Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy

The following Notice of Intended Private Criminal Prosecution for mass murder by UK Government policy is an amended version of the notice served upon the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care last week, which will also be served by email and registered post.

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus”. However, the genome sequence for SARS-COV-2, released in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence was created in the absence of virus samples¹. We therefore contend that no virus isolate of SARS COV 2 exists, and that a disease called Covid 19 has not caused excess deaths in the UK.
Our assertion is supported by public documents confirming that no pure isolate of the virus exists². Furthermore, publicly available death data proves that the so called “first wave of COVID”, and excess deaths in England, only occurred ONCE the pandemic was announced and lockdowns commenced on 23/03/2020, and that a “virus” which was not a HCID, may have been in circulation as early as October 2019.³
On 3rd March 2020, the UK Government scientific advisor echoed the Prime Minister, when he said: “Let me be absolutely clear that for the overwhelming majority of people who contract the “virus”, this will be a mild disease from which they will speedily and fully recover as we’ve already seen”. In line with this, on 13/03/2020, the threat from the virus was officially downgraded from a HCID to a NOID by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens [ACDP].⁴.
However, this decision to downgrade from HCID to NOID was highly controversial because of the WHO’s declaration of a worldwide High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID] two days previously on 11/03/2020, upon the advice of Neil Ferguson of Imperial College. In other words, the downgrading is an implicit contradiction of Ferguson’s triggering of a worldwide health emergency.
Remarkably, following the private announcement of the downgrading on 13^th March 2020, and the subsequent public announcement of the downgrading on 19/03/2020, there appears to have been a premeditated decision to use this unproven ‘pandemic’ as justification to impose measures and medication which went on to kill people. This was in turn used to justify the lockdown measures, which themselves were one of the driving forces of the deaths they claimed to be trying to avoid. This premeditation to cause deaths of course amounts to mass murder by government policy.
There is support for this argument when we look at government policy decisions, which simply put, make no sense. On 17/03/2020, 4 days after the private downgrading mentioned above, the NHS wrote to all hospitals asking them to free-up the maximum possible number of beds by urgently discharging any patients they could.¹
Many of these patients were discharged to care homes, some of which were given ultimatums forcing them to take more patients than they were equipped to provide care for. In addition, the NHS cancelled all ‘non-urgent’ treatments.
Why was this policy invented at all given scientific advice on 03/03/2020, and why was it not reversed, given the downgrading on 13/03/2020 by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens?
It is our contention that the excess deaths in the first wave occurred AS A RESULT of the relentless implementation of this policy, which was coupled with the inappropriate use of respiratory depressing medications such as Midazolam during the same period. This is how the excess deaths occurred. They were NOT because of a novel virus, isolation of which, according to long held standards, has never occurred.
Our extrapolated data on community Midazolam prescribing supports the above allegation, along with the data on how and where deaths during this time period occurred.
Following the letter of 17/03/2020 from the NHS, bed occupancy in England reduced from the usual 90% to an average of 63% in the spring quarter of 2020. In addition, there was no influx of ‘large numbers of inpatients requiring respiratory support’. Accident and emergency (A&E) departments saw a huge decrease in attendances and overall admitted patient care decreased significantly during the same period.
Of those patients who were admitted to hospital and residents who were discharged to care homes, the outcomes can only be described as devastating. We assert that those outcomes were engineered. When we look at mortality, figures show that hospital and care home death ratios increased during the “first wave” lockdown period².
Shockingly, 91% of “with COVID” deaths during the first lockdown were of people with any sort of disability³. It is impossible for a ‘virus’ to discriminate in such a manner, and therefore we contend these deaths must have been as a result of very nefarious policies. These policies were blanket DNRs and mandatory prescribed medications, two factors which have contributed to most other “non disability” deaths during the first lockdown period.
Data proves that up to 13/05/2020, deaths in care homes from all causes were 159% higher than at the start of “the COVID-19 outbreak”⁴. In April 2020, the ratio of excess deaths in English care homes was almost three times that of the prior five years’ average. It is not a mere coincidence that during the same month, prescribing of Midazolam increased by more than 100%⁵. There is a clear correlation between policy, prescribing of Midazolam and deaths, which simply cannot be overlooked.
Further,more during the period 2 March to 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died, supposedly “with COVID-19”, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over. This represented almost 40% of all deaths involving “COVID-19” in England during this period ⁶
In addition to the above, during the first lockdown there was an unbelievable policy change in care homes⁷. The change restricted access for residents’ families. This removed crucial oversight of treatment along with safeguards. Also, support services such as SALT, chiropody, physiotherapy and in house GP visits, were removed.
Simply put, care homes were turned into death camps and their inmates were targeted for elimination. Staffing levels dropped due to a policy of self-isolation for anything akin to a sniffle, and this further pressured care homes who then had a ratio of staff to patients that was unworkable.
We contend this was not an accident, and instead was done by design. Only a fool, or perhaps a madman, would implement such policies and not realise the inevitable consequences. Only a fool or a madman would say they were necessary after the down grading of Covid 19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020.
As we have already stated, we assert that the above were premeditated policies, to cause excess deaths in care homes (as well as in the community generally). It is without doubt that family surveillance in care homes, at a time when staff limits were stretched, could have stopped avoidable deaths. Furthermore, had support services been available, we very much doubt that the over prescribing of respiratory depressing medication would have been either necessary, or allowed to transpire.
Bizarrely, in addition to the above, all official inspections were suspended during the first lockdown, leading to less and less oversight. Very worryingly, the use of blanket DNRs,⁸ (now acknowledged as a fact by Matt Hancock), as well as do not admit to hospital orders, were imposed, and undoubtedly led to countless avoidable deaths.
Lockdown restrictions eased at the start of June 2020 and up to the start of the second national lockdown, there was NEGATIVE excess deaths in care homes (a ratio of 0.96 versus expected levels). This fall in deaths occurred in the absence of any ‘vaccines’ or alternative treatment for so called Covid 19.
We therefore contend that the initial wave of deaths during the first lockdown were driven by policy decisions by this government and Midazolam prescribing. These deaths were in fact accelerated deaths, rather than excess deaths, and these accelerated deaths were created for political and policy gain, to feed a narrative of a deadly pandemic which simply did not, and still does not, exist.
Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor, has labelled lockdowns “the single biggest public health mistake in history”⁹. 95% of hospital COVID-labelled deaths occurred DURING lockdown. How is this possible if lockdowns save lives?
We contend that lockdowns kill, but moreover that they are designed to do so. However, lockdowns alone do not provide the significant number of deaths needed to create the illusion of a pandemic. This is the primary reason we have looked at Midazolam prescribing during this period.
It is a well-known fact that Midazolam is a respiratory depressing drug¹. It creates the very respiratory symptoms of so called “COVID-19”. Used in copious amounts in conjunction with lockdowns, Midazolam led to premature deaths. The data we have extrapolated on community Midazolam prescribing supports this, along with the pertinent observations above, about where and how accelerated deaths occurred.
Given our assertions that government policy and Midazolam prescribing have caused accelerated deaths, and our assertion that this was designed and premeditated by certain individuals within and advising this government, we have some questions that we wish to put to you.
Our allegations described above are of the most serious kind. In the absence of satisfactory answers from you to our questions and given the supporting evidence we are presenting with this notice, we wish to make clear that we will assume you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that what we have asserted about a government premeditated policy of mass murder is false.
Let us be clear, this is your chance to answer the questions posed and give proof that our allegations and assertions are wrong. If you can do that by bringing evidence to the contrary of ours, we will accept that we have perhaps misinterpreted our evidence, albeit in good faith.
However, you will need to produce sufficient material evidence to rebut our allegations, and in the absence of the same, we will pursue a Private Criminal Prosecution based on the statements made herein.
Of the 50,335 deaths which occurred in March to June 2020 involving COVID-19 in England and Wales, 45,859 (91.1%) had at least one pre-existing condition, while 4,476 (8.9%) had none. It is for those people and their families that we so urgently seek a just outcome in this the most serious type of criminal proceedings imaginable.

Questions About Allegedly Murderous UK Government Policy
How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were used in England between March and May 2020?
Of 1mg in 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules used between March and May 2020, where were they prescribed, and in what proportion, i.e. what went into the community, and what went into hospitals?
What was the UK stock of 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules held for the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?
How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?
What was the UK stock of 10mg 2ml Midazolam in the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?
How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?
Who ordered the 22,000 extra packs in May 2020? Was it the DHSC, and if so, which minister signed off the order? If it was not the DHSC please specify who it was?
What was the cost of the order of the 22,000 packs?
Moving on to the Health and Social Care Committee. Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17/04/2020, ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 17/04/2020, what does Dr Luke Evans mean when he says, “a good death”?
Does he mean euthanasia, which this term commonly refers to?
Assuming he does mean this, why did Dr Luke Evans openly discuss government policy of causing “a good death” by administering fatal dose of drugs like Midazolam and Morphine, via hypodermic syringes, when to do so is tantamount to an implicit confession of mass murder by policy?
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are both illegal under English Law. Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) and punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder.
Are Dr Luke Evans’ remarks a result of the Confidential Pandemic Influenza (CPI) briefing paper dated 08/09/2017, which states, and we quote: “There is significant discussion in the paper about ceasing or changing care to patients in the HRG categories; however a decision may more appropriately be taken to treat patients in the listed HRG groups rather than influenza patients, dependent upon likelihood of survival……… Total excess death rate would be in excess of 7,806 per week of the peak of the pandemic if all these services were stopped. So, in the peak six weeks of a pandemic (recognising the typical profile of increasing and decreasing case numbers either side of the peak weeks), 46,836 excess deaths could be expected. On the one hand, this is likely to be an underestimate as it only considers the top 14 HRG codes and it does not consider additional deaths occurring particularly in the elderly and frail across primary care where HRGs are not coded.”
Give the CPI and Dr Luke Evans’ remarks, is there a culture within government, Public Health England and indeed the NHS to enact the supposedly defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, to end lives at the behest of the treating doctor, which of course is illegal as described above?
If the answer is “no”, can you please explain why the NHS drew up the CPI and included within it plans to withdraw hospital care from people in nursing homes in the event of a pandemic, which also included refusal to treat those in their 70s and instead offer “support” to use so-called “end of life pathways”.
The CPI states that the Health Secretary (at the time) could authorize medics to prioritize some patients over others and even stop providing critical care altogether. Was such a decision taken by the Health Secretary at the time, (Matt Hancock), in relation to care home, hospital and community residents over a certain age?
Government ministers have repeatedly insisted that care homes were not abandoned by the NHS during the coronavirus crisis, despite more than 42,000 residents in England and Wales dying during the “pandemic”. Given this, what is your proof that this was not because of decisions made by the DHSC, and/or PHE and NHS chiefs, which then resulted in thousands of needless deaths?
Care homes were asked by NHS managers and GPs to place DNR’s on all residents at the height of the “pandemic” to keep hospital beds free – in breach of guideline 3. Blanket DNR’s were also imposed on people with learning disabilities “who were not near the end of their lives”, showing a concerning disregard for disabled people. Who made the decision to ask care homes to do this, and were these decisions taken because of the CPI?
In making his remarks at the Health and Social Care Committee, Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17 April 2020, why did Dr Evans and indeed all those present, completely ignore the declassification of COVID-19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020, meaning that such nefarious measures as those mentioned in the CPI were never necessary?
Moving on, we attach a selection of graphs regarding the prescribing of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules for various years and months. Can you please explain why the enormous increase in Midazolam prescriptions for 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules coincide with implementation of the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle-plan in March 2020?
How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, were held in the UK in January 2020, and what wholesalers held them? How does the DHSC, PHE and the NHS keep track of what stock it has of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, and indeed all other Midazolam products?
We attach a final graph comparing all-cause mortality but distinguishing between NON “COVID-19” deaths and deaths “with COVID-19” for the period March 2020 to April 2021, compared to Midazolam prescribing for the same period. Can you please explain why there is such a tight correlation between the “COVID-19” deaths in April 2020, and the prescribing of Midazolam 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules?
As Midazolam is not a treatment for “COVID-19”, and the prescribing in April is, in the main, into the community, and NOT hospitals, can you please answer if it is in fact the case that 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules were prescribed and used to end the lives of people in care that had a chance of surviving, and those deaths were then labelled as “COVID-19”?
For the avoidance of doubt, the appropriate answers to the above questions must be delivered without prevarication, obstruction, or unnecessary delays, whilst we reserve the right to lay this information in a criminal court without further notice, for the purposes of preventing any more harm being done to the People by UK Government policy.