Unbelievable Totalitarian Health Laws Proposed For Northern Ireland

Written by Hugh McCarthy on October 1, 2024. Posted in Current News

Para 61. The officer may for the purpose for which entry is authorised:

• search the premises;

• carry out measurements and tests of the premises or of anything found on them;

• take and retain samples of the premises or of anything found on them;

• inspect and take copies or extracts of any documents or records found on the premises;

• require information stored in an electronic form and accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form; and

• seize and detain or remove anything which the officer reasonably believes to be evidence of any contravention relevant to the purpose for which entry is authorised.

Para 87 gives powers to seize goods

Paras 172 and 179 impose a requirement on persons to be vaccinated

Para 114 refers to forced medical examinations, invasive and intrusive

Para 116ff gives powers of entry, whereby an official can enter any premises by force, accompanied by others and “may take with them any such person or equipment and materials as may be necessary.” A clear breach of Human Rights.

Para 119 gives powers to remove documents and information stored in electronic form

And Para 102 gives the Department the power to enforce

-such other restrictions or requirements as the court considers necessary

These proposals are a clear violation of informed consent, the principle on which our healthcare is based.

The powers are truly all encompassing removing human rights and ignoring civil liberties

the language is one of repression and worthy of a totalitarian regime at its height.

As David Bell, formerly of the WHO and Professor  Ramon Thakur  former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General state:

“Health includes mental health and well-being and is highly dependent on a robust economy, yet the WHO-backed package of measures to fight Covid has been damaging to health, children’s immunisation programs in developing countries, mental health, food security, economies, poverty reduction, educational, and social well-being of peoples.

Their worst effect was grievous assaults on human rights, civil liberties, individual autonomy, and bodily integrity”

Yet it appears the  N.Ireland Department of Health wants to implement such policies here. In summary major elements of the legislation include -monitoring and surveillance, restrictions on movement, lockdowns, testing, protective clothing such as masks as set out in  the WHO IHR Amendments.

In clear contravention of the original 2019 WHO Pandemic Plan which contained many evidence-based recommendations, such as

• there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza;
• active contact tracing is not recommended in general because there is no obvious rationale for it in most member states;
• home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure;
• the quality of the evidence around the effectiveness of school closures is described as “very low”

Why were such recommendations ignored from 2020 and why are they still being ignored? These are the restrictions which the Department of Health seeks to introduce and expand.

Why has the Department of Health NOT reviewed the operation of these policies throughout the previous so called Pandemic? The evidence of their failure and of their harms is well established and I will review elements of it below in the context of the proposals in the bill.

Monitoring and Surveillance/restrictions on movement and access (Paragraphs 61 and 119)

A damning report from the House of Commons Public Accounts committee concluded that The NHS Test and Trace service in England failed to deliver its central promise to avoid a second national lockdown and there is no clear evidence its “unimaginable” costs (£37billion) have been justified.

Meg Hillier, the committee chair, said, “Despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project, NHS Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic, and the promise on which this huge expense was justified—avoiding another lockdown has been broken.”

It didn’t work the first time, so what changes have been made?

Restrictions on movement including Vaccine Passports

The scheme cost the N.Ireland taxpayer £21m was introduced after the Department of Health had been told that the scheme had not worked anywhere else and was abandoned after 5 weeks.

Lockdowns, the most heinous crime committed against a free people and based on the validity and accuracy of the PCR test: It is well known that the test has a 80%+ failure rate and indeed, was not designed to determine whether a person was infected nor infectious and nor was it able to.

Yet despite the multitude of research studies indicating the failure of lockdowns and the huge harms, they appear to be a key plank in “protecting the public” in the bill.

Ignoring amongst the plethora of recent research studies, one by our own University of Ulster carried out by Professor Norman Fenton, Dr Gerry Quinn et al revealed that seasonality was overwhelming more important than any of the government measures-the vaccination programmes or the many public health interventions including lockdowns, masks, travel restrictions and vaccines

And one by the UK Health Security Agency, this review covering 151 studies published in September 2023 found that the evidence base for the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on Covid transmission was weak.

These include such measures as lockdown, the ‘rule of 6’, test and isolation, face coverings, border restrictions, and more. The report concluded that “there is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission”

Not only did they not work, but they cause immense and continuing harms-so why are we considering introducing powers to do the same thing again?

Of the countless commentaries and research reports not only showing Lockdowns did not work, but caused huge harms these two aptly sum up the catastrophic wide ranging harms, firstly Professor Jonas Herby et al of the John Hopkins University in January 2022

“The effect (of Lockdowns) on mortality is little to none. […] [L]ockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID–19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.

These costs to society must be compared to the benefits. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument”

These up to date findings repeat earlier research findings such as

In 2021 “ analysis   carried out by the Swiss Policy Research concluded “almost every single government intervention, in particular, lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, mass testing and ‘contact tracing’”, as well as ‘vaccine passports’, have been entirely ineffective and unjustified while having caused almost unprecedented social and economic harm”.

Rancourt’s 125 country study reached the same conclusions.

A report published on the US government’s health web site concluded.

“Lockdowns may prove to be one of the gravest governmental failures of modern times. A cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 found lockdowns to be far more harmful  to public health (at least 5-10 times) in terms of well-being than COVID”

Reviews of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality concluded there is no broad-based evidence of noticeable COVID-19 benefit. Pandemic models that guided poverty not only overestimated COVID-19 impact but failed to take into account the collateral damage of lockdowns.

The sense of fear, anxiety and helplessness brought to families and 2.2 billion children around the globe with removal of future earning capacity and limited access to healthcare will impact lives in an unprecedented manner for generations.

Mass surveillance, lockdowns, wearing face masks and poorly effective COVID-19 vaccines have contributed to chronic stress, fear and anxiety that reduce the resilience of immunity.

Unfortunately, when the immune system (immunosenescence) is weakened vaccinations are also less able to generate effective protection. The links between stress/anxiety, ill-health and early death have long been recognized.

Yet these policies form the bulk of proposals in the bill.

I have written extensively about the mental, developmental and educational impact on our young people of masks and school closures-this section updates (and reiterates) previous findings, the figures for 2024 show the disgraceful effect of untried and untested measures on our young people-yet we are proposing to take powers to do the same thing again.

The effects on our children’s mental health continues to be alarming. The Guardian reported in August this year that more than 500 children a day in England are being referred to NHS mental health services for anxiety, more than double the rate before the pandemic began.

The alarming increase means children are now being referred to NHS mental health services in England for anxiety at a rate of one every three minutes or almost 4,000 a week.

We denied our young people all the activities which help their mental health-we closed schools, isolated them, banned sport, travel, parties, plays, church. Locked them in their bedrooms, what did we expect to happen? And now we are taking powers to do  it again.

In February this year the Times Educational Supplement (08/02/2024) reported a “huge rise in pupil mental health emergencies”, the article goes on the report that headteachers are warning that schools were being left to deal with a “tsunami of pressures” affecting pupil wellbeing, following the pandemic.

Data analysed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows a 53 per cent rise over three years in referrals to child and adolescent mental health services (Camhs) crisis teams in England.

In November 2023 The NHS has reported that 1 IN 5 children had a mental disorder in 2023 with nearly 1 million awaiting appointments rising to 1.5m in 2024 as reported in Westminster by the Children’s Commissioner with huge rises in mental health related issues such as disabling Tic disorders, self harm and eating disorders.

And the impact is set to continue into the 2030s according to the recent analysis   from the Association for School and College Leaders warning of extensive problems with learning, behaviour and absence to come in a series of waves with different age groups requiring varying solutions for their problems with learning, behaviour and absence.

Essentially this reiterates a report earlier in 2024 by the World Bank which warned that lockdown disruption to education would scar multiple generations of children who suffered serious developmental and learning delays.

Tim Oates, the report’s author said: “ secondary schools are reporting an increase in reading difficulties among year 7 pupils, poor personal organisation and challenging patterns of interaction, staff in primary schools are reporting very serious problems of arrested language development, lack of toilet training, anxiety in being in social spaces, and depressed executive function.”

And this is confirmed by the Department of Education whose spokesperson said

“We know the pandemic has had a profound impact on children’s development”

The Oates’ report said that even babies born during the pandemic now starting in primary schools were likely to be profoundly affected throughout their education.

Those born during the pandemic “now appear to be prone to fundamental problems in cognitive and social development”, he said, bringing educational challenges that “will continue to unfold over the next five to 10 years as children whose early development was affected by the pandemic pass through school” as confirmed by Ofsted, the

Again confirming the findings of earlier schools inspections

In the Spring of 2022 Ofsted report  had  highlighted the damaging effects of the restrictions on the development of young children.

• delays in babies’ physical development
• a generation of babies struggling to crawl and communicate
• regression in children’s independence eg unable to toilet independently
• delays in speech and language

This report should have set alarm bells ringing at the time.

It is well known that young children who have communication problems can fail to to reach their full potential, so it is lasting damage.

“Lockdown led to major decline in NI children’s language skills. Covid ‘hampered ability to socialise’ leaving some unable to communicate according to Ruth Sedgewick ,Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists N.Ireland.

And the Guardian recently reported (28/02/2024) what was reported originally in 2021:

“One in four children starting school in England and Wales are not toilet-trained, The early-years charity, Kindred2 reported ,with nearly half (46%) of pupils are unable to sit still, 38% struggle to play or share with others, more than a third (37%) cannot dress themselves, 29% cannot eat or drink independently and more than a quarter (28%) are using books incorrectly, swiping or tapping as though they were using a tablet”

The earlier report findings are summarized here to emphasise the damage and what has been known

“Children are starting schools with the social and educational skills of a child two years younger” (October 2021)

“children in this age group were starting school far behind, biting and hitting, overwhelmed around large groups of other children and unable to settle and learn (May 2022)

The educational harms are well documented and are updated below.

The Pisa tests compare educational attainment among 15-year-olds around the world and show UK pupils’ science and maths scores lowest since 2006 in international tests.

Anne Longfield, the former children’s commissioner, told the Covid Inquiry that closing schools had been “a terrible mistake”. The Pisa tests show how right she was. This is the real legacy of Covid lockdowns.

And so the damage mounts “Schools continue to see high rates of pupil absence and they have many pupils with complex needs.

A warning repeated in the Telegraph this weekend under the headline: ‘How Covid destroyed our lives, from newborns to pensioners’ the article continues to report on the ‘growing body of evidence shows that the impact of lockdown continues to affect every generation – and will do for decades to come’

The full story of the harms to children may be found in this series of articles published by UK Column and available HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

And wrt general children’s health, Professor Dalgleish recently (April 9^th 2024) wrote:

“ the number of under-18s waiting for NHS care in England has soared to 423,500, the highest on record.”

The economic cost

“we estimate that lockdown cost the UK in total £118 billion in lost GDP, or 7.6% of annual GDP at 2019 values. Lockdown 1 cost £86 billion and Lockdown 2 £32 billion. There will have been an additional cost in public finances also, possibly on a similar scale. The 7.6% of annual GDP is roughly half the 14.7% total shortfall of actual GDP against our constant growth rate assumption though part of the gap is due to lockdowns.

But were the policies necessary?

A justification provided is the need to protect the public against future pandemics.

There is extreme doubt over whether there was a pandemic in the first place.Thomas Verduyn and Thomas Engler of Pandata found when they revisited the pandemic in China. There was no pandemic according to the data.

• no evidence that the Chinese lockdown had any impact on the trajectory of either Covid cases or deaths.
• no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was highly transmissible.
• no evidence that Covid was unusually lethal.
• no evidence that anything significant happened in China as a result of Covid (other than the lockdown itself).
• nothing that can support the WHO’s decision to consider Covid a pandemic.

How common are pandemics?

In the century prior to the Covid debacle pandemics were not increasing and their impact was steadily diminishing, as noted in WHO’s 2019 pandemic guidelines. WHO’s own publications may tell us that pandemics have occurred just 5 times in 100 years, with overall reducing mortality, but this is of no consequence.

And was this alleged one deadly enough to warrant the removal of our civil liberties?

Globally, the infection fatality rate (IFR) of SARS-CoV-2 is about 0.15% and comparable to seasonal influenza (IFR 0,1 %). The IFR of those under twenty years was only 0.0013 %, and highest for those beyond 70 years.

The IFR of COVID-19 among community-dwelling elderly is lower than previously reported in elderly overall.

In N.Ireland 275 people died OF Covid in 4 years of a “deadly” pandemic, the same number who would have been expected to die of flu-except nobody did. The average age was 83 and the youngest was 38.

Similarly in Scotland NO child died OF Covid

So why are children to  “submit to or comply with the restrictions or requirements imposed by the order” as required by Para 77?

Furthermore, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Canada, Ireland and Iceland no healthy child has died of Covid.

The Canada Health Alliance reports that “Without a serious pre-existing medical condition, the risk of death is statistically zero”. In the US, analysis of the FDA’s data shows the risk of any child dying of Covid–19 is 0.000015. In fact, Dr Paul Alexander reports that “there had been no deaths of healthy children in the US.

Actually no healthy child died ANYWHERE in the world

The policies ignore the data, the risks, the failure of the policies, the harms and the ethical health principles.

The list below reflects orthodox public health concepts developed since of post-World War Two, and WHO’s definition of health. It was articulated by public health professionals and published recently by the Academy for Science and Freedom.

I include it here because it shows how far the proposed Public Health Bill has strayed from the previous accepted ethical health principles. It merits careful reading because it sets out what should be happening.

Ethical Principles of Public Health

1. All public health advice should consider the impact on overall health, rather than solely be concerned with a single disease. It should always consider both benefits and harms from public health measures and weigh short-term gains against long-term harms.
2. Public health is about everyone. Any public health policy must first and foremost protect society’s most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.
3. Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.
4. Public health is about comparative risk evaluations, risk reduction, and reducing uncertainties using the best available evidence, since risk usually cannot be entirely eliminated.
5. Public health requires public trust. Public health recommendations should present facts as the basis for guidance, and never employ fear or shame to sway or manipulate the public.
6. Medical interventions should not be forced or coerced upon a population, but rather should be voluntary and based on informed consent.  Public health officials are advisors, not rule setters, and provide information and resources for individuals to make informed decisions.
7. Public health authorities must be honest and transparent, both with what is known and what is not known. Advice should be evidence-based and explained by data, and authorities must acknowledge errors or changes in evidence as soon as they are made aware of them.
8. Public health scientists and practitioners should avoid conflicts-of-interest, and any unavoidable conflicts-of-interest must be clearly stated.
9. In public health, open civilised debate is profoundly important. It is unacceptable for public health professionals to censor, silence or intimidate members of the public or other public health scientists or practitioners.
10. It is critical for public health scientists and practitioners always to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences of public health decisions, and to adapt appropriately.

CONCLUSION—towards good health

These proposals concentrate on enforcement, there is no attempt at policies for promoting good health and strengthening our bodies’ underlying immune systems through a life in freedom with high social capital, a healthy diet, education, sports, play, social interactions, equity in decision-making and fair earnings. Optimizing health is a human right.

Professor Sikora , a world leading cancer specialist expresses it thus:

“Whether it’s the negative developmental effect on young children, stunning levels of non-Covid excess deaths, a ticking cancer time bomb, waves of mental health issues, the economic ramifications that affect every single one of us, increases in teenage eating disorders, business closures, wasted years – I could go on and on.

Millions and millions of lives were disrupted and ruined, including those of the youngest and poorest in our society.”

These proposals should be binned, our civil liberties must be respected and a genuine policy to assist people in personal health improvements prepared.

No attempt is made to take account of individual circumstances or health-a policy directed at eg young people, working age people , elderly people and frail people is clearly ill targeted and, in the case of covid, had incredibly harmful effects on a section of the population-children and young-which was almost totally unaffected by the virus.

I would urge the politicians in the words of the philosopher Arendt and paraphrased by the Nicholas Tate, former CE of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and QCA, Headmaster of Winchester and the International School in Geneva to:

“Stop focus one’s thoughts before acting can make a difference between knowing what one is doing and its implications and not just reproducing what one ha always done, what the small group around one have always done or what wider society expects.”

I would urge the people to complete the extremely clumsy consultation document and write to their MLA.

https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/consultations/policy-proposals-inform-development-new-public-health-bill-northern-ireland

Header image: Bird In Flight

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.