Over 44,000 Extra Deaths Now Registered in England and Wales in 2023 vs 2019 - Data is Per ONS - Data includes Week 1 to 34 (week ending 25th August 2023)

Almost 200 extra people dying per day.

Over 200 extra people under the age of 64 years now dying per week

Table shows extra deaths by age group

Link to ONS Data:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

This ONS data was released on 5th September 2023

Previous update: https://t.me/lawyersoflight/12158

Deaths Registered to date in England and Wales in 2023 versus the equivalent 5 year average.

Data includes Weeks 1 to 34 (up to and including the week ending 25th August 2023) and is produced by ONS

Table shows what the ONS defines as "excess deaths" i.e. almost 25,000 "excess deaths" (7% increase) registered in 2023 over and above the 5 year average.

Overwhelmingly more of these "excess deaths"are occurring at home but deaths in every setting are higher.

Link to ONS Data:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

This ONS data was released on 5th September 2023

Last update :https://t.me/lawyersoflight/12166

With Ma$k mandates and overall Covid madness returning, it might be a good time to revisit one of our first banned YouTube montages from 2021 in this clusterchaos of the COVID coup d'etat.

Next time around speak out louder and longer because the censorship is about to escalate and the tyrants will be bolder with their boots in our faces if we comply.


The video had a disclaimer but YouTube still banned it, because Google is actually a mental gulag.

Pursue HEALTH
Resist TYRANNY
@freedomtirade

My climate heresy that got me labelled as a "heat denier" 🤷‍♂️ in today's Guardian. IPCC not happy.

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1699870427546272209

Robin Monotti on The Freeman Report with James Freeman - 7 September 2023

https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/robin-monotti-on-the-freeman-report-with-james-freeman-7-september-2023/

I talked to James Freeman about the New Zealand release of River of Freedom film, and about why we should keep our focus on the issue of freedom and human rights, rather than get sidetracked by arguments which will only give ammunition to those who already suspect us of being irrational conspiracy theorists who can't hold a rational conversation which covers all sides respectfully.

"FAO Dr. Jonathan Engler (HART)

There seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding about my letter of which I would like to clarify. Admittedly, after re-reading the message sent to HART quoted below, I sense how you may have got the impression that I was "still trying to misrepresent our position" as stated in your reply.  

"However, more recently I've been very concerned with the organisations move towards 'no virus/no viruses' theories and proponents, within the contents of articles, posts, interviews etc. and in particular, some of the views from co-chair Dr. Jonathan Engler."      

My apologies, I should have been more specific there. My concern is not that HART members or yourself hold 'no virus/no viruses' positions, as you had already made it very clear that personally you don't, and in fact to be fair within the first paragraph of the letter I have directly referred to that:

"Thanks for summarising your personal views, the nuances and details of your groups position*, and for pointing out the members mentioned have not made 'no virus' claims"
 
Specifically, what I meant by concerns about "the organisations move towards 'no virus/no viruses' theories and proponents" is HART's Twitter post of your 'The Illusive Pandemic' interview with Patrick Henningsen  and a prior post on Sars-Cov-2 genetic sequencing retweeted via his account.

https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1690738882826915840
https://twitter.com/hartgroup_org/status/1689340284910325760

It's not my intent to misrepresent you or HART of holding 'no virus/no viruses' positions. Although I do think it is necessary to highlight these cases as I believe HART needs to be careful about the possible negative outcomes of associations with 'no virus/no viruses' proponents as often featured in Patrick Henningsen's radio programs, website and social media with guests, articles and videos etc.

Incidentally, please note I have sent a letter to Patrick Henningsen raising various questions on 'no virus/no viruses' issues and his position that was posted on Robin Monotti's Twitter account, and have yet to receive a reply. I will also add that I've been a follower of Patrick Henningsen's media work for years and have agreed with much of his reporting and analysis during Covid. However, I was very surprised by his wholesale move into 'no virus/no viruses' camps, when I would argue a more balanced approach as a facilitator would be appropriate. Also, recent comments attempting to discredit medical freedom figures/groups with vague accusations has been a big disappointment.  

I would again like to emphasise that I have the up-most respect for all of the campaign and media work HART has done, as essentially my main concern is how the good reputation it has built-up could potentially be damaged and affect this work. Because let's be honest, MSM and social media generally over-simplify, ignore nuances, and make accusations using 'guilt by association' and 'labelling' tactics. News reports, posts etc. are often framed in 'black and white' terms, perhaps even more so since Covid. I know that HART experienced similar tactics with a previous 'hacking' incident. Therefore, please be fully aware of the realistic expectation that your reputations could be discredited by being conflated with 'no virus/no viruses' views, and so I urge caution on this matter.


In his 'Notice To The No Virus Theorist's' post, Robin outlined scenarios of how associations with 'no virus/no viruses' theories could be used by authorities to shut down other MFM groups during a future incident, providing examples of possible outcomes that I am asking HART members and yourself to consider. Not to cause alarm, but raise awareness so these situations can be avoided.

Unfortunately, your reply with claims of "straw manning" and "mis-characterisation" misread the target audience and aims, but comments since seem to confirm this misunderstanding. However, I hope it's now clear that Robin's and my intention is not to misrepresent your position or HART's.

Other than the points already addressed, the intentions of the letter are summarised as follows:

1. Point out that a person referenced in your reply, Dr. Mike Yeadon, has made 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions. Also, to point out that Prof. Denis Rancourt, influential with similar 'no pandemic' data analyses, has made 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions also. I say 'conclusions' for their work is often presented as definite conclusions, not scientific hypotheses, as was quoted in the examples given. The purpose here was to highlight the views of these influential persons and ask for your opinions.

2. Focus your attention on the analytical error that such over-simplistic conclusions have noticeably excluded key evidence of numerous MD's and patient reports, and also the distinct pathophysiology and symptoms of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing for proponents to acknowledge this solid medical evidence. I asked for your assessment of this situation and the scientific/medical supporting evidence given.

3. Similarly, I focused on the 'disconnect' between MD's with extensive experience and knowledge of treating Covid, and those excluding, under-estimating and denying evidence who likely do not. Included were links to two informative articles by an MD reporting on his experiences of Covid in context of the 'no virus' debate. Again it was my purpose to ask for your opinions on these issues.

As a side note, regarding your post requesting evidence before Spring 2020, can I ask why you are asking for evidence on Twitter, have you not conducted research with experienced doctors directly?    

https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1692109495248343422
   
4. Raise the issue that 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions could have serious 'real-life' consequences and implications by influencing health decisions, affecting preparedness for future incidents and public health generally. Arguing for those making such claims to act more responsibly. As a medical and legal professional, the aim here was to ask you for both perspectives on this important issue.  

On this point, Robin and myself have sought to highlight a central lesson to be learned from Covid, that being the essential need for public preparedness with early/home treatments. These truly safe and effective protocols were a global success story by reducing illness, hospitalisations and deaths. Many more lives could have survived, recovered and have symptoms lessened if these doctors were not censored and treatments suppressed for the criminal intents of 'creating demand' and 'preparing populations' for mass vaccinations. These criminals need to be held to account, and there is lots of evidence, such as being openly caught-out with the 'Surgisphere' scandal. So rather than discredit early treatments and the 'real progress' of the doctors who developed them, as yourself and others including Patrick Henningsen have tried, instead focus on the blatant criminality of what occurred. Contact and question doctors directly before the assumptions, claims and casting doubts in public posts, interviews etc. The discrediting of others may be seen as an attempt to appear more credible.

5. Unfortunately, the questionable behaviour of various 'no virus/no viruses' groups and their influence of other MFM groups has become a problematic issue that needs to be resolved. Robin and myself have addressed this by arguing these tactics are counter-productive by dividing MFM groups into opposing camps, undermining 'real progress' made to counter medical tyranny and totalitarianism, while wasting valuable time, energy and attention that could be better used on urgent, higher priority and shared goals. Also, the overall strategy is unlikely to 'win the argument' and convince the majority, especially with such polarising, antagonistic and aggressive behaviour. To the extent, Robin and myself suspect if this 'debate' has also been co-opted to destabilise the 'freedom movement' via 'cognitive infiltration' methods, as observed with past events such as 9/11 and now with Covid, as insiders have revealed tactics used on groups, journalists and the public.

To be clear though, I believe those I've mentioned have the right intentions, but are generally too certain in their conclusions. With that said, the questions in the letter were to ask for your opinion and possible concerns about this situation and its affects in your work and groups such as HART. You make criticisms of others positions on Twitter, so do you have any criticisms on this subject?  

6. Question the conclusions of 'no virus/no pandemic' figures such as Prof. Denis Rancourt and others who under-estimate or negate the existence of Sars-Cov-2 as a bio-agent and bio-warfare capabilities/strategies generally. Arguing that an advanced knowledge of this field is essentially required before any informed conclusions can be reached. There is an acceptance by 'no virus' groups to consider vaccines as bio-weapons, but not in regards to Sars-Cov-2, when for example shared characteristics such as pathogenic Spike Protein related symptoms and side-effects exist.

Yes I agree, there are still many unknowns and questions about how Sars-Cov-2 and 'variants' have spread unlike the 'official narratives' and 'typical respiratory diseases'. Regarding the 'lab leak' narratives, perhaps that is a 'red herring' as you suggest, and it is more useful to reframe this into a wider 'lab origins' concept with possibly multiple locations including the 'variants'. Also, there is evidence the timeline of circulations globally could possibly go back to early 2019 or before that. My point is to focus on what is known using the Spike Protein similarity as an example, rather than discard this evidence as it does not fit with various theories on what is at present largely unknown.

Frankly, I believe most people cannot know to a high level of certainty about advanced bio-warfare research or capabilities and so under-estimating the risks is not useful and can lead to greater risks via a 'false sense of security' and lack of preparedness. I completely understand the points you and others have made on the need to reduce levels of fear, as that is a central part of the perpetrators strategy. However, there are still things needed to be vigilant about and prepared for, and by raising awareness of potential risks, fear is then reduced by the ability to recognise and respond to them. The exploitation of ignorance due to a lack of awareness via media disinformation tactics and so on as evident in the suppression of early treatments, while forcing vaccines as the 'only way out' to regain 'freedom' from authoritarian policies, was a central part of the criminal strategy also. These criminals are still at work, so I argue that vigilance is crucial to prevent any further crimes planned.

Returning to the letter, I notice you have commented on questioning the role of Sars-Cov-2 as a bioweapon, so again my intention was to raise these points and ask for your opinion on them.  
 
7. Finally, the letter aimed to convey what I believe is a different and useful way of thinking about the 'pandemic' in terms of looking beyond arguably over-simplistic binary 'real vs fake' conclusions, and examining a more complex array of both 'real and fake' aspects occurring. Relating to this concept, I will refer to and comment on your summary of the 'establishment pandemic narrative':
         
"The establishment pandemic narrative is that:

(1) a NOVEL and (2) LETHAL virus (3) EMERGED FROM WUHAN, (4) SPREAD ACROSS THE WORLD thereby (5) DIRECTLY causing (6) MORE DEATHS than the usual mix of respiratory pathogens.

Either what we were told is true or it isn't.  For it to be true, every part has to be true. There's no half-way house here.

If any of the 6 parts of the story are false, we need to look elsewhere when trying to write the history of what happened in 2020.

You seem to want to discourage people from doing that, which I don't understand.

As for the interrogation about other people's views, please ask them.  I have set out my view - including the limits of what I think we know and don't know."

Regarding the main points, I think I've explained my views towards these generally, though there is of course many more aspects that could be discussed in greater depth and detail. On the 'what we were told is true or it isn't' question, my quick answer is - of course it's not all true, it's mostly 'fake'! Mixed with elements that are 'real'. Covid has been one of the biggest, if not the biggest propaganda operation in history! Brought to you by the producers of 9/11 and the 'War on Terrorism'. Flipping the script from the spectre of ISIS to the 'bond movie' like villain WEF frontman Klaus Schwab who is overtly open about the conveniently timed plans to transform societies towards 'technocracy' agendas via the Covid operation. Blackrock's 'Going Direct' financial strategies, corporate sector and Big Tech gains, 'wealth transfer' and the economic warfare of lockdowns were a key part also.

These presentations provide far more details in the context of 9/11 as a useful frame of reference:

Parallels between 9/11 and Covid – Kevin Ryan
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sibEg8S9KU8i/

Richard Gage: 9/11, COVID9/11, & Crime Scene to Courtroom
https://rumble.com/v2t6b8u-richard-gage-911-covid911-and-crime-scene-to-courtroom.html

Paul Schreyer: Pandemic simulation games – Preparation for a new era?
https://wissen-ist-relevant.de/vortrage/paul-schreyer-pandemic-simulation-games-preparation-for-a-new-era/

Of course the threats of infection, lethality and fatalities etc. were massively exaggerated by media disinformation, data manipulation and so on to ramp up the fear levels to extremes, force through authoritarian lockdowns, policies and 'create demand' for the vaccines, of which were the second phase and main target of the operation. The first phase being the Sars-Cov-2 bio-agent, of which knowledge of the lab origins, timelines, circulations etc. as was touched upon is limited at present.

This was further exploited by co-ordinated 'catalytic events' such as in NYC, Bergamo, Madrid etc. that were needed to launch the planned 'global response', as 'Event 201' event set the stage for along with a number of other previous 'simulations'. In very broad terms, the 'real' effects of Sars-Cov-2 provided the necessary scientific/medical basis, though again events were manipulated of course. However, there were significant public health impacts in various countries, further compounded by the impacts of lockdowns, medical mistreatment and suppression of early treatments. Also, on top of this were many pre-planned 'fake' aspects such as mass-testing and data manipulation that played a central role in inflating fatality and 'case' numbers for creating false perceptions of a 'pandemic'.

As you well know there are of many more angles and details to cover, but I hope that's enough to give you an outline of the hypothesis I am proposing, also in regards to explaining the concept of analysing both 'real' and 'fake' aspects. So yes I agree, the 'establishment narratives' are mostly misleading and false, as are the aims of psychological propaganda operations, and yes there is a 'need to look elsewhere', while thinking about the overall situation differently as I have argued.  

I am not 'discouraging people' people to consider your views, but I am questioning them as in the spirit of proper investigative journalism, scientific enquiry and public debate, of which is not often practiced in the media. I'm not going to simply agree with everything and ask 'softball' questions, but ask difficult and important questions than need to be discussed for getting closer to the truth, raising public awareness and ultimately preventing these crimes from happening again in future.
   
I have copied in a number of relevant professionals to encourage wider public debate on the issues.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hall"

There’s an anonymous person calling themselves “Transcriber B”, who selects what they judge to be important interviews or statements & does their best to create a readable written version.
Thank you, Transcriber B!
Readers will notice that only a year ago, I held different views than I now do about the alleged virus.
It doesn’t change the thrust of the piece, because the criticisms of official responses would, if anything, be much more robust today than say back in 2022.
We’ve all been lied to and then intentionally harmed and some killed by the alleged vaccines.
There’s a zero % chance that this is sheer bad luck.
No. It’s intentional. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
In the unlikely event that anyone is on the fence & might be persuaded by written argument, please consider sending them this.
With best wishes
Mike

https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/32387.html

I don’t know whether you can read this article, hence the meat of it is copied below.

Best wishes
Mike

Dr Brown warned that climate scientists often used irrelevant metrics to create “eye-popping numbers” or used time periods that are not relevant to modern societies.

And he said he had discovered it was “taboo” to mention that global warming was often mitigated by changes in technology and resilience.

“The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative,” he said.

“Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change? I wanted the research to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.

“When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here, my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.”

He added: “This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

“It is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility while ignoring potential changes to technology and resilience that would lessen the impact.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230907092122/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/06/global-warming-climate-change-scientist-unrealistic-nature/

So, the disinformation specialist lied on her CV.

Her explanation?

“She said her only explanation was her 'desperation to report out in Moscow' and thinking it would 'wouldn't be a big deal', which she admitted was 'naïve and stupid'.”

In other words, she thought lying was fine so long as it helped her accomplish her goals.

Best wishes
Mike

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12493713/BBCs-disinformation-correspondent-chief-fact-checker-Marianna-Spring-accused-lying-CV-falsely-claiming-worked-Beeb-journalist-applying-job-Moscow.html

This is genuinely terrifying.
Our current home had an electrical smart meter which I have been unable to persuade the supplier to remove. They’ve also lied to me about this.

Looks like the authorities can use force to enter your home in order to install smart meters.
It’s scarcely believable, Isn’t it?
Best wishes
Mike

https://open.substack.com/pub/uncut/p/power-to-forcefully-enter-your-home

Letter to Conservative MPs about the Energy Bill
This is a list of how MPs voted in the final debate of the Energy Bill on 5th September 2023 - https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1628. If your MP is on this list as having voted the Energy Bill through, the following is a letter you will probably want to send them.
Labour did not vote, which is an appalling dereliction of duty given the ramifications of the bill on ordinary working people. You will therefore need to adjust your letter accordingly and ask them why they failed in their role as opposition party.
__________________________________________________________
Dear [Name of (Conservative) MP],

I can only assume that you haven’t read the Energy Bill because the alternative would mean that you support the criminalisation of the use of energy which surely is not the case? Or perhaps I am wrong and you did, in fact, spend your summer break reading and digesting in excess of 400 pages of legalise (over 1000 pages if referenced legislation was also read). Just in case my initial assumption is correct, I’ve highlighted a few of the most concerning clauses below.

Clause 235: energy smart appliances (fridges, dishwashers, washers, heaters, air conditioners, electric vehicle charge points). The paragraph states that the smart function of such appliances is “capable of operating in response to load control signs from any person carrying out load control” i.e. the government can hand control of smart domestic appliances to anyone they wish to carry out load control thereby giving them the ability to control the supply of energy into the home. Perhaps now it becomes apparent why "conspiracy theorists" like me have advocated to stay clear of electric cars and smart meters!

Clause 248: ‘Sanctions” provides for a fine of up to £15,000 and imprisonment up to 12 months if a person falls foul of any future regulations with respect to energy reduction/consumption levels imposed by the government of the day. In addition, people can be prosecuted for providing “false information” about energy efficiency/consumption or “obstruction of an enforcement authority”.

Elsewhere in the Bill it is provided that authorities will be allowed to use “reasonable force” to enter homes and properties to assess the status of “smart meters”. “Requiring persons to supply evidence of their compliance to enforcement authorities; conferring powers of entry, including by reasonable force.” Here’s me thinking I have a right to respect for private and family life. Oh, but wait…. that’s another right that is “qualified” so in fact it means nothing at all - as proven by this Bill.

The Energy Bill has its foundations in the United Nations Agenda 2030. I have been writing to you for several months about the dangers of such unelected, unaccountable, supranational organisations that put the interests of private wealth ahead of the interests of the people you are supposed to represent - none of my concerns have ever been addressed adequately. The climate “crisis” (central to achieving Agenda 2030 goals) that gives rise to the “net zero" policies which underpin the Energy Bill is manufactured and thus fraudulent. Once again, in the UK, we are witnessing the silencing of those holding opinions counter to the position of the government (i.e. the position of the United Nations). There are many scientists who maintain that changes to CO2 levels have little to no influence on Earth’s temperature yet you have agreed to an Energy Bill that creates a totalitarian regime affording the government unprecedented powers to intrude in people’s lives all while wrecking what’s left of the UK economy for a problem that doesn’t even exist. The Energy Bill is merely the latest example of the attempt to usher in a one world government.

I remind you of the democratic principle that elected national governments are responsible and accountable to their own people and urge you to do all you can to ensure that the abhorrent Energy Bill is scrapped.

Best regards,
[Your name]
[Your address]

One of the purple passages in Brian's third Léon Krier interview is his experiences on President Mitterrand's council of wise men charged with deciding whether or not to double the population of Paris.

All the economists around the table said mais bien sûr because a Parisian generates more wealth than a provincial Frenchman. Krier alone replied, "If we follow that logic, why not depopulate the whole country and stick them in Paris?"

ukcolumn.org/video/leon-krier-looks-at-linear-super-city-neom

River of Freedom Wellington Premiere

The Resistance Kiwi crew attended the Wellington premiere of River of Freedom last night. It was great to see so many familiar faces and a full house.

Stephen Franks has written a short piece on his thoughts about the documentary and the protest in general:

https://twitter.com/franks_lawyer/status/1699736358296977523?cxt=HBwW5oHcgcvN1pYvAAAA

The documentary is a riveting watch, with some wonderfully humorous moments despite the subject, and this Resistance Kiwi learnt some things that he wasn’t previously aware of.

Get out and see it; and better still, try to get those who were fed government propaganda to go. One attendee who was not involved in the protests, cried throughout the film and said she’d never seen any of it from the MSM.

Posted by Mysteron for Resistance Kiwi

🙌 Thank you to all 757 amazing people who attended our SOLD OUT Premiere Screening of River of Freedom at the Embassy Theatre in Wellington last night!! So great to bring the film home to where it all took place ❤️

Apologies to those who couldn’t get tickets, the film is now screening in Wellington at the Empire Cinema, Island Bay
👉https://riveroffreedom.nz/index.php/screening/

Photos by Mark Lapwood

Sean Plunket Reviews River of Freedom Documentary

"I think it should be compulsory viewing in schools . . . I want to commend all the people involved in making the movie, you've done this country a service, and I reckon the movie, in time, will become a classic."


https://youtu.be/QtUyYrjXZuM?si=uRjzbAXYnyyx4xkT

https://safertowait.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/STW_HPV.pdf

Another summary, this time about the HPV “vaccines” from the child-centred campaign group, Safer To Wait.

I agree. Like 20 years.

Best wishes
Mike