In my capacity as legal counsel to the Human Health Alliance I would like to reply to a number of statements made by Dr Michael Briguglio in his article entitled Covid Scepticism that repeatedly referred to the Human Health Alliance (HHA) and its perceived aims and goals.
How unfortunate it is that a sociologist should deem it appropriate to second guess the HHA and attempt to make a sociological appraisal of it and its aims without even bothering to make contact with it beforehand to get some first-hand information. Add to this the second misfortune of trying to analyse a public protest without having attended it to get an idea of the thoughts of the persons actually protesting. Was this some form of desktop exercise without bothering to go into the field or checking primary sources?
Had Dr Briguglio entered the field he would have realised that the numbers were far more than the 250 reported, and well exceeded 750. He would have heard some persons state that they themselves had taken the vaccines, but were supporting the right to be fully informed of all the effects of the experimental vaccines, the right for others not to be discriminated against, and the right not to consent to children who have a near zero risk when contracting covid 19 to be vaccinated, especially in view of all the recent adverse reporting abroad, which is not covered by the local media.
Had Dr Briguglio chosen not to ignore the HHA, he would have been informed that the organisation relies on the findings and statements of many distinguished scientists who have challenged several Governments’ Covid doctrine. Some of these are world renowned and top in their fields. He would have been referred to the scientists’ challenge of the EU’s issue of conditional authorisations of the covid vaccines. He would also have been directed to the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by over 57,000 doctors and medical scientists, that has clearly stated that many draconian measures and lockdowns were totally unnecessary and ineffective, while actually causing much more harm to the “common good” that he so often mentions, than good. He would have then read that declaration and found out that these distinguished scientists have made a case for the world population to acquire natural immunity rather than immunity induced by what is still an experimental vaccine. He could have read that over 70% of the world population had already reached natural immunity before the vaccine rollout. He would then have put two and two together and understand what the protests are really all about.
Dr Briguglio would have been told to check for himself the vaccine adverse event reporting systems that exist in the USA, in the UK, in Germany and in Europe, to see that the massive spike in both the adverse event reporting and reported deaths following the covid vaccines in the first few months by far exceeds the adverse event reporting of the entire previous twenty years of reporting of all vaccines. True, any specific report is not proof of causation between the vaccine and the adverse event, and neither are the thousands of deaths reported this year in Europe and the USA following the taking of the covid vaccines. But the whole point of such reporting is to detect trends. The last time a vaccine had 53 persons reported to have died, the vaccine was stopped and pulled from circulation, although there was no solid proof that the 53 deaths were caused by the vaccine. This time we have thousands of deaths reported, and tens of thousands of serious effects, such as thrombosis, and yet all remains “business as usual”.
In attempting to see the world through the eyes of the common good, which he keeps alleging the HHA is working against, Dr Briguglio has made the fundamental mistake of making fundamental human rights subservient to the common good. I humbly suggest that Dr Briguglio attend a course in Human Rights Law before rushing to such conclusions. Sadly this argument has been used many times in the past to justify the acts of totalitarian regimes. Even Stalin and Mao Tse Tung claimed the common good when the former went on the rampage wiping out agriculture, slaughtering millions, and the latter committed mass purges of teachers, party officials and the like in his cleverly termed “cultural revolution”. I assume that Dr Briguglio once read George Orwell’s 1984, where the regime is seen justifying everything in the name of the common good.
Dr Briguglio made a minor reference to the international protests taking place, but then refrained from assessing what these were about, while he attempted to paint the local protest as some copy-cat protest by a bunch of selfish individuals. As a sociologist, I thought he may have wished to assess why so many millions of Europeans are rising up against the breach of human rights across the board. He may also have wished to assess the outcome of so many court cases that have been won in foreign jurisdictions by persons claiming breaches of human rights, and the lack of justification to order lockdowns and the wearing of masks. He may even have bothered to ask for or look for the number of scientific studies that have been used to win these cases, rather than limit himself to a one line statement that he has some form of blind faith in scientists, without quoting sources.
The HHA remains available to any reporter, journalist or sociologist who may take a genuine and objective interest in finding out what it stands for, and what it seeks to achieve; not for a few individuals, but for our society as a whole, during these very difficult hours, when it is so easy to panic, succumb to unjustified fear, and lose sight of the most valuable principles that our forefathers had fought for, such as transparency, separation of powers, human rights, civil liberties and the independence of our nation from foreign powers and influences.
Rodolfo Ragonesi LLD
Legal Counsel