top of page

Daily Top 10: 08/04/2021

1. The British Medical Journal are trying to bully, guilt and coerce the medical professionals into taking the needless vaccines in this article. I would like to see the private funding of all the contributors of this article please!

This is the first part of the article:

“The ethical case is grounded in the professional duty healthcare workers have to protect their patients: do no harm. Although everyone has the right to decide whether to take a vaccine or not, patients (often elderly or unwell, and therefore vulnerable to covid-19) also have fundamental rights to be protected from avoidable harm. When these principles come into conflict, actions that safeguard the best interests of patients must be favoured.

“The evidence on covid-19 vaccines is clear: they are safe and they work. Some are understandably concerned about a lack of long term data, but the importance of this can be overstated. For other vaccines, mild side effects can occur in the first few months but serious and longer term problems are largely theoretical for most. On the other hand, the clinical risks of covid-19 (including long covid) are real, especially for those working in healthcare, where the chance of encountering an infectious disease is relatively high.

“Vaccines don’t just protect you and your patients, but the wider population too. Hospitals and community practices are amplifiers of transmission: one or two cases can rapidly proliferate. Outbreaks in institutional settings must therefore be prevented. The best way to do this is through vaccination. This isn’t just important for covid-19. When health facilities are hit by outbreaks, the disruption and reorganisation of local systems and public reluctance to seek care carries far reaching implications for health.

“In the UK, most healthcare workers offered a jab have rolled up their sleeves, but the rate of uptake in some groups, including ethnic minority staff, is low. There is now a legitimate debate taking place on whether to make vaccination mandatory for health workers. If the voluntary approach fails, more restrictive measures may be justified, in which case you would have to have a vaccine.”

Read the whole article if you have time.

Here's a fantastic response in the comments:

"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?"

2. Cinemas show more interest in liberty, bravery and common sense than our Government by refusing to enforce "vaccine passports."

3. More evidence the EU was planning an implementation of vaccine passports before the pandemic. This is the "COMMITTEE ON A EUROPEAN VACCINE INITIATIVE Knowledge is the best vaccine 2017-2018." All the companies and NGOs we've come to know very well this last year sponsored this document and currently stand to make billions and billions of dollars - what luck! In 2017 they were already creating plans to "combat vaccine hesitancy," I wonder how they knew there would be vaccine hesitancy in the immediate future? Perhaps they knew of an upcoming pandemic?

4. A German leak that those suspected of dying from the covid-19 vaccines are not allowed to have post mortems carried out in Stuttgart. The leak is from a fax from the Attorney General Achim Brauneisen. This is the original document. This is the english translation and explanation. Read it!

5. The IMF recent blog confirms it's partnership with the WEF agenda and state they are transforming the economy. Remember voting for this? I don't.

"Policymakers will have to strike a balance between providing fiscal support now, on the one hand, and keeping debt at a manageable level on the other. Some countries may need to start rebuilding fiscal buffers to lessen the impact of future shocks. Developing credible multiyear frameworks for revenue and spending will therefore be vital, especially where debt is high and financing tight.

Many low-income countries, even after doing their part, face challenges in dealing with the pandemic in the near term and for development over time, as indicated in recent IMF research. They will need additional assistance, including through grants, concessional financing, the extension of the Debt Service Suspension Initiative, or, in some cases, debt treatment under the Common Framework.

Done properly, fiscal policy will enable a green, digital, and inclusive transformation of the post-pandemic economy. To make this a reality, governments should prioritize:

  • Investing in health systems (including expanded vaccinations), education, and infrastructure. A coordinated green public investment push by economies that can afford it can foster global growth. Projects—ideally with the participation of the private sector—would aim at mitigating the effects of climate change and facilitating digitalization.

  • Helping people get back to work and change jobs, if needed, through hiring subsidies, enhanced training, and job search programs.

  • Strengthening social protection systems to help counter inequality and poverty, and reinvigorating efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

  • Reforming domestic and international tax systems to promote greater fairness and protect the environment. To help meet pandemic-related needs, a temporary COVID-19 recovery contribution levied on high incomes is an option. Over the medium term, revenue collection should be bolstered, especially in in low-income developing countries, which could help finance development needs.

  • Cutting wasteful spending, strengthening the transparency of spending initiatives, and improving governance practices to reap the full benefits of fiscal support.

In sum, governments have gone to exceptional lengths to shore up their economies, but further work is needed to get ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic, provide flexible yet targeted support now, adjust when a recovery is firmly in place, and set the stage for a greener, fairer, and more durable recovery."

I would hope you can understand that under this new economic model, they pick and choose what businesses are allowed, and which are not. This is not a wise position for us to be put in. This "public-private partnership" they go on about is consolidation of power to a few corporations and multinationals. There's no Left and Right wing any more. Stop being distracted with that political nonsense.

6. There is a new proposal is being put forward called - Infinite Horizon Model with Money. This is a rough summary:

"The model is designed to focus on the role of government policy in determining the nature of the equilibrium. Equilibrium is defined as a sequence of prices, interest rates, and consumption for which the supply and demand for goods and bonds are equal to zero in each period. The characterization of maximal sequences is then combined with the conditions for equilibrium to provide a characterization of the equilibrium sequences in terms of a second-order difference equation in real and nominal money balances and a set of transversality conditions on the sequence of government transfer payments and borrowing. The key to analyzing the models is to recognize that besides affecting the relative price of future versus present consumption, the money rate of interest acts as a tax on consumption. Except for a few examples, the question of the existence of equilibrium for a given sequence of government policies is generally ignored in this chapter. The chapter focuses on the general structure of model."

The Bank of Canada released a report yesterday discussing their investigations into this new model. It made no sense to me, but it is being seriously considered. As we know. the WEF have been discussing that the Governments need to lead the economies in the new economic system, not the private sector (what it really means is the public-private partnership controlling us by data, CO2 emissions and AI.)

7. The Pharmaceutical cartel own the US Government. As well as every country's health department.

"Spending on pharmaceutical industry lobbying reached a record amount in 2020, at more than $306 million, compared to $299 million in 2019.

  • There were 1,502 pharmaceutical lobbyists in 2020, 63.58% of whom were former government employees.

  • The top pharmaceutical lobbyist in 2020 was the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which spent $25.9 million, making them the third top lobbying spender overall.

  • The marketing of prescription drugs, health services, laboratory tests and disease awareness rose to $29.9 billion in 2016.

  • The Wellcome Trust is a top funder of health research globally and has been a major player in the COVID-19 pandemic, even though it’s invested heavily in companies making COVID-19 treatments."

8. The UN released an article yesterday being concerned about vaccine hesitancy for a vaccine against a virus you will recover from 99.98% of the time.

Here's an excerpt:

"More than 181 Member States voiced support for the text entitled “The Political Declaration on Equitable Global Access to COVID-19 Vaccines”, which was unveiled at an informal meeting of the Assembly on Friday.

“We strongly believe that ‘no one can be safe, until everyone is safe’, and that equitable and affordable access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines must be ensured to have a speedy recovery and contribute to putting an end to the pandemic”, the text said.

“We pledge to treat COVID-19 vaccination as a global public good by ensuring affordable, equitable and fair access to vaccines for all.”

While committing to solidarity and intensified international cooperation, countries expressed concern that despite international agreements and initiatives, the “distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is still uneven worldwide, both among and within countries”.

“We are deeply concerned about the low availability of COVID-19 vaccines in low and middle income countries”, they said, calling for a “significant increase” in support for contracts provided by the UN-backed equitable shots initiative, COVAX, with vaccine producers, and not limiting the availability of vaccines as a result of competing bilateral contracts. "

9. Chatham House - one of the biggest internationalist trend setters and hub of the globalist cabal outline the plan for the future of cities, aptly named: After Covid, the city’s rebirth

10. Dr Mike Yeadon talks to James Delingpole saying he suspects these vaccines are unsafe and are intentionally being used to transform global society into a totalitarian oligarchy:

bottom of page