The Colleges of General Practice are heavily influenced by vaccine manufacturers and marketers. The term "Royal" does not serve as an endorsement of respectability.

And thorough independent inquiries must be conducted into the Royal Colleges to ensure the public receive unbiased information and full, free and informed consent regarding all medicine and vaccines.

Royal College of GPs' Undeclared Pfizer Donation During COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations

The Royal College of General Practitioners failed to disclose financial donations from Pfizer while advocating for COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 12-15. The Royal College received £50,000 in 2020 and £100,000 in 2021 from Pfizer. They did not declare this financial relationship during crucial meetings about vaccinating children. The Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisations (JCVI) initially declined to recommend mass vaccination for 12-15 year olds. Chief Medical Officers ultimately overrode the JCVI's initial recommendation after consulting with expert bodies.

The interview suggests this non-disclosure raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical-medical (Pharma-Med) institution relationships. The interviewee, Molly Kingsley from Us for Them, argues that such financial ties can effectively ‘censor or influence medical recommendations’, potentially compromising independent medical decision-making.

The main points discussed in the meeting were:

1. The Royal College of General Practitioners failed to disclose financial donations from Pfizer while advocating for COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 12-15.

2. The Royal College received £50,000 in 2020 and £100,000 in 2021 from Pfizer.

3. The Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisations (JCVI) initially declined to recommend mass vaccination for 12-15 year olds, but Chief Medical Officers ultimately overrode this decision after consulting with expert bodies, including the Royal College of GPs.

The Royal College of GPs' response to the allegations was not directly mentioned in the search results. However, it was noted that pharmaceutical companies and institutions often justify such financial relationships by claiming the amounts are relatively small or not directly related to specific decisions.

The campaigners, specifically Us for Them, took the following actions to uncover the conflict of interest:

1. They submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain the minutes of the Chief Medical Officers' meetings.

2. They researched conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, including examining the ABPI database where some payments from pharmaceutical companies to organizations are searchable.

The Freedom of Information request revealed the conflict of interest by providing access to the minutes of the Chief Medical Officers' meetings. These minutes showed that the Royal College of GPs had spoken and given an unequivocal recommendation in favour of vaccinating children without declaring any conflicts of interest, despite the requirement to do so before any intervention.

The implications of the Royal College of GPS not declaring their interest include:

1. It raises questions about the independence and integrity of their recommendations.

2. It suggests a potential form of censorship, as organizations that receive money from pharmaceutical companies may be less likely to criticise them.

3. It undermines trust in public health institutions and decision-making processes.

4. It highlights a broader issue of undisclosed conflicts of interest in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, potentially affecting policy decisions and public health recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest in Healthcare.

The second video contains a conversation between Neil Oliver and Molly Kingsley, addressing concerns about conflicts of interest in healthcare, especially between regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical companies.

Regulatory capture and conflicts are almost universally rampant. There are significant overlaps between personnel and their interests in regulatory bodies and the pharmaceutical industry, raising issues of bias and undue influence. They question why there isn’t a strict separation between regulators and industries they oversee.

Major transparency issues are at play. Payments and relationships between medical institutions (like the Royal College of GPs, universities and major research institutions) and pharmaceutical companies are discussed. These create public distrust, as the perception arises that decisions probably prioritise profit over public health.

The discussion criticises the demonisation of alternative treatments (e.g., Vitamin D, vitamin C, Ivermectin) during the COVID-19 pandemic. They advocate for a holistic approach to healthcare that emphasises the most powerful natural immunity and preventive measures, like proper nutrition and exercise. Both express concerns about the loss of public trust in institutions due to these conflicts and the narrative surrounding experimental treatments, particularly for children.

They highlight societal reliance on pharmaceutical solutions while neglecting individual health responsibility, like eating healthy and staying active. The conversation ties these issues to societal behaviours, media narratives, and the influence of corporate interests in health and governance. They argue for greater integrity in public health and the need for systemic reforms.

Finally, Molly mentions ongoing investigations into these conflicts and challenges faced when trying to publicise these issues, including difficulties accessing mainstream media.

They stress the importance of grassroots movements and independent platforms for addressing systemic corruption.

And here in Australia the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has a very close relationship with the vaccine industry. Please see Elizabeth Hart’s excellent coverage of the Australian Royal College.

Click on the picture below:

The mRNA vaccines have to be withdrawn on safety grounds.

Ian Brighthope