once again we are saved by the hard work of independent agents. Here is a page with a simple overview of the numbers, as well as a search form to search the database:

In Europe:

The European database is even more impenetrable. You can try to produce information from it here:

I haven’t managed to figure out how to get simple figures from it. It seems that each different vaccine has its own report page. I haven’t found a similar independent site to openvaers or ukcolumn, but Brian Shilhavy at Health Impact News has mastered the database, and produces regular reports on the numbers recorded.

You can find one of his reports here:

QUESTION: Have you ever seen any of this information reported on a mainstream TV station, or in a major newspaper? If not, why do you think that might that be?


QUESTION: Do you trust the pharma giants who are producing these new-tech vaccines, declaring them safe, and profiting to the tune of billions of dollars?

Allowing Big Pharma to run their own safety studies seems a little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, doesn't it?

QUESTION: Are you aware that some of the safety trials were cut short, and the control group, who originally received a placebo, were then given the vaccine?

The concern with such questionable "research" methodologies is that there is no longer a control group which can be monitored, and assessed for future mid-term or long-term problems.


QUESTION: Have you seen the most recent documents released from the FDA under a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request?

You can find them here. I will be covering this in more detail in a future post:

They show that Pfizer were aware that in the first 90 days alone following Emergency Use Authorization, there were at least 1223 deaths associated with vaccination. 

QUESTION: Are any of the regular news sources that inform a large proportion of the general population making this known? If not, why not? You would imagine news like this would be screamed from the front pages in extra large font, wouldn't you?

Why the silence on adverse events following vaccination?

Why the reluctance to release documents which show that both the FDA and Pfizer were aware of multiple deaths in the very early days of the vaccine roll-out?


I’ll make this a quick bullet-point list, any of which could be the start point for your research. Once again, follow what interests you, or what troubles you, and see where it takes you.

For a much more in-depth discussion of my distrust of “the narrative” please get a copy of my book here (now totally banned by Amazon):

Vaccine Roundup: Should I Have One of the Covid-19 Coronavirus Vaccinations? Questioning the Narrative: An Exercise in Critical Thought

You can even choose to read it for free if you wish, I don’t mind – just set the “choose your own price” to $0.00, and download your copy.

QUESTION: What is mRNA, the new-tech both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are built on?

  • What is mRNA meant to do in the body, and how is it said to build immunity?
  • Why have we never used mRNA vaccines before to fight coronaviruses?
  • What challenges have mRNA scientists faced over the past decades of development?
  • What happened to many animals in mRNA studies after vaccination, when later challenged with the wild-type virus?

QUESTION: What is antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), often called pathogenic priming?

This topic might be a real cause for concern, should you care to look into it, especially when combined with information about animal trials for previous mRNA vaccines.

QUESTION: What happened to the animals in the animal trials for the current vaccines, before roll-out into the human world was approved?

I'll help you with the answer to this one... they simply skipped the animal trials in their rush to get these vaccines to market. Does that concern you? In my opinion, it should.

A few other matters to look into:

  • Record-breaking development time
  • Safety studies incomplete
  • New technology never used before on humans
  • Complete lack of success over the past 20 years to produce a coronavirus vaccine
  • Lack of mid-term safety data
  • No long-term safety data
  • Only being used under EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation)


QUESTION: Are you aware that the pharma giants have demanded complete immunity from prosecution for any harm their vaccines cause?

Why would they do this when they claim to be confident their products are safe and effective?

A few other details to research on the pharma companies themselves:

  • A rap-sheet of criminal convictions to rival The Mafia
  • A history of botched medical products causing harm
  • Complete immunity from prosecution for any harm their vaccines cause
  • Billions of dollars of vaccine profits
  • A long history of lies and malpractice
  • A business model based on treating symptoms, not dealing with causes of illness


I think there is enough there to get you started on the topic of vaccine safety. Over to you. I'm interested to hear what you find, and the conclusions you draw.

Please let me know in the comments if you think I have missed anything, or got anything wrong.


The oft-used phrase promising us that "the benefits outweigh the risks" does suggest an acceptance of the fact that these vaccines do carry some risks.

This is obviously now beyond doubt, as numbers of injuries rack up, and connections are made between adverse events and the administration of a vaccine.

However, if the vaccines are as effective as promised, and the pandemic as deadly as we are told, then a trade-off might mean that the vaccines save more lives than would be lost without vaccination, and the adverse events are a worthwhile sacrifice to accept.

Let's begin with some numbers...


QUESTION: 95% effective at doing what, exactly?

Initial studies measured the vaccines' effectiveness at preventing mild symptoms. They didn't look at efficacy of prevention of serious cases, hospitalization, or death.

Look into the details of the studies, find out what they focussed on, and what the results were which led to euphoric declarations of success..

QUESTION: Do you understand exactly what the drug companies mean when they claim the vaccine is 95% effective?

QUESTION: What is the difference between between Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction?

Let’s take a look at a quick example.

If you were told you had cancer, and your doctor told you there was a drug that was 50% effective in combatting this cancer, but came with some potential dangers, would you take it? Perhaps you would.

However, what if you discovered that the drug trial which produced the 50% figure showed that instead of 2 people in 100 dying in the placebo group, only one person died in the group of 100 given the drug.

50% is the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR). One death in the trial group, versus two in the placebo group is half.

The Actual Risk Reduction (ARR) is 1%, down from two deaths out of 100, to 1 death out of 100.

So what about that "95% effective" claim?

Go and research this for yourself, don't just take my word for it. 95% was the RRR. The Actual Risk Reduction was, I believe, 0.7%. This is because so few out of the approximately 22,000 in each half of the trial had any symptoms at all, and even fewer were confirmed by PCR to have covid.


The effectiveness of the vaccine has been a set of ever-moving goal-posts. When originally rolled out they were promised to be “the way we get out of the pandemic”.

Initial promises were that the vaccine would prevent infection and prevent transmission, stopping the virus in it’s tracks.

But it didn’t take long for the breakout cases to begin popping up.

QUESTION: How common are "breakthrough infections"?

Now it is almost universally accepted that the vaccines can neither prevent infection, nor halt transmission. Many scientists who weren’t on board with the main narrative pointed out that this would be the case from the start.

QUESTION: If the vaccine doesn't prevent infection or transmission, is it really a vaccine?

Having failed to live up to initial promises of providing full immunity, claims are made now that the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalization and death. Doesn't this make it more like any other medication, which reduces the severity of symptoms?


QUESTION: If the vaccines are effective, then why do we need booster doses less than 6 months after the initial 2-dose regime?

In the UK the 6 month gap between the 2 initial doses and the booster has just been lowered from 6 months to 3 months. 

Do you know of any other vaccine which needs top-up shots after 3 months?


QUESTION: What is Naturally Acquired Immunity, and how does it compare to vaccine induced immunity?

How long do these two types of immunity last?

Finally, when researching vaccine efficacy, I’d suggest you look for information about naturally acquired immunity, developed when someone recovers from a covid infection. 

There have been many comparison studies done which suggest that natural immunity is far more robust and longer-lasting than vaccine induced protection.

Some vaccine passports allow for this, others don't.

Most countries advise that even if you've had a previous infection and recovered naturally, you should still get vaccinated. Have they done safety studies on this? Go and find out...


This set of questions and ideas for research is in no way exhaustive, and there are many avenues you can go down on your voyage of discovery. 

Again, let me know in the comments if you think I have missed something that should be included here.


I'm not going to take long to de-bunk the idea that your vaccine is free, as a few seconds of critical thought will quickly assure you that this is not the case.

QUESTION: How much profit have Big Pharma companies made over the last year, since the first needle slid into Margaret Keenan's arm one year ago today, on 8th December 2020?

Pfizer's own estimate of income for 2021 for their covid vaccine alone is $35 billion. I'll write that in numbers, because it is an enormous figure:


Think of one million dollars. Multiply that by 1,000, and you have a billion.

$35 billion, distributed across the UK, would mean every man, woman and child  of the approximately 70 million of the population would represent $500 each.

It is a mind-bogglingly huge sum of money.

And that is just one company out of several with their snouts in the covid vaccine money trough.

QUESTION: Where do these billions of dollars come from?

That's right. From you and me, from the taxes we pay to our government, who then use that money to fill the coffers of their pharma friends.


I don't think so, Joe.


In the video clip at the top of this article, after declaring that the vaccines are safe, effective and free, President Joe Biden has a final question for those who so far have decided not to be vaccinated:

"What more is there to wait for?"


  • Maybe we're waiting for an in-depth analysis of the hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions and tens of thousands of deaths.
  • Maybe we're waiting for proof of any real measure of effectiveness.
  • Perhaps we'd feel more comfortable when this new-tech has been through many more years of safety testing.
  • Maybe we'd like to see what possible problems arise in mid-term and longer-term timeframes.
  • Maybe we're waiting for mainstream media to do some real reporting and ask some searching questions.

Or maybe, according to the current narrative, we're just crazy "conspiracy theorists" who have no idea what we are talking about...?

It's time for you to decide.



A great starting point are the adverse reaction databases, as detailed earlier on in this post.


Recent books I've found to be incredibly enlightening are:


by Iain Davis

which is free from his website here:

The Real Anthony Fauci

by Robert F Kennedy Jr

Buy it online (preferably not at Amazon - see below), or better yet, at your local bookshop.

You can also read my own book (which was banned by Amazon), by downloading it here. Pay for it if you wish, or change the price to $0.00 and download if for free:

Vaccine Roundup

by Ian Usher


Online videos are where you will find a wealth of information, ideas, theories and opinions. Once again, question everything, and form your own opinions by taking in a wide range of viewpoints.

YouTube has some videos which might be helpful, but being owned by Google, it seems to be a bit trigger-happy in terms of censorship.

Try some of the alternate video platforms springing up. where freedom of speech is still alive and well.

  • Bitchute
  • Odyssey
  • Rumble
  • Brand New Tube

Look for scientists, doctors, lawyers, independent reporters and others who aren't being listened to or featured by mainstream sources.

A few I have found to be informative include, but are not limited to (in no particular order):

  • Robert Malone
  • Geert Vanden Bossche
  • Mike Yeadon
  • Robert Kennedy
  • Simone Gold
  • Pierre Kory
  • Peter Doshi
  • Wolfgang Wodarg
  • Reiner Fullmich
  • Byram Brindle
  • Tess Lawrie
  • Del Bigtree
  • Peter Breggin
  • Vernon Coleman
  • Vladimir Zalenko
  • Charles Hoffe
  • Ryan Cole
  • Lee Merrit
  • Sucharit Bhakdi
  • John Ioannidis
  • Gareth Icke
  • Sherry Tenpenny
  • Ivor Cummins

And finally, my top resource for unbiased, independent news, particularly for a UK audience, but with a growing worldwide audience:

UK Column

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}