Lost learning
JCVI "potential harms"
Yellow card reporting and vaccine deaths⚠️
Blurb done, letter here
"Purely political and deeply unethical"
Quote Paton that vaccination will cause more disruption than just letting the virus rip
Paton is a HART member and has written for Spectator and Brexit Central
As predicted JCVI Finns recently comments are quoted and taken out of context by UsForThem to support their point
Suggestion from Yellow Cards that vaccines are killing people
Source Christopher Chope speaking in Parliament, wonder where he gets his information from...
Oh right he's being briefed by HART and looks like he will raise their questions in the House of Commons
Notice Graham Brady is phoning this lot for chats about whats going on behind the scenes in Parliament
And now UsForThem quote him as an independent source alongside Paton
So this has gone out to the CRG MPs and around 60 who have openly supported UsForThem including Halfon.
Interesting to see who asks which questions, I assume they also got the HART JCVI letter
Letter to JCVI near end of August I think
Bingo questions
Other signatories.
Oh look Tess Lawrie of British Ivermectin Research Development which is working with FLCCC by far right America's Frontline Doctors headed by Capitol Hill Insurrectionist Simone Gold
For more on AFD, BIRD, FLCCC and HART and Ivermectin⬇️
So the Safer to Wait campaign whose leaflets are being handed out outside school gates, was set up by HART and UsForThem members with Ros Jones being one of the main organisers
Links to FLCCC and BIRD suggesting ivermectin as alternative to vax for kids
Many of the Safer to Wait crowd also involved in Together Declaration which includes Hoar, Kulldorff, Clare Fox etc interesting company for the Baroness to keep
If she's so unhappy about this, why associate with this crowd?
Consequence of treating a pandemic like another culture war is that they've taken a tribal approach, Spectator and Spiked both platformsd GBD as real experts, now HART get lots of media time
This led Media and MPs to blowing dog whistles for this lot⬇️
In particular TalkRadio, Telegraph, Daily Express, GB news, even outlets who should know better have let UsForThem on. They are all part of the same network from UfT to GBD to Yeadon
Who right in the middle of Government policy is Brookes interacting with?
Most the media seem more concerned with platforming cranks than finding facts and holding people to account
🧵Oh what a suprise, Together Declaration are part of this network, and members of the Exec like UsForThem founder Kingsley accused anyone who said they were a hard right political project of smears and defamation
2/ Founded as anti-lockdown but going straight into anti-vax talking points, Together then switched to anti Ulez, anti net zero heading towards climate change denial
3/ They have been one of the main groups peddling nonsense about the WHO pandemic treaty, starting two years ago with Farage then becoming the leading face of a new astroturf group
While much of the media claims the inquiry is accomplishing nothing, its slowly revealed the gov knew transmission occurs in schools and causes harm to a not insignificant number of children
2/ The bill gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of interests that can access your childrens data through secondary legislation avoiding parliamentary scrutiny
3/ The Bill also permits 14-18 year olds to be targeted with political marketing
3/ More and more evidence emerges of the long term harms caused by covid, but the UK govs preferred paedatricians continue to peddle claims that with enough infections children will develop lasting immunity
Said this would occur after 1 infection, what is it now? 5? 7? 10?🤷♂️
🧵Cass Review
Not had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but have had time to look through the main points
What positives can be taken from it? The time spent on waiting lists was identified as a major issue, all children's services are massively underfunded at the moment
2/ I would like to think that this will lead to an investment in all children's support services like CAHMS, more pastoral support in schools etc
That would be a positive outcome, regardless of what else is included in the review, unfortunately real terms cuts are the reality
3/ What matters is how government interprets the review and what it chooses to implement, additional funding for children isn't going to be prioritised over tax cuts to appease RW papers
Imagine if the billions from last round of tax cuts had instead been invested in children