On December 7th, 2020, then health secretary, Matt Hancock, formally announced that the Covid vaccine about to make its debut was "an adult vaccine for the adult population".

Hancock added, to assuage the frequently articulated concerns of an anxious population over the very accelerated nature of this concoction's development, which might make it unsafe for children: "This vaccine will not be used for children. It hasn't been tested on children."

As of last week, the vaccine has been approved for infants as young as six months old.

That this astonishing turnaround could happen in barely two years underlines irrefutably that 1) politicians are pathological liars and one can never put one iota of faith in anything they ever say, and 2) the slippery slope is all too real.

In 2020, we were told this vaccine would never be used on children. In 2021, it was approved for secondary school children. In 2022, primary school children. And now, on the advent of 2023, babies.

This is precisely how malevolently murderous social engineering - otherwise known as "the slippery slope" - works. It begins with a "reasonable" position that assuages any public concerns about risk or overuse - 'the vaccine will only be used for the elderly and vulnerable adults'. Once the public has accepted this first "reasonable" premise, it's pushed a little bit further - "the vaccine will be used for the vulnerable and elderly, and also those who come into close contact with them" - I mean, still reasonable, right? If we're going to protect the vulnerable, the protection needs to be comprehensive, extending to nurses and carers. Bur obviously not the bulk of the population, certainly not children.

The behavioural psychologists responsible for coordinating the country's "pandemic response" - the so-called "nudge unit" - kept extending the provisions a little bit further, a little bit further, a little bit further, until we (rapidly) arrive at the destination all the "conspiracy theorists" predicted from the start - the genocidal bioweapon marketed as a "Covid vaccine" is now being given to babies.

Please keep this at the forefront of your mind when evaluating the grisly news that the aforementioned Matt Hancock is quitting politics to make a documentary series about the joys of "assisted dying".

Hancock admits he developed a great enthusiasm for the practice during the pandemic.

This admission is no revelation to those of us well aware that Hancock remains at the centre of a Midazolam scandal, a drug alleged to be responsible for prematurely ending the lives of thousands of care home residents, and other vulnerable people, at the height of "Covid" fever. And now, Hancock wants to bring this lethal regime to much larger swathes of the population.

Every single time the "assisted dying" debate comes up, people trot out the same tired old argument about how nobody should have to suffer needlessly, we euthanise our animals so why not our loved ones, etc.

In response to this, I put to you that this is the exact same level of rhetoric that was used by politicians to assure us the Covid vaccine would only ever be used on adults.

If we legalise assisted dying, then almost instantaneously, for every media-friendly, slick piece of PR about very elderly people with terminal conditions being allowed to "slip away peacefully surrounded by loved ones", there will be a healthy 20-something with mental health problems killed by the state; a 35-year-old homeless person; someone in their 40s with disabilities. Before long, sick and disabled children.

As soon as this grotesque Pandora's Box is opened, we will hurtle down the slippery slope into the gruesome gutter of utter dystopia where the "solution" to any and every medical, emotional, and social problem will be state-mandated death.

It is already happening in Canada right now, via so-called MAID (medical assistance in dying). A 65-year-old man, who does not have any terminal illness, has been approved for euthanasia because he is poor. He states: "I don't want to die, but I don't want to be homeless". Doctors agree death is the better option.

Meanwhile, the 37-year-old "poster girl" for Canada's euthanasia campaign, which is accused of glamourising suicide, has posthumously confirmed she didn't actually want to die, but felt she was "falling through the cracks", and that if she "couldn't access healthcare, maybe [she] could access death care".

Then there's the case of the disabled Canadian veteran who applied for a stair lift... and was offered MAID instead.

Once so-called "assisted dying" is legalised in this country - given the prodigious scale it already happens on whilst illegal - none of us is safe. If we fall through the social safety net for any reason - as, of course, is happening more and more as various crises deepen - due to illness, job loss, disability, even mental health struggles - the state will be on hand with, shall we say, the "ultimate" solution. The final solution.

As murderous tyrant Matt "Midazolam" Hancock knows very well, a tsunami of serious physical illness is currently gathering pace throughout the population, with end-stage aggressive cancers and cardiac problems soaring. The perennially "overwhelmed" NHS is already totally unable to cope with demand, so what is going to be offered to all these profoundly unwell people? Expensive, time-consuming treatment, or..?

I simply cannot fathom that anybody could look at Matt Hancock, with his well-documented history of pathological lying and lethal directives, and conclude, "yes, nothing sinister about him suddenly deciding to start promoting assisted dying. I'm sure he's doing it for entirely benevolent and philanthropic reasons because he cares about humanity so much!"

Just like he cared about the kids who he assured us would never, ever be getting the Covid injection.

We have been warned so many times throughout history about where "assisted dying" (funny how there's no mention of "consent" in that strategically selected idiom) always inevitably goes. I remember watching an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation back in the nineties, where the Enterprise encounters a race of people who are all required to kill themselves when they turn sixty years of age, in order to prevent them becoming a burden to the next generation.

Some of the Enterprise crew resist this, especially one crew member, who has fallen in love with a member of the race about to turn 60. She is making some headway in persuading him not to kill himself, when he might have decades of productive, fulfilling life ahead of him - but when the soon-to-be-sixty man's family discover he is considering not "doing his duty", they are horrified and disgusted. They label him selfish and a dangerous renegade. In the end, he goes through with "tradition", despite the pleas and anguish of his lover.

There is absolutely no failsafe that could possibly ever be applied to assisted dying to stop elderly, unwell, or disabled people feeling coerced into ending their lives when they don't actually want to, as they "don't want to be a burden". And, let's be honest, many people DO find the kind of extensive care the elderly or chronically unwell often require burdensome, and could easily convince themselves that death is the best possible solution to "end suffering" - but who's suffering? The elderly person's, or that of the person caring for them?

As extensive vaccine injury rips through the population, more people than ever are going to require increased care, and at some point, the demographics are going to become unsustainable - too many people in need of care, not enough carers to provide it. As ever when evaluating "the news", we must ask the fundamental question - "why this, why now?". Why has Matt Hancock suddenly discovered a passion for assisted dying NOW, why is he being awarded funding to produce a slick and persuasive documentary about it NOW?

I'm afraid the answer is tragically and diabolically obvious.

We must do all we can to recognise that the slippery slope is real, and that we must oppose the legalisation of "assisted dying" at all costs, otherwise, what starts as "an adult treatment for the adult population" (the very elderly and infirm, the very sick and terminal) will inevitably (and rapidly) come for all of us - and for the children, too.

A psychopathic entity - a death cult - is hunting humanity. It pushes deception, degradation, disease, and death. So we must oppose it at every level with the promotion of truth, vibrancy, health, and life. The fact that we are still here, and that there are millions of us worldwide who see through the lies and who eschewed the poison, means "they" have not won and that we still have every chance to triumph and reclaim the future. They may have won a few battles. But they haven't won the war - and, as long as we remain vigilant and keep fighting, they will not.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements, paywalls, or wealthy corporate backers - making it truly independent. If you would like to contribute to help this resource remain both independent and free to all, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.