Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on June 12, 2022

a

***

“What is most concerning, at no point did anyone from the Metropolitan police from December 20th 2021 up to and including the 22nd of February 2022 make contact with any of the victims, any of the witnesses, or any of the world renowned experts who were offering their evidence and expertise to assist The Metropolitan Police. It is also believed not one of the alleged offenders were spoken to or contacted.” – Mark Sexton, former police officer. Participant in the legal team filing a criminal complaint of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Misconduct in Public Office. [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Numerous lines of evidence detailed on numerous sites including Global Research from hundreds of medical and scientific sources around the world, including highly revered experts like Sucharit Bhakdi, Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, and so on, have documented the severe injuries and deaths coinciding with the application of the COVID vaccine.

Citizens everywhere are taking note, and legions of lawyers are stepping up prepared to address a likely crime against humanity.

The legal firm PJH Law Solicitors came up with an interesting approach. They brought the case to the attention of the criminal investigators at the Hammersmith Police station and the Metropolitan Police Station. [2]

They claimed based on their evidence that the public office in the United Kingdom was responsible for corporate manslaughter, gross negligence causing injury and death, and serious misconduct. They alleged that the same people responsible for creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus containing a harmful spike protein also funded the solution, the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

They claimed the “vast, fully documented, irrefutable and damning” evidence was “supplied by many world renowned experts in the field of medicine, cardiology, immunology, science, data, lawyers, barristers, serving and retired nurses and doctors and retired police constables.” They had “over four hundred victim and witness statements” and supplied over ten weeks electronic files, memory sticks, videos and other forms of evidence. Among numerous other allegations. [3]

The Met police have since reportedly dropped the case. But several questions linger about how and at what level the evidence was rejected.

Why were none of the witnesses contacted? Why supply the link to submit evidence?

Why did they tell the complainants that they had major notes and investigations one week, and yet a spokesperson told Reuters:

“While the assessment continues, to date there is nothing to indicate that a crime has been committed and no criminal investigation has been launched.”

This quandary may speak to an even more interesting result. But given the efforts in question, the Global Research News Hour felt it was urgent to bring this case to the attention of our listeners.

In our first half hour, we had discourse with the lead lawyer himself, Philip Hyland. He talks about the weight of the evidence, the implications of the Met closure of the case, and the failures of so-called media “fact-checks.”

In the name of balancing the debate, we followed with another interview with high profile promoter of the COVID-19 Vaccine Dr Peter Hotez. He spoke not only of the evidence supplied in the previous interview but also about some of the other points raised by critics, including the recent and damaging Pfizer Dump of Documents as a result of a freedom of information request.

Philip Hyland is a lawyer who founded the group PJH Law in 2002 based in Stamford Lincolnshire in England.

Dr. Peter Hotez serves as founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, Professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, where he is also Director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and Texas Children’s Hospital Endowed Chair in Tropical Pediatrics, and University Professor of Biology at Baylor College of Medicine.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 359)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

VIDEO and transcript of interview with Philip Hyland.

 

Philip Hyland: We were gathering evidence and looking at an injunction to take out against the Medical Health Regulatory Authority that licenses drugs and medical devices in the UK, because the evidence collected suggested that there were statistically significant increases in certain conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis. Plus there was statistically significant increase in deaths. In some male cohorts, it was 10% additional deaths post vax and all that. And I think that women it was about 8% increasing number of deaths. And then we had the issue of increase in certain conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis. A lack of information on spontaneous abortions plus what appeared to be bad batches circulating. And all that put together, when we look at what happened in the past, if a medicine caused, or could have caused those amounts of adverse events, they would normally be withdrawn.

But with the SARS COV 2 vaccine there seemed to be, at best, an indifference by the regulator as to what adverse events were happening, and there didn’t seem to be too much enthusiasm for collecting data and… and I think we can compare that with how SARS COV 2 deaths were treated in that any death within 28 days of a positive test was put down as a SARS COV 2 death, whereas any death 28 days from vaccination was a, subjected to complete indifference.

Except when we looked at it, we saw that the bad batch issue was a key issue that the regulator wasn’t addressing, but the flip side of that coin is that the regulator hadn’t authorized hydroxychloroquine and zinc. And hadn’t authorized Ivermectin. Now you can say what you like about those two therapeutics, and there’s been a lot said, anything from horse tranquillizer onwards, but what I don’t think anyone can dispute, judging by the data collected at VigiAccess, which is the World Health Organization database, I don’t think anyone can dispute that those drugs or therapeutics, or medicines are safe. I don’t think anyone can dispute that.

Global Research: Well, actually, there are a lot of experts in the WHO who appear in the mainstream media who do. They’ll say that the hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work and that the Ivermectin, that these things could be actually deadly for a… So they say they’re going to continue doing tests but so far it’s not proven…

PH: Yeah, I mean what terms to gather by is official figures and the World Health Organization collect data on safety, and the data collected on HCQ zinc has been created since 1968 and the data on Ivermectin since about 1994, and both drugs or medicines have got very good safety records. And I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think what’s in dispute is whether they work. But on the flip side of that, we’ve got a vaccine where the safety doesn’t look to be particularly good, and also according to the figures, we got a vaccine that doesn’t appear to work as advertised and so when we look at, and if we’re going back to last December, Public Health Scotland had got some figures out which they compare a hundred thousand of the vaxxed population against a hundred thousand of the unvaxxed population, and there’s a far higher incidence of COVID and deaths in the vaccinated population, and that increase was statistically significant. I think… off the top of my head… it’s about 1.5 per hundred thousand in the unvaccinated and depending on how many boosters we had it went up to about 3.4 per 100,000 if you’ve had four boosters.

So I think when you look side by side, the vaccine has got safety and efficacy issues. The alternatives don’t really have safety issues, there’s fierce debate as to whether they both, Ivermectin and HCQ and zinc work. But it’s part of a Metropolitan Police complaint, we had gathered evidence from clinicians who had used these HCQ and Ivermectin in clinic with good results. So what we went into the Met police for on the 20th of December, the seriousness come back to the public office, but it really covered the whole gamut of the COVID response, the tests that weren’t reliable, the use of toxic psychology, misrepresentation of figures, suppression of safe alternatives, plus a haphazard and, we’d say, grossly negligent roll out of the vaccine and so we were given a prime reference number, and we were also given a Dropbox facility or box upload center to upload documents, so as far as we were concerned, the Met police were investigating.

GR: The Met police says that two months ago, that an assessment of all the available evidence, it’s clear that no criminal offences are apparent, that the Metropolitan Police will not be launching a criminal investigation and no further action will be taken in relation to the allegations.

PH: I won’t say too much other than a press release issued by the Met didn’t catch what the crime reference number catches, which was a whole gamut of alleged criminality from testing through to haphazard and we’d say grossly negligent vaccine roll-out and all points in between. It just focussed on the vaccine. And that wasn’t, that wasn’t the only crime that was alleged. It was a bigger crime. So the Met police issued a, in my view, a misleading statement saying that they’ve looked into allegations of suppression of information on the vaccine except there were no crimes committed. But the criminal complaint was far wider than that.

So…so where we are at the moment is in rather an unhappy situation of we complain to the independent office or ombudsman to police complaints about the police’s failure to look into this properly, and my own analysis of the situation is that the police we were interacting with did want to investigate it but the police at the head of the organization didn’t, and squashed it. That’s my own reading of the situation.

And so we’ve now got a complaint in with the office that regulates the police about the failure to investigate, but the Met police were giving mixed messages because when we went in to see them, we went in to see them on December the 20th, January 28th, February the 12th off the top of my head, and on those two occasions, January 28th we took in a witness who’s a very experienced journalist actually. She rounded 9/11. But she’d also used HCQ for the last 15 years for a chronic condition she had. And what we went into the police on the 28th of January, – I’ve got the dates right _ was this: that before the recovery trial used 2400 mg, a standard of care on that trial, an eyewitness said that as a frequent user of HCQ, if you’d given her 2400 mg she would have been hospitalized because the standard dosage is between 200 and 400.

Yet patients on this trial were given in the first 24 hours a dosage of 2400 and of course the trial was abandoned because it was killing too many patients, but that that’s not surprising if you’re giving 8 to 10 times the normal dose. And not only that, but we did have evidence that the two principal investigators on that trial had been warned that 2400 mg in the trial protocol was too much of a dose. And I think they were also warned that the optimal time for using HCQ and zinc is at the early onset of the disease, not when the disease has progressed. So we, our allegation was that the trial was basically flawed by dosing the patients at the wrong stage of disease when their organs were inflamed and it’s an anti-inflammatory and also dosing at the wrong level.

We brought along a witness and the police took all the details. We’d also given her, given the police, Tess Lawrie’s evidence relating to Ivermectin and her exchanges with, I think it’s Andrew Hill, [inaudible] in the video, and we just said, isn’t that a coincidence. There are too many competitors, if you like, that HCQ and zinc and Ivermectin were both not recommended but look as though they were set up to fail. Given the trial protocol of HCQ and zinc and given what Professor Hill said to Tess Lawrie where he was alleged to have set up, I’ve seen the video, he came under pressure from the sponsors and when I looked at it, both the HCQ trial and the Ivermectin non-recommendation both had sponsors in common, indirectly, which was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of course, that foundation via its trustees who stood to benefit from vaccination because Bill Gates is on record as saying that he looks for 20 return…20 fold return on vaccine investments. Yet his foundation appeared to be, either indirectly or directly, influencing the outcome of competitors to vaccination.

So to the neutral, like myself, I did see something there for the police to investigate as to whether private money with a vested interest had influence the outcome of knocking out HCQ and Ivermectin, and to the detriment of public health. Because even if you think Ivermectin is false developer, and HCQ is harmful, particular stations, citizens, individuals, in my view, should have been able to have a choice between these medicines over here, which have been around for since ‘94 and 1968 or this new shiny vaccine with a novel experimental mode of action.

And that’s partly informed consent process, whereby individuals should be offered, or should have a discussion about what alternatives there are to the treatment on offer. But I think at the same time in Canada and America and all around the world and a lot of people haven’t been around access to HCQ and haven’t been around access to IVM, and I think…or Ivermectin, and I think in South Africa certainly, in America there have been court cases where the courts have ordered Ivermectin to be used and people have literally come off their ICU beds.

And I think there’s some countries in Europe, maybe Slovenia or the Czech Republic, that use Ivermectin. And I’ve discussed this with Tess Lawrie, she said have a look at the data in Peru, where they used Ivermectin until I think October – November ‘21, and to great effect … yet in Peru when the president changed, they went on a vaccine roll out which then proved successful. So I think what this illustrates to a lay person like myself is that if you give the big pharmaceutical companies the right to set their own exam, mark their own exam, moderate their own exam, and so be regulator that they pass the exam, that you really rely on the good faith of big pharma companies to stay honest and reliable, and they’re recorded data. I think if you certainly look at one company that caught by their criminal record.

So, yeah, I’ve sidetracked a little bit, so, we went into Met Police on the 28th of January just to go through the suppressed alternatives, and I think on the 12th of February thereabouts we went into the police because via Tess Lawrie, we got a vial or vill, however you pronounce it, of vaccine,  I think it was Pfizer (or) AstraZeneca – I believe it was Pfizer – analysed and it had, it had substances in it that weren’t on the packaging, and which tied in with results from Almeria University and other places in Spain, graphene, I think it was graphene oxide or something like that in the vaccine. So we took that down to the police. And when we took that back to the police, they said on the database they’ve got over 70 pages of notes and investigations. Yet about a week later they said that there’s no further action and no crimes were being committed.

GR: Well, you said you took it a batch of it to a lab and then had it analyzed?

PH: That wasn’t me. It was Dr. Tess Lawrie. We were involved at the periphery of that with Dr. White. He got the batch analyzed, and it had graphene and, from memory, graphene… I’m not a scientific brain, but it had substances in there that weren’t on the label. So we took that to the police and we also sent it to MI5 which is our military intelligence and also actually a former agent of MI5 also handed it in to Military Intelligence as well or emailed it in. And what we understand, I’ve got no way of corroborating it, it had this certain faction within MI5 that is quite sympathetic to vases they were saying about the COVID response has been at best a criminally negligent over-reaction and at worst a deliberate operation to almost to mislead the public as to the severity of the illness in order to get them to take the vaccine and roll out a political agenda of vaccine cards.

GR: Well I’m just wondering, there’s a been a lot of fact checks in the mainstream media? They say that it’s not proven that there’s graphene, that that’s a mythology, and also talking about the fact that just because you have a, get a crime number doesn’t necessarily mean they’re investigating at all. What do you say to that?

PH: Okay, so on the fact checks, the fact checks are basically around, run by large companies but I got associations with big business and with the WEF. But…when you look at the Kenyan Catholic doctors in 2015, they took a sample of, I can’t remember what the vaccine was, and got it analyzed, and they said that had anti-fertility substances in. Of course, that got fact checked at the time and, excuse the lan—I don’t know whether you’ve got this expression in Canada, but it was pooh-poohed by the fact checkers, load of rubbish of course it hasn’t got anti-fertility substances in. But the last time I looked at that, there was an issue with women’s fertility in Kenya, and I think about 900,000 women were infertile.

So you have—I think that’s the problem throughout SARS COV. Everyone is looking for a reliable information. And because you’ve got what the mainstream media puts out, in my view, not strictly balanced version of events, and then you’ve got the independent media which puts out probably more balanced version of events, and then you got the fact checkers in the middle, acting as referee. And I know, having been fact-checked myself, by Full Fact, but when they fact check me, some of what they said was factually wrong.

So they said that we’d gone into the police station and handed in a large number of documents on the 20th of December. That is factually incorrect. But if you go to Full Facts, that’s what happened, but I was there. So Full Facts are denying my lived experience, which is, we went in, and all we handed them was a sheet of paper with a list of expert witnesses, Professor Bhakdi, Dr. McCullough, Dr Ardis, Dr. Pierre Kory, Robert F Kennedy Jr, all these people agreed to be witnesses to the police, we had them on one sheet of paper, so how can that be hundreds of pages of documents? But if you go to the fact-checkers, that is the factual record, and that factual record doesn’t align with what happened.

And when we went to Hammersmith police on the 20th, they actually told us don’t bring any documents because CID will lose them. That’s why they gave us a document upload facility, which, by the way, is still open. So, you’re right, fact checkers referee factual disputes, but as with any referee, with any, whatever the referee is refereeing, people who are being refereed also, always going to say the referee is biased. And that’s almost the nature of referee, in that if you’ve got opposing views, and fact check comes down on one side, the other side’s going to say they’re biased.

So I don’t set too much in store with fact-checkers in relation to the police saying they weren’t investigating, that doesn’t tally with my lived experience. Because on the 20th of December we were told that they would investigate.

Mark Sexton went in on the 5th of January and was told that they were investigating, it’s a large investigation, that they need outside resources.

28th of January I went in with others and we’re told they were investigating.

The 12th of February we went in and they said they were investigating.

And then it’s either the 14th of February or 22nd of February the Met said they weren’t investigating the suppression of information on vaccine safety. And that to me narrowed down what the crime we alleged, and was itself misleading, so my own analysis is that the top of the police didn’t want to investigate, and the people we were talking to did see that there were grounds to investigate.

GR: What sounds like an interesting… As opposed to just bringing into a typical court case, let a judge decide. But I think we’re at the end of our time Mr. Hyland. Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Thanks again.

PH: Okay, no problem. Thank you very much.

---

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.facebook.com/mark.sexton.10 (25 May 2022)
2.  ibid
3. ibid