Signature withdrawal from the Great Barrington Declaration

The future is listening.

Disclaimer

I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.

The Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.  https://gbdeclaration.org

No record found

940,000 signatures about physical and mental health impacts of prevailing COVID-19 policies without proof SARS CoV2 exists.

Freedom of information requests reveal more than 224 health/science institutions world-side have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-

Why I asked for my name to be removed from The Great Barrington Declaration

By Dr. Jonathan Engler (United Kingdom)
MB ChB LLB
Sept 24.24

I am not going to stand by while one humongous lie is allowed to become established just because people find the entire truth unpalatable, nor because of some misguided desire to coalesce behind “consensus” for tactical reasons. I just sent the email below to gbdeclaration@gmail.com

Hello,

Please could you remove my name from the signatories to The Great Barrington Declaration.

When I signed this document, I believed the story that there was a novel virus around which was causing a novel illness, and that some sort of protection for some people was deemed desirable.

However, I am now firmly of the belief that the pandemic construct was staged. Any and all harms observed and reported can be explained by a combination of: mistreatment, maltreatment, non-treatment, neglect, abuse and data fraud.

The key tools used to stage the event were propaganda, data fraud (of several varieties) and the mass rollout of a fraudulent test.

Without these:

• nothing out of the ordinary would have been noticed at any time

• the status quo observed before the “pandemic” was declared (a total lack of excess mortality or reported clusters of unusual illnesses despite widespread presence of whatever it was which turned “covid tests” positive) would have continued uninterrupted

The “pandemic” was created by response to the misguided and false perception of a novel virus in circulation.

There is no epidemiological model - other than one twisted and tortured beyond reasonableness - which can explain a number of key observations about what happened in spring 2020, notably:

• unnoticed pre-pandemic presence of the putative pathogen (as measured by the same tests to track its progress later)

• lack of ripples and clusters of excess mortality

• waves of deaths congruent with administrative and political actions

• vastly differing “pandemic outcomes” between countries and other regional units sharing administrative boundaries. Continue at
  https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/why-i-have-asked-for-my-name-to-be

Foundational knowledge

A maxim of law is an established principle or proposition;

1. A principle of law universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason.
2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament when judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury.

Maxims

Ignorance of those things one is bound to know does not excuse.
To refer errors to their principals is to refute them.
An error not rebutted is approved.
He who is silent appears to consent.

The Great ‘Con’ Declaration

The great ‘con’ in the word consent is that individuals declare themselves 100% accountable for both benefits and liabilities of ‘every’ freewill choice they make. TY!

Implied consent

IMPLIED. This word is used in law as contrasted with "express;" e., where the intention in regard to the subject-matter is not manifested by explicit and direct words, but is gathered by implication or necessary deduction from the circumstances, the general language, or the conduct of the parties.

Black’s Law dictionary https://heimatundrecht.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/Black%27sLaw4th.pdf

‘Implied consent’ mirrors the maxim ‘He who is silent appears to consent. In other words, failure to rebut tyranny is consent to it. TY!

Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
declaration