I received this anonymous letter from a SCUDD list member:
Point 4 in the letter has obviously been disproved by President Trudeau’s recent announcement, thus highlighting the smugness of ‘anonymous’s’ comment as naive and under-researched. Canada has now introduced mandatory vaccination for many work places and anyone over 12 to be able to travel: some would say this is both worrying, unethical and a step towards totalitarianism.
Trying to threaten/intimidate me with their brilliant ‘Peer Review skills and connections?’
They imply that SCUDD encouraged them to contact me (anonymously) off list via my agents office.
If that is the case you must please make it clear to members that they cannot do that and that if they wish to contact me my email is available on my website and also off list via SCUDD.
Perhaps, upon reading it, some members may recognise the tone of this bombastic, dogmatic and sarcastic hand. I pity their poor students if they dare to disagree with this bully.
I cannot be bothered devoting any time to their obsessive point making, most of which is totally inaccurate and unsubstantiated and obsessed with Dr Ponesse and belittling her experience.
I reiterate that I am neither pro- or anti- vaccine, I am pro-choice and feel an individuals medical status is a personal matter.
A few points for the anonymous individual:
They must have missed the recent reading of the COVID-19 Vaccine Damage Bill in UK parliament and the figures shared of those who have been injured (not fake news but factual data). Or, President Trudeau announcing that anyone over 12 years old will not be able to travel in Canada without being vaccinated.
Maybe they have not unpicked the conflicts of interest at the MHRA?
Or, perhaps their research does not extend to examining the pharmaceutical companies and their documented past fines for unethical behaviour and corruption?
This is all fact, not fiction or ‘fake news’ and to deem this not worthy of ethical debate is truly ignorant. Some are calling it surreptitious forced vaccination via excluding people from space(s) and that can reasonably be argued and discussed, but not ignored.
Or perhaps they missed some BLM members stating openly that the mandating of vaccines is particularly discriminatory towards African Americans. Here it is in Instagram form, which if you read the letters finale, Dr Anonymous indicates they prefer as a medium of communication:
If you read on this topic you may understand the reluctance given the long and well documented history of medical experimentation imposed upon African Americans See: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/114192.Medical_Apartheid
Maybe they haven’t watched the award winning film TrustWHO : https://www.amazon.co.uk/TrustWHO-Lilian-Franck/dp/B079XRLSCK and actually believe the Pharmaceutical complex has no history of corruption and non-compliance with ethical behaviour or indeed the law. Maybe they do not ask why this documentary film was recently removed from YouTube via ‘Google’ censorship. You can research and view the pharmaceutical industry in depth should you wish, including past documented fines for such behaviours.
If this is the level of research that this academic undertakes before sending bombastic attempts at debate to my door, it is a sad state of affairs. I need more than research that only looks at the Guardian, The Independent, the BBC or any other compromised outlet. There are actually well researched books out there about this very subject, yet this individual obviously seems to feel they can comment without undertaking an engaged literature review. Absolutely appalling and arrogant approach to (non)debate.
That they pursue this anonymously and ask me, at the end, to respond via Instagram or Twitter is laughable and a reflection of their own fear and lack of confidence in their argument. Additionally, it is a reflection of where they get their ‘factual’ data from and highlights that they obviously prefer to have pseudo names on discredited ‘fake news’ platforms rather than take an ‘ethical’ approach of owning their own bombast.
SCUDD please inform members that anonymous letter writing to a persons work address is not acceptable and totally unethical. It is, in fact sinister and tantamount to harassment.