THE MIDAZOLAM CARD AS OUR UNEXPECTED MOVE:
We can't keep playing along to their narrative, if we do so we will always be on the defensive and the reactive and one or more steps behind them. We need to turn the table on them and define our own rules, define our own narrative. Our rules to our own game is the only way we will win this. I would like to see banners and placards asking Matt Hancock about MIDAZOLAM at the next demos. Gareth Icke and Jacqui Deevoy together with the Daily Expose did a great job on this. @ClareWH on this group is coordinating with the Daily Expose and I suggest you do the same with your info: share with her or the Daily Expose. But it's just the start. We need to keep pushing this. We can't let them bury this story. They are afraid. Matt Hancock is very afraid because we all know what he did. We need to keep pushing this story. We need to build public awareness if we want justice for this. It was a difficult story to break but it has been done now and we need to be coordinated on it. Articles, blog posts, anybody who has evidence please pass it to the Daily Expose. This is in my view what Mike Yeadon calls the "unexpected card". They did not think we would play. So let's play it. We are playing to win now. We are on the offensive now. We need to force a retreat, the minimum result will be they sacrifice Matt Hancock to save themselves. Let's do it. Stop playing to their narrative and let's impose our own. Let's play a game we can only win. Let's do this. Let's change history for the better. Are you in?

LOVE NOT FEAR: PEACEFUL NON COMPLIANCE TO THE NARRATIVES OF FEAR. Violence is exactly the card they want us to play and the quickest way to close this channel. It's the trap to impose martial law which is there and ready. Unless the army is on the side of the minority, and it isn't, it is a stupid strategy. If you are for violence this channel is not for you. The best way to close down any channel here is to pay 77th to impersonate a violent agitator to lure and steer the channel (and me) in that direction. This is called a "Sting Operation". No such agitators will be allowed to incite violence on this channel as my first assumption is they are working as government infiltrators. If you are doing that on this channel expect to be removed. Find another channel if you are genuine but this channel is for peaceful protest NOT violent protest. This is won on ideas, as they have the army we don't.

Put in an FOI request for Hancock's emails and correspondence with the terms 'MIDAZOLAM' 'Hospitals' 'Care Homes'.

I just fixed a few typos:

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I would be interested in any information held by your organisation regarding my request which is any and all correspondence from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 which include the terms 'Midazolam', 'hospitals' and 'care homes'.


I understand that I do not have to specify particular files or documents and it is the department's responsibility to provide the information I require. If you need further clarification please contact me by email.

I would like the information to be emailed to me in electronic form.

If my request is denied in whole or in part I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to your response within 20 working days as outlined by the statute.

This is the subject line I used: Freedom of Information Request: 'Midazolam', 'hospitals' and 'care homes'

If you don't yet know these guys by name, you've definitely seen their work!

"The White Rose is a global network of nonviolent, independent activists, each a powerful one-man operation, all working in unison to disseminate a much needed counter-narrative to the relentless fear mongering, lies and propaganda we've all been bombarded with since the onset of the Covid-19 scamdemic.

In an age of rampant internet censorship, where all dissenting voices are silenced, and only government and corporate media propaganda is allowed a platform, we are taking the immense power of meme warfare to the streets, via the medium of stickers!"

Join them below:

t.me/jointhewhiterose

Robin,
This is a fairly written article which I expect Dr Peter McCullough will approve of & I certainly do. While I am not comfortable being bracketed by career anti-vaxxers, this isn’t about my comfort, but about reaching the largest audience.

I defy anyone to read this and not conclude there are several very suspect things going on. I can’t come up with a benign explanation for the major events relating to this crisis. Good treatments for Covid19 continue to be suppressed. Experimental, novel technology agents are being pushed relentlessly, even targeting people who aren’t at risk from the virus. At the same time, thousands of deaths shortly after just these vaccines is undeniable. And then there’s more than talk about vaccine passports, which even theoretically add nothing to safety, yet definitely afford to those operating the database & algorithms total control over the population.
Mass media censorship is unmistakable & extends deep into the Internet. Why are governments & tech titans so afraid of scientific debate?
Thanks,
Mike

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2021/June/PDF/vaccines-depopulation-pdf.pdf

Interesting way to describe adverse events after Covid19 vaccination! Seen in an email string over the weekend.
Mike

“Regarding naming, I heard a very wise physician call the post vaccine illness SPS = Spike Protein Sickness. That’s exactly what it is and brings it to the medical diagnosis side of the discussion rather than allowing vaccine AE to be written off as “anti-vax rhetoric”. 
Patients will understand it, it opens up discussion of known pathogenicity if spikes, and will get through the social media censorship algorithm for a while. 
Would be great if one of our media stars said, physicians are starting to refer to the post vaccine illness they are seeing in their offices and hospitals as Spike Protein Sickness. 
We could be running offense on this conversation!”

I'll start. They are not "adverse reactions" or "immune intolerance", they are:

➡️ SPIKE PROTEIN SICKNESS ⬅️

Let's also coin the term Secondary Spike Protein Sickness (SSPS or 2SPS). In my small clinic alone, 11 whom I know of have had concerning effects from exposure to covid-vaccinated people. These are mostly women with menorrhagia, about half post-menopausal and about half younger; one woman with purpurae and spiking blood pressure, resolved with ivermectin Rx, and one man with flu-like illness. Most resolved with ivermectin, though some are taking pine needle tea.

Dear Robin,
Here’s an article most people will find interesting.
Christian Drosten is, in my view, one of the central criminals on the execution side, that is, a crucial dynamic part of the entire fraud.
His infamous contribution is to have created the deliberately awful Corman-Drosten PCR test.
The manuscript was published inside 48 hours, and they even claim that peer review was done.
The median review time for that journal is around four months.
This was championed by Tedros during his “Test, test, test” exhortation.
Drostens business partner is making a shed load of cash selling kits & reagents.
He’s also one of Merkel’s scientific advisors & he’s also a public figure in Germany.
That’s it, though. A big team of scientists wrote a criticism review of the PCR methods paper. See Corman Drosten Review.
Reading between the lines, it’s likely he has deep links to China & will have been instrumental in getting the sequence first in Europe, just as he did with SARS-1.
See what you think.
Cheers
Mike

Some extracts from Prof Maximilan Forte's viewing of COVID-19: THE SYSTEM DOCUMENTARY. Will link the posts at the end

"Dr. Koos Biesmeijer, Professor of Natural Capital at Leiden University, explains in basic terms that viruses are a constant of human existence: they adapt and mutate in close relationship with us. The broader point made by Biesmeijer is that humans and viruses have always evolved in collaboration with each other. Our immune systems have developed as a result of that relationship. Yet our contemporary attitude is that viruses must be wiped out altogether, in order to preserve the primacy of an increasingly artificial human. Viruses, however, will not be easily wiped out, Biesmeijer adds, since it is very difficult to develop any kind of effective vaccine or treatment given that viruses constantly mutate in unexpected directions. Pinning all of our hopes on vaccines, which cannot predict let alone match the mutation rates and directions of virus mutations, can prove to be very disappointing."

"What struck Willem Sloot almost immediately was how public medical pronouncements, “really talked at first exclusively about immunoglobulin, immunity as it is measured in the blood,” following the lead of studies informing national policy. “That astonished me,” Willem exclaims, “because it’s just one element of immunity that you can measure. But there’s much more. The immune system is wide-ranging”. He also observed how in news reports “only immunoglobulin was mentioned, which is made by B-cells that are measured in the blood”. Willem then mentions T-cells, and more broadly, the fact that bodies also have “a first defence response that can make a big difference”. Willem reminds us: “you want to know how all the pieces fit into the picture,” in order to have an informed view.
The team looked at a range of early, prominent cases of infection—Italy, the cruise ships—and noted that there were a large number of infections, but with very few actually becoming seriously ill. Cruise ships in particular, with all their elderly vacationers, acted as Petri dishes, floating worst-case scenarios. That fact alone—that extremely few became ill—suggests that bodies must have some degree or form of natural defence against the virus.
In closely studying data taken in the case of the town of Vò Euganeo in the Veneto region of Italy, the team found that most persons’ bodies had a form of natural protection against the virus. The town became famous because it was the site of Italy’s very first known fatality from COVID-19 (Adriano Trevisan, a pensioner). A substantial number of those tested positive, circa 50%, did not even show symptoms. Willem Sloot found that the presence of T-cells played a key role. These T-cells developed from prior exposures to related coronaviruses (many of which are normally in circulation, including those that cause common colds). Thus most people that encounter COVID-19, did/do so with a certain degree of T-cell immunity already in place. Yet, we continued to hear about “herd immunity” as something to be achieved at some point in the future, with the goalposts constantly shifted.
Research that was published by the Karolinska Institute, Sweden’s top medical university, was also studied by Willem Sloot who speaks about it in the film—and that research demonstrated that natural immunity, based on T-cell responses, was higher than antibody tests have shown. In fact, twice as many people were found to have T-cell immunity compared with those with detectable antibodies. Thus researchers in Sweden found that, “public immunity to COVID-19 is probably significantly higher than antibody tests have suggested”. This independent team’s conclusion was, therefore, that there is a natural resistance to coronaviruses.
Such studies found that while B-cell immunoglobulin was found only to a limited degree, in about 5%-10% of those tested, T-cell responses were instead found in the range of 40%-60% of people. In other words, a focus on immunoglobulin in common antibody tests will paint a much more dramatic picture of viral danger to humans. When results are so skewed, setting a low bar for natural resistance, then the policy that resulted emphasized extreme measures. Worse yet was if policy came first, and the supporting science (appropriately skewed) came second."

"The biggest winners in this crisis—those that reaped the greatest monetary rewards—have been biotech and data technology companies. These are the ones that had an active interest in governments expanding the power to tighten the strings on people. Small and medium-sized businesses were shut down. To take up the artificially-created slack, online retailers and big transnational box stores continued to function.
Answering the question of “Who wins?” (which was not asked directly in this film, oddly enough), can also help to explain the kinds of actors that played a prominent role and were able to exercise tremendous influence throughout the pandemic lockdowns. https://zeroanthropology.net/2021/06/05/covid-19-the-system-part-1/

"Doctors, for their part, often do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate research behind particular products, and Bijl says that doctors are often susceptible to marketing by pharmaceutical companies. Doctors often take at their word the various medical sales representatives sent out by these companies. Medical opinion leaders also play a key role in marketing particular drugs, and they have a reach that extends into ministries of health, parliaments, and so on.
Nico Sloot criticizes the lack of liability for pharmaceutical companies—particularly for vaccine producers today—and the secret deals that they previously signed with governments. In The Netherlands, incredibly, the government has agreed to pay any claims that may be lodged by people who suffer severe effects from vaccines. In other words, taxpayers are covering liability for vaccine producers."

"The second part of Hamelink’s quick excursion into theoretical analysis in this film involves the triangle that constitutes what he sees as the COVID-19 system. Hamelink explains what makes up this triangle: “It consists of the cartels, clearly defined and with a clear agenda, and the political decision-makers, and the helpers”. The cartels in this case are the large transnational firms, pharmaceutical companies, online retailers, and financial interests. The cartels exercises influence on politics through lobbyists. The politicians, in Hamelink’s view, “muddle along” and work in a “grey zone” of determined ambiguity, of claiming to know less than they do. “And then there are the helpers, the assistants,” the third leg of Hamelink’s triangle: “those are the think-tanks, the lobbyists. Politics is driven mainly by lobbyists”. Hamelink singles out one group of “helpers”: “the key helpers in this case have especially been the media. Helpers are needed because decisions are made, not in the interests of the vast majority, but of the small minority”.
(Helpers of course include technocrats, actors such as Anthony Fauci—scientist and bureaucrat—whose connections span the political and corporate worlds. Fauci was constantly in front of the camera, speaking as if he were an elected political leader and had the final say on what hundreds of millions of people would be allowed to do, or not. Such overlaps inevitably produce a now routine phenomenon: the conflict of interest. One of the best representatives of this, in the present context, is Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak has been responsible for both “investigating” the virus’ alleged origins as the only US member of the WHO team that went to China earlier this year, and yet he was also responsible for funding gain-of-function research at the same Wuhan Institute of Virology at the epicentre of the pandemic. Daszak insists that the virus was not even accidentally leaked from a lab [which has happened several times in the last 20 years in China], but rather spread from animals to humans. He has made these claims without offering any evidence, and despite serious evidence to the contrary. Allegations of a cover-up now seem to stand on more solid ground than ever and, at the very least, such a cover-up ought to have been expected.)
Ignoring the extent of know-how that exists in a society, Sloot observed that it has been the case that governments speak to the public as if it consisted entirely of pre-schoolers; addressing them as irrational creatures is not something that can be sustained (thus somewhat departing from Hamelink’s approach). I was worried that this phenomenon, of officials lecturing the public as if it consisted of infants, was one that prevailed mostly in North America. It is disappointing to see that the pattern of infantilizing citizens, in order to rationalize discipline and punishment, is one that stretched across the globe. The message was always fear. Nico rightly observes that a particular kind of regime specializes in fear-mongering: a dictatorship."

"Ad Broere, an economist and author who collaborated with Sloot, appears in the film, and he shares his view on what is really happening at present:

Ad Broere, economist and author
“I think the coronavirus is just one part of an action that has now been set in motion that really just pulls the strings tighter from the position of those who are in power at the moment and who want to retain that power whatever the cost and who have certain ideas about what to do with that power. Who have a vision of humanity and the future of humanity which they want to bring about in reality. A few people are going to determine our future effectively taking away our right to self-determination, effectively leading us towards a goal set by them with no regard for us”.
Broere observes that in The Netherlands, where roughly 10% of the people own 75% of “everything there is to own”, such inequality has greatly increased during the lockdown and it is set to increase further as a result. As small businesses collapsed, and the self-employed were ruined, big business made enormous gains and will likely expand as a result of the termination of their many smaller competitors.
Sloot then mounts a very effective presentation, showing the distribution of wealth in the European Union. Focusing specifically on The Netherlands, he notes how it took eight years to deal with the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, with the bailout of the financial sector costing the country about 50 billion Euros and the cost was borne primarily by working citizens and small- and medium-sized enterprises. However, The Netherlands has now added about 100 billion Euros in debt to deal with the effects of the lockdown. The last crisis (2008-2009) resulted in hospital beds being cut from 2,200 to 1,100 in the country. One can only imagine what the next set of cuts will bring. If the last crisis took eight years to pay off, then it’s possible that the latest one could take 16 years (more or less).
The biggest winners are the massive corporations that have hoarded most of the wealth in the world, Broere explains, and that essentially pay no tax because they have countless ways of avoiding taxation. The new debt acquired by states will be paid by workers and small- and medium-sized businesses—and therefore, as Broere states, citizens themselves have “been given as security for the repayment of the debt”. No wonder the state now suddenly seems so desperately concerned about our state of health."

"De Wit’s argument is that because they have amassed such spectacular wealth, these global giants also have more power than states. Then De Wit modifies his argument, and says that such corporate giants are more powerful than most states (clearly implying not all states). This is an important, but too subtle concession: his argument is that “in the past,” rules were made by countries, societies, and politicians, and corporations had to adapt to the laws of states—but apparently that is less true now.
De Wit explains that in this age of transition, there is heightened turmoil and instability as new rules are being created—and the coronavirus is the least of our problems, he adds. De Wit cautions that as long as we allow ourselves to be divided, we will not be able to challenge these new powers and create a better society."