Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote—elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant

Murder is an emotive word. In law, it requires premeditation. Death must be deemed to be unlawful. How could “murder” apply to failures of a pandemic response? Perhaps it can’t, and never will, but it is worth considering. When politicians and experts say that they are willing to allow tens of thousands of premature deaths for the sake of population immunity or in the hope of propping up the economy, is that not premeditated and reckless indifference to human life? If policy failures lead to recurrent and mistimed lockdowns, who is responsible for the resulting non-covid excess deaths? When politicians wilfully neglect scientific advice, international and historical experience, and their own alarming statistics and modelling because to act goes against their political strategy or ideology, is that lawful? Is inaction, action?1 How big an omission is not acting immediately after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020?

At the very least, covid-19 might be classified as “social murder,” as recently explained by two professors of criminology.2 The philosopher Friedrich Engels coined the phrase when describing the political and social power held by the ruling elite over the working classes in 19th century England. His argument was that the conditions created by privileged classes inevitably led to premature and “unnatural” death among the poorest classes.3 In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell echoed these themes in describing the life and living conditions of working class people in England’s industrial north.4 Today, “social murder” may describe the lack of political attention to social determinants and inequities that exacerbate the pandemic. Michael Marmot argues that as we emerge from covid-19 we must build back fairer.5

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n314#

COMIRNATY

This post is in relation to COVID-19.

This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”).

All data contained herein is sourced from VigiBase®, the World Health Organization’s (the “WHO”) global database for ADRs.

http://vigiaccess.org

Enter search database
Type in COMIRNATY
Search ADR database

Stop Coerced Vaccination

Coerced vaccination, no jab – no pay – no job, is not a thing of the future. The ‘vaccine hesitant’ are being sacked and it is happening now.

Barchester Healthcare Ltd employ a staff of approximately 17,000. Over several months they have conducted a campaign successfully to ‘persuade’ all their workforce to have a Covid-19 vaccine. They say about 90% have been vaccinated. They have written to the rest to say that, unless they can provide evidence of medical exemption, then their employment will be terminated.

Their campaign of persuasion has been nothing less than coercion. Barchester have offered a vaccine bonus for the vaccinated but for employees who do not agree to be vaccinated, they have repeatedly and expressly threatened.

The legal case

The law has not changed. The Human Rights Act is still in place, as is the legal requirement for informed consent.

Coerced injection of any substance is an interference with fundamental human rights that must be justified as necessary and proportionate. In circumstances where the government keeps repeating that the vaccines do not stop transmission and that the vulnerable have been vaccinated already, it is difficult to see any justification whatsoever.

Irrespective of your thoughts about these treatments – who may or may not benefit from any Covid vaccine, their efficacy, the adverse events, their experimental nature, unknown medium or long term harms or whether they should be regarded as unlawful because there is no longer an emergency – everyone still has the right to their personal and bodily autonomy.

Lawyers against lockdown.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-coerced-vaccination/

Notices of Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Harms and Deaths Served on All Members of the European Parliament

On April 20, all following Members of the European Parliament were served with notices of liability, advising that they may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of a Digital Green Certificate (Vaccine Passport), to be voted upon in the European Parliament on April 28, 2021.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/notices-of-liability-for-covid-19-vaccine-harms-and-deaths-served-on-all-members-of-the-european-a1f81f57216f

COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction reporting

As of 14 April 2021, for the UK, 50,022 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 145,994 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, 44 for the Moderna vaccine and 516 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.

For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions.

Vaccine Analysis Profile – Pfizer/BioNTech

Vaccine Analysis Profile – Oxford University/AstraZeneca

Vaccine Analysis Profile – Moderna

Vaccine Analysis Profile – brand unspecified

Doctors and Scientists Accuse Medical Regulator of Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

On April 1st the experts issued a rebuttal letterto the EMA, following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding.

Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/re-issued-press-release-doctors-and-scientists-accuse-medical-regulator-of-downplaying-covid-19-5960665964c7

Harmless to most people

A reminder…

Public Health England, on their 21 March 2020 update for High consequence infectious diseases (HCID), stated, “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease in the UK.” If COVID-19 is not a high consequence infectious disease.

On the 11 May 2020 Downing Street Press Briefing, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, confirmed:

“Most people will not get this virus at all. Of those who get symptoms, the vast majority will have a mild or moderate disease. The great majority of people, even in the highest risk groups, will not die.”

Credit: http://www.evidencenotfear.com

SPI-M-O: Summary of further modelling of easing restrictions – Roadmap Step 2

UK scientists:

“Resurgence in hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine”

Date: 31st March 2021.

See page 10.

Paragraph 55 and 56.

See full report below.

Click to access S1182_SPI-M-O_Summary_of_modelling_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf

Our mRNA Medicines – The ‘Software of Life’

Our Operating System

Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.


When we have a concept for a new mRNA medicine and begin research, fundamental components are already in place.

Generally, the only thing that changes from one potential mRNA medicine to another is the coding region – the actual genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make protein. Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality. We also have the ability to combine different mRNA sequences encoding for different proteins in a single mRNA investigational medicine.

We are leveraging the flexibility afforded by our platform and the fundamental role mRNA plays in protein synthesis to pursue mRNA medicines for a broad spectrum of diseases.

Source:

https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/mrna-platform-enabling-drug-discovery-development

European Medicines Agency and Covid-19 Vaccine Dangers

The European Medicines Agency is misleading citizens into medical experimentation, experts warn.

Doctors and scientists from 25 countries have today issued a rebuttal letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding.

Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned.

On March 23rd, however, the EMA dismissed the group’s concerns as relating to “minor” and “rare” events, concluding that “a positive benefit-risk balance has been established.”

The doctors and scientists have today hit back, accusing the EMA of misleading the public on the vaccines’ true risk-benefit profile. “Your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable,” they wrote, noting that recorded cases of life-threatening cerebral venous thrombosis (CSVT) post-vaccination likely “represent just the tip of a huge iceberg”. Common reactions to vaccination, including headache, nausea, blurred vision and vomiting, they state, are symptoms of CSVT, and should be assessed as such, immediately.

Clotting and bleeding after vaccination can also “be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure” the group warned. Over time “this renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom – in the absence of ‘vaccination’ – COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

Follow link below.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/rebuttal-letter-to-european-medicines-agency-from-doctors-for-covid-ethics-april-1-2021-7d867f0121e