On tonight’s weekly show I will be joined by:
Professor Dolores Cahill
John Smith - Common Law
Mark Oakford - Statistician
John Hamer - Author
Mick Stott - Veteran And Psychologist .
Please feel free to join us
@7pm every Wednesday
TheUKFreedomAlliance.co.uk
WakeUpUK.Net .
If you have any questions you’d like to Ask The Experts
please go to either of the above forums, or alternatively you can PM me.
Professor Dolores Cahill
John Smith - Common Law
Mark Oakford - Statistician
John Hamer - Author
Mick Stott - Veteran And Psychologist .
Please feel free to join us
@7pm every Wednesday
TheUKFreedomAlliance.co.uk
WakeUpUK.Net .
If you have any questions you’d like to Ask The Experts
please go to either of the above forums, or alternatively you can PM me.
Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum has released another dystopian nightmare video promoting an "artificial sun," so it is "easier for people to gather again."
Forwarded from Robin Monotti + Cory Morningstar
Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns | by Doctors for Covid Ethics | Mar, 2021 |
"We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.
In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:
https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595
"We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.
In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:
https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595
Medium
Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns
Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Forwarded from Robin Monotti + Cory Morningstar
HERE WE GO, THIS IS WHY THEY NEED THE PANDEMIC GOING AT LEAST TIL LATE JUNE. CURRENT VACCINE AUTHORIZATION (NOT APPROVAL) IS TEMPORARY PENDING CONCLUSION OF CLINICAL SAFETY TRIALS WHICH MUST BE AT LEAST ONE YEAR IN DURATION. NO PANDEMIC AND AUTHORIZATION CAN BE CHALLENGED.
ICMRA JULY 2020:
"Follow-up of study participants for COVID-19 outcomes should be long enough (i.e., 1 year or longer post-vaccination) to evaluate safety, duration of immune response and risk of disease enhancement as antibody titers wane."
ICMRA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Workshop #2 - Summary | International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA)
http://www.icmra.info/drupal/news/22june2020/summary
ICMRA JULY 2020:
"Follow-up of study participants for COVID-19 outcomes should be long enough (i.e., 1 year or longer post-vaccination) to evaluate safety, duration of immune response and risk of disease enhancement as antibody titers wane."
ICMRA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Workshop #2 - Summary | International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA)
http://www.icmra.info/drupal/news/22june2020/summary
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Dutch dancing in the streets of Amsterdam today in protest against the draconian lockdown measures.
It seems that I am far from alone in being concerned about the latest attack upon our human rights by the U.K. government in their plot to curb the right to protest. I received this email from the Good Law Project:
Dear Dan
Other than at a General Election – an event occurring at five-yearly intervals that hands unconstrained power to a Party that wins a majority – a citizen has but one way of registering dissent at what is done in their name: the right to protest. Yesterday the Government announced its intention to legislate that right out of meaningful existence.
The legislative proposal comes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. It grapples with everything from road traffic offences to confected culture war issues like the protection of war memorials. But it also contains provisions that should concern each and every one of us.
Silencing dissent
High-profile protests around Brexit, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the climate crisis have been thorns in the Government’s side over the last couple of years. By and large, these protests have been peaceful and have acted as effective ways for people to express their dissatisfaction with the Government.
However, the Home Secretary, in particular, doesn’t seem to like dissenting voices – nor does she want to engage with the root causes of these protests, preferring instead to brand protesters “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and to accuse them of “hooliganism and thuggery”.
The Government’s proposed solution? To clamp down hard on the right to protest. The Bill as it stands would give sweeping new powers to the police to restrict peaceful protests – including by giving them the powers to set conditions on the duration of protests, set maximum noise levels, and put restrictions on where protests can take place. As it seems to us, the very purpose of the right to protest is to enable people to register their profound unhappiness or strength of feeling in a way which compels the State to respond. To legislate so that right cannot have any impact is to legislate it out of meaningful existence.
The disproportionate measures proposed in the Bill also risk undermining the freedom of assembly and association protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
It should worry us all that the Government has chosen to attack our rights. We want to fully understand the human rights implications of this Bill, and have instructed an experienced QC and junior barrister from Matrix Chambers to provide us with written advice on this.
Thank you,
Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Dear Dan
Other than at a General Election – an event occurring at five-yearly intervals that hands unconstrained power to a Party that wins a majority – a citizen has but one way of registering dissent at what is done in their name: the right to protest. Yesterday the Government announced its intention to legislate that right out of meaningful existence.
The legislative proposal comes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. It grapples with everything from road traffic offences to confected culture war issues like the protection of war memorials. But it also contains provisions that should concern each and every one of us.
Silencing dissent
High-profile protests around Brexit, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the climate crisis have been thorns in the Government’s side over the last couple of years. By and large, these protests have been peaceful and have acted as effective ways for people to express their dissatisfaction with the Government.
However, the Home Secretary, in particular, doesn’t seem to like dissenting voices – nor does she want to engage with the root causes of these protests, preferring instead to brand protesters “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and to accuse them of “hooliganism and thuggery”.
The Government’s proposed solution? To clamp down hard on the right to protest. The Bill as it stands would give sweeping new powers to the police to restrict peaceful protests – including by giving them the powers to set conditions on the duration of protests, set maximum noise levels, and put restrictions on where protests can take place. As it seems to us, the very purpose of the right to protest is to enable people to register their profound unhappiness or strength of feeling in a way which compels the State to respond. To legislate so that right cannot have any impact is to legislate it out of meaningful existence.
The disproportionate measures proposed in the Bill also risk undermining the freedom of assembly and association protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
It should worry us all that the Government has chosen to attack our rights. We want to fully understand the human rights implications of this Bill, and have instructed an experienced QC and junior barrister from Matrix Chambers to provide us with written advice on this.
Thank you,
Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project