Dr Fauci before the house

,Biden could give Anthony Fauci ‘preemptive pardon’ This link is to support John's work on Patreon,https://patreon.com/JohnCampbell2?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink Former head of CDC https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/12/05/biden-considers-preemptive-pardons-protect-allies-trump/ Joe Biden’s team Considering a raft of “preemptive pardons” Protect his allies from future prosecutions (Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff) FBI new lead, Kash Patel Pardoning allies before any charges are brought, a highly unusual step??????????????? Example 1, Covid lab accident in China https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/ COVID-19 ORIGIN: COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The FIVE strongest arguments in favor of the “lab leak” theory include: 1. The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. 2. Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events. 3. Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels. 4. Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market. 5. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH: A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability. ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH): EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth. • New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities. NIH FAILURES: NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws Biden pardons son Hunter Due to be sentenced in two federal cases for gun possession and tax evasion. Any criminality over a 10-year period (most expansive order of its kind since Richard Nixon was pardoned in 1974).

00:22:40

UK votes for 'Assisted Dying'

more_vert

Dr. John Campbell check_circle

80K views 2 weeks ago

,Concerns Trust issues, Individual / State Patient / Doctor NFR / DNACPR failures Urgent funding and reform of palliative care, Need for people to have a real choice. Could people choose assisted suicide because of fear they will not get the palliative services they need. Mission creep Cost of setting up this ‘service’ Will doctors opt out or opt in? Will juniors be expected to assist seniors administering the ‘service’? Will there be any career progression implications? Will the ‘service’ be part of the NHS, carried out in our local hospitals? Will doctors be forced to refer to the ‘service’ Coercive and controlling behaviour Vulnerable, poor, unintelligent, demented, those without advocates How will ‘capacity’ be assessed, which criteria will be used? Who will assess ‘capacity’ Who will assess psychiatric profile, (any serious illness can cause depression, which is fully reversable) Who will assess 6 months left to live? Pressure from relatives Not wanting to be a burden Could a ‘right’ to die morph into a ‘duty’ to die. I am spending my children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance Any mistakes cannot be undone Extension to children, mentally ill. People judged by their worth / usefulness / popularity / wealth / not being cost / not being a burden Volunteering for death seen as a duty Freeing up a bed for a young person Judges interpretation of the law (National and international) Norm referencing allows for a new norm. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/29/result-assisted-dying-bill-vote-commons-silence-mps-ballot/ Tim Farron “Our society has chosen a dystopian and contagious path if it chooses to facilitate the death of those who have a terminal illness rather than standing with them, weeping with them, valuing them and loving them against the desolation that any of us would feel if we were given a diagnosis of that sort.” Robert Jenrick “This Act, if passed, will be subject to activist judges in Strasbourg. They will change it fundamentally and we have to be prepared for that.” The Commons has voted for assisted dying – we are not the same country we were yesterday (Tim Stanley) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/29/assisted-dying-not-same-country/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/29/assisted-dying-not-same-country/ bringing us up to date with Oregon and, I would argue, the Third Reich. (death could be healthcare, and necessary and kind) We are not the same country we were; we do not rest on the same moral foundation. we long stuck to the principle that the state does not take innocent life. No longer. State sponsored euthanasia debated in 5 hours The argument for assisted dying was largely anecdotal, MPs recounted personal experiences of illness and death, and appeals they had heard from their constituents on assisted dying. ‘unable to take the pain anymore, laid down on a railway line’ Relatives will push the elderly to die early; money will be made; the wedge will thicken; (terminally ill adults with less than six months to live, two doctors and a judge) and the British health service being so poor, this will come to be seen as a patriotic or desperate alternative to substandard care. If you see someone standing on a bridge, thinking about jumping, you don’t just give them a sympathetic smile, do you? It is the postwar consensus, as social democratic as it is Judeo- Christian, that is crumbling – giving way to something consumerist and atomising.