Andrew Bridgen and where the UK narrative is going?

[rachel]

You'd think I was a big royal correspondent, but really I don't think it is particularly hidden if one cares to link different things that happen around the same time.

So with regards to William...I mean, in a sense it's not his fault. Him and Harry have lived a lie most of their life. Having no other point of reference, it's got to make you very cynical...when your whole life is "let's pretend" and you can buy anyone and they'll act like performing clowns for a piece of ribbon and metal. Can you imagine the utter absurdity of every newscaster on every television channel and every article ever written propping up the lie your mum died in a car crash? That's got to separate you, make you think of the worst in people, that they are an absolute waste of space. How can you love any of the people who surround you when they have no moral standards and are prepared to go along with any lie that has your family's name on it? ...and then you are forced to interact with strangers who are so easily fooled by anything the newscasters put out, no matter how non-sensical.

Do we thing that is the face of a teenager who has just lost his mother in a horrific car crash? What does this do to a person longterm, when you can never say "guess what...". That you always have to live the lie? That no matter how much you believe and promote the concept of "Oneness", it can never exist because you are one side of a massive lie and the majority of people are in confusion on the other.

I think we can see what it did to Harry....I didn't follow it, so I'm not sure how much of it is a play, only that Harry is no longer a HRH. And that he chose to leave England and his royal duties in January 2020. I doubt there was a coincidence in that timing.

Then there was Harry throwing accusations of racism at William during the whole George Floyd, "I can't breathe" episode. That had nothing to do with Britain, yet we had London police taking the knee...and the Football Association, which has a long running well established set of rules about what can and can't be printed on the players shirts - no political campaigns or lobbying - thrown out the window, and them choosing to embarrassed themselves by getting England and all Premiership players to perform the empty gesture of taking the knee for 'Black Lives Matter' at the start of every game.

Well you know how that came to be a thing? ...Did the people at the FA just take leave of their senses? Or maybe instead, if a certain person says, "jump", they respond "how high?"

[rachel]

This is the UK Column report that begins with that Andrew Bridgen excess dead debate.

UK Column News - 19th April 2024
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-colum ... april-2024

Actually, I just noticed that as I went to find a link to another one of their occasional series, the episode is on King Charles, looks to be the fourth one in the series, I've not seen the others, but this one quite interesting retarding a statue of Charles, and that apparently he died a year after presenting it to the then Prince.

No Smoke Without Fire 9: The Green King (Part 4)

And then we have CANZUK International, kind of like the EU, but it's the Commonwealth...Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

https://www.canzukinternational.com/our-mission

CANZUK International is the leading advocacy organization promoting closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, known amongst diplomats and senior political representatives as “the CANZUK countries”. Through mutual cooperation, these four leading Commonwealth realms can build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.

As Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have shared commercial ties, geopolitical aspirations and a venerable constitutional tradition over centuries, it is envisaged by CANZUK International that these four countries should collaborate for the advancement of prosperity and opportunity in the following ways…

I cannot help noting CI = 39 = 999 or 3.

[rachel]

Danny Kruger's contribution to the debate posted up by John Campbell.

Excess deaths and data deficit

Original video link
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1 ... eacf475252
Hansard link
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... cessDeaths
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic.
In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed.
I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent.
It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths.
I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question.
The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country.
It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions.
It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed.
It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said:

The actual interesting part about that, most of the MPs seemed to be under the impression the vaccine was just for the elderly. Whatever went on behind closed doors to get a smooth run in to "two weeks to flatten the curve", I get the impression most of the faces we see as representatives were duped into thinking the vaccines were for someone else...

Let's give it the name "white coat syndrome"; defined as, the person in question is quite prepared to proclaim any amount of hardship on a group of people, because they have the white coat, and as such they are not going to be someone who suffers the consequences, they are not part of that group. Where as any person that doesn't create groups to put people in is more likely to consider the wider consequences on their family, friends and wider community. Kruger was concerned about being classed in the group "anti-vaxxer". Group think.

[rachel]

Since we are on the subject of John, this Australian lawyer reeks of being another merchant of bullshit. Let's totally give a pass to the Australian courts for being utterly corrupt and bollocks on about genetic modified licences instead. Julian Gillespie, I've posted him before on this link.

Genetically modified organisms

23 Apr 2024
Are the Covid-19 drugs produced by Pfizer and Moderna GMOs or genetically modified organisms?

https://julesonthebeach.substack.com/p/ ... entionally

https://www.givesendgo.com/GAVAZ

An Australian Federal Court case has evidence to say they are GMOs

Case File Number: VID510/2023

Dr Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Moderna Pty Ltd

Dr Fidge is an Australian medical doctor and trained pharmacist.

The case has been brought under the Australian Gene Technology Act 2000

Section 10 of Gene Technology Act defines what a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is.

First, an Organism is:

‘any biological entity’

‘capable of transferring genetic material’

The Pfizer and Moderna Covid products contain LNP-modRNA complexes

These complexes satisfy being called ‘any biological entity’ under the law

The modRNA is genetic material

The Lipid Nanoparticles or LNPs encapsulate the modRNA and together bio-distribute and transfer the LNP-modRNA complexes throughout the human body

The LNPs then transfect and transfer the modRNA cargo across cell membranes to deliver the modRNA inside cells

By moving the modRNA about the body and then into cells, the LNP-modRNA complexes physically transfer genetic material after injection

So the Organism part of the GMO definition is satisfied by the physical mode of transport of the LNP-modRNA complexes

The next part of the GMO legal definition is – a Genetically Modified Organism is:

an organism that has been modified by gene technology

The Gene Technology part requires showing:

any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.

Pfizer and Moderna admit they modify genes to create modified RNA or modRNA for their products

The MHRA, EMA, FDA, and TGA when approving the Covid-19 products recognised Pfizer and Moderna use modified nucleosides for the modRNA

In the TGA Australian approval for Pfizer for example, the TGA notes:

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2 mRNA (tradename Comirnaty), comprises a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2.

Pfizer and Moderna create their modified nucleosides in the lab using recombinant techniques

So the Gene Technology part of the GMO legal definition is also satisfied

This means the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 products satisfy the Australian legal definitions for being properly called GMOs

Under the Australian Gene Technology Act anyone who ‘deals’ with a GMO in Australia must be regulated under a GMO licence

Pfizer and Moderna failed to apply for GMO licences in Australia

Dealing with GMOs in Australia without a GMO licence is a serious criminal offense under Section 32 of the Gene Technology Act 2000

In fact the boss of Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, or OGTR, recently admitted to an Australian Senate Committee that both the Pfizer and Moderna products are GMOs

No Australian was told by the OGTR or the TGA that they were being asked to receive Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs when getting a Covid-19 injection

This is not just an Australian GMO legal issue

In the United Kingdom Genetically Modified Organisms are dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and specifically Section 106 under Part VI

The United Kingdom legal definitions for what is regarded as a GMO is almost identical to the Australian legal definitions we just looked at

Like in Australia, the United Kingdom requires new GMOs to be subjected to an extensive Risk Assessment

Even after an extensive Risk Assessment the United Kingdom Secretary of State still has to provide a Consent before a GMO can be introduced into the United Kingdom

The MHRA knew United Kingdom GMO legal definitions applied to Pfizer and Moderna because it is their job to know and they have GMO experts

But both Pfizer and Moderna applied for marketing approvals under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 which exempted them from having to undergo a GMO Risk Assessment for their Covid-19 products

And because of that exemption neither company had to mention on the Product Information that their products contain GMOs even though they satisfy the legal definitions