Gibraltar Messenger

Insights from Bermuda’s Informed Consent Forms

Does the Bermuda “Informed Consent” Form for the Covid vaccine provide insight into wording of the confidential contract between the United Kingdom and Pfizer?

The Government of Bermuda put an indemnity clause in its “informed consent” forms that its citizens had to sign before being inoculated with the experimental gene-therapy drug.

Like Gibraltar, Bermuda is a British overseas territory. And like Gibraltar, the UK supplied the experimental drugs to Bermuda, which received its batches via the Royal Air Force on January 8, 2021.

BACKGROUND: From Bernews (9 Feb 2021) Vaccines Sent To Nine Overseas Territories:

Bermuda Received Two Shipments Last Month – Bermuda’s first batch of 9,750 doses arrived on January 8th, and the second allotment of 19,500 doses arrived on January 29th.

“The provision and transportation of these vaccines and equipment has been provided at no cost to the people of Bermuda,” Bermuda’s Governor Rena Lalgie previously said. “The UK Government remains committed in assisting its Overseas Territories in their fight against Covid-19.”

Comments In British Parliament – Minister of State Nigel Adams said, “The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with Public Health England, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the UK Vaccine Taskforce, are coordinating the deployment of vaccines to the Overseas Territories.

“Vaccines have so far been delivered to Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St Helena and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

“The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are currently finalising plans to deliver vaccines to the other inhabited Overseas Territories. Public Health England are coordinating the deliveries to the Crown Dependencies, the governments of which are taking forward the distribution of vaccine in their respective jurisdictions.”

See also: COVID-19 Vaccine Arrives in Bermuda – “The Ministry of Health will begin administering the vaccine doses from the Vaccination Centre on Monday 11 January 2021, to healthcare workers, fire fighters, police officers, corrections officers, personnel at the ports of entry and teachers, all of whom may be at risk for higher levels of exposure to the coronavirus.                                                             

Also starting next week, there will be a mobile team who will be visiting rest homes and long-term care facilities to administer the first dose of the two-dose vaccine to seniors who have given their consent.”

The indemnity clause is found in the “Declaration and Consent” section in Bermuda’s 4-Page Informed Consent Form:

Examine the wording of #3:

I agree that if I am a victim of bodily or other injury suffered or incurred as a result of voluntarily taking this vaccination, I will not hold the Government liable. I shall indemnify, keep indemnified and defend the Government against all actions, claims, demands, penalties, fines, interests, costs and expenses (including legal expense) arising as a result of me voluntarily taking the vaccine, consenting to using my Information or completing this Form either for me or on behalf of another person.

The wording is very similar to wording found in other Pfizer contracts, as reported in Information security expert on revealed Pfizer agreements: “There’s good reason Pfizer fought to hide the details of these contracts” :

“Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…”

Related information from the same article:

“The state must defend Pfizer: ‘(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification… Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)’: 

“However, ‘Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense… and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred.’

“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including… fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser’: …”

Similar Wording?

Did the Government of Bermuda take a cue from the Pfizer contract when crafting its indemnification clause?

It’s not the first time “similar wording” between contracts can be postulated:

Retired UK Police Constable Mark Sexton examined the leaked South African-Pfizer contract, and said the UK-Pfizer contract likely had similar wording in its Purchaser Acknowledgement clause.

If Gibraltarians were asked to sign a similar government-indemnity clause, perhaps more would have declined to sign up. Compare Bermuda’s consent form to the 1-page PHE/NHS consent form.

Like Pfizer, the Bermuda government “protected” itself, by making its cohort participants indemify it from any recourse if people were harmed. In the UK, legislation was enacted to protect Pfizer – UK government grants Pfizer civil legal indemnity for COVID-19 vaccine. See also BEIS/DHSC gave Pfizer Indemnities. Note that Gibraltar signed a Memorandum of Understanding with BEIS.

Bermuda asked participants to “defend” the government; just like Pfizer did in the leaked contracts. Perhaps that’s what government officials in Gibraltar were doing when they claimed that the black-triangle drug (▼) could not possibly be to blame for the sudden elderly deaths without any irrefutable proof or evidence. Were Gibraltar officials legally obligated to defend Pfizer?

They quickly said the deaths were part of an upper trend that had already been established. Are we supposed to believe the flu suddenly disappeared; and no elderly people would have died in winter outside of a “covid-narrative”?

Samatha Sacremento, the Health Minister at the time, provided a chart on 18 March 2021, in reference to the number of deaths of Elderly Residential Services (ERS) residents from 2017-2021.

From goverment data, the GBC reported 89 deaths total for January 2021. The Chronicle reported that deaths related to Covid for January 2021 was 71.

Observation: It didn’t appear the drug was “preventing” deaths in this phase-one cohort, but that they were actually facilitating them, which seems to be the opposite of what Sacremento claimed in a press release about the arrival of the Pfizer drug, “Every injection that we give from tomorrow starts to reduce the likelihood of people in Gibraltar becoming seriously ill or even dying.”

Despite Gibraltar officials coming to its defence, the mRNA Pfizer drug being a variable in the sudden death spike did not go unnoticed. See The Vaccine Connection to death on the Rock; Tiny Gibraltar Shines Huge Light on Vaccine Deaths; and Gibraltar proves that vaccination does not stop Covid.

With every government press release announcing deaths post-jab came government advice to get jabbed to protect oneself and others. Was the government using these press releases as a fear tactic to ensure everyone on The Rock would sign up for experimentation? This question is asked because it is similar to the accusation of the UK using elderly deaths in April 2020 to ramp up fear and justify social controls, as reported by Slay News in Tens of Thousands of Elderly Secretly Euthanized to Boost ‘Covid Deaths’.

The official narrative was the jabs were 95% effective, which was a lie (See here and here). And this lie was promoted on The Rock – Gibraltar Chronicle: Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective and works in older people, new data shows.

When quizzed on the adverse reactions of the jabs, Sacremento said that the government does not intend to make these known publicly. She said a report will be made available once “enough time has lapsed from the administration of the vaccine” and a proper analysis of the side effects had been carried out. Like the U.S. Federal Drug Administration, does the Gibraltar Government want 75 years to release the data? Perhaps, Gibraltar is supposed to keep confidentality for 10 years or even 30 years like the State of Israel.

British Overseas Territory Laboratories?

Did the UK sign its Overseas Territories up like the State of Israel did when it became a laboratory for Pfizer?:

Then-Chief Scientist at Pfizer: Israel is a Laboratory for Pfizer Covid Vaccine:

See also: Human experimentation oversight committee wants to approve Israel-Pfizer data-sharing deal and Israel’s one of a kind healthcare system is a rare opportunity for Pfizer

Did each territory get different batches, including boosters, for real-world surveillance trials?

Bermuda did not see a death spike in January when it began the programme. Bermuda did record a total of 10 deaths on 29 September 2021.

Source of charts: Worldometer

Bernews published data regularly at BermudaCovid.com. Below is one of the published charts, where those who had received one-jab are included with the “not vaccinated” (because of the 2-jab rule to be considered “fully-vaccinated”). Does this kind of reporting camouflage adverse effects of people who experienced them after only one-jab?

Source: Covid Vaccine Statistics.
Bermuda Disclosures

Bermuda provided detailed information for its citizens. Review the Government of Bermuda Ministry of Health Primary Covid-19 Primary Care Guideline November 2021 (37-pages). The first version was compiled by Public Health Registrar deployed to support the Covid19 response in Bermuda as part of UK Overseas Territories Team of the UK Health Security Agency (previously Public Health England).

They also made it clear how to report adverse reactions:

Reporting adverse events
Please use the following form for any patients who may have experienced an adverse event following immunization. Each reported adverse event is then investigated and reviewed by an expert Committee: COVID-19 REPORTING FORM FOR ADVERSE EVENTS FOLLOWING IMMUNIZATION (AEFI) (forms.gov.bm)

Enough Data or Evidence

Samantha Sacremento, who signed the BEIS MOU, seemed to be familar with a timeline when she stated information would be available when “enough time has lapsed from the administration of the vaccine”. Was it because she read and signed contracts or MOUs about the long-term effects not being known?

Perhaps she answers this question best herself, as quoted in this Guardian article about The Rock opening up after near complete innoculation – Gibraltar looks to post-Covid era as vaccine drive nears completion:

As the Rock slowly wades out of its Covid-induced hibernation, the data will be carefully tracked at each stage. “If we’re vaccinated, it gives us an element of safety,” said Sacramento, the health minister. But the jury is still out. We still don’t have enough data or evidence to tell us the extent of safety.”

While she may have meant about transmission or spread, her wording makes it clear they are tracking data; and when quizzed about the adverse effects, she said GHA has the data. And while the government of Gibraltar has been elusive about reporting death statistics over the last several years, according to The Global Economy – Gibraltar Death Rate its excess death rate is 11.55 in 2021:

The average value for Gibraltar during that period was 7.89 deaths per 1000 people with a minimum of 6.33 deaths per 1000 people in 2012 and a maximum of 11.55 deaths per 1000 people in 2021. For comparison, the world average in 2021 based on 194 countries is 8.76 deaths per 1000 people.”

Information on excess deaths post-jab continue to be revealed worldwide. See Braveheart Bridgen makes his stand to be on the right side of history. Other adverse effects continue to be revealed, like increases in cancer, heart issues, blood clots, and more (Luke 12:2).

Bermuda citizens fight back

Bermuda citizens signed consent forms not to hold the government responsible for harm, but some are fighting back on its handling of the “pandemic” – Group launches legal action against the Government over handling of Covid-19 crisis (April 2022).

Eugene Dean, of the Collective Action Solidarity Trust (CAST), said the group planned to launch a representative claim — a form of class action lawsuit — through the Bermuda courts, “and/or a class action under US law” against the Bermuda Government. Mr. Dean said the group would sue on varied claims, financial loss and loss of employment for people who had had a bad reaction to the Covid-19 vaccine or who were hit by the mandatory hotel quarantines enforced over the pandemic. “It’s not just a Bermuda thing — it’s happening all over the world.”

In March 2022 , Dean announced the move, as reported in Covid pressure group claims people afraid to speak out

Mr Dean said: “People are very afraid – public opinion is a real thing in Bermuda, because we’re so small.

“We recognise that in the community people are afraid and we have seen comments that it’s not going to make a difference, that you’ll never get the Government to own up to anything.

“People feel defeated. In a lot of ways, this is an empowerment exercise.”

“The biggest concern is something being put in place to prevent that much of a range of power being used again – or at least having clearly drafted criteria that determine whether that amount of power is necessary. That’s something everyone involved is in agreement on. What do we do to ensure that a situation like this is not repeated?”

“Right now our goal is to bring more and more stories to the public domain. For those who are comfortable speaking out about their experiences publicly, we will provide a platform.”

CAST hosted the documentary Anecdotals, which was deemed a success to a sold out crowd. They invited the premier and health minister who did not attend; and who didn’t respond to a private screening invite. They also held a panel discussion after the viewing. Dean said, “As new adverse event data emerges, society must acknowledge these safety signals, ask questions and respond accordingly.”

When will Gibraltarians fight back?

Gibraltarians are also afraid to speak out? Are they afraid to acknowledge that safety signals were present at the start of the programme? Has enough time passed?

RELATED: