Is it possible that the NHS could prioritise care for people who’ve been “vaccinated” over those who chose not to have the jab?
During this weeks Parliament discussion on the bill to push back the June 21st ‘re-opening’ of England, MP Liam Fox asked Health Secretary Matt Hancock: of those being hospitalised, how many are in the younger age group who were not yet eligible for the vaccine, and how many were above that age? In other words, who were able to get the vaccine but chose not to?
Hancock’s reply was very interesting.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
Off Guardian reports: The first part is just a ramble on official statistics which are likely completely meaningless (although, his totally ignored admission that one fifth of current “Covid” hospitalisations were fully vaccinated before they entered hospital is potentially intriguing).
The second part is far more revealing – that’s where you spot the sharp end of a potentially very nasty agenda:
I think that there is a material difference between the state’s responsibility to offer the vaccine to all adults…and the duty that we have, when somebody has not been offered the vaccine, is greater than the duty we have when we have offered a vaccine but somebody has chosen not to take it up. And there is a material difference between those two situations.
After an interjection from Andrea Leadsom, Hancock added:
…there is a challenge, should there be an overwhelming demand on the NHS that would impact on others. And of course with a communicable disease, there is an impact on others in terms of spreading the disease so we do have to have an eye to that.
You can watch the full exchange here.
Picking through the intentionally murky language of the bureaucrat, it’s not hard to see exactly what is being suggested here.
They’re talking about the idea the NHS could prioritise care for people who’ve been “vaccinated” over those who refuse the “vaccine”.
The unvaxxed, in this situation, would be blamed for “putting the NHS under strain” or putting “healthcare heroes at risk”. They would be called irresponsible, and receive either delayed care, limited care, no care at all, or be expected to pay some kind of extra fee.
Picking through the intentionally murky language of the bureaucrat, it’s not hard to see exactly what is being suggested here.
.
Niamh Harris
Just research the history if all if the historic characters killed murdered by medical means Its old as Medical murders one if their favourite things One way or another , they’re gonna get ya .
Then unvaxxed people should not have to contribute to the public healthcare system. Unvaxxed people should use their contribution to pay for their own private healthcare instead.
Whether Drs or Hospitals are paid by a privatised tax collection opportunity or from the government fulfilling its obligation from the right to collect taxes ,if providing essential services is irrelevant The Drs and hospitals get paid either way .But it is the governments duty ,obligation that they exchanged in return for claiming tbe right to tax people in exchange for providing services and goods That was the deal they made
For the real story from the inventor if mRNA vaccine and a couple of other experts check out Robert Malone ,Steve Kitsch Brett Weinstein discussing how the spike protein is very dangerous. And remember” they” hate the truth.