Can any MP ask the government why early treatment kits to stop viral replication & infection are not made available cheaply & prescription free in pharmacies as they are in India? Is it lives we want to save or is it Big Pharma profits? Because the two are mutually exclusive.

LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR MPS
From @ClareCraigPath and Dr Jonathan Engler:
.
1.Why are SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels flat or dropping across all age groups since May if the pandemic is still going?

2.What percentage of the population is assumed to have had prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the SAGE forecasting models?

3.Why do 50% of household members not catch SARS-CoV-2 from infected persons with whom they live?

4.Why have Japan and South Korea not had any serious outbreak if the human species has no prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2?

5.What percentage of the population of the UK is assumed to be immune to COVID-19 (including prior immunity) as of this date?

"PCR is just a process..it does not tell you that you are sick."

Kary Mullis Inventor of the PCR test & Nobel Prize in

I have studied the pandemic response of many countries. One of them got a key element right, which resulted in very few deaths: Japan. Their response was to keep people OUT of hospitals. A policy of early home treatment works best, hospitals only for severe cases & NO INTUBATIONS

JAPAN: "No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open. No high-tech apps that tracked people’s movements were deployed." RESULT: Among the lowest deaths in the

Saving the NHS simply means providing early treatment kits in pharmacies & avoiding hospitals for Covid19 patients. For Covid19 infections during a pandemic, hospitals are the problem, not the solution.

I have read accounts of people with high fever literally turned away from hospitals, yet being told by phone what treatment protocol to follow. That was the best pandemic response by far, NOT lockdowns.

JAPAN had some of the lowest Covid19 mortality in the world:
-NO LOCKDOWN
-NO TEST AND TRACE
-NO BUSINESS CLOSURES
-NO HOSPITAL FOR NON CRITICAL CASES
-HOME TREATMENT
-HEALTHY DIET
-LOW OBESITY

Let me talk about something
I consider myself qualified to discuss: a film director, Oliver Stone. OS is a great political director & a very clever man, one of the best in the industry. My view is that he did not simply take the Russian vx because he didn't want to wait for US 1

He's a very clever man, he made a judgement for his own life, for his family, & he chose the Russian vx instead of any of the Western ones, because he wanted the vx & considers Sputnik V the safest one.

I can see the logic:
1 No accountability for any of the Western vx, nobody can sue for any damage etc.
2 Those who made Sputnik V know they are always personally accountable to Vladimir Putin
3 S5 is based on a pre-existing vx with minimal changes so safety tried for many years

So if the Russians could find a safe way to adapt a tried & tested technology & only alter what is required, using adenovirus vectors, a technology in use for 50 years, experimented on for vx since the 1980s, why were Western Big Pharma so keen on something completely new: mRNA?

That is the question that Oliver Stone is indirectly asking us all to look into & answer: why were Western Big Pharma all at once suddenly so keen on using mRNA when there were much safer & tested directions available (adenovirus vectors), what is it that Western Big Pharma want?

@73inlancs @janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 1/ The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 government decided pediatric gender care in England would be a monopoly contract (a Labour minister, in 2008), despite all other NHS patients officially being entitled to a choice of providers, & second opinions on diagnoses & treatment, & gave it to GIDS, which has…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 2/…always advocated that trans minors & their families must have no alternative source of care, & subsequent Tory ministers have personally put their signature on renewals of it, and even personally rejected proposals for improvement that have been put forward by NHS England…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 3/…as a result of wider & public consultation. They & their civil servants listen only to GIDS on trans minors - it was GIDS advised against <18s being allowed #GenderRecognition in 2004, & since, on the basis that no one under 18 can be certain of their gender identity, just…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 4/…as many other staff at their trust wrote⬇️ to the press in 2002 (when the first instigator of this case, psychoanalyst Susan Evans was on staff too) that no trans people should be allowed that recognition but needed

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 5/…to "cure" us instead. Yet GIDS proved incapable of defending its super-conservative protocol in court - no doubt because GIDS has always expected challenges to be from patients seeking care more like that elsewhere, arrogantly ignoring that services in countries where the…

Once again I'm reminded that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The recent push by a large number of autistic people to 'own' their diagnosis and try to raise acceptance and dispel harmful myths has kicked up a minority of autistic people to fight against this.

This may seem bizarre - who fights against improved acceptance? - but actually has clear roots in the ongoing culture war the West seems engaged in. The identity positive autistic movement, of which I am a part, is viewed by some as another manifestation of 'wokeness'.

This is the right-wing definition of 'wokeness', of course - ie a modern equivalent of the pejorative take on political correctness, but it's definitely at the core of this 'neurorealist' movement - the idea the autistic community is being hijacked by 'woke lefties'.

They believe that the push for acceptance of neurodiversity and rejection of the medicalisation of autism is misguided and drawing attention away from those autistic people who, in their view, need more help and intervention.

The trouble is, this view is pretty much baseless. Firstly, there is little evidence that autistic advocates who push for acceptance are in any way harming autistic people who require more help and support. Second, the view effectively silences those of us who are able to share.

Pathways to Public Policy Careers for those interested and looking for global opportunities

Public policy is made when a governing body attempts to address an issue of widespread public concern, such as health care. The process often runs in cycles and can take years.

■After new laws are created, Policy Implementation occurs, often involving federal agencies, state and local governments, bureaucratic entities, and NGOs. Courts get involved as laws and policies are challenged on a variety of fronts.

■Analysis and Evaluation occurs throughout the cycle and involves many players. Policies may be changed — and the cycle begins again.

What is the best advice for someone pursuing a career in public policy?

People often find their way to public policy careers because of an

interest in a particular substantive area. Public policy work can be found in virtually any subject area.

Your ears should perk up when you hear the words “Center for,” “Institute,” “Association,” and “Foundation” because they represent potential employers.

Public policy majors work in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, such as a government agency or advocacy group.

Continuing education, such as a certification or fellowship, can also advance your career as someone interested in public policy and politics.