Vobeshy 31 May 2020 00:53
| |||
It's "unlawful" to vaccinate you, the people of the UK, but we're going to do it anyway - the position of the crown's servants and agents |
Some notes from a secret SAGE meeting have come over. The document lays out the plans to, amongst things, (#30.) force a *Mandatory flu vaccine (Biogenic) on the entire UK population for Winter 2020/21.
|
So the Bill Gates funded SAGE, Imperial College, UK government is pushing vaccines when (a) the Gates' ChineseWuhan Lab SARS-CoV-2-Pathogen is about over (b) secret documents leaked in Germany show that the UK government's advisor Ferguson got the figures seriously wrong, for yet another issue and that the Covid-19 illness was less deadly that the 2017/18 'flu season (c ) unless very sick (usually because of underlying health issues) the best treatment is hydroxycholoroquine and zinc; a fact the secret SAGE people know but have ignored in favour of the Gates eugenicistic preferences.
The branch of the Crowns Servants and Agents that is the Petitions committee, have rejected numerous petitions where the crown's subjects are saying no to 'mandatory vaccines'. Within that rejection notification, the Petitions Committee say this:-
We think your petition is covered by Government or Parliament action
already. It you'd like something else, you could start a new petition clearly
explaining what it is.
It is already against the law tor people to be required to undergo medical
treatment, including vaccinations. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has not
changed this.
Which makes the SAGE declaration that they're pushing for a UK wide DNA, RFID needled 'flu biogenic' disturbing.
The outward facing story being given to the UK public is "mandatory vaccination is unlawful" whilst secret, unelected bodies, whose funding, or large chunks of it comes from a charity which seeks to unlawfully do the opposite.
The charity has patents for vaccines, is embedded in all spheres of the influence within the UK to exert undue influence over those attending the secret meetings on account of how they are funded. The financial influence of the charity has been shown to take precedence by pushing unlawful and unnecessary vaccines over non-patented alternatives, for which large pharmaceutical companies owned by the charity, would not profit from.
It is surely, incitement to commit a crime, by firstly manipulating circumstances through imaginatively created data and then say you intend to stick a needle in the crown's subjects to vaccinate them knowing such wholesale, mandatory vaccinations are unlawful?
Expanding the theme further and ignoring the first crime , knowing the data was 'creative', knowing the health threat was exaggerated, to then plan to inject the crown's subjects unnecessarily and for gain, must surely be another instance of criminal activity.
Thirdly, being in a position of the crown's servants and agents, where information comes in to one's possession, to use that information as donee to repay a donor or to give benefits or to be able to influence who benefits, seems to be, surely another form of insider trading? For example imagine knowing cannabis was going to be legalised and then having a family member set up a cannabis farm and factory to supply CBD products ahead of the UK's subjects. It'd be good wouldn't it? Seems the same for a vaccine; why would it be pushed when either it was unnecessary of a remedy costing pennies not £000s, In context, the UK has a population of 66 million. 66,000,000 x (conservatively) £450.00 = £29, 700,000,000.00 for one vaccine pusher alone.
Which brings us back to the first of these questions and what the *PMINO* needs to answer and that is the unlawfulness of 'mandatory vaccines' in the UK because, front-facing we're being told 'it cannot happen, it won't happen because it's unlawful and secretly, inward-facing the same people on their agenda, are pushing for 'mandatory vaccinations' - Which is it:lawful or unlawful to force a mandatory vaccine on the crown's subject? An answer is urgently required.
|
 |
 |
So point (5) from back in April 2020 and we see quite clearly the discrepancy between FACT and the instructions the crown's subjects were given.
5. Risk of outdoor transmission is significantly lower than indoors.
Crown's subjects were, deliberately, at significantly higher risk, shut indoors
This is a deliberate control of the crown's subjects person, knowing that a significant number would succumb to the Covid-19 illness and perish and higher numbers would become ill. For many, they would become ill without any of their immediate family or carers and had become so because control of their person had been taken away from them.
For me it seems, this action was to deliberate cause people to become sick, to generate and/or continue to be caused panic, to be caused fear of other people, from being outdoors and generally being removed from their normal life.
The effect of withholding this information seems to be to cause illness to increase. To cause illness and given the motivational factors of monetarising the crown's entire subjects through unlawfully vaccinating them, rendering many fearful enough to submit to ongoing unnecessary, harmful biogenics can only have been beneficial to those who seek to or would benefit from the fear.
This is very grave, for causing harm to a person, is a further unlawful act to boot.
|
 |
As a footnote, if, as it seems, the charity pushing their vaccines and agenda, has inveigled sufficient influence to control the crown's entire subjects, then have the servants and agents of the crown effectively removed the reigning monarch and installed an autocracy?
|
5
No comments:
Post a Comment