Dark Clarke's lethal, litigious legacy

As regular readers know, I often opine at this site about the politician-turned-persecuted-pearl-clutching-people's hero, Andrew Bridgen (don't worry, this article isn't about him... although I would still really like to know what is happening with the turnips). The inevitable conclusion I have always come to about Bridgen is: not evil, just stupid.

Stupid, vain, and greedy. Not attractive personality traits, certainly, but ultimately rather common, and, as such, probably don't make him the world's worst person.

He's just a typically money-motivated Tory politician, who saw pound signs when his latest benefactor, Jeremy Hosking, approached him, and so, upon Hosking's request, agreed to play the part of the "crusading anti-vax hero", without really believing in any of it, any more than he really believed in the vaccine when he posed for his masked-up selfie in (but of course) Mason's pharmacy. He just does what his paymasters tell him to, but he himself is not some deviously evil mastermind.

That makes him ultimately rather harmless - at least, that is, now he's out of parliament and so has no further power or sway over enforcing tyranny on the populace. Now, he is little more than an annoying nuisance, who will probably come up with some other ludicrous "lawsuit" crowdfunder to keep the gravy train going, or perhaps start selling embossed hats (MARA - Make Andrew Rich Again!).

But he's not powerful, not influential, and not a threat.

Some people, however, very much are, and today I would like to talk about one such person, who is frighteningly powerful, immensely influential, and - I really do believe at this point - actually evil.

That person would be "Doctor" Rachel Clarke.

I have written about Clarke on a couple of previous occasions, but to bring newer readers up to speed, Clarke is a high-profile media personality and alleged doctor, who was highly instrumental in enforcing Covid tyrannies, up to and including writing a fictional novel on the subject, which was passed off as a "memoir" and turned into a blockbuster ITV series.

The message of both the book and the series was that the Covid-era restrictions were nowhere near harsh enough, leading to overwhelmed hospitals and expiring medics and so, for the next "inevitable" pandemic, we should expect far more brutal clampdowns.

As this is such a ludicrously inauthentic portrait of a non-pandemic in which the hospitals lay empty, it led me to cast significant doubts upon the veracity of Rachel Clarke's medical qualifications - firstly, because busy frontline doctors simply do not have the time to produce this kind of intensive state propaganda, and secondly, because her trajectory to becoming a doctor is so improbably strange (and bizarrely similar to that of other fake medic, the supposedly dead TV doctor, Michael Mosley).

I say Mosley was a fake medic, and not "allegedly" fake, since it is a matter of uncontested fact that he never practiced a day in his life as a doctor, nor as any other kind of healthcare professional. On the contrary: as soon as he finished his studies, he instantly joined the establishment media and stayed there until he "died" (you can read my thoughts on his terribly convenient "death" here).

Mosley, like Clarke, was a vigorous enthusiast for all things fake plague, and even wrote a book aggressively encouraging people to take the vaccine.

So, my thesis on these two graduates of Oxford's PPE programme - notorious prime recruitment ground for the intelligence agencies, and not typical training territory for aspiring medics - is that they were headhunted by MI6 whilst at Oxford, subsequently sheep-dipped in the medical schools (whilst they were actually in training as intelligence assets), and then presented to us as vastly knowledgeable and noble "TV doctors", with a crucial role to play in the media by sculpting the dominant narrative around public health.

Note that before Rachel Clarke "retrained as a doctor", she spent nearly a decade in high-profile broadcast journalism for Channel 4.

As I pointed out in previous articles, real jobbing doctors wouldn't have the time - or the slick media personalities - to make regular appearances on glossy breakfast TV shows, urging the public to get vaccinated or scoff Scotch Eggs or whatever, and they most certainly wouldn't have the time to write a series of bestselling books, as both Mosley and Clarke have done.

As such, I have come to the conclusion that when people are described as "TV doctors", it's meant quite literally, as in, "not a real doctor, just plays one on television".

Now, I'm sure that if universities were allowed to give such information out to the general public (they're not), they would verify that both Mosley and Clarke had indeed attended their institutions, because universities have long-standing histories of providing cover for intelligence assets in training, as they appear to have done for Rishi Sunak, who claims to have studied an MBA at Stanford, yet none of his professors can remember him.

So we'll likely never be able to "prove" whether or not these characters really did matriculate from these institutions, but what we can unequivocally prove is that their subsequent behaviour, especially Clarke's, is completely anathema to that of legitimate healthcare professionals.

To go back a few years to when most of us first heard of Clarke, this was because she managed to bully the brilliant Telegraph cartoonist and freedom activist, Bob Moran, out of a job, for writing a Tweet of which she did not approve.

To give some background, Clarke was at the time one of the most aggressive, obnoxious, and publicly visible pro-Covid voices, writing grotesquely graphic pieces for the fashionable newspapers including such passages as:

"Please imagine it, for a moment, if you can bear to. Being wheeled from your home by paramedics in masks who rush you, blue-lit, to a hospital. Then the clamour and lights, the confusion and fear, the faceless professionals, gloved and gowned, who eddy and swirl past your trolley. Your destination is intensive care where too soon, or perhaps not soon enough, you will arrive at a point of reckoning. You will blanch when they tell you, because you’ve watched the news and know what it signifies: you are going to be put on a ventilator. You will understand, as clearly as they do, that your doctors cannot promise to save you."

So there Clarke describes - with an uncomfortable level of detail and articulation that almost borders on glee - how she and her iatrogenic accomplices ended the lives of innumerable people by placing them on ventilators.

As Clarke is abundantly aware, the reason these people died is that the ventilation process is so aggressive that, even if you took completely healthy young people and put them through it, a significant number would not survive the assault. For older people with existing co-morbidities, then (the vast majority of "Covid" deaths) ventilation is - as it was frequently described by whistleblowing medics at the time - a death trap.

People with nothing more than a bad cold or flu - or at the very worst, pneumonia - were utterly inappropriately intubated and heavily drugged, including with lethal sedatives like midazolam, until they died.

In other words, they were killed. The medics applying these lethal "treatments" knew very well what the likely outcome of ventilating and heavily drugging such vulnerable patients would be. These highly trained professionals were acutely aware there were other, more appropriate, and far safer protocols for patients suffering respiratory distress.

However, under huge pressure from their "superiors" to meet certain death targets in order to create the illusion of a pandemic, they knowingly euthanised people - many of whom would not have died had they received the correct treatment, or had simply been spared the ventilator.

The abject terror this situation induced in the populace (as Rachel Clarke so explicitly details in her "memoirs") was then used to tyrannise the public into compliance with a number of increasingly authoritarian and despotic demands, such as covering their faces like slaves.

It was in this context, and as Clarke was conducting a high-profile campaign furthering the illusory plague's credentials by encouraging people to wear useless, dangerous face rags whilst out in public that Bob Moran wrote the Tweet that apparently so deeply dismayed and distressed the delicate "doctor".

Bob said:

"She deserves to be verbally abused in public for the rest of her worthless existence. They all do.”

Not a friendly Tweet, sure (and why on earth would it be?) - but come on: anybody who has been acquainted with the internet for more than about three-and-a-half minutes has had a lot worse than that directed at them, most certainly including Rachel Clarke (who cheerfully admits to being regularly compared to Satan).

Nevertheless, Clarke feigned pearl-clutching outrage, complained to his employers, and thus managed to get Bob - father of two small children, including a disabled daughter - fired.

You'd think this was quite enough vengeful wrath on Clarke's part, to destroy the livelihood of a family's sole provider on the basis of a Tweet, but of course, it wasn't. Having already severed him from his income, Clarke next threatened to extract any remaining money Bob Moran might have left by "suing him for defamation".

Let's just be clear here that Rachel Clarke was well aware of Bob Moran's personal circumstances at the time, stating in the world's least convincing epithet, " I am deeply sympathetic to the tragic personal circumstances Bob Moran describes" - but nevertheless, attempted to pursue aggressive legal action against him anyway, knowing that extracting money from Bob wouldn't simply disadvantage him, but would dramatically undermine the quality of life for, and resources available to, his disabled young daughter.

For those not aware, Bob's daughter, Poppy, has cerebral palsy and several related disabilities, due to NHS negligence surrounding her birth that almost killed her. Bob writes:

"Poppy has epileptic seizures at night which usually last so long that we have to call an ambulance. She requires physiotherapy, occupational therapy, hydrotherapy, speech therapy, hip surgery, botox injections, glasses, foot splints, various medications, equipment to help her around the home and extra help at school."

To repeat, none of this was inborn and all resulted from medical errors made around her birth (despite Bob and his wife pleading for help and support earlier than they eventually received it).

Then compounding all this, of course, was the fact that all the services that Poppy so relied on to make her life more comfortable, were severely restricted, or abolished altogether, during "Covid" - restrictions and abolitions that were, obviously, wholly inappropriate and unnecessary, and that were sponsored and forced into being by ruthless lying propagandists like Clarke.

So, Poppy's father wrote a mildly intemperate Tweet about the situation, and promptly lost his livelihood - and then Clarke wanted to come after whatever he had left too, knowing exactly the effect this would have on his family.

And the final audacious insult? This ultra-privileged and wealthy woman didn't even want to pay for this lawsuit herself. She wanted you to bankroll it.

(I strongly suspect the only reason this case ultimately never went ahead is that she was not able to raise enough in donations from even her own gullible sycophantic fanbase to pay for it.)

So, please ask yourself, what kind of person does this? What kind of person so vengefully targets a young family, deliberately trying to take resources away from a disabled child in order to further enrich their own already overly-bloated coffers?

Probably the kind who also writes long eulogies about the "joys" of cutting beating hearts out of living children (a practice which she openly describes as "witchcraft").

For Rachel Clarke has another book out (yes, another one, despite claiming to be so exhausted working as a doctor she doesn't even have time to exchange a sentence with her husband when she gets home).

This one is about what is euphemistically known as organ "donation", but in reality, is organ harvesting: cutting organs out of living people.

If you were not aware (though most people reading this will be and will have opted out accordingly), almost all organ "donors" are alive, because organs from a dead body are useless. Organs must be living and functional at the time of transplant, because once the donor is dead - actually dead, not just "brain dead" - the organs begin to shut down immediately and, in a matter of minutes, become unusable.

So, a person has to be alive and, in almost all circumstances, on a ventilator at the time of extraction, in order for the organs to be viable. That is why people who are killed instantly in car crashes and other accidents are never organ donation candidates, only people already in hospital are.

However, as the medical cartel realised that people were quite likely to strenuously object to the prospect of their living loved ones being carved up for body parts, the nonsense science-fiction of "brain death" was invented, to justify taking organs from living people.

I know this reality can be extremely distressing to confront, especially for those who may have had experience of organ donation in their own families, but the fact we must all face is that organ donors are alive, and we have no way of knowing how conscious or aware they are at the time of organ extraction, nor what level of pain they may be experiencing.

We do know that they are typically injected with a paralyser, and that fact alone paints a very grisly portrait of what is really going on.

Poignantly, in concert with Clarke's recent book release (replete with all the predictably nauseating ingratiating celebration from the usual quarters), came the reports from America that an intended organ "donor" started moving around on the operating table, just as his organs were about to be taken.

The surgeons wanted to continue with the operation anyway.

They said these were "common reflexes".

It was only when he began "thrashing around and crying" - and several more junior members of staff walked out of the theatre in horror - that the procedure was halted.

We simply have no reliable way of knowing how often this is happening in hospitals all over the world (but it tells us much that the American surgeons confirmed the situation is "common").

What we certainly do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt - especially after the "Covid" episode - is that the NHS is a ruthless murdering machine, and we cannot trust many, or even most, of its doctors, including and especially palliative care doctors, and in particular, those palliative care doctors who can "truly see the case for assisted dying" and who have just written books about the joys of organ harvesting.

Criteria which, wouldn't you just know it, describe Rachel Clarke perfectly.

Clarke is ensuring to weaponise human compassion and empathy to full effect in her latest book, because she tells the heartrending story of a young child - nine-year-old Max Johnson - who is only alive today because he received a donated heart from another young child.

And what kind of monster would you be to begrudge little Max - blond, cherubic, adorable little Max - a second chance at life?

Am I that kind of monster?

No, I am not, I am very much in favour of young Max, and all young children, living long and healthy lives, which begs the question of, why was Max so poorly in the first place?

Why was he in the position where his own heart needed to be cut out of his chest and replaced with another? (That of nine-year-old Keira Ball, who had been rushed to hospital after a car crash.)

Max was a healthy and active young boy, when, very suddenly, he was struck down with "a virus" which - we are told - despite being so mild he himself barely noticed it, inflamed his heart so badly that he nearly died from dilated cardiomyopathy, his only chance of survival being a heart transplant.

Well, we all know that viruses don't even cause the mild cold symptoms that are accredited to them (multiple experiments have tried to "infect" people with viruses and see them experience cold symptoms as a result, and all these experiments have failed).

Viruses therefore certainly don't give healthy nine-year-old boys severe heart disease.

We all know what does, though.

It is my opinion that it is quite plain and obvious that Max Johnson was injured by a vaccine (probably the flu vaccine, routinely administered to his age-group in the autumn, which is when he got ill). That is what caused his heart to fail, and that is what resulted in him subsequently being used by the Masonic medical cartel as the poster boy for organ harvesting.

There are the predictable grim Masonic theatrical signatures all over this, because what does Rachel Clarke's book tell us Max's initial chances of survival were?

33%

Chances of needing a heart transplant?

33%

Chances of death?

You guessed it.

Listen, these people know what they're doing when they lace 33s into everything. It's not a coincidence (they could have just said he had a 1 in 3 chance of survival).

So, in answering the perennial question, "why this, why now?", we have to look at the wider context into which Rachel Clarke has just released a maximally emotive book about organ harvesting (and it is as powerful an emotional punch as you could pack on the subject: after all, nobody would be especially sympathetic to 57-year-old Derek, the fat alcoholic who needs a transplant to survive, but innocent, angelic LITTLE MAX - who literally even looks like a cherub? You monsters, you brutes, how can you even begin to question the deep philanthropic good of organ donation when it concerns little Max?!).

That context is that, in 2020, the law on organ donation was quietly, hideously, changed in the UK, meaning the scheme is no longer 'opt in', as in, you have to positively and actively affirm that you wish to be an organ donor before you die, but 'opt out', i.e., if you don't expressly and formally declare to the NHS prior to your death that you DON'T want your organs harvested, then harvested they will be.

(This law is colloquially known as "Max and Keira's law", after the two children Rachel Clarke has written a book about, and who allegedly inspired it, despite the fact the average heart transplant patient is a 55-year-old man, and very rarely a nine-year-old child.)

Just four years after this change, and with grim predictability, the UK government is now on the verge of legalising "assisted dying", e.g., formalising into law what the NHS already routinely does anyway - murdering "problem" patients.

Can we see a bit of an issue where the NHS is legally allowed to kill patients, and then take their organs without their permission?

Obviously, we can - because as and when this law is passed, the NHS will have literally been handed a licence to kill as many people as possible, in order that they can then take these people's organs without their consent for the enormously lucrative live organ trade.

It is already common in other parts of the world for the poor and disadvantaged to be forced to "donate" their organs to the rich and more privileged, and this phenomenon has now reached the UK.

Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who leads the modern slavery team for London's Metropolitan Police, comments:

“It’s difficult to say how serious it is in the country right now. We often find as soon as something gets highlighted in the public sphere … others victims come forward. This is now not the only investigation we’ve got into organ harvesting.”

As the media confirms, "transplantation has become a victim of its own success, with demand for organs far outpacing supply".

So steps are now being taken to increase that supply.

In order to stop you seeing the situation like this, however - as a ruthless, rapacious grab by the predator class to strip organs from living people, using them as nothing but a spare parts resource (an already-underway practice that was revealed to us in predictive programming vehicles Never Let Me Go and The Island) - a massive propaganda offensive is currently in progress to convince you that the changes in the law are merely about saving the little Maxes of the world, and not about stripping organs from disadvantaged members of society whilst they are still alive and then selling them on to the highest bidder.

We know that the overlords have little use for most of us now, due to advances in AI making much of human labour obsolete, and so they are trying to kill a lot of us off - but there is one fundamental last use we still have to them: our organs. So they are in the process of restructuring the law to enable them to more openly "assist" us to die - i.e., to ensure we perish in hospitals where we can be on ventilators at the time, so they can carve our organs out of us whilst we are still living.

That's the future of organ "donation", no matter how much arch-propagandists may try to obscure this fact with emotive vignettes about photogenic children.

Of course, I'm enormously sympathetic to people in desperate situations for whom organ donation is the only chance of survival, and this is not about "judging" or condemning any individual who is in receipt of a donor organ, especially any child recipient.

Rather, it's about starkly laying out the facts regarding what this process really entails, and the horrendously sinister implications of the law changes now taking place.

I do not believe that organ donation is morally or physically right, and the human body clearly agrees with me, which is why all recipients of donor organs have to take a huge cocktail of immunosuppressant drugs - all of which have a catalogue of potentially severe side effects - to stop their bodies rejecting the organ.

Consequently, all organ transplants have a relatively short shelf-life. A heart transplant, for instance, typically lasts 14 years.

Severing organs from living people and sewing them into others - a practice Rachel Clarke rightly describes as "witchcraft" - is simply not something we are supposed to be doing, and our bodies know it. Our organs were created for us and us alone, and they are meant to perish with us. (I can make an exception for procedures that don't require the death of the donor, such as kidney transplants, although they still come with all the same caveats of requiring copious immunosuppressant therapy, as well as not lasting indefinitely.)

Does our holding onto our own organs mean that some people, including children, who might otherwise have lived longer, will die?

Yes, it does.

Whilst that is clearly tragic and devastating for their loves ones, it is no argument for cutting organs out of living people without their consent.

Alas, tragedy has always and will always be with us. A minority of families will always have to bear the incomparable trauma of child loss.

But that still isn't an argument for cutting organs out of living people without their consent.

Therefore, anybody prominent in the medical industry pushing for this - experienced professionals who know very well what the reality of organ "donation" is - are individuals we should regard as being as deeply dangerous as any violent criminal: more so, perhaps, because a violent criminal does not have the protection of the law. Doctors who wish to "assist" patients to die and then harvest their organs, very soon will.

I'm sure that the lavishly litigious Rachel Clarke would just love to sue me for saying all the above, as she vaguely threatened to when I questioned the legitimacy of her credentials (because, of course she did, but in the end had to settle for moodily blocking me on Twitter).

However, she won't pursue such a threat, because I haven't got any money. No savings (thanks, "Covid"), no assets - hey, I don't even own a car (but then of course, nobody does).

So whilst others more fiscally responsible than I (failing Maths GCSE has consequences, kids) can be genuinely menaced with litigious threats, I cannot, this being one of the advantages of being a starving artist type (or caffeine-craving conspiracist, at least), and so I will say exactly what I like about Ms. Rachel Clarke (including not referring to her by her preferred prefix, because they really hate it when you do that...).

But also, even if I did have money, here's the thing, Rachel.

In order to successfully sue someone for defamation, you've got to prove that what they're saying about you isn't true.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.