Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY, President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIV SHAH, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR ANTHONY FAUCI, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum KLAUS SCHWAB, President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK

Victim(s): THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Applicants:

Hannah Rose – Lawyer and human rights activist
Dr Mike Yeadon – Qualified life science researcher with a degree in biochemistry in toxicology, and a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer
Piers Corbyn – Astrophysicist and activist
Mark Sexton – Retired Police officer
John O’Loony – Funeral Director and activist
Johnny McStay – Activist
Louise Shotbolt – Nurse and human rights activist

Legal representation and election of domicile

The applicants will be represented for the purposes of this procedure by Hannah Rose Email: hannahroses111@hotmail.com

Consequently, all subsequent correspondence shall be sent only to the email address given above. Any notification within the meaning of the Statute of the Court addressed in this way will be considered valid.

Mr Prosecutor,

1 This communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the United Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on October 4, 2000.

2

2 We have tried to raise this case through the local English police and the English Court system without success, we have been unable to even get the case registered either with the police or with the court after several attempts. The statute for the ICC declares that “The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when a State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution (Article 17(1)(a)). This is such a case which is why we are addressing the ICC directly.

A. BACKGROUND

3. 3  The Corona virus ‘vaccines’
   are an innovative medical treatment, which have only received temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations Act (2012). The long-term effects and safety of the treatment in recipients are unknown. It is important to note that the Corona Virus ‘vaccines’ are the world’s first introduction to the synthetic m-RNA technology and all previous immunisations worked in a totally different manner, by way of introducing a deactivated or weakened virus to the body to trigger a natural arousal of the immune system against it. As detailed by Dr Mike Yeadon, the risks anticipated by this innovative medical treatment are hereby enclosed as Appendix 1 to this request.
4. 4  All Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials are ongoing and not due to conclude until late 2022/early 2023. The vaccines are, therefore, currently experimental with only limited short- term and no long-term adult safety data available. In addition, they are using a completely new mRNA vaccine technology, which has never previously been approved for use in humans. The mRNA is effectively a pro-drug and it is not known how much spike protein any individual will produce. Potential late-onset effects can take months or years to become apparent. The limited children’s trials undertaken to date are totally underpowered to rule out uncommon but severe side effects.
5. 5  The Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ do not meet the requirements to be categorised as vaccines and are in fact gene therapy (Appendix 8). The Merriam-Webster dictionary quietly changed the definition of the term ‘vaccine’ to include components of the COVID-19 m-RNA injection. The definition of vaccine was specifically changed due to the Covid-19 injection on February 5th 2021. Dr Mike Yeadon, joint applicant on this request, asserts that claims calling the Covid-19 injections a ‘vaccine is public manipulation and misrepresentation of clinical

3

treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.’ MRNA uses the cell’s machinery to synthesize proteins that are supposed to resemble the SPIKE protein of the virus, which is what it uses to enter cells via the ACE2 receptor. These proteins are then identified by the immune system, which builds antibodies against them. The real concern is that these proteins could accumulate in the body especially in regions of high concentration of ACE2 receptors, such as the gonads. If the immune system then attacks the location where they accumulate, then you could be dealing with an auto-immune condition.

6 PCR Tests
A review from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Appendix 2) found that the standard PRC test is so sensitive, that it can detect old infections by picking up fragments of dead viral cells. Originally developed to detect the presence of DNA and RNA in biological samples, even its Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis declared that PCR was never intended to diagnose a disease. It simply detects the presence of specific genetic material, which may or may not indicate infection. As Dr. Kary Mullis put it, the PCR technique can find almost anything in anybody. The PCR test uses amplification cycles to find viral RNA. The sample is repeatedly chemically amplified to increase the RNA copies until they can be detected. Each “cycle” of amplification doubles the number of molecules in a sample. If you run enough cycles, you can effectively find a single molecule of any substance. Public Health England (PHE) policy confirms that the cycle threshold should be set around 25.6 and if the machine must run more than 25 to 35 cycles (Appendix 2a) to get the sample to the test’s Limit of Detection, there isn’t enough virus in the sample to matter clinically.

4

(Appendix 2a)

We have information from freedom of information requests that as many as 40-45 cycles are being carried out (Appendix 3, 3a, 3b, 3c) which is too many because it increases the chance of a positive result even without coronavirus RNA being present in the original sample – hence the ‘asymptomatic’ individuals. In addition to being completely unreliable the PCR tests also contain carcinogenic ethylene oxide. (Appendix 48)

7 Covid is a biological weapon – Gain of function research
Chinese Virologist Li-Meng Yan was among the first researchers to study covid-19 in China after she was enlisted to investigate the origin of the virus by superior Leo Poon. Dr Li-Meng Yan and her team published a report (Appendix 4) claiming that the novel coronavirus was developed “as a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.” The report states that “ZC45 and ZXC21 were discovered between July 2015 and February 2017 and isolated and characterized by the aforementioned military research laboratories.” It also says that when a non-military lab, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre, published a Nature article reporting “a conflicting close phylogenetic relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC2 rather than with RaTG13, was quickly shut down for ‘rectification.’” The report also accuses several publications of bowing to

5

political pressure or of experiencing “conflicts of interest” so as not to publish findings that differ from the natural origin theory. “The existing scientific publications supporting a natural origin theory rely heavily on a single piece of evidence – a previously discovered bat coronavirus named RaTG13, which shares a 96% nucleotide sequence identity with SARS- CoV -2,”.

8. 8  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA has admitted to funding of gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab – despite Dr Anthony Fauci repeatedly denying this. In a letter to Republican James Comer (Appendix 5), NIH’s principal deputy director A. Tabak, blamed EcoHealth Alliance – that funnelled US funds to the Wuhan lab – for not being transparent about the work it was doing. British scientist Peter Daszak who runs EcoHealth is accused by Tabak of failing to comply with the terms of the grant. As recently as November 2021 Fauci was accused of lying about gain of function research after documents obtained by the intercept (Appendix 6) detailed grants given to EcoHealth Alliance for bat coronavirus studies. The $3.1 million grant was awarded for a five-year period between 2014 and 2019. After the funding was renewed in 2019, it was suspended by the trump administration in April 2020. The grant directed $599,000 to the Wuhan institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research.
9. 9  British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen, published a report in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics (Appendix 7) and claim that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted. They claim they had ‘prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China’ for a year – but were ignored by academics and major journals. Dalgleish is a professor of oncology at St George’s University, London, and is best known for his breakthrough creating the first working ‘HIV vaccine’, to treat diagnosed patients and allow them to go off medication for months. While analysing COVID-19 samples last year in an attempt to create a vaccine, Dalgleish and Sørensen discovered ‘unique fingerprints’ in the virus that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory. They said they tried to publish their findings but were rejected by major scientific journals which were at the time resolute that the virus jumped naturally from bats or other animals to humans. Even when former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove spoke out publicly saying the scientists’ theory should be investigated, the idea was dismissed as ‘fake news.’

6

10. 10  Graphene hydroxide
    Dr Andreas Noack is a German chemist and one of the EU’s top graphene experts, carbon expert and doctored in the field of activated carbon whereby for his doctoral thesis he converted graphene oxide into graphene hydroxide. Professor Dr Pablo Campra comes from the university of Almeria, and alongside Dr Andreas Noack he examined the covid ‘vaccines’ for the presence of graphene oxide with the Micro-Raman Spectroscopy, the study of frequencies. According to both doctors, the vaccines don’t contain graphene oxide but do contain graphene hydroxide. On November 23, 2021, Dr Andreas Noack released a video explaining what graphene hydroxide is and how the nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of ‘vaccine’ recipients. Dr Andreas goes on to explain how due to the nano size of the graphene oxide structures they would not show up on an autopsy as toxicologists can’t imagine that there are structures that can cut up blood vessels causing people to bleed to death on the inside so they would not be looking for them, given their atomic size.
11. 11  On 18th November 2020 Dr Andreas Noack was on a ‘livestream’ on YouTube discussing the dangers of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ when he was arrested on camera by armed German police (Appendix 41). On 26th November 2021, just hours after publishing his latest video about graphene oxide and graphene hydroxide (Appendix 42) he was attacked and murdered.
12. 12  We request a full investigation be done into the inclusion of Graphene hydroxide in the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ and into the assassination of Dr Andreas Noack.
13. 13  Inflated Covid figures
    The number of covid-19 cases have been artificially inflated due to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the PCR testing and the number Covid-19 deaths in the UK have been massively artificially inflated due to the fact that a covid death is recorded if an individual died for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test (that was confirmed with the inaccurate and unreliable PRC tests). These deaths are being recorded as Covid-19 regardless of whether Covid-19 was the factual cause of death.
14. 14  A Freedom of Information request (Appendix 43) shows us that between March and June 2020 the total number of Covid-19 related deaths in England and wales with no pre-existing health conditions was 4,476.

7

(Appendix 43)

15 However, the Covid-19 deaths for the same period were recorded at 49,607 (Appendix 44)

8

(Appendix 44)

16. 16  We submit that a further way that the Covid-19 statistics have been artificially inflated is by the ‘rebranding’ of the common influenza, pneumonia and other respiratory infections as covid -19. Epidemiologist Knut Wittowski, the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University claims ‘there may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed Covid’ category of people who have Covid symptoms (which influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA’. Those patients he argued, ‘also may have some SARS RNA sitting in their nose while being infected with influenza, in which case the influenza would be ‘confirmed’ to be Covid’.
17. 17  Data from the ONS (Appendix 45) showed that deaths in 2018 from influenza and pneumonia amounted to 29,516 and in 2019, was 26,398. However, deaths in 2020 for influenza was recorded at just 394 and pneumonia at 13,619 (Appendix 46).

9

x 45)

(Appendi

18 John O’loony, a joint applicant on this request is a funeral director running his own funeral home in Milton Keynes. He has testified (Appendix 47) that as a funeral director he saw ‘a massive effort made to deliberately inflate Covid death numbers. Cancer patients and stroke

10

(Appendix46)

victims and even one guy that was run over all ended up with Covid on their death

certificate’.
18a We submit that the misrepresentation of covid cases and covid deaths warrants a full

investigation by the Court.

19. 19  Ineffectiveness of masks
    The World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted that there is no evidence available on the usefulness of masks to protect non-sick individuals (Appendix 9). In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germ components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly breathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting in a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis ,causing self- toxicity and immunosuppression. (Appendix 10)
20. 20  Alternative treatments
    Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, and professor of medicine at Texas A and M College of Medicine. He has completed his bachelor’s degree at Baylor University and has completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. He also completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington in Seattle, his cardiology fellowship – including service as Chief Fellow – at William Beaumont Hospital, and his master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan.
21. 21  Hydroxychloroquine
    The most widely studied and utilized drug in all of COVID-19. It basically has three mechanisms of action. It reduces the viral entry through endosomes. It helps work as a zinc ionophore. And zinc actually works to impair the RNA-dependent polymerase. And lastly, it’s an anti-inflammatory. It changes the overall profile of cells so there’s less inflammation. 259 supportive trials, 385,000 individuals and Hydroxychloroquine is like I say, our mainstay in COVID-19 treatment. We have large studies as outpatients demonstrating hazard ratios

11

here, much less than one, implying a 50% reduction in hospitalization and death from outpatient studies. We have a very large study from Iran where there’s been, as you can see here, 28,000 individuals, they treat about 25% of their high-risk patients with a short course of Hydroxychloroquine plus other drugs, 30% reduction in hospitalization and death (Appendix 15)

22. 22  Ivermectin
    Another drug that impairs viral entry to the nucleus also has some properties against the spike protein. We have 60 trials with Ivermectin, a much smaller amount of information than Hydroxychloroquine, but that’s still substantial. And here, Ivermectin has favourable hazard ratios for both inpatient and outpatient use, about a 70% reduction in mortality. (Appendix 16)
23. 23  Favipiravir
    Available in five countries overall, it’s like oral Remdesivir. Remdesivir is currently approved in Japan as a treatment for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Outside of Japan, Remdesivir is an investigational, unapproved drug.
    A report in the New England Journal of Medicine in May concludes that the broad spectrum antiviral medication developed by the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection (Appendix 17).
24. 24  Corticosteroids
    This is a mainstay of inpatient treatment. A meta-analysis suggests a 30% reduction in mortality. Inhaled Budesonide, known in the United States as Pulmicort, a randomized trial called the Stoic Trial. There was an 87% reduction in hospitalizations with inhaled Budesonide. So we have positive data for both oral and inhaled steroids (Appendix 18).
25. 25  Colchicine (off label)
    Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug. The largest, highest quality, randomized prospective double-blind placebo-controlled trial. This was coordinated at Montreal Heart Institute. Over 4,000 outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, and among those who were confirmed positive, a 25% reduction in hospitalization and death (Appendix 19)

12

26

Clade x and Event 201 Scenario

In May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic dubbed ‘Clade X’ (Appendix 12) to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with a catastrophic pandemic. A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called ‘Event 201’ in October, 2019 (Appendix 13). Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic. A few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.

“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)

Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:

•   Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
•   The collapse of many industries
•   Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
•   A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
•   Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
•   The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
•   A global lack of personal protective equipment
•   The breakdown of international supply chains
•   Mass unemployment
•   Rioting in the streets

27

27a

28 After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a great reset” in June 2021.

13

29. 29  We submit that it is highly unlikely, to the point that it is unbelievable, that this is purely excellent forecasting, planning, and modelling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic.
30. 30  Agenda 21/30 and the Great Reset Agenda
    “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum
31. 31  The so-called “great reset” promises to build ‘a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.” (Appendix 11) But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all- encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.
32. 32  Together, the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic (Appendix 14). The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response. One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.
33. 33  According to the report,“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”

14

34 Censorship
Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended. Big tech companies have also deployed the same content suppression tactics during the 2020 US presidential elections — attaching “disputed” claims on content that question election integrity. The UK government and governments around the world are using the ‘pandemic’ to crack down on free expression and access to information. From the onset of Covid-19, political considerations have clashed with concerns about public health and free expression. Authorities have blocked legitimate websites and ordered the removal of unwanted content. Officials have reinforced these controls by criminalising more categories of online expression and arresting journalists, activists, and members for public speaking about the government’s performance. To suppress unfavourable health statistics, critical reporting and other COVID- 19 content the UK government has blocked websites or forced users, social media platforms, or online outlets to delete information. There has been an unprecedented assault on the freedom of doctors to care for their patients, and Dr Robert Malone, the INVENTOR of the RNA vaccines has been de-platformed on all social media for speaking out against the covid injections. Some academic journals are blocking the publication of studies showing the effectiveness of drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Smear campaigns are being waged against any doctors and scientists who challenge the WHO narrative on Covid- 19 and the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. We are in a situation where governments and global NGO’s have seized control of the medical profession.

Parallels to 1930’s Germany

34a There are several survivors of the German Holocaust drawing stark parallels between Covid restrictions and the beginning of the Holocaust. An open letter sent to; the European Medical Agency (EMA), The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), U.K, The Australian Health Regulation Agency, (AHPRA), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia, Medsafe, New Zealand and the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities (FMRAC), Canada (Appendix 50) states,

“We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World War, feel bound to follow our conscience. … Another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on

15

humankind immediately. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied.” (Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir, Sorin Shapira, Mascha Orel, Morry Krispijn et al)

2. 34b  During an interview with Dr Reiner Fuellmich, (Appendix 51) Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav draws on her experience during Nazi Germany to form her perspective on what is happening in the world today. During the interview she goes on to say:
3. 34c  “Under the Nazi Regime, moral norms were systematically obliterated. The medical profession and institutions were radically transformed, academic science, the military, industry and clinical medicine were tightly interwoven, as they are NOW. The Nazi system destroyed a social conscience in the name of Public Health. Violations against individuals and classes of human beings were institutionalised. Eugenics driven public health policies replaced the Physician’s focus on the good of the individual. [The] German medical profession and institutions were perverted. Coercive public health policies violated individual civil and human rights. Criminal methods were used to enforce policy. Nazi Propaganda used fear of infectious epidemics to demonise Jews as spreaders of disease, as a menace to public health…. Fear and propaganda were the psychological weapons the Nazis used to impose a genocidal regime and today, some are beginning to understand why the German people didn’t rise up, fear kept them from doing the right thing. Medical mandates are a major step backwards towards a fascist dictatorship and genocide. Government dictates, medical intervention, these undermine our dignity as well as our FREEDOM….The stark lesson of the Holocaust is that whenever doctors join forces with government and deviate from their personal, professional, clinical commitment to do no harm to the individual, medicine can then be perverted from a healing, humanitarian profession to a murderous apparatus… What sets the Holocaust apart from all other mass genocides is the pivotal role played by the medical establishment, the entire medical establishment. Every step of the murderous process was endorsed by the academic, professional medical establishment. Medical doctors and prestigious medical societies and institutions lent the veneer of legitimacy to infanticide, mass murder of civilians. T4 was the first industrialised medical murder project in history. The first victims were disabled German infants and children under 3…. The next victims were the mentally ill, followed by the elderly in nursing homes. The murderous operations were methodical, and followed protocol very, very carefully. “

16

B. THE NUREMBERG CODE –

35. 35  a medical code of ethics based on the laws under which the Nazi criminals were judged in U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (Nuremberg physicians’ trial), for their role in conducting horrific medical experiments during the Second World War. The Nuremberg Code later constituted the basis for the Helsinki Declaration 1965 which binds the World Medical Association and practicing physicians to ‘act in the [individual] patient’s best interest when providing medical care’.
36. 36  Article 21 of the Rome Statute sets out the legal sources upon which the ICC may draw. The statute defines three primary sources of international law; international treaties, international custom, and general principles of law recognised by civilized nations. It is recognised that the three sources are of equal value and that there is no hierarchy among them. According to the Statute, subsidiary means for determining the rules of law are judicial decisions and academic writings. Besides these enumerated sources, international legal rules can also be created by unilateral acts, such as declaration or a reservation (Shabas William, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 155, (2017))

36a We submit to the Court that the Nuremberg Code qualifies as a source of international law by way of Article 21(1)(b) of the Rome Statute. Article 21(3) states that the application and interpretation of law ‘must be consistent with internationally recognised human rights’. We submit that that ‘Physician’s trial case’ established a precedent that must be drawn upon for the purpose of this request and we submit for consideration the notion that the Nuremberg code qualifies as a source of international law under the jus cogens principle.

37. 37  The elements of customary (jus cogens) international law include:
    •   the widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice);
    •   the requirement that the acts must occur out of a sense of obligation (opinio juris); and
    •   that the acts are taken by a significant number of States and not rejected by a significantnumber of States.
38. 38  In 1950, the International Law Commission listed as evidence of customary international law: treaties, decisions of national courts and international tribunals, national legislation,

17

diplomatic correspondence, opinions of national legal advisors, and the practice of international organizations (“Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly (Part II): Ways and Means of Making the Evidence of Customary International Law More Readily Available,” [1950] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 367, ILC Doc. A/1316).

39. 39  i. Practice requirement – We submit that this requirement is satisfied by way of the pharmaceutical manufacturers operating internationally and the Nuremberg code for medical practice being extended into general codes of medical ethics by both States, Global NGO’s and to which all physicians and pharmaceutical companies are bound. The Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation, nonetheless, its basic requirement of informed consent, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Informed consent, with specific reliance on the Nuremberg Code, is also the basis of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, the most recent guidelines promulgated by the World Health Organization and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (1993).
40. 40  ii. Opinio Juris sive necessitatis requirement – We submit that the worldwide recognition, acceptance, adoption, and practice of the ethical standards of the Nuremberg Code through general codes of medical ethics amounts to an obligation on physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers to abide by the principles. Any physician or research scientist found to have breached any of the 10 principles of the Nuremberg code would face criminal liability, therefore we submit that the opinion juris requirement is satisfied qualifying the Nuremberg Code as a source of international law under the Jus cogens customary norm principle.
41. 41  It is our intention to present to you, and detail how, in the United Kingdom this year, the Government of the United Kingdom, with its Ministers and senior officials have violated the Nuremberg Code not only in a single aspect but in many aspects.
42. 42  a) Informed consent to participate in a medical experiment
    The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to

18

activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation, or any other type of binding or coercion.

43. 43  When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the Prime Minister presented the vaccine in the United Kingdom and began the vaccination of United Kingdom residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that in practice, they would be taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required under the Nuremberg Code. This as a matter of fact is a genetic medical experiment on human beings performed without informed consent under a severe and blatant offense of the Nuremberg Code.
44. 44  b) Alternative treatments
    – On the subject of informed consent for medical treatment, and based on the Nuremberg Code principles, an obligation exists to detail and suggest to a patient several treatment alternatives, detailing the medical process (and all that is included in it) as well as the advantages and disadvantages/ benefits and risks, existing in every treatment, to enable him to make an intelligent personal decision regarding the treatment he prefers. As stated, this choice must be made freely by the individual.
45. 45  Despite all of the above-stated, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Ministry of Health continue to fail to present the citizens of the United Kingdom with the currently existing alternatives for treating Covid 19. Alternative treatments that have now been proven to be both extremely safe and extremely efficacious in the treatment of Covid 19 with up to a 100% success rate with alternative treatments mentioned above. The government of the United Kingdom continue to solicit their citizens, pressuring and manipulating them in blatant violation of the informed consent process, intentionally concealing information regarding the vaccinations and creating an atmosphere of fear and coercion.
46. c) The experiment will be conducted to prevent suffering or physical injury.
47. 46  It is known that the m-RNA ‘vaccination’ treatments have caused the death of many as well as injury and severe damage (including disablement and paralysis) after the ‘vaccine’ was administered. Despite this fact, the government did not instruct the initiation of an investigation into the matter. It is also questionable that given the experimental nature of these vaccinations, that there are not any full reports available of the numbers of dead or

19

injured, as may be expected in such a medical process for the benefit of the public participating in the experiment.

d) The experiment must not be conducted when there is reason to assume that death or real injury will occur.

47. 47  – Regarding the violation of this principle, as stated above, the data on cases of death fromthe treatment is suppressed and we the citizens hear only by word of mouth and on social networks (friends, neighbours or relatives) not from the state media.
48. e) The individual in charge of the experiment must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe it will cause injury, disability or death of the experiment participant.
49. 48  – It has already been proven that many have died from the m-RNA treatments, were injured or became disabled; however the Government of the United Kingdom continues to compel this dangerous experiment on its citizens.

C. THE ROME STATUTE

49 It is our further intention to present to you, and detail how, in the United Kingdom this year, the Government of the United Kingdom, with its Ministers and senior officials have violated the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court not only in a single aspect but in many aspects.

ARTICLE 6 – Genocide

50 Pursuant to the Rome Statute’s Article 6, – “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of these groups:

51 – the group in this case is in principle “the entire population of the United Kingdom” (and the world) starting with the elderly, chronically ill and disabled.

20

(b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group:

52. 52  – Proven long-term effects 8 months after first being infected by the virus (appendix 20
53. 53  – Massive short-term damage and death from the ‘vaccines’. As of 24th November 2021, for the UK 136,582 yellow cards have been reported for the Pfizer ‘vaccine’, 238,086 have been reported for the AstraZeneca, 19,101 for the Moderna and 1,280 have been reported where the brand was not specified. That is a total of 395,049 reported adverse reactions in the UK alone that were serious enough to warrant being reported to the Yellow Card reporting system (Appendix 20)
54. 54  – Expected long term effects as above in the vaccinated
55. 55  – Statistical evidence suggests massive increase in deaths after ‘vaccination’ (Appendix 21)
56. 56  – Immeasurable mental harm caused by 24/7 psychological warfare propaganda, false positive PCR tests, lack of medical care and mass vaccinations.
57. 57  – Increase in alcoholics relapsing, eating disorders relapsing and not being managed in the community due to lockdowns.
58. 58  – The number of vulnerable children calling ChildLine was up 37% over lockdowns (Appendix 22)
59. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about itsphysical destruction in whole or in part:
60. 59  – Destruction of wealth and businesses by the imposed lockdowns (Appendix 23)
61. 60  – Inflicting damage on the immune systems of all those who either got ill from the virus and/or received the m-RNA ‘vaccine’, the mask mandates and mandatory test regimes
62. 61  Statistics prove that those who received a covid-‘vaccine’ are at greater risk of gettingseriously ill, and even family members of the vaccinated are become ill and in some cases dying. This is an extremely alarming signal of what the future holds. (Appendix 24)

21

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group:

62. 62  – Proven increase in spontaneous abortion after a Covid m-RNA ‘vaccination. A recent study in the New England Medical Journal showed 8 in 10 women had a miscarriage after taking a Covid ‘vaccine’ before the third trimester (Appendix 25)
63. 63  – Expected reduction in fertility after a Covid-‘vaccination’ due to the deliberate change in DNA sequencing from the m-RNA (Appendix 26)

ARTICLE 7 – Crimes against humanity

64. 64  Pursuant to the Rome Statute’s Article 7 – Crimes against humanity, means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
65. (a) Murder:
66. 65  – Statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shown below (also Appendix 27) have recorded between January 2nd 2021 and July 2nd 202l, 18,653 deaths within 21 days of the first dose of a Covid Vaccine – 4,388 (30%) of those involving the Covid-19 virus. 73,822 deaths 21 days or more after the first dose – 7,289 (11%) of those involved the Covid- 19 Virus. 11,652 deaths within 21 days of a second dose – 182 (1.5%) involved the Covid-19 virus and 57,721 deaths 21 days or more after second dose – 458 (0.8%).

22

66

Further data from the ONS shown in the tables below (also Appendix 28) demonstrates, that there was a 23% increase in the deaths registered in January 2021 compared with January 2020. Similarly with February 2021 compared with February 2020 there was increase in overall deaths of 26%. We know that the Covid 19 ‘vaccines’ were rolled out in the UK in December of 2020 and anyone who was genuinely willing to take the ‘vaccines’ freely and without political pressure or coercion was going to do so within the first few weeks of the rollout, this staggering increase in death within the first 8 weeks of the introduction of the experimental vaccines is alarming to say the least and warrants a full investigation by the court.

23

67. 67  The protocol in the UK for an individual who tests positive for Covid-19 has been to self- isolate and stay home until you absolutely can’t breathe at which point you go to the hospital to be put on a ventilator and in most cases die. A study (Appendix 29) of 1023 covid-19 patients on ventilators found that 42% of them died and 57% survived. We submit that the suppression of safe and effective alternative treatments for Covid-19 amounts to murder and warrants a full investigation by the court.
68. 68  Data taken from the ONS below shows that during April 2020 there were 26,541 deaths that occurred in care homes, an increase of 17,850 on the five-year average. (Appendix 52 )
69. 69  The Liverpool Care Pathway was abandoned in 2014 after being deemed inhumane, but evidence suggests it was brought back at the start of the pandemic in early 2020 and is being implemented in care homes across the UK. In a House of commons document, Matt Hancock and Conservative MP Dr Luke Evans discuss the use of medications to give Covid patients a ‘good death’ (euthanasia).(Appendix 30)
70. 70  In March 202 Hancock ordered two years’ worth of a sedative called Midazolam from a French supplier (Appendix 31). At the time the order was made it was claimed that Midazolam was for the treatment of covid 19 patients – Midazolam suppresses the respiratory system – Covid-19 is a respiratory disease. We request the court carry out a full investigation into why the UK government would purchase two years’ worth of Midazolam, a drug associated with respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest, to treat a disease that causes respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest.

24

(Appendix 32)

71. 71  The document (Appendix 32) also provides a table confirming dosage of Midazolam for the elderly or unwell should be no more than 0.5mg-1mg, side effects include cardiorespiratory depression and the drug should be used with caution in those suffering respiratory disease.
72. 72  A document produced by the NHS (Appendix 33) states that Midalozam should be used for comfort at the end of life care due to Covid-19 to ease fear, anxiety and agitation. The document states that Midazolam should be used for sedation prior to the patient requiring mechanical ventilation. The same document also provides confirmation that Midazolam has the potential to impair the respiration system, particularly in the presence of disease or old age and clearly states that dosage should be kept to a minimum and should be within the manufacturers guidelines.