Everything Else

Click here to return to the Everything Else home page
Also visit the
News and Links section for more up-to-date News

 RSS Feed

Category: Politics

  1. Midazolam Murders | Papers Set To Be Laid In Magistrates Court

    Posted on

    Midazolam Murders | Papers Set To Be Laid In Magistrates Court

    Read the full evidence in original article: NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY

    Midazolam Murders | Papers Set To Be Laid In Magistrates Court

    Midazolam Murders | Papers Set To Be Laid In Magistrates Court

    Following several months of dealing with circumstances beyond our control, the People’s Union of Britain [PUB] will next week finally be in a position to lay the papers at a Magistrates Court, in our Private Criminal Prosecution of the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 and their accomplices for the Midazolam Murders.

    Whilst we have somewhat deftly dealt with whatever has been thrown at us, from attempts to steal, lose or control the evidence we have amassed, to conspiracies to kill one, perhaps two, of the three key people involved in running this case, the increasingly obvious controlled opposition are hurtling towards irrelevance and obscurity.

    Nevertheless, in the face of the increased level of tyranny threatened by BoJo’s rogue government, on the orders of the Rothschild-controlled City of London, at the spectacularly fraudulent COP26, PUB will spit back, with fire-breathing indignation, the case that will put an end to such criminal governance on these ancient shores.

    In anticipation of the inevitable doubts as to how I could reasonably make the foregoing statement with such supreme confidence, there now follows a basic summary of what we can prove with an abundance of prima facie evidence.

    Summary of the Midazolam Murders Case

    In PUB v Hancock et al, the prosecution will allege that, between 01/04/2020 and the present day, the defendants did willfully conspire, in a joint enterprise, whether with primary or secondary liability, to commit the murders by government policy of more than 136,000 people in UK care homes, by injecting the over 65’s with the infamous lethal injection drug, Midazolam.

    Furthermore, we can also emphatically demonstrate that it is extant government policy to maximise the number of people placed on the end-of-life-pathway via predictive prescribing of Midazolam, to any patient of any demographic, whom a man or woman in a white coat deems likely to catch COVID-19 and die.

    Moreover, documentary evidence shows that the UK Government and its institutions have been acting as if euthanasia is perfectly legal since 2008, when in fact it is murder to end anybody’s life prematurely in this country, even with the express consent of the departed and/or their loved ones.

    Therefore, to argue that the graph at the top of the page is merely an illustration of the administration of standard end-of-life care is synonymous with arguing that prematurely terminating life is both legal and well established practice within the NHS, when only the latter is correct.

    Elements of Murder

    As is required in all murder cases, we will argue that, upon the prima facie evidence adduced, it is beyond reasonable doubt that it was from the outset the intent of the defendants to murder the elderly in UK care homes, using COVID-19 as the smokescreen to account for the huge rise in the over 65 mortality rate, from April 2020 to the present day.

    The motivation to do so was to provide each victim with “a good death”, for the purposes of saving money on keeping them alive for longer. Instead, they were arbitrarily placed on the end-of-life-pathway, which is an emotive phrase very often softened by the nefarious euphemism, Palliative Care.

    For those who still need convincing that this is unequivocally the case, please watch Matt Hancock confess to the foregoing crimes in the video below, taken from the House of Commons April 2020 inquiry into COVID-19.

     

     

    Confession Trumps All Other Evidence

    In this truly damning video confession, upon being asked by Dr Luke Evans MP, whether Hancock had ordered enough Midazolam, Morphine and Syringe Drivers, as well as employed enough NHS operatives to administer “good deaths” to everybody on the end-of-life-pathway, the then Secretary of State for the DHSC confirmed that enough murder weapons and ammunition had been procured and distributed to the mobile assassins in white coats.

    Given that the documentary evidence we have proves that, Hancock, acting in accordance with 2020-21 NICE guidelines, procured and facilitated the prescription of enough Midazolam [irrespective of Morphine prescriptions] to kill in excess of 136,000 people in UK care homes by lethal injection, it has become blindingly obvious that Hancock was forced to resign to distance the government from the allegations we are making.

    However, it is also a well established matter of criminal law that, even in the event that there are witness statements to the contrary, a voluntary confession under oath trumps all other evidence, as we saw in the Yorkshire Ripper trial, when the only evidence required to convict Peter Sutcliffe was his confession to some of the crimes he was accused of committing, despite forensic evidence which showed that at least one of the victims was raped and murdered by another perpetrator.

    This ancient rule of law must therefore be applied to Hancock confessing under oath to supplying the murder weapons, ammunition and instructions, to the assassins his department hired to euthanize the very people they claimed to be protecting from COVID-19, which renders the government’s propagandized marketing slogan, “Don’t Kill Granny”, about as sick and twisted as democide gets.

    Former CPS Prosecutor

    However, over the course of the past few weeks, a highly respected CPS prosecutor, who specialized in prosecuting bent MET coppers whom no other advocate had the courage to indict during the 1990’s, has agreed in principle to argue the case against the defendants.

    On the basis that this particular advocate is internationally renowned and respected within his profession and among the police, largely because they are all petrified of his devastating and fearless rhetoric, the revelation of his name [in due course] will send shock-waves through the undercrackers of the Four Horsemen and their army of accomplices.

    In more simplistic terms, as a good friend of mine would put it:

    “One of the most feared and successful barristers of the past thirty years has agreed to take instructions from one of the most feared and successful lay litigants in British legal history.”

    Former CID Fraud Detective

    At which point it seems appropriate to disclose that the former CID fraud detective I have been working with on the case is Dave Laity, who is probably the most feared, respected and knowledgeable ex-copper in the country.

    Dave’s vast understanding of the law and in particular the crime of fraud brings enormous credibility to the proceedings we have initiated, whilst I have never met anybody who is more resilient, unflappable and determined to bring our oppressors to justice.

    To emphasize the gargantuan nature of Dave’s credentials, he is a well established Private Criminal Investigator, Criminal Consultant for APPG, Chairman of Action4Justice and a documentary filmmaker.

    It should therefore be of no surprise that Dave is an integral member of the Banksterbusters community, with whom I have been working closely since the summer of 2019, in a class action law suit to end institutionalised mortgage fraud and signature forgery [which is also set to dramatically lurch forward].

    Scouse Polymath

    In addition, as many of you will already know, the third member of the triumvirate is Scouse polymath, Mark Oakford, who has collected, arranged and illustrated a truly vast amount of data, which makes up the core of our prima facie evidence in the case.

    Without a hint of hyperbole, from a standing start, a homeless man from Liverpool, without any formal training or academic qualifications in this subject matter, has performed tasks which would ordinarily take a team of professional researchers years to complete.

    Moreover, every time we have put Mark’s comprehensive work to the test by exposing it to those with the academic qualifications he lacks, they have failed to find a single flaw in his final deductions, all of which have been made out of uncontested UK Government data.

    He has done so entirely of his own volition, asking nothing in return for his monumental efforts, except that everybody gets behind our case, for one very simple reason – metaphorically speaking, there’s only one horse in this race, which must be won, for the sake of all our children.

    The Final Push

    Over most of the course of the next week, we will be engaged in finalizing the Statement of Case and compiling the bundles of evidence substantiating the allegations but once that process is complete we will be asking you all to engage in one final push, to force the news of the PCP being laid into mainstream online discussion.

    Once that explosive news breaks, the swell of public support that ensues will guarantee that our adversaries will not get away with quietly rigging the judgment before it gets before a jury, as they did in the first incarnation of this Private Criminal Prosecution.

    However, whilst we will still be demonstrating the blatant frauds of COVID-1984, which the defendants have used as their alibi, murder is far easier to prove than fraud and we no longer need to prove the latter, on the basis that we are only alleging murder by government policy in the Statement of Case.

    So until the next PCP Update, by which time the papers should be laid in a Magistrates Court, keep the faith, stand your ground and rest assured that the fraudulent alibi for the most murderous con trick ever played is about to be exposed for the entire world to see.

    After which, there will be nowhere left to run and hide for the perpetrators of the Midazolam Murders.

  2. Anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-mandated vaccines MP David Amess Murdered

    Posted on

    Sir David Amess, a Conservative MP since 1983, was stabbed multiple times as he held a regular Friday meeting with constituents at Belfairs Methodist Church in Leigh-on-Sea. The MP died while receiving treatment soon after the attack on 15/10/21.

    The man arrested by police has been named as 25-year-old Ali Harbi Ali who is being held under the Terrorism Act. The BBC report that Ali was previously referred to the counterterrorist Prevent scheme, which aims to stop people becoming radicalised, but he was never a formal subject of interest to MI5.

    The murder of David Amess was horrific and unacceptable, in no way can this be condoned or justified. My thoughts are with his friends and family following this tragic incident.

    However, the cynic in me can’t help but wonder if this was a false flag operation. I don’t believe this is terrorist related, unless you’re referring to the government who are often the actual perpetrators of such attacks. From my experience I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that an MP would be ‘sacrificed’ to allow the government to introduce stricter rules to protect themselves. Further investigation shows that there were plenty of reasons why the Government may have targeted Amess for removal and raises the question, was he murdered by the government because he didnt fully support their agenda?

    It is possible that Amess was targeted to be killed because of his seemingly good nature and strong following, this allows for maximum sympathetic response from the public which in turn helps to support the suggestion that they should be more protected. But I feel this is only part of the story and the bigger picture starts to appear when you realise David Amess was against mandating mask wearing and against mandating vaccines, he was also vocal about his feelings toward the negative impact of lockdowns and the fact that care homes were ‘sacrificed’ in the first lockdown.

    David Amess called the move to make masks mandatory a “huge infringement of people’s civil liberties” and said it should be left to the community to stop the spread of the virus. (Source). 

    Sir David said: “Ever since the pandemic started the government has consistently said that they are following scientific advice. It would appear that the scientists have now advised the government that this is the right time for people to wear face masks in shops. Whilst many people are already choosing to wear face masks, it is obviously a huge infringement of people’s civil liberties. I believe it will be difficult to enforce and must be left to people’s common sense and the community spirit to try and stop the spread of infection and save lives.”

    In an article by Echo-news David Amess slammed the announcement by Boris Johnson that England will go into a second lockdown as "shambolic"

    "That should not happen again. Of course, I understand that we are following the advice of the scientists, but it is the politicians who decide. I want much more clarity on the overall objective and strategy.

    As many others have mentioned, care homes seemed to be sacrificed the last time we were in lockdown. Their residents are on very limited time, and we must ensure that full visiting rights are given to their relatives.

    I am very glad that the schools are not now locking down, and I do hope that we will do our best to protect vulnerable children. With hope, our churches most certainly should stay open. The Catholic archbishops have called for the publication of the evidence behind the ban; I urge the government to publish it…

    He added: "Not surprisingly, we are being inundated with emails from constituents telling us that we should not vote for another lockdown.

    The British public have been extremely patient and forbearing, and most people have accepted the guidelines until now. There needs to be a coherent strategy for a return to normality—not the new normal, but the normality of pre-lockdown Britain.

    The country, and particularly the economy, cannot exist in a state of suspended animation for much longer without long-term real damage."

    Sir David also put his name to a petition for the Government NOT to roll out covid-19 vaccination passports back in 2020. This was debated in Parliament in March 2021 after picking up 375,209 signatures.

    The media immediately jumped on the campaign of ‘increasing security for our MPs’, in fact, this was reported in the article I read as the events were still unfolding. While this may seem a logical step in the wake of the second murder of a UK MP within 5 years, it is also an interesting time to start protecting MPs and ‘putting them behind screens’ as one Labour MP, Diane Abbott, suggests.

    What exactly have they got planned around the corner that will require such protection? Vaccine mandates, financial crisis, employment crisis, food, and energy shortages? Another winter lockdown? Or are they afraid people are realising these politicians have been lying to us about covid and have been playing with our health at the expense of lives and freedom in exchange for their own greedy profits? I think Hitler also bumped up security to stop people who disagreed with him, then put them into concentration camps. They’re planned too, and they will be set up as ‘re-education camps for extremists’ or ‘covid quarantine centres’.

    The media are also branding the event as a ‘threat to our democracy’. Which would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. What democracy? All these supposed democratic MPs have towed the line as far as Covid-19 goes. Their false narrative, and/or failure to challenge it, has killed untold amounts of people and the evidence builds every day to have all these politicians put to trial Nuremberg style.

    Government policy murdered thousands of elderly care home residents and then called it the first wave of covid deaths, now they are injuring and killing people with a deadly vaccine. They are the terrorists.

    More people are waking up to the reality that we are living in a fascist Britain where politicians are paid for and not elected to represent. The same is obviously the case worldwide, no nation has escaped the madness that is covid-19 and the vaccine which is killing far more people than covid ever did.

    In the light of the tragic events of last week, it is not the safety of politicians that remains under threat, it is the safety of those they are supposed to serve as measures are sure to be introduced to give them more security and protection than ever before. Meanwhile people have died, are dying and will die under their policy and are being coerced by them into taking a potentially deadly vaccine, which, by the way, is in direct violation of the Nuremberg code.

  3. Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy

    Posted on

    Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy

    Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy

    The following Notice of Intended Private Criminal Prosecution for mass murder by UK Government policy is an amended version of the notice served upon the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care last week, which will also be served by email and registered post.

    NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

    MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY

    1. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus”. However, the genome sequence for SARS-COV-2, released in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence was created in the absence of virus samples1. We therefore contend that no virus isolate of SARS COV 2 exists, and that a disease called Covid 19 has not caused excess deaths in the UK.
    2. Our assertion is supported by public documents confirming that no pure isolate of the virus exists2. Furthermore, publicly available death data proves that the so called “first wave of COVID”, and excess deaths in England, only occurred ONCE the pandemic was announced and lockdowns commenced on 23/03/2020, and that a “virus” which was not a HCID, may have been in circulation as early as October 2019.3 
    3. On 3rd March 2020, the UK Government scientific advisor echoed the Prime Minister, when he said: “Let me be absolutely clear that for the overwhelming majority of people who contract the “virus”, this will be a mild disease from which they will speedily and fully recover as we’ve already seen”. In line with this, on 13/03/2020, the threat from the virus was officially downgraded from a HCID to a NOID by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens [ACDP].4.
    4. However, this decision to downgrade from HCID to NOID was highly controversial because of the WHO’s declaration of a worldwide High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID] two days previously on 11/03/2020, upon the advice of Neil Ferguson of Imperial College. In other words, the downgrading is an implicit contradiction of Ferguson’s triggering of a worldwide health emergency.                                                                                                                                                      
    5. Remarkably, following the private announcement of the downgrading on 13th March 2020, and the subsequent public announcement of the downgrading on 19/03/2020, there appears to have been a premeditated decision to use this unproven ‘pandemic’ as justification to impose measures and medication which went on to kill people. This was in turn used to justify the lockdown measures, which themselves were one of the driving forces of the deaths they claimed to be trying to avoid. This premeditation to cause deaths of course amounts to mass murder by government policy.
    6. There is support for this argument when we look at government policy decisions, which simply put, make no sense. On 17/03/2020, 4 days after the private downgrading mentioned above, the NHS wrote to all hospitals asking them to free-up the maximum possible number of beds by urgently discharging any patients they could.1
    7. Many of these patients were discharged to care homes, some of which were given ultimatums forcing them to take more patients than they were equipped to provide care for. In addition, the NHS cancelled all ‘non-urgent’ treatments. 
    8. Why was this policy invented at all given scientific advice on 03/03/2020, and why was it not reversed, given the downgrading on 13/03/2020 by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens?
    9. It is our contention that the excess deaths in the first wave occurred AS A RESULT of the relentless implementation of this policy, which was coupled with the inappropriate use of respiratory depressing medications such as Midazolam during the same period. This is how the excess deaths occurred. They were NOT because of a novel virus, isolation of which, according to long held standards, has never occurred.
    10. Our extrapolated data on community Midazolam prescribing supports the above allegation, along with the data on how and where deaths during this time period occurred.
    11. Following the letter of 17/03/2020 from the NHS, bed occupancy in England reduced from the usual 90% to an average of 63% in the spring quarter of 2020. In addition, there was no influx of ‘large numbers of inpatients requiring respiratory support’. Accident and emergency (A&E) departments saw a huge decrease in attendances and overall admitted patient care decreased significantly during the same period.
    12. Of those patients who were admitted to hospital and residents who were discharged to care homes, the outcomes can only be described as devastating. We assert that those outcomes were engineered. When we look at mortality, figures show that hospital and care home death ratios increased during the “first wave” lockdown period2.
    13. The excess death ratio in private homes also exceeded that of hospitals in the first wave and has remained in excess every week since the announcement that a “new virus” was circulating. This is not in line with where deaths would occur if there were indeed a novel virus killing thousands of people. The fact is that hospitals WOULD be overwhelmed, and the majority of deaths would occur therein. The data is clear, this is NOT the case.                        
    14. Shockingly, 91% of “with COVID” deaths during the first lockdown were of people with any sort of disability3. It is impossible for a ‘virus’ to discriminate in such a manner, and therefore we contend these deaths must have been as a result of very nefarious policies. These policies were blanket DNRs and mandatory prescribed medications, two factors which have contributed to most other “non disability” deaths during the first lockdown period.                                        
    15. Data proves that up to 13/05/2020, deaths in care homes from all causes were 159% higher than at the start of “the COVID-19 outbreak”4. In April 2020, the ratio of excess deaths in English care homes was almost three times that of the prior five years’ average. It is not a mere coincidence that during the same month, prescribing of Midazolam increased by more than 100%5. There is a clear correlation between policy, prescribing of Midazolam and deaths, which simply cannot be overlooked.
    16. Further,more during the period 2 March to 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died, supposedly “with COVID-19”, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over. This represented almost 40% of all deaths involving “COVID-19” in England during this period 6
    17. In addition to the above, during the first lockdown there was an unbelievable policy change in care homes7. The change restricted access for residents’ families. This removed crucial oversight of treatment along with safeguards. Also, support services such as SALT, chiropody, physiotherapy and in house GP visits, were removed.
    18. Simply put, care homes were turned into death camps and their inmates were targeted for elimination. Staffing levels dropped due to a policy of self-isolation for anything akin to a sniffle, and this further pressured care homes who then had a ratio of staff to patients that was unworkable.
    19. We contend this was not an accident, and instead was done by design. Only a fool, or perhaps a madman, would implement such policies and not realise the inevitable consequences. Only a fool or a madman would say they were necessary after the down grading of Covid 19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020.
    20. As we have already stated, we assert that the above were premeditated policies, to cause excess deaths in care homes (as well as in the community generally).  It is without doubt that family surveillance in care homes, at a time when staff limits were stretched, could have stopped avoidable deaths. Furthermore, had support services been available, we very much doubt that the over prescribing of respiratory depressing medication would have been either necessary, or allowed to transpire.
    21. Bizarrely, in addition to the above, all official inspections were suspended during the first lockdown, leading to less and less oversight. Very worryingly, the use of blanket DNRs,8 (now acknowledged as a fact by Matt Hancock), as well as do not admit to hospital orders, were imposed, and undoubtedly led to countless avoidable deaths.
    22. Lockdown restrictions eased at the start of June 2020 and up to the start of the second national lockdown, there was NEGATIVE excess deaths in care homes (a ratio of 0.96 versus expected levels). This fall in deaths occurred in the absence of any ‘vaccines’ or alternative treatment for so called Covid 19.
    23. We therefore contend that the initial wave of deaths during the first lockdown were driven by policy decisions by this government and Midazolam prescribing. These deaths were in fact accelerated deaths, rather than excess deaths, and these accelerated deaths were created for political and policy gain, to feed a narrative of a deadly pandemic which simply did not, and still does not, exist.
    24. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor, has labelled lockdowns “the single biggest public health mistake in history”9.  95% of hospital COVID-labelled deaths occurred DURING lockdown. How is this possible if lockdowns save lives?                                                                                                                                     
    25. We contend that lockdowns kill, but moreover that they are designed to do so. However, lockdowns alone do not provide the significant number of deaths needed to create the illusion of a pandemic. This is the primary reason we have looked at Midazolam prescribing during this period.
    26. It is a well-known fact that Midazolam is a respiratory depressing drug1. It creates the very respiratory symptoms of so called “COVID-19”. Used in copious amounts in conjunction with lockdowns, Midazolam led to premature deaths. The data we have extrapolated on community Midazolam prescribing supports this, along with the pertinent observations above, about where and how accelerated deaths occurred.
    27. Given our assertions that government policy and Midazolam prescribing have caused accelerated deaths, and our assertion that this was designed and premeditated by certain individuals within and advising this government, we have some questions that we wish to put to you.
    28. Our allegations described above are of the most serious kind. In the absence of satisfactory answers from you to our questions and given the supporting evidence we are presenting with this notice, we wish to make clear that we will assume you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that what we have asserted about a government premeditated policy of mass murder is false.
    29. Let us be clear, this is your chance to answer the questions posed and give proof that our allegations and assertions are wrong. If you can do that by bringing evidence to the contrary of ours, we will accept that we have perhaps misinterpreted our evidence, albeit in good faith.
    30. However, you will need to produce sufficient material evidence to rebut our allegations, and in the absence of the same, we will pursue a Private Criminal Prosecution based on the statements made herein. 
    31. Of the 50,335 deaths which occurred in March to June 2020 involving COVID-19 in England and Wales, 45,859 (91.1%) had at least one pre-existing condition, while 4,476 (8.9%) had none. It is for those people and their families that we so urgently seek a just outcome in this the most serious type of criminal proceedings imaginable.

      Questions About Allegedly Murderous UK Government Policy

    32. How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were used in England between March and May 2020?
    33. Of 1mg in 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules used between March and May 2020, where were they prescribed, and in what proportion, i.e. what went into the community, and what went into hospitals?
    34. What was the UK stock of 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules held for the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?
    35. How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?
    36. What was the UK stock of 10mg 2ml Midazolam in the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?
    37. How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?
    38. Who ordered the 22,000 extra packs in May 2020? Was it the DHSC, and if so, which minister signed off the order? If it was not the DHSC please specify who it was?
    39. What was the cost of the order of the 22,000 packs?
    40. Moving on to the Health and Social Care Committee. Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17/04/2020, ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 17/04/2020, what does Dr Luke Evans mean when he says, “a good death”?
    41. Does he mean euthanasia, which this term commonly refers to?
    42. Assuming he does mean this, why did Dr Luke Evans openly discuss government policy of causing “a good death” by administering fatal dose of drugs like Midazolam and Morphine, via hypodermic syringes, when to do so is tantamount to an implicit confession of mass murder by policy?
    43. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are both illegal under English Law. Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) and punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder.
    44. Are Dr Luke Evans’ remarks a result of the Confidential Pandemic Influenza (CPI) briefing paper dated 08/09/2017, which states, and we quote: “There is significant discussion in the paper about ceasing or changing care to patients in the HRG categories; however a decision may more appropriately be taken to treat patients in the listed HRG groups rather than influenza patients, dependent upon likelihood of survival……… Total excess death rate would be in excess of 7,806 per week of the peak of the pandemic if all these services were stopped. So, in the peak six weeks of a pandemic (recognising the typical profile of increasing and decreasing case numbers either side of the peak weeks), 46,836 excess deaths could be expected. On the one hand, this is likely to be an underestimate as it only considers the top 14 HRG codes and it does not consider additional deaths occurring particularly in the elderly and frail across primary care where HRGs are not coded.”
    45. Give the CPI and Dr Luke Evans’ remarks, is there a culture within government, Public Health England and indeed the NHS to enact the supposedly defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, to end lives at the behest of the treating doctor, which of course is illegal as described above?
    46. If the answer is “no”, can you please explain why the NHS drew up the CPI and included within it plans to withdraw hospital care from people in nursing homes in the event of a pandemic, which also included refusal to treat those in their 70s and instead offer “support” to use so-called “end of life pathways”.
    47. The CPI states that the Health Secretary (at the time) could authorize medics to prioritize some patients over others and even stop providing critical care altogether. Was such a decision taken by the Health Secretary at the time, (Matt Hancock), in relation to care home, hospital and community residents over a certain age?
    48. Government ministers have repeatedly insisted that care homes were not abandoned by the NHS during the coronavirus crisis, despite more than 42,000 residents in England and Wales dying during the “pandemic”. Given this, what is your proof that this was not because of decisions made by the DHSC, and/or PHE and NHS chiefs, which then resulted in thousands of needless deaths?
    49. Care homes were asked by NHS managers and GPs to place DNR’s on all residents at the height of the “pandemic” to keep hospital beds free – in breach of guideline 3. Blanket DNR’s were also imposed on people with learning disabilities “who were not near the end of their lives”, showing a concerning disregard for disabled people. Who made the decision to ask care homes to do this, and were these decisions taken because of the CPI?
    50. In making his remarks at the Health and Social Care Committee, Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17 April 2020, why did Dr Evans and indeed all those present, completely ignore the declassification of COVID-19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020, meaning that such nefarious measures as those mentioned in the CPI were never necessary?
    51. Moving on, we attach a selection of graphs regarding the prescribing of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules for various years and months. Can you please explain why the enormous increase in Midazolam prescriptions for 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules coincide with implementation of the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle-plan in March 2020?
    52. How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, were held in the UK in January 2020, and what wholesalers held them? How does the DHSC, PHE and the NHS keep track of what stock it has of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, and indeed all other Midazolam products?                                                           
    53. We attach a final graph comparing all-cause mortality but distinguishing between NON “COVID-19” deaths and deaths “with COVID-19” for the period March 2020 to April 2021, compared to Midazolam prescribing for the same period. Can you please explain why there is such a tight correlation between the “COVID-19” deaths in April 2020, and the prescribing of Midazolam 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules?                                                                                                                       
    54. As Midazolam is not a treatment for “COVID-19”, and the prescribing in April is, in the main, into the community, and NOT hospitals, can you please answer if it is in fact the case that 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules were prescribed and used to end the lives of people in care that had a chance of surviving, and those deaths were then labelled as “COVID-19”?
    55. For the avoidance of doubt, the appropriate answers to the above questions must be delivered without prevarication, obstruction, or unnecessary delays, whilst we reserve the right to lay this information in a criminal court without further notice, for the purposes of preventing any more harm being done to the People by UK Government policy.

    References

    Eurosurveillance | Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

    2 FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever – Fluoride Free Peel

    3 ‘Plausible’ evidence that Covid may have been circulating in Italy in October 2019 (telegraph.co.uk)

    4 High consequence infectious diseases (HCID) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

    5 20200317-NHS-COVID-letter-FINAL.pdf (england.nhs.uk)

    6 Excess mortality in England, week ending 03 July 2020 (phe.org.uk)

    6 out of 10 people who have died from COVID-19 are disabled | The Health Foundation

    7 Care homes have seen the biggest increase in deaths since the start of the outbreak | The Health Foundation

    8 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic  | Daily Mail Online

    9 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic  | Daily Mail Online

    10 Deaths involving covid19 in the care sector england and wales

    11 Care homes: Visiting restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic (parliament.uk)

    12 Third of UK hospital Covid patients had ‘do not resuscitate’ order in first wave | Coronavirus | The Guardian

    13 Lockdowns are ‘the single biggest public health mistake in history’, says top scientist (telegraph.co.uk)

    14 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7457966/

    15 Unrevised (parliament.uk)

    16 Pandemic-Influenza-Briefing-Paper-NHS-Surge-and-Triage.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

    17 Care home residents put on ‘do not resuscitate’ orders without consent (telegraph.co.uk)

    Read More in Critical Thinking

     

    Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged .