Saturday, January 22, 2022
HomeReaders CommentsLetters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

-

PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.

***

Playing Russian roulette with our power supply

Dear Editor

At lunchtime on Thursday December 16 the 24GW of installed wind turbines in the UK were generating 0.77GW. 14GW of solar panels produced about 1.2GW. This was the inevitable result of a huge continent-wide high-pressure system. 

At the same time the UK’s remaining coal-fired power stations were producing a fraction under 2GW. 

Three questions. How do we still have coal generation when the government has been closing down and demolishing that capability? Where is the coal coming from? Why is the Grid so desperate that it needs even coal power to keep the lights on? 

The last question is easily answered: it is because our STEM-illiterate political and civil service classes have been playing Russian roulette with the Grid for two decades. 

If the lights go out the government will fall. It will deserve to. 

Julian Flood

***

North Shropshire result is a blow to both main parties

 Dear Editor

The Lib Dems have won North Shropshire from the Conservatives.

I detest the Tories. I say that as a former Tory voter. I’ve written a gloating letter to my Tory MP (Mike Freer – what a completely inappropriate name!) eviscerating him for his votes for masks, sacking NHS staff, and vaccine passports on Tuesday evening.

What’s interesting to note also, and something the Left-leaning MSM aren’t mentioning, is that while Tories lost 50 per cent of their share of votes, 62.5 per cent down to 31.59 per cent, Labour have lost more than 50 per cent from 22.1 per cent down to 9.68 per cent.

Neither of the two main parties have done well and it should be seen as a blow to both of them.

There’s a massive political vacuum forming, and politics abhors a vacuum.

Is that Nigel Farage I hear clearing his throat?

Martin Parker 

Keep up the good work, TCW!

Dear Editor

Hello, firstly I would like to commend your website for its honesty, independence and journalistic integrity. As the subject bar says, you are voices crying in the wilderness, proclaiming the truth for all willing to hear it.

In particular, though, I wish to say how fine a piece of writing was Dr Gregory Slysz’s piece of December 11. And, with his life experience, he deserves much respect.

Please continue your vital work and all the very best with it!

Graeme Garvey

***

The terrible warning of thalidomide

Dear Editor

First, thank you so much for providing a space for searchers after truth.  

In respect of Covid vaccines, history casts a very dark shadow indeed. Thalidomide was effective against morning sickness, but resulted in horrific birth defects.  Distillers fought campaigners for maybe 20 years, and in the end the truth came out mainly because of the work of the Insight team of the Sunday Times, under Harold Evans. By that time it was far too late for most of the victims, who led short and cruelly handicapped lives. I have a terrible memory of a young and evidently homeless man, with only stubs of legs, on a skateboard at Victoria station in the early 1980s. We were setting out for the Italian lakes with our young family, and it was impossible not to be struck by the contrast in prospects between our children and that young man.  How did the poor boy die I wonder? 

Would there be any veterans of the Insight team (or other campaigns) who could write up the story for a new readership?  It would be a warning never to be too trusting of new medicines or vaccines. 

Terry McMenamin 

***

Vaccine risks are understated

Dear Editor

At the time of writing the UK Government Yellow Card reporting scheme had recorded 1,814 deaths following a covid vaccine injection. On these deaths the Office for National Statistics states ‘they will not have been fully investigated at the time of reporting and a report is not proof of causation. So, the numbers are likely to a big overestimate’. They go on to claim that, as of August 2021, the vaccine was the underlying cause in only nine deaths in the UK.

However, an American study titled Why are we vaccinating children against Covid-19? lead-authored by Ronald Kostoff and dated September 14 tells a different story, at least in the US. Kostoff’s team examined the data from VAERS, the US equivalent of Yellow Card. Kostoff plots a graph with deaths per day on the vertical axis, and the number of days following vaccination on the horizontal axis. He says: ‘If there were no effect from the inoculation, as claimed by the CDC and other official government agencies, the curve would essentially be a straight horizontal line, reflecting normal expected deaths in a non-Covid-19 year’. But the curve is nothing like a straight line, it shows approximately 550 deaths per day within the first day or two of inoculation, then it drops steeply to 100 deaths per day by day 6, then it gradually falls to near-zero deaths per day by day 61.

Kostoff states: ‘A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to Covid-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from Covid-19 decreases dramatically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.’

It’s worth noting that the number of adverse events reported to VAERS are certainly underestimates. In a 1995 study lead-authored by S Rosenthal only 4 per cent of thrombocytopenia diagnoses following MMR vaccines and 68 per cent of vaccine-associated polio following oral polio vaccines were reported.

Geoff Moore

Ross and Cromarty

***

Futility of Net Zero policy

Dear Editor

Last week Scotland’s Finance Minister Kate Forbes was generous with other people’s money as she pledged £2billion in her 2022/2023 budget to tackle climate change despite Scotland being responsible for only 0.13 per cent of global emissions. What about future years? £2billion every year until Net Zero is achieved? She said that her government (pushed by the greens) ‘is absolutely committed to meeting our statutory climate change targets’. That’s all very well but only five countries have legally-binding Climate Change Acts; the other 192 countries only made promises which can be and are being broken just weeks after COP26. Japan is building 22 new coal power stations in the next five years. China uses coal to supply 57 per cent of its energy needs and is rising. The gas and oil rich countries have no intention of decarbonising. If Scotland spends £2billion this tax year, what will China spend to ensure its 30 per cent reaches Net Zero by some time in the dim and distant future? 2099? Can any sane person see China spending over £400billion every year until then? What will other countries spend? I think we know the answer. Meanwhile in Scotland there is real poverty, fuel poverty and homelessness, soaring energy bills, businesses failing and growing unemployment. Kate Forbes is fiddling whilst Scotland burns.

Clark Cross 

Linlithgow

***

My plea to the Austrian authorities

Dear Editor

Further to your article A desperate cry for help from Austria by Kathy Gyngell, I did as the young Austrian man pleaded and emailed my MP and also wrote to the Austrian Embassy in London.

Thank you for bringing the video to our attention. Left unchallenged it will not be long before these actions are repeated across the whole of Europe and the UK.

I am determined to continue to fight for life, liberty and democracy and our own personal freedoms, and especially to resist these toxic drugs.

Thank you so much for continuing to stand up for us against tyranny and bring us such well researched and well written articles.

Monica Webber

Below is the text of my letter to the Austrian Ambassador

Ambassador Michael Zimmerman
Embassy of Austria
18 Belgrave Mews W
London SW1X 8HU

14 December 2021

Dear Ambassador Michael Zimmerman,

 I am appalled and extremely concerned about the plan to mandate an experimental gene therapy drug for all Austrian citizens after Christmas.

This is scientifically and medically totally unjustified, unnecessary and tyrannical.  It completely transfers bodily autonomy (a key indicator of freedom) from the individual to the state, as well as potentially killing or causing serious harm to many individuals. In effect an act of war by the Austrian government upon its own citizens whom it exists allegedly to protect. Such action dismisses a key part of the Hippocratic oath. It is also unethical, discriminatory and illegal. SARS-CoV-2 is not a deadly disease for 99.7 per cent of the population. It has an IFR equal to seasonal influenza. It is largely only a real threat to elderly people with several comorbidities, or those with certain serious conditions. It is no threat to young people or children or healthy people under 75. Large percentages of each country’s population have been exposed to SARS CoV-2 in the last two years and thus have developed acquired broad, robust, enduring immunity to Covid-19. They cannot transmit the virus to others, unlike vaccinated individuals who can do so. See bullet point details below. 

After the shocking revelations of enforced medical interventions and experimentations carried out before and during the Second World War the Nuremberg Code was produced (1947) which clearly laid down the foundations to prevent this type of situation ever arising again. Vaccinations are medical interventions. The ten principles contained in the Code also refer to experimentation and that voluntary and informed consent to participate is essential:

‘This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.’

All the ‘vaccines’ currently on offer are experimental and still in development stages – even their manufacturers have acknowledged this in their literature, as have peer-reviewed articles in quality journals such as the BMJ, and it is vital to know comprehensive data is not available.

Therefore Covid certificates, especially for internal domestic use, by default would essentially discard the Code’s principles which have governed medical practices for very sound reasons for more than 60 years, over-riding any rights any citizen has to decide what is necessary, appropriate, proportionate and safe for their own body, or what they wish to insert into their own body.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed Resolution number 2361 of 2021 on 27 January 2021, in which it was stated that: 

6.1 Paragraph 7.3.1 – ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves 

6.2 Paragraph 7.3.2 – ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated

Note: the so called ‘vaccines’

• Do NOT prevent infection, so there is no public health reason for insisting on vaccinating everyone

• Do NOT prevent transmission, so there is no public health reason for insisting on vaccinating everyone

• They were originally developed purely to reduce the risks of serious illness requiring hospitalisation (but growing evidence demonstrates they are failing in that published objective)

• They only affect the individual receiving them – they have zero impact on any other individual (NB they are not traditional vaccines which aim to disrupt the trains of both infection and transmission)

• The new drugs do not meet the long-established medical definitions of a ‘vaccine’

• Those who are vaccinated and develop symptoms carry equal or even higher viral loads than symptomatic unvaccinated individuals

• The number of people currently hospitalised with Covid-19 who are double or triple vaccinated exceed those unvaccinated by over 20 per cent

• Those who have had Covid-19 have broad (covers all variants), robust (covers the entire virus particle not just the spike protein), and enduring (long lasting – based on evidence from SARS-CoV-1 recovered patients – at least 10 years, most much longer) immunity as opposed to six months for the vaccines, because it involves the lymphocytes (key memory B & T cells), not just temporary antibodies

• Those who have acquired natural immunity do not develop a symptomatic case of Covid-19 more than once. The vaccinated can get repeat infections due to the way the genetically engineered vaccines work and their concentration just on the spike protein, not the whole virus particle

• The new drugs are not licensed (they only have Emergency Use Authorisations attached)

• The new drugs are experimental – they use completely novel gene therapy technology; nobody knows how this affects the human body but it has been proved to alter our DNA (as confirmed by the pharmaceutical companies’ own scientists)

• The new drugs (all still in phase 3 trials) have zero medium or long term safety data

• The new drugs underwent very limited and truncated trials with very small, restricted coverage (eg healthy 19 – 55 year olds only, no pregnant women, no Covid-recovered volunteers) which did not follow standard vaccine trial protocols, and were unblended

• No proper toxicity studies have been carried out by any of the four ‘vaccine’ developers receiving EUAs

• No fertility impact studies have been carried out by any of the four ‘vaccine’ developers receiving EUAs (confirmed in their own documents)

• The worldwide data on confirmed vaccine induced deaths and serious adverse events (side effects), now run into millions and exceed the grand total of all vaccine related deaths and injuries for all vaccines over the last 30 years

• The efficacy data for reducing the severity of symptoms advertised by the companies was based on limited data and was also based on relative risk, not absolute risk, thus inflating the positive results figures. The consequences of this are being borne out by the number of double and triple vaccinated individuals developing Covid-19 who require hospital treatment.

• There are at least four safe, effective, long established (20-30 years) and far cheaper alternative treatments using re-purposed drugs which in combination have proved in many large trials and also in real world medical practices to have an exceedingly high success rate (70-90 per cent) for effectively treating the disease, and importantly two have proved to possess effective prophylaxis qualities (preventing the coronavirus from replicating). So the new ‘vaccines’ are not actually necessary in the first place.

For further information on adverse events this short article provides a summary. 

More technical information can be found in medical journals such as: the BMJ, Vaccines, Vaccine, Cells, Immunology, Science Daily, Microbiology and Immunology, Nature and the Lancet.

I urge you to PLEASE make strong representations to Karl Nehammer and members of the Austrian parliament to cancel any such plans to mandate the experimental drugs. That Austria has also chosen to fine and even imprison those who do not wish to accept these novel drugs or would be at serious risk of death or disablement if they did so is horrifying. There is no discernible difference between these actions and those inflicted on thousands of helpless citizens by the 1930s and 1940s Nazi regime, or practised by the CCP and military in China or Kim Jong-un in North Korea. 

Monica Webber

Shropshire

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.