Mass vaccination mission creep, no rigorous vaccine safety monitoring, counter-terrorism units deployed to crush scientific and social media dissent, major restrictions pursued for political reasons without evidence, expert advisers ignored – just some of the revelations made by Isabel Oakeshott in the Spectator this week. Fresh from co-authoring Matt Hancock’s pandemic diaries, the lockdown-sceptical journalist has written down the “key lessons” she took away from the very revealing writing process she undertook with a man whose approach to the pandemic she vehemently opposes. Here’s an extended excerpt:
Vaccine policy
The crusade to vaccinate the entire population against a disease with a low mortality rate among all but the very elderly is one of the most extraordinary cases of mission creep in political history. On January 3rd 2021, Hancock told the Spectator that once priority groups had been jabbed (13 million doses) then “Cry freedom”. Instead, the Government proceeded to attempt to vaccinate everyone, including children, and there was no freedom for another seven months. Sadly, we now know some young people died as a result of adverse reactions to a jab they never needed. Meanwhile experts have linked this month’s deadly outbreak of Strep A in young children to the weakening of their immune systems because they were prevented from socialising. Who knows what other long-term health consequences of the policy may emerge?
Why did the goalposts move so far off the pitch? I believe multiple driving forces combined almost accidentally to create a policy which was never subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Operating in classic Whitehall-style silos, key individuals and agencies – the JCVI, Sage, the MHRA – did their particular jobs, advising on narrow and very specific safety and regulatory issues. At no point did they all come together, along with ministers and, crucially, medical and scientific experts with differing views on the merits of whole-population vaccination, for a serious debate about whether such an approach was desirable or wise.
The apparent absence of any such discussion at the top of Government is quite remarkable. The Treasury raised the occasional eyebrow at costs, but if a single cabinet minister challenged the policy on any other grounds, I’ve seen no evidence of it…
Hancock is adamant that he never cut corners on safety, though the tone of his internal communications suggest that in his hurtling rush to win the global race for a vaccine, he personally would have been willing to take bigger risks. I believe he would have justified any casualties as sacrifices necessary for the greater good. Fortunately (in my view) his enthusiasm was constrained by medical and scientific advisers, and by the Covid vaccine tsar Kate Bingham, who was so alarmed by his haste that at one point she warned him that he might ‘kill people’. She never thought it was necessary to jab everyone and repeatedly sought to prevent Hancock from over-ordering. Once he had far more than was needed for the initial target group of elderly and clinically vulnerable patients, he seems to have felt compelled to use it. Setting ever more ambitious vaccination rollout targets was a useful political device, creating an easily understood schedule for easing lockdown and allowing the government to play for time amid the threat of new variants. The strategy gave the Conservatives a big bounce in the polls, which only encouraged the party leadership to go further.
Side-effect monitoring
Given the unprecedented speed at which the vaccine was developed, the Government might have been expected to be extra careful about recording and analysing any reported side-effects. While there was much anxiety about potential adverse reactions during clinical trials, once it passed regulatory hurdles, ministers seemed to stop worrying. In early January 2021, Hancock casually asked Chris Whitty “where we are up to on the system for monitoring events after rollout”.
“I was told that we were doing it, but I worry that the details will be shonky,” he told Whitty, sounding as if it was all a bit of an afterthought.
Not exactly reassuringly, Whitty replied that the system was “reasonable” but needed to get better. This exchange, which Hancock didn’t consider to be of any significance, is likely to be seized on by those with concerns about vaccine safety.
Scotland
One of the most striking themes to emerge from internal communications is the scale of concern about Scotland. “WE MUST NOT LET THE SCOTS HAVE THEIR OWN VACCINE PASSPORTS. STOP THIS MADNESS NOW,” Boris Johnson implored, in one of his most agitated messages with Hancock…
Throughout the pandemic, far-reaching policy decisions, especially international travel restrictions and the timing of lockdowns, were distorted by what Sturgeon was doing or what No. 10 feared she might do. Hancock describes her move to mandate mask-wearing in secondary schools in late August 2020 as “one of her most egregious attempts at one-upmanship to date”, admitting the U.K. Government was left “scrabbling around to formulate a response”. The U.K. Government’s own guidance on face coverings had specifically excluded schools. Faced with an unpleasant choice between wheeling out the Chief Medical or Scientific Officer to say that the Scots were wrong or performing a U-turn, Downing Street chose the latter. That, rather than any medical reason, is why millions of schoolchildren were forced to spend months with grubby bits of material stuck to their faces…
The dissenters
As far as Hancock was concerned, anyone who fundamentally disagreed with his approach was mad and dangerous and needed to be shut down… Aided by the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health harnessed the full power of the state to crush individuals and groups whose views were seen as a threat to public acceptance of official messages and policy. As early as January 2020, Hancock reveals that his special adviser was speaking to Twitter about “tweaking their algorithms”. Later he personally texted his old coalition colleague Nick Clegg, now a big cheese at Facebook, to enlist his help. The former Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister was happy to oblige.
Such was the fear of ‘anti-vaxxers’ that the Cabinet Office used a team hitherto dedicated to tackling Isis propaganda to curb their influence. The zero-tolerance approach extended to dissenting doctors and academics. The eminent scientists behind the so-called Barrington Declaration, which argued that public health efforts should focus on protecting the most vulnerable while allowing the general population to build up natural immunity to the virus, were widely vilified: Hancock genuinely considered their views a threat to public health.
For his part, Johnson occasionally fretted that they might have a point. In late September 2020, Hancock was horrified to discover that one of the architects of the Declaration, the Oxford epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta, and her fellow signatory Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, had been into Downing Street to see the Prime Minister. Anders Tegnell, who ran Sweden’s light-touch approach to the pandemic, attended the same meeting. Hancock did not want them anywhere near Johnson, labelling their views “absurd”.
Anti-lockdown protests were quickly banned. When, in September 2020, the Cabinet Office tried to exempt demonstrations from the ‘rule of six’, Hancock enlisted Michael Gove to “kill it off”, arguing that marches would “undermine public confidence in social distancing”. Gove had no qualms about helping…
Care homes
Hancock’s absolute priority was to preserve life –however wretched the existence became. Behind the scenes, the then Care Home Minister Helen Whately fought valiantly to persuade him to ease visiting restrictions to allow isolated residents some contact with their loved ones. She did not get very far. Internal communications reveal that the authorities expected to find cases of actual neglect of residents as a result of the suspension of routine care-home inspections.
Masks
Hancock, Whitty and Johnson knew full well that non-medical face masks do very little to prevent transmission of the virus. People were made to wear them anyway because Dominic Cummings was fixated with them; because Nicola Sturgeon liked them; and above all because they were symbolic of the public health emergency.
As early as February 3rd 2020 – long before anyone outside the Department of Health was taking the prospect of a pandemic seriously – ministers were told the masks make no significant difference. In April 2020, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) reiterated this advice. At the end of that month, the SAGE committee said much the same thing, telling ministers that it would be unreasonable to claim a large benefit. An “obsessed” Cummings was the driving force behind mandating mask-wearing in all healthcare settings – and then in retail and hospitality. On June 28th he messaged Hancock to complain that the Government was being insufficiently “aggressive” on the issue and demanding that they be compulsory in shops and for restaurant staff.
In a private exchange with Hancock, Whitty said he could see “no scientific or medical reason not to” make them compulsory. He described the evidence in favour of mask-wearing as “moderate” in general but “positive in enclosed spaces where distancing is difficult”. Hancock’s response? “I said I could see no reason not to use the power of the state to enforce it and that the importance of masks should be in all our messaging.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How can someone so obviously stupid wield so much power.
Because everyone in the administration was stupid – the best of them were merely possessed of a ‘low cunning’.
“Because everyone in the administration was stupid”.
Replace ‘was’ with ‘is’ [personal observation].
For current, and ongoing, example please see Net Zero.
‘I believe multiple driving forces combined almost accidentally…’
Accidents don’t just happen, they are caused.
Indeed, you would have to believe that the same accident happened in dozens of countries simultaneously. For some reason the influence of the Gates-funded Tony Blair Institute and his “teams embedded in the governments of more than 20 countries” (see the Institute’s annual report at Companies House and the many blog entries on the Institute’s own website) are never mentioned here. They were promoting exactly the tyrannical and medically absurd policies that were implemented, with the exception of biometric IDs which were not implemented. Here’s the Tony Blair article from December 2020 in the Independent urging universal vaccination with a leaky and poorly-tested vax: https://web.archive.org/web/20201222213603/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/covid-vaccine-tony-blair-coronavirus-b1777845.html
Exactly. The UK might have had a particularly stupid cabal in power at the time and a particularly counterproductive setup with regard to Scotland, but the lockstep is still too obvious.
The Tony Blair Institute for global change and its ‘advisory role’ to governments throughout the world has been mentioned many times in comments on the site.
Oakeshott rounded off her piece with a paragraph that included this passage:
The big problem with this is that the supposed “good faith” saw efforts to conceal information, mislead the public, lie repeatedly, distort information on social media, criminalise people for their behaviour and attempt to coerce people into accepting injections of materials that had not been fully tested and were self evidently not effective.
People should not allow politicians to excuse their draconian and authoritarian behaviour in the way Hancock is attempting. He and his department’s refusal to listen to balancing arguments or heed evidence that challenged the orthodoxy, and describe it as conspiracy theory and try to censor it or describe it as misleading or dangerous.
Hancock’s behaviour (and that of other Ministers and senior officials) arguably meets the definition of malfeasance in public office… “a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification”. Having demonstrated they cannot be trusted, and knowingly caused harm to people, they should also be held to account.
Spot on. “Good faith” might have worked for shutting things down for a couple of weeks in the very beginning while they were getting hospitals prepared, but that’s it. Good faith would also have to be based on genuine beliefs for which reasonable grounds could be produced. Having refused to listen to different points of view by definition means there were no reasonable grounds, so there was never any good faith. Deciding to play “monkey see monkey do” because other countries panicked is not good faith.
The outright lying, the shutting down of debate between the actual scientists, the shaming, the bullying, the vilification, the coercion, the violating of numerous laws is a disgrace. Although UK law does not have such laws on the books, a case could be made for charges of negligent homicide or depraved indifference in terms of those who died due to the vaxx.
Good faith died very early on, with them actively preventing treatment drugs.
Good faith would have seen billions and warp speed going into honest research on these readily available existing treatment drugs.
Indeed. People who are acting in good faith do not lie, smear, intimidate, or turn a blind eye to safety issues. On this I vehemently disagree with Oamenshott. This whole fiasco was a malign assault on the British people perpetrated by stooges of big pharma and various globalist sociopaths.
Whatever good faith there may or may not have been, what I cannot get away from is that any failures in making reasonable efforts to ensure free and informed consent to medical interventions constitutes, essentially, a human rights abuse – compounded if the medication is being administered untested under emergency authorisation and with exemption of liability for the people producing it, with flagrant conflicts of interest between government, media and pharmaceutical companies. That man, and others, should absolutely be held to account.
“…but mistakes were made in good faith”.
How can anyone believe that after what has gone on in lockstep around the world?
This was a coordinated industry response…already laid out in October 2019.
Crikey, Event 201 is the blueprint, including the plan to ‘flood the media’ and shut down the ‘anti-vaxxers’ – check out Segment 4, the communications video.
Now reportedly billions of people around the world are jabbed…against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
A ‘pandemic industry’ is being set up to jab and exploit people over and over again.
The UK is right in the thick of it, they got the Covid ‘vaccine solution’ off the ground in early 2020.
How about examining the cosy relationship between Boris Johnson and Bill Gates, and the influence of the Wellcome Trust and others?
Indeed. As many of us have noted.
I’m sick to death of being told “it was all just a mistake.”
There is sufficient evidence out there that this was a planned event and it had serious objectives which have been swiftly advanced.
The idea it was all a cock-up by people who “meant well” is class one bovine excrement.
Ha ha RTSC, was trying to remember that term, ‘class one bovine excrement’ is spot on.
When are the rotten traitors behind this evil plan going to be brought to account?
Notice the rats are leaving the sinking ship, but that won’t save them.
It is more than BS, I think criminal proceedings ought to be brought for the actions of young MPs like Neil O Brien MP. He set up a specific website to denigrate and smear anyone who did not ‘toe the Government line’ and that included eminent epidermiologists such as Prof Sunetra Gupta and brave journalists like Toby Young.
More pressure should be brought by the public when being canvassed by would-be politicians at the next election on what their views and where do/did they stand when it came to lockdowns and the whole Covid debacle.
There will be a push to ‘forget’ the crimes against the public that were perpetrated during this 2 year+ outrage, but we must never ever let the establishment forget their actions against us.
Matt Hancock thought the views of eminent professors in epidemiology, medicine, infectious diseases was absurd? Why would anyone on earth be concerned with what some tosser with a degree in economics thought on this particular subject?
As for his approach – it would appear to have been primarily based on what some Hollywood scriptwriter thought. He openly admitted his vaxx purchasing policy was based on the film Contagion. And the media applauded him for that admission, rather than ripping him a new one, rightly ridiculing him and insisting that someone who actually had a clue what they were doing be appointed.
It makes his groping escapades outside of his “bubble” all the more disgraceful. He claims to have been absolutely certain that his hard approach was necessary – if he really believed that (regardless of the fact that he was wrong), he would have lived it. But like prof. Pantsdown and, for that matter Dominic Cummings, it was rules for thee but not for me.
As for Johnson, it sounds like he did have the right instincts all along. His downfall was not going with his own instincts and following people who knew what they were talking about, but letting waste-of-space underlings make the decisions for him. Very weak.
As for the compulsion aspect, both Whitty and Hancock should be reminded of such things as fundamental rights and laws. If you wish to become a semi-dictatorship where the rule of law is deemed optional, don’t be surprised when you suffer the same fate as out-of-control megalomaniacs before you.
Interesting you should mention Hollywood. In recent months I have watched a number of films produced after 2010 and noticed the concept of lockdown, vaxx passports and general pandemic responses resembled very closely what we were subjected to. It seems very likely that the “health” measures we were subjected to actually came from screenwriters.
Yes, it would be interesting to know what people who saw movies like Contagion years ago initially thought of the lockdown, and people who either never saw it or only saw it after the measures were taken thought of lockdown.
I knew of the film but had never seen it. It was on telly some time last year and I saw most of it. I recognised so much and thought exactly that, this is where a lot of the nasty ideas came from. Hiding under the bed until a magic vaccine had been developed. The stupid wristband in the movie to enter shops already seeding the idea of locking out the “unclean”. Locking out the unclean is, of course, not a new idea, I just thought that in the 21st century we had advanced beyond the type of superstitious, non-fact based thinking more common in the Middle Ages. Instead we’ve regressed even further back and seem now to be engaging in child sacrifice to appease the gods who visit disease upon us.
I’ve also noticed that many tv series over the years use the word lockdown – every single time it is in relation to prisoners in jails… not enough people realise that’s where the word comes from and that’s exactly how they mean to treat us.
Well said. Great comment thank you.
There is a film / video knocking about which shows through countless films, books, artworks, articles, pieces of popular music and so on how our current circumstances were embedded and sort of broadcast to the masses; a softening up, normalising of the current horrors. It seemed slightly bizarre at the time, perhaps two years ago, now it seems entirely plausible.
Sadly, I did not bookmark the film.
‘There is no doubt that Hancock worked phenomenally hard to do what he felt was best, based on all the information available at the time.’
At the time the information available was: the virus was harmless to everyone under age 70, but could be severe or fatal to a small, specific cohort ie those above WITH comorbidity (data from Diamond Princess cruise ship; China and Italy and observation in UK; it was known that death rate peaked first week of March, therefore peak infection rate was 3 to 4 weeks earlier, therefore the epidemic had subsided by the end of February 2020 so lockdown couldn’t have any effect on preventing spread; it was known masks had no beneficial effect; it was know transmission was by aerosol not droplets so distancing was of no use; it was known that people with lung tissue damage should not be put on respirators; it was know that vaccinating when a virus is actively spreading is contra-indicated; it was known that vaccines cannot be effective against fast mutating RNA viruses and cause vaccine resistant strains to emerge; it was known that closing the NHS down would cause deaths; it was known putting healthy people under house arrest is Human Rights abuse; it was known shutting down the economy would have disastrous effects.
Given these knowns… Hancock worked ‘phenomenally hard’ to practice great evil on the British people.
When does he appear in Court?
He probably did hear all this stuff and dismissed it as anti-vaxxer, conspiracy nonsense. Isn’t the family of his side piece involved in the pharma and health care industry? That’s probably where he got his guidance – the only solution will be toxic chemicals and lots of PPE and other goodies that would cost the taxpayer millions upon millions of pounds.
A bit of nookie and spreading the wealth among friends or doing what is right for the nation. A no-brainer for a no-brainer.
I doubt that him and his fellow lockdownisters never will face a court.
Sad to say, never. He deserves the. Mussolini send off.
If you’re an incompetent then “doing your best” is a recepie for disaster – as we saw. What you need is people “doing what they’re best at”. So that conts out politicians doing anything at all.
The man should be tried and locked up for the pain and distress he’s caused. Not to mention all the damage he’s done to perfectly healthy people who followed his advice about the Vs
All planned. All the messaging, tools, media manipulation, platform messaging, lockdown brutality, studies, diaper mandates, travel mandates, stabbination mandates, demonisation wording – all coordinated across the G20, perfectly in sync.
Hancock is a psychopath and moron. But it could have been anyone and the result is the same. If not, they would have been Trussed up and replaced and Sunacked.
Even the imagery was the same, Savage Jabvid in a hospital, staff in hazmat suits, everyone under plastic with diapers, beds in layers of plastic with armless manequins. Savage sans diaper waving hands talking to the manequins. You could see the exact same backdrop in 6 different countries, with 6 different Minister Idiot….etc etc.
2019 Event One.
“While vast sums of public money were wasted and the collateral damage from lockdowns and other Covid policies was enormous, I do not believe there was any kind of conspiracy, still less any malign intent on the part of our political leaders during the crisis. They may have been misguided; and got some things catastrophically wrong, but mistakes were made in good faith.”
“This country paid a catastrophic price for what I see as a reckless overreaction to a disease that was only life-threatening to a small number of people who could have been protected without imprisoning the entire population.”
The above excerpts from Isabel Oakeshott’s piece suggest incompetence and recklessness, rather than malevolence or malign intent to explain the management of the “pandemic” in the UK.
Three possibilities come to mind:
a) she is correct. She has had privileged access to one of the main players involved and to much documentation and correspondence, and that places her in a great position to make an assessment;
b) she has been misled and has drawn the wrong conclusion;
c) she believes that something else is going on (other than a good faith response by the authorities to a “pandemic”), but feels inhibited from saying so in the Spectator.
I have a view about which of these is most likely, but what do others think?
I am not buying any of this. I don’t know what Ms Oakshott is up to but something is not right. Allegedly Ms Oakshott is or was involved with Richard Tice so this writing job for Midazolam Mat seems very strange. Now it could be argued that some inside info might be useful to Richard Tice and Reform but having said that Ms Oakshott still concludes:
“I do not believe there was any kind of conspiracy, still less any malign intent on the part of our political leaders during the crisis.”
This is utterly bizarre.
We, the merry band here on DS are aware that the actions of the British government were replicated in virtually minute detail across ALL Western (type) nations to a greater or lesser extent yet there was no “malign intent.”
Now having read some of Ms Oakshott’s journalism and seen her occasional appearances on Question Time I would not conclude that she has an intelligence deficit so what she is writing in the Speccie does not make sense. Has she been utterly fooled by Midazolam Mat?
Ultimately Ms Oakshott is making a case for cock-up while actually confirming that ALL the major players knew exactly what the score was on a daily basis. Their malfeasance and dishonesty is beyond doubt. As is the fact that the government was and still is working in Lockstep with all the other Western nations. And what has played out is uncannily as scripted in the Agenda 21 pre-planning meeting of October 2019. Furthermore, our government is uncannily aligned with the WEF Agenda 2030 so I am blowed if I can find any lack of malign intent.
The alarm bells were ringing as soon as I read ‘writing in the Spectator this week.’ I doubt any member of DS sees the Speccie as anything but controlled opposition so this piece by Ms Oakshott could only sit within its columns.
As stated above I find the opinions and conclusions of Ms Oakshott unbelievable and frankly bizarre.
Must try harder.
Great comment.
For me, one of the hardest things to get one’s mind round is the extent of betrayal by journalists of (what should be) their very essence and the thing that attracted them to journalism in the first place – ie holding power to account by exposing the truth. Whilst I can just about (at a push) understand (no I can’t) doctors and nurses going along with the narrative, I find it extremely puzzling (bizarre, as you say) how journalists can betray the People to the extent they have.
Many thanks. Much appreciated.
I have no great insight with regard to the journalist in question but I do wonder if there’s an element of denial going on here. I suspect that might have been a factor in some of TY’s more charitable articles on “Boris”. They probably all know each other and move in similar circles and have broadly supported the Tories and thought they were on the same side. They may struggle to accept that people they once admired and considered friends could be so wicked.
She & Tice are controlled opposition. As is Farage.
Divide & conquer tactics.
I do not believe there was any kind of conspiracy, still less any malign intent on the part of our political leaders during the crisis…..
Of course there wasn’t a conspiracy. Except for the odd blip here and there – Johnson wanting to hear out Gupta and Henegan, for example – they stuck to the Event 201 outline more or less perfectly. That’s not conspiracy, that’s WEF/BMGF/G20 consensus planning, that is. Wankock appears to be a supreme example of how effective the nudge unit was with morons. And Big Pharma pillow talk, natch.
‘Mistakes made in good faith‘ – what a load of bo**ocks. She seems to be forgetting that people died and continue to do so as a result of this planned catastrophe. That’s DEAD and DYING, Oakeshott: don’t you get it? She’s either supremely naive or being deliberately misleading if she expects anyone with an iota of intelligence to fall for it any longer. Disgusting.
Thanks for that and I agree – “Disgusting,” because that is the bottom line.
This is quite interesting in that regard too:
The lab leak story was and is just as bogus and part of the lockstep and its controlled opposition narratives as the wet market one was and is.
https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/drastic-founder-renounces-lab-leak
Having read this today and Marc Girardot’s take on the real reason for any vaccine injuries yesterday, the plandemic lockstep makes even more sense to me than before, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘vaccines’ were just more or less toxic standard goo without ANY efficiency or medical purpose (that Italian’s theory), which explains why the politicians in the know didn’t care much about getting injected with them themselves (IF they got the real ones, still a big IF).
The fact that no politicians have died or been seriously injured by the injections suggests to me that they knew they were dangerous and therefore arranged for saline injections or simply avoided them altogether.
(I know there was a yank senator who copped for Guillian Barre(?) syndrome but it looks like this was an accident or a warning for being a naughty boy.)
It’s true however you slice it that what was really significant about COVID was the government response; the disease itself was a detail. I’m wary of Couey’s argument though because it seems (at least, as it’s presented in that substack) to be just another barrowload of rhetoric. He raises legitimate questions about the heritability of certain features of the original Wuhan strain and the specificity of the PCR tests that have measurable answers, but he just assumes what those answers are going to be. That’s political talk, not scientific talk.
What a disaster the last 3 years have been.
Our authorities have broken the country. It isn’t merely that politicians took the opportunity to take far too much power (a politician’s dream), but that authorities nationwide were so keen to wield the power handed to them in such a draconian fashion.
We urgently need reform to make sure that this cannot happen again. Note that there’s no point in asking our politicians to organise this, as they’re culpable (even the opposition, which if anything were even more eager to subjugate the masses).
You seem to be implying “disaster” in the sense of cock-up and recklessness and even abuse of power, but all in the context of a good faith attempt to address a public health situation ie in a similar position to that put forward by Isabel Oakeshott. Is that correct and, if so, why do you not buy the “malign intent” view that somehow, someone is seeking to use the “pandemic” to advance an alternative agenda.
I agree. Anybody believing in the cock-up theory for what is happening is completely away with the faeries and needs to enlarge their library.
Either that or stop smokin.
The “good faith” defence is threadbare by now. There is simply too much evidence stacked against it. To think that at no point did any of these people start to entertain doubts is beyond credible. And then there are all the ethical questions about coerced experimental medical treatment.
The last three years have left me very cynical.
And it appears to me that the ‘nudge’ behind Ms Oakeshott’s work is to present Hancock (and maybe to a lesser extent Cummings) as the fall guy for what’s happened. Clearly a fall guy is needed. And Hancock is the obvious candidate, and stupid enough not to realise what’s happening until it’s too late.
That’s how I read her piece.
Clearly, this goes far, far wider than that retard Hancock.
So perhaps we really were getting “77th brigade” on here! Hancock’s halfwits? I wonder if such attacks were a factor in changes we have seen to this website since it started?
A timely reminder of the cruelties of this former health secretary.
Yes, the Telegraph was the same. At a certain time of day, a shift would show up online and start throwing out the abuse.
“We have a choice: we can explain that Krankie is hopelessly wrong or we can f***-up millions of English schoolchildren”
“We obviously f***-up the kids. Anybody disagree? No? Excellent”
That’s why we need to bring back the Birkenhead drill. And put the first fish v and her collaborators on trial for their crimes.
Jeremy Slime not content with Bellfields 5year stretch, he’s now going after Anna Brees doing the very thing that got AB banged up !
Isabel Oakeshott says “The crusade to vaccinate the entire population against a disease with a low mortality rate among all but the very elderly is one of the most extraordinary cases of mission creep in political history.”
This qualifies as a massive understatement…
Billions of people around the world have been pierced with Covid needles…
I suggest this is the biggest case of assault and battery of all time, undertaken with the complicity of a medical ‘profession’ that has forsaken its ethical responsibility to obtain ‘valid informed consent’ before a medical intervention, i.e. the fast-tracked experimental Covid jabs.
In Australia, it’s likely millions of people have been jabbed under mandates, i.e. people have been pressured, coerced and manipulated to submit to the jabs, to maintain their livelihoods – No Jab, No Job.
When the main jab rollout was underway, critical thinking people who refused to consent to being penetrated by the Covid needles were discriminated against and excluded from society – banned from going to restaurants, theatres, sporting events and sports clubs, shopping, even the zoo! It was No Jab, No Life.
Even authoritarian China didn’t have jab mandates like Australia…
And in Australia, the ‘health practitioners’ were assured by the then Scott Morrison led government that they had specific medical indemnity for administering the Covid jabs.
But it now turns out this is a lie, they don’t have specific medical indemnity re Covid jabbing after all… But it does raise the question, what wouldn’t ‘health practitioners’ do if they thought they were protected?
See my correspondence with the Australian health minister, Mark Butler: Are health practitioners covered for indemnity insurance re the Covid jabs? 21 November 2022.
The reply I received from the health department also confirms: “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations”.
Ha! Really?!?!? Who has been properly informed about these defective jabs? And how can someone give voluntary informed consent under a jab mandate?
I suggest no-one has been properly informed about these jabs, no-one has given ‘valid informed consent’.
Millions/billions of people, including children, have been jabbed, without ‘valid informed consent’.
Biggest crime of all time…
Great post.
Isn’t a “lockdown sceptical journalist” the ultimate oxymoron? And what would have motivated such an individual to author Wancock’s odious attempt to ingratiate himself with his executioners? It can’t have been the money surely?
When reading this I can only come to one of two possible conclusions.
Hancock is not very intelligent and is power driven, out for personal glory
or
Hancock is intelligent and power driven, out for personal glory.
The further thing I find odd is Matt’s choice of co-author.
Apparently she is a lockdown sceptic?
If she is, why would he choose to ask her to be the the co-author?
Please! Please! – We are not on first name terms with that little sh*t.
I attended something in Parliament arranged by Big brother watch and witnessed first hand the influence Facebook had with Nick Clegg and some of his ex civil service types. Far to cosy with current politicians and one mp even publicly joking about needing to abuse facebooks expense account. The swamp needs draining
Having read all the article and it certainly is “worth reading in full” there is still no excuse for any Minister not to listen to both sides of an argument and then make a considered decision. To dismiss eminent and top scientists and experts in their field just because you disagree with them is negligence of the highest magnitude. No excuses, the man has to pay for all the misery and destruction he has caused.
Un-elected Sunak out
The conclusion of this article is just a love fest towards all the perpetrators of the rancid covid narrative. To even suggest that things were done in ‘good faith’ is utter nonsense.
Hancock is an arrogant, despicable, noxious, lying bully. He was surrounded by others with highly suspect personal and professional values. Nevertheless, he was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care from 2018 – 2021. He failed miserably in his role. End of.
It must not turn out to be “End of”.
I suggest that all this was just ‘well meant complete incompetence’ quite preposterous.
But even if further factual evidence proved this to be the case, I suggest that everyone named in Oakeshott’s piece other than Gupta, Teggel etc. should be incarcerated for the rest of their worthless lives.
I also point out that neither Oakeshott nor previous commenters mention the clear parallels with the Zero Carbon scam which after three decades of gross exaggerations and barefaced lies was in danger of running out of steam and needed a ‘warp speed’ booster; the ‘Climate’ having obviously failed to even approach the fearfull predictions. Time and again we see the same malevolent chancers involved in both attacks.
Never forget nor forgive what they did to us.
The buck stopped with Johnson and the cabinet. They collectively showed no more backbone, responsibility, intelligence, common sense and duty to dealing with Covid than Hancock.
A point which should never be forgotten. Midazolam Mat was very much a primary perpetrator of this horrific crime but he was backed up by one hell of a phalanx :
Bozo, Whitless, Vance, Tammy, Cummings grubbing away in the background like some snotty goblin, Michie, Raine, Govy and countless others. He couldn’t have caused such mayhem on his own because he’s not bright enough.
Speaking of Midazolam I was horrified to discover after I had undergone a medical procedure recently that the sedative contained midazolam and fentanyl. That was a close call!
Not Cabinet: cabals made decisions that were presented essentially as fait accomplis, and almost certainly no minutes. We need to stop these bastards.
Despicable ‘yes men’ who sang the manifesto at their first meeting in Dec 2019! Third/fourth-rate humans, one and all.
“Hancock genuinely considered their views [Barrington Declaration] a threat to public health.”
Utterly wrong! Nothing to do with saving lives, it was soley because his “strategy gave the Conservatives a big bounce in the polls”.
Governments never have, don’t now, and never will do saving lives: their sole concern is re-election.
If only it were true that governments’ “sole concern is re-election”, since that would imply some notion of “doing what the people want”, in order to get re-elected.
Sadly, whatever the mechanism is (corruption, blackmail, organised crime, belief in global elitism, deep state power), governments are pursuing agendas on a whole range of areas (public health and population, food, environment / climate, immigration, etc) which are not necessarily in the interests of the people.
Put another way – the Social Contract has broken down.
Forgive me but did you not notice, “strategy gave the Conservatives a big bounce in the polls”?
And as for the other initiatives, that’s the ‘turkeys voting for Xmas’ anomaly, the result of the power of MSM, social media, and a non democratic election system combined with a dumbed-down electorate. Depressing, ain’t it?
Happy Christmas to all our readers!
Let’s throw Hancock under the bus. He is finished anyways. No one person could have controlled disastrous government policy to this extent. An Oswald in the making.
Being thrown under a bus is not good enough. HDQ is what he deserves.
You don’t say. I think many of us were engaged in running battles with the 77th Brigade on twitter in 2020/21.
We had plenty of battles with 77 on here until Toby instituted a pay to comment policy which seems to have got rid.
I hadn’t thought of that! 👏👏👏
Can someone please explain how a supposedly lockdown sceptic journalist like Isabel Oakeshott can end up ghost writing the diaries of one of the principle architects of the government’s disastrous pandemic policies? And from what little I’ve read of them they’re not exactly on the same level as Alan Clark or Chips Channon. On reflection they probably do reveal the real character of the man – self-opinionated, egotistical, always right. What a c**k up.