Alan Stevens - AWAH - Libertarianism, Freedom.
Response to Parliamentary Consultation on Coronavirus ‘Certification’
The government is thinking about introducing what amount to vaccine passports designed to exclude people who refuse to take untried, possibly dangerous, gene therapies. Please consider responding submitting your own response, by Monday 29th March.
Time is short, just a couple of days until the cut-off this Monday. The link for making your own response to the consultation is:
I do find it extraordinary that the government is willing to risk forcing an entire population to take basically untested gene altering therapies which may for all anybody knows result in a great deal of harm – for which in any kind of open society, politicians and their corporate supporters would likely be held accountable.
Censorship and government propaganda make it hard to know how much injury and death have resulted from ‘vaccination’ campaigns. The US Statistics record over 30,000 ‘adverse events’ from the covid jabs, a tenth of them deaths, but we cannot know how many deaths have escaped inclusion in these numbers. Though there are plenty of reports of deaths after getting the jab, they fall into the category of anecdotal evidence. But surely there is a non-trivial possibility that significant harm has resulted or could result in future. And this campaign is to counter a virus that has largely run its course, that is less serious for the active population than the flu, and which can be treated effectively by ivermectin and other therapies anyway.
There seems to be no sensible reason for this proposal to introduce what amount to vaccine passports other than perhaps a power grabbing psychology inherent in the predatory and parasitical nature of the state - and a fundamentally corrupt drive to increase Big Pharma’s profits with, presumably, additional political donations as an indirect benefit.
I included in an earlier post a link to a submission by scientists to the European Medical Authority suggesting potential risks associated with these gene therapies, including severe allergic reactions and/or possible long-term female sterility. I don’t know whether these or other concerns about the adverse results of vaccination are going to be correct. But can government really be sure either?
Meanwhile I attach a link to a recent Ivor Cummins interview on the Tom Woods podcast in which he explains that the so-called variants are not a problem. Though they will no doubt be used to keep the population afraid and justify further harmful meddling in our lives:
I also attach a link to another article based on an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon, a former pharmaceutical company research head. Last autumn I featured a link to an interview in which he correctly warned that the mass of false positives generated by running PCR tests for too many iterations would create a fake ‘casedemic’ in the autumn and winter.
This time his comments echo Ivor Cummins’s comments on the benign nature of the so-called ‘variants’. He confirms most people have lasting immunity derived from previous contact with Covid-19 or with other coronaviruses including SARS Covid 1. Natural and vaccine acquired immunity will protect against variants for a long time. There is no case for vaccinating healthy people under the age of sixty or so. In particular, there should be no need for top up shots. So the government’s efforts to create a vaccine passport framework within which top up shots will be mandatory seem to be profoundly sinister.
Lastly, need I add that none of this economic and social mess, with its potential descent into an Orwellian hell of police state insanity, could have happened in a free, no-state society? Without the strange collective hallucination that some people claiming to be ‘the state’ can legitimately engage in coercion and theft with impunity, nobody would have to put up with the loss of liberty and prospective loss of prosperity which is upon us.
This is the text of my parliamentary submission:
“From: Alan Stevens <email@example.com> Date: 26 March 2021 at 11:36:38 GMT To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Coronavirus status certification
Dear Sirs, I oppose the idea of coronavirus certification. It is a back door way of introducing compulsory ID documents which UK governments have hitherto rejected because of the threat they pose to freedom. The idea is also functionally pointless from a medical point of view because the population has largely acquired immunity to the novel coronavirus over the last year, or already possessed (T-Cell cross) immunity to it from the start. The correct policy would be to immediately end all government interventions, lockdowns, masks distancing etc. Numerous studies looking at international comparisons show they have done no good and are causing more and more harm. If the government makes participation in normal life conditional on having a certain ‘Covid status’ by effectively making vaccination compulsory it will have created the basis for a police state. People will be obliged to conform to any subsequent requirement made by the state, however unreasonable it may be, or see their lives destroyed by losing status certification. Apart from being wrong, and evil in itself, a police state in an island that needs to export sophisticated goods and services to survive is unworkable. A cowed totalitarian Britain would be doomed. Many people who have a significant economic contribution to make will want to make it somewhere else. Covid Certification will create a class of refuseniks which is likely disproportionately to include members of ethnic minorities. Is the government willing to create a permanently alienated group - many of whom will be obliged by the state’s own measures to live at the expense of the taxpayer? Covid certification is part of a move to make it compulsory to accept so-called vaccination. That is wrong of itself. But I would draw the government’s attention to the additional problem that it is actually betting on untried RNA gene therapies - it is incorrect to call them vaccines. These do not strengthen the body’s immune system by exposing it to dead or attenuated pathogens as real vaccines do. Instead, they rely on still poorly understood, possibly permanent, genetic re-engineering which may hamper our immune systems’ normal responses. Big Pharma had been trying to make RNA jabs work safely for thirty years without success. Now, thanks to manufactured hysteria based on unproven WHO and Gates Foundation derived policies and projections, they have been hastily adopted as ‘the solution’’. This will be very profitable to the drug companies, but it may be very unsafe. The government should at least allow the widest possible choice of vaccinations including real vaccines such as the Russian Sputnik jab. It should also consider with an open mind adding the BCG shot to the list of acceptable responses when the appropriate studies are completed later this year. And it should as a minimum accept the results of properly conducted Covid tests as an alternative to ‘vaccination’. At the moment people have a right in international law to withhold their informed consent to vaccination. Suppressing this right - as the Covid certification in effect tends to do - is a Crime against Humanity. What if something goes badly wrong? For example, it is being suggested by reputable experts that people who have taken the RNA shots will be more vulnerable to subsequent respiratory infection than people who did not have the jab. And is the government so sure, for example, that scientific warnings about the RNA jabs causing long-term sterility in women are incorrect. How much risk does it wish to run to counter a virus that has nearly run its course? If the state, or employers, made people take those ‘vaccinations’ there would be political, legal and economic hell to pay if substantial long term health problems resulted. It will not then be an excuse for employees of either to say ‘I was only obeying orders’. I would remind the government of the mess made by the US government in the late 1970s when it briefly made vaccination compulsory against an overhyped virus which in the end caused almost no deaths. Several hundred people were paralysed by the vaccine. That was at least a conventional vaccine whose ill effects appeared almost immediately. Would the government be wise to risk exposing an entire population to the risk of long-term harm from an untried technology? Regards Alan Stevens”