The Queen Shows Her “Heartfelt Appreciation” To The NHS For Slapping A DNR Order On The Dragon

Her Majesty the Queen has bestowed the George Cross upon the entire NHS.

Blanket DNRs on the elderly, vulnerable and disabled suffering Covid infection is not the only ‘courageous and compassionate’ thing the NHS has done this year of course. We should also recognise their unerring dedication to harass, coerce and misinform millions of healthy people to get a dangerous, toxic experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only in violation of the Nuremberg Code principles of informed consent when there is demonstrably no ’emergency’. Not forgetting also their willful refusal to treat millions of people suffering serious and life threatening non-Covid conditions over the past 15 months, the effective termination of in person GP services and the absolutely disgusting and callous refusal to allow relatives to be with their dying loved ones in hospital.

Poor Mike Yardley is going to be extra fuming when he learns of this news, after having been injected with AZ by the NHS when he specifically made a point of informing them of his clotting history at the time of the injection, a history which they should already have been aware of anyway. The nurse waived away his concerns of course and jabbed him anyway, ignoring his pleas for a scan for a clot for 3 months afterwards. Now he’s permanently disabled. The kind of ‘service’ worthy of the George Cross in Pol Pot Belly’s FUBAR Britain, it would seem.

Letter to Sir Simon Stevens, CEO, NHS England From Suspended GP’s Solicitor

This is quite frankly devastating. The government and the NHS might think they are untouchable but they cannot walk away from these extremely serious allegations of misconduct and breach of public duty, which may indeed amount to criminal offences. Here is the letter in full, which should, if we lived in a free, fair and open society, be published in all the main newspapers and main stream media outlets, especially the BBC. But we don’t.

Sir Simon Stevens
Chief Executive Officer
NHS England
2 July 2021
Dear Mr Stevens
Re: My Client: Dr Sam White
I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.
Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.
Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.
The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing.
What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.
My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended.

My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.
All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.

The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person. The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client.
It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.
The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.
My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:

The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.

That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.
My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head.
Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.
The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must.
I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.
I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.
The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.
The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.
The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:

HM Government.

The Executive Board of the NHS.


Senior public office holders within the civil service.

The Executive Board of the MHRA.
In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations.
The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study. A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body.
I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.
To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes.
The Vaccination Roll Out:
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:

To do no harm.

To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery.
Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent.

That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.1

Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments.2

That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.
The Montgomery principles are in line with Article 6 of the Unesco Declaration of Bio-Ethics and Human Rights, the right to decline any medical treatment without being penalised is enshrined in International Law.3
1 Per Lord Justice Simon in Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62
2 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
3 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.
At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.
Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:
The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information to the public has been the following:

The Daily Press Conferences.

The NHS badged advertisements.

The Patient Information Leaflet.
The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:

The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.

The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.

The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.

The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.

The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.

The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.

The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.
Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry. Public Office Holders should
act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.
Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry.4
It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 5 in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna6, one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein.7
Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.
The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation.8
Finally the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts9 over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.
When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.
4 https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sages-covert-coup
5 https://tinyurl.com/c89nke49
6 https://www.modernatx.com/ecosystem/strategic-collaborators/foundations-advancing-mRNA-science-and-research
7 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html
8 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for-collaboration-with-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-the-world-health-organisation
9 https://www.prweek.com/article/1700784/hancock-faces-questions-luther-pendragon-shareholder-hired-advisory-role
The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.
How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses?10
How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?
Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.
If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available. Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem. The Officials should level with the public.
It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route. Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.
Taking each risk in turn:
The material risk of being infected:
10 https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/funding/donor-profiles

The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.

That information does not differentiate between:
a. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
b. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.

The principal diagnosis tools have been:
a. The lateral flow test.
b. The PCR test.

Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.

The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.

The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. 11 The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.

Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness.12

Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. 13

The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
11 https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE
13 https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tiktok-fake-covid-positive-test-schools-1079693

The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection.14

The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.

The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.

The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice.15

The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.

There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.16
The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:

The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.

That information has not differentiated between:
a. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
b. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
c. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.

The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.

In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
14 https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30
15 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
16 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are. This has either been intentional or grossly negligent.

Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.

The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.
The material risks of dying from covid:

The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
a. Those dying from covid.
b. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
c. Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
d. The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
e. Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.

The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity.17

A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated.18
17 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-the-cdc-has-not-quietly-updated-covid-19-death-estimates-67902
18 https://www.expatica.com/pt/news/lisbon-court-rules-only-0-9-of-verified-cases-actually-died-of-covid-100196/

The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings.19 20

The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.

Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.

The risk is asymmetrical.

The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.

The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.

The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.

The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms21. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.

It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability.22

None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.

Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy.23

Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.

Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.

Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
19 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374291/Scandal-500-care-home-patients-given-DNR-orders-without-consent.html
20 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8514081/Number-prescriptions-drug-midazolam-doubled-height-pandemic.html
21 https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
22 https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
23 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-hails-herculean-effort-of-life-science-companies-to-defeat-coronavirus

Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.
The Patient Information Leaflet:
The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.
That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy.24

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.

The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
24 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mRNA-20200630.htm

By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1%. 25
Advertising of the vaccine:
The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination.
It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.

None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA26. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.

Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 201227 make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.

The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.

The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent
25 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
26 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
27 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/part/11/crossheading/enforcement/made
means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent.28

The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.

The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.
Information on Vaccine Passports:

HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. 29

Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.

HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.

A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should be not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.

The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
28 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
29 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9744557/Double-jabbed-Brits-able-travel-quarantine-free-July-26.html

Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:

The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.

The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.

It’s called the immune system.

The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.

The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.

Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.

It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years.3031

There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.

It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.

Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.

At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of
30 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23333-3
31 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1
it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.

Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.32

Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.

There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.

Those therapeutics are:

Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe.33 34Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.35

HCQ and Zinc.36

Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers37.38

The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
32 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf
33 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx
34 Published Ahead-of-Print : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)
35 https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210506/covid-patient-in-coma-gets-ivermectin-after-court-order
36 https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/zelenko-prophylaxis-protocol/
37 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n957
38 https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-12-asthma-drug-budesonide-shortens-recovery-time-non-hospitalised-patients-covid-19

There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.

Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.

Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?

My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.

These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?

The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.

The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?
3.Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:

At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.

The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.

The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA.39

Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences40

That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.

Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.

The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.41

The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries42. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.

The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.

The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.

A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.

The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.

The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
a. Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.43
b. Bells Palsy.
c. Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
d. Capillary Leak Syndrome.
39 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mRNA-20200630.htm
40 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
41 https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
42 https://regenerativemc.com/biodistribution-of-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/
43 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
e. Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
f. Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
g. Antibody dependant enhancement.

The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.

The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.

It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.

Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.

Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.
My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.
The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.

The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
a. The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
b. The mask is not defined.
c. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged.44
44 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2966/contents/made
d. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.45
e. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
i. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
ii. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?
iii. How are those risks best mitigated?
f. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low.46 Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
g. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
h. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
i. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
j. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents.47
k. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. 48
l. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
m. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public.49 50
45 https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/suitability-of-personal-protective-equipment/58160.article
46 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851.full
47 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/425/annex/I/division/3
48 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/425/annex/II/division/n1
n. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. 51
o. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. 52
p. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
q. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
r. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
s. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
t. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.53
u. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
v. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.
The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly. They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.
How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:
51 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214031X18300809
52 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743
53 https://www.politico.eu/article/free-masks-distributed-by-belgian-government-contain-toxic-articles/

Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.

That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.
By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent. Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?
The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.
Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.
Yours sincerely
Philip Hyland

Daily Mail Promotes Highly Dubious Claim that the ‘Vaccines’ are Safe for Pregnant Women

Can the press get any lower? Promoting a dubious claim that the ‘vaccines’ are entirely safe, even beneficial for pregnant women. thereby inciting them to put their own health at risk and to risk the death of their unborn child? For what? To supposedly ‘protect’ themselves and their child against a disease which is virtually no threat to them at all? It hardly seems possible, but this is where we are today. The Covid mass vaccination campaign is palpably evil and so are the people promoting it.

I don’t need to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to say this, because the facts speak for themselves. Here is what the Fail says:

Premature birth more likely for pregnant women who catch Covid, studies show

But experts say around one in five pregnant patients are hesitant over getting jab

No evidence to suggest any Covid jab has any effect on pregnancy, say scientists

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy 

The message from health chiefs is clear: Covid-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant women. While a question mark hung over this vital detail earlier on in jab trials, today there is clear data to show there is no risk to mothers-to-be or their unborn children.

It is a major step forwards in the battle against the virus.

And there is even evidence that vaccinating women now may have knock-on benefits for any children they have in the future, too. Since the immunity provided by a Covid vaccine is passed down to the foetus, wide take-up of the jab will eventually lead to a generation of children with in-built resistance.So what is the basis of these bold claims?

Jesus Christ, I can hardly believe I read that last paragraph. ‘Built in resistance’? Against a disease which babies are not vulnerable to? The evil, ugly head of eugenics rises once again.

What is the basis for the bold safety claims made by the Fail? Let us be in no doubt whatsoever. At their introduction, just a few months ago, these ‘vaccines’ had not been tested on pregnant women:

In November, Pfizer became the first company to announce that its vaccine was effective against Covid-19 – but the company also said it hadn’t yet been tested on pregnant women.

This is entirely normal for vaccine trials, says Dr O’Brien, adding: ‘Traditionally, pregnant women are excluded from these studies as a precaution.’

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy. Nonetheless, due to a lack of data, the Government warned expectant women not to have the jab – NHS leaflets circulated at the start of the rollout reiterated this. The effect, experts say, was to entrench worries in a group already naturally cautious about what medicines they take.

Then, in April, suddenly, everything changed and Wanksock went public to advise pregnant women that the jab was safe and they should seriously consider getting it after the JCVI changed its advice to allow pregnant women to book the Pfizer or Moderna jabs following a trial in the US. Here is what the Fail reports about that trial, which allegedly demonstrates that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are ‘safe’ for pregnant women:

“Instead, the JCVI decided to wait for data from America to filter through before making a call.

In early April, that data arrived in the form of a major study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It had tracked the condition of more than 90,000 pregnant women who had received a vaccine, the majority of them in their third trimester.

The CDC was able to report that there were no safety concerns.

Since then, the number of pregnant American women who have had a vaccine has risen to more than 105,000. However, finer data released from within that study set off fresh anxieties.

The CDC closely monitored more than 800 participants. Of that group, 712 had a live birth, while 115 suffered a loss of pregnancy.

This means that roughly one in eight woman who’d been jabbed had lost their baby.

It is a scary thought but, in fact, this is identical to the average rate of pregnancy loss in the population, according to NHS figures.

Armed with this knowledge, on April 16 the JCVI made the recommendation to the Government that pregnant women, along with any planning pregnancy or currently breastfeeding, should be invited for vaccination along with their age and clinical risk group.

However, the recommendation extended only to the Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It did not include the UK’s Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.”

Pay particular attention to the bold. 90,000 women were tracked but only 900 or so were monitored closely and of those, one in eight lost their unborn child. But it’s all OK according to the Fail (and presumably also the NHS, the JCVI and the British government) because this is the same as the rate of spontaneous abortion in the population at large. Right. So, silly me, I went and checked, didn’t I and this is what I found:

Miscarriage accounts for 42,000 hospital admissions  in the UK annually[1].

Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant[1].

85% of spontaneous miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

The risk falls rapidly with advancing gestation[2]:

9.4% at 6 complete weeks of gestation.

4.2% at 7 weeks.

1.5% at 8 weeks.

0.5% at 9 weeks.

0.7 % at 10 weeks.

85% of miscarriages occur in the First Trimester. As the pregnancy term progresses the risk of miscarriage diminishes rapidly. The First Trimester covers weeks 0-13, the Second Trimester 14-26 and the Third Trimester 27-40. Miscarriages don’t even technically occur in the Third Trimester; they are known as stillbirths.

I don’t know where the Fail gets the figure of 90,000 from because I have read the study in question and it only mentions a total of 35,691 participants. It is obvious where their figures of 712 and 115 come from though:

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). 

A ‘completed pregnancy’, contrary to what it suggests, is not a completed pregnancy as such, resulting in a live or tragic still birth, it is a pregnancy which goes either full term or is aborted at an earlier stage. Hence:

For analysis of pregnancy outcomes in the v-safe pregnancy registry, data were restricted to completed pregnancies (i.e., live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth)

Before we go any further though, let’s take a look at what this CDC-run ‘v-safe pregnancy register’ actually is:

V-safe Surveillance System and Pregnancy Registry

V-safe is a new CDC smartphone-based active-surveillance system developed for the Covid-19 vaccination program; enrollment is voluntary. V-safe sends text messages to participants with weblinks to online surveys that assess for adverse reactions and health status during a postvaccination follow-up period. Follow-up continues 12 months after the final dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. During the first week after vaccination with any dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, participants are prompted to report local and systemic signs and symptoms during daily surveys and rank them as mild, moderate, or severe; surveys at all time points assess for events of adverse health effects. If participants indicate that they required medical care at any time point, they are asked to complete a report to the VAERS through active telephone outreach.

In other words, it’s a smartphone app which links to the VAERS reporting system if participants require medical attention for adverse reactions.

To give you an idea of the type of people running this study, they are keen to emphasise ‘pregnant persons’ and people who ‘identify as pregnant’ over the politically incorrect ‘pregnant women’:

Many pregnant persons in the United States are receiving messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, but data are limited on their safety in pregnancy.

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons . . . . .

But if you think this sounds pretyy absurd, look at what they say later in the study:

To identify persons who received one or both Covid-19 vaccine doses while pregnant or who became pregnant after Covid-19 vaccination, v-safe surveys include pregnancy questions for persons who do not report their sex as male. Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry.

So at pains are they to avoid using the term women that they resort to describing “persons who do not report their sex as male”! Bloody hell! Who enrols themself in a pregnancy study and puts on the form “I am not male”? If you are pregnant, you are a woman – biological fact. There shouldn’t even be a place on the form for stating whether you are male, female or ‘other’. But there you are. This is a supposedly ‘scientific’ study carried out via a smartphone survey and obviously monitored and analysed by the obsessively woke.

It doesn’t get a lot better when we start examining the actual figures either. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Of those, only 86.5% actually reported themselves as being pregnant at the time of vaccination! I kid you not:

Pregnant at time of vaccination16,522 (85.8)14,365 (87.4)30,887 (86.5)

So nearly 5000 ‘persons’ who identified as preggers didn’t actually say they were pregnant at the time of vaccination! Presumably, these were the ones who also said “I am not male”.

Anyway, it’s not this larger survey that we’re interested in; it’s the smaller V-safe pregnancy register – and a smaller subset of people within that. This is where the figures come from to make the claim that the ‘vaccines’ are ‘safe’ to administer to pregnant women.

As of March 30, 2021, the v-safe pregnancy registry call center attempted to contact 5230 persons who were vaccinated through February 28, 2021, and who identified during a v-safe survey as pregnant at or shortly after Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 912 were unreachable, 86 declined to participate, and 274 did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., were never pregnant, were pregnant but received vaccination more than 30 days before the last menstrual period, or did not provide enough information to determine eligibility). The registry enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, of whom 3719 (94.0%) identified as health care personnel. Among enrolled participants, most were 25 to 44 years of age (98.8%), non-Hispanic White (79.0%), and, at the time of interview, did not report a Covid-19 diagnosis during pregnancy (97.6%) (Table 3). Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester (1 participant was missing information to determine the timing of vaccination) (Table 3). Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

So that’s 3958 people who were enrolled, 94% of whom declared themselves as health personnel, 79% of whom were white. Sounds really representative doesn’t it? But this hardly representative small sample shrinks even more when only ‘completed pregnancies’ are considered. There were 827 in total.

Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%) were among persons who received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester.

This last paragraph is basically what the Fail relies upon to claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe on account of the fact that the rate of spontaneous abortions in this small sample of health care workers is approximately the same as that in the unvaxxed population as a whole, before Covid-19. But what it actually says is that in a small sample of vaccinated mainly Caucasian healthcare workers, 12.6% experienced spontaneous abortions and 92.3% of those occurred earlier than 13 weeks into gestation. But if we go back to the the figures above referencing the risk of spontaneous abortion, we see immediately that the majority occur in the period 0-8 weeks into gestation. So without more specific information of just when these spontaneous abortions occurred in the vaccinated women, we can’t say for sure that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, because it may be the case for instance, that most of those spontaneous abortions occurred between 8-13 weeks, in which case they would not reflect the situation in the wider populace.

What we are left with, is a very small sample of highly unrepresentative individuals surveyed over the phone being used to make the sweeping claim that the ‘vaccines’ are safe to use in all pregnant women. A study survey which ran only for 2 months and 2 weeks when a full term pregnancy is 9 months. If you’re not white, and you’re not a healthcare worker and you have half a brain, you might be forgiven for thinking that this is not sufficient ‘evidence’ to risk your own health and the life of your unborn child. Even if you fail to qualify for either of the first two categories, but still have at least half a brain, you should also think very carefully before you take the plunge and get unnecessarily ‘vaccinated’ with child on the mere say so of the media, Big Pharma and government ministers and ‘experts’.

BMJ: ‘Unprececedented levels of sickness after vaccination’

This letter from a consultant in the NHS, published by the British Medical Journal, is worth printing in full (bold mine), without comment. None needed.

“Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?

Dear Editor

I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.

Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.

Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?

Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.

Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.

I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid. Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.

What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?”

Here is another letter from GP, Dr Teck Khong. It is one of a few (very few) which actually rationalises the decision to refuse the ‘vaccine’ on sound medical, ethical and scientific grounds, in response to an article which bizarrely seeks to argue the case for staff getting the highly experimental, emergency use only, demonstrably harmful and largely unnecessary ‘vaccine’ on exactly the same grounds!

Dear Editor,

When I was offered Covid vaccination by my GP, I asked him which it was he was offering me. He thought they were all the same until I explained that there are 7 technological approaches being employed in the making of the 214 vaccine candidates that were in the pipeline or had reached emergency authorisation in December 2020. This impression of homogeneity has been allowed to be glibly glossed over in the mass immunisation programme.

Equally, it is disingenuous to give the public the impression that there are no potential long term sequelae, no more than is the dearth of information that makes the ethical requirement of informed consent a mockery given the relentless and coercive push of the mass immunisation programme.

We in the medical profession should remain not only vigilant to adverse events in the aftermath of vaccination but must also be advocates of our patients in timely intervention with the most appropriate medicines for any given clinical stage of illness presentation. Additionally, we must continue to support one another in the understanding of the pathophysiology of causally related adverse events so we are enabled to define with greater accuracy the risk factors of the vulnerable. Indeed, it would appear that many may not require vaccination while some are peculiarly susceptible not only to SARS-CoV-2 but to developing serious reactions to certain classes of the Covid vaccines.

Dr Teck Khong
Past President of BMA Leicestershire & Rutland

I can’t believe there are only 10 responses to this article so far. I think it demonstrates how reluctant NHS staff are to make their opinions public, which is not good at all. Debate has been stifled within the medical profession.

Update: 13th April 2021

The BMJ have now removed the letter from Dr. Polyakova, replacing it with this statement:

So, they allege that a letter which they published, which was presumably verified as genuine and which they do not criticise itself as being untrue, “is being used to spread misinformation” and is being “attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media”. In what way? How? By quoting in full, as I have done here and letting people make up their own minds about a letter which is pretty damn clear and leaves very little room for misinterpretation? This is just pathetic and transparent censorship of inconvenient information by BMJ, published on their own website, which they now find deeply embarrassing, so therefore have ‘unpublished’ it, using a risible excuse for so doing. It doesn’t really inspire much trust does it?

‘Our NHS’ Commits To Net Zero Carbon: Everybody Clap

NHS becomes the world’s first national health system to commit to become ‘carbon net zero’, backed by clear deliverables and milestones

You would think at a time of national crisis, with hospitals expecting to be overflowing with Covid-19 patients any time soon, following Bill and Ben, the Pol Pot Men’s (not) predicted ‘exponential’ rise in cases to 50k a day by mid October, the NHS would have other things on its mind at the moment – like the health of the nation for instance. But it seems they have ample time to pontificate about going green.

The NHS has today adopted a multiyear plan to become the world’s first carbon net zero national health system.

The commitment comes amid growing evidence of the health impacts of climate change and air pollution, and aims to save thousands of lives and hospitalisations across the country.

It’s the twin carbon evils of air pollution and climate change, conveniently lumped together for maximum effect. Ban cars, ban nasty wood burning stoves, ban nasty, smelly fossil fuel power stations, in order to make the weather better and to reduce particulate emissions, thereby making us all much healthier (and poorer, less mobile, a lot more miserable, and colder in winter). You know it makes sense – just like ‘protecting the NHS to save lives’ makes sense by kicking old people out of hospital into care homes and creating a backlog of 15 million non-Covid patients waiting for urgent treatment.

The changing climate is leading to more frequent heatwaves and extreme weather events such as flooding, including the potential spread of infectious diseases to the UK. Almost 900 people were killed by last summer’s heatwaves while nearly 18 million patients go to a GP practice in an area that exceeds the World Health Organisation’s air pollution limit.

NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens said: “2020 has been dominated by Covid-19 and is the most pressing health emergency facing us. But undoubtedly climate change poses the most profound long-term threat to the health of the nation.

“It is not enough for the NHS to treat the problems caused by air pollution and climate change – from asthma to heart attacks and strokes – we need to play our part in tackling them at source.”

It’s not enough for us to try to treat the problems caused by NHS mismanagement – we need to tackle them at source, by sacking the NHS chief executive for a start, and sacking the army of mid-level NHS managers who it seems have conspired with the government to cover up the gross mismanagement of the Covid-19 crisis and have (and still are) endangering the lives of many patients by keeping many hospitals half empty and not fully functioning.

Of course, the Marxist at the WHO welcomes the news:

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), said: “Cutting carbon emissions is essential to protect health, everywhere in the world. I welcome the leadership of the largest single health system in the world, the National Health Service in England, in committing to be carbon neutral in its own operations by 2040, and to drive emissions reductions in its suppliers and partners. Health is leading the way to a greener, safer planet.”

Dr Watts (I presume) is the big cheese responsible for this net zero 2040 target:

NHS England convened the NHS Net Zero Expert Panel in January following the launch of the Climate Assembly UK, to take and analyse evidence on how the health service can contribute to nationwide carbon reduction efforts.

Led by Dr Nick Watts, Executive Director of The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, the Panel comprised public health and climate experts as well as patient and staff representatives.

Dr Watts and his team will engage widely to support delivery, with interventions including:

new ways of delivering care at or closer to home, meaning fewer patient journeys to hospitals;

greening the NHS fleet, including working towards road-testing a zero-emissions emergency ambulance by 2022;

reducing waste of consumable products and switching to low-carbon alternatives where possible;

making sure new hospitals and buildings are built to be net-zero emissions, and;

building energy conservation into staff training and education programmes.

Ah, there you have it, you see. Dr Watts’s cunning plan to get to net zero carbon involves getting to net zero patients, by treating most ‘at home’ presumably via video link! It’s already happening, in terms of the ‘new normal’ being ushered in by Covid lockdown hysteria. Millions of patients are being denied face to face consultations and are being telephoned at home or offered consultations via zoom. A million women who would have otherwise been scanned for breast cancer have not, either because they have been scared to seek hospital treatment for fear of catching The Covid Plague or because their routine scans have been cancelled. Just think of all the emissions saved by those women not attending hospital.

Watts again:

“The NHS’s ambition is world-leading, and the first national commitment to deliver a net zero health service. It comes at a time when the UK is preparing to host the UN climate change summit next year, and demonstrates that every part of our societies need to play their part in reducing pollution and responding to climate change.”

There is a fanatical ambition in this country it seems, prevalent in our leaders, that the UK must lead the world into the immiseration of its populace by unilaterally adopting net zero carbon targets. I wonder why that is?

Is it because we are uniquely stupid? It might seem so. I leave you with this net zero grey matter comment from Kay Boycott, CEO of Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation:

Climate change poses a huge threat to lung health; with dangerous levels of pollution and extremes in hot and cold weather which can be deadly for people with lung conditions causing symptoms to flare up and putting lives at risk.