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
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.
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.
The originator of Terrain Theory, Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp was born in Bassing, near Dienze (Moselle), France in 1816. He was the son of a miller. He lived in Bucharest, Romania from the ages of 7 to 18 with an uncle who worked in the French ambassador’s office. There, he began to study pharmacy.
After the death of his uncle from cholera in 1834, he moved to Strasbourg to continue his studies at the École supérieure de Pharmacie. In 1843, he opened a pharmacy in Strasbourg (which existed up to the time of his death). He took on various faculty positions at the University of Strasbourg, and, in 1854, was appointed Professor of Chemistry, a post previously held by Louis Pasteur.
Over the course of his life, Béchamp developed several useful commercial inventions. In 1852, he created an inexpensive industrial process to produce aniline by the reduction of nitrobenzene with iron filings and acetic acid. This method greatly contributed to the emergence of the synthetic dye industry. For this work, along with others, he was awarded the Daniel Dollfus Prize of the Société Industrielle de Mulhouse in 1864. He also first synthesized the organic derivative of arsenic, p-aminophenylarsonate, which was subsequently used in the treatment of trypanosomiasis.