"The war for freedom will never really be won because the price of freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our Government." 

 Eleanor Roosevelt

The 'Door Drop' Leaflet

On This Page, You'll Find A Simple Leaflet You Can Post Through The Letterbox Of The People In Your Village, Town or City Throughout The UK.

Should you reside outside the UK and want to replicate this, there is a word document of the text so that you can swap out the UK case law and put in your own. It will be there, you just need to find it.
For those of you who have come here after a leaflet has landed on your doorstep and you want to see the evidence behind the True/False quiz click the button below:

Door Drop Leaflet - The Evidence:

Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

Covid-19 tests can tell you which variant you have - FALSE (ish)

When you take a PCR test or a lateral flow test YOU receive a positive or negative result. Therefore the answer to this question is false. 

However, that doesn't mean variations in the different strains of SARS-Cov-2 can not be identified. 

This is because the PCR test extracts your DNA. 

But, because coronaviruses are not DNA based and are instead RNA based. In order to successfully use the PCR test the researchers must first convert the viral RNA, into DNA. 

Once the RNA is converted into DNA, it is then amplified multiple times in order to detect whether the virus is present (positive) or not (negative).
For example; the different genetic markers present in the 'Alpha' strain (the original one SARS-Cov-2) and the 'Delta' strain (the one which has appeared after the roll out of the vaccines) are shown below:
The problem... is that if the PCR test is amplified a lot (a high cycle threshold or high Ct) the PCR test will still show a positive result even if there is no infection present.
In fact... multiple research institutes, scientific studies and medical professionals have stated that those PCR tests run at OVER 30 Ct are picking up NON-INFECTIOUS coronavirus. 

This means all those 'cases' reported by the government, the medical authorities and the media as infectious and something which should be terrifying us are nothing of the sort. 

In fact... this means, that your positive result is nothing more than you having the RNA in your cells but that it is not enough to either cause you harm, nor cause anyone else harm.
In fact... the inventor of the PCR test Kerry Mullins said that if you amplify our DNA enough you will find anything... which sounds very scary, but it really isn't. Because the key thing to understand is just because it's present, it doesn't mean it is doing anything harmful. In truth, it's quite often not doing anything at all.
Retrieved 03-09-2021 from: https://muse.ai/v/DYpphoT
Which means... it's increasingly concerning that the NHS has consistently used a Ct of 45...
It's also concerning that despite the World Health Organisation stating that only people with symptoms should get tested (WHO, January 20th 2021), yet people are routinely being tested even when they have no symptoms...
Most concerning of all is that the WHO also state, if you are symptomatic and receive a positive test. Any test you do for the next 90 days is simply replicating the SAME positive result. 

What this means is that if, for example, you test positive on the 1st January 2021 and your symptoms disappear you should not have another test until the 1st April 2021. A whole 90 days afterwards.
It is plausible that at this point, you might be worried about being infectious and causing harm to those you love. 

However, there is no need to worry because in truth, you're only infectious for the first 8-10 days if you had symptoms. 
After that, you're just carrying the virus in your cells as nature intended.

Or you could be a lemon...
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The survival rate of all ages who catch Covid-19 is 99.6% - TRUE

This however, is not as simple as it sounds. As with many statistics this can be manipulated. Which we'll cover in a moment, for now here's a overview of the different survival rates dependent on age:
This however is not saying that 0.06% of those in the population who are over the age of 70 are going to die...

This is suggesting that 0.06% of people over in the population, over the age of 70 who develop symptomatic COVID-19 may die from it. Remember from Q1 a positive PCR test doesn't mean it is an infectious result.

SYMPTOMS + POSITIVE PCR TEST = INFECTIOUS (FOR UPTO 10 DAYS)

The IFR (Infection-Fatality Rate) measures the number of people who are infectious and die.
Also, we need to remember that many people have natural immunity to the SARS-Cov-2 virus. 
What is really cool to understand is that not only are people catching SARS-Cov-2 and developing an immune response, research has shown that a lot of people already had long-term T-Cell immunity.

It's believed this is occurs because SARS-Cov-2 is part of the coronavirus family, which is the same family of viruses as the common cold. Something that many of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

This means that many people in the general population who have never caught SARS-Cov-2, therefore never creating an immune response, are already immune because at some point in their life they caught a cold and their immune system recognises the commonality. Therefore, triggering the immune response to SARS-Cov-2. 
Retrieved 03-09-2021 from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33582369/
T-Cells have been proven to be powerful and effective at helping people heal naturally, even if they are extremely unwell and/or have very rare auto-immune conditions such as agammaglobulinemia (where someone has a low level of antibodies in their blood (NORD, 2010)).
Some people have been vaccinated and this too increases the overall immunity in the population.
In fact, did you know only 60% of the population needs to be immune for herd immunity to have taken hold? That includes all three types of immunity; natural (e.g., T-Cell from a previous coronavirus), immune memory (e.g., caught SARS-Cov-2 and recovered) and vaccinated. 
On Thursday 3rd June 2021 over 50% of the UK adult population had received two doses of a vaccine and over 75% had received their first dose.
When we consider the vaccinated, natural and immune memory response chances are we have long reached herd immunity here in the UK.
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The vaccine stops you from transmitting Covid-19 to someone else - FALSE

Unfortunately, this is one of those myths which was never quite cleared up by the pharmaceutical companies during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials. Nor in the proposal for the Phase 3 clinical trial...

Many scientists, researchers and medical professionals did attempt to alert the public to this fact but were dismissed as conspiracy theorists or 'anti-vaxers'.
On the 21st October 2020, the British Medical Journal, once again tried to raise the alarm about the mistruths about what the vaccines had been 'proven' to do...
Despite this, the vaccine roll out happened across the world. Now we find ourselves in a very uncomfortable situation where we have a correlation between the date of mass vaccinations and the development of the Delta variant...
We also, have an even more uncomfortable situation where those who have been vaccinated actually carry significantly MORE viral load (more likely to be infectious (see Q1)) than those who are not vaccinated. 

Which means if you've been vaccinated then you are more likely to infect someone who is unvaccinated or immune compromised than someone who has not been vaccinated but catches SARS-Cov-2.

*Breakthrough Delta variant infection means someone who has been vaccinated and develops the Delta variant.
In truth... we only need to look at Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world and we can see how the vaccinations, rather than reducing transmission are in fact driving up the number of cases...
But then again... that is, after all what many, many, many people were expecting:
Retrieved 08-08-2021 from: https://t.me/katiewoodlandpatriots/21921
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The vaccine clinical trials are set to finish in 2023 - TRUE

Pfizer BioNTech is due to have their Phase 3 trial finished May 2023
AstraZeneca has completed their study early (in March 2021 instead of February, 2023) yet still have not released any of the clinical data... despite tens of thousands of people in the UK and across the world taking their vaccine:
Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V. vaccine also finished early. Ending on January 22nd 2021. They are also yet to release any results or data from their vaccination campaign...
Finally, Moderna... which is due to finish December 2021.
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The NHS website lists all the possible vaccine side effects - FALSE

The NHS lists some of the common side effects and a couple of the rare side effects.
While they do list all 3 vaccine leaflets, they do not list on the website the very well documented and reported side effects which are recorded weekly on the governments Yellow Card Scheme. 

Most notably is the lack of mention to a very dangerous side effect... death...
Please note, it is not the intent of this 'True/False' quiz to cause alarm. It is simply here to present the evidence as reported so that you can make an informed decision about what you choose to do with your health.

However, it is only pertinent to mention the possibility of a fatal outcome as a result of the vaccine. Especially, when contrary to the MHRA statement about it occurring ;in elderly people or those with underlying health conditions'. 

A 40 year old, healthy woman died after being administered the AstraZeneca vaccine.
You very well may wonder if it is not listed on the NHS website, simply because it is so rate...

If this is the case, then why the difference in reporting for something like Antidepressants?

Which goes so far as to list out all the possible side effects, including 'thought' of committing suicide? 

Something which, if acted upon leaves both in the same position. No longer with us.
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The vaccine stops you from catching Covid-19 - FALSE

Just like the vaccines don't stop you from transmitting the SARS-Cov-2 virus, they also don't stop you from catching it again...
Okay... so now you might be thinking 'Yeah, but if I catch it whilst vaccinated then I'm less likely to get symptoms or if I do get symptoms they'll only be mild'...
The problem is... that's where some of the pharmaceutical legal wrangling kicks in and skews the data. 

Here's what I mean... 

If you look at these two graphs it looks like the unvaccinated/partially vaccinated are packing out the hospitals over in LA, California.
The problem is the definition of unvaccinated. 

You see, if you are vaccinated and it is less than 14 days after your vaccination you are classified as UNVACCINATED.
So now you might be thinking... 'Yeah but that's in the US, not in the UK. In the UK it's the unvaccinated in hospital'...

The problem is... that this is also not the whole truth... 

In fact, the NHS was forced to admit that 39% people who are unvaccinated and in hospital actually went to hospital not because of COVID-19. However, whilst in hospital, despite having no symptoms doctors and nurses conducted PCR tests which showed a positive result... and we ALL know the truth about those positive 'cases' .*
*If you skipped the answer to Q1 where the positive 'cases' >> CLICK HERE << to read it now.
How this plays out in the real world is kinda like this...

A 17 year old girl, who had next to 0 risk of developing symptoms from COVID-19 (should she even catch it), decided to take the vaccine. Three days after taking the vaccine, she developed COVID-19. 

Her symptoms are so severe that she ends up in hospital.

The media, the government and the medical professionals seem to be using the 14-day window to report that she was unvaccinated when she developed COVID-19.
As an unvaccinated person, she survived the SARS-Cov-2 virus, with no symptoms for 21 months. 

Three days after being 'jabbed' with the vaccine she develops extreme symptoms and ends up in hospital but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the vaccine?
Do you want to know what else is really weird about this case? 

If you follow that EXACT same link the headline has been changed, the information in the article has been changed and now they're saying it was weeks after the vaccine not days...
Also... the government, medical professionals and media keep telling us that people dying within days or even a couple of weeks after having an experimental vaccine isn't a bad thing?

We're all told that it's perfectly normal for MORE people who are vaccinated to die than those who are unvaccinated? 
Oh... and you want to talk about weird...

Somehow the ENTIRE government page which holds all the technical briefings from Public Health England, cited in the artice, was wiped from the internet...
Okay... so when I say wiped from the internet, I mean 'front-facing' internet where most people hang around.

Thankfully, there's an internet archive which stores everything...
Anyway, back to the question about being vaccinated, catching and dying from the VERY thing you were being vaccinated from to stop you dying...

I guess, when you really think about it... it's not that surprising people are dying as they still are only in the trial phase...

Then again... don't most pharmaceuticals have animal trials where all this is weeded out before it gets to being used in human trials?
Retrieved 21-05-2021 from: https://muse.ai/v/9yPmpEn
But here's where it starts to get really quite troubling... emerging research has shown that for some reason when you have your first vaccination you have LESS immunity than you had before you were vaccinated... 

Which indicates you have MORE chance of catching SARS-COV-2 after vaccination it not LESS...

The table below shows that people who have taken the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2 column 1) had a 43% chance of developing the Delta variant of COVID-19 within 21 days of the first vaccine dose (100% - 57% = 43%).

However those who had not been vaccinated, yet tested positive at some point (column 7)  only had a 28% chance of developing the Delta variant (100% - 72% = 28%).

Things look even worse for those who had the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 column 2) who had a  54% chance of developing the Delta variant of COVID-19 within 21 days of the first vaccine dose (100% - 46% = 54%). 
The table also seems to suggest that after an initial immune boost within 0-13 days of the second dose of both the Pfizer BioNtech  (BNT162b2 column 5) and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 column 6) vaccines once you get to 14 days after the second dose, the immunity seems to wane... 

In fact, just 14 days AFTER your second AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 column 6) vaccine you have LESS immunity than those who never had a single vaccine (column 7)...
This 'waning' efficacy is something noted in the BMJ (August, 2021) and they go onto say that this in itself can 'dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus.' Meaning, it may not be something worthwhile having after all...
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

Children are high risk and need to be protected from Covid-19 by the vaccine - FALSE

Children under the age of 16 have no need for a vaccine.

In fact, children under the age of 18 do not need a vaccine...
As we saw in Q2 those under the age of 19 have a 99.997% chance of surviving should they catch COVID-19.

This number includes both those with pre-existing health conditions and those who are fully healthy.

Also, if you're worried about them catching it, spreading it or anything which may be construed as 'asymptomatic spread'.... 

Here's the then Secretary for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock stated in parliament that there 'there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission'.
Then there was the University of Florida who found that:
1) symptomatic individuals spread SARS-Cov-2 at a higher rate than 'asymptomatic'.
2) rather than children needing to be isolated in bubbles to protect elderly relatives, it was the adults are more likely to pass it to children than children to adults...
3) significant transmissions are occurring within the home because of those who have symptoms and are isolating
Plus, when over 10 million people were tested in Wuhan (the epicentre of the entire pandemic) they found:
1) Just 300 people who tested positive and had no symptoms (asymptomatic cases). Those 300 people had a total of 1174 relatives who were all tracked, traced and tested. EVERY SINGLE ONE TESTED NEGATIVE.
2) The study parameters used quite a generous cycle threshold. If SARS-Cov-2 was detected at 37 Ct and below it was positive case, and those which only detected SARS-Cov-2 at 40 Ct and above was negative*.
*See Q1 to understand the different cycle thresholds (Ct) and what that means for 'infectious' vs 'non-infectious'
More importantly, when it comes to children and 'asymptomatic spread' ESPECIALLY when it comes to spread in schools between children, or the threat of children taking it home and unknowingly infecting their family members...

We can pretty much rule that out as well.
Meaning we can leave the idea of asymptomatic transmission being a threat firmly in the debunked section of our scientific knowledge:
Even the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has stated that those younger than 16 do NOT need to have the vaccine because they have yet to see evidence that it is necessary:
This only came about because people stood together and said no. So far there are not enough people standing up for those under the age of 16. Those who are not lawfully able to stand up for themselves.

At the time of putting this together, there are only 26,481 signatures... 
To force parliament to debate this we need 100,000 signatures.

It's not too late. 

You can use your democratic right to stand up for the children of the UK by clicking the button below and adding your name to the petition:
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The vaccine has been approved for use - FALSE

Right now, all the COVID-19 Vaccines are under a 174 emergency use authorisation in the UK.

What this means, is that they are only being used because of the existential threat to life from the SARS-Cov-2 virus.
Here's the Pfizer BioNTech authorisation:
This is the same for ALL the vaccines. Not a single one has been authorised other than as under EMERGENCY use.

Which is weird because the High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) group downgraded COVID-19 in January 2020 specifically noting the low overall mortality rates and it has NEVER been reclassified as a HCID...
Which is REALLY weird because things like Ebola are still classified as HCIDs...
Talking about Ebola did you know that in 2014 - 2015 there were cases of Ebola in 7 countries, including the UK?
Maybe it's just me but I sure don't remember the entire world locking down for something which has a  25% - 100% reported death rate...?
Retrieved on 04-09-2021 from: https://www.md-health.com/Ebola-Death-Rate.html
I digress... back to COVID-19...

In the past few weeks it was reported that the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was 'approved by the Food And Drug Administration (FDA)' in the USA.
This is, unfortunately, another one of those times when over enthusiastic journalists forget to read the entire document and instead just read the summary. You see... what actually happened is this:
1) The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine which is already in circulation (and being used here in the UK), was re-issued the Emergency Use Authorisation.
2) The Pfizer BioNTech  NEW vaccine, named Comirnaty, which is not yet in production WAS authorised for use.
Retrieved on 28-08-2021 from: https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
3) This Comirnaty vaccine is based on the same ingredients as the original, notwithstanding a few 'legal' alterations to the recipe.
Retrieved on 28-08-2021 from: https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
Which means that the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine which is already in use has been given FDA approval by the back door.

Why would they do this? Maybe because because, like all the CVOID-19 vaccinations, the Pfizer BioNTech vaccination is still in the trial stage and things are not looking too good...

It seems as though the vaccine companies are keeping a lid on their data.
Pharmaceutical company corruption aside, what's really saddening about this whole business is the fact there have been tried, tested and effective treatments for COVID-19 since April 2020.

In fact, one drug which costs mere pennies to produce has been shown to be unbelievably effective at treating the symptoms as well as drastically reducing mortality in those who end up in hospital from SARS-Cov-2.
Sadly, here in the UK the recommendations from the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel (BIRD) continue to be ignored...
The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) continues to state that the NHS is NOT TO USE IVERMECTIN as a treatment for COVID-19 based on their review of information conducted January 2020 to May 2020.

For some unkonwn reason NICE are disregarding EVERY SINGLE PEICE OF RESEARCH AFTER MAY 2020...
When it comes to Ivermectin, it's very odd that it is being ignored here in the UK because Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer co-authored a paper about it's anti-parasitic effectiveness in 2010...
There are many different medical professionals, researchers, scientists, virologists, immunologists, biologists... who are stating that the idea of authorising the COVID-19 vaccinations is ludicrous.
In summary:
1) the vaccines are authorised for emergency use, despite there being no emergency.
2) vaccines are being given authorisation through the backdoor and without presenting evidence to show that they are actually safe.
3) safe, effective and proven treatments are being ignored by the very institutions designed to protect the public.
Which ultimately means the MHRA is unlawfully using a Section 147 Emergency Regulation. It also means the MHRA are knowingly and willingly aiding and abetting in medical battery.
Use the button below to join our legal campaign against the MHRA who have failed in their duty to protect the people of the United Kingdom from harm:
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

The UK Government has the lawful right to mandate vaccinations to protect vulnerable people from those choosing not to be vaccinated - FALSE

Unfortunately, much like the over enthusiastic journalists reporting on the 'FDA's approval of the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine' the MPs seem to have broken the law by attempting to mandate a medical treatment.
So what are these laws that the MPs, NHS and other institutions seem to be knowingly and wilfully violating on a daily basis? 

Let's start with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) which enshrines in law your right to refuse any treatment by simply saying no thank you:
It doesn't matter whether every single medical professional, researcher and/or scientist believes that the treatment they are presenting you with is the one you should have, you can simply say no thank you and that is the end of it.
It doesn't matter whether it is an adult saying no or a parent, caregiver or lawful guardian of a child saying no. 

If you do not consent, and are deemed to have capacity, the treatment MUST NOT GO AHEAD.
The idea of informed consent and your right to lawfully deny treatment is proudly displayed on the NHS website where they also explain it is engrained in law.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering... this includes the use of testing for COVID-19 and the use of masks.
The way that the law works in the UK is utilising an idea called 'case law' to set precedence and to firmly embed that law into our every day life.

What this means is that the laws of the land are laid out, then someone breaks these laws and the guilt/innocence of the accused is argued in a court of law.

Once a case has been won, this becomes the 'argument' which can be used in further cases to prove a point. 

One of the most important for what is happening today is the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire in 2015. 
In this case, Montgomery (the Appellant) took on Lanarkshire Health Board (the respondent) to court over the complications she experienced when giving birth. Mrs Montgomery had raised concerns about being diabetic and her doctor had dismissed her concerns due to his view 'doctor knows best'.
As it transpires, in this case, 'doctor really didn't know best' and the very complications Mrs Montgomery had raised came to pass and sadly caused her child to be born with disabilities as a result:
Most importantly for all those who follow in Mrs Montgomery's footsteps the Judge ruled that our values and choices must be respected, unless we lack capacity.

It also states that we are at least entitled to information enabling us to take part in the decision.
BOTH of these two statements have been completely violated in the MPs attempt to mandate vaccines.

If you have read the above answers, rather than skipped all the way to the end, there will be things presented to you, that you did not know. 

More than likely, you did not know about the BIRD group recommending Ivermectin in February 2021, or that the vaccine trials were not actually set up to test for their ability to reduce symptoms, stop transmission, stop death or stop you catching COVID-19. 
These two things alone may very well have been the things that persuaded you against taking a vaccine.
Next we'll talk about consent when it comes to those under the age of 16 - ESPECIALLY as it seems there are some individuals currently attempting to completely erode our democratic process, our laws and our rights by force vaccinating our children:
Retrieved on 04-09-2021 from: https://t.me/UnityNewsNetwork/5639
Retrieved on 03-09-2021 from: https://t.me/UnityNewsNetwork/5638
Even though those under the age of 16 have absolutely no need for the vaccines:
Retrieved on 04-09-2021 from: https://muse.ai/v/6Fy7BrM
Unlike those over the age of 16, who are deemed to have the capacity to make their own decisions about medical treatment, especially experimental medical treatments. Those under 16 are different.

Built upon the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] where a mother of a child under the age of 16 was objecting to contraceptive treatment being administered to her child, without her consent, is the idea of 'Gillick Competency'.

This means that if a child is deemed to understand the implications of the treatment risks and alternative courses of action they can override what their parent, caregiver or lawful guardian wishes.
However, this does NOT give a blanket authorisation for children under 16 to agree to all medical treatment.

Particularly when it comes to something which is deemed experimental. Just like the current COVID-19 vaccinations which are under Section 147 Emergency Use Authorisation and still in their trial phase with no known long-term side effects.

This distinction about the capacity of a child (those under 16) to lawfully agree to take part in experimental treatments came to the forefront in December 2020.

The case of 'R (on the application of) Quincy Bell and A v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others
[2020]'. In this case, two people concerned about the prescription of puberty blockers to those under the age of 18, without parental consent as being unlawful. 
Which is understandable seen as you cannot buy something as every day as alcohol unless you are 18...
Retrieved on 05-09-2021 from: https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-young-people-law
Anyway, back to medical consent...

While the judges ruled those between the age of 16 and 18 did have consent to take part in experimental medical treatments. Those under 16 were deemed not to have capacity to make those life-altering decisions.
In a nutshell, if we do not consent, we cannot be coerced, blackmailed or harassed into taking any medical treatments, ESPECIALLY ones which are experimental.
This, is but one law the MPs broke when they attempted to legally mandate vaccinations.

They also broke Section 45E, Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984:
Similarly, they broke S25E of the Coronavirus Act 2020:
They also broke the Human Rights Act (1998) multiple times...

Firstly, Article 3.
As a direct consequence of the vaccine 'mandate'; those who are lawfully asserting their right to say no to an experimental vaccine are being harassed, coerced and blackmailed by employers, educational institutions and even family members. 
Next up, Article 5.
As a direct consequence of the vaccine 'mandate'; those who are lawfully asserting their right to say no to an experimental vaccine are being deprived of their liberties and security against procedure prescribed by law.

People are being threatened with losing their jobs, their children not being allowed to access education, people are not going to be allowed to lawfully entertain themselves and they've even suggested those who say no to the vaccination should be denied the life-saving emergency treatment they need.
Retrieved on 05-09-2021 from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57893788
Next up, Articles 8, 9 and 10.
As a direct consequence of the vaccine 'mandate'; those who are lawfully asserting their right to say no to an experimental vaccine are being deprived of their: right to respect for private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and freedom of expression.

All three of these relate to our lawful right to choose what happens with our bodies, inside our family and what we believe. 
Rightly or wrongly, we have that choice.
They also broke Section 26, Equality Act (2010):
Because the vaccines are in the experimental phase and have NOT yet been officially fully tested for use. These protected characteristics can lawfully come into play under these example circumstances:
1) During pregnancy (sex is a protected characteristic and women who are pregnant could lawfully decline).

If we take a look at the study design of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine (linked to Q4) it explicitly states that people should be using contraception and should somone become pregnant they are to be REMOVED from the study.
Emerging research in April 2021 showed some worrying results from those who had taken the vaccine whilst pregnant:
Retrieved on 05-09-2021 from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/
2) If you are on any type of medication you can lawfully choose to say no because they are yet to release (or possibly even investigate) any contra-indications:
3) If you are Catholic, Jewish or Muslim you could lawfully refuse due to the ingredients:

Even though the Moderna and Pfizer BioNTech vaccines did not use fetal cells/fetal cell lines were required to create the vaccines.
When it comes to pork (porcine trypsin) it's a little trickier...

Pfizer, AstraZennica and Moderna said that pork products are not part of their vaccines...
... but if it was used during the process and not contained in the final vaccine they would not have to list it as an ingredient... 

With pork being traditionally used in influenza vaccines as well as many others who's to say whether it has been used and just doesn't need to be listed?
In a nutshell, these few examples showcase how, anyone being coerced, blackmailed or bullied into taking an experimental vaccine in order to work are being harassed under the Equality Act (2010).
While, this has only scratched the surface of the laws, the last law we're going to cover is Schedule 8, International Criminal Court Act 2001:
You see, there has been some serious funny business going on with regards to a lot of the 'reported' deaths from COVID-19 way back in the 'first wave'...

Firstly, there were a lot of documented reports of those who were elderly, learning disabled or autistic being pressed into signing Do Not Resuscitate (DNRs)
Then there's the curious case of a HUGE spike of Midazolam Hydrochloride (the end of life drug)...
... and then there's the really devastating admission from a doctor, on VIDEO, that 99% of people who were put onto a ventilator died...

CLICK THE IMAGE TO WATCH NOW:
** If you can't get the video to play, follow the link directly below the video to watch it.**
Retrieved on 06-09-2021 from: https://muse.ai/vc/WUajJ3C
Which makes sense seeing as all of a sudden, the NHS stopped putting people on ventilators...

Weird how they NEVER disclosed why...
Oh and let's not forget all those who were denied treatment because the NHS closed it's doors...
You can be forgiven for thinking I've gone slightly off topic. 

However, in 2017 the NHS drew up plans for how to effectively manage a pandemic without overrunning the NHS...
This plan included things like...
PURPOSELY allowing people to die dependent on the 'potential life years lost': NOT number of lives, but specifically choosing to remove care to those who potentially only have a few more years left to live....
The problem we face is knowing whether the vast number of deaths in those over the age of 50 is because of an increased risk/susceptibility to the SARS-Cov-2 virus OR because the NHS denied treatment to those who had 'less years to lose'...
Why does this matter? 

Because what if, you do not have an increased risk of death because of a virus, but instead simply because you are over 50 or have a disability and are therefore not as worthy of resources?

What if, there is no need for a vaccine because those individuals who 'died with covid' would not have died had they been treated?

What if, the NHS has carried on as normal and utilised the giant, purpose built hospitals (e.g., nightingale) for those with Covid-19? Would we have seen a drastically reduced number of deaths?
**IMPORTANT** like previously mentioned, this True/False quiz has not been designed to cause distress or alarm. 

Merely to present many different pieces of the COVID-19 jigsaw puzzle and to showcase that there is still a lot of conflicting pieces of information and a heck of a lot of unanswered questions.
This is important because without understanding all sides of an argument you are not able to make an informed decision about your own health.
Which brings us nicely full circle to the idea of informed consent and unlawful medical mandates...

If you have been forced to undertake ANY test, examination or treatment which you did not want at the hands of the NHS, they have not only broken the LAW, they have also BREACHED THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION:
Here's how you can complain directly to the NHS:
Ultimately, it does not matter whether you are pro-vaccine, partially into vaccines or full blown anti-vaccine. 
The fact of the matter is that the government is breaking not just one but multiple laws in their attempts to forcefully vaccinate adults and children without their consent. 
This is only possible because the MHRA have categorically failed in their duties to manage and moderate the experimental phase of the vaccinations.

If you believe in the rule of law, in the right to live in a just and democratic society, where the rights of all are upheld by those who we nominate to represent us. 
It is imperative, you join our legal campaign against the MHRA to strip the 174 Emergency Use Authorisation from the pharmaceutical companies.

Before its too late...
Jump to: Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10

If you are vegan you can lawfully decline the vaccine for ethical and moral reasons - TRUE

It has been widely acknowledged hat vegans can lawfully decline the vaccine under the Human Rights Act (1998) as a 'belief' is a protected characteristic.

The Door Drop Leaflet

Use the buttons below to download the relevant leaflet. There are two versions. One is full colour and can be printed via a professional printer, should you choose. Or you can print the black and white version using your home printer. BOTH are as impactful.
With a special thanks to the amazing patriot who turned my words into something truly impactful.

If You Outside Of The UK And Want To Do The Same:

Simply use the button below to download the word document so that you can edit out the UK laws for your own. 

Feel free to set up your own one page 'evidence' using anything from here which is relevant/the same. 

Copy the format, copy the words, copy it all. Together we can change the course of this war.

Sharable Social Media Images

** Please Note: These Images Are Being Updated. Please Check Back. Feel Free To Take Inspiration From The Below And To Create Your Own **
Step 1: Click The Button Below To Access The ENTIRE Library For Your Specific Social Media Platform
Step 2: Copy The Image(s)
Step 3: Include The Website Address In Your Post: https://globalrecall.net/door-drop

Example Images:

** Please Note: The Image Selection Is The SAME Across All Platforms, They Have Just Been Ready Formatted For Each Platform **
True or False Question 8: The Vaccine Has Been Approved For Use - Version 3
True or False Question 4: The Vaccine Clinical Trials Are Set To Finish in 2023 - Version 2
True or False Question 1: Children Are High Risk and Need to be Protected From Covid-19 By The Vaccine - Version 1
True Or False Question 5 - The NHS Website Lists All Possible Side Effects - Version 4
​Who Is Katie Woodland?
I'm a Maverick Psychologist, Business Coach, TEDx Speaker, Best-Selling Author and Proud, Patriotic Digital Soldier.

At the start of the scamdemic it was increasingly obvious the narrative from the government and the media didn't match what was going on in the real world. 

After speaking to friends, colleagues and loved ones about my concerns one spirited being sent me the link to the Fall Of The Cabal... 

In less than 3 hours, my entire world view changed.

From that moment on, I have been fighting alongside those across the world to pull down the corrupt, seek justice for the victims and to bring about real freedom for all.

Thank you, for being here and standing by my side. Together, we the people will once again find peace, joy and freedom in our lives. 

To all those who are fighting on the front lines: 'Your strength humbles me, your love blesses me and your light shines brightly through the darkness #WWG1WGA'
To visit Katies Patriot site and watch any of her past shows and feature length special reports go to: https://www.katiewoodland.co.uk/feature-length-shows
Katie Woodland; Psychologist, Business Coach, Speaker & Best-Selling Author
Katie Woodland;
MSc. BA, SNHS, MBPsS 
featured in...
Copyright © 2021 - This website is being run and managed by Katie Woodland of  katiewoodland.co.uk | 88 Stafford Road, Wrockwardine Wood, TELFORD, Shropshire, TF2 6JU England | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions This website was created with Clickfunnels