Over the last few months through pcrclaims, a core group of lawyers, scientists and other experts have been campaigning hard for an end to PCR data inaccuracies. #PCR #PCRGATE #PCRTest

As a team, we have received nearly 1,000 stories of hardship, disappointment and tragedy. And been moved by the many people out there who are really under pressure as a result of Government policies enacted through PCR data.
So what are we doing?

Through our pro bono network or law firms and individual lawyers, we have been collating witness statements relating to personal harms, harms to children and harms to businesses for ongoing judicial reviews.
We have collectively put thousands of hours into researching, making FOI requests, talking and writing to potential claimants, writing legal letters, researching claim options and interviewing claimants and expert witnesses.
Our team behind the scenes receives and reviews filings and judgments from courts around the world - all offer us all some hope for future cases here in England. So why the delay?
We know that we need an end to this now. We would love the legal option to be a fast one. But this is a marathon, not a sprint. It is unlikely to yield results this year. We have explored many options. But any case suited to the English courts must be timed and crafted correctly
There are also some key hurdles to overcome:

By outsourcing testing to private labs the government has created an almost impenetrable wall around the data needed in relation to PCR. We still don’t know the origin of the sequence they are using.
We cannot rely on the Fuellmich case. The Drosten protocol is not used in the UK. That is not to say that a good decision will not impact England in terms of greater disclosure, but it is not a “slam dunk”.
Injunctions against institutions are ideal, but we’re finding that when the council, NHS trust or schools are challenged, they tend to back down and that individual is spared a test. Case closed.
And then we could get distracted by trolls with unhelpful accusations of “not being real” or “not moving quickly enough”. That is truly exhausting. The abuse is enough to mean that most of our team now remains incognito, but even more resolute to get a result.
So know this:
We do not give up. You are not alone. Our collective effort is not wasted. As a team, we continue to campaign because we know more lives can be saved through a change in PCR testing policy. And we will keep letting that be known! #PCR

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like