Categories
Articles

PCR Test: Use or Abuse?

updated 22 Feb 2021

CONTENT below:
 • Intro • What is PCR? • False Positives & Negatives • Cycle Threshold/Amplifications • Peer Review Corman-Drosten Paper • WHO & CDC Update • No Asymptomatic Transmission • Situation @ Universities • PCR Tests Scientifically Meaningless? • Data, Tests & Statistics • Legal Challenges • UK Government? • Antigen & Antibody Tests • Possibilities & Theories 

Introduction PCR Test

Polymearase Chain Reaction (PCR) test:
The pcr tests for fragments of the SARS-COV-2 virus,
NOT for the Covid-19 disease.

Healthy people testing “positive” are not “cases”.
A medical “case” has to be ill or show symptoms needing treatment.
To get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at no more than 17 amplification cycles.
Patients cannot be contagious above 25 cycles.
The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles.
Above 35 cycles, 97% false positives can be expected.
The UK NHS is using up to 45 amplification cycles.
22 international scientists found 10 fatal problems 
in the Corman-Drosten paper (basis of the pcr test) and published them in a peer review.
PCR tests are not suitable as specific diagnostic tool.

What Is The PCR Test?

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)  is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail.
A limitation of PCR is that even the smallest amount of contaminating DNA can be amplified, resulting in misleading or ambiguous results. 

If you want to dive deeper into the science, read “PCR Amplification

There is a huge difference between being infected – and being ill.
Healthy people testing positive for coronavirus should not be labelled as “cases”; a “case” has to be ill or show symptoms needing hospital admission. Calling asymptomatic people “a case”,
is medically and psychologically wrong.
Testing infections in a hospital intensive care unit (ICU) brings naturally MUCH higher results than tests including the healthy population (“pillar 2” in the UK). A lot of the same people are being tested once a week, such as nurses and care assistants and people going in to hospitals, so although they may have done say ‘20,000’ tests, that’s 5000 people tested four times each.
“And a word on testing: I do want to emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for Covid. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infectionIt’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stopUnless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem.”
[23 Nov. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association and chairman of a bio technology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test. Full audio is HERE]

A Doctor Reports – from jbhandleyblog.com:
During my career in family medicine, including several years as an Army physician, I have cared for patients with chickenpox, shingles, Lyme disease as well as measles, tuberculosis, malaria, and AIDS.
The “case definition” established for all of these diseases by the CDC requires the presence of signs and symptoms of that disease. Having now been privileged to care for sick patients with COVID-19, both in and out of the hospital setting, I am happy to see the number of these sick patients dwindle almost to zero in my community – while the “case numbers” for COVID-19 continue to go up.

Why is that?
In marked contrast to measles, shingles, and other infectious disease, “cases” of COVID-19 do NOT require the presence of ANY symptoms whatsoever. Health departments are encouraging everyone and anyone to come in for testing, and each positive test is reported as yet another “new” case of COVID-19!

Hence, anyone who has a positive PCR test (the nasal swab, PCR test for COVID Antigen or Nucleic Acid) or serological test (blood test for antibodies –IgG and/or IgM) would be classified as a “case” – even in the absence of symptoms.
In our hospitals at this time, there are hundreds of former nursing home residents sitting in “COVID” units who are in their usual state of good health, banned from returning to their former nursing home residences simply because they have TESTED Positive for COVID-19 during mass testing programs in the nursing homes.

The presence of a positive lab test for COVID-19 in a person who has never been sick is actually GOOD news for that person and for the rest of us.
The positive test indicates that this person has likely mounted an adequate immune response to a small dose of COVID-19 to whom he or she was exposed – naturally (hence, no need for a vaccine vs. COVID-19). 
John Thomas Littell, MD, Florida

False Positives & False Negatives

The UK government posted the following study on 3rd of June 2020: “Impact of false-positives and false-negatives in the UK’s COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme“:
What is the UK operational false positive rate?
“The UK operational false positive rate is unknown… An attempt has been made to estimate the likely false-positive rate of national COVID-19 testing programmes by examining data from published external quality assessments (EQAs) for RT-PCR assays for other RNA viruses carried out between 2004-2019 [7]… giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%).”
What is the UK operational false negative rate?
The UK operational false negative rate is unknown. A recent study [6] combined results from seven studies… Their model suggested that in the first four days of infection (presymptomatic phase) the probability of a false negative in an infected person decreased from 100% on day 1 (i.e. a false negative was certain) to 67% on day 4.
It then decreased to 38% on day 5 (day of symptom onset) to a minimum of 20% on day 8 of infection.
The false negative rate then increased from day 9 (21%) to day 21 (66%).”
[The “Figure 3” graphic further down illustrates these findings]

Former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd., Dr Mike Yeadon writes:
I have identified a serious, really a fatal flaw in the PCR test used in what is called by the UK Government the Pillar 2 screening – that is, testing many people out in their communities… the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, misled the House of Commons and also made misleading statements”
Dr Mike Yeadon explains, that a pcr test with 0.8% false positive results means, that 89-94% of pcr “cases” are FALSE positives, as only about 0.1% of the population have coronavirus.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodard“How can a test that turns out positive for the many different SARS viruses of bats, dogs, tigers, lions, domestic cats and humans, which have been changing and spreading worldwide for many years, be called specific for the detection of an allegedly only four-month-old SARS-CoV-2?”
“The test seemingly also measures earlier SARS variants that are constantly altering, can change hosts quickly and are not found in virologists’ databases. However, these were and are obviously not considered to be extraordinarily dangerous.”

Cycle Threshold/Amplifications

According to an April 2020 study in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at no more than 17 amplification cycles.

Bullard et al reported that patients could not be contagious with PCR Cycle threshold Ct >25 as the virus is not detected in culture above this value. 
[this means: if you don’t find a positive virus test result with 25 cycles / amplifications, there is no point increasing the cycles any further]

The threshold value cutoff for the CDC’s PCR test is 40 cycles [of amplifications], a value that many medical experts believe returns false positives, as fragments of a killed virus may be picked up….
What the Cycle threshold [Ct] cutoff value should be varies in discussions among the scientific community, but generally ranges between 25 and 30 with agreement that patients cannot be contagious above these numbers.

Another viral culture study… reported that patients with threshold values at 34 or above did not “excrete infectious viral particles.” 
““We know that after about one week of infection from SARS-CoV-2, people are no longer infectious to others, but they still will be positive with PCR testing because they’ll still have bits of the virus within their body.”
[from: COVID Test Scam: Cycle Threshold Values Being Deliberately Omitted]

The chance of detecting a positive culture using the PCR test after 34 or more amplifications is near zero
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1000s-pointless-lockdown.jpg
The UK Express writes on 6 September:
“Research by experts at Oxford University suggests as many as half of the “positive” tests relied upon could actually be false because the current test is so sensitive it can pick up dead and harmless viral particles that are shed once the infection has passed.”

The NHS / UK is using 45 cycle amplifications
in the PCR test:

From “Appendix 5: PHE COVID-19 testing protocol (if not using commercial assay)”, page 21 on www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/guidance-and-sop-covid-19-virus-testing-in-nhs-laboratories-v1.pdf
Here is a short video explaining this

“The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is, as reported by The NewYork Times and others, considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable. However, the Drosten test, as well as the WHO recommended tests that followed his example, are set to 45 cycles.”
The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. That means that a positive result may happen because the test detects, for example, a piece of debris, a fragment of a molecule which may signal nothing else, then that the immune system of the person tested won a battle with a common cold in the past.” [‘from Crimes against humanity‘]

The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. 
Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of
false positives must be expected.
only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35.” [CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT]

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 90per-cent-not-infectious-1.jpg
PCR tests under fire – report in the Mail Online 30 August

Peer Review Corman-Drosten Paper

On 27th of November, 22 scientists published:
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
“There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper”
“The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation.
Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.

This has huge world wide implications, as the WHO-protocol directly derives from the Corman-Drosten paper.

“Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.”
We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.
“Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”
[from Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020, 27 November]

The CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT continues:
In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%
There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. Rather, these concentrations lead to increased unspecific binding and PCR product amplification.
The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol.
“…in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance.
A better primer design would have terminal primers on both ends of the viral genome. This is because the whole viral genome would be covered and three positive signals can better discriminate between a complete (and thus potentially infectious) virus and fragmented viral genomes (without infectious potency).

Figure 2 from the The CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

The CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT continues:
[All three primers have GC values BELOW the 40% minimum (28% 31% and 34.6%)]
“If the Tm-value is very low, as observed for all wobbly-variants of the RdRp reverse primers, the primers can bind non-specifically to several targets, decreasing specificity and increasing potential false positive results.”
A maximal Tm difference of 2° C within primer pairs was considered acceptable. Testing the primer pairs specified in the Corman-Drosten paper, we observed a difference of 10° C …
This is a very serious error and makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool.
“…the dNTPs (0.4uM) are 2x higher than recommended for a highly specific amplification
The design errors described here are so severe that it is highly unlikely that specific amplification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will occur using the protocol of the Corman-Drosten paper.
“…the case of small fragments of qPCR (around 100bp):
It could be either 1,5% agarose gel or even an acrylamide gel.”
The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard.”
the E gene used in RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2.
The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure.
Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses.
First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15]. Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14].
In order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target.
A reliable diagnostic test should focus on this specific region in the N gene as a confirmatory test. The PCR for this N gene was not further validated nor recommended as a test gene by the Drosten-Corman paper, because of being “not so sensitive” with the SARS-CoV original probe [1].”

“The Corman-Drosten paper does not contain this [the HE gene] negative control, nor does it contain any other negative controls. The PCR test in the Corman-Drosten paper therefore contains neither a unique positive control nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses. This is another major design flaw

There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done... The protocol as described is unfortunately very vague and erroneous in its design
“It is inevitable that this test will generate a tremendous number of so-called “false positives”.”
The Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed
“two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal [19]. Hence there is a severe conflict of interest” [source]

Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: a guide for health protection teams [by gov.uk, 28 October]
Cycle threshold (Ct) is a semi-quantitative value that can broadly categorise the concentration of viral genetic material in a patient sample following testing by RT PCR as low, medium or high –that is, it tells us approximately how much viral genetic material is in the sample.
A low Ct indicates a high concentration of viral genetic material, which is typically associated with high risk of infectivity.
A high Ct indicates a low concentration of viral genetic material which is typically associated with a lower risk of infectivity.
In the context of an upper respiratory tract sample a high Ct may also represent scenarios where a higher risk of infection remains –for example, early infection, inadequately collected or degraded sample.
The cycle threshold (Ct) can be defined as the thermal cycle number at which the fluorescent signal exceeds that of the background and thus passes the threshold for positivity (Figure 1, page 5).”

Figure 1 from Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: a guide for health protection teams 28 October 2020

gov.uk continues: “A typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles… A 3-point increase in Ct value is roughly equivalent to a 10-fold decrease in the quantity of viral genetic material [in the sample].”

Ct values cannot be directly compared between assays of different types due to variation in the sensitivity (limit of detection), chemistry of reagents, gene targets, cycle parameters, analytical interpretive methods, sample preparation and extraction techniques.
Additionally, Ct values are not provided for all SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection methodsSome commercial RT-PCR techniques are closed ‘black box’systems whereby the operator cannot observe the reaction in real-time and the result is interpreted by software into a qualitative non-interrogatable positive or negative result. [gov.uk]

Figure 2 from Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: a guide for health protection teams 28 October 2020

A single Ct [Cycle threshold] value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity.
There are many different SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays/platforms in use across the UK. Ct values cannot be directly compared between assays of different types – not all laboratories use the same assay, and some may use more than one.” [gov.uk]

Figure 3 from Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: a guide for health protection teams 28 October 2020

“Positive results with low viral load (high Ct) can be seen in the early stages of infection (before the person becomes capable of transmission of the infection) or late in infection when the risk of transmission is low (periods indicated by the dotted red line).
Recovery phase of infection with diminishing viral load.
Prolonged detection of viral genetic material that is likely to be non-infectious has been observed for SARS-CoV-2.” [gov.uk]
[bold highlighted by HealthTruth.info]

WHO Update PCR Users

WHO UPDATE re. PCR Tests from 20 January 2021:
It seems like the criticism (see more in this chapter) about the number of pcr test amplifications / cycle threshold and the big number of false positve test results has forced the WHO to send out the following NOTICE:
WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2
Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.
Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.  
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

Actions to be taken by In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) users:
…4. Provide the Ct value in the report to the requesting health care provider.

The US CDC published the following instructions after being criticised:

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel

For Emergency Use Only [1 Dec 2020]
Instructions for Use Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01

– – – Quotes from page 38 – – –
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

No Asymptomatic Transmission

A peer reviewed article in Nature.com (20 November) looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that  not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual tested positive
Of the 34,424 residents with a history of COVID-19, 107 individuals tested positive a second time, but none were symptomatic and none were infectious.
This research paper also indicates that “virulence of SARS-CoV-2 virus may be weakening over time
[summarised by Dr. Mercola 4 Dec & The Last refuge 20 Dec. – read more about Natural Immunity after covid-19]

HealthTruth.info comment:
Without asymptomatic transmissions, all of the current lock-down regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules have no scientific basis, and could be challenged in court.

Dr Michael Yeadon @MichaelYeadon3, 21 Nov. on Twitter:
“The first time the notion of “asymptomatic transmission” was mentioned, I smelled a rat. It’s biologically implausible. Not saying it’s never happened once, but as an important contribution to transmission? No. To be a source, you need lots of virus in your airway. But once that happens, you will be symptomatic, either because the virus is injuring your lung lining (epithelium) or because you’re fighting it off (or both). You can’t be both a virulent source AND not have symptoms.
Yet it was on the basis that you often wouldn’t show symptoms yet place others at risk that MASS TESTING, all the time, in ever-increasing numbers, was commenced. Now we formally know what basic biology and immunology told us, we can HALT MASS TESTING OF THE ASYMPTOMATIC. We’ve said it for months.
Mr Hancock, stop it now.”

Asymptomatic transmission”… 
To be a source, you need lots of virus in your airway. Once that happens, you will be symptomatic. You can’t be both a virulent source AND not have symptoms.
[Dr Michael Yeadon]

Dr. Anthony Fauci, U.S. Director of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease: “In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is ALWAYS a symptomatic person.” – youtu.be/JIOzN03ZWXY

The Situation @ Universities

5 October 2020 Update from 50 US universities:
3 real cases, and 69.441 FALSE positive “cases” among students.
Why are students forced to self-isolate, based on PCR tests???

6 December: “All 31 Colleges of the University of Cambridge [UK], and 6 Houses of the Cambridge Theological Federation, participated in the programme. Based on these data, we did not detect any new cases of asymptomatic COVID-19 amongst 9,376 students living in College accommodation screened this week.” [source]
[10 tests were originally positive, but were all found to be “false positives” after confirmatory tests.] See table below.

UoC Asymptomatic COVID-19Screening Programme:
Week 9 (30th November – 6th December 2020) Cambridge University: 0 cases

HealthTruth.info comment: Could this be the end of the pandemic? Due to mingling and mixing at university, a healthy natural immunity is likely to have been aquired among the students.

PCR Tests Scientifically Meaningless?

This OFF-Guardian research article COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, digs deep into the science, and painstakingly shows why we should not use these tests or even base a lockdown decisions on them.
PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. None of the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof could confirm the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
“sleek polymerase chain reaction… tells little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”
There is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of … COVID-19, and there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19.
Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms” [CDC RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel]

Many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35.
If you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary cDNA with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.” But this transformation process is widely recognised as inefficient and variable, as the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10.

On 7 July 2020, Politifact published a “fact check” response to this article, claiming the article is ‘inaccurate’, without contacting either OffGuardian or the authors for comment. Here is the Open Letter: Refuting Politifact’s “fact check” by Torsten Engelbrecht.

Data, Tests & Statistics

COVID cases in England aren’t rising: here’s why
by Carl Heneghan, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2 Aug 2020:
“The government has restricted movements on millions of people in England: COVID is apparently on the rise. But what happens when you start digging into the data. I have used the following data sets to piece together the number of tests, cases and results for Pillar 1* (done in healthcare settings) and Pillar 2*  (tests are done in the community)”

Carl Heneghan: COVID cases in England aren’t rising: here’s why
On first glance it looks like the number of cases in Pillar 2 is trending up and Pillar 1 is trending down. This would suggest that the increase in hospitals – in the sickest (Pillar 1) – is staying the same; while in the community Pillar 2 testing is picking up milder asymptomatic disease.
By the 31st July, the  Pillar, 1 seven day average for testing had increased to 49,543 (a 20% increase); while the Pillar 2 had risen by much more – by 82% to 78,522 tests.

“The next graph shows what happens when you adjust for the number of tests done and then standardise to per 100,000 tests. Pillar 1 is seen to be still trending down, but Pillar 2 is now flatlining. The increase in the number of cases detected, therefore, is likely due to the increase in testing in Pillar 2.”

Carl Heneghan: COVID cases in England aren’t rising: here’s why After adjustment per 100 000 tests. It is essential to adjust for the number of tests being done.

Inaccuracies in the data and poor interpretation will often lead to errors in decisions about imposing restrictions
[Carl Heneghan]

The same situation in the US:
“the sudden jump in cases in February correlates with the emergence of test kits sent out by the CDC. Once those test kits were used up, the number of “cases” again dried up. Then, once test kits became readily available again in early April, the number of cases skyrocketed — as you’d expect. But again, this doesn’t mean the disease was spreading like wildfire….Increased Testing = Increased ‘Cases’

19 October: Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientist, said: ‘At the moment we think that the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days.” 
Vallance said “If, and that’s quite a big if, but if that continues unabated… you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day.”

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in Oxford put the doubling to the test by creating a tracker of the projection.
At the moment there is a significant divergence in the case data”.
Did we not learn from prof Neil Ferguson to distrust mathematical projections? Still they are used to terrify us and justify lockdown.

Tested “cases” versus case predicted model by Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientist
Tracking UK Covid-19 Cases” data until 19 October

The media focussed on reporting the (green) predictions, but not the real tested “cases”.

Update 28 Nov: Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful” [Nov 11]
“An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
“Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.”
“The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable.”
THIS court ruling, based on THIS STUDY, has huge implications for other countries, and was ignored in the main stream media.
[Read more above: “Review report Corman-Drosten”]

More legal update info on “Can the Law Save Us?

And The UK Government?

Does the UK government take notice of the above findings?

The British Government ordered over three million of test kits from China in spring, and found they are not useable.

In August they called back 750 000 PCR test kits as faulty. They seem to be spending and wasting vast amounts of money towards big companies.
What are these pcr tests good for?

Australien Government
Dept. of Health information

Despite the faults and problems of the PCR test, the UK government decided to spend more money on this project:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 100bn-testing.png
the bmj: “the plans have the potential to grow the UK’s testing capacity from the current 350 000 a day to up to 10 million tests a day by early 2021.”
Critics have already rounded on the plans as “devoid of any contribution from scientists, clinicians, and public health and testing and screening experts,” and “disregarding the enormous problems with the existing testing and tracing programmes.”

Antigen Tests & Antibody Tests

What is an ANTIGEN Test?
An antigen test is a diagnostic test that checks to see if you’re infected with the coronavirus. The test looks for proteins (antigens) in a sample taken from your nose or throat. Antigen tests are faster than PCR tests, but they have a higher risk of false positives (meaning that they’re more likely to say you have the infection when you don’t). This may also be called a rapid test or rapid diagnostic test. [webmd.com]

Health.com writes:
An antigen is a substance recognized by the body’s immune system, which can [then] respond by generating proteins called antibodies that specifically recognize that antigen.”
The rapid test—officially known as the Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA …promises to “quickly detect fragments of proteins found on or within the virus by testing samples collected from the nasal cavity using swabs,” It can provide results within 15 minutes.

ANTIBODY tests, on the other hand, look for antibodies a person’s immune system has made in response to the virus—that helps doctors determine whether a person has previously been exposed to COVID-19.
A positive antigen test reflects active infection, while a positive antibody test reflects recent or past infection

Possibilities & Theories

The COVID-19 PCR-Test – A Shot of Nanoparticles for Your Brain?” [14 Nov]:
Could it be, that the tips of the pcr test swabs contain nanoparticles, and when insterted deep through the nose to the the thin, sensitive, fragile cribriform plate (which is like an entry to the brain, perforated with fine holes), and when the long swab is turned, it depostis these near the brain? These holes are traversed by nerve cells (neurons) of the olfactory nerve.
“RNA vaccines offer many advantages. The physicians would not necessarily have to inject the vaccine. Most RNA vaccines are directly nasally administered. This seems to make sense, since many infections start in the upper mucous membranes“.
There are lots of links and references and some videos in this article, for example this: Johns Hopkins Researchers Engineer Tiny, Shape-Changing Machines That Deliver Medicine Efficiently to the GI Tract
“Inspired by a parasitic worm that digs its sharp teeth into its host’s intestines, Johns Hopkins researchers have designed tiny, star-shaped microdevices that can latch onto intestinal mucosa and release drugs into the body.”
Read on under: 6)
“What Effects Can These Nanoparticles Have in Your Brain?”

end of article –

Categories
Articles

Can The Law Save Us From Covid Politics?

Updated: 4 April 2021

Below on this page you find the following chapters
about legal battles against covid politics (update date)
Legal NEWS: Belgium must lift ‘all Covid-19 measures’ within 30 days (4 April)

  1. NEW: General Advice & Help (14 Feb 2021)
  2. Private Criminal Prosecution Against Parliament (19 Mar 2021)
  3. Crimes Against Humanity (1 Dec)
  4. Simon Dolan’s UK legal initiative (11 Dec)
  5. UK ‘Event 202’ based on ‘Common Law’
  6. Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful” (11 Nov)
  7. Legal action launched over missing three BILLION Tories spent on private Coronavirus contracts (11 Oct)
  8. Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law (7 Jan 2021)
  9. LIBERTY – a UK Human Rights organisation
  10. Empower Yourself Legally – Common Law (31 Dec)
  11. Magna Carta Introduction (5 Dec)

Legal NEWS:

The Brussels Times reports:

31 March: “The Belgian State has been ordered to lift “all coronavirus measures” within 30 days, as the legal basis for them is insufficient, a Brussels court ruled on Wednesday.
The League for Human Rights had filed the lawsuit several weeks ago and challenged Belgium’s system of implementing the measures using Ministerial Decrees, which means it is done without any input from parliament.
The judge gave the Belgian State 30 days to provide a sound legal basis, or face a penalty of €5,000 per day that this period is exceeded, with a maximum limit of €200,000, reports Le Soir.
The current coronavirus measures are based on the Civil Safety Act of 2007, which enable the State to react quickly in “exceptional circumstances,” but the judge has now ruled that these laws cannot serve as a basis for the Ministerial Decrees.” [read more]

1) General Advice & Help

POWER TO THE PEOPLE – www.powertothepeopleuk.com
“Together we stand, divided we fall”:
“We are a group of individuals who are promoting initiatives to serve the people who are being affected by Government, Media and Pharmaceutical corruption. We advocate for anyone who has suffered at the hands of the Government. We believe in taking action with urgency in order to raise public awareness about the misinformation in the Mainstream Media and the Government manipulation. No persons private, home or work life should be negatively affected by the Media and Government having their hands in Big Pharma’s pockets.”

website POWER TO THE PEOPLE “Together we stand, divided we fall”


Empowering Small Businesses – www.empoweringbusiness.info (Common, Equity and Trust Law)
with lots of help, info forms, notes to download and zoom networking calls and more.
‘Common Law for Small Businesses’ has been set-up purely to aid those wishing to trade under Common Law as an alternative to the statutory system put in place by the government.”


UK Medical Freedom alliance – ukMedFreedom.org
“We are an alliance of UK medical professionals, scientists and lawyers who have found that the Government’s response to COVID-19 is misguided and not based upon the best available scientific evidence. We are campaigning for Medical Freedom, Informed Consent and Bodily Autonomy to be preserved and protected.”
Not-for-Profit Company limited by guarantee – No. 13080501.
Adverse Vaccine Reactions
COVID Vaccine Experience – Survey
Information Leaflets
Other Resources
Open Letters
Vaccine Consent Form
Video Presentations


Compensation From UK Government Due To Covid Restrictions
PCRclaims.co.uk is a Pro Bono global network of advisors and independent lawyers led by Jo Rogers at Navistar Legal.
“Our mission statement is simple: To bring LEGAL JUSTICE to UK citizens for the devastating harm caused by lockdowns to families and businesses.”

Were you, your children, or your business adversely affected by lockdowns, quarantines or forced self-isolation based on PCR testing? You may be eligible for compensation from your government due to covid restrictions.
Please provide a short statement of evidence outlining the harms you suffered using our simple questionnaire.

You will then be contacted regarding next steps in this process.
This service will be free of charge to you, ‘the plaintiff’.”

It is our prediction that this will become
the biggest lawsuit against the government
ever seen in this country.

“This government has been negligent in the use of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests in response to Covid-19.
Using mass testing to drive lockdowns was an error of huge magnitude.
Quarantining healthy people is unprecedented. Shutting down the economy is unprecedented.
PCR tests were NEVER FIT FOR PURPOSE.
[text above from PCRclaims.co.uk]

More general Common Law info is in chapter 10 below:
Empower Yourself Legally

2) Private Criminal Prosecution Against Parliament

PCP Papers Laid Alleging Pandemic Fraud Against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson

Posted 19th March 2021 by The Bernician
At 16:23 pm this afternoon, one year after the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens’ decision to reclassify COVID-19 as no longer being considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease was published by Public Health England, the papers were laid electronically at a south London Magistrates Court, in the People’s Union of Britain’s momentous Private Criminal Prosecution against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson for pandemic fraud.

Early next week, the court will receive a 1,200 page bundle of evidence, which includes expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective, who is acting as a trustee of the PUB in bringing this most serious of prosecutions to the criminal court.

Declaration Sought

In addition to the charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, in material breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we are informally applying for a declaration, under the inherent powers of the court, which states that autopsies are to be carried out for all alleged COVID deaths, which will be held as evidence in the forthcoming trial, on the ground that we have expert witness testimony of the falsification of death certificates, as per UK Government policy.

We are also asking for a moratorium on the UK flu and COVID ‘vaccinations’ programmes to be declared for period of at least 90 days, in order to definitively establish whether it is COVID-19 or ‘vaccines’ that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, as per the leaked WHO approved ‘vaccine’ safety study which we are adducing into evidence.

Boatload of Prima Facie Evidence

They told us they wanted more prima facie evidence when we made the last application in late 2020, seeking the arrest of Matt Hancock for fraud by non-disclosure over the declassification of COVID-19 by the ACDP.

Well, now they have a veritable boatload of the stuff heading their way, so prepare yourselves for the inevitable shitstorm on the near horizon, after the defendants’ QC’s tell them that their only defence is to plead gross negligence. However, the evidence is so emphatic that they knew exactly what they were doing that the jury will almost certainly convict them as charged.

Nevertheless, don’t expect the defendants to be wheeled off in handcuffs to Belmarsh by tomorrow morning. Whilst it is just about conceivable that the court’s legal department could make an initial assessment of the case by the end of next week, even if it happens that swiftly, the matter will then be passed to the Chief Magistrate of the UK’s legal department, which will probably take at least another week to make their assessment.

Potential Turnaround

In the event all of that is turned around within the next two weeks, the case would then be passed to a senior district judge, who must then decide whether to grant the applications for the summonses and the declaration, whether on paper or at a hearing.

If the summons application is granted, a pleading hearing would then be listed to take place within the next couple of weeks. This would take us to 28 days from now and probably represents the earliest time that the defendants will be summonsed to plead in the Magistrates Court. The informal application for the declaration would also be dealt with at that hearing.

Given the seriousness of the charges and the urgency of the situation, with clear evidence of fraud with murderous consequences already adduced into evidence, we will then ask the court to list a trial by jury at the very earliest opportunity, which will almost certainly take place at the Old Bailey.

If and when all of that transpires rests on the judgment of a single district judge, who will necessarily have experience dealing with such serious charges. However, it is the considered opinion of the former CID fraud detective and the team behind the scenes who have supported me every step of the way that the Statement of Case is “monumental”, “truly historical” and:

“Regardless of the judiciary’s response to it, once the information is in the public realm/consciousness, along with the cited evidence, it will be incendiary. The accused will squeal like the little swines they are.”
[end of update quotes from thebernician.net]

COVID-1984 PCP UPDATE 20 Nov [from Michael O’Bernicia’s Facebook page] After having no red flags raised by the legal advisers at Westminster Magistrates Court this week, we understand that the warrant application is now before the nominated judge and that a decision is imminent.
I realise that things are not happening as quickly as we would all like but please understand that it took six weeks to get to this stage in my family’s PCP against BOS and its receivers in 2013, so in reality the case has progressed at a relatively rapid pace.
We must also take into consideration the fact that, before he rules on the matter, the judge will have to ascertain whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is electing to take over the case, on the ground that it is of such importance that it cannot run as a private prosecution.
Either way, in the absence of a miscarriage of justice, the warrant will be issued and as soon as there are any developments, you will read about them on this page.

UPDATE Friday 13th Nov 6pm [from Michael O’Bernicia’s Facebook page] COVID-1984 NEWSFLASH
The prosecution in People’s Union of Britain v Matt Hancock has just sent the executed form, applying for his arrest warrant, to the court of issue. We have already got the green light from the court’s legal advisers and now we have the chief magistrates’ permission to proceed. They also sent us the form to fill out for the arrest warrant, which has now been acknowledged by the same as having been received. However, the form won’t be processed till Monday [16 Nov.], when it will be sent up to the crown court to be administered and then served upon the defendant, without delay, by the arresting officers, who will soon be appointed by the court.
Therefore, the case will now proceed as directed, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] intervenes, which is unlikely because nobody will want to take the poisoned chalice. However, even if they do, we can object on the ground that the DPP is working for the government, so they are obviously conflicted. If they refuse to back down, we will insist that the case proceeds with our legal team. In other words, my family, friends and growing army of peace-keepers and freedom fighters, we are all about to witness the most significant events that have transpired on these shores, since Charles I lost his head.
Words simply cannot adequately express the truly humbling experience of the love, support and commitment I’ve received, from people who all tell me that my words have moved and inspired their hearts into resisting this tyranny, for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for rising to the call. Very soon, our number will be millions.
This truly is our moment to seize the opportunity to build an advanced civilisation, on the rubble of the corrupted one, which is crumbling around us by COVID-1984 design […]
In that new civilisation, we will protect the unalienable birthrights of the individual from the tyranny of the collective, to become truly self-governed under the Common Law, as expressed in Magna Carta 2020, an idea whose time has come.
From now until you see the arrest live-streamed on the mainstream and alternative media worldwide, let’s make #ArrestMattHancock go viral on every platform, to the point where the People are chanting it in the streets nationwide.

COVID-1984 PCP UPDATE | At 11:11 pm on the 11th day of the 11th month, charges of criminal fraud by non-disclosure were laid against the secretary of state for mandatory vaxxtermination. He has been charged with knowingly failing to disclose to MPs that the fake government lurgy was reclassified as not being a Highly Contagious Infectious Disease, before they voted on the treacherous Coronavirus Act 2020.
Had he done so, there can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable individual there would have been no possible justification for its enactment. [from Michael O’Bernicia’s Facebook page]

“the case is very simple to understand and prosecute – each MP intentionally relied upon [and then caused the People to rely upon], a series of false statements, which caused the deaths of untold thousands, destroyed the economy and enabled unaccountable and tyrannical government, in breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, the Treason Felony Act 1348 and articles 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1689.”
“The barrister… is confident that the allegations are founded upon enough evidence to convict and that her partners will be in agreement”

On 15 October we received confirmation that the partners of the firm of barristers we are talking to about the case against Parliament are all in agreement – the case is one that can be won… we are now moving forward into the preparation of the court papers, including an affidavit containing all of the allegations of fraud, treason and genocide. It will be the first time allegations of treason have been made since the aftermath of WWII, whilst genocide is a crime under international law and the such allegations would almost certainly be dealt with in the Hague. … we are aiming to lay the charges in a criminal court as soon as they have been properly drafted.
We will also be seeking an order placing the entire cabinet and their advisers under house arrest, to prevent the rogue government from attempting to murder more people [as well as its opponents, under the new homicide enabling act] with purported statutory impunity.
Here’s a conversation with Mark Devlin youtu.be/w9pm3Z6nFnk. Find all Mark Devlin’s work here: https://djmarkdevlin.com/
#PrivateCriminalProsecutions #PandemicFraud

The final drafting will be done over the weekend and Monday 8 November has been set aside by our legal team for the information to be laid in a criminal court, with summonses to follow without delay.
In addition, the People will also seek an order placing the accused under indefinite house arrest, to prevent any further government crimes being committed.

3) Crimes Against Humanity

In the video below “Crimes against humanity” from 3 Oct., the German top lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, who has been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche Bank, VW and more corporations in the last 26 years, speaks as one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee:
those responsible for it will be criminally prosecuted

NOT on YouTube: www.dailymotion.com/video/x7wp1yd
YouTube removed the above original video “Crimes against humanity” youtu.be/kr04gHbP5MQ after it had over a million views.
Vimeo also removed this video on https://vimeo.com/468315369

the allegedly new and highly dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world”
This “Corona Crisis” must be renamed as “corona scandal” and those responsible for it will be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages by an international committee of lawyers according to section 7 of the International Criminal Code.

Questions:
“Is there a Corona pandemic or is there only a PCR test pandemic?”
Do the so-called anti Corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from Corona, or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that in the end the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?”

“This Corona Investigative Committee was founded on July 10th by four lawyers in order to determine, through hearing expert testimony of international scientists and other experts.
1) how dangerous is the virus, really?
2) what is the significance of a post positive PCR test?
3) what collateral damage has been caused by the Corona measures, both with respect to the world’s population’s health and with respect to the world’s economy?”

Here is a detailed summary of Reiner Fuellmich’s speech:
Coronavirus Fraud Scandal” [by Dr. Mrcola] – and HERE a bullet point summary of this speech [by WorldDoctorsAlliance]

first lawsuit filed against
so-called fact checkers on social media:

German Lawsuit Against “FactCheckers” Would Force Them To Prove Legitimacy of C0VlD Tests – youtu.be/iKJqDZdiMto

UPDATE 1st December: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich… founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee [from Mercola.com]
The committee is now filing the first of many lawsuits to come, this one against so-called fact checkers on social media. They opted to file a defamation lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German Congress and the Council of Europe who has been an outspoken critic of PCR testing, as it cannot be used to diagnose infection.”
“Social media companies have labeled Wodarg’s statements as “false,” and by filing a defamation suit, the burden of proof now falls on the fact checkers to prove that they are correct. In other words, to win, the fact checkers must prove that PCR tests diagnose active infection. The scientific evidence proves they don’t, so this case could turn out to be pivotal in the fight against the big tech censorship that keeps the fearmongering alive.”

4) Simon Dolan’s UK legal initiative

Join the Legal Challenge to the UK Govt Lockdown – by Simon Dolan: “We seek an injunction which would immediately halt the Government’s latest lockdown laws. By forcing people to stay at home, and forcing businesses to close, they are, we believe, in contravention of basic Human Rights offered under English Law, that of the right to enjoy your property peacefully.
The lockdown… will lead to far more deaths from suicide, undiagnosed conditions, untreated conditions – indeed far more than would have been potentially saved by the lockdown.

£418,060 pledged of £450,000 stretch target
[17 December] from 14,064 pledges
to take this case through to completion

UPDATE 11 December: This week the Supreme Court has decided to refuse to hear our appeal relating to a Judicial Review into lockdown. 
The Supreme Court decision to refuse to hear an appeal relating to a Judicial Review into lockdown, means that unelected Judges have set a precedent which now makes it  impossible to challenge the Government’s use of the Public Health Act 1984 to trample over Civil Liberties and to emasculate Parliament in the process.

By not allowing the Appeal to go ahead, this puts a protective shield around Ministers and gives them a free run to lock up people in their homes using the Act, without having to worry any more that their actions in using the Act like this are illegal. This is a chilling development which should not be underestimated.

The Government’s ruthless use of the 1984 Act is an effective destruction of democratic process on behalf of the public around the lockdowns we have suffered and any that may happen again in the future. Although lately there has been some pushback from MPs, the decision of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal gives the Government more power than it should rightfully have.

It threatens even to rip up the rights protected by the Magna Carta – the basic premise of you being free unless it is specifically unlawful has now effectively been changed, meaning that you now have to have the Govt’s permission to do literally anything. This goes against 800+ years of legal principle.

“By criticising us for having a ‘Rolling Judicial Review’ case, it means that when a Government in future uses these emergency powers, provided that they change the regulations every time they are challenged, they can keep avoiding the very mechanism – Judicial Review – that is there to provide a vital check and balance under the UK’s unwritten constitution. It is ironic that in July of this year, the Government launched a wide ranging review into the scope of judicial review chaired by Lord Faulks QC which has yet to publish its recommendations. 

Equally disturbing is how the lockdown Judicial Review cases have found a lack of willingness from the Courts to challenge Government; Judges have said all along “It isn’t the place of the Court to get involved in politics”. They didn’t make that claim when the Brexit case was going.

From the first directions order made in the Judicial Review claim, it was clear that our unelected judges were entirely dismissive of the notion that we should be able to protect rights in the midst of a Pandemic, or that the Government’s actions could in any way be disproportionate or illegal in terms of the real situation being faced.

No one is disputing the impact on public health as a result of the novel Coronavirus, but far more so the Government’s handling of it, however, I do not feel the judges engaged at all with the key points or the 1,200 pages of evidence that was submitted as part of the case. The judgments and judicial comments made throughout are strongly suggestive of an unwillingness to look at the evidence and to depart from a high level “media” view of the pandemic. This suggests the Courts have not taken the opportunity to scrutinise key statistics and facts around the case, effectively waving away vital points around misleading data being used to justify lockdowns and impose further restrictions. 

While scrutinising this type of data was seen as almost being unholy in March, April and May of 2020, this case, the Dodgy Dossier and the recently and very quietly amended ONS stats used to impose Lockdown 2 on the nation, has shown that, as a seemingly democratic society, it is vital that we do scrutinise what we are being told and that we continue to do so. The Government has used data to terrify the nation into compliance over a virus from which, in the words of the Government’s own medical officers, the vast majority people recover from and many do not even show symptoms of having.

I also feel strongly that our case has been treated with a far different approach to the Brexit case brought by Gina Miller, who twice defeated the Government in the Supreme Court, once over the right of MPs in triggering Article 50 and then again over the Prorogation of Parliament – arguably far less significant to the nation than the greatest economic contraction in peacetime history and the unprecedented restriction of rights, including access to healthcare – that we have seen as a result of Government measures.

The Supreme Court route is one we took as we fully believed in the case. It returned its decision in rapid time in an email of just a few lines long. This is a kick in the face for the thousands of people who have supported this case.

It must be accepted that the path to the Supreme Court is notoriously difficult. Of the many applications for permission to the Supreme Court each year, very few are granted. From July to September of this year, there were 21 applications. Five applications granted but three of them were for cases arising from 1971 shootings in N Ireland. Among them, and one of the most recent cases to be given permission to appeal, were the Government’s own appeal against the appeal court’s decision to let ISIS bride Shamina Begum back into the country pending her appeal. The massive health, civil liberties, parliamentary and economic implications of the use of the 1984 Act, was not, however, deemed worthy of consideration by the Court. 

While the Supreme Court decision is a bitter blow, we have scored many victories and helped give a platform to tens of thousands of people who felt their voices were unheard. We forced SAGE to produce its minutes, got the Government to concede it had not lawfully shut schools, and lit the fire on scrutinizing data and information. 

What started for me as a personal crusade against this Government and their shocking ineptitude quickly turned into a campaign for everyone whose lives have been wrecked by lockdown polices which were implemented in haste and without proper consideration.

We started Keep Britain Free to protect the basic freedoms of everyone living in the UK and it has become one of the fastest growing pressure groups in the UK, with thousands of you joining together to fight creeping totalitarianism. Our legal challenge has become one of the biggest crowdfunded legal cases in British history. We have raised over £416,000 from 14,000 pledges – people from all different walks of life from every corner of the UK. This shows the strength of feeling out there for this ongoing battle. 

Whilst the Supreme Court decision is far from the outcome we were fighting for, our campaign has been vital in giving individuals up and down the country hope during an unprecedented time and in challenging a Government that was simply ruling by decree without any scrutiny. We also believe our findings and evidence, while not considered properly by the judges, will be of use in the inevitable public inquires which will follow and will help history judge the PM, Matt Hancock and their advisers in the light that they deserve. 
Our fight continues and as ever, I will keep you posted on developments.

Update 7 December: see HERE
Update 2 December: Full Judgement from Court of Appeal
Update 1 December: see HERE

Update on “Join the Legal Challenge to the UK Govt Lockdown” Simon Dolan, via CrowdJustice 23 Nov:
The legal team has made amends to the 2nd Judicial Review meaning that it’s arguments are in relation not only to the first national lockdown but also include the SECOND lockdown currently taking place in England. The Re-Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds have been filed with the Court and the Government has been served with them.
Our case will argue that the “evidence” presented by Whitty and Vallance at the press conference on 31 October at which the new lockdown was announced included some old, suspect data and was misleading.
We will argue that in fact there was no serious escalation in the epidemic as evidenced by:
– Use of old data and overinflated warnings as to likely deaths – a subject already aired in the media
– The continuing relatively flat excess death figures compared to the five year average for the same period
– The unreliability of PCR tests as a diagnostic tool given their propensity to produce large numbers of “false” positives by picking up dead virus particles in people who have long since recovered from infection
– Lack of transparency about NHS capacity and bed occupancy and in relation to typical conditions at this time of year in previous years with the onset of the usual autumn/ winter upsurge in respiratory infections

That being the case, imposing a lockdown with all the disastrous consequences it has for health, economy etc was disproportionate and irrational.
It is only right that the consequences of both lockdowns imposed on the nation are properly considered by the Court. The most recent measures were pitched to England on the promise that come December 2nd, restrictions would be lifted and people up and down the nation could enjoy Christmas festivities.
Reports suggest that the UK could be plunged into yet more restrictions under the guise of a strengthened tiered approach with SAGE also suggesting further lockdowns will be needed to ‘recover’ from eased restrictions.
What has become evident from the first and second lockdown is that this cycle is not sustainable. Whatever economic measures and packages the Government dangles in front of us, millions are likely to lose their jobs and businesses will be forced to close down.
This flip-flop approach to lockdown, paired with the complete farce that is Test and Trace, is bringing chaos to every echelon of society. Businesses, already up against the wall, are facing another period of unsettling uncertainty. The unemployment rate continues to surge. School attendance is in chaos and with exams already cancelled for thousands, another generation is at risk of being ruined.
Lockdowns cost lives and cannot be allowed to continue.

Update on “Join the Legal Challenge to the UK Govt Lockdownby Simon Dolan from 3 November:
dear supporter,
I wanted to update you on our appeal, which was heard at one of the highest courts in the land last Thursday and Friday.
The hearing took place in the very grand Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice which is the Lord Chief Justice’s Court.
The three appeal judges included the Lord Chief Justice himself, Lord Burnett of Maldon and two other appeal judges Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh. It was a ‘hybrid hearing’ which meant that the hearing physically took place in a courtroom but it was also being live streamed for people to watch. I was pleased to see some supporters in court – thanks for coming down.

Once again it was Philip Havers QC putting forward our side of the argument, supported by junior barrister Francis Hoar.
Sir James Eadie QC was representing the government (with three other barristers at his side, handing him notes and working on their case.

The whole of the first day and the morning of the second were taken up with Philip Havers presenting our case. His main argument was that the lockdown legislation was ‘ultra vires’ or outside the scope of the 1984 Public Health Act which was used to bring them in. In other words the lockdown was illegal.

He also argued that our case was not ‘academic’. When our judicial review into the lockdown was refused in July one of the reasons given was that the case was no longer valid because the lockdown regulations had been revised numerous times (and are being reimposed as we speak). However, we say that the legal challenge is absolutely vital and necessary to stop the government doing the same thing again.

Philip also explained why we believe the regulations contravened people’s human rights which are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and that they were a ‘disproportionate breach’ of those rights. He told the court the lockdown regulations ‘imposed far-reaching restrictions on the lives and businesses of the entire population of England’.

Philip said: “If the court subjects these regulations to judicial scrutiny and if the government is considering a second lockdown, the government, together with parliament and the public, will have available to them what this court has to say about the proportionality of the original lockdown.”

Philip argued that the original lockdown regulations were subjected to ‘no judicial scrutiny at all.’ He said: “Over five weeks elapsed between the making of the original regulations on March 26 and being approved by affirmative resolution by the House of Commons… seven weeks with both houses. These regulations were made without any parliamentary scrutiny at all and only debated weeks later.” He said the 1984 Public Health Act did not allow for ‘house arrest on the whole population.’

My QC then directed his aim at the five tests the government relied on to consider an easing of the lockdown, arguing that these had to be satisfied regardless of the damage or harm being caused to other illnesses and jobs and so on. He told the hearing the five tests did not take into account ‘domestic violence, cancer, disease – the consequences for all those who suffer from other illnesses’. He said: “Less restrictive measures could have been adopted without causing disproportionate harm.”

The debate moved on to deaths from Covid-19. Mr Havers said: “The chance of children, mercifully, or adults under 20 dying from Covid-19 who didn’t have a pre-existing condition was and still is vanishingly small and the chance of an adult under the age of 60 dying was and still is also extremely small….To continue to keep the whole population under house arrest…to continue to ban all gatherings and so on was irrational when a more targeted approach could have been achieved.”

Lord Justice Singh asked if protecting the NHS was a good enough reason to impose the restrictions. Philip responded: “There were well over 3000 spare capacity beds… there was no realistic prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed.”

The justices then questioned whether our legal challenge was too general. They also probed into whether the legislation’s ‘reasonable excuse’ caveat meant it did not violate human rights. In other words, they were suggesting there were get-outs for people who could breach the regulations and then cite human rights law to justify why they had gone to see their grandma ? This felt like a controversial point to me. Is it realistic that the average person would think to quote human rights law to a policeman?

On the second day, Mr Havers argued the closure of schools was disproportionate. He said: “All schoolchildren with no pre-existing conditions could readily have gone back to school by July 2 and we say should arguably have gone back to school by then.”

Lord Chief Justice asked: “So you are saying because the data was showing the risks were low therefore the government should have persuaded reluctant people to restore the status quo to do so?” Philip replied: “Given the enormous harm being done to the education of every schoolchild in the country my answer is ‘yes’.”

Sir James Eadie took to his feet on the second day to put the government’s case. He said: “The structure and nature of restrictions has changed pretty fundamentally over time, reflecting the scientific understanding. The various judgements that have to be made over time and the balance governments have to strike… to keep the economy maximally open as humanly possible against the resurgence of the violence and the risk it creates.” Sir James also denied claims the coronavirus restrictions were improperly implemented.

Philip said the 1984 Public Health Act used to order the lockdown only applied to individuals and should not have been used ‘to keep everyone ‘under house arrest.’ He suggested the Government should have used the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act instead.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Singh and Lady Justice King are now considering their judgement which could be issued any day now.
Depending on their verdict, we will have to consider our next step. It may be that we have to challenge their ruling in the Supreme Court. One thing remains certain – we will not be giving up. What’s also clear, is that this case is momentous, having brought into question significant elements of our legal system as well as the powers of our ministers.
In the meantime, we must continue to gather as much support as we can.
Please continue to spread our message, by sharing our updates, our cause and the link to this Crowdjustice fund.
Together, we will Keep Britain Free.
Simon.


UPDATE 20 Oct: Sir Lindsay Hoyle has applied to intervene in a legal fight brought by Simon Dolan and Cripps Barn Group against the Government’s lockdown restrictions. Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons says he will intervene in the case because it raises issues of ‘constitutional importance’.
By 21 Oct £372,920 (of £425,000) are pledged.

5) UK ‘Event 202’ based on ‘Common Law’

Tuesdays 20 Oct, 27 Oct & 3 Nov. 2020 at 2pm,
legal notices will be handed in at UK constabularies:
WE-THE-PEOPLE: NOTICE – OF – OBLIGATION – ACCORDING – TO – ENGLISH – CONSTITUTIONAL – LAW
Presentation To 40 Chief Constables, Local Witnesses and Video (Project “Elephant”)
“For it is the police who are called upon to uphold law and order and apprehend those guilty of criminality.”
“It is not sustainable that a few corporations and government both enforce policies that purport to deny human rights and seek to coerce the common man by creating and applying overreaching ‘rules’ restricting the same man’s ability to lawfully and freely go about his daily business..”
“No man/woman (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common laws and customs of the English constitution.”
“…Magna Carta 1215 has NOT been repealed nor annulled, despite what the imposters within Westminster may say…”
Four people share their work in Common Law: “serving The Servants – A Call to Action” and explain the procedures for the three Tuesdays.
Addresses of 48 UK constabularies: we-the-people.co.uk

6) Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful”

11 November: “An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
“Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.”
“The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable.”

The UK seems to use 40 amplifications [see the PCR Test chapter]

7) Legal action launched over missing three BILLION Tories spent on private Coronavirus contracts

“Three cross-party MPs and the Good Law Project, a non-profit-making organisation, have launched legal action against the Government over its failure to disclose details of its spending on contracts related to the pandemic.”
“Green MP Caroline Lucas, Labour’s Debbie Abrahams and Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran have filed a judicial review against the Government for breaching the law and its own guidance and argue that there are mounting concerns over the Government’s coronavirus procurement processes.”
at least £11 billion worth of contracts have been awarded by the department since April, related predominantly to coronavirus, new analysis by Tussell shows that over £3 billion worth of these contracts have not been made public.”
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of Good Law Project said:
“Huge sums of public money have been awarded to companies with no discernible expertise. Sometimes the main qualification seems to be a political connection with key Government figures. And I have seen evidence that Government is sometimes paying more to buy the same product from those with political connections.” [London Economic, 11 October]

8) Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law

URGENT MESSAGE DO NOT IGNORE SHARE VIRAL
Greetings Everyone, we have formed an Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law from Public Health & Justice along with 32 Judges from around the world who are experts & together we have launched an International Tribunal for Emergency Injunctions & we have served Indictments for Crimes Against Humanity To Ban:
1) Forced Vaccinations,
2) Unlawful Lockdowns
3) The Criminal Misuse
4) Fraudulent Tests on Healthy People
5) The Criminal misuse of 5G Technologies
6) Economic Terrorism
7) Forcing people into poverty.

Please find links of our Global Indictments here: www.peaceinspace.org

As many of you may already know, rogue highly corrupt usurpers who have now taken over all our public offices, departments & positions of power are misusing COVID 19 as an excuse to strip ‘We The People’ of our God given inalienable Rights & Freedoms.

The are grossly abusing the powers given to them by ‘We The People’

Those in positions of Government & Mainstream Media are Acting as a Corrupt Corporations to facilitate their own special interests & no longer honoring the Will of ‘We The People’

In Law this is an ABUSE OF POWER called a Breach of ULTRA VIRES LAWS meaning ‘They have gone BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS’ That ‘We The People’ have given them.

We have arrived at a extremely dangerous situation whereby they are now acting criminally & are planning to roll out FORCED mass vaccinations upon HEALTHY PEOPLE in the UK and worldwide which they are FULLY AWARE are likely to at worst KILL healthy people, or at best likely to PARALYSE MILLIONS /BILLIONS entirely on the basis FALSE science & data.

The company behind the vaccines called Pfizer were already sued by Nigeria in 2013, for harming countless Nigerian victims with their contaminated Testing Kits & now this very same company, (who should have been shut down years ago) are seeking to do the same thing again by administering unsafe deadly vaccines in the UK & all around the rest of the world. They MUST be immediately STOPPED! But we need unified MASS ACTION TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

In addition, there is evidence that 490.000 children were paralyzed in India by Bill Gates’s vaccines but again, instead of this man being arrested & stopped from causing further harm, on the 10th of November 2020 we are told that Boris Johnson had a meeting with Gates to roll out these same lethal unregistered unlicensed UNLAWFUL Deadly vaccines & force them upon the British public in the coming next 10 days.

AS THIS IS A CRITICAL STATE OF EMERGENCY – WE ARE CALLING FOR UNIFIED WORLDWIDE ACTION THAT REQUIRES EVERYONES INPUT TO HELP US TO IMMEDIATELY STOP THEM BY
1) REPORTING ON OUR INDICTMENT NEWS (make videos on your phones if possible)
2) SHARING OUR INJUNCTION & INDICTMENT CHARGES LINK www.peaceinspace.org
3) Join the hashtag campaign by tweeting

#GETTHECRINMALSOUT
#WEDONOTCONSENT
#STOPCOVIDTERRORISM
#STOPVACCINETERRORISM
#STOPCOVIDLIES

If you do not have a social media page or platform, START ONE TO HELP GET THE INDICTMENTS NEWS OUT!
4) Make a short video of your own public I DO NOT CONSENT DECLARATION AND GET IT VIRAL. WE NEED MILLIONS OF THEM TO BE BLASTED WORLDWIDE.

PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THIS URGENT MESSAGE HELP GET VIRAL www.peaceinspace.org SEND TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
You can also visit www.newsinsideout.com

www.peaceinspace.org – FaceBook / Seven Starseed
Thank You

“No one should be above the law, especially those in power”

9) LIBERTY – a UK Human Rights organisation

“Liberty is an independent membership organisation. We challenge injustice, defend freedom and campaign to make sure everyone in the UK is treated fairly.
We are campaigners, lawyers and policy experts who work together to protect rights and hold the powerful to account.
Together we’ve been making the UK a fairer, more equal place since 1934.”

JUDICIAL REVIEW: “No one should be above the law, especially those in power”

LIBERTY: COVID ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AN INSULT TO PEOPLE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING
“Ramping up heavy-handed enforcement of rules will do more harm than good”
“Hiring undercover officers to spy on people is an insult to the efforts communities across the country have made to look after and protect each other during the pandemic.”

More and more doctors, scientists and medical professionals are speaking out – see Critical Voices below..

10) Empower Yourself Legally

updated 31 December 2020

Learn the BASICS of Common Law, what to say and do – and what not. The Truth will set you free. Knowledge is power.
Once you see through the system, you can laugh about it – a very health boosting way to overcome fear.
Here is a 1/2 hour short recommended introduction:

“Empowering yourself during covid” – half an hour video about the basics of Common Law (Law of the Land) and Admiral Law (Law of the Sea) youtu.be/y-8oTFK9CAQ
Highly recommended if you are fearful of authorities and officials

Below is another documentation in text and graphics:

If you want to dig deeper into the legal framework the United Kingdom is based on, you will discover, that nearly all institutions are corporations (for profit), and how the ‘legalese’ language is (ab)used. Watch this 52 minute lecture:
“John Harris – ‘It’s an illusion’ talk at Stoke”: youtu.be/VrtS3hJC2Vg

11) Law Of The Land: Magna Carta

In case you are interested, below is some introductory information about the Magna Carta. The following paragraphs are from GreenMedInfo.com The Great Reset:
The 1215 Magna Carta was a treaty between the Barons and the King. It was subsequently re-issued into Statute law in 1297 by King Edward I, proclaiming in the introductory text, which remains the law of the land, that:

“these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.”

And in Article 1 that “We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.”

Magna Carta (1297) Article 29 (XXIX) “Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.” states that: “NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor deal with him [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Article 29 of the Magna Carta (1297) remains the law of the land in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies and its principles remain the foundation of all common law countries. It was confirmed to be retained in the Republic of Ireland by the Statute Revision Act (2007) and the whole of Ireland also has its own Magna Carta Hiberniae (1216). It arguably remains law in Canada and Australia and remains on the statute book in New Zealand. The United States Constitution is in compliance with Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta.

The English Bill of Rights goes further, making it unconstitutional for the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to be ruled by a foreign power, which places a cloud over the UK’s previous membership of the European Union, it states:

“I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

“England appears to be the rock on which the revolutionary waves split and disperse and which starves the coming society even in the womb.” Karl Marx, (Cologne, December 31, 1848)

the Liberty of Subjects Act (1354) and Observance of Due Process Act (1368) signed into law by King Edward III, both of which remain law in the UK today. They further reinforce protection of general liberties and due process. In particular, and relevant to Article 29 of the UN Declaration and all UN treaties that pretend to be able to suspend liberty and due process, the 1368 Observance of Due Process Act made Constitutional the ancient Saxon custom, that:

“if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary (of due process of law), it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error”.

Previous Articles on HealthTruth.info:

What Can I Do?

Open Letter To Your Council

We need to focus on the immune system in the next virus season updated

We’ve Got It All Wrong Fighting The Virus updated

weve got it wrong cover photos


Evidence That Coronavirus Lockdown Was Not Necessary?

cover photo evidence

Home / About HealthTruth.info * Contact HealthTruth.info

Categories
Uncategorized

Open Letter To Your Council Opposing Lockdown

Feel free to use this letter template demanding the end to lockdown, and send it to your local councillor and the leader of your local Council – or better to EVERY county councillor.
If you have any suggestions for improving this letter, please use the contact form at the bottom [ 8 November 2020]

TEMPLATE LETTERS Available for Download
on www.powertothepeopleuk.com/blank-page

(Decline a vaccine, mask or situation that you felt coerced to be in)

Dear Councillor,
with local Councils having more powers, they also have more responsibility – and accountability. We urge our Council to follow the independent science, rather than the government, to avoid illness and deaths especially among the younger population.
We demand the immediate and permanent cessation of all lockdown plans.
There is no risk following Sweden’s approach to the pandemic, which has had less deaths without lockdown, and the fatalities currently show no sign of any “second wave”.

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being
and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment
[WHO]
“Ramping up heavy-handed enforcement of rules will do more harm than good” and: “Hiring undercover officers to spy on people is an insult to the efforts communities across the country have made to look after and protect each other during the pandemic.” [libertyhumanrights.org.uk]
Professor Carl Heneghan, the director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, said he was “deeply concerned” by the selection of data which were not based on the current reality.[Telegraph, 1 Nov]
“This is not the first time that we’ve had misleading forecasts. The first responsibility of the scientific advisers to the Government is to give the truth to the public and not to cherry-pick the data. This is a fairly major error on their part” [David Davis, former Brexit secretary, Telegraph, 1 Nov]
“We appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method.
” [WHO]
“Lockdown was a monumental disaster on a global scale. The cure was worse than the disease.” [Prof. Mark Woodhouse, Express]
“Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up, saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable, and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all?” [former Supreme Court Judge , Lord John Sumption in a BBC interviw]

Every council member is liable for crimes against the people, if the council measures lead to the destruction of people’s livelihoods and lives, by spreading fear and restriction of basic human rights – all based on unreliable and unsuitable “positive” pcr test results, questionable ‘R’ number models, scandal ridden ‘track & trace’ (handled by a company who also runs the UK prisons) and computer model predictions by industry biassed scientists and institutions (see quotes above).

We anticipate that governments and their advisers authorising lockdowns will be taken to court for ‘Crimes against Humanity’ and other charges.
The legal basis for enforcing heavy handed measures contravening people’s human rights and civil liberties will be questioned, and the Council will also be taken to account for any wrongdoing.

Worries about losing work or contact with loved ones creates stress, weakens the immune system and will result in unnecessary illness and deaths. In case of lockdown and further restrictions of public services, we expect the Council to offer us a tax reduction.

Controlling viruses is bound to fail; controlling people causes more harm than good and leaves the feeling that the Council acts AGAINST the people. Our Council should support health, social and mental wellbeing of everyone, based on stability of jobs and work conditions. and freedom of choice, creativity, social contacts.
Blocking parts of the local economy, while increasing expenditure on “virus protection” measures will make it difficult to balance the books.

The increase of current death rates in England is normal for November, so there is no need for draconian measures.
Details with an analysis of the lockdown and collateral damage, misleading covid-19 death certificates, unscientific and inappropriate use of pcr tests are listed below.
(text below copied from WorldDoctorsAlliance.com, published in October).
They also show that we have safe and effective covid-19 treatments and prevention.

Open Letter text from WorldDoctorsAlliance.com:

OPEN LETTER TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD AND ALL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD

INTRODUCTION

We were told initially that the premise for lockdown was to ‘flatten the curve’ and therefore protect the NHS from being overwhelmed.

It is clear that at no point was the National Health Service (NHS) in any danger of being overwhelmed, and since May 2020 covid wards have been largely empty; and crucially the death toll from covid has remained extremely low.

We now have hundreds of thousands of so-called ‘cases’, ‘infections’ and ‘positive tests’ but hardly any sick people. Recall that four fifths (80%) of ‘infections’ are asymptomatic (1) Covid wards have been by and large empty throughout June, July, August and September 2020. Most importantly covid deaths are at an all-time low. It is clear that these ‘cases’ are in fact not ‘cases’ but rather they are normal healthy people.

So-called asymptomatic cases have never in the history of respiratory disease been the driver for spread of infection. Rather it is symptomatic people who spread respiratory infections – not asymptomatic people.(2)

It is also abundantly clear that the ‘pandemic’ is basically over and has been since June 2020. (3)

We have very highly likely reached herd immunity and therefore have no need for a vaccine.

We have safe and very effective treatments and preventative treatments for covid, we therefore call for an immediate end to all lockdown measures, social distancing, mask wearing, testing of healthy individuals, track and trace, immunity passports, the vaccination program and so on.

There has been a catalogue of unscientific, non-sensical policies enacted which infringe our inalienable rights, such as – freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These draconian totalitarian measures must never be repeated.

LOCKDOWN

  • Covid has proved less deadly than previous influenza seasons – There were 50,100 flu deaths from December 2017 to March 2018 in England and Wales. There were 80,000 flu deaths in 1969. To date we have circa 42,000 covid related deaths in the UK.
  • We have never locked down society for a respiratory virus before.
  • The basis for lockdown was a mathematical model by Professor Neil Ferguson. His modelling which predicted half a million deaths in the UK has been roundly condemned as being not fit for purpose. His estimated death figures were clearly wrong by a factor of 10 or 12 times. (1)
  • Professor Ferguson’s modelling was not even peer reviewed before being acted upon by several nations. Eminent epidemiologists such as Professor Gupta from Oxford University were ignored, they estimated the death count would be far lower in the UK.
  • Professor Ferguson has a long track record of woeful modelling he was entirely wrong about sars, mers, mad cow’s disease (CJD), and swine flu. Why did the world listen to him again? (2)
  • Countries which did not lock down Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Belarus have all done significantly better than us in terms of percentage of population deaths. They also have herd immunity and intact economies.
  • Lockdown did not save lives, and this has been published in the Lancet ‘….in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.’ (3)
  • The vast majority of deaths occurred in elderly and very elderly people
  • The vast majority of deaths occurred in people with pre-existing serious health issues such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes etc
  • Covid poses virtually zero risk to the under 45’s who have more chance of being struck by lightning than dying from covid.
  • Covid poses a very small risk for healthy under 60 year olds who have a greater chance of accidental drowning than dying from covid.
  • The entire nation was essentially placed under house arrest. We have never isolated the healthy before.
  • Isolating the sick and those who are immunocompromised makes sense. Isolating the healthy has hampered the establishment of herd immunity and makes no sense.
  • To put it into perspective we had 115,000 smoking related deaths in the UK in 2015 compared to the 42,000 deaths from covid.
  • We usually have around 600,000 deaths every year in the UK, roughly 1600 deaths per day.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE VIRUS

  • Placing the public under virtual house arrest has caused untold damage to both physical and mental health.(1)
  • Ventilating patients instead of oxygenating patients proved to be a deadly policy and an unwarranted failure. Ventilation resulted in many unnecessary deaths. (2)
  • Sending infected people from hospitals to care homes placed the elderly and frail under unnecessary risk and resulted in many unnecessary deaths. (3)
  • Blanket Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders were imposed on thousands of people without their consent nor the consent of their families – this is both unlawful and immoral and lead to unnecessary deaths in care homes. (4)
  • Hospitals became essentially ‘covid only’ centres vast numbers of patients were wilfully neglected, resulting in many thousands of unnecessary deaths. (5)
  • The government’s own report estimates that some two hundred thousand (200,000) people will die as a direct result of lockdown – not the virus. Hospitals being closed, suicide and poverty will result in more deaths than the virus. (6)
  • The cure is worse than the disease!

DEATH CERTIFICATES (1)

  • The majority of people who died had significant comorbidities, such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
  • Counting death certificates with a ‘mention’ of covid as being a death caused by covid is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and has vastly over exaggerated the death toll.
  • The rules for the signing of death certificates have been changed solely for covid by the Coronavirus 2020 Act.
  • Doctors do not even need to have physically seen the patient in order to sign death certificates.
  • The Act has removed the need for a confirmatory medical certificate for cremations.
  • Autopsies have virtually been banned, no doubt leading to misdiagnosis of the true cause of deaths; and also reducing our understanding of the disease itself.
  • Worse still, care home staff who largely have no medical training are able to give a statement as to the cause of death.
  • Covid was put on death certificates merely on the ‘suspicion’ of people having covid. This may well be unlawful, since it is a crime to falsify death certificates.
  • People who die within 28 days of a positive pcr test are deemed to have died from covid, even if they die in a car crash or from a heart attack; clearly over inflating the death toll (2)

ECONOMIC RUIN

  • Reports now estimate that as many as six and a half million (6,500,000) people in the UK will lose their jobs as a result of lockdown. (1)
  • It is well known that poverty directly adversely affects health, we can expect to see many people suffering with poor health and resulting in many premature deaths, as a direct result of lockdown.

CENSORSHIP

  • Government have acted maliciously in censoring doctors, nurses and NHS staff. The people have the perfect right to hear what is going on in hospitals, and the medical profession have a duty to look after the public and to reassure them. (1)
  • The medical profession have not been allowed to let the public know that covid wards have been empty for months, nor that covid deaths have reached an all-time low for months, and this has unnecessarily added to the public’s distress and anxiety.
  • Doctors and scientists with views that differ from the government narrative have had their videos and articles removed from the internet

TESTING – FALSE POSITIVES

  • PCR tests cannot be verified for accuracy as there is no ‘gold standard’ against which to check them. The virus has not been purified. (1)
  • PCR tests cannot detect viral loads and are prone to false positives. (2)
  • A positive PCR test does not mean that an individual is infected nor infective. (3)
  • In fact approximately 90% of the PCR positive ‘cases’ are false positives. We therefore have no second wave and no pandemic. (4 , 5)
  • The government’s report estimates a false positive rate of between 0.8 to 4.0 % using data from other viral infections – not from covid (6)
  • Viral fragments may remain in people’s bodies for several weeks following recovery from infection. (7)
  • The crisis will never end if we are waiting for zero positive tests. Everyone has probably had a cold caused by a coronavirus and will likely have a few viral fragments matching those of the cousin SARS-CoV-2 virus (8)
  • Testing healthy asymptomatic individuals is non-sensical, unscientific and a colossal waste of money. The governments moon shot daily testing program will cost £100 Billion roughly two thirds of the annual NHS budget.
  • Antibody testing is not the gold standard as many people have T-cell immunity, and antibodies may not circulate following recovery from infection.

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

  • The controversial drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been unfairly smeared, by the WHO, CDC, NIH and the media.
  • However HCQ has very firm support from, amongst others: Professor Harvey Risch epidemiologist from Yale, The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), American Frontline Doctors, the Henry Ford Health System and Professor Didier Raoult microbiologist and infectious disease specialist – to name but a few. (1)
  • The Lancet was even forced to retract a study on HCQ after it was revealed by the Guardian newspaper that they had been completely fabricated and written by a sci-fi writer and a porn star. Even following this astounding revelation HCQ was still banned in most countries. (2)
  • HCQ according to AAPS has a ninety per cent (90%) cure rate when given early and alongside zinc (3)
  • HCQ is safer than many over the counter drugs such as aspirin, Benadryl and Tylenol.
  • The AAPS also point out that there has never been a vaccine as safe as HCQ. (4)
  • HCQ has been licensed for over sixty years and has been safely used by billions of people worldwide. There is a very small risk of arrythmia which is easily monitored.
  • Why was HCQ banned then? Could it be that there are no huge profits to be made from this out-of-patent drug?
  • HCQ was used to great effect in the Sars1 outbreak of 2005 (5)
  • In short had HCQ been available then there would not have been a pandemic !

PREVENTION

  • Preventative measures such as hydroxychloroquine or vitamins D, C and zinc should have been recommended for the public. (1)
  • Early calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) treatment to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced intensive care unit admissions (2)
  • Vit D reduces the severity of covid. (2,3)
  • Voluntary isolation of the frail – should they so choose; in combination with preventative measures would have been a far better strategy. The rest of society could and should have continued as normal.

VACCINE

  • A rushed vaccine is clearly not in the public’s best interest
  • Indemnifying vaccine manufacturers against all liability is also clearly not in the public’s best interest

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

  • Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 worth of shares in GSK Glaxo Smith Klein. He has in recent years sold £5 million of shares in GSK which he ‘earned’ whilst chief of GSK (1)
  • Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer UK, accepted over £30 million in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to study malaria vaccines. (2)
  • It has become clear that members of SAGE, Public Health England (PHE), World Health Organisation (WHO), Centre for Disease Control (CDC), National institute for Health (NIH) etc have many conflicts of interests. They all accept very large ‘donations’ from the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry. These conflicts of interests may well have effectively corrupted their integrity. (3)
  • It is also clear that governments are heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry and the vaccine industry, again this may have compromised their integrity. (4)

CUI BONO? WHO BENEFITS?

  • Vaccine manufacturers will make trillions from this, as will track and trace manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical industry stand to make trillions from covid testing.
  • Prime minister Boris Johnson announced the new ‘moon shot’ testing will cost £100 Billion, approximately two thirds of the annual NHS budget.
  • Surely these vast sums would be far better spent on treating all of the neglected patients who have been wilfully neglected during lockdown and who now face huge waiting lists.

CONCLUSIONS

We have effective and safe treatments and preventative medications for covid, therefore there is no need for any lockdown restrictions and associated measures. The pandemic is essentially over as can be seen by the consistent low death rate and hospital admissions over the past four months.

We demand the immediate and permanent ceasing of all lockdown measures.

Lockdowns do not save lives, that is why they have never been used before. Civil liberties and fundamental freedoms have been unnecessarily removed from the public and this must never happen again.

Preventative measures such as Hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, Vitamin D and zinc must be made readily available to the public.

Isolation must be voluntary. People are perfectly capable of making their own assessment of the risks and must be free to go about their lives as they so choose. People must have the right to choose whether to isolate or not.

Likewise, businesses must have the right to remain open if they so choose.

We demand that doctors, nurses, scientists and healthcare professionals must be permitted free speech and never be censored again.

Professor Mark Woolhouse epidemiologist and specialist in infectious diseases, Edinburgh University Member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, that advises the Government stated that

‘…Lockdown was a monumental disaster on a global scale. The cure was worse than the disease.’

I never want to see national lockdown again. It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now. It was never going to change anything fundamentally, however low we drove down the number of cases,’

We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school.’

I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19.’(1)

The World Doctors Alliance agree fully with Prof Woolhouse’s assertions, he is right!
We must never lockdown again! NB the term ‘covid’ has been used to represent Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19


References to the above notes are at the end of the Open Letter on WorldDoctorsAlliance.com

Home / About HealthTruth.info * Contact HealthTruth.info


Next articles on Healthtruth.info:

What can I do?

Can The Law Save Us From Covid Politics?

Previous articles on HealthTruth.info:

We need to focus on the immune system in the next virus season

We’ve got it all wrong fighting the virus?

Evidence Coronavirus Lockdown Was Not Necessary?