https://www.globalresearch.ca/condoleezza-rice-robert-gates-demand-usg-military-involvement-ukraine/5804222
Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates Demand USG Military Involvement in Ukraine
Really, these people can’t help it. They are psychopaths, neocons, and pathological liars.
The latest demand by neocons that Russia must be wiped off the map is locked up behind a paywall at the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post. In order to read what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote, I used a browser text reader to bypass the paywall.
Rice and Gates argue:
The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken—before it is too late.
In other words, this must happen prior to Russia concluding its SMO and its eradication of neo-Nazis elevated and empowered after the USG staged a 2014 coup in Kyiv.
For Putin, defeat is not an option… He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago.
When Rice and Gates claim Russia intends to “move west,” they are exploiting a Big Lie—invented by the USG and telegraphed by a corporate propaganda media—that Russia intends to occupy the whole of Ukraine, and who knows, possibly Europe and maybe the whole world!
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.
The Russian SMO objectives say nothing about conquering all of Ukraine or the absurd lie that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Empire. Rice and Gates know this. They are repeating falsehoods because Big Lies must be repeated over and over in order for lies to become faux “facts” (that do not require corroboration or evidence) similar to the way the Gulf of Tonkin lie resulted in the Vietnam War and three million dead people in Southeast Asia.
There is but one “messianic mission”—that of total neoliberal conquest, domination, and neutralization of any nation that does not play by “rules-based” authoritarianism.
Gates and Rice cite Zbigniew Brzeziński on Ukraine. His mention provides an opportunity. Brzeziński, the architect of intervention in Afghanistan and a Russophobe, wrote at length about the objectives of the global financial elite.
The three grand imperatives of imperial [neoliberal] geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.”)
The “barbarians” are those in opposition to the “geostrategy” of psychopaths.
The lesson of Moammar Gadaffi, raped with a knife, and brutally assassinated, is that if you refuse to participate in the neoliberal game of theft and murder, you will be eliminated, and gruesomely so.
In the past, this was accomplished in the dark by covert means. Now it is performed at high noon, with the sun blazing above, so all can see and take stock. The message sent: either accept the fiat dollar-dominated financial swindle or be turned out as a corpse.
Rice and Gates lay out what they consider unacceptable.
Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.
Really, these people can’t help it. They are pathological liars.
The Ukronazis have yet to realize a “breakthrough and success” in preventing Russia’s SMO from terminating their murderous ethnic cleansing agenda.
It is now virtually impossible for Ukraine’s decimated armed forces to push Russia out of the eastern and southern regions of the country. Donbas is now part of the Russian Federation. It is the will of the people living there who have suffered eight years of Ukronazi bombardment and terrorism. Gates and Rice have nothing to say about that ongoing war crime. For them, the lives of ethnic Russians are immaterial. The “rules” demand they be terrorized, executed, tortured, and raped.
The solution is simple, according to Rice and Gates. Forget about a negotiated settlement, a peace deal. According to the neocon duo, defeating Russia is a simple matter—it requires battle tanks, more artillery, Lockheed Martin HIMARS, Patriot missiles, drones, fighting vehicles, etc., thrown into the cauldron. Not to worry, though. Future generations will pay down the massive debt incurred—if there are future generations.
Let’s face it—our “elder statesmen” (and women) are conscienceless psychopaths. They are addicted to war and its organized mass murder to achieve globalist political ends. They are unable or unwilling to accept that by far most people on the planet are disgusted by their threats, self-serving “rules,” forever wars, and insistence on calling the shots, never mind how many people must die.
Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.
The above quote is riddled with lies.
1914, 1941, 2001. Indeed, unprovoked aggression.
If not for the economic warfare imposed on Japan by FDR and the USG (similar to the economic warfare now waged against Russia and China), the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor and FDR’s “day of infamy” would have never occurred. FDR and the USG would not have had an excuse to enter another disastrous war, a hidious war concluded with the use of atomic weapons.
If not for the financial support of Wall Street and German industrialists, Hitler would have never come to power, and war in Europe would have been avoided. Harsh “war reparations” imposed on a defeated Germany at Versailles following WWI resulted in the destruction of the German economy and the rise of radical fascism, adopted from Mussolini’s Italian version.
France and Pax Britannica wanted a war to stop a unified Germany from embarking on colonial ventures. France and Britain, previous rivals, came together to stop Germany and Russia from partaking in the spoils of imperialism. All it took was the assassination of a Hapsburg archduke and his wife to get things rolling.
The German colonial empire held East Africa, Togoland, Southwest Africa, and the Cameroons. German Far East territories consisted of New Guinea, Samoa, the Chinese leasehold of Kiaochow, and a number of small islands.
The effort to roll back the German empire resulted in more than 15 million dead. It also precipitated a Bolshevik revolution that claimed five million lives during the Red Terror and the Russian civil war. In addition, another five million starved to death during famines and purges under Stalin.
According to the late Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Wall Street and the City of London assisted in funding the Five-Year Plans of Lenin. This was accomplished through finance, technology and industrial transfers, and technical assistance.
Winston Churchill is now cited when the state and its media talk about the Man in Green, the hapless president of a corrupt failed state overtaken by psychopaths, a state that will not rest until ethnic Russians (and Jews, Roma, and other resented minorities) in Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine are either dead or ethnically cleansed.
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.
Churchill was an unrepentant psychopath, a racist, and a war criminal. He suggested aircraft should use “machine-gun fire or bombs” against Irish revolutionaries in 1920. Churchill advocated using poison gas on rebellious Arabs, what he described as “uncivilized tribes.”
In Afghanistan, he demanded “all who resist will be killed without quarter,” because, as he insisted with racist arrogance, the Pashtuns need to “recognize the superiority of race.”
“We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation,” he bragged about the crimes committed by the British Empire in Afghanistan.
He was also responsible for massacring protesters in Athen, excluding Iran from its own oil reserves (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company refused to pay Iran its share of dividends, thus resulting in the nationalization of oil by Iran, followed by a Brit-USG orchestrated coup overthrowing the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953).
Then there was Britain’s “declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalized racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population,” notes Crimes of Britain.
150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.
Palestine, South Africa, China, and “British Guiana,” all suffered the criminal behavior of Winston Churchill and the British Empire.
It makes perfect sense Rice and Gates, along with the USG and its war propaganda media, put Zelenskyy on a pedestal along with the racist war criminal Churchill.
It’s said the Man in Green cannot possibly be a neo-Nazi because he is Jewish. This is nonsense to be consumed by the cognitively handicapped and incurious headline skimmers.
Zelenskyy has closed down political opposition; his neo-Nazi brownshirts kill activists, dissidents, and journalists; the Russian Orthodox Church was forcibly shuttered, told to leave the country, and Ukrainians attending services are now deemed traitors. Add to this the wanton murder of fellow Ukrainians for the crime of their heritage, culture, and language, and you have a man paralleling Churchill, although not with the vile intelligence of Churchill.
Rice and Gates will not rest until the USG and NATO are fully involved, with soldiers on the ground in Ukraine, and participating in killing Russians and threatening the national security of Russia.
Putin has repeated what Russia will do if it faces an existential threat, the sort of threat Gates, Rice, the neocons, Biden, and practically the entire USG are calling for. It will undoubtedly result in an endgame none of them want.
....
https://www.globalresearch.ca/madness-us-militarism/5804274
The Madness of U.S. Militarism
Where are today's Eisenhowers, Butlers, and Shoups?
As a teenager in the 1970s, I recall talking to my dad about fears of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. My dad took a broad view, suggesting that if U.S. and Soviet leaders were stupid enough to blow each other to smithereens, a billion Chinese people would be left to pick up the slack and move the world forward.
My dad was right about many things, but what he didn’t realize was that U.S. nuclear war plans (known as SIOPs) often called for the elimination of the USSR and China, even if China had had no involvement in events leading up to the war. Basically, the ruling U.S. nuclear war philosophy was: If you’re red, you’re dead.
Daniel Ellsberg wrote about this in his book, The Doomsday Machine. As I wrote in my review of that book:
“U.S. nuclear war plans circa 1960 envisioned a simultaneous attack on the USSR and China that would generate 600 million deaths after six months. As Ellsberg notes, that is 100 Holocausts. This plan was to be used even if China hadn’t directly attacked the U.S., i.e. the USSR and China were lumped together as communist bad guys who had to be eliminated together in a general nuclear war. Only one U.S. general present at the briefing objected to this idea: David M. Shoup, a Marine general and Medal of Honor winner, who also later objected to the Vietnam War.”
What’s truly startling is that only one U.S. military leader present, General David Shoup, objected to the SIOP that would lead to the death of 600 million people in six months. A decade later, scientists learned that such a huge nuclear exchange would likely cause a nuclear winter that would kill billions due to famine. Truly, the (few) living would envy the (many) dead.
Mention of David Shoup’s name leads me to this fine article: “The Marine Corps legend who tried to stop the Vietnam War,” by James Clark. Shoup was a remarkable American who helped to prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 from escalating to a nuclear war. Once he retired from the Marines, he became a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and militarism in general, a worthy successor to General Smedley Butler.
The Joint Chiefs in 1961. General Shoup is on the far right, next to General Curtis LeMay, architect of SAC and of a possible nuclear doomsday
I urge you to read Clark’s article on Shoup, who quotes Shoup’s hard-won wisdom here:
About the Vietnam War, Shoup said “I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.”
In the Atlantic Monthly, Shoup, echoing the warning of Eisenhower about the military-industrial complex, wrote bluntly about America’s war culture and its anti-democratic nature:
Somewhat like a religion, the basic appeals of anti-Communism, national defense and patriotism provide the foundation for a powerful creed upon which the defense establishment can build, grow, and justify its cost. More so than many large bureaucratic organizations, the defense establishment now devotes a large share of its efforts to self-perpetuation, to justifying its organizations, to preaching its doctrines, to self-maintenance and management.
You would think that a Medal of Honor recipient who’d proved his bravery and patriotism at Tarawa during World War II would be immune from charges of being unpatriotic or weak on defense, but you’d be wrong.
Where are today’s Shoups among the U.S. military brass? Where are the leaders who are against genocidal nuclear war and who are willing to speak out against it? Where are the leaders who reject a new cold war with China and Russia? Where are the leaders with the courage to advocate for peace whenever possible in place of more and more war?
Have we fallen so far under the spell of militarism that America no longer produces leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Smedley Butler, and David Shoup, generals who truly knew war, despised it, and wanted above all to put an end to it?
....
https://www.globalresearch.ca/andrew-bridgen-suspended-conservative-mp-criticising-covid-vaccines/5804436
Covid Vaccine: “This is the Biggest Crime against Humanity since the Holocaust.”
....Three months ago, one of the most eminent and trusted cardiologists, a man with an international reputation, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, published peer-reviewed research that concluded that there should be a complete cessation of the administration of the Covid mRNA vaccines for everyone because of clear and robust data of significant harms and little ongoing benefit. He described the roll-out of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine as “perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science, attack on democracy, damage to population health, and erosion of trust in medicine that we will witness in our lifetime”.
Interestingly, there has so far not been a single rebuttal of Dr. Malhotra’s findings in the scientific literature, despite their widespread circulation and the fact that they made international news.
Before I state the key evidence-based facts that make a clear case for complete suspension of these emergency use authorisation vaccines, it is important to appreciate the key psychological barrier that has prevented these facts from being acknowledged by policymakers and taken up by the U.K. mainstream media. That psychological phenomenon is wilful blindness. It is when human beings – including, in this case, institutions – turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, reduce anxiety, avoid conflict and protect their prestige and reputations. There are numerous examples of that in recent history, such as the BBC and Jimmy Savile, the Department of Health and Mid Staffs, Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, and the medical establishment and the OxyContin scandal, which was portrayed in the mini-series “Dopesick”. It is crucial to understand that the longer wilful blindless to the truth continues, the more unnecessary harm it creates.
Here are the cold, hard facts about the mRNA vaccines and an explanation of the structural drivers that continue to be barriers to doctors and the public receiving independent information to make informed decisions about them. Since the rollout in the U.K. of the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine, we have had almost half a million Yellow Card reports of adverse effects from the public. That is unprecedented. It is more than all the yellow card reports of the past 40 years combined. An extraordinary rate of side effects that are beyond mild have been reported in many countries across the world that have used the Pfizer vaccine, including, of course, the United States.
Those who feel that they have been damaged by the vaccine should of course have the full support of their elected Members of Parliament and the NHS. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed by a journalist from a major news outlet who said that he was being bombarded by calls from people who said that they were vaccine-harmed but unable to get the support they wanted from the NHS. He also said that he thought this would be the biggest scandal in medical history in this country. Disturbingly, he also said that he feared that if he were to mention that in the newsroom in which he worked, he would lose his job. We need to break this conspiracy of silence.
It is instructive to note that, according to pharmaco-vigilance analysis, the serious adverse effects reported by the public are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events occurring within the population. The gold standard of understanding the benefit and harm of any drug is the randomised controlled trial. It was the randomised controlled trial conducted by Pfizer that led to U.K. and international regulators approving the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine for administration in the first place.
Contrary to popular belief, that original trial of approximately 40,000 participants did not show any statistically significant reduction in death as a result of vaccination, but it did show a 95% relative risk reduction in the development of infection against the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual was only 0.84%. In other words, from its own data, Pfizer revealed that we needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. The World Health Organisation and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have previously stated and made it clear that it is an ethical responsibility that medical information is communicated to patients in absolute benefit and absolute risk terms, which is to protect the public from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.
Very quickly, through mutations of the original strain – indeed, within a few months – Covid fortunately became far less lethal. It quickly became apparent that there was no protection against infection at all from the vaccine, and we were left with the hope that perhaps these vaccines would protect us from serious illness and death. So what does the most reliable data tell us about the best-case scenario of individual benefit from the vaccine against dying from COVID-19? Real-world data from the U.K. during the three-month wave of Omicron at the beginning of this year reveals that we would need to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one death. The number needed to be vaccinated to prevent a death in any younger age group was absolutely enormous.
Of course, it is important that the Government justify why they are rolling out a vaccine to any cohort of people, particularly our children. He will recall that, in the Westminster Hall debate, we questioned the validity of vaccinating children who have minimal risk, if a risk at all, from the virus when there is a clear risk from the vaccine. I will again report on evidence from America later in my speech about those risks, particularly to young children.
In other words, the benefits of the vaccine are close to non-existent. Beyond the alarming Yellow Card reports, the strongest evidence of harm comes from the gold standard, highest possible quality level of data. A re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own randomised controlled trials using the mRNA technology, published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, revealed a rate of serious adverse events of one in 800 individuals vaccinated. These are events that result in hospitalisation or disability, or that are life changing. Most disturbing of all, however, is that those original trials suggested someone was far more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine than to be hospitalised with the ancestral, more lethal strain of the virus. These findings are a smoking gun suggesting the vaccine should likely never have been approved in the first place.
In the past, vaccines have been completely withdrawn from use for a much lower incidence of serious harm. For example, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 for causing Guillain-Barré syndrome in only one in 100,000 adults, and in 1999 the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn for causing a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting one in 10,000. With the covid mRNA vaccine, we are talking of a serious adverse event rate of at least one in 800, because that was the rate determined in the two months when Pfizer actually followed the patients following their vaccination. Unfortunately, some of those serious events, such as heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism will result in death, which is devastating for individuals and the families they leave behind. Many of these events may take longer than eight weeks post vaccination to show themselves.
An Israeli paper published in Nature’s scientific reports showed a 25% increase in heart attack and cardiac arrest in 16 to 39-year-olds in Israel. Another report from Israel looked at levels of myocarditis and pericarditis in people who had had covid and those who had not. It was a study of, I think, 1.2 million who had not had Covid and 740,000 who had had it. The incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis was identical in both groups. This would tell the House that whatever is causing the increase in heart problems now, it is not due to having been infected with COVID-19.
It was accepted by a peer-reviewed medical journal that one of the country’s most respected and decorated general practitioners, the honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association and the Labour party’s doctor of the year, Dr. Kailash Chand, likely suffered a cardiac arrest and was tragically killed by the Pfizer vaccine six months after his second dose, through a mechanism that rapidly accelerates heart disease. In fact, in the U.K. we have had an extra 14,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in 2021, compared with 2020, following the vaccine rollout. Many of these will undoubtedly be because of the vaccine, and the consequences of this mRNA jab are clearly serious and common.
Ministers may understandably wish to defer the responsibility for a decision such as withdrawing vaccines from the population to regulators such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or in America the Food and Drug Administration. Historically, when undertaking the approval of any drug, the regulators ultimately end up relying on the summary results from the drug companies in their sponsored trials, where the raw data is kept commercially confidential. Furthermore, the MHRA has a huge financial conflict of interest, receiving 86% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate. In effect, we have the poacher paying the gamekeeper.
In a recent investigation by the BMJ into the financial conflicts of interest of the drug regulators, the sociologist Donald Light said: “It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data.”
He went on to say that doctors and patients “must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding”.
Similarly, another investigation revealed that members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had huge financial links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation running into billions of pounds. Ministers, the media and the public know that the foundation is heavily invested in pharmaceutical industry stocks.
Unfortunately, the catastrophic mistake over the approval, and the coercion associated with this emergency-use authorisation medical intervention, are not an anomaly, and in many ways this could have been predicted by the structural failures that allowed it to occur in the first place. Those shortcomings are rooted in the increasingly unchecked visible and invisible power of multinational corporations – in this case, Big Pharma. We can start by acknowledging that the drug industry has a fiduciary obligation to produce profit for its shareholders, but it has no fiduciary obligation to provide the right medicines for patients.
The real scandal is that those with a responsibility to patients and with scientific integrity – namely, doctors, academic institutions and medical journals – collude with the industry for financial gain. Big Pharma exerts its power by capturing the political environment through lobbying and the knowledge environment through funding university research and influencing medical education, preference shaping through capture of the media, financing think-tanks and so on. In other words, the public relations machinery of Big Pharma excels in subterfuge and engages in smearing and de-platforming those who call out its manipulations. No doubt it will be very busy this evening.
It is no surprise, when there is so much control by an entity that has been described as ‘psychopathic’ for its profit-making conduct, that one analysis suggests that third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer is the side-effects of prescribed medications, which were mostly avoidable. Because of those systemic failures, doctors often receive biased information, deliberately manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry, which exaggerates the benefits and the safety of their drugs. Furthermore, the former editor of the BMJ, Richard Smith, claims that research misconduct is rife and is not effectively being tackled in the U.K. institutions, stating: “Something is rotten in… British medicine and has been for a long time.”
It has also been brought to my attention by a whistleblower from a very reliable source that one of these institutions is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries. It is covering this up for fear that it may lose funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The lead of that cardiology research department has a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation, and I am disappointed to say that he has sent out non-disclosure agreements to his research team to ensure that this important data never sees the light of day. That is an absolute disgrace. Systemic failure in an over-medicated population also contributes to huge waste of British taxpayers’ money and increasing strain on the NHS.
We need an inquiry into the influence of Big Pharma on medications and our NHS. That is been called for many occasions and by some very influential people, including prominent physicians such as the former president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to our late Queen, Sir Richard Thompson. On separate occasions in the last few years those calls have been supported and covered in the Daily Mail, the Guardian and, most recently, the i newspaper.
We are fighting not just for principles of ethical, evidence-based medical practices, but for our democracy. The future health of the British public depends on us tackling head-on the cause of this problem and finding meaningful solutions. In 2015 a commentary by Richard Houghton, Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature “may simply be untrue”. He wrote that “science has taken a turn toward darkness”, and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system.
That first step could start this evening with this debate. It starts here, with the Vaccine Minister and the Government ensuring in the first instance an immediate and complete suspension of any more Covid vaccines with their use of mRNA technology. Silence on this issue is more contagious than the virus itself, and now so should courage be. I would implore all the scientists, medics, nurses and those in the media who know the truth about the harm these vaccines are causing to our people to speak out.
We have already sacrificed far too many of our citizens on the altar of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed. Last week the MHRA authorised those experimental vaccines for use in children as young as six months. In a Westminster Hall debate some weeks ago, I quoted a report by the Journal of the American Medical Association studying the effect of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination on children under five years of age. It showed that one in [500] had an adverse event that resulted in hospitalisation, and symptoms that lasted longer than 90 days.
As the data clearly shows to anyone who wants to look at it, the mRNA vaccines are not safe, not effective and not necessary. I implore the Government to halt their use immediately. As I have demonstrated and as the data clearly shows, the Government’s current policy on the mRNA vaccines is on the wrong side of medical ethics, it is on the wrong side of scientific data, and ultimately it will be on the wrong side of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment