Not a lot of people know this - first UK "covid legislation date
plus when they law was changed to make untested mRNA injections legal
Not a lot of people know this #1:
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.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made
Rather prophetically there was an unannounced and totally unpublicised release of a statement on the 30th January 2020 (the exact same day the WHO declared pandemic) 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.
But why did the UK Government, namely Matt Hancock who was in charge of Health at the time, think a statement hat did NOT include the words serious, imminent nor threat be used as a serious and imminent threat statement?
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.
Not a lot of people know this #2:
Did you know the law on medicines approval was changed in December 2020 to allow EUAs to be issued before the public assessment reports were done?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/2020-12-19
There is this from the BMJ:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759
"Why was the vaccine given temporary authorisation?
Usually, the UK would wait for the European Medicines Agency to approve a vaccine before looking to distribute it, but in an emergency EU countries are allowed to use their own regulator to issue temporary authorisation. In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.
A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies, says the law firm Brodies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This initially lasts five years but can be renewed and is not subject to specific obligations."
My highlighting - So they changed the law to allow the EUAs to be legal.
Why would they do that?
At that time, Matt Hancock was 'advised' by Nicole Junkermann, a very attractive German born, young lady who happened to be married into a prominent Black Nobility family with a plush address in Rome. She was very chummy with Jeffrey Epstein and often travelled on his Lolita Express between Rome and London. Her daughter was christened by the Pope in the Vatican.
https://johnnyvedmore.com/?s=nicole+junkermann
Johnnie Vedmore and I both investigated and wrote about this very private young woman and shared our work on Twitter. Within a few days, we were both sent 'cease and desist' notices by a high-flying lawyer. These notices arrived in our private messages but, curiously, the only thing they seemed to be concerned about was the use of certain photographs. Or so I thought.....
Johnnie was unimpressed and went on to produce his final comments, but he left out the deeply disturbing Black Nobility hidden hands: https://johnnyvedmore.com/2020/03/15/nicole-junkermann-3-0-model-or-mossad-carbyne911-their-covid-app-world-3-0-how-to-censor-news/
I was busy challenging MHRA by the end of 2020, drawing their attention to the fact that they were approving a SYNTHETIC, entirely alien, computer generated genomic sequence 'substance' into British people and, the worst crime of all, they were pressurising us to queue up for it OR we could kiss employment goodbye. https://francesleader.substack.com/p/sarscov2-mrna-is-synthetic
I was suddenly de-platformed from Twitter and was never given a specific reason. This exclusion became 'contagious' - Facebook and Discord also dispensed with me as if I had committed some heinous and unforgiveable crime.
I suggest to you that Matt Hancock and Nicole Junkermann were implementing a Black Nobility directive which could not be countermanded or rejected, no matter what. Whether either of them knew the full scientific horrors may need to be investigated, but it was on their watch that the law was changed to ease an untested experimental medical intervention through all the checks and balances which, previously, were there to protect us from mass poisoning.
That is my take on what happened in 2020.
Didn't they also downgrade it from a high mortality disease to just a notifiable one, like Measles, which contradicts this? I remember reading from someone that if it remained at high mortality status no gov ministers would have been able to change the protocols which would have been handled by others, on a purely medical level, from say NHS England.