My missive to Devi Sridhar in January 2021
I know she received it as her assistant contact me and said he would make sure she was told of it
No answer on this one either nor from any other prominent proponent of any sort of covid restriction.
I see that you are bad mouthing lockdown sceptics again in the MSM.
Your stance for the past 10 months can only be described as unscientific, emotional blackmail for the weak of thinking and scientifically is what can only be described as unmitigated twaddle. Even PHS has admitted in a FOI answer they have no scientific evidence to justify any restrictions.
I take it as a matter of pride that after nearly a year of repeating the same idiocy over and over neither people like you, MPs who think like you, other zealots, the government, SAGE, councils, the WHO, Bill Gates and so can can do anything to refute the lockdown sceptics and independent scientist’s arguments using facts, rational arguments, science and reason but just resort to psychological propaganda, control, censorship, bullying, threats and insults.
You are not alone in not replying or being unable to supply a reasoned and rational defence of your stance as neither my own MP, his constituency office, the PM, the Secretary of State for Health, the CSO, the CMO, SAGE members, Mayors, Councils or the leader of the opposition amongst others have answered with anything meaningful either on the rare occasions I do get a reply to my e-mails but FOI requests and answers are revealing some very interesting facts and information.
Over the past 10 months I have found nothing, either published on the gov.uk website, in the public domain, released under the Freedom of Information Act nor from real-life data compiled from the various lockdown measures enacted around the world that any of the much-touted non-pharmaceutical interventions you support actually work.
In fact, most of the NPIs that have been enacted go against the World Health Organisations recommendations and also are at odds with almost all independent research carried out and published in the past 10 months such as the Danish Mask Study Randomised Control Trial or the researchgate investigation and roundup of all recent science on covid-19 amongst other works published independent researchers.
Our Government can only supply links to studies that have been data analysed and that contain references to masked hamsters, gerbils and mannequins or to studies who’s stated conclusion does not match the main body of the literature nor the results obtains but is completely at odds with the rest of the report/study.
Below are some facts for you for which I have all the original FOI answers, e-mails etc available to support this missive.
Please feel free to answer them and refute what I say using reasoned arguments, facts and scientific evidence, feel free to pass them around Parliament and to Ministers, maybe one of you might learn something important and I look forward to receiving an answer from you that refutes any of the statements I have made:
When asked County Councils can supply no scientific evidence given to them by central Government to warrant or support any restrictions on individuals or businesses so that does not support the Government’s actions.
When asked Borough Councils can supply no scientific evidence given to them by central Government to warrant or support any restrictions on individuals or businesses so that does not support the Government’s actions.
When asked City Councils can supply no scientific evidence given to them by central Government to warrant or support any restrictions on individuals or businesses so that does not support the Government’s actions.
When asked Devolved Governments can supply no scientific evidence given to them by central Government to warrant or support any restrictions on individuals or businesses so that does not support the Government’s actions.
When asked Metropolitan Borough mayors can supply no scientific evidence given to them by central Government to warrant or support any restrictions on individuals or businesses so that does not support the Government’s actions.
The Office of National Statistics’s data on deaths does not support the Government’s actions.
The NHS Hospital activity and bed monitors data does not support the Government’s actions.
FOI answers do not support the Government’s actions.
Documents published by the Government on their own website do not support the Government’s actions.
The OFCOM Notice to Broadcasters dated 23rd March 2020, the refusal to publish any non-official narrative research, the censorship of any non-offical narrative research and the vilification and smearing of independent researchers that attempt to question the official narrative does not support the Government’s actions.
And how about this:
CMO Chris Whitty on the 21st July 2020:
“If you look at the R, and the behaviours, quite a lot of the change that led to the R going below one occurred well before, or to some extent before, the 23rd, when the full lockdown started.”
Here is a link to a video I had made for me by parliamentlivetv of the relevant section of the committee hearing:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Agv7JEO8MngCiSmT-rY5ChSI9LV-It’s 23 MB so too big too e-mail.So all under control prior to the initial lockdown starting.And why did Jeremy Hunt the Chair of the Committee not question him on this statement at the time.Why will not one MSM media outlet report this statement?
Professor Dingwall, a SAGE member, about social distancing that is easily found in an internet search:
“it was conjured up out of nowhere”.
So how can something “conjured up out of nowhere” be used as scientific evidence?
And this from the British Medical Association on the science they have to support their stance on the wearing of face coverings:
"We appreciate that this is an area in which there is little high-quality empirical evidence. There is, for example, a lack of randomised control trials showing that mask wearing is effective (either indoors or outdoors).”
So if the BMA does not have any scientific evidence to back-up their stance but is relying on “because we said so” who does?
And what about the many real-life studies going back to 1980 that all come to the same conclusion that masks do not work to stop the spread of viruses or bacteria but actually make it worse for many reasons as well as making the wearer both physically and psychologically prone to more illnesses and problems.
Currently the government is frightening the population with a blitz of terrifying propaganda on how “dangerous” shops and supermarkets are:
Why are they so “dangerous”?
Easy! Surely even ministers, their researchers or SAGE can figure it out? Masks are involved with the problem.
1 - Because it’s the place most people are going to regularly as everywhere else is closed down. It’s about the only place they can “catch” something.
2 - Because this is where 99.9% of the population are wearing face coverings/masks the whole time they are at the supermarket.
3 - Because people are wearing virus/bacteria laden dirty face coverings/masks, cough and sneeze into them, wear them for too long and not as per the manufacturer’s instructions, do not wash or sanitise cloth ones regularly, play with them every few seconds then touch the food/tins sometimes picking it up then putting it back without washing their hands with soap and hot water correctly between touching the mask and touching the goods and subsequently spreading all those "deadly germs" around.
If Government nor their advisors can figure this out then it’s time for new advisors.
And this as well:
On PCR tests a few minutes research will show you these tests are not to be used as a quantitate test and a “positive” test means absolutely nothing medically as stated by the DHSC:
Cycle threshold (Ct) is a semi-quantitative value that can broadly categorise the concentration of viral genetic material in a patient sample following testing by RT PCR as low, medium or high – that is, it tells us approximately how much viral genetic material is in the sample.
A single Ct value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity.
The clinical significance of positive results with high Ct are difficult to interpret in the absence of clinical history and context.
And the absolute best and damning quote:
RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present.
Then this in a FOI request answer from the Department of Health and Social Care Reference FOI-1240596 and it stated that a positive PCR test means nothing medically.
The actual quote: "SARS-CoV-2 RNA means the RNA is present in that sample at that point in time. It does not mean that the patient has the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).”
Or from a RT-PCR test kit manufacturer that the Government uses and who I picked at random and contacted asking for information about what a test result means, in the various technical documents they sent me it stated at various points:
The final diagnosis should not be based solely on the results of this product. The final diagnosis should be based on a combination of different test methods and clinical results at the discretion of the physician"
The detection of viral RNA of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent upon proper specimen collection, handling, transportation, storage, and preparation, including extraction. Failure to observe proper procedures in any one of these steps can lead to incorrect results.Results from the device should be correlated with the clinical history, epidemiological data and other data available to the clinician evaluating the patient.
This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimenThis test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.
So they tests should not be used to “diagnose” anything and are certainly not a test that can then be used to state the person is a “case” medically and therefore can be used to justify restrictions and lockdowns.
The DHSC also kindly supplied this link in the same FOI answer to a document by Health Technology Wales which in answer to this question:
- the official policy/guidance from DHSC to the various bodies who are following the above policy. I can confirm that the Department holds information relevant to your request. As the information held by the Department is in the public domain, we will under Section 21 of the FOI Act (information accessible to the applicant by other means) refer you to the published source, a summary of evidence on the accuracy of the test,
It does include a few notable gems such as (the paper’s original comments in blue with their updates in umber and with my notes in red):
We identified 39 individual studies and one pooled analysis reporting outcomes including diagnostic accuracy, detection rates and the time taken to obtain test results. We carried out quality assessment of the studies and judged the majority to be at risk of bias in one or more aspect of their design or conduct, which means their results may not be reliable. So not too accurate then these studies?
Some studies did not include methods of confirmatory/differential diagnosis to validate the test results obtained (e.g. the proportion of likely false positive and negative results). A pooled analysis estimated the sensitivity of an initial RT-PCR test result to be 89%, using results of repeated RT-PCR as the reference standard. So does this mean that there is an estimated 11% false result?
There are important gaps in the available evidence on the effectiveness of tests for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Studies of virus testing in asymptomatic patients, or in specific populations such as healthcare workers are limited in number and there is no evidence on the validated diagnostic performance of the tests beyond their use in the hospital setting. So pretty useless then?
A true assessment of the accuracy of RT-PCR test results is very challenging, and using these RT-PCR for validation mean the same issues apply to the results of antibody tests studied in this way. so the test has lots of problems with accuracy and the antibody test cannot be used for doublechecking the results due to these inaccuracies?
So basically as admitted by the DHSC you are using tests that are “unreliable” to say the least, have no reference standard to double check the accuracy against and that have results that means nothing medically?
Or do you have available other scientific evidence that proves otherwise?
Why will not one MSM media outlet report the FOI statement that says RT_PCR tests are meaningless as a “positive” case?
Or how the legislation was introduced:
The first piece of “coronavirus” legislation was introduced at 2.30 pm on the 10th February 2020 without Parliamentary oversight or debate and is now revoked. This was The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 Statutory Instrument and it was subsequently amended on the 25th February 2020.
This piece of legislation required a statement of "serious and imminent threat” by the Chief Medical Officer to justify any measures to be taken.
Rather prophetically there was an unannounced and totally unpublicised release of a statement on the 30th January 2020 by the 4 Chief Medical Officers of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland on this very subject. It stated:
"the 4 UK Chief Medical Officers consider it prudent for our governments to escalate planning and preparation in case of a more widespread outbreak.
For that reason, we are advising an increase of the UK risk level from low to moderate. This does not mean we think the risk to individuals in the UK has changed at this stage, but that government should plan for all eventualities.”"
This statement was made 11 days before the piece of legislation it was required for was written and laid before Parliament and came into force the very same afternoon.
How did the 4 CMOs know 11 days in advance of a Statutory Instrument being written that “medical advice” would be required?
Why was this “advice” basically hidden on a webpage on a different department’s section and not on the DHSC webpages and why was it not linked to the Serious and Imminent Threat Declaration?
As this was part of a FOI request answer then either the above is the only advice given by the CMOs or the DHSC have withheld more detailed advice.
Then on the 19th March 2020 the coronavirus was downgraded and was no longer classified as a High Consequence Infectious Disease.
On the 23rd March 2020, the Prime Minister announced the start of the “lockdown” and the relevant legislation was written, laid before Parliament and commenced the 26th March 2020.
So what we have is:
- issue of medical (non)advice 30th January 2020 which was used as the declaration of "serious and imminent threat" for all future legislation
- legislation introduced 10th February 2020
- downgrade the disease 19th March 2020
- announced the population imprisonment 23rd March 2020
- introduce legislation 26th March 2020
- and so it continues 10 months after “3 weeks to save the NHS” with no end in sight
Isn’t something wrong with this scenario?
Or on masks:
The latest Randomised Control Trial (which the BMA conveniently ignore) conducted in Denmark (April to June 2020) and which has been the biggest RCT on the wearing of masks to date in the world and is the most recent and which has finally been published after being refused by at least 3 recognised medical journals
Study conclusion: masks do NOT have any effect on the transmission rate of the covid-19 virus:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers
On the much touted asymptomatic transmission:
The main reason given to the general public by never ending advertisements and public service announcements to justify the wearing of facecoverings was that it was a civic duty and it meant that they were “protecting granny” and “others” etc etc by not passing on the virus they did not know they had - asymptomatic transmission.
Here is a link to the latest published study on asymptomatic transmission of the virus:
Study conclusion: Asymptomatic cases do NOT transmit the covid-19 virus:
All asymptomatic positive cases, repositive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.
And how about treason? Why do I think treason is currently on-going?
Well the definition of treason in the various pieces of legislation that are still in force and have never been repealed is different than that in a standard dictionary.
In the 1351 Treason Act it states:
“Declaration what Offences shall be adjudged Treason.”
“if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere”
Definition of adherent: A supporter, as of a cause or individual
In the 1848 Treason Felony Act it states as an act of treason against Person of His said Majesty, His Heirs or Successors:
“to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament”
Definition of overawe:
: to restrain or subdue by awe
Definition of awe:
1: an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime
2: archaic definition that would have been in use when the Act was written:
b : the power to inspire dread
Certain persons in Parliament and their advisors are increasingly likely and can be seen to be adherents that are linked in an almost incestuous web of finance and connections to a few organisations and individuals who’s names keep appearing over and over again when these links are looked at even superficially and these adherents have given them aid and comfort (reported openly are billions of pounds sterling “donated” to GAVI and WHO amongst others and many “ contracts” for vaccines given to companies that are connected to these adherents and the organisations they are supporting) and both Houses of Parliament seem to be overawed as this is the only logical reason they are silent and so supine up until now.
The Prime minister has been reported in recent months to be “looking at reviewing the laws on treason” which is quite telling based on the above description of what constitutes treason.
Or what about Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
I researched on here:
This is what they say about crimes against humanity:
"Unlike other human rights violations, war crimes do not engage State responsibility but individual criminal responsibility. This means that individuals can be tried and found personally responsible for these crimes.
Prohibited acts include:
Extermination - the Amnesty Care Home report covers this one
Enslavement - this one covered by lockdown
Deportation or forcible transfer of population
Imprisonment - this one covered by the no visits to care homes, families, lockdown
Persecution against an identifiable group - this one covered by the residents of care homes and Amnesty Care Home report covers this, the vulnerable, persecution of people unable to wear a mask
Enforced disappearance of persons
The crime of apartheid - this will be covered when the unvaccinated are refused services, are refused travel, refused entry to shops and entertainment venues, refused employment and so on
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health - this one covered by all the psychological problems, mental health problems, NHS shutdown, and so on and so on
All the Ministers, councils and police etc that have gleefully enforced the “rules” should remember Nuremberg Principles III and IV:
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Or these quotes from a university research paper into Covid-19 death reporting from June 2020 that confirms previous research:
“Currently COVID-associated deaths or excess deaths are used to track the impact of the virus. However these figures may be distorted as to record a COVID-associated death you require only weak evidence that COVID ‘may’ have contributed to the death, and counting excess deaths assumes that any variation in weekly mortality relative to a five year average represents ‘excess’ deaths due to COVID without taking into account other drivers of mortality.”
“Actual deaths due to COVID are some 54% or 63% lower than implied by the standard excess death measure, and reported excess deaths likely include a significant number of non-COVID deaths.”
“Over the lockdown period as a whole Government policy has increased mortality rather than reduced it. The overall increase in mortality is a result of significant unintended consequences of the lockdown, for example, reduced A and E attendances and reduced cancer and cardiac treatments.
Why would this be? Falsified causes of death and incorrect death certificates? The almost complete shutdown of the NHS except for “covid-19” treatments?
England is the only country to show a “spike” in deaths for those between 15-44 years old.
Why would this happen? The coerced DNRs?
It was known in Italy, Germany and Spain in late March, early April 2020 that up to 85% of those dying “with covid-19” would be dead in the next 3-9 months anyway and that their demise, sad as it is on an individual basis, would not affect the overall mortality figures of the following months and years to a great extent then it was finally reported on the the ONS website during the summer:
“The coronavirus (COVID-19) has had a large impact on the number of deaths registered over the last few months and is the main reason for deaths increasing above what is expected (the five-year average). The disease has had a larger impact on those most vulnerable (for example, those who already suffer from a medical condition) and those at older ages. Some of these deaths would have likely occurred over the duration of the year but have occurred earlier because of COVID-19. These deaths occurring earlier than expected could contribute to a period of deaths below the five-year average.”. This is exactly what happened in the next few months.
One final question - how can anyone individual or organisation or person in a position of authority claim to be “independent” when even cursory research shows that the others they sit in committee with, Ministers they report to, the organisation they work for and the MSM outlet they are “interviewed on” all have the same almost incestuous web of professional and financial links to the pharmaceutical industry, the vaccine industry and programmes, the same NGOs and the same charitable foundation name keeps cropping up time and time again as one of their employer’s or the MSM outlet’s largest financial contributor?
I await with bated breath your rebuttal of my stance, facts and science.