One of the great things about democracy is that everyone in the UK is equal before the law.
That’s the theory.
Many have said that during “lockdown”, there’s one rule for them, those in charge, and another for us, those who are governed. Cummings. Ferrier. I am looking at you.
The government has been quick to criminalise everyday activity. Penalty charge notices can be issued for breaches of most of the lockdown rules.
However whilst the government have been remorseless and relentless in pointing out the motes in the public’s eye, there may be a very large beam in the government’s eye.
Article three of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives every UK citizen the right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The relevant medical conventions and declarations on medical treatment are:
i. The Oviedo Convention on Bioethics and Human Rights in particular the right to informed consent to which the UK was a not a signatory.
ii. The UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights and in particular Articles 4, 5 and 6.
If anyone acts in a way that causes others to be subject to harm by inhuman or degrading acts, that could be a criminal offence if it is established that the harm was deliberately or negligently caused.
If the last 9 months has felt like torture, that’s because it may well have been.
Here’s some potentially criminal acts:
The government’s whole policy is driven by the numbers of “infections”.
The infection has been tested primarily by using PCR tests.
There is an increasing consensus that the PCR test is unfit for purpose and should not be used.
Both Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab have both stated, at different times, that the PCR test has a false positive rate of over 90%. They said this in late Summer or early Autumn on television on separate occasions, but still, the PCR test is being used.
I raised this with my MP on 9 September 2020 (see email). My email alleged that the government policy response was based on two false premises: firstly that the PCR test is accurate and secondly that asymptomatic transmission happens. It doesn’t.
The response I received from Mr Davies was most unsatisfactory and is here. Mr Davies suggested that the PCR tests “are not always correct” and had a false negative rate of 2 to 20%.
He also suggested that the latest PCR test would test for covid and “other winter viruses.”
The whole public policy response has been based on Professor Dorsten’s PCR test.
His academic paper was accepted in a record time of 48 hours rather than the average 100 plus days. That paper has been comprehensively peer-reviewed and found to be unprofessional at best and fraudulent at worst.
As the PCR test is flawed so must any public policy response based on PCR tests, including the use of the test as a condition for treatment.
A Portuguese Court came to a similar conclusion earlier. The key point being that the PCR tests are unreliable without a Doctor’s diagnosis. The government’s guidance on PCR tests makes the same point on page 3
“ a single CT value in the absence of a clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity” and if you read on the document expresses some doubt on the reliability of the PCR test for “infectivity risk.”
Basing a policy response of tiering the population by numbers of PCR generated false-positive infections is degrading and inhuman.
The government know the PCR test is useless but it is still being used to drive public policy.
Reckless or deliberate?
Either way potentially criminal, given the known harms.
Lockdown carries the real risks to health and well being of those being subjected to lockdown.
It is degrading and inhuman treatment to recklessly put covid on a death certificate when the PCR test is so unreliable.
Relatives have the right to know what caused death, and for the stated causes to be accurate.
I have emailed the House of Commons Speaker about the human rights issues involving the use of an unreliable PCR test.
The email exchange is here and scroll down to start reading (warning I did not pull my punches), how can the Speaker be neutral on matters of alleged scientific fraud involving the PCR test when the UK’s public policy response rested on the use of that test?
Here are the statistics on harms caused by the lockdown.
Conditionality of medical care contingent on a negative PCR test.
Access to health care, treatment and diagnosis have in some cases, including my own, been conditional on having a negative PCR test. I have had two operations cancelled because of this rule!
It is well established that not only should Doctors “do no harm” but also that access to and prioritising of health care should be based on clinical need.
It is a human right to have equitable distribution of whatever health care is available.
The Government has made not dying from covid their number one priority and in so doing has condemned tens of thousands to death for other conditions through missed appointments, missed diagnosis and missed treatment.
The government’s own assessment is that 200,000 people will die because of lockdown, many because treatment or diagnosis has been delayed.
The government has decided that the clinical priority is covid and they have not been slow to share graphs and comparisons with other countries’ death rates from covid.
Not once has the public be shown any graphs or data from deaths caused by the lockdown.
Nor has the public been shown any data on the mental health issues caused by the lockdown.
Isn’t the public’s health in other areas relevant context to determine whether the policy is a success or abject failure?
Should the government be setting clinical priorities or should our Doctors be?
Suppression of potential therapeutics:
There is a huge debate unfolding as to whether HCQ and zinc if taken early enough or as a prophylactic work to mitigate any viral illness caused by the coronavirus.
If the evidence is that effective therapeutics like HCQ and zinc have been suppressed, that will be the biggest negligent act causing harm.
Watch this space as news is expected on that front shortly.
Asymptomatic people do not transmit the virus to any great extent. That’s proven. Even Dr Fauci said transmission by asymptomatic people never happens with respiratory viruses.
A mask can be a medical device which needs regulating by the MHRA. We are not being required to wear a regulated medical device. If we were it would require our consent.
Face coverings or masks are though governed by regulation on product quality.
In particular any description used on these products cannot say that the masks work to prevent infection.
If face coverings worked to prevent infection they would be classed as either PPE or a Medical Device. As they are not given that classification the logical consequence is that unregulated masks do not offer any protection from infection.
As there is little or no known benefit of wearing an unregulated mask, anyone who requires you to wear a mask, including the government, is under an obligation to explain the risks of that requirement to us.
Anyone ever seen the government’s risk assessment on face coverings/masks?
It is inhuman and degrading treatment to require the public to wear a mask or face covering when a mask or face covering has no clinical benefit in reducing transmission and carries real risks of bacterial infection.
Why would anyone do that? What other government has controlled what we wear on our face? Only barbaric, authoritarian regimes take an interest in the public being uniformly clothed.
Regarding the proposed vaccine, the non-placebo arm of the Pfizer trial required one positive PCR test together with one symptom.
Placing reliance on data from a flawed PCR test means the data produced from the trials may be and likely is flawed.
The vaccine appears to have been rushed through for political purposes, to go one up on the ROTW and the EU. Vaccines carry risks.
My intuition tells me that rushing through temporary authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine will in due course shown to be negligent and to cause harm.
But don’t act on that obtain as much information from your GP and take their advice accordingly if you are considering a jab.
The government have been applying psychological tools to get us to follow the rules. Those who dissent from the government line are called out as “selfish”, granny killers and so on.
Even Cressida Dick stated that the public should shame non-mask wearers. Anyone foolish enough to take Ms Dick’s advice would run the risk of shaming a disabled person unable to wear a mask, or a rape victim who can’t wear a mask because of anxiety induced by having the mouth and nose covered
So the police are actively suggesting that people who might be disabled should be shamed?
What have we become?
Given that the PCR tests are so unreliable why is the government applying psychology to get us to comply with harmful rules?
Some would call that controlling, abusive and coercive mind games.
What have we become?
How can there be limits put on the numbers at a funeral?
How cruel is the requirement to social distance at a funeral, when the need for a hug is great?
What have we become?
Banning singing at school. How cruel.
Separate playtimes. How cruel.
Parental involvement in the school premises minimised. How cruel.
Requiring masks to be worn. How cruel.
No knives and forks at school to eat hot dinners. How cruel.
Having an antiseptic learning environment. How cruel.
No showers or changing rooms after PE. How cruel.
The public have responded positively to the restrictions, the British people are kind and will make sacrifices if asked to do so by people in authority and if they are told it is for the public good.
The Government and senior civil servants have abused the trust the British people put in them. The responsibility lies with those in charge.
Enough is enough.
It is time that those, like me, who are in positions of responsibility speak out in the expectation that the rule of law applies to all including government and opposition politicians and civil servants.