Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Beaujangles said:


We have is ok to use. It suggests you are also a person in your village...as in a collective.   'There is'  distances the speaker somewhat, but is ok too....but if you are happily a neighbourly villager then 'We have' is fine.

I know what you mean. I always say wir haben (we have) instead of da ist (there is). That's how we talk here I guess. Never heard there is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a popular astrologist called Gahl Sasson who presents himself as a Kabbalah expert. He publishes yearly books about the astrology of each year.In the astrology of 2020 he predicted a massive event would take place, something grand and challenging, mentioned an epidemic as an example.I bought the book and believed him but now I think he is part of the mainstream script of deceit and plandemic.


I am subscribed to his e-mail updates. He or his team sent the following info about the virus, second wave: (copied from my phone)


Happy Full Moon - The Astrology of October


The New Moon in Libra will be challenging since it will be opposing Mars retrograde, if anyone wants an official date for the second wave, it should be around mid-October.  It is also a time a great deal of political turmoil. After all, Libra is the sign of diplomacy and justice.


Pluto, the Lord of Death and Resurrection is going direct after almost 6 month retro on Oct 5. Usually it is good for investments and productions, however, since the Pluto Saturn conjunction is believed to be the culprit for the spread of Covid-19, we can expect a spike in infections in the next few days and weeks.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted about three weeks ago a similar comment. Came across an astrologist Osher Astro or some thing like that. He was showing clips from videos he had made October/ November last year. If these videos are legitimate he was predicting some thing happening this year which would affect every body. He also talked about economies crashing and a few other things which are chillingly accurate. He is predicting some thing happening at the end of November which will be more devastating and shocking than covid. Watch this space is all I can say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jode said:

So "they" must know something we dont about next year and I'm in my second year of uni now and all face to face lectures cancelled until june (so basically the whole year). My exam for june is cancelled and will now be remote (some are saying this is better but I'm gutted and dont see why that decision is made now for june???) Anyway I'm venting but none of my fellow students seem arsed and are all "better safe than sorry"



Is this a UK university?  They have also been saying that A Levels will be postponed next summer.


6 minutes ago, banjo dog said:

I posted about three weeks ago a similar comment. Came across an astrologist Osher Astro or some thing like that. He was showing clips from videos he had made October/ November last year. If these videos are legitimate he was predicting some thing happening this year which would affect every body. He also talked about economies crashing and a few other things which are chillingly accurate. He is predicting some thing happening at the end of November which will be more devastating and shocking than covid. Watch this space is all I can say. 


October surprise.  Not really though, its flu season from now till springtime next year.  As for the November event, it looks like the US is going to implode after the election.


I am so fed up with this shit.  As much as I try to stay positive in my own life, they have totally screwed us.  We are social animals and need touch, interaction, laughter, spontaneity.  Just to live and plan and prosper.  This day to day onslaught of fear-porn has become too much. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Noctua said:


Is this a UK university?  They have also been saying that A Levels will be postponed next summer.



October surprise.  Not really though, its flu season from now till springtime next year.  As for the November event, it looks like the US is going to implode after the election.


I am so fed up with this shit.  As much as I try to stay positive in my own life, they have totally screwed us.  We are social animals and need touch, interaction, laughter, spontaneity.  Just to live and plan and prosper.  This day to day onslaught of fear-porn has become too much. 

I know what you mean I some times get despondent being the only person in a super market etc with out a mask. Some of those I work agree with me but cant see any further than refusing a vaccine when the time comes. They are surprised I dare to go into a shop un-masked, so therefore I am sure they are masked up and don't see the implications of complying. I am a member of a local amateur theatre group. We put on comedy plays every year at the end of September. The couple who's house we use for rehearsals went into isolation when all this covid crap started. Their house their rules we have to respect that. Even if we had still had the rehearsals we would not have been allowed to do the three performances. The hall we use holds 250 people and is a virtual sell out all 3 nights. We have all missed the fun and laughter of getting together once a week to rehearse.  I some times think we need some one on our side who has the know how to hack into M.S.M studios and then we can start to broadcast the truth with the help of Vernon Coleman, U.K column news etc. Like they did in the film running man. I live in hope that the truth will be revealed. While we have hope, we potentially have every thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be prepared Londoners.  This will probably roll out to other areas in london, like the model in Madrid.  Madrid's lockdown started

in one zone and now is in 9 parts of the city.

London lockdown moves closer: Tower Hamlets unilaterally tells people not to visit other households




Edited by Golden Retriever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kj35 said:


p HARM a


Clue was In the name all along


Or pharm in the sense that we could be living in human body farm like the film 'The Island'.


Look how much they're pushing wearables that monitor peoples vital signs. They also want us eating plant based food like cattle. Somebody on here a while back posted something about ventilators keeping organs fresh for harvesting too. Then there is the fact that our society is moving towards the Chinese model. Maybe the reports of organ harvesting in China are just Western propaganda, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't suspicious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:


Or pharm in the sense that we could be living in human body farm like the film 'The Island'.


Look how much they're pushing wearables that monitor peoples vital signs. They also want us eating plant based food like cattle. Somebody on here a while back posted something about ventilators keeping organs fresh for harvesting too. Then there is the fact that our society is moving towards the Chinese model. Maybe the reports of organ harvesting in China are just Western propaganda, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't suspicious.

The MOD report for global futures has us getting 40 % (I think from memory) of our protein from insects too 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19th October seems to be being banded around for the 'official' date of the 2nd wave :classic_angry:. Scripted and planned in advance and would fit with the US election timescale to force mostly postal voting. I hope it is not true but i've seen that date a few times now.


The date also adds up to 6  1+9 = 10  so is a 1, + 1 + 2 +2 = 6 

Edited by Alnitak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Are you up for a challenge ?

We are looking for an exceptional, enthusiastic and highly motivated individual to Programme Manage the COVID Mass Vaccination Programme for Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. Working with a range of partners, the key aim of the programme is to vaccinate the entire population of Cwm Taf Morgannwg including all its health care workers as a key part of our response to the COVID pandemic. The programme will encompass the development and delivery of all aspects of a Mass Vaccination plan including: the patient journey, assets and infrastructure, workforce, vaccination programme, ICT, communication and engagement, all controlled within a robust programme management governance structure.

The successful candidate will be an excellent communicator and will be able to engage and negotiate with stakeholders at all levels within the organisation and partner organisations. A proven leader and expert programme and project manager you will demonstrate the ability to successfully lead teams, operate under pressure and deliver outcomes to meet the team and organisational targets.

In order to ensure professional support, resilience and a consistent approach the post will be based within the Programme Management Office of the Health Board.

The ability to speak Welsh is desirable for this post; Welsh and/or English speakers are equally welcome to apply.



They can do one. I'm not taking the vaccine.


Edited by Fluke
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oddsnsods said:



BEFORE I SAW THIS ABOVE VIDEO (date on it on you-tube is 3rd Oct) I had produced some 2 sided leaflets that I distributed locally, only a few as I do not have unlimited paper + ink resources.


THANKS to oddsnsods for posting the video - PLEASE EVERYONE, DO WATCH and SHARE. At the time of putting my post on here the vid has had just over 30,000 views on you-tube.


The reason I mention this is that the above video refers to the pcr tests and my own leaflets were an attempt to get some sheeple to wake up to the fact that there was a problem with the test. It was encouraging to watch this video and get so much reinforcement of my own research into the suspect pcr  testing procedure. I try to convey an aspect of the AMPLIFICATION factor with some numbers - not everyone's cup of tea but is very factual. HAPPY FOR SOMEONE to CHECK my MATHS!


DO WATCH the video (yes it is 49 mins), as it highlights so, so, MUCH of what is happening / has happened in Germany and of course mirrored elsewhere, not least here in the uk.


Below is the content of the two documents that I produced. Part of the content on one of them has probably already been seen by some in other postings on this forum.

I laid out the content of the first document a little differently to that displayed here. The two documents were on either side of an A4 sheet. Do copy and use if you so wish to do something similar in order to get the messages out there. 


1st document

Start with 2 copies, that is 2 cycles

     = number produced after cycle of AMPLIFICATION

22 = 4                                                                            2 cycles

225 = 33,554,432                               33 million          25 cycles

230 = 1,073,741,824                            1 billion           30 cycles

237 = 137,438,953,472                    137 billion           37 cycles

240 = 1,099,511,627,776                     1 trillion           40 cycles

245 = 35,184,372,088,832                 35 trillion           45 cycles

The pcr test was created by Kary Mullis. He stated that its purpose was to be used in the laboratory for research purposes and NOT used to diagnose infectious diseases.

These numbers help illustrate how the pcr test produces results (POSITIVE) for the those tested. They are then incorrectly called cases. This is because for a case there needs to be a VALID test along with symptoms, not just the INVALID test RESULT!

pcr test cycles of 37 to 40 are used. NHS in uk uses 45 cycles – see link 1 overleaf


2nd Document (most of this has been posted on this forum)


TO ASSIST YOU IN DOING SOME RESEARCH then these links will provide FACT BASED EVIDENCE that perhaps you need to be at least looking at.




In brief the AMPLIFICATION (number of cycles) determines the sensitivity of the test.


According to Prof. Carl Henegan, 25 cycles is VERY sensitive, yet 37 to 40 cycles being used by many countries AND the NHS uses the maximum of 45 cycles - above 45 cycles and every test is positive.

link for NHS protocol document (see page 16) -


Link 1




Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford


Link 2


The week in 60 minutes with Andrew Neil – 3 September 2020 | Event | The Spectator TV


REFERRING to this link which is to a recent 3rd Sept. 2020 VIDEO BROADCAST by ANDREW NEIL – This week in 60 minutes.


Andrew Neil begins with talking about cases (from testing) and has Fraser Nelson talking about cases (from tests) and people admitted to hospitals.


Later he has Professor CARL HENEGHAN (around 6mins 30secs)

Prof. Refers to the consequence of Lockdown causing many deaths.

He then refers to year BEFORE (i.e. 2019) having about 15,000 less deaths from usual flu deaths and “HANGING on by THEIR FINGERNAILS”.


In particular at around 14+ mins he refers to pcr test and the AMPLIFICATION aspect.

He refers to a “CYCLE THRESHOLD” of 25 – this is much lower than the threshold level of 35 mentioned in other links AND MANY MANY more times LESS than the 37 to 40 cycles used.


Link 3


This link is to a COVID video by Paul Weston.


As of 10th Sep it had 136,224 views.


It is only about 9 mins long so do watch it.


He refers to FACTS from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) so that is FACTUAL DATA, and NOT projected fearmongering numbers / graphs.



Edited by Concerned Citizen
extra added and adjusted layout + typo error(s)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




How they will fudge the numbers for the 2nd wave



Scoop: Govt Scientist Exposes COVID19 Hospital Beds Scam

Published on October 3, 2020

Written by Andy Rowlands



The retired former government scientist I am acquainted with has been doing some crunching of numbers about how full our hospitals were and are during the Covid ‘pandemic’, and this is what he found.


Most of us hold an image of the pandemic in the UK as being thousands of stricken souls being ferried to overcrowded hospitals on a daily basis. We have the mainstream media to thank for this, along with the rawness of image pouring into our social media feeds from China and Italy.

Some dared to question the narrative after discovering empty hospitals and plodding A&E departments, to be beaten down by a friend of a friend who had been working non-stop around the clock. Working non-stop around the clock, patients waiting several hours on trolleys and empty wards due to lack of nursing staff was pretty much normal in my old inner-city teaching hospital, so the curious among us never really got to understand what was actually going on above the level of the anecdote.

Here I reveal what actually happened across all 315 service providers that make up the NHS England bed pool using official data; to say I am surprised by what I am finding is a serious understatement.

I shall start with a slide of daily admissions of confirmed COVID-19 cases onto which I have also plotted daily diagnoses of COVID-19 arising from the testing of inpatients. Daily figures are defined as activity in the preceding 24 hours as at 8am each morning.

Hopefully this slide speaks for itself but I realise a few words may be needed. When I first saw this chart, my response was that I had made a serious number crunching error, and had probably got the two series mixed up; either that or my spreadsheet had mangled the figures somehow. After triple-checking the data I can report this chart is accurate.


In a nutshell we may say that the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK has primarily been an in-hospital disease. At the peak of the outbreak between 1st April and 10th April just over five times as many existing inpatients were diagnosed with COVID-19 as were coming in through the front door with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (x5.35). This is not the image that had been painted by the mainstream media.

We may now also see the reason for the confusion across social media. At a peak intake rate of 531 admitted cases across all 315 service providers on 9th April, NHS England’s emergency services never got truly stretched and many A&Es would indeed have idled as some have reported, though all depends on catchment area (my own A&E was always bursting to the seams even on a sunny day in May). In contrast, some poor souls had the task of managing beds of the 2,582 inpatients who were discovered to be lying there with COVID-19 on 3rd April. Hospitals were certainly busy but not with an influx of the public from the streets.

A final but important point to make is that, by definition, inpatients were in hospital for reasons other than COVID-19 (otherwise they’d be classed as COVID-19 admissions). This tip of a co-morbidity iceberg that is seen in terms of bed occupancy also reveals itself in mortality where we find that, of a total of 29,531 COVID-19 deaths (as at 26th August), only 1,390 were for those presenting with no pre-existing medical condition. WHO directives to medical authorities state that death certification must show COVID-19 as cause regardless of co-morbidity, an extraordinary fact that prompted me to quip “you can no longer die of cancer”. (Emphasis added)

Mechanical ventilation

In terms of bed occupancy, the serious end of the pandemic concerns mechanical ventilation (MV) bed usage. I shall set aside arguments for and against ventilator use in the treatment of COVID-19 since this is a rather thorny and complicated issue. When it comes to the crunch intensivists working within the NHS would have had no option but to place patients on ventilation if ARDS set in and their condition was deteriorating. Mechanical ventilation will have killed some patients but then again they would have died without it, for at this stage no prophylactic such as HCQ or Ivermectin will have afforded a safe and sensible clinical strategy. In many cases death will have been inevitable and unavoidable.

In the attached slide we get a feel for the size of the sharp end of the problem, with service providers within NHS England providing around 2,800 MV beds per day during the peak in early April. This equates to an average of roughly 9 beds per provider, though tertiary centres will have mostly taken the strain. Ventilation, like death, is a pretty robust indicator of what the disease has been doing and is now doing regardless of what the press and government may claim. Effectively we are looking at a disease that has come and gone. (Emphasis added)


The green curve for MV beds for other patients tells another side of the story. In early August we see this bobbing around 2,000 – 2,500 beds per day; we may assume this is business as usual for summer. If 2,000 – 2,500 MV beds is business as usual we may well ask what happened to the 1,500 patients per day that must have been denied a MV bed back in April in preparation for COVID-19. Did this bed shunting induce excess death or is a degree of MV bed occupancy unnecessary? This is one of those rather unpleasant questions we need to ask; I shall put it bluntly: did NHS MV bed management kill people? (Emphasis added)

Another take home message from this slide is that ‘business as usual’ runs at 2,000 – 2,500 MV beds per day during the lean summer months whereas the peak pandemic only reached ~2,800 MV beds per day. This is a difference of just ~300 MV beds per day across 315 service providers. Can this really be called a pandemic? It will be interesting to see what happens when seasonal ‘flu hits this coming winter (assuming the PCR test fiasco permits seasonal ‘flu).

Length of Stay

Since we know the daily bed days occupied by COVID-19 cases together with the daily discharges what we can do is calculate accumulated bed days and divide this by accumulated discharges to arrive at an estimate of the average length of stay over time. If this is a bit of an early morning head-banger let us try a worked example…

Up to 31st March of this year NHS England reported 65,972 bed days that had been allocated to COVID-19 patients. During this period some 3,414 COVID-19 cases had been discharged. Thus, on average, their length of stay equates to 65,972 / 3,414 = 19.32 days. Obviously, some will have recovered much quicker than this and some will have not but nevertheless we may say that, on average, the length of stay was 19.3 days. If we repeat this for 1st April we find 78,031 beds in use up to this point and 4,264 discharges giving an average length of stay of 18.3 days. Repeat this process and you end up with the attached chart.


Length of stay is a complex variable that acts as a proxy for both the condition of the patient and the effectiveness of treatment. During the last two weeks of March we observe elevated stays of around 20 days, and this will largely reflect the generally poor condition of the first COVID-19 patients. We noted above that the majority of cases during the early stages of the pandemic were inpatients rather than admissions.

This chart also reflects the learning curve of medical teams, and in this regard, we see length of stay plunging to just 14 days within the space of a fortnight. By mid-April presenting condition and medical care had settled down into a routine which has slightly improved over time.

The Hidden Cost

In the wake of reports of deaths on waiting lists – something I warned about at the outset, what we are looking at in this slide is bed occupancy for all 315 service providers that go to make up the NHS England bed pool.


As we can see from occupancy levels for the relatively ‘normal’ week beginning 7th August our hospitals normally expect to provide around 100,000 beds on a daily basis. Back in April this was curtailed to 40,000 daily bed spaces per day – that’s a lot of missing beds and this would have translated into a great deal of pain and misery for the folk who would have used them.

If we take 100,000 beds per day as the reference for healthy service levels, then deduct occupancy for both COVID-19 and other diseases, then we see that 1,666,772 bed-days were lost across the 315 service providers since 1st April because of Covid policies.

I had noted elsewhere (in my previous article https://principia-scientific.com/uk-govt-play-fast-loose-on-covid-data-to-justify-more-restrictions/) that the dramatic rise in new cases – now being called a new wave – can be largely attributed to the dramatic rise in testing by calculating the Positive Swab Rate (PSR). When this is done, we find a very modest rise and a very definite spike that cannot be considered to be robust evidence of a ‘new wave’; spikes are not waves last time I looked. However, we also noted a rise in hospital admissions; though these are not admissions as such since the count includes inpatients who have been discovered to be positive during their stay. As already noted, a positive case does not necessarily mean an infectious case and an admission with COVID-19 doesn’t necessarily mean an admission because of COVID-19; there’s that old chestnut ‘of’ and ‘with’ again!

At this point we may consider something may well be going on beneath the numbers despite all the additional testing and so I devised an indicator I am calling Bed Occupancy Rate (BOR). This is simply the accumulated number of daily bed days attributed to COVID-19 cases divided by the accumulated number of daily reported new cases. If reported new cases are translating into bed use then we should see this indicator rise over time or at least remain static. Except it doesn’t, it is decline. (Emphasis added)

Attached is a plot of BOR for the period 1st June to 17th September. What we are looking at is a nose-dive that is indicative of a pandemic in decline. This is a splendidly graphic way of saying bed use is in decline whilst reported cases are rising; a bold and brazen clinical fact that is not commensurate with the government’s claims of a ‘new wave’. A new wave of just what, exactly? Irresponsible mass testing, perhaps? (Emphasis added)


If I were to put an alarmist spin on this, I’d claim that this is showing bed stays for COVID-19 cases are reducing because the stratum of the population the virus is now hitting is healthier, with all the vulnerable cases being hit back in April. There’s no evidence for this and similar claims that attempt to explain away lack of deaths, of course, but that doesn’t stop people waving their hands about and failing to provide evidence in support of their argument.

The good news here is that I can analyse length of stay (LOS) to see if this is diminishing, thus bolstering the case for alarmists. I calculated this at a steady decline in average stay from 14.01 days at 1st June to 13.16 days on 2nd September for service providers making up NHS England, this representing a 6.1% drop in LOS. During this exact same period BOR dropped from 3.40 beds per case on 1st June to 3.07 beds per case on 2nd September, this representing a 9.7% drop in BOR. We now see that shorter length of stay is indeed contributing to the situation but the net result is that BOR is still diminishing, which is indicative of a pandemic in general decline. (Emphasis added)

The data I’m obtaining for my bed occupancy project (BOP) from NHS England is valuable in that it reveals just who was admitted to hospital as a positive case and who was an inpatient who tested positive. As we have recently discovered the gov.uk coronavirus dashboard calls them both ‘admissions’.

The NHS England daily hospital activity file also usefully reveals bed use for COVID-19 and other patients as well as discharge counts for COVID-19 by age band but this file is only updated monthly with the last release dated 10th September. This means I am unable to verify or refute headlines as they happen, which is rather frustrating since the data are already sitting there on NHS England’s servers.

This morning I have noted that NHS England are now producing another activity file – the COVID-19 daily situation report. This sounds like it is going to be useful but it only provides data on admissions; and there’s a rather cheeky twist. Five tables are provided and I am going to list their headings to see if you can spot the cheeky new game…

1). Total reported admissions to hospital and diagnoses in hospital
2). Estimated new hospital cases
3). Estimated new admissions to hospital from the community
4). Estimated new hospital admissions from the community with 3-7 day lagging
5). Total reported hospital admissions and diagnoses from a care home

That’s right, three of the five tables are populated with estimates rather than what is actually happening on our wards. These estimates are based on… reported new cases! (Emphasis added)

Yes indeedy, they are converting those rather suspicious new case counts and generating a hypothesised admission scenario. I prefer to call it fudge. I think we can guess what tables are going to be used for broadcast to the nation.

Can anyone spot the second game? Yep, NHS England, who used to distinguish between genuine admissions and inpatients testing positive up to 10th September, have now lumped them together in table 1 so the public are not going to know who is being admitted to hospital and was already in hospital suffering from some other condition. (Emphasis added)

I alerted folk to a change in how COVID-19 admissions data are now coded and presented to the public. In a nutshell an ‘admission’ is now both an admission proper and an inpatient who has been found positive during their stay. The date of an inpatient test is now taken as the date of their COVID-19 ‘admission’ even though they’re already been admitted! The astute among you will realise this improvement in data capture will lead to double-counting of bed occupancy. (Emphasis added)

To illustrate the situation as colourfully and clearly as possible I’ve plotted out three pertinent time series for the period June – September. The time series marked with a red line represents the new NHS England daily activity admissions indicator (table 1 in the new file), for which admissions and inpatients are lumped together.


The time series marked with an orange line represents a variable I calculated from the old data file that I called ‘COVID-19 bed load’, this being derived from admission and inpatient case counts. As we may see there is a period of overlap with excellent agreement, which gives us faith in comparing old and new data files. With this in mind let us now consider the time series for genuine admissions only, this being represented by the green line. We now see that genuine admissions accounts for a fraction of the total COVID-19 NHS England bed load. As I have stated before, COVID-19, if anything, is primarily an institutional pandemic. (Emphasis added)

With the admission and inpatient count now starting to rise in late September (red line) what we still do not know is whether this is the result of a rise in COVID-19 amongst admissions proper or a rise in COVID-19 amongst inpatients. This distinction is critical in our understanding of whether we are at the beginning of genuine second wave or simply looking at an artefact of testing strategy. For example, back in the week beginning 26th March pillar 1 testing averaged out at one test between two people in clinical care (Pt=0.5). The test rate then proceeded to climb in a steady manner such that during the week beginning 27th August we may observe just over 2.5 tests per patient in clinical care. My trusty hand-held calculator reveals this represents a five-fold increase in the testing of those already known to be sick. (Emphasis added)

This may well represent an improvement in care but it is going to skew results, and all this lather is without considering the wrinkle of the PCR test detecting the remains of an earlier infection! If an earlier SARS-COV-2 infection left patients with various ailments e.g. kidney damage then we are going to see a rise in hospital admissions for deteriorating renal conditions for people who are going to test positive but not be infectious. (Emphasis added)

The critical issue here is that we’ve abandoned traditional methods of diagnosis by an admitting physician (what we call differential diagnosis in the trade) and replaced this by an automated numbers generator with the controversial RT-PCR test in the driving seat – and all because the WHO say so. This is no longer clinical diagnosis as I used to know it. (Emphasis added)

The bottom line of this work shows that while in the real world the pandemic is declining,  governments and the media tell us the exact opposite, and that more restrictions are needed to save us all from dying.

One of my social media friends wrote this recently, which sums up the situation pretty well:

Lots of kids in a class room – fine.
Working with a full workplace – fine.
Trains and buses full of people – fine.
Being in a pub with drunk people – fine.
Packed supermarket – fine.
On an airplane with hundreds breathing the same recycled air – fine.
Eating out at any restaurant – fine.

Having more than 6 family members or friends in the same house – too dangerous.

And they wonder why people don’t follow the guidelines…..

I rest my case M’Lud.






  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Trump situation is a strange one and I don’t know for what purpose, but I’m certainly not the only one to notice that he looks different in his recent twitter video. Maybe a double? Most of us here know this virus situation is total bs, even if it was real, Trump would have the best treatment out there. In the back of my mind I also can’t help but think of the Simpsons picture of Trump in a casket. I don’t think the picture is from an actual episode of the simpsons, but the photo has come about some how, for whatever reason 


Just to add too, odd how he is wearing a blue tie today, and Biden talking about how it’s only a month away until he is President, in a manor that he knows something we don’t. For the 5 seconds his brain works for anyway. Obviously a team does his Twitter for him



Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolute PROOF that masks are USELESS and cause much more harm than good---from many peer reviewed studies.

Ask Gov health "advisors" and MPs to rebut these irrefutable conclusions--they will not be able to do so.

Studies of Surgical Masks Efficacy

by Chris of the family Masters

Aug 12 2020

As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

  • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.

  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.

  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

  • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.
* from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951.

Arthur Firstenberg

August 11, 2020

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting video about the PCR test:



How the media can keep peddling this shite, is beyond me, surely there is enough information out there now that shows the PCR test and its successor the Antigen one is a waste of time and money. What will it take for people to wake up from their zombie stupor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the case numbers are 10 million the people will be lining up for the so called vaccine

Over years their bodies will rot, inhibited cellular repair,  an artifically created leprosy. The walking dead.


The healthy non poisoned will be excluded from society in the first years then resented by the zombies


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this report by Amnesty International - 'As If They Were Expendable' - help break through the cognitive dissonance of those who think lockdown is a good idea? The comments are encouraging with many questioning why the report isn't headline news.


It is nevertheless beyond me why it has taken so long for some sense to prevail from organisations which support the elderly and vulnerable and exist to protect human rights.



EXCLUSIVE: 'Inhumane, degrading, inexplicable': Britain's Covid care home policies 'violated the fundamental human rights of vulnerable elderly residents', Amnesty International report finds

  • EXCLUSIVE: UK Government's pandemic policies 'violated the fundamental human rights of vulnerable older people in care', Amnesty report claims
  • Measures exposed elderly residents to Covid then blocked them from care
  • Ministers 'know from the outset' that the virus posed 'exceptional danger' to 400,000 residents of UK care homes, many of whom are vulnerable
  • Care home residents were subjected to 'inhuman and degrading' treatment
  • Report says UK Government is 'directly responsible' for the care home tragedy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...