Governments Have Gone Rogue But Masses Still Refuse To Open Their Eyes

Re. Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK. We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. On the contrary, we face personal risk to our employment for doing so and/or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

This little-known letter from 133 courageous doctors, nurses, paramedics, and midwives to Heads of State in the UK  demonstrates that many governments have gone rogue using the scamdemic as a pretext.

Makow comment- Governments go, rogue when they are subverted by Freemasons (Satanists) empowered by the Masonic Jewish banking cartel that controls government credit and currency. The endgame is the Communist Agenda 2030 apparently.  How will the “vaccines” help them get from here to there?

Reminder – A pandemic with a 99.8% survival rate is not a pandemic. BTW, what has happened to the common flu? Looks like it has been drafted and re-branded by the covid hoax.

Dear Sirs and Madam,

You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel. Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic. The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent, and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated. Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of the disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long-lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong…

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise, society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible, and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. The transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive, and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training, and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result…

The exaggerated nature of the threat

The policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat…

Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalizations by 90% in low-risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high-risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted…

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalization might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk/benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioral science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful, and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioral psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face-covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high-profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask-wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behavior, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable, and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful, and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants traveling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and have only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases, healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on the prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections are seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for the reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants are unclear.

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread the virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During the Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

The use of coercion is supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in cooperation with social media platforms and dating apps. The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects, and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover, your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalization rates, the policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life-prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies that have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists, and others who share crucial, scientifically valid, and evidence-based alternative views, and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Source: HenryMakow

Source

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes