lockdown

The jab: The UK Telegraph calls for justice

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Matt Hancock should be arrested for wilful misconduct in public office. The slithy tove can – and must – be dragged before a Select Committee and made to answer for his actions and the vast hurt they have caused.”

(Matt Handcock is the former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.)


The source

The UK Telegraph, viewed today; quoted by NaturalNews.com, cited by Martin Geddes on Telegram, 15 March 2023)

( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/03/07/matt-hancock-should-arrested-wilful-misconduct-public-office/ )

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03-12-telegraph-headline-arrest-covid-lockdown-matt-hancock.html

My take on it

And so it begins.

I just hope that it’s true. According to the Telegraph, “Award-winning journalist Allison Pearson is a columnist and the chief interviewer of the Daily Telegraph.”

Question: What has prompted this headline, against the tide?

Answer: “The Telegraph has obtained more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages between Matt Hancock and other ministers and officials at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. … For eight days now, The Telegraph has published the most breathtakingly damning stories about the misuse of power (and “science”) by Matt Hancock and his cabal during the pandemic.”

The very word secret is repugnant in a free and open society.

“The Telegraph has obtained …” I love that well-worn phrase. And I thank God for leaks and for whistleblowers who bring light and fresh air where it’s needed. Suddenly the obvious conclusions may now be spoken out – that the UK’s former Health Minister is only an individual after all, despite all that power; that he has abused that power in a most egregious way; and that justice cries out for him and his lackeys to be brought to fair trial for wilful misconduct in public office.

Can’t happen here? You watch.

Lock-downs: “Costs massively outweighed benefits … a humanitarian disaster”

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Different analysts may estimate costs and benefits differently, and there is room for a range of views.  However the most startling aspect of Foster and Sabhlok’s work is not the details, or even the conclusion that costs massively outweighed benefits (with which I agree), but their claim (which seems to be correct) that no Australian state or federal government performed a CBA, either at the time of the lockdowns or subsequently.  The most important lesson to learn from all this is the legally mandated necessity for any future pandemic-related decisions by governments to be accompanied by a CBA in support of them.” 

— Dr Martin T Lally, Capital Financial Consultants Ltd.

The source

Dr Martin T Lally, Capital Financial Consultants Ltd, in a book review of Do lockdowns and border closures serve the “greater good”? A cost-benefit analysis of Australia’s reaction to COVID-19, by Gigi Foster and Sanjeev Sabhlok, published on 29 September 2022.


My take on it

My introduction to Professor Foster was in her role as a panelist on Q&A, on 21 April of 2020. What caught my attention that night was not so much the questions that she asked, Impact Analysis 101-type questions which in my mind were already crying out for answers. What stood out was the jaw-drop reaction of the rest of the panel.

Nearly three years later, that amazing dichotomy persists.

Foster and Sabhlok completed – after the horse had bolted – the analysis that others were duty-bound to have completed beforehand. It showed that the policy response had indeed been counter-productive, ie against the public interest.

Other analyses have formed the same conclusion. The Institute Of Public Affairs’ report, Hard Lessons, also released in September, called Australia’s zero-covid strategy and its associated lock-down measures, “a humanitarian disaster”:

“It’s easy to understand why the authors (Morgan Begg, Director of the IPA’s Legal Rights Program, and Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of IPA) came to this conclusion.

They found that Australia’s Covid response, which involved some of the longest lock-downs in the world, cost $934.8 billion and resulted in 31 x more life years lost than were saved.

Australian federal, state and territory governments threw out the evidence-based Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (written in 2014 and updated by the federal department of health in August 2019) in favour of an unscientific, costly, and frankly cruel zero-covid approach. It was an abject failure. IPA’s Hard Lessons reports quantifies just how much this failure cost Australia in life years, economic terms, and in educational losses.”

So what?

I repeat Dr Lully’s comment, which is apposite:

“The most important lesson to learn from all this is the legally mandated necessity for any future pandemic-related decisions by governments to be accompanied by a CBA in support of them.”

Don’t hold your breath. An eclectic mix of ignorance, incompetence, self-protection, compliance, boot-licking and complicity is at work.

‘COVID is dead’: Alberta court strikes down public health policy for lack of scientific evidence

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Breaking out of Alberta, today, mandatory masking is coming to an end.  Kids will not be masking when they return to school, mandatory quarantine will be ending, contact tracing, testing for mild symptoms, it’s all done.  They will now be recognising covid as a mild flu and treating it as such.  Freedom has won in Alberta, proving that fighting does work”.

The source

Stew Peters, interviewing Canadian citizen Patrick King, 3 August

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends-masking-shots-quarantine-in-alberta/

My take on it

First, some background.

I am grateful to Rumble for the following potted summary:

“Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS. He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on society. Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu! WE WON

King has shown the template to be followed WORLDWIDE. This is what can happen when you are not re-presented by a BAR (British Accredited Registry) Lawyer who’s first obligation is to the Corrupted Courts and not their client.”

Now a little more history, from the Stew Peters interview with King.

On 5 December 2020 Canadian citizen Patrick King was found in breach of an order of the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Alberta Canada (Deena Hinshaw), the order being ‘in response to the Covid-19 pandemic’ and the breach relating specifically to being found in an assembly of more than 10 people.  King was fined $1,200.

King appealed.  When he appeared in court on 4 May he laid out the information that he would need in order to prepare a proper and plausible defence.  In particular it included evidence of isolation of the SARS CoV-2 virus.

The matter of ‘Deena Hinshaw vs Patrick James King’ was scheduled to be heard in Red Deer Provincial Court on Monday 19 July 2021.

On Wednesday 14 July  Mr King subpoenaed the CMOH under s. 699 of the Criminal Code requiring her to bring “all white papers describing the isolation of the COVID-19 aka SARS-CoV-2 virus in human beings, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient”, because “these white papers would have been integral in the crafting of the statutes made under the “Public Health Act” here in Alberta”.

Three days later King was advised that his court action had been cancelled; and so he had to get it rescheduled.

King was then subpoenaed by Deena Henshaw’s lawyers to appear at a hearing in chambers.  At that hearing a lawyer for Teena Henshaw said, “Mr King has been requesting evidence that we cannot give.”

By the time the matter proceeded to court, on Saturday 24 July, it had escalated, being re-worded as ‘Her Majesty The Queen vs Patrick James King’, and with Attorney General Prosecutors from Ottawa attending. Again King reported, and the court noted,  the inability of the CMOH to provide the evidence he had requested.

The point of King’s challenge is that the covid-related health policies developed and implemented by the Alberta Provincial Government and its CMOH are premised on the existence of a specific infectious agent;  and yet they cannot produce evidence that such an agent even exists.

The consequences of this legal precedent are surely huge.  They imply, as Peters said, ‘the death of covid’.

In his interview King references the Rook vs Alberta case, ‘where they summonsed everyone who had violated any of these Covid rules … they are waiting on the determination of thousands and thousands of tickets and summonses …’  These cases will presumably be dismissed.

Now that King knows the successful approach recipe, he is keen to get the word out:  “What they need to do is challenge the Public Health Act, because  then the judge has no recourse than to subpoena the officials that are responsible for this.”

Finally, the sewer starts to clear.

Meanwhile it remains urgent to to educate the general population about the exploding number of deaths and other adverse events from ‘the jab’, which is a ‘known-to-be-harmful’ malignant response to a non-existent threat.

This 58-second clip may be a useful ice-breaker:

https://www.brighteon.com/ac54facd-6df6-49bc-9aa1-4523c19a1d4a

The speaker isn’t just anyone.  Professor Dolores Cahill is an immunologist of international renown

Lock-down: “Stop this human sacrifice.”

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“The leadership of NSW seems not to have considered any of these costs in deciding how to respond to the recent uptick in COVID cases. Where is the argument that the actions taken are expected to yield maximum total welfare? Why are we still focusing rabidly on COVID when the country hasn’t lost a person with that disease since last year and hundreds of people are suffering and dying daily of all manner of other things?

I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand. Consider that we are hearing disproportionately about counts of cases, rather than counts of people suffering symptoms or hospitalised. If we counted cases of all viruses that infect us, and treated them like the fearsome pestilence of the sort that COVID has been elevated to in the media, we would do nothing all day but hide under the bed. What matters is human suffering and death – not whether someone tests positive to a particular virus. …..

What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.

We need to stop this madness.” 

The source

Professor Gigi Foster, UNSW Professor of Economics, in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 28 June 2021 ( https://www.smh.com.au/national/stop-this-human-sacrifice-the-case-against-lockdowns-20210627-p584o7.html )

My take on it

Professor Foster is asking the same questions – the right questions – that she raised at the outset. Where is the impact assessment that examines the case for such extraordinary policy initiatives? Where are the numbers? What metrics should we be using?

The absence of such impact assessment by government is a telling indictment.

Still the question is, Why?

One credible explanation is that a proper impact assessment would come out against these policies.

Does this mean that government is more committed to a particular course of action than it is to the public welfare? Ideological, rather than logical?

“There is a man who is wise in his own eyes. There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Has Professor Foster reached the only reasonable conclusion? “I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand.”