25 January 2021

 

This is a letter I sent to my MP. If anyone wishes to use part, or all, for the same purpose, please feel free to do so.

 

I have written to you on previous occasions regarding the Government's approach to Sars-CoV-2. I write again in light of certain, recent, developments which now appear to move the behaviour of Government Ministers, and their supporters, into the sphere of criminality. I make the following points:

 

1. The Sars-CoV-2 ‘crisis’ began, allegedly, in Hubei Province, China, with a lockdown on January 23 2020. However, sewage samples show the virus was already present in Italy and Brazil before this date, with one sample showing it present, in Barcelona, in March 2019. On the day of the Hubei lockdown, China flooded social media with fake ‘horror’ videos, extending that tactic world-wide in March, to garner support for total lockdowns. Lockdowns had never been utilised (even during Spanish flu) and no scientist had ever supported such a measure, until Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), personally authorized the unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan and other cities in January 2020. Judge Stickman County of Butler v Wolf [Civil Action No.2:20-cv-677]:

“It appears as though the imposition of lockdowns in Wuhan and other areas of China—a nation unconstrained by concern for civil liberties and constitutional norms—started a domino effect where one country, and state, after another imposed draconian and hitherto untried measures on their citizens.”

 

2. Certainly WHO, previously opposed to lockdowns, conducted a volte face, instructing other countries to follow suit, irrespective of the number of ‘cases’ and their demographic and economic circumstances. Conspicuously, the WHO response was predicated on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy1, arguably a criminally irresponsible approach. (For the record, Tedros Adhanom, WHO Director, now faces genocide charges at the International Criminal Court at the Hague.) WHO were only able to declare a global pandemic due to the fact that they had previously re-defined what constituted a pandemic.

 

3. Prof. Neil Ferguson was responsible for triggering the hysteria leading to lockdowns. Ferguson / Imperial College have extremely close links to the CCP. It is also to be noted that Ferguson / Imperial have a long, and ignoble, record of hopelessly inaccurate forecasts. Ferguson’s predictions were criticised heavily at the time by other, more competent, modellers, but the Government chose to rely on a single, discredited, source for its projections. Inevitably, Ferguson has since relied on the post hoc fallacy, in an attempt to retrospectively validate himself. Ferguson is now facing legal action and prosecution in Belgium.

 

4. Lockdowns promote the novel approach to public health of the immurement of an entire, healthy, population. Transmission is at its maximum in those circumstances (University of Florida meta-study in Journal of the American Medical Association): “households are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)”.

 

5. There is no correlation between lockdowns and Sars-CoV-2 deaths, irrespective of the severity of the lockdown. This has been proven in multiple studies. There is however, a cost in lives from lockdowns:

“as we pointed out in our previous paper (“Quantifying years of life lost to lockdown”), we expect much greater mortality to result from lockdown than from COVID-19. It has been suggested that such mortality is already evident. Only a third of the excess deaths seen in the community in England and Wales can be explained by COVID-19. (see Pandemics Data and Analytics.)

 

6. That cost is echoed by: the ONS – 200,000 (for lockdown 1 only); Bristol University - 560,000 and WHO - 130,000,000 lives lost globally to poverty. This for a disease with an IFR of 0.05% for <70 (overall IFR 0.23%).

 

7. In the foregoing circumstances, the utilisation of lockdowns amounts, arguably, to gross negligence, which leads to the possibility of the conviction of the Ministers responsible on charges of involuntary manslaughter.

 

8. I now move on to other aspects arising from the lockdowns: As a result of pressure from the Chinese Government, thousands of patients were immediately placed on mechanical ventilation. As a result there was a 97.2% mortality rate for over 65s. Hydroxychloroquine was ridiculed as an effective treatment and withheld, causing many more deaths. A fake article in the Lancet, whose editor in chief, Richard Horton, is a staunch supporter of the CCP, was responsible for this. Similarly, Ivermectin, a safe, efficacious, treatment, was also withheld.

 

9. Turning to perhaps the most iniquitous part of the lockdowns: the care homes and ancillary scandals. The Government’s policy was to deny hospital access to over 70s, even those exhibiting the normal vital signs. Older people were pressured into signing DNR notices (in itself, a criminal offence). Vulnerable people were sent DNAR notices through the post, and in some care settings notices were completed on behalf of the residents without their knowledge or consent (also a criminal offence). There was also a policy of denying vulnerable people access to A&E unless a clinical adviser had given prior approval. Numerous screenings and treatments were put on hold, costing innumerable lives, a situation which still persists. Those responsible for implementing these acts cannot escape liability. The foreseeability of the consequences moves the acts well beyond negligence, and into manslaughter.

 

10. Inevitably, Ferguson appears again with his usual post hoc fallacy, the only thing in which he appears to have expertise. His claim, that his measures have saved 3.1 million lives, dissolves into fatuousness when compared to the devastating toll his measures will actually cost.

 

11. Turning now to herd immunity and asymptomatic spread, both issues manipulated by the CCP. Taking herd immunity first: this is a well established principle. Unfortunately, the Government has been duped, again, by the CCP on this issue. A Chinese Government campaign on Facebook (run with Facebook concealing the origins of the advertisements) claimed that herd immunity, acquired from either natural or vaccine immunity, was actually a ploy to violate human rights. Rather than challenging this nonsense, the UK Government actually encouraged, for their own ends, the mass hysteria.

 

12. There was also an assumption that zoonosis had occurred, and thus there was zero immunity. Prof Drosten actually stated that Sars-CoV-2 was closely related to the prior Sars virus, but failed to explain why, with zero immunity, so many of those infected had survived (particularly in non-lockdown countries / states), the latter point being taken up by Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate, and his group2. The actual IFR for Sars-CoV-2 shows it to fall within the range of seasonal flu. In fact pre-immunity exists, and a study by Qimron/Gavish/Shahar/Levitt3 showed that no more than 20% of the population could become infected, and thus claims of zero immunity were false.

 

13. The other basis justifying lockdowns is the proposition that Sars-Cov-2 is novel, in that it has the unique property of spreading asymptomatically. A paper from McGill University refers to ‘numerous studies’, but all the studies in question originated in China. All studies outside China have failed to replicate the findings. Prof. Christian Drosten (of whom more anon) made an additional false claim re asymptomatic transmission, which was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine on 30 January 2020. This alleged asymptomatic transmission was from a Chinese woman who actually had symptoms, a point which the publication was forced to concede on 3 February 2020. There is no credible evidence of asymptomatic transmission, a point which must be known to the Government, SAGE and the Secretary of State for Health, yet it remains the cornerstone of lockdowns. University of Florida4 et al: “The lack of substantial transmission from observed asymptomatic index cases is notable”.

 

14. The mortality rates jumped only after lockdown was imposed, raising the question: was the lockdown partially or wholly responsible for such an effect? Again, the post hoc fallacy is called into play, seeking to retrospectively justify lockdowns. Reliance on such specious, self-justifying, arguments actually demonstrates an absence of legitimate grounds for such measures.

 

15. Every year during December - January, hospitals are close to / over capacity, due to seasonal spikes in respiratory cases, a fact which the Government and NHS normally seek to conceal. The situation this year is no different re occupancy, but this year the Government and NHS are playing up the occupancy rates, to generate more panic over Sars-CoV-2.

 

16. The Government has made regulations imposing compulsory mask wearing. There is a plethora of scientific papers showing that masks are not effective, and no credible studies showing they are. I make no comment re negative consequences of mask wearing: anyone so affected (e.g. bacterial pneumonia etc.) will be free to bring a claim against the Government or individual Minister in due course.

 

17. I now address the issue of vaccines, and make no comments regarding the putative efficacy, or otherwise, of the vaccines in question. The vaccine trials will not be concluded until December 2022, and consequently the vaccines must be classified as experimental. This raises the first question: can MHRA legitimately license, for use on the general population, an experimental vaccine. Secondly, under International law, all participants in vaccine trials must do so on a strictly voluntary basis, having been given relevant information regarding possible dangers / side effects. Failure by a state to proceed in such a manner will incur criminal liability. Thirdly, domestic law requires that all those undergoing medical procedures (including vaccination), must be given all relevant information, and consent must be informed and freely given. It is difficult to see how this hurdle can be overcome with the Government's approach of automatic, mass vaccinations, without disclosure of all material facts. Fourthly, whilst mandatory vaccination would clearly incur criminal liability, so too would any degree of coercion, such as ‘vaccine passports’, denial of services, etc.. It is arguable that criminal liability would not be limited solely to Ministers /Parliament and MHRA, but would extend to all those seeking to impose coercive measures (e.g. employers etc.). It would also render the actual act of administering the vaccine a criminal offence.5

 

18. Parliament has passed legislation limiting damages in Sars-CoV-2 vaccine claims. However, such legislation could not serve to provide protection to either the State, or individual Ministers, where there is criminal liability.

 

19. Then there is the matter of the PCR tests - it is these tests on which the whole edifice is constructed. The PCR test comes from the Corman-Drosten Protocol, and is now the most commonly used test for Sars-CoV-2 worldwide. The Protocol was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21 2020 and published the next day, without peer review. Drosten sits on the Board of Eurosurveillance - a blatant conflict of interest. The precipitate action appears to have been for financial gain. Drosten is now facing prosecution in Germany for fraud.

 

20. The PCR test has been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate – it is banned in Portugal after the Court of Appeal of Lisbon found it to be 97% inaccurate. Biologist Pieter Borger and his team have uncovered numerous fatal flaws in the Protocol.6 Both the PCR test and the similar N2 US CDC Protocol were developed using in silica (theoretical) genome sequences provided by Chinese scientists. The CA of Lisbon judgement concluded that the positive case counts had been inflated by as much as 10-30 fold.

 

21. A report from Italy’s National Institute of Health stated:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus ... On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.” (Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health.)

 

22. The same debasement of normal death registration procedures has occurred in the UK, making it virtually impossible to identify the true cause of death. Gov.UK count all deaths with a positive PCR test in the proceeding 28 days as ‘Covid’ deaths. The ONS also add on all deaths where the certifying doctor might suspect Sars-CoV-2 based on the deceased’s (untested) symptoms (thus conflating all respiratory illnesses into ‘Covid’). These measures, in conjunction with the many other scurrilous measures taken to obfuscate the true extent of deaths from Sars-CoV-2 (that’s from, not with), would entitle a reasonable person to conclude that there was some improper / unlawful purpose behind the Government’s activities which the measures are designed to conceal.

 

23. There is also the question of the staggering amounts of money being squandered, on tests known by Ministers to be useless. That concern is exacerbated by the fact that a major part of the money wasted is being syphoned into the hands of friends / relations / cronies of Politicians, raising the spectre of corruption.

 

24. To sum up this point: we have a totally discredited test, based on hypothetical genome sequences provided by the Xi Jinping regime, with a 97% inaccuracy level, being used in mass testing, where the results of those mass tests are used to justify Government policy. That situation is then further manipulated by the deliberate debasement of normal death certification procedures, conjoined with the cynical obfuscation of the distinction between deaths with Covid and deaths from Covid.

 

25. The next question is whether, or not, the Government has sought to exert influence on third parties. Certainly, the Police have been ‘over-zealous’ with their handling / prevention of anti-lockdown protests, in marked contradistinction to protests by Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion. The use of penalty notices has been abused, guidelines (e.g. social distancing) have been ‘converted’ into offences, police officers have forced their way into private residences, and unlawful road blocks imposed to prevent free movement. Immediately after Parliament went into the Christmas recess, Ministers imposed a new lockdown, seeking to enforce it via Police action. The Ministers responsible would be fully aware that, even though the requirement for a draft has been removed under the enabling Act, any instrument must still be laid for resolution. This raises two questions: Why wait until Parliament had gone into recess, and why pretend that the new ‘regulations’ were ‘law’? It appears to have been a deliberate act to undermine the will of Parliament over the Christmas relaxation of lockdown. The justification put forward was that a ’new’ more contagious mutation of the virus had occurred. This was untrue. Apart from the fact that viruses constantly mutate, usually attenuating, the ‘new’ mutation had actually been around since September, showing no sign of greater contagiousness.

 

26. There has been a recent reaction in shops / commercial premises, whereby those not wearing masks have been refused entry. The relevant regulations provide certain exemptions for those with disabilities (the list is not prescriptive), as is necessary to remain intra vires the Equality Act 2010. Banning persons in such circumstances incurs liability for damages, but may also result in a Private Criminal Prosecution (PCP). The first claim (liability admitted) attracted £7,000 damages. It is implausible that numerous shops / commercial premises would all have reacted in the same way at the same time, and thus betokens the surreptitious hand of Government.

 

27. In care homes also, there has been a timed move to force all staff to accept vaccination or face dismissal. It is difficult to see how a contract of employment could sanction such an approach. Absent a specific clause, staff would have a claim for unfair dismissal. Any attempt to read into a general clause such a specific requirement would be void, as it would seek to subvert domestic and international law regarding the impermissibility of forced vaccination (see paragraph 17 supra). Even a specific clause would founder on that basis - it would be void in that it sought to impose the enforced assigning away of rights. I understand that care home staff are receiving advice, to require everything to be placed in writing, and to record all relevant conversations (covertly if necessary7). In light of the likelihood of future litigation, this is sound advice.

 

28. The Government, ostensibly, bases its actions on information from SAGE. However, we know of at least one occasion where SAGE provided false figures to bring about a lockdown. The question thus becomes: is the Government controlling SAGE, or is SAGE controlling the Government? In view of the influence SAGE exerts, it is proper to consider the political and commercial interests of its members. A FOI request met with the response that the Government did not have this information. In fact, at least one SAGE member is a committed Communist, and others have business links to the pharmaceutical companies producing the Sars-CoV-2 vaccine. So, is it appropriate to act on advice from individuals who may have a vested interest in providing tendentious advice?

 

29. It is a matter of record that SAGE initiated a campaign to inculcate fear in the population (the ethical justification for which is non-existent). That ‘terror’ campaign has led to hysteria and unreason, with reasoned risk assessment / debate long since vanishing. Instead, we have the circular sophistry approach of: it’s common sense that lockdowns, masks, and social distancing must work, ergo any scientific evidence showing the opposite must be wrong, and any failure of the policies must be due to non-compliance, thus proving that more assiduous enforcement is a guarantee of success.

 

30. There has been criticism of Ofcom for stifling free speech. There has certainly been an emphasis on ‘experts’ who conform to the Government narrative (Neil Ferguson being a prime example), whilst the multitude who disagree, including expert epidemiologists and virologists, are conspicuous by their absence. The media has also suppressed facts and statistics relating to collateral deaths arising from the measures. The question, again, is whether this is as a result of ‘behind the scenes’ pressure from Politicians. It is also worth noting that, during the first ‘spike’ of deaths attributed to Sars-CoV-2, 6,000 people died of non-covid causes because they were too scared to leave home and seek medical treatment, due to fear instilled by the media (ONS report).

31. The Government has utilised fear-mongering, misinformation and deceit to allow it to continue with its chosen approach. Statements made by ‘Government sources’ conflict with those made by reputable independent sources (this extends even to the alleged behaviour of the Sars-CoV-2 virus). The inevitable consequence is that nothing emanating from Government, individual Ministers, or SAGE can be taken on trust.

 

32. In all, there has been an unprecedented attack on human rights and personal freedom, something never previously experienced, even in wartime or during previous, more serious, health crises. The economy has been destroyed, society damaged (possibly irreparably), serious and long lasting harm has been inflicted on health and mental health, and huge loss of (non-Covid) lives inflicted. None of this can be justified on the facts.

 

33. Whether this governmental debacle is entirety self-inflicted, or whether Parliament has been duped by the CCP, is a moot point. Parliament embarked on a catastrophic policy, has refused to resile from it, and must take responsibility for the consequences. Those consequences lie in both civil and criminal actions.

 

34. One would properly expect that fundamental human rights issues would be vigorously protected by the civil courts. However, in Dolan & Others v Secretaries of State for Health & Education, Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 1605, the Court of Appeal found (paragraphs 92-97), citing Guzzardi v Italy, that there had been no violation of Articles 5 & 8 ECHR. In Guzzardi, the Court found:

“The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is nonetheless merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance”, and “The starting point must be [the] concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question”.

​

35. In addition, the deprivation of liberty (Article 5 ECHR) does not turn on the purpose of such deprivation (Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), and has both an objective element and a subjective one, the latter turning on whether, or not, the individual has consented (Storck v. Germany, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC]).

 

36. Applying these precepts, the CA properly should have considered that:

i)     lockdown is merely a euphemism for what constitutes house-arrest,

ii)    individuals were allowed out only once a day for shopping or exercise,

iii)   the immurement had taken place without public consent,

iv)   it had not been sanctioned by any court,

v)    there was no right of appeal,

vi)   it was initiated as a three week lockdown,

vii)  it was then extended indefinitely with no public consent,

viii) measures were imposed under the menace of penalty.

 

37. The CA should also properly have considered that there was no cost / benefit analysis in relation to the measures, and no examination of potential collateral consequences. The CA conspicuously failed to make due consideration of the relevant criteria in Guzzardi et al. Two more issues arise from Dolan: (a) the judgement seeks to effectively outlaw rolled-up hearings8, thus permitting indefinite lockdowns (in this instance) on the basis that each one is the product of subtly different regulations, and therefore discrete, and (b) the judgement effectively finds that the margin of appreciation re qualified rights under ECHR is unlimited, and that it is for Ministers to decide what rights they will allow, rather than imposing the minimum infringement of the said rights. That finding is a perverse inversion of the fundamental purpose of the ECHR legislation.

 

38. It is to be noted that the CA did not conform to normal practice, in allowing permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but chose instead to refuse permission, thus preventing their judgment from being overturned. In light of the profound attack on liberty and human rights arising from the Coronavirus Act 2020, this is a somewhat surprising decision.

 

39. It is clear from the above, that any challenge via the Judicial Review route is likely now to be unsuccessful, no matter how well founded. However, there is another avenue, namely a Private Criminal Prosecution (PCP). It is open to any individual to bring a PCP, and whilst crowdfunding may be necessary to initiate proceedings, once permission is granted public funds are available. The necessary standard is the same as that in prosecutions brought by the CPS. The advantage of PCPs is that they are jury trials, which significantly lessens the possibility of Governmental, or indeed judicial, interference in a fair determination. I understand that a PCP is already in process against the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock. However, there is no reason why such prosecutions should be limited solely to a Secretary of State, nor indeed Ministers – if there is evidence of wrongdoing, that individual is susceptible to a PCP.

 

​

1 If event Y postdates event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.

2https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz- 20Jul20_ENGLISH%2012082020%20v3.

pdf?dl=0.

3 https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz-20Jul20_ENGLISH%2012082020%20v3.pdf

?dl=0 .

4 Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Global Health | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

5 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Article 7.

(The Nuremberg Code)

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board Neutral Citation Number: [2015] UKSC 11

6 Pieter Borger et al., External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, Nov. 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.

7 Re admissibility, see: Civil Evidence Act 1992 and Ventouris v. Mountain (No.2) [1992]1 WLR 887 CA

8In this context, rolled-up hearings are where challenges on different regulations, made under the same primary legislation, are combined into one hearing.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​