The Case of the Disappearing Article
Why would the Telegraph delete a page?
Click on this link and this is what you get.
Why would an article, published less than a week ago, suddenly not be available?
Fortunately, archived versions tell us the answer.
The disappeared article looks at the murky world of ‘Celebrity’ doctors.
Would you believe it - the doctors who were on TV telling you to get vaccinated were also getting paid by the same pharmaceutical companies selling the vaccines.
Camilla Turner, Sunday Political Editor at the Telegraph, disclosed that high profile doctors had not been declaring the thousands of pounds they had been receiving from pharmaceutical giants before appearing on primetime TV to discuss their products.
The thing I am actually shocked about is how little money the doctors were paid by the pharma companies!
Once again, the Telegraph article only focusses on the AstraZeneca vaccine which seems to have been designated the position of fall guy for all vaccine injuries. And it only discusses recent debates about a “small percentage of cases” displaying a “rare and dangerous side effect” rather than the coercion that was taking place as soon as the vaccine rollout began.
Nevertheless, it is great to see a mainstream paper investigate this massive conflict of interest.
The article looked at doctors such as Dr. Ranj Singh who was paid £22,500 by AstraZeneca. He was on Morning TV leading a discussion about the vaccine, apparently without declaring his payments to the BBC.
Another doctor was Dr. Nighat Arif who had appeared on TV without declaring her £10,000 payment by Astra-Zeneca in 2022.
Dr. Phillipa Kaye was another TV doctor paid £12,500 by AstraZeneca in 2020 and £9,000 in 2022.
This time, the Telegraph does point out that Dr. Kaye “was prominent on social media, posting videos of herself encouraging people to get the Covid vaccine,” during the pandemic.
According to the article, clause 24 of the ABPI code of practice for pharmaceutical companies requires them to include provisions relating to disclosure of payments when they draw up contracts with doctors.
“The code says that “in their written contracts or agreements, companies must include provisions regarding the obligation of the individual to declare that they are a contracted individual to the company whenever they write or speak in public about a matter that is the subject of the agreement or any other issue relating to that company”.”
It seems the doctors are trying to get around this by saying that “they were not paid by AstraZeneca specifically in relation to the Covid vaccine”. All the doctors featured in the article say that they were paid to promote a flu vaccine rather than the Covid one.
What a ridiculously easy loop-hole! If you are being paid by a company to promote one particular product, you are highly unlikely to criticise their other products.
This was good exposure of the murky world of pharmaceutical payments to TV doctors but why was the article taken down?
Furthermore, why the focus on just AstraZeneca? Let’s do Pfizer and Moderna now please.
I had a harsh exchange of letters with a Scottish charity that was promoting vaccinations - I argued that as a charity, they were in breach of their charitable purposes, and that there are strict rules prohibiting the promotion and advertising of prescription medicines in the UK to the general public.
The timing of the take down is particularly suspicious as it's so soon after the death of another prominent TV doctor with a lot of clout. He also fiercely promoted the injection and demonised the unjabbed through outright lies.