The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that babies should be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it. Through its updated abortion care guideline released in 2022, WHO expects all Member States to implement this policy.
This article is not about whether WHO’s policy is right or wrong, but the process used to reach its conclusions, and what this tells us about WHO as a legitimate global health advisory body.
Dealing with a difficult topic
It is important to say awkward things sometimes, when these things are true. When we become polarised, we can start to believe that stating something consistent with ‘the other party’ can be worse than telling lies to support our preferred stance. This demeans us and does not help anyone. There are few issues that polarise Western society more than abortion.
I am tied to neither side of the abortion debate. As a medical practitioner, I have taken part in surgical abortions, helping women to stop a pregnancy that they decided they did not want to continue. I have also assisted some hundreds of women to deliver babies.
I have been with tiny premature babies of just 20 weeks gestation when they died. I have gently cradled a very premature child of my own, fully human in my hands. He saw light and felt hunger, pain and fear, his outstretched hand the size of my thumbnail. He could have been killed in many places if he had not happened to be born early.
Many thousands of girls and women also die excruciating deaths each year from septic, unsafe abortions performed because safe abortion is outlawed or inaccessible. The introduction to the WHO guideline notes that three of 10 pregnancies end in abortion and nearly half of these are unsafe for the mother, nearly all these being in low-income countries. I have lived in a Southeast Asian country where several thousand women are thought to die from this each year. These young and agonising deaths mostly cease when abortion is legalised.
Philosophically, I believe in the equality of all human beings and in the concept of bodily autonomy – no one has the right to interfere and control another’s body. We own and must control our bodies, not because someone grants us this right, but because we are humans. This applies to medical procedures as it does to torture. As it applies to our own body, it applies to all others.
However, because there is good and bad in the world –nurture and harm – the interpretation of this fundamental truth is not simple. At times we may need to kill another’s body. We do this in war, for example, to stop a country being invaded and its people tortured, raped and killed. But we also uphold the right of conscientious objectors who decline to kill because of their religious or moral beliefs.
So there is no simple right and wrong when it comes to the act of abortion, only a right or wrong in the intent. As humans we need to face such truths fearlessly because truth is intrinsically better than lies, and simplifications of complex issues are frequently lies. In interpreting the same truths, we may reach different actions. We need to recognise that life is full of hard choices, always harder for some than others, and we all have different experiences to inform them.
A wise friend was once discussing the issue of abortion with people who, with good intentions, held vigils outside abortion clinics to dissuade women from entering. He recounted the words of a woman who had an abortion at a such a clinic: “What she needed was someone to be with her and support her after she had left by the back door, not someone accosting her on the way in.”
Like much that life throws at us, dealing with abortion primarily requires truth, understanding and compassion, not dogma.
The WHO position on abortion, and what it means
WHO released its Abortion care guideline in early 2022, updating previous publications on the social, ethical and medical aspects of abortion into one volume. As a ‘guideline’ rather than a recommendation, WHO expects the document to be followed by the 194 Member States that make up the World Health Assembly. WHO, of course, does not have power to enforce guidelines, but ‘guideline’ in the WHO lexicon is an instruction by which countries should abide.
To ensure an evidence-base, guideline development is supposed to involve a wide range of experts and stakeholders who gather to weigh evidence, using this to carefully formulate ‘best practice’. The process should be transparent and the data traceable. A department within WHO oversees this process, ensuring that the guideline reflects the Organisation’s principles and way of working.
WHO’s guideline recommends unequivocally that abortion be performed on request of a pregnant woman, at any time during pregnancy up until delivery, without any delay that may potentially cause the pregnant woman distress.
Recommend against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds… This requires that… abortion is available when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman, girl or other pregnant person substantial pain or suffering…
iv. health grounds reflect WHO’s definitions of health and mental health (see Glossary) [A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity];
[Mental health: A state of well-being in which every individual realises their own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to their community]…Gestational age limits delayed access to abortion, especially among women seeking abortions at later gestational ages… Gestational age limits have been found to be associated with… increased rates of maternal mortality and poor health outcomes.
The evidence also showed that grounds-based approaches that require foetal impairments to be fatal for abortion to be lawful frustrate providers who wish to support patients and leave women no choice but to continue with pregnancy. Being required to continue with a pregnancy that causes significant distress violates numerous human rights. States are obligated [emphasis added] to revise these laws to make them compatible with international human rights law.
Put another way (but exactly the same meaning), WHO’s official position is that a woman may kill an unborn embryo or baby soon after conception, or when it is entering the birth canal during labour, and it is the health profession’s role to do this without delay upon request.
WHO’s logic in arriving at its conclusion is deeply flawed, and can only be reached by adopting a specific view of humanity that is inconsistent with that of most Member States. It is therefore an illegitimate position, if WHO works for all of its Member States and not for narrow, unrepresentative interests.
In its lack of inclusivity, the guideline demonstrates a growing culture within international health that is deeply troubling and dangerous. This culture relies on a denial of reality to achieve a pre-ordained result. It deliberately misuses human rights norms to force a particular world view on others – a form of cultural colonialism and quite the opposite of the community-driven and anti-colonialist ideals around which WHO was formed.
WHO’s human rights justification
WHO justifies its position on abortion by citing what it considers relevant human rights norms and law. It holds that there is no choice but to allow abortion, as refusing or delaying abortion, such as through a requirement for counselling, could potentially distress the pregnant woman.
When offering and providing counselling, it is essential to apply the following guiding principles: …ensure that the individual is requesting the counselling and make it clear that counselling is not required;
In causing distress, her human right to be free from ill-health (in this case psychological pain) has been infringed, based on the definition of health – physical, mental and social wellbeing – in WHO’s Constitution. This weak argument requires disagreement with another person’s views to constitute a violation of that person’s rights. Society could not function on this basis.
In establishing the required evidence-base for maintaining its incongruous position, WHO has to consider only risk and no benefit.
The studies also showed that where women requested an abortion and were denied care due to gestational age this could result in the unwanted continuation of pregnancy… those who presented at 20 weeks’ gestation or later. This outcome can be viewed as incompatible with the requirement in international human rights law to make abortion available when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering, regardless of pregnancy viability.
The studies used by WHO do not however only record negative outcomes of delays through required counselling, but note that women also considered that legally-required delays and counselling could be positive, with some opting not to have an abortion as a result.
If WHO recognised any requirement for counselling, it would have to recognise that practitioners withholding counselling would be putting informed consent in jeopardy, and in some cases babies (“pregnancy tissue”) would be lost when an informed woman, on reflection, may have preferred to keep it. Informed consent is at the basis of modern medical ethics and an internationally-accepted human right. WHO recognises in the document that: “States must ensure that informed consent is provided freely, safeguarded effectively, and based on complete provision of high-quality, accurate and accessible information.” Incongruously, it then considers that the rights of that woman are violated if the abortion is delayed in order to ensure that information, and time for reflection, are provided.
The human in ‘human rights’
At no place in the document is the definition of ‘human’ discussed. WHO’s argument for abortion requires absolute acceptance that human rights do not apply in any form prior to birth. The only human rights acknowledged in the document are those of the pregnant woman, with disputable subsidiary rights of providers. Discussion of foetal (unborn baby) rights is absent. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not specify a time that dividing cells become human, creating uncertainty for the Guideline’s argument.
Defining ‘human’ is difficult. It may be argued that the lack of independence, or ability to express thoughts to others, prevent the application of human rights to a foetus. This claim would require dependent adults or children who cannot articulate their thoughts to be considered sub-human, such as people severely mentally or even physically disabled, and those who are comatose. This is a position previously adopted by fascist and eugenic regimes that believed in a hierarchy of human worth. It would be unfitting for WHO.
The only intrinsic difference between the baby within and without the womb apart from geography is the umbilical cord. Suggesting the functioning of this foetal organ, comprised solely of fetal tissue, somehow prevents the rest of the foetus from being a sentient being would require redefinition of ‘sentient’. For the last few months within the uterus, when it could readily survive outside, it has its own unique and complete human DNA, a beating heart and independent movement. Some mothers will say it responds to familiar sounds. If removed from the uterus, it displays sensations of pain and distress, hunger, an ability to cry, respond to stimuli, recognise light, shapes and sounds, and drink milk. If this sentient being is not human, what is it?
Any recognition of humanness of WHO’s “pregnancy tissue” requires an acceptance of two persons in the woman-foetal relationship (i.e., two potential victims). The human rights basis of WHO’s guidelines would then require one to be considered subservient to the other. This would require a rewriting of the human rights agreements on which the panel based its determination (a hierarchy of human worth).
Alternatively, it can be decided that the rights to life of one can be infringed to benefit the other. We do this in war, we may do it in triage at the scene of an accident. We also do this sometimes in pregnancy. It involves recognising hard and unpleasant choices, as it involves putting value on potential harm to the woman versus harm to the second person in the equation. This approach would fit with human rights conventions, but would disallow an approach that relies solely on a dogma that claims the pregnant woman’s welfare is the only relevant concern. The failure of WHO to recognise the potential of two humans with attendant rights in a pregnancy smells like cowardice. Its argument is flawed.
Pregnancy tissue or person?
The Guideline manages the definition of the unborn by avoiding the use of the term ‘baby’ anywhere in its 120 pages – itself quite a feat of drafting for an abortion guideline. The term ‘pregnancy tissue’ is used most frequently to describe the growing mass within the uterus:
Pregnancy tissue should be treated in the same way as other biological material unless the individual expresses a desire for it to be managed otherwise.
However, if the foetus happens to be born at 28 weeks, WHO considers it a fully-fledged human. It is recorded in human death statistics, and WHO produces guidance on how to support its health and welfare elsewhere. WHO’s 2022 Recommendations for care of the pre-term or low-birth-weight (LBW) infant state: “The care of preterm and LBW infants is a global priority.” To kill it once out of the birth canal is murder in most countries – an ultimate violation of human rights.
For WHO’s entire human rights argument to be valid, the definition of a human must therefore rely entirely on geography – inside or outside the uterus. WHO must hold that at some moment during the final stage of labour, the ‘pregnancy tissue’ is suddenly transformed into an entirely different entity – from irrelevant tissue to a full person with the rights and immeasurable worth that this implies.
If this guideline is followed, my 28 week baby became human not through any intrinsic value or worth, but because the drugs suppressing labour became ineffective. If these drugs had worked, WHO holds that my child could have been subsequently killed as one might excise an annoying tumour. From pregnancy tissue to “global priority” depends, in WHO’s eyes, on a matter of seconds and centimetres. Whether a live abortion ‘product’ is a global priority or pregnancy tissue is not discussed – the assumption is that the intent to abort changes the status of the erstwhile human to irrelevance.
Conscientious objection and health providers
The Guideline considers removing the right to conscientious objection of the provider (this “may” be necessary), where this will delay an abortion. This is a fascinating contrast to the emphasis on avoiding any risk of emotional harm or stress to the pregnant woman. Rights apply here to the pregnant woman, but not to other involved humans.
Recommend that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection.
Rights of the provider to follow their own cultural or religious belief may be overridden “if no alternative provider is available”.
If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible.
Providers are not classed as equal humans; their rights are subservient. If we are to believe that ‘stress’ is a legitimate harm from which the pregnant woman must be protected as a human right, then this must also apply to stress caused to a provider who is forced to act against his or her conscience. We are faced with at least two beings whose rights must be weighed together. WHO’s simplistic human interpretation again seems to fall apart.
The guideline committee did appear aware of this dilemma, and resorted to EU human rights law to support its case (though legal arguments may question its fit with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights). The right to conscientious objection in other instances is strongly protected in international law. Whilst the Guideline quotes sections of this EU law, it fails to elucidate contrary arguments. French human rights law takes a contrary view and upholds the rights of such a medical or nursing practitioner to object; recognising the issue of forcing a practitioner to act in a way he or she considers wrong. It explicitly notes the inherent moral difficulty of setting rules in this area.
The rights of parents and minors
The rights of parents or guardians are recognised in regard to decisions on medical procedures for minors in most WHO Member States, whilst being more widely questioned in some Western cultures. The Guideline considers only one view throughout, that young age is no limit to consent. Practitioners therefore have a duty to maintain confidentiality for a pregnant girl who requests an abortion and prefers her parents to be unaware.
Recommend that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorisation of any other individual, body or institution.
This is a complicated area, and there are strong arguments for protecting confidentiality, as there are for parental involvement in consenting to medical procedures for children under their protection. WHO considers only one specific Western view to be legitimate and therefore superior, and holding that contrary views (e.g. in Islamic, South Asian, East Asian or most Christian communities) to be illegitimate and inappropriate.
WHO, inclusivity and cultural colonialism
In formulating a guideline on an issue critical to human rights and values, the world might expect WHO to consider the rich diversity of its cultural, religious and societal life. This is not evidenced within the document’s 150 pages. The drafting committee generically noted such opinions and cultures are important in the introduction:
The needs of all individuals with respect to abortion are recognised and acknowledged in this guidance… WHO guidelines systematically incorporate consideration of the values and preferences of end-users of the recommended or suggested interventions into the process of developing the guidance.
Those formulating the guidelines were seemingly unaware that such values and preferences may lead to differing opinions regarding the killing of an unborn baby.
WHO states that a global survey was conducted, followed by a meeting with participants from 15 (of 194) Member States. Either no one in this ‘inclusivity’-driven process raised any objection, or those in charge of the process considered such opinions so inferior to their own as to be unworthy of record. If cultural colonialism needs definition, this act of imposing one’s values on others through an apparent belief in the superiority of one’s own views seems an excellent example.
The world does not need to return to colonialism
WHO, heavily sponsored by private vested interests, is not the population-oriented organisation it was 75 years ago. Along with the COVID-19 response, this guideline demonstrates the extent to which WHO has regressed to a narrow Western-derived world view that even many in the West would find appalling. It seeks to impose this on others, considering alternate approaches unworthy of serious discussion.
Whatever one’s views on abortion, the flaws in WHO’s human rights arguments, and its clear avoidance of diversity of opinion, suggest an organisation focused on dogma rather than evidence. Abortion is a morally complicated area. Policy must be based on compassion and respect for all of humanity. To impose one’s views on others irrespective of evidence and without respect for alternate opinion is a form of fascism. WHO may have a place in advising on safety of a medical procedure, but not in pontificating over moral rights and wrongs. It is not there to tell people how to live their lives, but to support them with the tools to do so.
Countries currently considering whether to grant greater powers to WHO would do well to question whether the organisation is compatible with their culture, ethics and beliefs. The abortion guideline is a reflection of WHO’s growing unfitness to lead global health.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
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.
Every other MP whose name is not on this list is a traitor.
Or a member of the government
..but you repeat yourself.
Yep, wrote to my traitorous MP yesterday about this. No doubt he’ll ignore this letter like he did the last one (s). Also going to send him the The Together Declaration, for him to ignore too. https://www.togetherdeclaration.org/mp-letter/
You are of course aware of a certain popular definition of insanity (attributed by some to Einstein)?
True enough but far more important is he who laughs last. A disaffected voter will never vote for the party again. A voter who has been treated as a human being in a cordial manner will, perhaps, vote again simply because he has respect. Do unto others as you would have done to you.
With our anachronistic fptp voting arrangement – coupled with the stranglehold of a two and a quarter party system – most UK voters have long become used to being disaffected and pinching their noses when voting. The only alternative is being disenfranchised.
”Vote”? There’s optimism…..
The Together Declaration is controlled opposition. They have funds from Open Society as do Big Brother Watch
There’s many slip ‘tween vote and list – mainly into the abstentions lobby.
There isn’t – by definition – an abstentions lobby. To abstain, the person entitled to vote (in this case the MP) just doesn’t vote.
Continuing the literal interpretation theme, how can a non-material thing such as a vote be an object that a person can “slip” anywhere near?
Colon. Hyphen. Close round brackets.
But in parliament a vote IS a physical thing, defined by the presence (or non presence) of a person in a particular defined space at a particular time. If the person who has announced they will vote NO deliberately fails to enter the NO lobby they thus physically ‘slip’ (surreptitiously) into the (de-facto) abstentions lobby; which, as PB pedantically points out, is not an actual lobby, but rather the failure to enter either the Aye or Nay divisions.
I quote the Cambridge Dictionary’s relevant example:
That’s not a physical thing – that’s an action. As I understand it, movement is required (past the tellers at the far end) rather than mere presence. Anyway I was trying to take your side. “Abstentions lobby” was a perfectly OK and even amusing usage, not literal but that doesn’t matter. I was trying to reduce to the absurd the insistence on only literal usage.
The act of voting requires a physical action that results in one physically being present (or not) in a defined space. But again, as in PB’s criticism of ‘abstention lobby’ (and I do appreciate your support on this), ‘many a slip twixt ones stated voted intentions and the actual act of voting’ takes us dangerously into Mr Logic territory.
Yeah, I know, but you have to grant a certain artistic licence in the interests of brevity.
I suspect my SNP MP will be in that group…
Instead of a list of those voting against vaccine passports a list needs to be circulated very publicly of those who vote for. They need to stand down and hang their heads in shame and eventually all of them need to be criminally prosecuted.
Have you compiled a list of their names & addresses? How about their bodyguards – are they traitors too? And what are their names & addresses?
All my phone calls and emails this week have been fruitless, then.
Yours and millions of others!
Wonder if it’s worth looking into the backgrounds of the traitors and see where the money leads, in the style of the Sheep Farm? BTW if you haven’t found those fellas yet, pls have a look at their stuff, amazing work.
Yes, they are excellent.
Oh, like Tim Yeo with wind farms? I bet parliament is crawling with them. These big pharma crooks know how to keep people sweet. Probably the best practitioners of winning friends and influencing people today.
Worthy people no doubt and brave enough to challenge the Johnson regime, but not enough at the moment I’m afraid. More needs to be done e.g. no confidence vote against Johnson.
What I would like to see is a list of the people who were at the Downing Street parties.
They probably know as well as we do that someone like Gove or Stabbit jabit would replace him. Now if the likes of Redwood and McVey had a genuine chance, we ‘might be getting somewhere
Changing the politician nominally in charge will do nothing. The unelected technocrats pulling the strings will still be in place and a repalcement will be an even softer target.
Ferguson, who has never been right in any of his predictions, has to go, permanently and absolutely out of any position of influence. As an example to the others.
The Mad Modellers also should be required to produce ‘most likely’ predictions, not their beloved ‘worst case’. The worst case ‘we are all going to die’ isn’t very helpful whilst being 100% accurate in the long run.
39 out of the 45 are men, I notice. Wat means ? Well I know what it means: the future is female, and not in a good way
Only 70 out of 261 Conservative MPs are women, and you may not have a full list of those who will rebel yet. Some may not want to be known too much before the vote, so the statistics aren’t that indicative as yet.
Sorry 70 out of 331, (the 261 being the men), so women to be proportionate should be just short of a fifth of the total, so 8, or at most 9, whereas there are 6. Not sure that 2 short could be called statistically significant, especially given the general greater reluctance of those given ministerial responsibility to vote against the government, and the fact that it isn’t a final figure
Ah, and then there is the fact that there are actually 9. Siobhan is a female name, as is Dehenna., and Jackie is also a female; perhaps these 3 confused? If anything they are slightly disproportionately over-represented.
Whoops, only just had coffee, they are just over a fifth of the total. Statistically 10 would be proportionate, and there are nine, which is within the + or – of statistical insignificance
‘Ministerial Responsibility’ – that is career and personal gain against public duty, principle and the protection of our basic Human Rights and freedoms guaranteed under Common Law- an insight into the ‘character’ of most of those we send to Parliament to Govern us and a reminder for any future elections ( if there are any!).
Absolutely. I was assuming an equality of potential for corruption by high office!!
Looking around the world and at those who are now ‘in charge’ of so many of our Institutions I share your concern.
Pandora ought to have obeyed and never to have opened the box.
Maths suggests there should be 12 women out of 60. There are 9. (I worked on 50, not 60, forgetfully and since there were 50 last time, and I need more coffee!). Statistically this is of little to no significance, and it is rather improper to suggest that it is.
Turning this into a battle of the sexes is a wasteful distraction from the real problem. Is that your intention?
I am wondering what proportion of Conservative MPs with a science degree are on that list?
I think it is somewhere between around 66 and 100%.
Shame the rest don’t “follow the science” then!
There are some Jedi like mind tricks going on right now.
I am cautiously optimistic that the tide is turning.
My Mum went to the market yesterday and talked to the fish seller there who has believed the government propaganda all the way. He told her that he was not getting the booster, another seller on the market had been very ill after it and “thought she was dying”. He now thinks the government is trying to kill people.
And that was before she told him that the booster had almost killed her too!
So the truth is slowly getting through to people.
Our market traders, especially the fruit and veg boys, have been brilliant. Not only have they sold lovely produce at a great price, throughout this woeful shit show, they’ve been really friendly and we’ve always had a good laugh with them. We haven’t talked about covid much, apart from a few shares eyerolls but their attitude and ability to just get on as normal says everything!
After nearly two years and the crying out of warning by so many of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and virologists – now banned, threatened and persecuted by dark forces – those not sold out to Big Pharma and Gavi or serving a censored, bought-out media – isn’t it about time?
However, isn’t it now already too late for millions approaching their 4th jab ? Each jab increases the spike protein production, which Mc Cullough says lasts for 15 months – doing its work.
The media are still solidly behind the Great Reset conspiracy, as is government and opposition, all the public sector, most large businesses. It will only be stopped via mass non-compliance or more.The ballot box cannot stop this.
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious”
Yawn, seen it.
Conservative MPs threaten to revolt, a few do, most don’t, Labour abstains or supports, the measures go through.
There is about as much tension in this story as there is in the plot of Police Academy IV
What we now know is that the names on this list are all that is left the real Conservative Party and the grouping of decent Tory MPs.who deserve to be called “Conservative” Any “Tory” MP whose name is not on this list ought to be deselected by their local Associations and cashiered for betrayal of the voters and the country for their naked self-interest and self advancement- there is no defence.
It is a total disgrace to Parliament that there are only 60 names on this list not 250. This rotten, corrupted, sleaze covered ,fake Tory party needs to split to rid itself of the taint of these craven MPs not fit to represent citizens whose lives and basic Human Rights they seek to at best to compromise and whose livelihoods they seek to destroy in order to serve the ‘satanic’ ambitions of an aspiring Globalist Oligarchic Tyranny- without precedent in human history -now fully exposed by brave commentators like RFK Junior in his devastating book “The Real Dr Fauci”.
Tory MPs have no excuse for not knowing what is going on
The level of contempt I feel for the nationally embarrassing ‘Labour’ Party and its “Leader”( sic) has no words. I knew it was rotten – but now it is simply putrid and ‘stinks to heaven’ .
( US vaccine deaths now officially at 20,000 – (VAERS stats) most likely because of underreporting five or ten times than figure -including many children – EU is over 20,000 , UK at least 7,000 admitted on the (massaged) Yellow Card – but underreporting and failure to identify the vaccines as cause means most likely many, many more- myocarditis reported at levels never seen by doctors- especially the young.
The body continues to produce pathogenic Covid spike protein for 15 months after each injection, according to highly respected Dr Peter McCullough )
The EudraVigilance figure was almost 30,000 on the 6th November:
The Real Fauci is seriously frightening, the power of these creatures is mind-blowing. It reads like a bad novel with Bond villains galore but it is actually all true. It’s seriously hard to convince anyone because what they are doing is so audacious and immense.
Have you seen Ronald Bernard’s youtube videos? He was a top level financial operative in the Dutch finance system, very good at what he did. To the extent that he was invited behind the curtain. He declined and his tale is chilling. He knows not to name names if he wants to avoid sleeping with the fishes.
Part 1 of a 5 part series
Politically, it is clear that only mass resignations from within the Conservative Party can put a stop to this insanity. In particular high-level resignations need to happen.
Do I expect it happen? No. But the alternative could be catastrophic for civil society.
We wait in anticipation…..don’t hold your breath!
Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof, not in the fine words of the chef or the tempting list of ingredients. Let’s see how may of them are bought off, intimidated etc by the time the vote comes.
That said. it’s nice to see a greater degree of surliness and anger on the “Conservative” benches at last.
Politically, though, the nightmare scenario at the moment is the awful prospect of the execrable, contemptible covid panicker Gove as PM.
I can think of one other horror scenario – Jeremy Ccccchunt
A colleague at work was gutted their mates don’t want to go to an away match with them this weekend. They want no part of the discrimination. The same colleague is also trying to pressure their child to ‘get jabbed’. The same colleague is also a Union representative. Another colleague has a season ticket, but is willing to give it up as they also want no part of the discrimination. Some people are wide awake, others are still fast asleep unfortunately.
That makes sense. A union representative, ergo a leftie. The left are much more on board with this tyranny than the right are.
Union rep? He must be used to this sort of game and sees nothing wrong with it.
I have written to my MP (Greg Smith) to thank him for his stand. I also asked him to sign the ‘Together Declaration’; he said he thought he already had but did it again.
I also had written to him about the cynical sham of consultation earlier in the year and said that the Government would press ahead with this evil scheme. Courteously, he replied at greater length saying that ‘Just in case’ does not cut it for restrictions. He is still rather (too much in my view) pro-vaccine however.
I did plead with him to resign the whip and join one of the new parties; no response to that, neither yes nor no. I also asked him to join the demo on 18 December in London.
He’s my MP too and I have had similar exchanges with him. He has told me categorically he is voting against this week.
Here’s what my MP said to me in June. He’s Labour btw. I’ve just written to him again reminding him what he said back then and setting out 10 questions he must ask (which I stole from Julia Hartley Brewer when Javid didn’t turn up for an interview this week). It sickens me how fickle the opposition and I yearn for a Margaret Thatcher figure to emerge and take control of these f-wits!
“We are nearly at that tipping point, where restrictions cannot be justified by the public health risk. The country have done so well at coming forward to be vaccinated that the government needs to be clear on a different communication strategy going forward; we have broken the link – by vaccine – between cases and deaths, so absolute cases becomes less of a useful measure of public risk than before. We are in interesting times and I do have sympathy with your position”
Some small signs of hope
p.s. But I shall of course vote as Starmer tells me.
My MP (Labour) replied to me, saying he is against vaccine passports, but thinks vaccines and masks are a A Good Thing And The Way Out Of This Thing. He has also recently been awarded a place on the Labour front bench, so I can’t see him going against his Dear Leader.
Cowards the lot who did nothing for months and will no nothing now. I’d rather embrace Palpatine. These are fake rebels trying to claim moral high ground in the eyes of history just as everything starts turning, without ‘firing a shot’ and no risks taken.
Anyone who votes for this should spend the rest of their life in fear.
Labour probably won’t oppose the government on Plan B, and since the plan is only for the England that they hate so rabidly, the SNP won’t either. That’s a truly shameful position for so-called “oppositional” parties, but it’s only what we’ve seen time and again since last March.
Sixty is a lot, though, to come out in public like this. In particular, it’s more than the 55 needed to force a confidence vote among Tory MPs.
This is quite aside from the fact that the night is still young as regards tomorrow’s newspapers.
It’s easy to imagine Boris Johnson losing the Tory leadership the same way Iain Duncan Smith did – with ample MPs supporting him in public, but when the votes are actually counted, whaddayaknow, he’s out on his arse.
Any word on what the feeling is among Tory constituency chairmen? They probably think he’s a bit of a pinko, right? I mean that’s what they usually think of their party’s leader.
The undertaker has another video out:
https://brandnewtube.com/v/MSa7hx
According to R4 news the scare brigade are warning of ‘1,000s of deaths’ from Omicron. Tell me, have the MSM in any country yet reported any deaths from this severe cold and if there are some are any in ‘healthy’ people, i.e. metabolically healthy?
I am puzzled that we are now all forecast to get it, whereas in May 2020 Whitty said in that well-known clip ‘ … most [or possibly ‘some’] people will never get it’, thus admitting the reality observed on the Diamond Princess.
Even after all this time, the Diamond Princess is still the one and only piece of uncorrupted, authoritative data we’ve been allowed to see. And its message couldn’t be clearer: Covid? So what?
Yes it is and we are the only ones mentioning it – the media remain stumm on the subject.
Amnesia is more prevelant than covid, so it seems.
Not as common as stuffedwalletitis.
It’s a bizarre situation, where voting Conservative is the only effective way of signalling your opposition to the Conservative government. If you vote Labour, you’d be signalling your support of the government’s policies.
It’s quite genius when you think about it.
But that would depend which constituency you are in – I’m in a Tory one (safe seat) and the MP is always fully on board with the government when it comes to Covidbollox.
So fuckin what it will pass, token resistance, counts for fuck all why are we going around in circles.
Makes no difference as labour have said they’ll support it.
Fair play to them for standing up for their constituents. But the so called opposition will, bizarrely, support the government so it really counts for nowt.
Why is it always about 60 ????
“Pissing in the wind”, the title of a new xmas song to be released jointly by the uk governments
Covid: Omicron study suggests major wave in January – BBC News
So, let’s just double check….
Its winter, so the flu, etc spreads rapidly. Congratulations for working that one out.
Oh, the virus does in fact spread easily amongst the vaccinated. So, what is the point of passports, etc. Don’t tell wales, austria, etc.
Yes indeed, “the experts behind the study said there was still uncertainty around the modelling.” In other words, we don’t actually know (as evidenced throughout the last 18 months), but best frighten the life out of everyone to keep the gravy train of funding going.
Show me the way to go home…..
Show Me The Way To Go Home _ And Evening With Richard Dreyfuss – YouTube
That BBC article seems to contradict the recent Reuters article which said that Omicron is spreading mostly in the jabbed.
Now I really am confused.
I slightly suspect that one is intended as ‘news’, or as close as the Trusted News Intiative gets to this nowadays, and the other is blatant propaganda.
I’ve written to my MP to urge him to join the lobby against these measures. Additionally I asked him to kindly let me know why he decided to back them, if he does so, in order that I can print it out and deliver it to every local household when I am campaigning for Reform.
your be in the clink by then but nice idea
PFIZER… is this is what they wanted hidden for 55 years..
Go to page 30 of this 38 page PDF.. read the last 8 pages..
APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
That’s shocking. ‘They’ know it is seriously bad stuff…
And more importantly the truth if being hidden for 75 not 55 years!
That is a fairly generic list of just about everything that could happen. On 22 October 2020, the FDA (US drug regulatory agency) had an online conference regarding expected adverse reactions from the ‘vaccine’ candidates.
Guillain-Barré syndrome
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
Transverse myelitis
Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/meningoencephalitis/meningitis/encepholapathy
Convulsions/seizures
Stroke
Narcolepsy and cataplexy
Anaphylaxis
Acute myocardial infarction
Myocarditis/pericarditis
Autoimmune disease
Deaths
Pregnancy and birth outcomes
Other acute demyelinating diseases
Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions
Thrombocytopenia
Disseminated intravascular coagulation
Venous thromboembolism
Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain
Kawasaki disease
Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children
Vaccine enhanced disease (VER = ADE)
I am pleased to note that death is only an expected adverse reaction and not something to worry about.
The ongoing COVID-19 nonsense here in the United States exists solely and exclusively because our governments have failed to use the correct treatment. They used so-called “vaccines” when Japan has just proven, in less than ONE MONTH, that Ivermectin can wipe out the disease. IVM was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine in 2015. One of the 3 most important drugs in human history: Aspirin, Penicillin, and Ivermectin. Get your Ivermectin today while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
Get Robert F Kennedy’s book, The Real Fauci (2.99 on Amazon), and by 10% of the way through you will know why America refused to treat anyone. You’ll find why Ivermectin was demonised (Fauci was promoting a replacement that kills people). You’ll find out the truth about Derisiver (it kills people and did when it was used for Ebola). You’ll find out how 150,000 Americans died from the “vaccines” and how it was covered up (they do the same as the NHS: call anyone who dies within 14 days of a jab “unvaccinated”). I’m only a third through the book and the whole thing already links up all the things I’d worked out. Gates, Fauci, Soros.
Lee Rowley better get his name added…
Well at least 4 out of 8 of the County’s MP’s in my area will vote against.
That’s if they actually vote. A lot say they will and then abstain or cave in.
Seems to me the Tory party has two choices: hang on and die, get rid of Johnson and die. Such is the mood across all platforms I genuinely doubt they will see power again. The time is right for Reform to step up.
Doesn’t that actually depend on our having a general election? Does the C’virus Act allow for the suspension of elections?
Wrote to thank Anthony Mangnall, my MP, after a brilliant interview on TalkRADIO with Julia Hartley Brewer. Hes changed his tune, as he supported the Coronavirus Bill. Ive emailed him at least once a month me over the last 20 months, sending him video links opposing the narrative, by eminent scientists and medics. Maybe at last he listened, certainly seemed so in the interview. He really impressed me with his strong stand.
Christmas is coming, is that star in the sky getting brighter?
https://www.thrivetribehub.com/videos/view/2/nuremberg-case-filed-for-the-uk?fbclid=IwAR2f7S4OhYtsYRUmuLP9oCvw-ImyTl9CpK9jl4rfkg3x6URefCMf1XWKOCE
Direct link to the deposition
https://hannahroselaw.co.uk/icc-complaint-uk/
Unlike Biden in USA who stole an election, Johnson had an 80 seat majority with a strong supportive base encouraging him to carry out Brexit properly, create a framework for business to thrive and to stop immigration.
He did none of these things. Instead he married an extreme Soros funded socialist, tore the country apart to feather his own nest and put the final nail in the coffin of mistrust for the Establishment.
We now must make the most of his failures and take back control of our own country. We must use this opportunity to ignore this corrupt cabal. Support businesses and encourage them to stay open. We must carry on our lives, communicate with friends, advertise the scam that is Covid, stop vaccination, and prosecute those who have facilitated this terrible two year war on ordinary people.
I have been in constant contact via email, with my MP. I am thrilled to see his name on this list. He did correspond to say that this was his intention. Write to your MP today, please.
I have been writing to my MP for 2 years and when she deigns to reply its a round robin letter from Conservative HQ. She is a Rs crawling politician who puts her career first so she will vote for what she is told to do.
My MP Ms Davison has made the correct stand and i have emailed thanking her. I have offered to canvas for her if she switches to Reform by next election but have told her that i will never vote .Tory (or Labour) again.
Richard Holden MP for NW Durham is a f**king disgrace and will tell him so when he drops by one of the local pub events again, if it is still in business.
Letter sent to Jeremy Wright, my MP
But Vaccine Passports are nothing to do with health. They are the Trojan horse to introduce Digital IDs to be followed by CBDC. Come on, Toby, call it out for what it is – we are headed for a Bio-surveillance State. It’s no secret anymore, surely you can see it?
I keep doing that and he (Ian Liddell-Grainger) keeps ignoring me, and anyone else around here who writes to him on the subject. He isn’t on the list of 60. But we will continue to waste the effort.
Just watched our East Devon MP Simon Jupp interviewed on SW BBC. He is against vaxx mandates
Until he votes in secret.
I live in Scotland and have an MP who is SNP. I have no idea how she’d vote – quite possibly the SNP will abstain. I can only apologise…
To my surprise, my MP is on the list in spite of doing rather well out of the lockdown etc.