Dr Steve James explains his legal challenge against Government over NHS vaccine mandate 

He's sticking up for his own health. Incidentally, if he wins he will be defending us all from being the perpetual pincushions for pharma profits.

@@elkpaz560 I wish it was as simple as pharma profits... I fear it's much more sinister than that.

@@WildB06 yes it is, but if we voice it we're called conspiracy theorists!!🤣

@@WildB06 I know but pharma profits is on the way and part of the control mechanism. Have you read Robert Kennedy Jr's book about how the US has been harvested for Pharma? 'The Reald Dr Faici"

@@elkpaz560 there's no doubt pharma will make a killing out of this... monetarily and literally

Ex B⚓, Now a Complete W⚓. Sajid 4Jabs Javid.

Well said 👏👏👏 I think the government forget they work for us..

Well stated

W⚓ Not Ex Banker.

Dr. Sam white Also stood up to this tyranny before the vaccines about doctors not seeing their patients he wasn't happy with it and knew what was happening. He's Also a hero we have quite a few but the mainstream media just either ignores them or mocks them 😠

@@mazg4707 Dr.Vernon Coleman is another good egg!

@@sunrise1485 He's been right about the rona since day one but he was already cancelled prior to 2020 so no one will ever take him seriously.

@@bmmaaate He is a great Doctor - What a terrible time he has had,we all have really.

Conservative MP @HuwMerriman for Bexhill and Battle stepping in trucker poo is quite the metaphor for #Brexit.

Yes, he has tremendous dignity! He’s such a heroic figure for young people today.

I had forgotten these type of people exist! So refreshing to see. Our msm usually feature self serving, narcissistic mps, talking head know it alls and celebs. Thank you gentlemen.

Dr Steve James is a wildly over-entitled psycopath

@@jeremysmith8035 sounds more like a description of Boris Johnson !

@@jeremysmith8035 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 and you mr Smith are a 🤡 (in my humble opinion anyway)

@@jeremysmith8035 give your rational explaination as to why you came to that conclusion?

@@adamt3800 if your politics is deranged as a fucking doctor, that any attempt to prevent the death of millions of people from a highly contagious respiratory disease somehow effects your FReEDom then you are clearly psychopathic

I am one of them! Power to the people!!

Me too !! Sending you love and positive energy and to all who are with you xx

Dr James is a hero

I would vote for Steve! I support this law suit and the freedom to choose. Best wishes from this Canadian.

The world has just witnessed mass participation, knowingly or unknowingly of the greatest human cannibalism ritual in Human history, clothed as "science" and driven by politicians: This knowledge of the ethical has carefully been hidden from the partakers of the ritual and the public by the instigators. One human baby foetus was killed, murdered and aborted in 1972 in Holland. The other was killed, murdered and aborted in 1985 in Holland. Their bodies continue to grow in a lab for future harvest and cannibalistic consumption in the name of "science". Those who have refused to partake of this ritual are hounded, jeered and blamed as the problem. Use of human parts in any medicinal concoction is in the realm of witchcraft not "science". Humanity must not allow itself to go down this path. It is a path of no return.

NO Chris, they must win!!!

It's not just our government it's a world thing a collection of power hungry oligarchs starting with WEF

STEVE JAMES should head SAGE

Fully agree! Dr Steve James demonstrates the kind of quiet calm and personal fortitude that comes with having taken the time to do his own research and having made a decision, can stand peacefully with it regardless of what anyone says. If we could all be so calm and rational in the world right now, we could move the human race forward beautifully. Make good decisions for your body and your mind. You have one Life. Thank you from Canada where our truckers are leading this same movement.

@LettyK 🦁🇬🇧🇯🇲🇺🇲✍🏾🤲🏾🧐The Weirdo Scientists aka the SAGE Wizards🧐 Blustering Over paid hot Air Baffoons They Blinded Many with Untruths 🧐 HOCUS POCUS JOKUS SPIN DR'S 🧐🤨🤔 A Crime Against Good ol' Common Sense with a Knowledge of Human Biology in-depth research and petite time, 🧐🤨🤔One Can Decide WHO Is Not Forrest Hump..🧐✍🏾🎭 That Crafty Fat 🐫 Trying to "Pass Through The Eye Of A Needle"🧐🤨Which Is Impossible 😂🤣🤣🤡💯✅👍🏾 Even A Dead Donkey Would Rise like "Lazarus"And "Speak"🤣😂🤣😂 Let's Go Bojo 😂🤣🎭✍🏾🙏🏾🙌🏾✌🏾⚖️🤨GOD SPEED ✅✌🏾P.S...🧐 I'm Non Denominational 🤨🧐✌🏾Just A Stern BELIVER IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH 🙏🏾🤲🏾🙏🏾 HOLY Scriptures predictions Have Been Prepared ⚖️🎬 MARANATHA WARP SPEED Captain Immanuel 🧐🤨✅🙌🏾🎭🎬🎉🎉🎉❤️🧡💛💚💙💜💓✌🏿

well said!!!!

All around the world there are such cases, just starting,See Rainer Fullmich, Corona investigation Committee.

@@markhedger6378 So how does all NHS staff join with taking the UK government to court 🤔? I noticed the caption but my union didn't tell me that there was going to be a court case and would I like to be involved.

The Bernician's case has demonstrated how difficult it is to get into a court

@@olderwiser1017 also on a personal note you should look into personal litigation against your employer for constructive dismissal , join with colleagues, to share the research,

@@olderwiser1017 I did post you another detailed reply but it has been censored , Look more closely at the Dr who spoke to Savid Javier, as he and 8 other Dr's are mounting legal challenge before April, good luck

YES WELL SAID-..

Thank God, we have people like this, gives me hope.

Courts work for government

The courts will do everything they can to avoid hearing this case.

@@frankfisher99 Wrong. The courts will be all over this to set precedent for the Establishment (their paymasters and political appointees) to do what they like!

And women

And millions of us are 100% behind the NHS staff💕

Here here! Feels like we have an actual voice standing up for us.

@@konrad2008 PJH Solicitors in Stamford that recently won a case about free speech on behalf of a GP are now taking on No Win No Fee employment cases re covid jab mandate. I totally support sensible vaxes but not one that has been rushed, is still experimental and is for an illness that the vast majority can recovery from naturally.

Soon they will be dismissing you for smoking.

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

My uncle ended up rushed into ICU after having the second jab, my Mum had a blood clot which caused a heart attack which led to a massive stroke just over a month after having the booster jab. She is in a lot of pain can't talk and has no use of her left side.

So sorry - poor lady. It makes me very angry that this was how they sold the lockdowns "protect the NHS". What a crock. I do hope your Mum can go home soon and I wish her a speedy recovery.

Do you live in a busy city? I got seen by A&E within 2 hours, had an operation 2 weeks later and have had a number of appointments since. There are nurses standing around in packs of six twiddling their thumbs and sipping tea at the ward desks. When your Mum is better consider moving to a sleepy town by the seaside.

Amen to tha5, I certainly am, I’m in the same position

Totally agree. Hopefully they can be reinstated sans jabbing in the future.

I suspect many will have found better paid jobs and are respected for their work .Sadly social care is suffering because of this and the NHS will never be fixed until social care is funded ,staffed and appreciated .

They are not even law. Mandates are legislation and require your consent. The sacking of anyone that is not willing to take the experimental 💉, is unlawful, which is law.

If proper the truth would come out.

They should win against the government but that's not the issue. The issue if the manipulation of children (who are terrified of covid) and adults who actually believe if you don't wear a mask you will kill someone lol.

I think he has 😊😊

Well said

@@iaincrawford5472 they need their heads tested , as they know many cancer and other very ill people will die without good staff it's criminal

@@iaincrawford5472 I know, the U.S. just cancelled the heart transplant of a young dad , because he's unvaccinated! It's getting sick

Spot on my friend. Do you know what the biggest daft thing about this is, the same doctors and nurses now being sacked we're treating patients for 9 months before the 1st 'vaccines' we're administered in the UK In 2020, no one cared that they were not vaxxed then, so why now?

@@iaincrawford5472 Steve James is on RU-vid with an attorney, he's hoping to take it to court for a judicial review.

What a shame that she couldn’t stand up to the obvious reality that being vaccinated doesn’t protect other people. Victim of dark 24 hour propaganda

Yes I have a friend from Newcastle (nsw) who think the unjabbed should be imprisoned. Shocking. He has lost his soul.

@@johannabarry6325 Does he have a reason for this other than what the government tells him?

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

Thanks Suki. The ignorance is actually shocking isn’t it? They THINK they understand the science behind this, that’s the saddest part.

The worst bit about this is actually that they won't sack most people - they instead put them on indefinite unpaid leave, effectively forcing them to quit through lack of income. If you 'quit of your own accord' you can't do them for unfair dismissal. You also can't go and get benefits right away either - the DWP will say you voluntarily/deliberately made yourself unemployed. It's even more scummy than simply sacking someone!

Great guy, Dr Steve 👍🏻👏🏻

The court won't be looking at that.

Good point, looks like they only wanted to be involved in a ‘certain kind’ of human rights. These lot are normally the ones shouting ( and I agree) my body my choice. Seems they’re not interested when it comes to an experimental injection, not worried about telling someone you must do this or you will loose your job etc.

don't think so, bit of a baby

Very good question. I like your thinking!

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

We won't actually lose our careers because a good doctor or nurse or other health professional will find work anywhere where this mandate does not apply like Scotland and Wales. England will miss us for sure when their headache starts. NHS England is pushing their luck too far and coercing and allegedly bullying staff into taking this vaccine. Giving us statistics like we are stupid. Just because one in ten did not experience any adverse side effect . Does not make these vaccines safe.

We won't actually lose our careers because a good doctor or nurse or other health professional will find work anywhere where this mandate does not apply like Scotland and Wales. England will miss us for sure when their headache starts. NHS England is pushing their luck too far and coercing and allegedly bullying staff into taking this vaccine. Giving us statistics like we are stupid. Just because one in ten did not experience any adverse side effect . Does not make these vaccines safe.

We won't actually lose our careers because a good doctor or nurse or other health professional will find work anywhere where this mandate does not apply like Scotland and Wales. England will miss us for sure when their headache starts. NHS England is pushing their luck too far and coercing and allegedly bullying staff into taking this vaccine. Giving us statistics like we are stupid. Just because one in ten did not experience any adverse side effect . Does not make these vaccines safe.

To obtain the SAME result...........retain employment? For the SCUM that say yes, you have the choice......BUT........YOUR choice comes with 'consequences'??? Pure evil...............

Should be sacred. Our creator if you believe in one gave us this, who are other humans to deny us this choice!?

Did you ever ask yourself if maybe you was wrong. The EU was heading for a United Federation of Europe in which over the course of a decade Nation statehood would be eroded away. The Euro is also on the Brink of Collapse so we might have adverted more damage from not being in it.

One hundred percent with you on this. He s the only one making sense. Pfizer probably didn't buy him a drink

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

In Politics you may agree some of the time with a Politicians , but you can also disagree too. Hence why I will never recommend any of them as we always fall into different view sets on different topics. Right now though I find it very hard to agree with any major policy area of the Government. They must be doing something I agree with though somewhere. Brexit for instance , I disagree with the approach as it is a mealy half measure in all reality , the W.A. should have never been in the form it finally took for instance (just my view).

Being anti-authoritarian is a uniting cause regardless of normal left-right disagreements. I'm not a conservative, but they are talking the most sense over this issue. Most left-wingers I know are walking off a cliff like lemmings.

The NHS & PHE recommended mandatory jabs for nurses. Both are leftist run institutes.

Shame on those nurses who all just grinned awkwardly.

I hope they do step down

And me I would 🙋🏼‍♀️

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

Hahaha very very true

Farage you need to be on main stream media. Not many can debate and argue a point as well as you......

@@bobstone826 Thank you for the eye opener.

And lockdowns never again

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

My daughters is in a similar position to yours. Had to tell you I have a new friend who was a Jehovah’s Witness and he’s essentially been asked to leave the church because he’s challenged the fact that they’ve been strongly recommending the jabs to the congregation! From my understanding they don’t have blood or meds but now they’re been told encouraged to have an experimental injection- seems like clause swab was right when he said they (WEF) had most of the media, governments, religious leaders, financial institutions

@@melmorrison1400 …That doesn’t seem right does it?…The world is not a nice place these days…My daughter had her “Back to work” chat and asked for a letter saying she wouldn’t have a job if she didn’t have the jab…she was told no…that she had to resign in writing stating that it was her decision…She said no…and it was left there…The reason being that in the future it will be deemed illegal what they are doing…Tell your brave girl…she is not alone…🥰

@@be_a_bright_sparkle3687 yes, you’re so right. I was staying with her a week or so ago and she had her first meeting (zoom,) with the infectious disease nurse. It was pathetic. She essentially parroted what you hear on the bbc. No science, no data. Then she had another questions and answers meeting. Again they were hopeless. Saying things like the only way out of this pandemic is through V, there obviously is no logic to that at all, when the V does not stop transmission 🤔 thanks, she won’t be resigning. Hopefully they will get justice. 🙏🏻 by the way... we went on the protest mark for the nhs in London last Saturday, it was AMAZING! Hundreds of thousands of people. We all gathered outside bb c building. Odd they didn’t mention it 🤥😁

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

well said-How Can they start lifting restrictions and easing the rules but sack our AMAZING NHS staff???Total abomination

So many people don't think thier slaves.

The legal challenge to vaccine mandates should focus on vaccine efficacy the figure of 95% efficacy is a fraud, there are two scale for measuring efficacy one is ( absolute risk reduction ) and ( relative risk reduction ) they are using ( relative risk reduction ) that gives the 95% efficacy i.e. effectiveness, this is a fraudulent measure for drug companies to sell their product it is not meant as an accurate scale of measurement. the actual measurement scale that is meant to be used is (absolute risk reduction ) this shows an efficacy at its highest range for all the vaccines as 1. 4% that's one point four percent. the lowest is 0. 4 % . they differ from ( Relative risk reduction ) because ( absolute risk reduction ) takes into account the people across the whole population, those who get covid the young the healthy and the demographics for the people who will have a bad adverse reaction to covid , the massive majority of the population will have 0 to miner symptoms, Also it takes into account the adverse side effects known Ones, and unknown possible adverse effects to the vaccines etc. The people, the politicians. the so-called experts, have no idea how efficacy is measured. Those that do know i.e political figures and pharmaceutical companies have deliberately hidden the truth. Do not take my word on it research it yourself, Go to publications of efficacy in the years way before covid-19 the further you go back in time the more honest answer you will get on efficacy calculations of ( Absolute risk reduction ) and ( Relative risk reduction )

@@bobstone826 you may be correct, but if we are forced into vaccinations for Covid, where does it end, will it be influenza mandates next and so on. This doctor appears to understand the efficacy and the fact that, because he tested positive, he has natural immunity, which should be more effective, than the vaccine. Once we go down the slippery slope of being forced, with a product,into our bodies, it begs the question, where will it end, stay well.

The NHS & PHE recommended mandatory jabs for nurses. Both are leftist run institutes.

I agree well said -Be a slave or be free,!!!!but Freedom isn’t free there is a price to pay

Not forgetting health care workers across the world, especially those who have lost their jobs

And this courage today is rare

👍👍👍

Not much point at all getting vaccinated if you yourself are young and healthy. I think as with the flu, the elderly may need some help (it should still be a choice though), but not the young. The effects of the vaccines wear off very quickly and repeated boosters aren't supposed to be good for your immune system.

@@AlexandraK1 The effectiveness of the booster wears off by 2 thirds after 8 or 10 weeks. So there isn't really much point in the booster anyway. It's essentially a weeker jab for a weekend flu

There isn't a point. Only people that haven't listened to the FACTS but fallen for the propaganda. The jab (which is NOT a vaccine) does NOT stop people getting or spreading covid. And over the last few weeks various people analyzing the data, are finding that the figures do not support the claim that the jab suppresses symptoms. So.... WHY is the govt SO keen to inject us with something that doesn't help with covid, but DOES carry the risk of life threatening blood clots.?

There's also concerns about the affect on the immune system. A US oncologist talked about his patients who's cancers were under control, now out of control after being jabbed. EU Medical Agency have warned that repeated boosters could adversely affect the immune system.

@@leathleyg5995 not just blood clots, autoimmune disfunction, ADE, kidney, lung, ovaries and very worrying lymphatic disfunction , good luck with the court challenge.