Copyright thebernician.net
While preparing the court papers for the Private Criminal Prosecution of MPs for pandemic fraud, we have discovered that the office of the secretary of state for mandatory vaccinations has now admitted in a Freedom of Information Request [FOI] that they have no records which show that the cause of the COVID 19 virus has ever been proven to exist.
Yes, you did read that correctly.
Admission of Guilt
To put this in perspective, this is akin to the UK banks admitting that they never lend any money, when we started alleging that against them more than a decade ago.
It therefore doesn’t take much effort to work out that the pressure the Private Criminal Prosecution has placed upon every serving MP has catalysed the beginning of the end for this treacherous Parliament. One way or another.
Moreover, since the UK government has confessed that they have no record of the existence of the cause of the supposedly deadly virus, upon which the validity of Parliament’s COVID-1984 policies is entirely dependent, no MP is capable of successfully pleading not guilty to our allegations of pandemic fraud.
DHSC HOLDS NO INFORMATION ON ISOLATION OF SARS-CoV-2 [THE ALLEGED CAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC]
Nevertheless, here lies the very heart of the dishonesty, which all COVID-1984 policies continue to be predicated upon:
In short, the cause of the virus [and therefore the virus itself] have never been proven to exist and everybody in the Department of Health knows it.
Criminal law treats such evidence as proof of intent to commit fraud, for material gain.
Especially when the secretary of state in question, who has corporate interests in Big Pharma, as PSC of Porton Biopharma Limited, is knowingly pushing the mandatory vaccination agenda, for a virus that doesn’t exist.
The Smoking Gun of the COVID-1984 Massacre
Please read the Freedom of Information request for yourself below. It represents the nearest we can get to a smoking gun in the COVID-1984 massacre, by fraudulent, treasonous and genocidal government policy.
1. 25 July 2020: Freedom of Information request – Full, accurate and complete disclosure of SARS-COV-2 virus records.
2. “Please provide a full, accurate and complete list of records held within your office, and or under your authority, describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly taken from a symptomatic patient of COVID-19 where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (not limited but by way of example monkey kidney cells, aka vero cells, liver cancer cells) thereby eliminating contamination as a possible alternative source of sampling.
Please note isolation is used in the normally understood meaning of the word – the act of separating a thing from another. I am not referring, and hence not requesting, to isolation meaning the culture of something else, the performance of an amplification test (eg PCR test which only detect mRNA or DNA) or the sequencing of “something”.
If any records match the above description and are available to the public elsewhere, please provide enough information so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, and weblink or location where the public may access it).
I remind you full, accurate and complete disclosure is required.”
2. 24 August 2020: Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
“DHSC does not hold information on the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus.”
3. 25 August 2020: Request for internal review.
4. “There is plenty of assumptions and presumptions, however there is no definitive evidence requested in my FOI request. In order to make legislation presumptions and assumptions is a breach of duty of care and can even be gross negligence. Legislature relies upon expert opinion, and must be able to show proportionality and for the common good, failing which the legislation is null and void being against logic and reason. Accordingly you are required to provide the records upon which PHE relies upon to show it has followed its lawful obligations, and that means you are required to show evidence not based upon the opinions of others assumptions and presumptions resulting from your response to my original FOI.”
5. 28 October 2020: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA): INTERNAL REVIEW: CASE REFERENCE IR 1243364.
“Conclusion
After careful consideration of the subject matter, I have concluded that the response you received was compliant with the requirements of the FOIA and I uphold DHSC’s statement that the Department does not hold the requested information.”