THE National Museum of Scotland is one of my favourite Edinburgh buildings; an elegantly pillared auditorium hosting a huge diversity of beautiful and uplifting exhibits explaining the natural world and showcasing the remarkable fruits of human culture and ingenuity. But within that wonderful space there now lurks, in semi-darkness, a calculatedly disingenuous exhibition titled Injecting Hope which is entirely unworthy of its venue. Sponsored by the pharmaceutical charity Wellcome and the Huo Family Foundation, it is an exercise in naked vaccine propaganda, attempting to cement in place a narrative that the Scottish public were saved from the ravages of a deadly virus by the scientists who created the covid ‘vaccines’.
The title of the exhibition provides a clear indication of the manipulative intent of its creators. It has been chosen to embed in the visitor’s mind two key assumptions that the exhibition’s sponsors wish visitors to accept without question. The first is that in 2020 the people were at the mercy of a deadly respiratory disease and were without hope. The second is that escape from this disease could be assured only by injection of a ‘vaccine’. It is unfortunate that when the two implied assumptions of this ‘vaccine as saviour’ narrative are scrutinised, both are found to lack foundation.
In March 2020, before the lockdowns, covid was declared no longer a high-consequence infectious disease, and attempts to measure its severity deemed it no worse than influenza. There was therefore no reason for the people to be fearful. The despair they felt was occasioned by the media fear campaign and human rights restrictions orchestrated by the Scottish government which subsequently made vaccine passports a condition for partial return of the human rights which had been removed. Thus, vaccination provided an antidote to government overreach rather than to a deadly virus. Indeed, there is no evidence that injecting covid ‘vaccines’ reduces either the likelihood of respiratory disease, or the recording of a positive test for SARS-CoV2, the virus cited as the cause of covid. Moreover, there are now many studies which show that the probability of a positive test for SARS-CoV2 increases with the number of covid ‘vaccine’ injections received.
The opening display in the Injecting Hope exhibition trots out the now-discredited establishment mantra that in 2020 the world faced an unprecedented health emergency due to the rapid worldwide spread of a coronavirus, SARS-CoV2, the causal agent of a deadly respiratory disease. The exhibition gives a short history of the discovery of coronaviruses, together with cartoons which depict how they are thought to function. However, no evidence is provided to support a causal link between the presence of SARS-CoV2 and a deadly respiratory disease. Indeed, the cartoons which explain transmission of the virus admit that individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV2 may be perfectly healthy, an admission which is required to rationalise the myth of ‘asymptomatic spread’. Reference is made to the utility of challenge trials for establishing the necessary causal relationship between virus and disease, but the relevant display fails to mention that when SARS-CoV2 was administered in such trials, no deadly respiratory disease was initiated. In the absence of definitive proof of a causal relationship, there is no justification for developing a vaccine against SARS-CoV2 to provide protection from covid, completely invalidating the scientific endeavour described in this exhibition.
To enter the exhibition proper, it is necessary to run the gauntlet of television screens spewing out the media fear-porn that so characterised 2020. Once inside the visitor is treated to the semi- religious worship of the scientists who created the novel gene therapies masquerading as ‘vaccines’. All the usual psychological games are played with our emotions to ensure acceptance of the message that they are heroes, and the ‘vaccine’ is our saviour. First and foremost, the scientists involved are portrayed as relatable human beings, just like you and me, by showing us such everyday items as the shirts they wore, the coffee cups they drank from and the laptops they typed on as they raced against time to develop the wonder cure. To draw the visitor into this global drama, there is a fine display of covid masks from around the world, reinforcing the sense of a shared experience. The Scottish dimension is not forgotten. To remind us of Nicola Sturgeon’s nightly recitation of the alleged covid death tolls, we are presented with the red dress worn by the lady who signed for her.
Colour turns out to be a bit of a theme. The blue envelopes used to deliver vaccine appointments become iconic symbols of hope, whilst also serving as golden tickets to freedom. Visitors are encouraged to record how they felt when these blue envelopes dropped through their letter boxes; excited, happy, relieved, nervous, unhappy. Unfortunately, my own response was not listed among these options. Negative responses to vaccines are acknowledged in the exhibition, but are portrayed either as of mere historical interest (with reference to the Scottish Anti Vaccine League of 1896) or as affecting only those lacking appropriate knowledge. Thus, a health worker in the Democratic Republic of Congo blames rejection of the vaccine (euphemistically called vaccine hesitancy) on vaccine disinformation spread by social media.
To provide the final stamp of approval for the ‘vaccine as saviour’ narrative, the exhibition enlists the help of the arts. We have a three-dimensional rendering of SARS-CoV2 which serves both to embed the existence of the virus in the visitor’s mind, and to provide the scapegoat on which the suffering endured by the public, as a consequence of government actions in 2020 and beyond, can be blamed. There is also a glass model of what the exhibition describes as a nanoparticle of the Oxford AZ vaccine. This beautiful object is in fact a sculpture of a genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus. Millions of these were injected into every person receiving an AstraZeneca covid vaccination. A bench with two seats set 6ft apart gives artistic legitimacy to the anti-human social distancing edicts which were so damaging to the bonds holding together our society. The artistic input is concluded with a reading by the actor Robert Carlyle of poet Alec Finlay’s I Remember collection of Scottish covid-time experiences. Curiously these chiefly describe the loneliness, anxiety and harms caused by the Scottish government’s lockdown and related measures, not the devastating loss of life that would be expected if a deadly respiratory disease had been present at the time.
Amid all these distractions the creators of the exhibition appear content for the detailed science behind the development of the covid ‘vaccines’ to take a back seat. What should have been front and centre of the exhibition is the fact that the AstraZeneca (AZ), Pfizer (PF) and Moderna (MO) products administered to the public are not traditional vaccines but experimental gene therapies which have quite different modes of action and immunological consequences for the recipient.
Traditional vaccines deliver known quantities of a foreign molecule or inactivated pathogen (the antigen) to the recipient, and this elicits antibody production by B cells, and the development of memory B cells for future antibody production against that antigen. The immunological effects are controlled and limited in scope and time. In contrast the gene therapies deliver DNA (AZ) or RNA (PF and MO) molecules which instruct an unknown number of the recipient’s cells in potentially any organ of the body to become antigen (in this case spike protein) producing factories for a length of time which may extent from months to years.
Of course, this antigen production will elicit the same kind of B cell responses as in the case of traditional vaccines. However, the immune system also includes a diversity of other components including killer T cells, whose function is to destroy any human cell in the body that is producing antigens. This means that within the body of an individual receiving the gene therapies, killer T cells will destroy any cell which has been hijacked to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein, causing tissue damage in potentially any organ for as long as the spike protein is being produced. The gene therapies are therefore inherently dangerous because they have the potential to incite chronic autoimmune disease affecting any tissue within the body. Curiously there is no mention of this aspect of the AZ, PF and MO ‘vaccines’ in the exhibition.
The issue of the safety testing of the gene therapies provides the exhibition’s creators with the opportunity to highlight a second set of alleged heroes, the members of the public who volunteered to take part in the ‘vaccine’ trials and risk their lives ‘for the greater good’. Of course, those interviewed to recount their experiences had suffered no serious adverse reactions, while the stories of those harmed and subsequently abandoned by the pharmaceutical companies are not told.
According to the exhibition’s script writers ‘COVID19 vaccines went through the same careful approval process that all vaccines must go through’. This is a bare-faced lie. The safety trials undertaken before Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) in late 2020 lasted only a matter of months rather than the years required to detect long-term safety signals. Furthermore, the results were relevant only for young, healthy individuals, the demographic represented by the trial volunteers. There was no testing and no safety data for older individuals, those with existing health problems, or for pregnant women who were subsequently encouraged to take up ‘vaccination’. In the case of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ the product used in the safety trial was not that which was administered at large scale to the Scottish public. Thus, there was absolutely no safety data for the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ before it was given EUA. Indeed, the Pfizer product injected into millions of Scots has been found to contain unacceptably high levels of contamination with a cancer-inducing DNA sequence. In the absence of prior safety testing, the public were, in effect, unwitting participants in a large-scale experiment to determine the safety of this Pfizer gene therapy.
A final, and most damning, point which needs to be made over the exhibition’s message on safety is that it fails to mention the results of the Yellow Card monitoring scheme administered by the MHRA which records adverse reactions associated with injection of the ‘vaccines’. For the UK, this scheme has recorded over 350,000 serious adverse reactions, 2,707 of them fatal, with approximately one in ten of these records coming from Scotland. Serious adverse reactions other than death include, but are by no means confined to, life-changing mycocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, blood clots, a wide variety of auto-immune conditions and cancers, exactly as predicted from the mode of action of the covid ‘vaccines’ and the contaminants that they contain.
Given the level of pharmaceutical propaganda and scientific deception displayed so transparently in this exhibition, there can be no justification for its presence in a national museum whose mission is to educate the general public of that nation. Responsibility for hosting this exhibition lies with the Keeper of Science & Technology at National Museums Scotland who has defended his decision with the following statement:
‘The content of the exhibition aligns with the evidence-based approach of the global scientific community: that the COVID-19 vaccine significantly reduced deaths due to the pandemic. In Scotland, it is estimated that the death rate was 70% lower than projected due to the vaccine programme. We are aware that sadly, in rare cases, serious health complications and loss of life have been associated with the Covid-19 vaccine. While tragic, this is in line with the development of most vaccines.’
As a historian of science, I would urge the Keeper to take a critical look at the so called ‘evidence-based approach of the global scientific community’ because in the future it will make an interesting comparative study to set alongside that of Lysenkoism. I would also ask the Keeper to consider the ethics of endorsing an exhibition which studiously ignores the evidence of harms and human suffering (far from rare) that have been caused by the administration, without proper informed consent, of the covid ‘vaccines’ in Scotland. I would further encourage him to question whether a national museum should be showcasing an exhibition created and funded by charities allied to powerful pharmaceutical business interests to spread their desired message. The National Museum of Scotland should not be presenting propaganda as science.
