Professor Norman Fenton has been reporting on the bias of the BBC documentary ‘Unvaccinated’ which is being screened today, 20 July. It’s an attempt to convince those who have chosen not to have a Covid injection to “get jabbed.” It is a timely, eye-opening investigation commissioned by BBC Factual, the BBC claims without explaining why it is “timely” – presumably they are hoping we believe, due most likely to the fraudulent use of PCR tests, “Covid-19 is on the rise again.”
A search on both the internet and BBC’s website for “BBC Factual” returned no results which makes one wonder who actually commissioned BBC’s “investigation.” If any of our readers has any information about “BBC Factual” we would be grateful you noting it in the comments section under this article.
In this documentary, Prof. Fenton wrote, “mathematician Prof Hannah Fry – with the help ‘experts’ – attempts to convince 7 members of the public (who have so far refused) to take the Covid vaccine. As I pointed out the BBC (in the publicity for the programme) already signposted the likely extreme bias in the programme by massive underestimating the number of unvaccinated people in the UK, hence trying to present such people as a tiny extreme fringe.”
Another so-called “expert” BBC used to help convince unvaccinated – those who follow good science and are part of the almost 30% of the UK population who have chosen to remain unvaccinated – is Asma Khalil.
And as long ago as 2015 Asma Khalil declared these conflicts of interest as a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (“NICE”) Quality Standards Committee.
Responding to Prof. Fenton’s tweet, Andy Sands neatly portrays BBC’s
More on BBC’s “Expert” Asma Khalil
We now know that Khalil is the principal investigator (“PI”) of the Pfizer Covid “vaccination” in pregnancy trial. We also know from a response to a Freedom of Information request alongside an in-depth dive into the only pregnancy/fertility study performed that Medicine Regulators and Pfizer chose to publicly cover-up alarming abnormalities of the developing foetus and falsely downgraded the actual risk of Covid “vaccination” during pregnancy by suppressing documented findings of the clinical data.
Read more: FOIA reveals Pfizer & Medicine Regulators hid dangers of COVID Vaccination during Pregnancy after Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility and The Facts About Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Risks to Unborn Babies
So, is there anything else about Khalil that should set alarm bells ringing? Yes. There is more on Khalil in Professor Fenton’s article titled ‘BBC’s ‘independent vaccine expert’ just happens to be in charge of Pfizer’s Vaccine Centre’:
It turns out the she was a participant in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded simulation ‘Preparing for Disease X: Ensuring Vaccine Equity for Pregnant Women in Future Pandemics’ – the results of which are reported in THIS paper that she co-authored and was funded by:
Note that there is no declaration by Asma Khalil (“AK”). This requires an explanation. Nor does AK declare any conflict of interests (“COIs”) in her other recent publications.
So, What Do the So-Called “Anti-Vaxxers” Actually Think?
Unlike the BBC biased nonsense, Daily Sceptic published an article in May which described a rigorous study into the views of the unvaccinated. Rather than just listen to the lazy stereotypes of sceptics portrayed in the press, academia and Government, the authors of the study – Dr. Raminder Mulla, Amy Willows and Rusere Shoniwa – decided they would go and find out what people actually thought.
A January 2021 study by Miguel et al concluded that people who shunned compliance with Covid containment measures were more likely to display “lower levels of empathy and higher levels of callousness, deceitfulness, and risk-taking”.
Prompted by a desire to foster genuine understanding between different sides of the Covid camp, a new study led by Dr. Raminder Mulla dug into this question. The study titled ‘Looking into their eyes’ found, unsurprisingly, that this vilified group are anything but baby killers or terrorists. Crucially, they did not evince the stereotypical tropes about ‘anti-vaxxers’ that have been propagated in the corporate and social media.
Simply put, the participants believe that lockdowns were a state overreach. They oppose lockdowns because of the burden placed on the entire population irrespective of risk, the collateral damage caused, and the imposition on civil liberties and individual freedom.
Addressing the label of ‘anti-vax’ directly, the study finds that most of its participants were not opposed to vaccination in principle but did express doubts about the rapid development and deployment of the current Covid vaccines and their side effects. None of the study participants subscribed to unusual theories, referencing 5G or nanobots, with which this group is often stereotyped.
Delving into the participants’ values, the study finds that most emphasised personal responsibility and autonomy in health and other affairs and the importance of the maxim to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’
Despite the disappointment some interviewees expressed with those who unquestioningly complied with the Covid narrative, they did not wish them harm or inconvenience. In contrast, other studies have shown that this attitude of non-malevolence is not reciprocated by the compliant towards the non-compliant, whom the compliant view as deserving of unemployment, impoverishment and censorship.
Looking into their Eyes: Covid Narrative Dissidents in Their Own Words, Daily Sceptic, 3 May 2022