French and Spanish Doctors Observe, UK – Changes to Human Medicine Regulations, No Jab No Job, RFK In Berlin and More
Jordan Devine – 2nd Wave
A very appropriate musical interlude….
The Wrong Spanish Doctor – Interviewed
The reporters scramble when he goes completely “off script” – crazy, desperate behaviour… And note the (usual type of) footage they are showing when he speaks…
Here is the same doctor in another interview with independent news channel after the TV fiasco … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1z5DlmwaGs
French Doctor Describes COVID Trends in Europe
An 8-minute video with subtitles. Thanks to Sandy for this one!
It is not really any different to a seasonal flu outbreak…
“No Jab No Job”
Typical to find this in the Daily Mail – but it is indicative of what the globalists want to set up
CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers – Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone – Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses
Today we now have empirical evidence that the WHO, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx were all wrong. They were charlatans. They lied.
The CDC silently updated their numbers this week to show that only 6% of all coronavirus deaths were related to the coronavirus alone. The rest of the deaths pinned to the China coronavirus are attributed to individuals who had other serious issues going on. Also, most of the deaths are related to very old Americans.
UK Gov Consultation on Changes to Human Medicine Regulations
Thanks to Katie for alerting me to this:
COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history, which is why the UK government is working to a scientifically led, step-by-step action plan for tackling the pandemic – taking the right measures at the right time.
My response: “Yes, but the threat isn’t from a virus – which has never been isolated!”. A choice quote:
The main policy objectives of these proposals are to:
In the interests of patient safety and providing clarity to the supply chain, clarify our approach to a pre-existing provision (regulation 174) in the HMRs, that enables the licensing authority to temporarily authorise the supply of an unlicensed medicinal product for use in response to certain specific types of public health threat, including the suspected spread of pathogens. We propose to clarify that this temporary authorisation can be permitted with specified conditions attached. That will allow, for example, the licensing authority to attach conditions to ensure product safety, quality and efficacy.
Clarify the scope of immunity from civil liability which regulation 345 of the HMRs puts in place for certain products whose unlicensed use is recommended by the licensing authority in response to certain specific types of public health threat, so that it clearly applies not just to manufacturers and healthcare professionals but also to the company placing an unlicensed medicine such as a vaccine on the market with the approval of the licensing authority – and to clarify the consequences on immunity, should there be a breach of the conditions imposed by the licensing authority.
You can respond to these proposals using this link.
It brings up a form where you can enter your name and email address and responses to the sections in the document above (try and read as much as you can – or at the very least, the introduction, main headings and conclusion. Here’s what I sent them:
Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products
From reading the proposed legislation, this is very worrying. It seems the government has forgotten what happened after the alleged “Swine Flu” pandemic in 2009. Here’s a BMJ article that discussed that:
Civil liability and immunity
The fact that Vaccine manufacturers and or government agencies are either already given immunity or will be for untested products surely means they know the products are risky and should not be used. In the case of COVID-19, the virus has never been isolated and the test for it generates too many false positives. This means that the proposed vaccine will not be effective – because it cannot have been developed to target a virus that has not been clearly identified. Hence, the proposal to approve untested vaccines for a virus that has not been isolated – amounts to medical malfeasance of the highest order.
Expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
The evidence shows there is no need for a vaccine, so there should be no need for workforce expansion to administer it. I should also remind readers of the following. It should be noted that mandatory vaccination would be in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code and a violation of article 6 of the UNESCO 2005 Statement On Bioethics And Human Rights .
The vaccine, if safe, effective and needed (evidence does not show it is any of these things), promotion is not needed. However, it appears certain people wish to use psychology (rather than factual evidence) to try and encourage people to take the vaccine (USA): https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703
Provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccines
This point is answered by the evidence and points above and no discussion is needed, if the evidence available is dispassionately and fairly evaluated. No vaccine is required and it is dangerous to rush this through. (See, again, what happened in 2009.) Reviewed in this 5-minute video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jH9leB3OQTa4/
Demonstrators Rally in London to Protest Against COVID-19 Lockdown Measures
Thousands had a peaceful protest in London … Jon alearted me to a short sergment with a man Red Jumper – was he an agent provocateur? If so, he was not succesful – look who takes him to task….
Robert F Kennedy in Berlin
Historic? I think so… JFK’s nephew speaks in Berlin about the scamdemic, vaccines and global totalitarianism…. Thanks to Ursula for these links.
Conference with RFK
A short interview on the street
Speaking at the demo
UK COVID-19 Truth Tour
From Mark Devin’s blog:
MY HOUSE-RULES FOR COVID-19 TESTING (copied)
Thanks to Lorraine for these – I think they are pretty “solid” and logical, what do you think?
Protocol for when the testers turn up at your door. If someone comes to my house to test me, these are my house rules:
1. You cannot come to my house if you have been to someone else’s house or anyone who could potentially have COVID. You must self-quarantine for a period of 14 days and then you are allowed to come to my house to test me. This applies to you and any other person with you.
2. Before testing me, you must have your temperature checked and you must take the same test you intend on giving me.
3. You must answer a three-page questionnaire, initial every page, and sign the document and have it notarized. Everyone with whom you come in contact must be fully tested and you must self-quarantine for a period of 14 days. This is serious stuff. We are all in this together!
4. You must provide documentation showing the test you intend on performing has an accuracy rate higher than 95% as documented by at least two reputable independent national labs.
5. You must be ready to explain in your own words, and to my satisfaction, the term, “informed consent.”
6. You must allow me ample time to review any documents you may want me to sign with my lawyer, and you must agree to pay any legal fees stemming from any such legal review.
7. If/when we get to #7, we are ready to try # 1 again.