Isn't part of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to discredit and disgrace the politicians – or was he a sacrificial offering?
The most interesting headline about Hancock:
Whilst you’ve been distracted by Hancock’s affair, PHE released a report revealing 62% of alleged Covid deaths are people who’ve been vaccinated:
But because you’ve been busy delighting in Hancock’s embarrassment, you’re probably not aware that Public Health England released a report on the very same day which showed the majority of alleged Covid-19 deaths are significantly higher in people who have had at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, with the highest number of deaths occurring in people who are supposed to be fully vaccinated.
What did Matt Hancock say about Prof Neil Ferguson’s sex scandal?
Many on social media recalled Mr Hancock’s harsh criticism of Professor Neil Ferguson after the government adviser was found to have broken lockdown rules by arranging visits from his lover last year.
In May 2020, the health secretary claimed to have been left “speechless” by Prof Ferguson’s “extraordinary” behaviour, and said it had been right for him to resign as a government Sage adviser. (Source).
His replacement – Sajid Javid, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Home Secretary, was announced hours later as the new Health and Social Care Secretary (Source). Javid, also a former banker and possible tax evader, landlord, was a prominent supporter of the unsuccessful Britain Stronger in Europe campaign for the UK to remain in the European Union.
YOU shall NOT commit adultery, either physically, individually, or spiritually, nationally or individually but shall be FAITHFUL to God, your word and your spouse, also NOT committing adultery nationally by following the wrong examples of other nations.
In this wonderland where wealth and amorality cavort with disillusionment and disbelief, and a media-poodle that imagines balance when it matches truth speech with idiotic ramblings of dissembling loons
misleading, insanely disingenuous and entirely uninformative briefings], open malice is appreciated; she shines back at you,through the looking-glass. You know where you are. In a f***ing nightmare. But it's yours, you've embraced your pain, and you are consoled by that.
When reality is horrifying, hinted the Red Queen in Carroll's Alice through the Looking-Glass, such as when Hancock is Minister of Health, instead of being a bookie at Newmarket, what better for rich and poor alike than a good fantasy!
Also Javid's quote is actually – “We are still in a pandemic and I want to see that come to an end as soon as possible."
"Pandemic" and "Lockdown" aren't necessarily interchangeable. Think about it. They are pushing that the pandemic won't end until everyone is "vaccinated", so as soon as they have 80% or more jabbed, they will consider that a success.
Javid continued, "“That will be my most immediate priority to see that we can return to normal as soon and quickly as possible.”
His message seems perfectly timed to the frustration. A little hope...
6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might.
6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with Truth, and having on the Breastplate of Righteousness;
6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
6:16 Above all, taking the Shield of Faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
6:17 And take the Helmet of Salvation, and the Sword of the Spirit, which is The Word of God:
Never forget Matt Hancock has blood on his hands – Let’s start with the 232 expectant mothers who’ve reported the loss of their baby due to the Covid Vaccine he told them to get
Health authorities in the UK have advised women to avoid things like smoked fish, soft cheese, wet paint, coffee, herbal tea, vitamin supplements, and processed junk foods when pregnant for decades.
Matt Hancock, on the other hand, urged pregnant women to get an experimental vaccine when they were called to do so –
Letter from Dr Michael Yeadon – former Chief Medical Officer of Pfizer to Matt Hancock by Michael Yeadon – former Pfizer CSO Concerning the experimental biochemical agents beIng fraudulently inflicted on the citizenry Dear Mr […]
HomeCOLUMNISTSHypocritical Health Sec Hancock’s Hanky Panky with the Hired Help at Whitehall HQ
Hypocritical Health Sec Hancock’s Hanky Panky with the Hired Help at Whitehall HQ
I never thought I would be encouraging you to follow a link to the Sun, but these are strange times and for once The Sun should be acknowledged for doing what the MSM should be doing but often doesn’t: exposing corruption and malfeasance amongst those entrusted with the helm of the nation.
Can you imagine how much better our world would be if the media actually did its job and acted as a Watchdog dedicatedly alerting the public when shenanigans are detected?
British State Deployed Counter-Terrorism Unit to Crush Social Media and Scientific Dissent on Vaccines and Lockdowns
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.”
Matt Hancock and I have almost nothing in common. For starters I’m terrified of spiders and hopelessly squeamish. I physically retched as I watched him eating unmentionables in the Australian jungle. Far more importantly, we fundamentally disagree over his handling of the pandemic.
The passage of time has not left me any less angry about lockdowns. My blood still boils when I think of the unnecessary suffering: the broken homes and broken businesses; the lost last moments with loved ones; the missed cancers and operations; a generation of children scarred forever.
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. As each day passes, more evidence emerges that shutting down society for prolonged periods to ‘stop the spread’ and ‘protect the NHS’ was a monumental disaster.
Hancock, obviously, disagrees. The Rt Hon Member for West Suffolk is not just unrepentant: he still wholeheartedly believes that as health secretary during the pandemic, he made all the right calls. He is utterly scathing of anyone who argues that repeated lockdowns were avoidable; does not have the slightest doubt over any aspect of the government’s vaccine policy; and thinks anyone who believes any other approach to the pandemic was either realistic or desirable is an idiot.
How then could I have worked with him on his book about the pandemic? Some of my lockdown confidantes suggested it was a betrayal and that he should be punished, perhaps viciously so.
Well, hold on a minute. Journalists don’t only interrogate people they agree with. Quite the reverse. I wanted to get to the truth. What better way to find out what really happened – who said what to whom; the driving force and thinking behind key policies and decisions; who (if anyone) dissented; and how they were crushed – than to align myself with the key player? I might not get the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I’d certainly get a good dollop of it, and a keen sense of anything murky requiring further investigation.
In the event, Hancock shared far more than I could ever have imagined. I have viewed thousands and thousands of sensitive government communications relating to the pandemic, a fascinating and very illuminating exercise. I was not paid a penny for this work, but the time I spent on the project – almost a year – was richly rewarding in other ways. Published this week, co-authored by me, Hancock’s Pandemic Diaries are the first insider account from the heart of government of the most seismic political, economic and public health crisis of our times.
I am not so naive as to imagine that he told me everything. However, since he still does not believe he did anything wrong, he was surprisingly inclined to disclosure. In an indication of how far he was prepared to go, the Cabinet Office requested almost 300 deletions and amendments to our original manuscript.
Under pressure from me and out of his own desire that the book should be both entertaining and revelatory, to his credit, Hancock fought hard to retain as much controversial material as he could. The resulting work is twice as long as I originally intended, and half the length he wanted it to be. His desire to make it a book of record and mine to do journalistic justice to the sensational raw material he shared with me led to periodic creative differences. At times I pushed him further than he wanted, while I was forced to accept the watering-down of some material.
Amid the furore over his I’m a Celebrity antics, the ongoing media fascination with his lockdown rule-breaking sexual shenanigans, and the natural scepticism of his critics about anything he says, there is a danger that some of what we have learnt about the government’s response to the pandemic is lost. Here then – based not only on what is in the Pandemic Diaries but on every-thing I saw in the process of putting the book together – are what I consider the key lessons.
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 3 January 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 every-one, 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.
In Hancock’s defence, he would have been crucified for failing to order enough vaccines for everybody, just in case. He deserves credit for harnessing the full power of the state to accelerate the development of the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. He simply would not take no or ‘too difficult’ for an answer, forcing bureaucratic regulators and plodding public health bodies to bend to his will. He 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.
Right from the start, Downing Street was terrified that the virus might somehow accelerate the break-up of the Union. As early as 12 March 2020, Hancock made the effort to fly up north to talk to Scottish health ministers in person, observing that Nicola Sturgeon ‘would not be able to resist’ exploiting the crisis to push for Scottish independence (‘so we need as much amicable cooperation as possible’).
In the months that followed, an inordinate amount of time was spent second-guessing the First Minister and trying to stop her blindsiding the UK government. Cobra meetings became a real problem. Describing her modus operandi in these top secret discussions, Hancock says she would ‘sit like a statue, lips pursed like a drawstring bag, only jolting into life when there’s an opportunity to say something to further the separatist cause’. The minute meetings ended, he claims, you could ‘almost hear her running for a lectern so she can rush out an announcement before we make ours’. After a while, ministers avoided debating the most sensitive issues in this forum for fear of leaks.
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 UK government was left ‘scrabbling around to formulate a response’. The UK 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.
More positively, ministers worked hard to use the vaccine rollout to reinforce Union ties. Very early on, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace suggested there should be a Union Jack on all packaging. Hancock repeatedly tried to persuade regulators to let the government brand the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab in this way.
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. His account shows how quickly the suppression of genuine medical misinformation – a worthy endeavour during a public health crisis – morphed into an aggressive government-driven campaign to smear and silence those who criticised the response. 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 is more sensitive about this subject than any other. The accusation that he blithely discharged Covid-positive patients from hospitals into care homes, without thinking about how this might seed the virus among the frail elderly, or attempting to stop this happening, upsets and exasperates him. The evidence I have seen is broadly in his favour.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was simply not possible to test everyone: neither the technology nor the capacity existed. Internal communications show that care homes were clearly instructed to isolate new arrivals. It later emerged that the primary source of new infection in these settings was in any case not hospital discharges, but the movement of staff between care homes. Politically, this was very inconvenient: Hancock knew he would be accused of ‘blaming’ hardworking staff if he emphasised the link (which is exactly what has now happened).
He is on less solid ground in relation to the treatment of isolated care-home residents and their increasingly desperate relatives. His 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 3 February 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 28 June 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.’ That summer, the Treasury was instructed to change a planned advertising campaign (designed to get punters back into pubs) to ensure all models featured were masked up.
Cancer
During the pandemic there were tens of thousands of missed cancer diagnoses. As the NHS morphed into a ‘Covid service’, there seems to have been remarkably little discussion at the top of government about the risk of compromising standards of care for people with other serious illnesses. A year into the pandemic, Johnson messaged Hancock saying he’d been reading an uplifting book about cancer (The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee) and suggesting Hancock lead a ‘moonshot’ effort to turn cancer into a survivable disease when the crisis was over, something the pair had discussed when Johnson became PM. Sadly, lockdowns made that a far more distant goal. In a diary entry in May 2020, Hancock reveals concerns that hospitals had neither the technology nor expertise to treat cancer patients in a way that didn’t increase their chances of dying of Covid. It was feared chemotherapy would make them more vulnerable to the disease, so hospitals were supposed to switch to radiotherapy. It now transpires they didn’t have the necessary kit.
Hancock admits the NHS misled patients about this sorry state of affairs by declaring everything was fine. ‘In reality, as I learned today, our equipment is not suited to the type of radiotherapy that’s being recommended, not least because it was generally installed ten years ago. There are also concerns about whether staff have the required expertise. I can’t quite believe we’re having this problem,’ he says gloomily. Those affected, and their families, may never forgive the fact that the treatment of people with conditions that were certainly life- threatening was so hampered by the effort to ensure healthy people didn’t contract a virus that was far less likely to kill them. Meanwhile, clinical trials for almost everything except the Covid vaccine collapsed. To his credit, Lord Bethell, then a health minister, repeatedly pushed for a return to ‘business as usual’.
Conclusion
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. Day after day, he was forced to make tremendously difficult judgments, balancing sharply competing interests. The number of critical decisions he was required to make, edits and instructions he had to issue, meetings he had to attend and calls he had to field would have tested anyone to their limits – and did. 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. Whether or not those errors will be forgiven by a public only just beginning to realise the full consequences is another question.
Are the Matt Hancock ‘revelations’ just a limited hang-out?
The decline and fall of Matt Hancock, until recently Britain’s Health Secretary, continues apace. And it’s hard to name anyone more deserving than this conniving little toad who used the Covid scamdemic to wreak havoc on Britain over the last few years. The latest salvo arrived in the form of “The Lockdown Files”, a treasure trove of Hancock’s Whatsapp messages released by journalist Isabel Oakshott after she was commissioned to ghost-write Pandemic Diaries, his Covid memoirs. Whether Oakshott’s action in releasing those messages to The Telegraph was an act of gross treachery, as Hancock claims, or, as she counters, a brave act of public service is largely irrelevant.
Matt Hancock Wanted To "Frighten the Pants Off Everyone"
Mar 6, 2023 mirrored from Talk TV... links below. Matt Hancock told aides he wanted to “frighten the pants off everyone” to ensure compliance with Covid-19 restrictions, in leaked messages which reveal discussions over when to “deploy” details of a new strain.
Iatrocide – The act of killing a patient by medical treatment; iatro- + -cide , from Greek iatros (healer) + Latin -cide (killing).
Have you ever wondered why many people refer to Matt Hancock as “Midazolam Matt”? I will tell you…
The powerful sedative Midazolam was used to prematurely end the lives of tens of thousands of people (possibly more), and their deaths have been attributed to “Covid”. The elderly and vulnerable in Britain were given a high dose “euthanasia drug cocktail” of Midazolam and Morphine.
In addition, elderly people who developed bacterial pneumonia were intentionally denied antibiotics, leading to their death, which were then labelled “Covid” deaths. In the UK, antibiotic prescriptions dropped 50% during 2020.
There were excess deaths in the spring of 2020, but there was no pandemic, and hospitals were not overwhelmed as was claimed.
In April 2020 A&E attendance was down 57% and bed occupancy was down 30% compared to the previous year.
There were 41,627 more deaths than the five-year average up to the 1st May 2020, and most of these occurred in April. 33,408 of these excess deaths mentioned “Covid” on the death certificate, and most of these people were over the age of 85.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that during April 2020 26,541 deaths occurred in Care homes, an increase of 17,850 on the five-year average.
This accounts for half the number of alleged “Covid” deaths during the same period.
Why were these people in care homes and not in hospital? They were in care homes because then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock gave the order to put them there.
On the 19th March a directive was sent out to the NHS which required them to discharge all patients who they deemed did not require a hospital bed. NHS trusts were told that “they must adhere” to the new directive rapidly (within 2 hours of the decision being made).
This directive meant that thousands of people who required medical treatment and attention in hospital were discharged into care homes.
Midazolam is a benzodiazepine drug used for anaesthesia, procedural sedation, and to treat severe agitation. It is a drug used in palliative care for dying patients. In the US it is used as a sedative during executions by lethal injection.
Midazolam is also used before medical procedures and surgery to cause drowsiness, relieve anxiety, and erase any memory of the event.
It can cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.
Midazolam should only be administered in a hospital or a doctors surgery that has the equipment needed to monitor the heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if breathing slows or stops.
Midazolam should be used with extreme caution in patients who have chronic renal failure, impaired hepatic function, or impaired cardiac function. It should also be used with extreme caution in obese and elderly patients.
The NHS bought two years’ worth of Midazolam in March 2020 and wanted to purchase much more; supplies were even diverted from France.
Why would the NHS want to buy two years’ worth of Midazolam, a drug associated with respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest, to treat a disease that allegedly causes respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest?
Using it to treat people who are suffering from pneumonia and respiratory insufficiency allegedly due to “Covid” could be lethal.
The NHS stated that Midazolam should be used for comfort at end-of-life care due to “Covid” to ease fear, anxiety, and agitation.
An NHS document states that Midazolam should be used for sedation prior to the patient requiring mechanical ventilation and states that dosage should be kept to a minimum and should be within the manufacturer’s guidelines.
But a policy created for treating patients allegedly suffering anxiety due to “Covid”, gives instructions to treat these patients with a starting dose of 2.5mg of Midazolam, or 1.25mg if the patient is “particularly frail”, but to increase this to 5 – 10mg if the patient is “extremely distressed”.
Even the starting dose is 0.25mg higher than the maximum recommended to administer to the elderly or unwell in sedation guidelines.
Matt Hancock ordered twice the amount of out of hospital prescribing of Midazolam in April 2020 compared to 2019.
In April 2019 up to 21,977 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued. However, in April 2020 45,033 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued which is a 104.91% increase.
But these weren’t issued in hospitals, they were issued by GP practices which can only mean they were issued for end-of-life care.
In April 2020 there was a huge surge in Midazolam prescriptions out of hospital, concomitant with a huge surge in alleged “Covid” deaths. An identical pattern can be seen for January 2021. The excess deaths in the UK (during the alleged COVID-19 pandemic waves in early 2020 and early 2021) correlate almost perfectly with spikes in Midazolam 10mg/2ml use. This is not the anxiolytic oral form. It’s a euthanasia injection.
Care home deaths were 205% up in April 2020 compared to April 2019. The vast majority of alleged “Covid” deaths were people over the age of 85.
There is a strong correlation between the over prescribing of Midazolam and the seemingly premature ending of life, with the deaths being put down as “Covid”.
Three out of five alleged “Covid” deaths occurred in those who suffered learning difficulties and disabilities.
Those with learning difficulties and in care were much more likely to have a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order placed on them without the victim or their family being informed. Carers / NHS staff then used this as permission to put the victim on end-of-life care, which involves the use of Midazolam.
According to a Care Quality Commission (CQC) statement in August 2020:
“Providers should always work to prevent avoidable harm or death for all those they care for. Protocols, guidelines, and triage systems should be based on equality of access to care and treatment. If they are based on assumptions that some groups are less entitled to care and treatment than others, this would be discriminatory. It would also potentially breach human rights, including the right to life, even if there were concerns that hospital or critical care capacity may be reached.”
The two-year supply of Midazolam seems to have been depleted by October 2020 according to NHS documents. Once these were replenished the stocks were again depleted by the beginning of February 2021.
The evidence suggests that in reality we were ordered to stay at home, not to protect the NHS, but to enable prematurely ending the lives of the elderly and vulnerable which was falsely attributed to “Covid”.
With over 80% of all “Covid” deaths in 2020 taking place in long term care homes, without these deaths there would have been no “pandemic”, no fear or panic, and perhaps no COVID-19 “vaccine” rollout.
British MP Andrew Bridgen recently wrote: “I have been supplied with lots of evidence from people who believe their relatives died due to the medical interventions brought in as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic”.
Former Pfizer scientist Dr Mike Yeadon PhD believes over 100,000 people were killed by government protocols using Midazolam and Morphine.
The NHS has committed one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory cynically using fear, compliance, ignorance, and trust.
Many people clapped on command while NHS staff practiced their dance routines. Many people displayed pictures of rainbows to show their support. Those rainbows might as well be swastikas. If man of the people Gary Lineker wants to make some real comparisons to 1930s Germany, then he should be outraged by this.
“Midazolam Matt” Hancock, the former UK Health Secretary who oversaw the “pandemic” response, should be in prison as should everyone else complicit in these crimes against humanity.
Sources:
“Midazolam Murders: Were the elderly in Long Term Care homes killed with euthanasia drugs and labeled as COVID-19 deaths?” Dr William Makis MD. Druthers.
“FACT: Midazolam Matt Hancock turned Care Homes into Concentration Camps where the Elderly & Vulnerable were given Lethal Injections to create the illusion of a COVID Pandemic.” THE EXPOSÉ MARCH 22, 2023
Midazolam Matt Hancock turned Care Homes into Concentration Camps in 2020, using Midazolam to kill the Elderly & Vulnerable so that you would Stay at Home, to Protect an Empty NHS, & Support the Pandemic Lies
Matt Hancock, the former UK Health Secretary who oversaw the pandemic response, should be in prison.
Because while you stayed at home to “protect the NHS, and (allegedly) save lives”, Matt Hancock orchestrated the mass murder of the elderly and vulnerable in care homes using a drug known as Midazolam and then told you that they had all died of Covid-19; and we can prove it…
You gave up over two years of your life due to a lie****.****
A lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19.
A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory.
A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam. We’re told that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever.
We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.
Meanwhile, Midazolam is a drug that has been used in executions by lethal injection in the USA. It can cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing which may lead to permanent brain injury or death.
Knowing that, would you use Midazolam to treat “patients” suffering Covid-19?
Because that’s precisely what the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock decided to do.
Data taken from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows us that during April 2020 there were 26,541 deaths in care homes, an increase of 17,850 on the five-year average. This is half the amount of alleged Covid-19 deaths during the same period.
Why were these people in care homes and not in hospitals?
They were in care homes because Matt Hancock gave the order to put them there…
On the 19th March 2020, a directive was sent out to the NHS, with Matt Hancock’s authorisation, instructing hospitals to discharge all patients who they deemed to not require a hospital bed.
They declared that transfers from the ward must happen within one hour of that decision being made to a designated discharge area, and that discharge from the hospital should happen within 2 hours. NHS trusts were told that “they must adhere” to the new directive.
Why on earth would people already be in a hospital bed if they did not need to be? You attend the hospital because you require medical treatment, not because you want a lie-down and a good night’s sleep.
This directive meant that people who required medical treatment and attention were discharged into Care homes in the thousands.
And it allowed Matt Hancock to orchestrate a genocide of the elderly and vulnerable so that he could tell you thousands were dying of Covid-19 and justify the Draconian, totalitarian state that his Government had imposed on the country, alongside many other governments around the world.
The following exchange took place in a parliamentary committee meeting on the 17th of April 2020 between Matt Hancock and Dr Evans, a Conservative MP...
Behind Closed Doors: How Hancock’s Policies Turned Care Homes into Ground Zero with the Drug Midazolam used to Kill the Vulnerable with their Deaths labelled COVID-19
by Fabian Ubiquitus
