[Christine]

The idea was that the human race could be bettered through encouraging people with traits like intelligence, hard work, cleanliness (thought to be genetic) to reproduce. Eugenics was taken to its horrifying extreme during the Holocaust, through forced sterilizations and breeding experiments

[awakened53]

‘It’s a cull of society’s most vulnerable people. In a single word, it’s eugenics … All patients over 60 automatically get a DNR, without them or any family members being consulted. I’ve seen the forms in their files with my own eyes.’ A doctor and a daughter speak out about no-consent Do Not Resuscitate orders

(This article was rejected by The Telegraph)
By Jacqui Deevoy
Since March 2020, the UK’s elderly have been asked by their GPs to sign Do Not Resuscitate agreements, but in care homes and hospitals DNRs are automatically being put in place, often without the consent of the patient, resident or their loved ones.
After my father had a major stroke last October, it was decided that he should be placed in a care home. Unlike the other residents, he’s not old: at 76, he is among the youngest. Prior to his admission to the care home in January 2020, when he was still in hospital, I was told by doctors there that he’d been diagnosed with vascular dementia. I accepted this diagnosis as he did seem to be displaying many symptoms of this terrible disease – namely confusion, forgetfulness and mood swings.
In May, I had a call from a nurse at the home, who wanted some help updating his records. During this conversation, it became apparent that my dad had a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order in his medical notes. I asked who had signed it and when. After much paper-flicking, it turned out the form had been signed by a doctor from the hospital he was admitted to back in October and the next of kin signature was from someone who was not next of kin (but who’s a non-blood-related member of the family) and who also happens to be a nurse at the hospital. It had been signed FOUR DAYS after he’d had his stroke – on October 25th – when he was unable to speak or move, so he’d clearly not been consulted. As my dad’s next of kin, I had not been consulted either.
I expressed my upset over this and asked the nurse to clarify what a DNR actually meant for my dad. She told me that if he stopped breathing or if his heart stopped, there would be no medical intervention. While she moved swiftly onto the next page of her questionnaire, I was left speechless. I had to interrupt her.
“So you’re saying that if my dad stopped breathing for any reason, he’d get no help and would be left to die?” She told me that was correct.
“If he had CPR,” she explained, “it wouldn’t go well: ribs would be broken, he’d be left in a vegetative state and would be a terrible burden on his family.” She said this off-pat and as if all those awful events would definitely happen. It sounded like the regular ‘sell’ they might be giving all residents and their families. She then tried to change the subject.
“Hang on,” I interrupted. “What if I don’t want him to have a DNR?” She told me to speak to the care home manager.
I emailed the manager. The next day, the manager left me a voicemail. “The DNR form was signed by a consultant at the hospital. We cannot just remove the form from his file. And, as your dad has capacity, I spoke to him today and he has agreed that he does not wish to be resuscitated. It was a witnessed conversation.”
How can a man in a dementia unit of a care home be expected to make a (literally) life or death decision without the input – or, indeed, the protection – of next of kin?
I didn’t want to involve my dad but, as I hadn’t yet received confirmation of Power Of Attorney over his health and welfare (applied for in February), I felt I had no choice.
“Yes,” he replied when I asked him whether he’d agreed to a DNR. “If I die, I die,” he stated flatly. “I don’t want to be resuscitated and be a burden.”
I tried to explain to him that he may have been cajoled into making that decision, but he became irritated. He won’t hear a bad word against doctors and nurses as, according to him, they’re all lovely and have his best interests at heart. I ended the chat because I felt bad enough mentioning it in the first place. Before his stroke, I know he wouldn’t have wanted this: he liked being alive but the brain injury he’s suffered has made him a different, more docile and definitely more depressed man.
So many relatives of people in care homes are dealing with similar problems. Some are oblivious to whether their loved ones have a DNR in place; some are aware there’s one because their relative wants one; some have decided a DNR is for the best; others, like me, are struggling to work out why such a decision has been made for relatives with Alzheimer’s, dementia or general confusion after a stroke, with no conference to the next of kin.
I decided to speak about DNRs to a consultant at a London NHS hospital. What he revealed was shocking. “I am horrified by what is happening at NHS hospitals across the UK right now,” he said. “All patients over 60 automatically get a DNR, without them or any family members being consulted. I’ve seen the forms in their files with my own eyes. It’s not just the over 60s that get them – I’ve seen them being put in place for young people with mental health issues, for physically disabled people of all ages and for autistic people. We had a schizophrenic woman in her early 30s admitted recently and I found a signed DNR form in her file. She hadn’t been asked whether she wanted one or not.”

But surely it’s illegal to do this? The consultant says not. “Since the Coronavirus Bill was passed in March, we have all had pretty much all of our human rights taken away. That includes medical rights. There’s no longer any body autonomy. Your body and your life is not your own. Once a person is admitted to hospital, they are the property of the hospital. A doctor can now override the wants and wishes of a patient and their family. I’ve seen notes stating that the patient and family does not want a DNR and the notes are scored out with the words ‘overridden by doctor’ across them.”
The consultant, who has worked as a cardiologist for over three decades, says he is so upset by what’s happening that he’s decided to take early retirement. “I’m not here to allow patients to die unnecessarily. Every person should have a chance of life: a second chance even. I’ve seen many people resuscitated after heart attacks who’ve gone on to live another 10, 20 or 30 years. The only reason for these DNRs – and I hate to admit this – is to get rid of what Henry Kissinger once referred to as “useless feeders”, people who are seen to be a drain on the world’s resources. In simple terms, it’s a cull of society’s most vulnerable people. In a single word, it’s eugenics. People used to laugh and think the whole idea of depopulation was the stuff of conspiracy theories, but it’s happening right now, behind the closed doors of our near-empty hospitals.”
The doctor went on to describe patients being given the wrong treatment during the Covid 19 pandemic, only to result in their untimely deaths. “I’m not saying for a minute that the doctors or nurses are at fault. They’re doing their absolute best and think they’re doing the right thing by following protocol. This applies to DNRs too. The problem lies with the bureaucrats, the ones developing the protocol. Those people have blood on their hands.”
Comment from the care home press office: “We cannot comment on individual cases out of respect for the privacy of our residents. What we can say is that the wellbeing and wishes of all our residents are considered in everything we do and this extends to some of the most difficult end of life decisions. Our process is always to respect the wishes of our residents and where they have capacity, decisions such as the signing of a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR) remain very much up to a resident and their clinician/doctor. In cases where a resident lacks capacity the appropriate medical professional should consult with the next of kin or power of attorney on medical decisions. This can include the signing of a DNR. It is also important to note that we review our residents’ medical requirements on an ongoing basis as decisions pertaining to what is best for an individual can change depending on a multitude of factors such as care setting or changes to a resident’s condition.”

[awakened53]

An Account Of NHS Hospital Treatment Of Elderly, During The Days Of Covid 19.

22.5.20

My elderly mother was admitted to Yeovil Hospital with chronic diarrhoea.

23.5.20

Doctor A. phoned me. He said she still had the diarrhoea and was dehydrated but was stable. He thought it was Colitis or a re-emergence of Crohn’s disease which he said he was confident could be treated. He said that they would give her antibiotics and potassium intravenously (although when I enquired about this later, I was told that she wasn’t on a drip) and would take samples. (She tested negative for Coronavirus.) He said a “clinical decision” had been taken not to resuscitate my mother in the event of a cardiac arrest although he did not expect that to happen as her heart was sound. He sounded optimistic that she would recover and if medically fit would be discharged “possibly next week.”

In telephone calls we made during that first week we were told by various staff that my mother was improving.

(Because of the Coronavirus we were not allowed to visit her at this stage.) There were conversations with the Discharge team about where she might go after she had left the hospital. 
28.5.20
I spoke with a physiotherapist, M. who said he had just walked my mother around the ward and that she was “stable”. A dementia nurse, J. informed us that my mother had been sitting in a chair and reading. She enabled me to speak to my mother on the phone – she was able to converse with me and asked questions about what was wrong with her and so on. 
29.5.20
A nurse told me that my mother was stable, the diarrhoea had lessened and they were hopeful she would be discharged soon.
1.6.20 
From this day on, after my mother had been in hospital for 10 days, the situation changed dramatically. When I rang and asked to speak to her, she sounded unrecognisable and very distressed and said she was in pain. She said she was constantly thirsty and hadn’t been given a drink for a long time. I became very concerned. 
I asked a nurse who my mother’s consultant was and was told this was Dr S. but whenever I asked to speak to her, she was never available. (Please refer to the comment made to me by Dr G. on 10.6.20.) I was told that another doctor would contact me but they did not. I had to rely on information from nurses and ancillary staff, which now varied from day to day. 
8.6.20
I eventually got to speak to a Doctor G. I expressed concern that the sudden unexpected deterioration in my mother’s condition was at odds with what we were previously told and that we were concerned. He told me that her consultant, Dr S. “still doesn’t know what is wrong with her.” He said that the scan didn’t show anything but added: “I will suggest she has another look to see if anything was ‘missed’…..”. I was surprised to hear this, it did not inspire confidence. 
He then told me that Dr S. had decided that my mother should have a sigmoidoscopy but that it also did not reveal anything. He then told me that Dr S. “thought” that my mother had a fistula because faecal matter had been seen to enter the bladder after a catheter was fitted. However, when I spoke to another Doctor S. (male) on 9.6.20 he said that the catheter had apparently been put in the “wrong place” leading to a misdiagnosis where Dr S. thought there was a fistula but in fact there wasn’t. 
When I asked why, after 17 days, Dr S. still had no clue exactly what was wrong with my mother, had not been able to administer anything to stop the diarrhoea and had not been able to do anything about the mounting pain my mother was experiencing, he told me that they had “tried steroids” but she hadn’t responded to them. There was no suggestion that they would try any alternative forms of medication. He also said that they had withdrawn the antibiotics they were giving her. At this point it became apparent that they were not going to do any more for my mother and that they were effectively letting her die. I was told that she would be moved to a “side room” and that I could now visit her from 10th June. 
10.6.20
I visited my mother in the hospital and was alarmed by her deterioration and her excessive suffering. 
I asked a nurse if I could speak with Dr S. but Doctor G. appeared instead. I asked why I couldn’t see Dr S. He said bluntly: “You can’t – basically she makes the decisions about your mother’s treatment, she tells us what’s happening and we tell you.” He also made reference to my mother’s advanced age, something which I increasingly heard from other members of staff: it seemed that they had stopped caring for her – which caused her immense suffering in the process – because she was elderly and therefore deemed not worth treating. I again expressed concern that after two and a half weeks not only did Dr S. show no willingness to engage with us, she had failed to identify the cause of my mother’s diarrhoea other than that it was “possibly Crohn’s”, had been unable to prescribe an effective treatment to alleviate the diarrhoea and was not prepared to explore alternative treatments. Because of this apparent incompetence, my mother deteriorated very quickly and had now developed secondary problems such as infections which caused painful sores on her lips and in her mouth, terrible redness due to the constant diarrhoea and could now barely talk or eat and drink. 
He said nothing.
11.6.20 
I spoke to a Doctor A. He told me that a decision had been made not to carry out further tests on my mother (which, in any case, had been inconclusive and which had only increased her suffering) and that they had withdrawn all medications. It was only at this point that I was told they had also withdrawn her blood pressure/calcium tablets, which she had depended on for years, several days previously. He said Dr S. had seen her earlier that day, that she was “waiting for more results” and that she now “thought” that there was a cancerous growth on the bowel (this subsequently proved not to be the case). He also said that Dr S. had decided upon a “shift of focus” regarding my mother’s care. My interpretation of this statement was that, after almost a month, having failed to help my mother, they were basically letting her die. There was an assurance that my mother would be made comfortable and pain-free – the reality I witnessed was the complete opposite of that. 
14.6.20
My brother emailed Dr S. to express concern about my mother’s worsening condition and questioned Dr S’s role in this. She responded by saying that she couldn’t reply to his email (why not – unless this was to avoid her written words being used against her at a later stage?). She asked for his telephone number, this was given but he did not hear from her. 
15.6.20:
My partner visited my mother in the morning. He asked to see a doctor. A Doctor K. appeared and he tried to engage him in a discussion about the seriousness of my mother’s condition and the apparent neglect which had led to this. This doctor seemed “uncomfortable” with discussing the matter and suggested he talked to Dr S. instead. Dr S. finally appeared but said very little other than that she hadn’t been able to establish the cause of the diarrhoea (and yet Crohn’s Disease was given as a cause of death on the Death Certificate.) She said
that nothing could now be done for my mother. He was compelled to point out that she had had almost a month to discover what the problem was and had failed. If she had done her job properly – before my mother’s condition deteriorated – my mother might have been saved. The conversation was unsatisfactory. 
When I visited my mother later that same day, I was astonished to be told by nursing staff that there were plans to “fast track” her into a nursing home – even though she was in terrible pain and discomfort, bed-ridden and could not eat or drink. I had been led to believe that she would die in hospital and was now told something very different. 
16.6.20
I visited my mother in the morning, my partner visited in the afternoon. My mother was in a very bad way, could not keep anything down, had a painful stomach and was breathing rapidly. There were no staff around. I eventually found a nurse and asked them to give something to relieve her suffering. They gave her morphine, she fell asleep. 
Later that evening a senior nurse (H. ) telephoned to say that my mother “probably” had around two hours to live. She asked if we lived near the hospital which I thought was odd but which resonated later on. We were at the hospital within minutes. When we entered the room a nurse was crying excessively.
My mother had died before I got there. In retrospect, we suspect she had already died when the telephone call was made. Thus I was deprived of the chance to be with my mother before she passed away. 
In conclusion – I hope it is obvious from the above account that there were multiple failures at this hospital but ultimately I consider Dr S., as the consultant in charge, who made the decisions about how my mother was to be treated, to be responsible for the disastrous chain of events which led to my mother’s unexpected and preventable death. I consider what happened to be “euthanasia by neglect”. 
Dr S’s apparent professional incompetence, the decisions she made and her total mis-management of my mother’s condition – as well as her poor communication skills – resulted in medical negligence which cost my mother her life. In the hands of another consultant, my mother might well have lived. 
I will never get over the horror of seeing her die in so much agony. 

Copyright © 2020 David Icke Books Limited. All Rights Reserved.

[Steve]

Elite involvement in Eugenics / Survival of the fittest

Eugenics - 

Eugenics is, to quote the Oxford Concise Dictionary, “…the production of fine offspring by the improvement of inherited qualities”. The term eugenics was coined by the Englishman, Francis Galton, in the later years of the nineteenth century. He called for society to intervene to maintain racial purity. Galton wanted the forced sterilisation of the ‘unfit’. Another ‘pioneer’ of this mindset was Thomas Robert Malthus, born in 1766. It was from him that the theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ was passed on through Herbert Spencer to Charles Darwin. Malthus was obsessed with the culling of the population and proposed a series of measures against the ‘lower races’ (the poor), to keep the population down and, as he saw it, to prevent the human genetic stream being dominated by such ‘inferior’ racial lines. In his best known work, Essay , he suggested that streets should be made narrower and more people crowded into houses, to encourage the return of the plague. Villages should be built next to stagnant pools and, above all, remedies for preventing and curing disease ought to be strongly condemned, he said. Malthus went on:

“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support. To this end, I should propose a regulation be made declaring that no child born… should ever be entitled to parish assistance… The [illegitimate] infant is comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place… All children beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this [desired] level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.”


Survival of the fittest -

Another Lunar Society member was Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin who the elite bloodlines used to further sell the belief in a soulless, mechanical and brutal universe with his assertions about the ‘survival of the fittest’ in the mid-1800s. This became known as the theory of natural selection in which the genetically most ‘advanced’ survive while the weakest die out and it has been used to justify eugenics and race purity programmes like those of the Rockefeller-funded Nazis. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was just the salesman for this manufactured belief-system which was described much earlier in 1794 by his Lunar Society grandfather Erasmus in a book called Zoonomia. Josiah Wedgwood of the Wedgwood pottery empire was another Lunar Society member and his daughter married Erasmus Darwin’s son, Robert Darwin. She gave birth to Charles Darwin, and the same bloodline produced the infamously race-purity crazy, Thomas Malthus It was Malthus who said that disease and terrible living conditions for the masses were essential to stop overpopulation and the dilution of the bloodlines of the perceived El-lite:

... From such a mind did the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’ emerge, and it has dominated ‘science’ ever since! Add to this the belief that the intellect of a person is genetically determined by the intellect of the parents and you have the eugenics movement, which came to the surface so infamously under the rule of Adolf Hitler. 

Although advanced esoteric knowledge is known at the top level of the Elite, some of those lower down on the pyramid are encouraged to believe some incredible garbage. Genetic superiority of the intellect through interbreeding is one of them. Note, also, how the Malthus proposals of the encouragement of disease and of forcing upon the poor conditions they are unlikely to survive, are still at the forefront of Elite policy in the Third World and within industrialised countries, too. 

Names such as the Harrimans and the Rockefellers were seriously into eugenics. Averell Harriman’s mother funded the launch of the race-science movement in America in 1910, and built the Eugenics Record Office as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London. 

The Harrimans were responsible for the Bush family fortune and they were close to another Bush family backer, George Herbert Walker (a relative by marriage of Prescott Bush and grandfather to George Bush, who would go on to be President of the United States). 

By the late nineteenth century, some mentally ill people and children were being sterilised by US health officials as a result of eugenics policies. The State of Indiana made the sterilisation of the mentally ill and ‘undesirables’ compulsory and 475 men were sterilised at the Indiana State Reformatory.

After the turn of the century, the Harrimans and Rockefellers spent more than $ 11 million to establish a eugenics research laboratory at Cold Springs Harbor on Long Island, New York, close to the Dulles brothers’ estates. 

The study of eugenics was encouraged at the elite controlled universities, such as Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. In Germany, the same line was taken by Ernst Haeckel, the mystic and Aryan master race promoter, whose ideas would influence Hitler. Haeckel said it was the duty of a nation to enforce breeding, and he and his supporters formed the Monist League to promote their sick beliefs in Germany. 

The first International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912. Among its directors were Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone. By 1917, fifteen US States had eugenics laws, and all but a few of them made legal the compulsory sterilisation of epileptics, the mentally ill and retarded, and regular criminals...

[awakened53]

Whitney Webb on the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links

https://youtu.be/AJuK7JSlKNw

Whitney Webb on the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links

[awakened53]

Undeniable links between the Oxford / AstraZeneca ‘Covid-19 Vaccine’ & the British Eugenics Society

On 2 July 2021, Dr. Reiner Feullmich and the Corona Ausschuss (or Corona Investigative Committee) interviewed Whitney Webb.  Webb, a writer and journalist, has extensively researched the industry behind epigenetic medicine. 
Joining the interview was Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg who exposed and was instrumental in bringing to an end the 2009 Swine Flu Scandal.  His actions resulted in an investigation by the European Parliament‘to look into the issue of ,,falsified pandemic” that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines.’
During Webb’s interview  Dr. Wodarg recalled a change in German legislation in 2009 which paved the way for today’s use of gene therapy ‘vaccines’ – a long-term goal of the eugenics movement.
“Evolutionary humanism has eugenic implications also … Within a century we should have amassed adequate knowledge …. When this has happened, the working out of an effective and acceptable eugenic policy will be seen as not only an urgent but an inspiring task, and its political or theological obstruction as immoral.” – Julian Huxley, New Bottles for New Wine, p306, 1957
Webb’s interview is packed full of rapid-fire facts about people and organisations and what links them.  Watch the full interview HERE and read a summary of highlights HERE.  Her article, ‘Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement’  is a must read.
The image below shows some of the network behind the Oxford/AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ according to Webb’s article and the text below it is, in the main, extracted from the same article.
Adrian Hill and his partner at the Jenner Institute, Sarah Gilbert, co-developed the Oxford Covid-19 ‘vaccine’. But the patent and royalties for the ‘vaccine’ is held by a private company: Vaccitech.
Initially established in 1995, the Jenner Institute was a public-private partnership with GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) and the UK Government.  GSK ‘pulled out’ and the institute was relaunched in 2005. Hill is the head of the Jenner Institute, the chief at the UK Vaccine Network and leads a research group at Wellcome. One of Hill’s bosses, early on in his career, was the late David Weatherall a member of the British Eugenics Society.
Gilbert also hails from the Wellcome Trust and is a student of Hill’s. Together, Hill and Gilbert have worked to position the institute to be the center of all future vaccination efforts undertaken in response to global pandemics. Hill and Gilbert are both set to make significant profits from their shares in Vaccitech.
Hill and Gilbert created Vaccitech in 2016. Vaccitech was spun out of the Jenner Institute via the University of Oxford’s commercialisation arm: Oxford Science Innovations. Vaccitech’s stakeholders are: Oxford Science Innovations (46%); Hill and Gilbert (10%); Wellcome Trust; Google; Sequoia Capital’s Chinese branch; the Chinese pharmaceutical company Fosun Pharma; and the UK Government.
Read more: Undeniable links between the Oxford / AstraZeneca ‘Covid-19 Vaccine’ & the British Eugenics Society

[awakened53]

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on graphene and vaccine-induced magnetism

HIGHLIGHT: “…Wherever It (the magnetism) goes, it could wreak havoc with cell permeability and have all sorts of biological effects, including heart failure, premature Alzeimer’s disease and, when the mitochondria are affected, chronic fatigue….”
Dr Andrew Goldsworthy is a retired lecturer and Biological Safety Officer from Imperial College London. Yesterday, we had an enlightening conversation around the mechanisms of vaccine-induced magnetism Dr Andrew Goldsworthy is not only a true gentleman, but generously and fearlessly offers his knowledge and insights in this statement below. Please read to the end.
What could cause this magnetism?
Hypothesis by Dr Andrew Goldsworthy The vaccine-induced magnetism hinges around the possibility that a graphene-like compound was used as an adjuvant to increase the rate of uptake of the mRNA. This is based on electron microscopy, where graphene oxide was found to be in the vaccine. See here It has been difficult to obtain further samples for investigation because the manufacturers insist that all unused vials and used syringes have to be returned after the shots are delivered. Why the secrecy? This may be the reason. Follow this link to an open-access review on the toxicity of the graphene family (including graphene oxide). It looks pretty horrific. Also, see this. But how could this have happened since neither graphene or graphene oxide are magnetic? The answer is that both graphene and graphene oxide, can conduct enough electricity across the cell membranes to magnetise nearby superparamagnetic particles such as ferritin and magnetite to cause a widespread magnetisation of people receiving the vaccine. It’s just as the iron core of an electromagnet becomes magnetised when an electric current is passed through the coil of wire wound around it. To make this argument more quantitative; the electrical conductivity of graphene on the nano scale is two orders of magnitude greater than copper See here
Read more: Dr Andrew Goldsworthy on graphene and vaccine-induced magnetism

[awakened53]

The elderly and vulnerable were murdered in care homes and this Government convinced you ‘Covid-19’ was to blame

Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, senicide, and mass murder. Her Majesty’s Government, its scientific advisors, medical advisors, and NHS chiefs have committed all of these acts since March 2020, but they couldn’t do it without convincing you Covid-19 was to blame. Here’s how they did it…
Firstly they created mass hysteria. You were shown images such as this on programmes such as BBC News, or on the front pages of newspapers.
Infamous images of Chinese medical officials in hazmat suits collecting bodies off the pavements of Wuhan, where we were told they had collapsed and died in the street because of a new strain of coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.
Have you ever seen anybody die in the street because of Covid-19?
It wasn’t until Covid allegedly hit the Lombardy region of Italy that people really started to pay attention though.
On the 19th March 2020, Sky News released a documentary entitled ‘The Shocking Centre of the Covid-19 crisis’.
Here’s some of the things they told you in that documentary –
“They’re fighting a war here and they’re losing.”
“The sheer numbers of people succumbing to the coronavirus is overwhelming every hospital in Northern Italy.”
“This killer pandemic is virtually out of control.”
“The doctors say they’ve seen nothing like it before, and are warning other countries – especially the United Kingdom that they will see it as well.”
Read more: The elderly and vulnerable were murdered in care homes and this Government convinced you ‘Covid-19’ was to blame

[awakened53]

Lawyers send open letter to UK Gov., Hancock, Whitty, & Vallance demanding answers on alleged mass murder in care homes through the use of Midazolam

An investigation launched by a team of lawyers and experts into the use of midazolam during the Covid-19 pandemic has now concluded in line with how matters should be conducted by the police. The team now has an extensive list of questions that they have put forward to the Government and its advisors, and will proceed with a private criminal prosecution if they do not get the answers they need.
In March 2020 the British people were ordered to stay at home, to protect the NHS, and save lives. But in reality the evidence suggests that the British people were ordered to stay at home, so the NHS could give midazolam to the elderly and vulnerable and pretend that they were Covid-19 deaths.
Here’s a quick run-down of some of the evidence –
[ul]
[li]Midazolam is a commonly used drug in palliative care, think of it as diazepam on steroids.[/li]
[li]Midazolam is also a drug that has been used in executions by lethal injection in the USA.[/li]
[li]UK regulators state that you should only receive midazolam in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops.[/li]
[li]This is because Midazolam can cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.[/li]
[li]At the start of the alleged Covid-19 pandemic Matt Hancock ordered a two year supply of Midazolam and then went back to France for more.[/li]
[li]This was confirmed in a parliamentary committee meeting which included Hancock, Professor Van Tam, and Tory MP; Dr Luke Evans, who said a “good death” needs three things, one of those things being Midazolam.[/li]
[li]At the same time Hancock and the Government changed the law on the certification of deaths under the guise of the coronavirus act.[/li]
[li]And the law on cremations; removing the need for a confirmatory medical certificate.[/li]
[li]And the law on indemnity for health service activity.[/li]
[li]The final And the law on visiting loved ones in care homes; which was banned.[/li]
[li]April and May 2020 saw a huge spike in deaths occurring in care homes, many were attributed to Covid-19.[/li]
[li]In late 2020 the Care Quality Commission found 34% of Health and Social Care workers said they had felt pressured to place ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ orders on care home residents without informing the resident or their loved ones.[/li]
[li]An Amnesty report also found the blanket use of DNR orders in Care homes.[/li]
[li]The two-year supply of Midazolam purchased at the beginning of the alleged pandemic was gone by October.[/li]
[li]What happened to all of the Midazolam?[/li]
[/ul]
Over the last 12 months, Lawyers of Light, PUB, and the amazing polymath, Mark Oakford, have interrogated community prescribing of the respiratory depressing drug, Midazolam.
The full letter …
Midazolam and Mass Murder

Read More: Lawyers send open letter to UK Gov., Hancock, Whitty, & Vallance demanding answers on alleged mass murder in care homes through the use of Midazolam

[Steve]

Culling the herd: eugenics, depopulation and the extermination of lower classes

From New Dawn 182 (Sept-Oct 2020)
Eugenics is an attempt to produce genetically desirable children and to terminate the lives of those considered to be genetically inferior. Elements of eugenics exist everywhere. For example, when given the choice, people produce children with partners whom they find attractive. Part of them hopes that those attractive qualities will manifest in the offspring. A more extreme form is infanticide: killing children usually because of physical or mental deformity; a practice as old as humanity.1 In Ancient Greece, Plato and Socrates (c. 470-399 BCE) suggested ways of breeding to promote the superior traits of the elite, as sickly infants were deliberately left to die of exposure.2
Today, there is a sensible and ethical side of what is often called eugenics. Examples include disabled children having operations to save their lives and individuals with learning difficulties asking for sterilisation because they can’t manage contraception and don’t want children. But institutions like the state, prisons, and medical facilities, as well as privileged elites, use eugenics as a way of trying to exterminate the elements of society whom they consider to be a burden. What started out as selective breeding and infanticide has today developed into forced sterilisation and genetic editing to produce “designer babies.” This thinking also informs certain depopulation agendas.

ORIGINS OF THE THEORY …

https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/human-...r-classes/