Vaxxines as a crime against humanity claim filed with the International Criminal Court

UK Team File Complaint of Crimes Against Humanity With The International Criminal Court.

A complaint has been filed with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on December 6th, 2021 by a team from the UK on behalf of the people alleging crimes committed by UK government officials and international world leaders of various violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression perpetrated against the peoples of the UK.

This is the link to the actual filed document. It’s very clear and straightforward.

3 The Corona virus ‘vaccines’ are an innovative medical treatment, which have only received temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations Act (2012). The long-term effects and safety of the treatment in recipients are unknown.

It is important to note that the Corona Virus ‘vaccines’ are the world’s first introduction to the synthetic m-RNA technology and all previous immunisations worked in a totally different manner, by way of introducing a deactivated or weakened virus to the body to trigger a natural arousal of the immune system against it. As detailed by Dr Mike Yeadon, the risks anticipated by this innovative medical treatment are hereby enclosed as Appendix 1 to this request.

4 All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with only limited shortterm and no long-term adult safety data available. In addition, they are using a completely new mRNA vaccine technology, which has never previously been approved for use in humans. The mRNA is effectively a pro-drug and it is not known how much spike protein any individual will produce. Potential late-onset effects can take months or years to become apparent. The limited children’s trials undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but severe side effects.

5 The Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ do not meet the requirements to be categorised as vaccines and are in fact gene therapy (Appendix 8). The Merriam-Webster dictionary quietly changed the definition of the term ‘vaccine’ to include components of the COVID-19 m-RNA injection. The definition of vaccine was specifically changed due to the Covid-19 injection on February 5 th 2021.

Dr Mike Yeadon, joint applicant on this request, asserts that claims calling the Covid-19 injections a ‘vaccine is public manipulation and misrepresentation of clinical 3 treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.’ MRNA uses the cell’s machinery to synthesize proteins that are supposed to resemble the SPIKE protein of the virus, which is what it uses to enter cells via the ACE2 receptor. These proteins are then identified by the immune system, which builds antibodies against them. The real concern is that these proteins could accumulate in the body especially in regions of high concentration of ACE2 receptors, such as the gonads. If the immune system then attacks the location where they accumulate, then you could be dealing with an auto-immune condition.

The Great Reset has already been put in place so it’s very unlikely this will get very far with these establishment jurists.

Chile is apparently about to elect a socialist government

You would think that Venezuela would present the strongest imaginable case for caution in handing an economy over to the left. You would think the case would be most understood in Latin America. But here we are, with Chile, the strongest economy in Latin America about to go left as it did once before. Economic ignorance is so massive. You would really like one of these political leaders to explain how their economy functions. They would not have a clue, but neither would their voting population.

The chart is from this article: SOCIALISM AND FREE ENTERPRISE ON TRIAL, on trial as in the stupidest people are now going to lead the country into ruin, but make themselves quite wealthy at the same time. As discussed here in relation to the election which is now taking place in Chile.

Chileans vote today for a new president and there’s a risk that a Venezuelan-style leftist, Gabriel Boric, will prevail.

Amazing. Sad, stupid, but amazing. Must be similar to the voting public in Victoria.


Dr Peter McCullough discusses the coronavirus with Joe Rogan

See the Explosive Highlights from Dr. Peter McCullough’s Bombshell Interview with Joe Rogan. This is from Alex Jones at InfoWars.Dr. Peter A. McCullough joined the Joe Rogan Experience to break down how the coronavirus crisis could have been mitigated had the government researched and administered early treatments.

First below is a tweet with some of the footage.

Confessions of a white oppressor

I’ve put the video up before, but thought I would couple it with this article by Ammo Girlll at Powerline: meditating on the MARGINALIZED AND UNDERSERVED. Read the whole thing, but this will give you a sense of what you will find if you go to the link.

A few weeks ago, Ann Coulter did an impressive takedown of the monstrous racist grift that is the Build Back Bigoted Bill. Ann found the definition of “underserved” on page 111 of the Rules Committee summary. The bill itself uses the term “underserved” 99 times and the term “underserved community” 19 times. The summary definition set forth for one of the key sections reads: “This section also defines an ‘underserved community’ as a group of people who have been systematically denied the full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social and civic life. Underserved communities include Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, other persons of color, etc.”

Boy, that is a powerful lot of underserving. I don’t know what “other persons of color” entails, not even to mention the “etc.” Is that like a Player To Be Named Later? They have already listed Black, Brown, Red and Yellow. What color is left? Puce? Ecru? For sure, not white. We are read out of the bill, if not the human race. Fine. Who needs to be “served”? Whatever they are serving, I’ll pass.

The most racist people in the world today may be the American left and the focus of their racism is almost entirely on white people, which most of them are themselves. These people are mentally disturbed.

“I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly”

This is about the suppression of Ivermectin and consists of a long conversation. These are the persons involved:

Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

Dr. Tess Lawrie is Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts.

This is the recorded conversation between them over the approval of Ivermectin.

Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.

Hill: Well …

Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply …

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials …

Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies … we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision.

And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative … that is a sensitive position.

So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this.

I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.

Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?

Hill complains again that outsiders are influencing him.

Lawrie: You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

Lawrie: But, Andy — know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.

Hill protests that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin.

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about.

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so.

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.

This is bad research … bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know … you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up … you know?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?

Hill: Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO [World Health Organization]and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]and the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future … at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.

These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people …

I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So … we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do.

I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to … Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid …

Lawrie: I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name … but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance …

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby …

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.

I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground … You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.

And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry … As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.

Hill promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks.

Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.

Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?

Hill: From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks … because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum …

Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.”

Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.

Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of … everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.

Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.

Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

The incident is recounted in Robert Kennedy Jr’s New York Times Bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, pages 137-143.


SHOCK As Melbourne Woman Sets Herself On Fire Inside Car With Sign Saying: “NO ONE CARES, MANDATES ARE KILLING US”. She’s certainly right about that. This is the most unreported story you have ever seen.

The woman parked her car, blocking off a road in Cherry St, Werribee, a suburb in Victoria, and poured 4 cans of petrol over herself before placing the sign containing her written plea in the window of her car. Police attended and tried to talk her down, but she ultimately set herself on fire after telling the police she had “nothing left”.

The condition of the woman is currently unknown and the mainstream Australian media has yet to cover the incident. However, video from Wyndham News Australia shows the aftermath of the fire, with the sign containing the woman’s desperate plea plainly visible for all to see.

Witnesses have confirmed the incident on Facebook and the story is currently gaining some serious traction online, making it an open question of whether the mainstream Australian news outlets will be forced to cover the incident.

The horrific incident is a shocking indictment against “Dictator” Dan Andrew’s lockdown policies which have reduced the state of Victoria to an authoritarian hellscape.

Andrews is notorious for his indifference to the suffering of the people he rules over, as evidenced by the fact that he was told back in 2020 that a tenth of all Victorian suicides were a result of his lockdown policies.

Below is the aftermath video by Wyndham News Australia:


Have not seen this mentioned anywhere else!