MP David Amess Exposed Big Pharma & Vaccine Passports Before His Murder
(Sean Adl-Tabatabai) According to former collegue Dr Aseem Malhotra, Amess was an outspoken critic of Big Pharma:
“Very sad news about David Amess. I met him in parliament in 2016 when he took an interest in BMJ Too Much Medicine campaign. He understood our request for a parliamentary inquiry into the misdemeanors of the pharmaceutical industry. A very kind man & a real gentleman. RIP David.”
Very sad news about David Amess. I met him in parliament in 2016 when he took an interest in BMJ Too Much Medicine campaign. He understood our request for a parliamentary inquiry into the misdemeanors of the pharmaceutical industry. A very kind man & a real gentleman. RIP David
— Dr Aseem Malhotra FRCP (@DrAseemMalhotra) October 15, 2021
David Amess Was Anti-Lockdown
Sir David slammed the UK government’s lockdown as “shambolic.”
Last November, just after Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the UK’s second lockdown, Amess addressed parliament, stating: “Like most other people, I was absolutely horrified when a lockdown was called at the weekend.”
“The country needs hope, and the world needs hope. I would describe the announcement on Saturday as absolutely shambolic.”
“That should not happen again. Of course I understand that we are following the advice of the scientists, but it is the politicians who decide. I want much more clarity on the overall objective and strategy.”
“As many others have mentioned, care homes seemed to be sacrificed the last time we were in lockdown. Their residents are on very limited time, and we must ensure that full visiting rights are given to their relatives.”
“I am very glad that the schools are not now locking down, and I do hope that we will do our best to protect vulnerable children. With hope, our churches most certainly should stay open. The Catholic archbishops have called for the publication of the evidence behind the ban; I urge the government to publish it.”
“Many of our local businesses have been suffering during these tough times and want more help. They have already had the summer wiped out, and now they will have Christmas wiped out.”
He added: “Not surprisingly, we are being inundated with emails from constituents telling us that we should not vote for another lockdown.”
“The British public have been extremely patient and forbearing, and most people have accepted the guidelines until now. There needs to be a coherent strategy for a return to normality—not the new normal, but the normality of pre-lockdown Britain.”
“The country, and particularly the economy, cannot exist in a state of suspended animation for much longer without long-term real damage.”
David Amess Spoke Out Against Mask Mandates
Last summer, Sir David called the UK government’s mask mandate as a gross infringement of civil liberties.
Amess said: “Ever since the pandemic started the government has consistently said that they are following scientific advice.
“It would appear that the scientists have now advised the government that this is the right time for people to wear face masks in shops.”
“Whilst many people are already choosing to wear face masks, it is obviously a huge infringement of people’s civil liberties.”
“I believe it will be difficult to enforce and must be left to people’s common sense and the community spirit to try and stop the spread of infection and save lives.”
David Amess Opposed Digital Vaccine Passports
In a historic speech to Parliament in March, 2021, Sir David slammed the UK government’s plans to roll out mandatory digital vaccine passports.
He said:
“The starting point is that it is fundamentally up to individual countries to make decisions for themselves, so it ought not to be, in that sense, for the United Kingdom to take a lead with regard to what Brazil, Italy or any other country chooses to do. We have to respect those countries and their decisions; it is not for us to determine what they do. I hope that all countries, including the United Kingdom, if we choose at some point to take this approach of vaccine passports for other countries’ foreign nationals coming here, will themselves consider what they should do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe captured the point about the effectiveness of the vaccination programme. It is remarkable. I had no anticipation that it would be as effective as it seems to be at the moment. We have to recognise that, and the protection that will give to so many people right around the world. Any question over certification for vaccinations or anything else therefore has to be proportionate to the threat of the disease itself, which at the moment is diminishing, so actually the need is diminishing. At the same time, there has been an escalation in concerns and expectation that the passports will be delivered for many countries. I am quite sympathetic to the sense of having vaccinations.
About 20 or so years ago, when I was in the Territorial Army, I went on an expedition to Ecuador to climb Volcán Sangay. I had a yellow fever vaccination and got a certificate. There are minimal concerns about certification if someone has a piece of paper to demonstrate their vaccination status, and we do not need fancy electronic readers to read a certificate—we just need to be able to speak the language used on the certificate. I am pretty comfortable with vaccination certificates. If there were any questions about forgeries or anything else, companies such as De La Rue, which is based in my constituency, could make remarkable authentication devices to put on certificates and ensure that there were no concerns about authenticity.
If we moved from paper certificates to electronic, however, significant questions of civil liberty would arise. Who in the world would run that database? What data would go into it and who would determine that? Would it be an international body such as the United Nations, the EU or some other organisation? If we could not get an international organisation to take the lead, would a big corporate organisation do so? Would big tech in California have control over the database? In the light of what happened when the Australian national Government confronted a big tech company, giving such a company so much power would be a colossal problem. We need to be proportionate and cautious. We need to look to paper first and foremost, and there would need to be huge justification if we were to take the electronic route, which I would not welcome.”
