IN December 2020, US family doctor Steven LaTulippe had his licence to practise medicine suspended over his opposition to mask wearing and other preventive measures against COVID-19.

According to the Oregon Medical Board, LaTulippe regularly advised patients it was “very dangerous” to wear a mask, particularly for older people and children.

Masks increased the body’s carbon dioxide content, he said, exacerbating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma and increasing the risk of multiple serious conditions, including heart attacks, stroke, collapsed lungs, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), pneumonia and hypertension. Signs posted in his clinic warned of carbon dioxide toxicity with mask wearing.

The Board found LaTulippe’s continued practice would constitute an immediate danger to public health and safety. His advice to patients about the alleged failure of masks to prevent viral transmission and their potential harm was counter to basic principles of epidemiology and physiology, the Board said.

When a clinician advises patients to act in a way that risks their own health and that of others, the situation seems fairly clear. But how should regulators respond when a doctor makes similar claims in a public forum, particularly if they use their medical training to bolster their authority?

LaTulippe’s opposition to masks was not confined to his clinic. At an Oregon political rally in November 2020, he had exhorted those attending to “take off the mask of shame”, the Washington Post reported.

Other US doctors have publicly touted debunked cures or described the pandemic as a manufactured crisis.

New York psychiatrist Dr Andrew Kaufman, for example, has built a huge global following through his denial of the existence of multiple viruses, including those behind measles, poliomyelitis, HIV/AIDS, chickenpox, and of course COVID-19.

He has described vaccines as “syringes full of poison” and promised followers that, if it gets to the point where soldiers are holding people down to vaccinate them against COVID-19, he will “give out a ‘recipe’ that can mitigate things for people that are held down by force and vaccinated”.

Dr Kaufman’s statements and opposition to mask wearing appears to have lost him some employment as a doctor but has not, so far as I am aware, posed any risk to his licence to practise medicine.

In Australia, professional watchdogs tend to take a harder line on promotion of non-evidence-based views with the potential to undermine public health, particularly in relation to vaccination.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) issued a statement in March 2021 warning clinicians to stick to the evidence when commenting on the COVID-19 vaccination program.

“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign … may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action,” the statement said.

“Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra.”

Melbourne GP Michael Ellis had his licence to practise medicine suspended in 2020 as a result of a series of posts he made on social media before the COVID-19 pandemic with titles like “PROOF OF THE TOXICITY OF VACCINES!!!!”.

More recently, he had reposted on Facebook a claim that vitamin C supplements were very effective at killing the coronavirus.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in August rejected his appeal against the suspension, saying they had “a reasonable belief that Dr Ellis poses a serious risk to persons and that it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety”.

Should doctors have the right to spout unscientific, even harmful, nonsense outside clinical settings?

US psychiatrist and bioethicist Dr Jacob Appel argues for a three-tiered approach to answering that question, one that distinguishes between “citizen speech”, “physician speech” and “clinical speech”.

In his country, physicians have generally been given “wide latitude to voice empirically false claims outside the context of patient care”, he writes in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

In an age of mass communication and social media, that allows dissenting physicians to offer misleading medical advice to the general public on a mass scale, he argues.

Dr Appel’s proposed solution to the problem would preserve a right for doctors to speak on issues such as health policy as private citizens (“citizen speech”), while introducing some degree of regulation around public statements that claim to be evidence-based and could be taken as medical advice (“physician speech”).

I personally believe the pandemic is a well pre-planned orchestrated global imperial force to reset the world economy, to replace the free-market economy with a multistakeholder Capitalist corporate economy. Think Free-market equalling freedom. Think multistakeholder corporation think e’ all your freedoms are at stake’

The insistence that COVIS19 injections are extremely safe and effective is a massive blatant lie. This lie will cause many, many deaths, more deaths than they allow us to have knowledge of. Where is the evidence base may you ask, try data in and data out- assumptions, predictions, mixed data modelling and biases…follow the money, always follow the money. What are the rewards immense power to control whole populations of people and status and massive wealth.
What is that saying “The emperor truly has no clothes”, however the acceleration to replace the global economy to re-engineer societies behaviour far outweighs any truth

One must surely as if this is a digital theoretical abstraction made on a computer from a genomic database. Data in and Data out is published as COVID19 actually 100% exists

#1 SARS-CoV-2 the Theoretical Virus: The Virus Has Never Been Isolated According to Koch’s Postulates or River’s Postulates that all the evidence below stems from the facts from the so called experts:-
Koch’s postulates are:
1. The micro-organism must be identified in all individuals affected by the disease, but not in healthy individuals.
2. The micro-organism can be isolated from the diseased individual and grown in culture.
3. When introduced into a healthy individual, the cultured microorganism must cause disease.
4. The microorganism must then be re-isolated from the experimental host, and found to be identical to the original microorganism.
River’s postulates were proposed by Thomas M. River in 1973 to establish the role of a specific virus as the cause of a specific disease. They are modifications of Koch’s postulates.

They are as follows:
1. The viral agent must be found either in the host’s (animal or plant) body fluids at the time of disease or in cells showing lesions specific to that disease.
2. The host material with the viral agent used to inoculate the healthy host (test organism) must be free of any other microorganism.
3. The viral agent obtained from the infected host must produce the specific disease in a suitable healthy host, and/or provide evidence of infection by inducing the formation of antibodies specific to that agent.
4. Similar material (viral particle) from the newly infected host (test organism) must be isolated and capable of transmitting the specific disease to other healthy hosts.
Whichever set of postulates is used, SARS-CoV-2 fails the test.

SARS-Cov-2 the Theoretical Virus has never been isolated.
The Spanish Health Journal ‘Salud’ published in November 2020 an interesting article entitled ‘Frauds and falsehoods in the medical field’ exposing the lack of evidence not only from the SARS-COVID-2 but also other historic coronaviruses

Jon Rappoport has concluded a great deal of investigative study exposing the exact same scam blueprint that was played out in 1980’s, with none other than Fauci in charge, when scientists asserted their was a new virus called HIV and it was causing AIDS. Other fake pandemics such as the 1976 swine flu pandemic.
“The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

And that includes the initiators or primers, the most extensive fragments taken at random from their supposed “genome” and even the so-called “target genes” allegedly specific to the “new coronavirus”. The test is worthless and all “positive” results obtained so far should be scientifically invalidated and communicated to those affected; and if they are deceased, to their relatives. Stephen Bustin, one of the world’s leading experts on PCR, in fact says that under certain conditions anyone can test positive!

In other words what I am reading from this is “you cannot have specific tests for a virus without knowing the components of the virus you are trying to detect. I am no doctor but that’s what I see this as.

The article I refer to states that the components cannot be known without having previously isolated/ purified with the virus. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected by evidence based information by a reliable source of information. It is questionable can the virus ever be isolated? From what I have researched so far is that none of the seven human coronaviruses have actually been isolated, that a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and archaea.

Explaining archaea from some researched information ‘How do humans use archaea?
“The detected archaea are probably involved in nitrogen turnover on skin, and are capable of lowering the skin pH, supporting the suppression of pathogens,” said Moissl-Eichinger. “Bacteria with the same capacities are already used as skin probiotics, potentially improving skin moisture and reducing body odours

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36788/html/
Supplementary Written Evidence Submitted by Gillian Jamieson
(CLL0114)

Covid vaccines, treatments, mental health and the future

I am extremely concerned about the fact that the novel gene-based Covid vaccines are resulting in deaths, sometimes of quite young people, or causing miscarriages, blindness, neurological symptoms and so on, but that few MPs mention this and Government adverts tell us that vaccines are safe even for pregnant women. It seems that the risk/benefit equation does not add up, especially then the average age of death from Covid is 82.5 years. These are vaccines still in clinical trials and authorised for emergency use only. There should be enough important data on excess deaths to show that there is and has been no emergency.

A distressing example of harm is the death of a healthy young baby at 5 months after being breast fed by a mother vaccinated against Covid. This appears in a US Vaers report.

In fact there is no informed consent. My experience is that the NHS sends out a leaflet saying vaccines are safe and you are invited to a vaccine centre without prior notification of the vaccine to be used, and without your doctor present helping you to decide. In Scotland the patient information leaflet was given to my neighbour, but only when the needle was poised to enter the arm. Few people seem to realise that the vaccine is still in clinical trials.

I have many other concerns about harms caused by Government actions. I will list them under various headings. I see that the Hart Group (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) has addressed some of the issues I mention in this bulletin https://www.hartgroup.org/6-may-2021/ and I will refer to this.

Vaccine deaths and adverse effects
The daily rate of vaccine deaths is now higher than Covid deaths. Death figures in the UK for the 2 main vaccines at the links below are 1227 plus 149 miscarriages, the latter figure showing a steep rise.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/983472/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_vaccine_analysis_print.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/983475/COVID-19_vaccine_AstraZeneca_analysis_print.pdf

It is estimated that a maximum of 10% of adverse events are reported via the Yellow Card, which means actual deaths will be about 12,270 and miscarriages about 1490, at a minimum. On the other hand very few of the Covid deaths are likely to have been caused by Covid. They are only designated as “with Covid” based on a highly inaccurate and inappropriate test. Thus vaccine deaths are likely to be vastly higher than actual Covid deaths at present. We are told that vaccines are preventing deaths. We do not know this. The decline in “Covid deaths” could be attributed to changing the Ct value of the PCR test or just because the virus is disappearing or because of pre-acquired natural immunity via T-cells etc.

The facts are that these vaccines were approved for emergency use only. There is now no emergency and they should be withdrawn, especially as clinical trials do not finish until 2023 and as we now have a safe and effective treatment in ivermectin (Hart bulletin) and other drugs and supplements.

A review of ivermectin studies is here: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx
Other treatment includes the use of corticosteroids and antihistamines if symptoms are still present on the 8th day of illness as suggested by Dr. Shakara Chetty here: https://covexit.com/the-8th-day-therapy-for-covid-19/. In the UK this is being followed up by Dr. Chris Newton here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-newton-813ab229/detail/recent-activity/shares/

Animal trials for these vaccines are not even complete. It is misleading to say that they do not affect fertility. There is no data for this yet. (Hart) Neither is there any long-term safety data. Neurological effects, for example, may take 3 years to develop. The Astrazeneca blood-clotting issues are now well-known and many younger people have died because of this. There are however other concerns e.g. the spike proteins which the vaccine causes the body to produce, may cause disease in other parts of the body: https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/ and https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-N-1898-0246. At the end of this email is a link to a comprehensive article about the Covid-19 vaccine.

Effect on fertility: as there is no data on this yet (Hart), it is highly misleading of the RCOG to state that ” “We want to reassure women that there is no evidence to suggest that Covid-19 vaccines will affect fertility. Claims of any effect of Covid-19 vaccination on fertility are speculative and not supported by any data” . In fact there is no evidence to suggest that it does not affect fertility. In addition one doctor has grave concerns about this: https://www.jennifermargulis.net/halt-covid-vaccine-research-scientist-urges-cdc/

Individual examples of harms and deaths:
1. 12 year old girl in Moderna trial paralysed from waist down etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKIFgmm7xI
2. Young man has heart attack after Pfizer jab despite healthy cardiovascular system: https://twitter.com/HowardSteen4/status/1388043539108429827
3. Fit and healthy 32-year old man dies after AZ jab: https://twitter.com/GillRaeWalker/status/1388072474491895808m
4. 27 year old man dies after AZ jab: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti2/status/1388381054688546817 (includes link to site for other deaths)
5. Death of fit and healthy woman after 2nd jab: https://twitter.com/RealJoelSmalley/status/1391017188509769733

Plan to vaccinate children and child vaccine deaths
This is covered by Hart. Children are at no risk from Covid and must surely NOT be vaccinated with an experimental, new type of vaccine, with no long-term safety data. Why do teaching unions want this? To protect teachers? Since the vaccine trials were not set up to test the spread of the virus (see table1 here: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037 ) then the union campaign must be based on an irrational belief in the myth of asymptomatic spread, still promoted by Mr Hancock and government adverts. But it has been proven that the Sars-Cov-2 virus is only likely to be spread by those with definite symptoms, aside from the short pre-symptomatic phase. The evidence is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w and https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4851 and https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-cambridge-study-testing.html

Out of 4000 children vaccinated in the US, 9 died, 7 almost died and 3 were permanently disabled . Many secondary schools have over 2000 pupils, so there would a lot of casualties in one school alone, if children were to be vaccinated. I assume we don’t want this. This data comes from these 2 websites: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends and https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html.

Vaccine adverse effects can transfer to the unvaccinated if they come into close contact with the vaccinated
This is described by Pfizer as occurring through “environmental exposure” to the vaccinated via inhalation or skin contact. This is described here: https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf in Section 8.3.5. Of particular concern to Pfizer is “exposure during pregnancy” (EDP) and this must be reported within 24 hours.

From reports so far, these transferred adverse events seem particularly to cause havoc with female reproductive systems as described at Questions 3 to 5 of this document: https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/action-alerts/identifying-post-vaccination-complications-their-causes-an-analysis-of-covid-19-patient-data

Is anyone in the UK following these reports up?

No end in sight
Unfortunately, I am aware that the Government’s intention is to continue fear-mongering using the myth of asymptomatic spread and fear of variants. The proof that Government wishes restrictions, testing and vaccines to continue is
1. that various councils are advertising for Covid Marshalls
2. that the government wants to “normalise testing as part of everyday life” which was part of the job description (now deleted) for an “Interim Head of Asymptomatic Testing Communication”, copied here: https://twitter.com/GillRaeWalker/status/1377364958753615873 and
3. that in April they were also offering a 2 year contract to a Covid advertising contractor. They also continue this social conditioning by allowing leaks from Sage officials on TV and to the press. Surely these people should not be on TV offering their opinions. Any announcements should be made by Government ministers only.

Mental health hypocrisy
Aside from the devastating effects of lockdowns (not Covid) on people’s lives and livelihoods, the emotionally manipulative and misleading advertising and statements from Government have caused this directly. The “case’ and “death” figures have been exaggerated and taken out of context, so that there has NEVER been a balanced presentation of possible dangers from Sars-Cov-2. The Government is therefore only paying lip service to the huge short and long-term mental health problems developing, by talking about funding for it. What they need to do is stop the adverts, stop pointless testing of healthy people and restart normal life without coercive pressures NOW. Coercive pressure includes Covid-status certification. The suppression of the voices of scientists and doctors whose views differ from those of Sage also need to be heard and a mature debate needs to be had.

My position
I will not be having a Covid vaccine, due to the lack of knowledge of long-term effects of this new gene-based technology, because of the low infection fatality rate and because I trust that either my immune system will deal with it or I can use proven treatments such as ivermectin. I do not believe “case” figures, because I know that many positive test results are false positives. I believe asymptomatic spread is rare. I know that far fewer people than 120,000 died FROM Covid. I will not submit to testing unless I have serious symptoms. I do not own a smartphone and never will, so will not be using the various NHS apps. I will never use any sort of medical status certification as I believe it is coercive and divisive. As a result I may never see my mother, brother, 2 sister and 6 nephews again as they live on different continents. This is sad, but I will not bow to coercive pressure.

A few months ago, every MP received a briefing from Drs. Craig, Yeadon, Joel Smalley and Jonathan Engler, in which the confusion over data and the inadequacy of PCR tests was clarified by experts, but MPs took no action. But because of this I have signed the UK Citizens’ Declaration of Freedom and Human Rights, which can be found here: http://ukcitizen2021.org/

Would you please:
Ask the Government to find a uniform system of reporting verified Covid deaths and Vaccine deaths and side effects, so that there can be fair comparisons and accurate figures. The cause of deaths from now on needs to be confirmed and verifiable if we are not to continue in restrictions for years to come. The Yellow Card system needs to be improved and used by all.
Ask the Government to fully investigate treatments for Covid 19, instead of spending money on testing those with no symptoms and rolling out experimental vaccines.
Ask the Government to stop advertising misleading information such as “vaccines are safe” and “1 in 3 people could be spreading the virus”.
Ask the Government to make people fully aware of the risks of taking the vaccine and that clinical trials are not finished, so that there is informed consent.
Ask the Government to encourage diverse scientific contributions to the policy and disband Sage, which contains too many non-medical people.
Ask the Government to lift censorship of dissenting views everywhere – especially on the media and social media, which has recently banned anyone talking about ivermectin.

Please also read this alternative view by Professor (retired) Romeo F. Quijano, Dept. Of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila available here: https://www.academia.edu/45058943/Should_We_Take_the_Vaccine_Against_Covid_19

Gillian Jamieson
6 Burnet Crescent
East Saltoun
EH34 5BZ