A ‘Groucho’ Club

I was elected to the Royal Society of Biology (RSB) on 1st July, 2022 (Figure 212.1). Of all the organizations that I have previously joined, only one membership has not lapsed, that of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, which is a family tradition dating back two centuries. I am, therefore, proud to be a Haberdasher and look forward to my sons becoming members in the near future. That said, I have never been a natural follower of anything or anyone.

Figure 212.1: RSB membership certificate

Copyright © 2022 Royal Society of Biology

Fair dealing asserted.

The RSB is a prestigious ‘club’. Electees must prove their contribution and ongoing commitment to the scientific method and an honourable pursuit of objective truth. The society offers advice, where appropriate, to government agencies. At a local level, there are fascinating research activities and opportunities coordinated by senior members. For example, I was looking forward to (my younger son and I) taking part in an electro-fishing session on a small river 30 miles from home. Given my everyday routine of micro-analysis in a research laboratory, I thought that some fresh air and dirty fieldwork would be beneficial. Unfortunately, it was not to be.

Last month, I received an unexpected letter from the RSB’s top brass, which referred to my online comments and articles relating to ‘vaccinations’. (Here we go, I thought.) It was accompanied by a weasel word du jour, namely ‘misinformation’, which has yet to be defined by any of the censorship freaks that throw it around. Apparently, my views and public comments do not coincide with the ‘weight of opinion’; and it was, therefore, decided that I had ‘a case to answer’.

Not wishing to disappoint, I answered within the requested 14-day period, as follows:

Dear Dr -----,

Thank you for the attached correspondence, which I have read carefully and with interest.

First, I hereby agree to refrain from including ‘MRSB’ in anything I write, be it online or otherwise. Any existing references to the RSB will be erased as far as possible. I hope this is acceptable to you. That said, I have never referred to RSB membership as anything other than a simple statement of fact. Any views I express are wholly my own and offered in an intellectually honest manner. If any reader assumes that my views represent either the RSB as a whole or any other member, then that would be a lazy misconception. (Note that I have written ‘MRSB', not ‘RSB’.) There has never been, and never would be, any intent to mislead on my part. (If I had likewise correctly stated, for example, ‘University of Dundee alumnus’, then it would be presumptuous and irrational that my personal views should be taken to coincide with those of the institution itself.) I do, however, respect your original point.

Second, I have never discussed the merits or otherwise of ‘vaccinations’, not that it should be objectionable if I had. With reference to the ‘COVID’ drugs, it is well established that these are not vaccines at all. The fact that the WHO saw the urgency to redefine the word ‘vaccine’ is a testament to this sleight-of-hand.

My openly-stated views of these non-vaccines stem mainly from the following:

1. They have been inadequately tested. Novel drugs involve a decade of careful work. Research into reproductive toxicology, carcinotoxicity and genotoxicity, animal tests, medium and long-term clinical trials etc. were not carried out.  A paltry three months of ‘testing’ prior to universal rollout is ludicrously insufficient, from both safety and efficacy perspectives.

2. They provide neither significant prophylactic nor therapeutic benefit. ARR of, for example, the original Pfizer version, is a mere 0.84% — which explains why RRR values were widely publicized instead. This clearly constitutes ‘intent to mislead’.

3. In 1976, a swine flu vaccine was withdrawn completely following just 25 to 50 subsequent deaths. Official data from, for example, MHRA Yellow Card, VAERS and Eudravigilance all show that the huge number of reported fatalities and serious adverse events caused by the ‘COVID’ drugs far exceeds this figure. Apply the substantial under-reporting factor, and it is evident, via basic mathematics alone, that they are already the most dangerous and lethal drugs in the history of medicine. It is an abomination that they are in use.

4. Excess overall mortality is significantly higher than prior to the rollout of the drugs. Positive correlation between injections and deaths is very strong. This is especially high in young people (15 to 45 years), including, most notably, professional athletes. The incidence of severe cardiovascular pathology has recently become so high that the disingenuous term ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ has suddenly been invented. Such cases are especially prevalent in highly ‘vaccinated’ nations, such as Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

5. They do not prevent viral transmission. Only last month, a Pfizer director admitted — under oath — that transmissibility tests were never carried out. This revelation is shocking but not surprising.

6. Given that, presently, the vast majority of acute infectious respiratory disease cases in British hospitals are among the ‘vaccinated’, it is clear that the drugs are having a deleterious effect on immune system function. Antibody-dependent enhancement and vaccine-mediated immune deficiency are strongly indicated by the data.

All the above points can be easily substantiated by the relevant literature, if anyone cares to look. It follows, therefore, that I have neither misled nor encouraged anyone to be misled about ‘scientific or professional issues’. I have simply told the truth. In stark contrast, the RSB’s own description of the drugs’ rollout as having been done ‘successfully’ could be deemed accurate in terms of logistics or Big Pharma profits, but it is an ignorant insult to the unprecedented number of dead and seriously injured.

Moreover:

7. ‘COVID’ case figures have been grossly inflated. As any halfway decent biologist knows, PCR is not a diagnostic tool for infection or illness. Its use as a ‘gold standard’ is, therefore, fraudulent. Further, a 45-amplification-cycle protocol ensures a false-positive rate well in excess of 90%. ‘Intent to mislead’ could hardly be more blatant.

8. ‘COVID’ mortality figures have been grossly inflated, too. The phrase ‘died within 28 days of a positive PCR test’ should make this deceit rather obvious, even to non-scientists.

9. Recently, a comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by Stanford University shows that the IFR for ‘COVID’ is approximately 0.15%. This value is not significantly different from that for seasonal flu (0.05 to 0.3%). Hence, there has been no viral pandemic at all. (Had the WHO not redefined the word ‘pandemic’ in 2009, ‘COVID’ would not have qualified to be described as such, and, consequently, the unlicensed drugs masquerading as vaccines could not have been granted Emergency Use Authorization.)

10. The genetic sequences of the ‘COVID’ drugs were patented prior to 2015. The PCR ‘test’ kits were distributed worldwide in 2018. ‘Event 2O1’, a theoretical ‘pandemic’ exercise, conducted in late 2019, foretold — incredibly — of a coronavirus pandemic just weeks prior to worldwide media reports. Hence, ‘COVID’ and its universal ‘treatment’ were, evidently, planned well in advance.

In the light of these simple facts, I reject any accusations of ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’. These Orwellian terms are being parroted to mean ‘statements contradicting the official narrative’ and to shut down debate. I would argue that, if such words are to be used at all, they would be most applicable to information from the State and corporate media, which has been shown repeatedly to be full of lies, exaggerations, distortions and omissions.

Science does not progress by labelling honestly-held, evidence-based alternative views negatively. It does not prosper by obligatory adherence to the ‘weight of opinion’. Science advances only when dissent, disagreement and debate are unopposed — better still encouraged — and when seemingly awkward individuals within a collective are free to claim, without threat of sanction, that the consensus view is nonsense. Truth begins as heresy, as demonstrated by Charles Darwin.

Nonetheless, as the number of post-injection deaths and serious injuries increases ever further, the truth is breaking through the dam. In Parliament, MPs Sir Christopher Chope, Andrew Bridgen and Esther McVey have called for an immediate investigation. In Europe, MEPs Christine Anderson and Robert Roos have been even more vocal. All scientists and scientific organizations now have an urgent moral responsibility to blow the whistle and protect the public. The RSB’s mute stance on the matter is, therefore, unfortunate. Some might say pitiful. How many more innocents must die before the RSB (does as I have done and) speaks out?

It is disappointing, then, to discover that the ethos of the RSB does not coincide squarely with my own. Thus, I feel that it would be wise if I were to relinquish, with immediate effect, RSB membership. As I have stated, I shall make no further references of affiliation and delete existing ones, wherever I can.

I hope, very sincerely, that you and all RSB members will look beyond the crumbling ‘COVID’ narrative, peddled by mendacious politicians and their puppeteers. You should all realize — and publicly admit — that, first, the so-called ‘pandemic’ was a contrived fraud and, second, that official mortality data and peer-reviewed scientific evidence prove that the pushing of these damnable drugs constitutes a crime against humanity which is becoming more serious, and more obvious, by the day.

This will be my final correspondence.

Kindest regards.

Yours sincerely and respectfully,

Paul Spradbery

As things stand, the RSB is on the wrong side of the argument. If it does not wish to be on the wrong side of history, then it must remove its head from the sand and acknowledge the overwhelming truth. It has, in my view, a case to answer. I await any public announcement, recommending immediate withdrawal of these lethal drugs and a full, independent investigation into them. Until then, silence equals complicity.

Groucho Marx (1890-1977) once said:

‘I refuse to join any club that will have me as a member.’

Perhaps I ought to have known better.

Copyright © 2022 Paul Spradbery