HUMAN RIGHTS ACT REFORM CONSULTATION – HAVE YOUR SAY (DEADLINE 8th March) 📣
Call me cynical, but these extracts from the consultation document make me nervous. Are they trying to legislate for a communitarian state? Read the proposals for yourself and have your say… 😱
⚠️“…our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest, 🤔 rigorous judicial interpretation, and respect for the authority of elected law-makers… 😬
⚠️“The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest… 🧐
⚠️“The Bill of Rights… will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society…” 😳
⚠️DON’T let their Bill of Rights take YOUR rights away.
⚠️Putting the “greater good” above YOUR bodily integrity sets the scene for government mandated medical intervention (vaccines 💉 masks 😷 testing and MORE).
‼️ We need to OUTLAW Medical Mandates, so that individual bodily integrity trumps the so-called “greater good” EVERY TIME. 💪🏽
❤️🩹Would you not agree that the “the rights of wider society” DEPEND on the rights of EACH INDIVIDUAL being upheld? Without individuals, there IS no society!!! 🔥🔥🔥
The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998. This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposals to revise the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.
Chapters 1 and 2 provide a background of the domestic and international human rights context. Chapter 3 explores issues that have emerged with how the Human Rights Act 1998 operates in practice and outlines the case for reform. Chapter 4 sets out the government’s proposed reforms and their rationale in detail.
Each proposal is accompanied by specific consultation questions. We welcome responses on those questions. Submissions which do not focus on the questions but deal with the subject of the Human Rights Act more generally are also welcome.
To help us take full account of all potential impacts, including equality impacts, we shall complete a full Impact Assessment as necessary, once we have considered the responses to the consultation. We welcome responses from consultees on these proposals with regard to the potential impacts.
You will find the consultation document, along with a Welsh summary and full Welsh version below.
We will publish an easy read version in due course.
ANALYSIS: The authors of the recovery clinical trial (Peter Horby and Martin Landray) attempt to cover up a despicable fault in the hydroxychloroquine arm. Several elements are concerning : results that are hiding reality, unforgivable errors in the documents, the author of the appendix of the documents of the Recovery study (British clinical trial) is Dr Hayden known to be historically close to Gilead having taken on several occasions the defence of Remdesivir (drug that has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency without evidence of therapeutic benefit and very harmful side effects). Hence the Recovery study cannot be considered serious.
We note that there is mounting evidence that hydroxychloroquine is active and tolerable against Covid-19.
Before exposing the intellectual fallacy and the real deadly implications of the results of Recovery which conclude that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, we seek to expose the reader to the comprehensive analytical work carried out by FranceSoir in search for truth. In particular, we have revealed problems of medical ethics (1)and notorious incompetence (2), and even potentially criminal activities (3, 4), related to the Recovery trial, on which we have published a complete document demonstrating the existence of obvious conflicts of interest (5).
France Soir, with the help of scientists and clinical trial experts, has carried out a rigorous and meticulous analysis of the majority of studies published or submitted for pre-publication on the MedRxiv site of Cornell University. FranceSoir is the only print media to have scientifically dismantled, point by point, the highly questionable prepublications, whose conclusions were biased against hydroxychloroquine or in flagrant contradiction with the data exposed, as for the AP-HP study (6) or Epiphare (7). On the other hand, it is clear from other studies and clinical trials that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in combination with azithromycin which gives it considerable synergy, appears to be the only tolerable and active treatment against Covid-19 (8,9,10,11) and also suitable for prophylaxis (9).
We also bring to bear that the current pandemic has allowed members of the public, concerned about the health of their loved ones and themselves, to perceive the extent to which misinformation could circulate in the mainstream media. This led is evidence by the fact that only 7% of the French have confidence in what the messages broadcasted by television media about the pandemic (9).
“With a self-awarded white knight role, the media are no longer content to give a voice to one side or the other by commenting, in a quest for impartiality, but are setting themselves up as true referees of what is or is not scientific and medical truth.
In this respect, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been systematically denigrated as a target. Why has it been systematically denigrated? It was put in their heads that the randomized controlled clinical trial was the universal panacea of the reasoned medical scientific approach. This is particularly false in this case and in opposition to the medical ethics of the Hippocratic Oath (1),” says a medical research specialist.
However, this certainty, instilled by intense brainwashing by public health authorities and Big Pharma-funded television presenters, is crumbling and vacillating in the face of accumulated evidence (8,9,10,11) in favour of hydroxychloroquine and raises questions about how a molecule such as remesivir could have slipped through the cracks of the European Medicines Agency without toxicity testing.
What else can we say about the statement made by the French President on July 14th, in response to a question from a television journalist who asked him, if he would take hydroxychloroquine in the event of Covid-19 contamination?
“From what I understand about science, there is no such thing as a stabilized treatment. France is the country of “Lumière” and I believe in rationality … If there is no treatment, I’m not going to take it,” he said.
He added: “It is not for the President of the Republic or a politician to decide a scientific debate.”
But that is exactly what he just did live on the air!
And then speaking about Professor Raoult:
“Nor is it for a man of science, even if he becomes a public figure, to act on scientific beliefs.”
Is the President suggesting that Pr Raoult doesn’t act as a man of science, but on the basis of scientific belief? Would we have come to the apotheosis of denigrating a man whose entire career speaks for him? Is our President so unsecure, that he cannot help but say, that perhaps in a few months’ time we will learn that hydroxychloroquine is a really active treatment? When we have obviously known this for quite some time. These statements reveal how little our President cares about the possibility that this treatment could have saved lives.
The conditions surrounding Recovery (boundary conditions) give us an indepth
We believe the principal investigators of the Recovery trial are attempting to conceal the results of the very dangerous, even fatal, overdose of the hydroxychloroquine arm. The authors of the trial came very close to pre-publishing significant results demonstrating the harmful nature of HCQ!
First of all, it should be remembered that this is not a real publication, but a text filed on the MedRxiv site of Cornell University and that it was therefore not submitted to the proofreading and critical questions of other researchers in the clinical field. But never mind. The article still subtly suggests an adverse effect by presenting a survival curve showing a 2% increase in mortality at 28 days (from 25 to 26.8%) in the HCQ arm compared to standard care. This curve is presented with a Y-axis not going to 100% which exaggerates the 2% increase. This difference is not significant according to the value of the calculated statistical power p = 0.18.
We are here in very subtle communication effects which consist in hiding the reality one does not want to talk about. We demonstrated this phenomenon in the phase III study of remdesivir (Veklury®) published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) where the results of the secondary endpoint of 28-day mortality were deliberately masked.
We state that if HCQ had been used at an acceptable dose level on the first day and on subsequent days a beneficial effect could have been measured. This effect is masked by the premature death or the premature transfer to ICU of hospitalized patients overdosed with HCQ within 48 hours of initiation of treatment. We remind the reader that patients received a cumulative dose of 3.2 g of HCQ in 48 hours, including 2.4 g on the first day, which represents a potentially fatal overdose on patients in this category (4). It should also be remembered that HCQ overdose is characterized by acute respiratory failure (4) which a priori cannot be distinguished from the respiratory symptoms due to Covid-19. On the other hand, only heart failure can be demonstrated (prolongation of the QT interval and twisting of the electrocardiogram peaks).
We also asked in a previous article if, in the Recovery trial, hydroxychloroquine had not killed as many patients as it had saved?
Is it possible that the beneficial effect of a treatment may be masked by a harmful effect such as overdose, comedication or an increased risk factor for certain categories of patients?
We have already recently highlighted such a problem of masking the beneficial effect of HCQ by contradictory effects in our careful reverse engineering analysis of the EPIPHARE study (7). EPIPHARE sought to determine whether HCQ conferred protection from Covid-19-related hospitalization and mortality in patients receiving long-term treatment for chronic inflammatory conditions (lupus and rheumatoid arthritis). The authors concluded that HCQ does not confer protection on these autoimmune patients, who are a priori more likely to develop viral infections than the rest of the population. We showed that the authors of this study were withholding data that they had available and that could have led to the opposite conclusion of a protective effect of HCQ. A Chinese study published in the Lancet on July 3 confirms this. In the Chinese study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking hydroxychloroquine had a 91% reduced risk of infection with the COVID-19 virus (with a statistically significant power p = 0.044) compared to those with the same chronic inflammatory diseases, but not on long-term HCQ treatment.
To continue with the results here are some of what the author states
Results: 1561 patients randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared to 3155 patients simultaneously assigned to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients assigned to usual care died within 28 days (ratio 1.09 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23 P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified patient subgroups.
Patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged alive from hospital within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8% rate ratio 0.92 95% CI 0.85-0.99 p missing) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to achieve the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5% risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25 p missing). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmias.
How with 5000 patients we get such a high p for mortality when we are told; the advantage and necessity of the randomized trial is to have a very small “p”. The advantage and necessity of the randomized trial is to have a very small “p”. 500 patients per group would suffice. It is mathematical.
Why is the “p”not given for the 2 other tests when on these 2 measures the authors conclude a significant difference?
Our clinical trial expert tells us:
“In fact, the general question is, what went wrong with the data that made such a large trial yield no significant result?”
One gets the impression that the “results are deliberately insignificant” in order to hide a disturbing reality.
To finish off, the icing on the cake: the author of the appendix to Recovery is none other than Frederic Hayden, a doctor historically close to Gilead.
The author of the document is not one of the members of Recovery, but Frederic Hayden of the University of Virginia. One could almost believe that the Recovery team no longer wants to write the results of the study and is subcontracting it to another university. We had already mentioned this professor in a previous paper that was used primarily to get a valid clinical trial number in the United States. This same professor is a strong advocate of Gilead’s recovery being quoted as saying of this drug that “this is the first convincing evidence that an antiviral drug can really benefit Covid-19 patients, especially patients hospitalized with Covid-19”.
He participated in the Chinese remdesivir study and is quoted in Fortune.com as having defended the remdesivir study. He is also known to have been close to Gilead since the HIV.
Finally he was one of the key investigators on Gilead’s Tamiflu.
As in a bad movie, Gilead will have pushed its remdesivir, authorized by Europe without the slightest toxicity study, but it will have gone a long way to disqualify its effective, inexpensive, innocuous competitor, hydroxychloroquine. This battle with unequal weapons does not serve the interest of public health but benefits the mastodons of the pharmaceutical industry, prepared to anything. The story of recovery is not over and we would not be surprised to see a mixture of dexamethasone and remdesivir point its nose shortly as a potential combination of drugs. The marketing techniques already used by Gilead are repeating themselves.
He Says “ This is my new years declaration I send to 1600 journalists, all members of parliament, all employees with our CDC and 25 different email addresses to the Danish Police. I propose Truth and Reconciliation in the coming Nuremberg trials, not death penalty. But we need a Nuremberg even now they try to lift the restrictions, claim the vaccines helped and thus avoid to face justice.”
The trial starts this week at the ICC in the Hague. Among those on trial are Dr Fauci, Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty and some pharmaceutical company CEOs.
New Zealand is planning to drop their restrictions but they won’t be fully dropped until October.
This trial will hopefully be the turning point of this global leader epidemic.
Check out all my stories and catch up on exactly what is happening. Here you only find the truth.
How is it that more than 190 governments from all over the world ended up dealing with the Covid pandemic in almost exactly the same manner, with lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination cards now being commonplace everywhere?
The answer may lie in the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”), and that many of today’s prominent political and business leaders passed through on their way to the top.
A hidden alliance of political and corporate leaders is exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency, and these leaders include President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson.
This isn’t fiction, it’s fact. Just listen to the President of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, himself say the following –
“I have to say when I mention or names like Mrs Mirkle, Vladimir Putin and so on they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum, but what we’re really proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, the President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.
“So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of his cabinet are Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.”
The story begins with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is an NGO founded by Klaus Schwab, a German economist and mechanical engineer, in Switzerland in 1971, when he was only 32. The WEF is best-known to the public for the annual conferences it holds in Davos, Switzerland each January that aim to bring together political and business leaders from around the world to discuss the problems of the day.
Today, it is one of the most important networks in the world for the globalist power elite, being funded by approximately a thousand multinational corporations.
The WEF, which was originally called the European Management Forum until 1987, succeeded in bringing together 440 executives from 31 nations already at its very first meeting in February 1971, which was an unexpected achievement for someone like Schwab, who had very little international or professional experience prior to this.
The reason may be due to the contacts Schwab made during his university education, including studying with no less a person than former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
The Forum initially only brought together people from the economic field, but before long, it began attracting politicians, prominent figures from the media (including from the BBC and CNN), and even celebrities.
In 1992 Schwab established a parallel institution, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which was re-established as Young Global Leaders in 2004. Attendees at the school must apply for admission and are then subjected to a rigorous selection process.
Members of the school’s very first class in 1992 already included many who went on to become important liberal political figures, such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Tony Blair.
There are currently about 1,300 graduates of this school, and the list of alumni includes several names of those who went on to become leaders of the health institutions of their respective nations. Four of them are former and current health ministers for Germany, including Jens Spahn, who has been Federal Minister of Health since 2018. Philipp Rösler, who was Minister of Health from 2009 until 2011, and was then appointed the WEF’s Managing Director by Schwab in 2014.
Other notable names on the school’s roster are –
Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand whose stringent lockdown measures have been praised by global health authorities
Sebastian Kurz, who was until recently the Chancellor of Austria;
Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary;
Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and President of the European Commission;
Annalena Baerbock, the leader of the German Greens;
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia;
Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada;
We also find California Governor Gavin Newsom on the list, who was selected for the class of 2005, as well as former presidential candidate and current US Secretary of Transportation Peter Buttigieg, who is a very recent alumnus, having been selected for the class of 2019.
All of these politicians who were in office during the past two years have favored harsh responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and which also happened to considerably increase their respective governments’ power.
But the school’s list of alumni is not limited to political leaders. We also find many of the captains of private industry there, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Virgin’s Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and the Clinton Foundation’s Chelsea Clinton.
Again, all of them expressed support for the global response to the pandemic, and many reaped considerable profits as a result of the measures.
And if you don’t believe Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn’t in on it with his “build back better” slogans, then just take a look at this image of him taken at a World Econimic Forum Young Global Leaders event.
Leaders who have been groomed by the WEF have infiltrated Governments around the world and they have worked in lockstep to implement ridiculous, Draconian restrictions under the guise of an alleged virus that kills less than 0.2% of those it infects.
In 2020, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike the 2004 SARS epidemic, this new coronavirus strain—origin unknown—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing millions in just seven months.
The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in care homes, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.
The United Kingdom’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.K but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.’
You will have noticed a few words within the article which we highlighted in bold. These are words that we changed in order to bring the document in line with the current scenario playing out across the world – the alleged Covid-19 pandemic.
A grand total of just 9 words is all that we needed to change to ensure the full text; written in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation, fully represented the alleged Covid-19 pandemic. Just nine words.
We’re either living in the age of coincidence or we are watching a very carefully thought out plan play out before our eyes.
In serious criminal cases in the U.S., a so-called grand jury is presented with the evidence at hand to convince them that this evidence is sufficient to bring public charges against the defendants.
We are adopting this model to prove to the public, with the help of real witnesses, lawyers, a judge and experts from around the world, that we are dealing with crimes against humanity that span the globe.
The goal is a coherent presentation of all the facts gathered to date, and thus to convince the populations of all countries that resistance here is not only possible, but required of every individual.
Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.
In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.
Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.
You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.
You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).
You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.
You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.
You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).
You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines, and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did with some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.
Irreversible damage to trust
However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.
You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.
You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.
When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.
There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.
This emergency must stop!
Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University