Pick of the week: 4 March

Some links we feel are worth your time…

All HART articles also on Substack. Please consider a PAID SUBSCRIPTION so we can continue our work. Comments are open so you can join in the conversation.

🔗 Policy Review: The nature of the events of the Covid era PANDATA, 1st March 2024

HART has repeatedly argued against there having been a “pandemic” using any reasonable definition of the word. In their latest article, PANDA (PANDATA) go a step further, questioning the entire basis for the “pandemic planning industry”. The ‘global solutions’ soap box is dangerously authoritarian in flavour and it is worrying how little the general public seem to know or worry about the implications of this rising tide of health dictatorship. We welcome those groups and individuals who continue to point out that actually the entire ‘problem’ may have been manufactured simply as an excuse to impose a more and more restrictive existence on an unsuspecting public.

🔗 If You Think Parliament Will Get Any Opportunity to Scrutinise the WHO Pandemic Treaty, Think Again Shiraz Akram, Thinking Coalition, in the Daily Sceptic, 20th February 2024

Shiraz Akram was lead author back in December 2022 of an open letter to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee,

the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. HART was a signatory alongside The Thinking Coalition, Time for Recovery, Not our Future, the Together Declaration and the Freedom Alliance. The letter highlightlighted the lack of parliamentary scrutiny on the proposed amendments to WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and changes to the International Health Regulations, with their potential huge ramifications for sovereignty.  Perhaps not surprisingly, he received no reply. Since that time, he and others have continued trying to raise public awareness. An e-petition garnered 156,000 signatures leading to a debate in the House of Commons in April 2023, but despite another recent debate, we are still no nearer to a commitment on proper parliamentary scrutiny. He and several HART members also attended a meeting in Westminster last month with a panel of international speakers equally concerned about the situation.  Shiraz’s article is a timely reminder of the dangers of these proposals and some of the more arcane parliamentary rules! It is still not a foregone conclusion but time for action is running out.

🔗 The Primodos Scandal – Part 6: Judgement Day Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, Trust the Evidence Substack, 27th February 2024

If you haven’t heard of the Primodos Scandal, this is well worth reading.  This high dose oestrogen was used launched in the 1950s as a pregnancy test – take it and bleed, then you weren’t pregnant, take it and don’t bleed and the pregnancy is fine. Well that is until the baby is born months later with genital tract malformations or maybe seems fine at birth but develops genital tract cancers in early adult life. The same drug was being used in Germany and Japan as an abortifacient ie to intentionally procure a ‘medical’ abortion. The link to abnormalities was first described in 1967, but the victims of harm are still awaiting justice 55 years later. It was one of the three treatment disasters covered by Baroness Cumberlege in her damning report ‘First Do No Harm’ which was scathing of the defensive role of both the NHS and the MHRA. A recent debate in the House of Commons brought by Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi, chair of the Hormone Pregnancy Test APPG, was attended by significantly more MPs than Andrew Bridgen’s debate on Excess deaths and included approximately 30 MPs in a 3-hour debate recounting harrowing reports of harm from their constituents.

Only major reform to the MHRA, both in structure and funding, can start to reduce the average time between recognition of a drug’s harms and its subsequent withdrawal, let alone compensation of those harmed. 

🔗 The Hallet [sic] Inquiry: lockdowns are a failed experiment, according to the Welsh First Minister Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, Trust the Evidence Substack, 4th March 2024

Carl & Tom have returned to the Inquiry which is snailing its way around the four countries of the UK. The latest comments from Mark Drakeford showed a surprising honesty when he described lockdowns as a “failed experiment” and further, “in hindsight perhaps they weren’t the best idea”. As the authors point out, An experiment is a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery and test a hypothesis. 

However, at the time, lockdowns were a policy enforced by law.  

Mark Drakeford announced in May 2020 that the maximum fine for repeated breaches of the lockdown rules in Wales rose from £120 to £1,920. Up to 8 June, 2,282 Fixed Penalty Notices were issued for – as it seems now – failing to participate in an experiment. People in Wales were twice as likely as English to be fined for breaking lockdown rules—some experiment.”

Worth reading in full.

Please follow and like us:
Visit Us