Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Velma said:

Severely immunosuppressed people should be offered a fourth dose of the vaccine in Scotland. Fucksake.

 

If they are already so immunosuppressed, a fourth dose is likely to kill off 75% or more in the next few months. This new series with Wee Jimmy Krankie is turning into a real horror, I much preferred the earlier version!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

...speaking of the grocery store...

It looks like the propaganda is working on the rest of the flock, as my trip to the grocery store last night had me vastly out numbered by the diapered faced ninnies. Young to old, they were all fully masked up. I would say an easy 98.5 percent in muzzles. And the store was packed, being the after work crowd buying their insta-meals and booze (so concerned about their health ūüôĄ.

 

What makes this different from the past is the majority of "fancy masks" among the zombies. No longer am I seeing those white and blue disposable numbers, the majority have masks that look like they've spent some serious money on, from bejeweled mask to those more elaborate, almost cone shaped ones that tend to remind me of little feed bags. And, of course, there are a whole lot of obese folks with their masks on, which always seems to amuse me. Again, concerned about their health. 

 

I must admit to feeling a slight sense of intellectual superiority as I walk among the rest of the flock. I've taken to whistling to myself, as I walk the aisle. Whistling along to the Christmas muzak as I shop, to further emphasis my naked face. Still, at the end of the day, in all seriousness, it am saddened by it, and disturbed. And, I still feel like Kevin McCarthy at the end of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

 

payYJxFJVD0832enV9U2LY6LF40.jpg

Perverts... Should leave they medical fantasies at home...

Edited by Human10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ink said:

Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering

I find that concerning. No fuckin business of any member of the public's who can and cannot do anything. 

 

4 minutes ago, ink said:

7.8 A person is not required to wear a face covering if they have a ‚Äúreasonable excuse‚ÄĚ for not wearing a face covering. Transport workers are exempt from having to wear face coverings. A non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse is set out in regulation 5, and includes an inability to wear a face covering because of medical reasons or disability, to avoid the risk of harm or injury, or for eating and drinking or taking medication. Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations. Further information on this is available in the relevant guidance published on GOV.UK.

So the same as before then, no danger, I'm exempt, full stop. Did this at the dentist surgery Monday, some bitch behind the counter giving it the I have to wear a mash unless I'm medically exempt bull shit to me. Just said I was exempt, end of story. This is it you see, they have to challenge, which they won't because they all know they can't. Fuckin idiots, I hope people don't wear masks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Saved said:

I'd therefore expect different companies to be pushed hard by the street level dealers (doctors).

 

1) You had Pfizer? We only have Moderna boosters

 

2) You had Moderna? We only have AstraZenica boosters

 

3) You had AstraZenica? We only have Pfizer boosters

 

I know a woman who was really ill after booster ,she's an elderly ex nurse ,and she told me whatever first 2 jabs you had then the booster had to be a different make to fully vaccinate her....so it's not a lot to go on but makes sense in what that thing said by making it almost impossible to then say which vaccine maimed or killed you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ink said:

A person is not required to wear a face covering if they have a ‚Äúreasonable excuse‚ÄĚ for not wearing a face covering

Which is I do not partake in Satanic rituals plus can you read the what the side of the box of those covering's say that i am wearing above my head, got it, and then a rendition of 'where is YOUR mind' by the pixies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zarkov said:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/trl.pdf  page 5-6

 

 

In 1776, Harvard University was over 100 years old and privately owned as were most schools. In the 1850’s thereabouts, the first mandatory public school was established in the Boston area. The children were escorted to the school by the military over the objection of the parents. From the 1850’s to the 1950’s [the study of personal rights] was phased out and replaced by and Today, the vast majority don’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy, a people and a citizen, law and equity, or even a court of record and a nisi prius court.. This booklet and the supporting free website (www.1215.org) is a culmination of 40 years legal research and life experience. We at the free library hope your eyes are opened to see the ingenious nature of the Anglo-American legal system, if only it were properly taught. Civics Social Studies American Government. INTRODUCTION 5 CUT TO THE CHASE According to the Preambles of the USA and state constitutions, the people are the sovereigns of the country. That is because the people are the creators of the government. The created may not dominate the creator.

Neither the states nor the central government have any genuine sovereignty. They must operate within the limits of their constitutions, which serve as directives from the people to the governments. The Constitutions are not social contracts.

The will of the people supersedes the will of the government, because the people are the creators of the government. The 7th Amendment emphasizes that. The will is enforced through courts of record proceeding in accordance with common law procedure. Common law is people‚Äôs ‚Äú ‚ÄĚ It supersedes statutes and codes, which are defined as equity rules created by a legislature. Statutes and codes are not real law, though they may appear and function as law. custom and usage since time immemorial. 6 ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW HISTORY - - A T

 

An interesting perspective to apply!

 

Cheers zArk

I read the document.

 

As usual with these theories the foundations of the argument are based on errors and misunderstandings.

 

Page 12: "The only real law is the common law, i.e. the unwritten custom and usage of the people, which the judge may not affect: e.g. see U.S. Constitution, Amendment VII." 

 

No. The seventh amendment retained the right to trial by jury for certain civil matters. Nothing more.

 

Page 16. The ninth Amendment. This is is clarifying language emphasizing that the constitution should not be read restrictively. 

 

Tenth Amendment. This means that the states prevail over the federal government other than powers expressly conferred on the federal government under the Constitution.

 

You can't go from these Amendments to what the author claims "There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the created entity to commandeer its creator."

 

To pick one example, the Commerce Clause does exactly that. It empowers the Federal Government to regulate commerce.

 

Besides, the US Civil War largely reversed the tenth amendment. It was fought over the secession of the Southern States. Nothing to do with slavery.

 

Page 17: "As one of the people you have all natural rights. You are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative (so long as you do not encroach on the sovereignty of another). You are outside and above the Constitution."

 

In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes deconstructs the divine right of kings argument. Leviathan was written in the backdrop of the English Civil War.

 

The English Civil war established the sovereignty of the people. Through parliament and its legislative enactments.

 

The War of Independence in the US overthrew King George III. So no divine right of kings in the US either.

 

The author is conflating a natural rights argument with the divine right of kings.

 

The natural rights argument goes "I am sovereign over my body. Since I am sovereign over my body I own what my body produces etc." This gives rise to life liberty and the right to own property. Property being what is produced by the body. Just as I own my body so does my neighbor own his. So if I take his flat screen TV I am violating his natural law right etc.

 

This was John Locke's original formulation.

 

Thomas Jefferson changed this personal property concept to the right to pursue happiness when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

 

Now, the justification for government is that people have given some of these these natural rights to government when it is established by for and on behalf of the people.

 

For the record I do not agree with this argument. I am just stating that it is the justification for the State.

 

But my point is that these rights are derived in natural law and not through the divine right of kings.

 

Page 20.

 

"COURT OF RECORD. A court of record must conform to four requirements:

 

1. power to fine or imprison for contempt

2. keeps a record of the proceedings

3. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)

4. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

 

You will only find all the above Items in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Editions of Black's Law Dictionary. The Fifth and later editions only show items 1 & 2."

 

Okay. Let's have a look.

 

Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Edition by Henry Campbell Black - PDF Drive 

 

Court of Record p 291 - See Court.

 

Court p 284. Courts of Record and Courts not of Record. "the former being those whose nets and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded. for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not or record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and In which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded." 

 

So another fail.

 

I've looked at many of these common law arguments over the years.

 

All of those I have seen grossly misunderstand the origins of law.

 

You'll get yourself into a lot of trouble relying on these arguments.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skitzorat said:

BINGO!

 

Sorry this is waaaaaay offtopic - but it can never be understated and deserves to shared everywhere.

 

 Its no conspiracy. The judiciary, governmental, police, religious, sports, media/entertainment, academia bodies are riddled to the core Downunder (as they are everywhre. But there's a police "list" of 28 high ranking individuals, including former Prime Minister, discussed in the Senate at the time of the Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse that is being kept private until the ends of time.... its conspiracy fact.

 

It may well go a long way into explaining the incredible behaviour of the Australian Govts/politicians/law systems during the covid era.

****

 

From mainstream media article 2015

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/a-former-pm-in-pedophile-list-senator

Liberal senator Bill Heffernan claims he has a police list which names 28 prominent people, including a former prime minister, as suspected pedophiles.

Senator Heffernan didn't name any names but called on Attorney-General George Brandis to expand the child abuse royal commission so that it includes the legal fraternity.

He told a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Tuesday he had provided the commission with documents, one naming the alleged pedophiles including "a whole lot of prominent people."

 

He said there was sadly a compromise at the highest levels.

"There is a former prime minister on this list and it is a police document," he said.

Senator Heffernan said the documents, delivered to him by a police agency some time ago, were very disturbing.

"No one seems to want to deal with them," he said.

"It's not so much the secrets that's the problem. It's when a group such as the 28 people on this page keep each other's secrets."

Senator Heffernan said the Wood royal commission in the 1990s indicated it was going to explore which members of the Sydney legal fraternity used to attend Costellos, the boy brothel club in Kings Cross. The commission, however, did not look into Costellos.

"A lot of them are still practising," he said.

Attorney-General George Brandis said just because someone's name appeared on a list didn't make them guilty.

He advised Senator Heffernan to go to the current child abuse royal commission, which would decide if the information was something it could inquire into.

"We should respect any decision of the royal commission about the ambit and scope of its terms of reference," he said.

***********

https://www.australiannationalreview.com/state-of-affairs/list-of-vip-pedos-australia-accused/

 

Backed up by the extremely courageous Fiona Bennet who stood on parliament steps and fronted the media with accusations- the documentary below she goes to the lodges and graphically re enacts the Satanic Ritual Abuse she witnessed at the hands of VIPS (the likes of Nicole Kidman's father and ex-PMs); children/newborns being raped, murdered, eaten, beheaded, orgies of violence - horrendous stuff...

 

 

One hundred percent accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I find that concerning. No fuckin business of any member of the public's who can and cannot do anything. 

 

Thats the part .... can only think it is a typo .... if not then it is some fucked shit!

 

Am reading the actual bullshit now .... but it shows that part 2a 45e is still valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Velma said:

Omicron COVID variant underlines need for global ‚Äėpandemic treaty‚Äô

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1106722

 

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was addressing the start of a special three-day meeting of the organisation‚Äôs governing body in Geneva on Monday, amidst a global alert over the new strain, arguing that greater international cooperation is essential to preserve ‚Äúhard won gains‚ÄĚ against the virus.

 

The World Health Assembly meeting was convened to decide on the issue of a so-called ‚Äúpandemic treaty‚ÄĚ.

 

Tedros said the world has not responded accordingly to COVID-19, and vaccine inequity, among other challenges, has facilitated the appearance of new highly mutated variants such as Omicron.

 

‚ÄúOmicron demonstrates just why the world needs a new accord on pandemics: our current system disincentivizes countries from alerting others to threats that will inevitably land on their shores‚ÄĚ, said the WHO Director General.

 

The likelihood of the potential further spread of Omicron at the global level has been defined as ‚Äúvery high‚ÄĚ by WHO.

 

Dr. Tedros reminded that although scientists still don‚Äôt know for certain if the variant is associated with more risk of transmission and severe disease, or if it has any impact on the effectiveness of vaccines, the world shouldn‚Äôt need another ‚Äėwake up call‚Äô.

 

‚ÄúOmicron‚Äôs very emergence is another reminder that although many of us might think we are done with COVID-19, it is not done with us. We are living through a cycle of panic and neglect.¬† Hard-won gains could vanish in an instant. Our most immediate task, therefore, is to end this pandemic‚ÄĚ, he highlighted.

 

The WHO chief added that our ability to end the current pandemic is a ‚Äėtest for our collective ability to prevent and respond effectively to future pandemics‚Äô.

 

“The same principles apply: Courageous and compassionate leadership; Fidelity to science; Generosity in sharing the fruits of research; And an unshakeable commitment to equity and solidarity.

 

‚ÄúIf we cannot apply those principles now to tame COVID-19, how can we hope to prevent history repeating?‚ÄĚ, he asked delegates from more than 190 countries.

 

Up the Tigray People's Liberation Front!

 

Wolfie Smith of the Tooting Popular Front would make a more credible WHO chief than this Gates placeman.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ink said:

Just looking at the new bullshit mask 'rules' .... could one of you read this paragraph (from the explanatory memorandum) and highlight a certain aspect?

 

12.3 The Department has considered the fact that some people may be deterred from visiting the settings where these Regulations apply due to them being required to wear a face covering either because they cannot source a suitable face covering or they have protected characteristics (e.g. a disability) which makes it difficult to wear a face covering. The definition of face covering used is broad and includes any covering that securely covers the mouth and nose. As such, the Department considers that it will not be prohibitively costly or difficult for people to obtain a suitable face covering. The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering. This Regulation requires people to wear face coverings in many of the same places that they were required under previous regulations. Compliance with regulations was high, and most people are familiar with the requirement.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/pdfs/uksiem_20211340_en.pdf

 

It does, by the way, allow any 'reasonable excuse' for not wearing a face nappy.

 

7.8 A person is not required to wear a face covering if they have a ‚Äúreasonable excuse‚ÄĚ for not wearing a face covering. Transport workers are exempt from having to wear face coverings. A non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse is set out in regulation 5, and includes an inability to wear a face covering because of medical reasons or disability, to avoid the risk of harm or injury, or for eating and drinking or taking medication. Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations. Further information on this is available in the relevant guidance published on GOV.UK.

Medical reasons include psychological reasons and trauma.

 

If you get panic attacks with your face covered that would be a medical reason.

 

Read up on the symptoms and practice in a mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I find that concerning. No fuckin business of any member of the public's who can and cannot do anything. 

 

So the same as before then, no danger, I'm exempt, full stop. Did this at the dentist surgery Monday, some bitch behind the counter giving it the I have to wear a mash unless I'm medically exempt bull shit to me. Just said I was exempt, end of story. This is it you see, they have to challenge, which they won't because they all know they can't. Fuckin idiots, I hope people don't wear masks. 

Yeah. I just say I'm exempt when challenged.

 

Ends the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Velma said:

Severely immunosuppressed people should be offered a fourth dose of the vaccine in Scotland. Fucksake.

My mother's one of those. She's just had her forth jab. Loves her weekly visit up the doctors for more tests. She practically has more drugs in her cupboard than a pharmacy. She had an anaphylactic reaction and was rushed to A & E 10 years ago and carries an Epi-pen around, then in 2019 she went into kidney failure with sepsis. She nearly died, but does not see the link between her health conditions and the amount of prescription pills she is on. It started with the HRT then she'd put on weight and had high blood pressure (more pills again) then she was diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. She takes a concoction of 10+ pills a day, but cannot see that the medical profession overprescribing pills has actually caused her such problems. Thankfully my reluctance to take the vaccine hasn't affected our relationship. She knows my views on the medical profession.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

I read the document.

 

As usual with these theories the foundations of the argument are based on errors and misunderstandings.

 

Page 12: "The only real law is the common law, i.e. the unwritten custom and usage of the people, which the judge may not affect: e.g. see U.S. Constitution, Amendment VII." 

 

No. The seventh amendment retained the right to trial by jury for certain civil matters. Nothing more.

 

Page 16. The ninth Amendment. This is is clarifying language emphasizing that the constitution should not be read restrictively. 

 

Tenth Amendment. This means that the states prevail over the federal government other than powers expressly conferred on the federal government under the Constitution.

 

You can't go from these Amendments to what the author claims "There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the created entity to commandeer its creator."

 

To pick one example, the Commerce Clause does exactly that. It empowers the Federal Government to regulate commerce.

 

Besides, the US Civil War largely reversed the tenth amendment. It was fought over the secession of the Southern States. Nothing to do with slavery.

 

Page 17: "As one of the people you have all natural rights. You are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative (so long as you do not encroach on the sovereignty of another). You are outside and above the Constitution."

 

In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes deconstructs the divine right of kings argument. Leviathan was written in the backdrop of the English Civil War.

 

The English Civil war established the sovereignty of the people. Through parliament and its legislative enactments.

 

The War of Independence in the US overthrew King George III. So no divine right of kings in the US either.

 

The author is conflating a natural rights argument with the divine right of kings.

 

The natural rights argument goes "I am sovereign over my body. Since I am sovereign over my body I own what my body produces etc." This gives rise to life liberty and the right to own property. Property being what is produced by the body. Just as I own my body so does my neighbor own his. So if I take his flat screen TV I am violating his natural law right etc.

 

This was John Locke's original formulation.

 

Thomas Jefferson changed this personal property concept to the right to pursue happiness when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

 

Now, the justification for government is that people have given some of these these natural rights to government when it is established by for and on behalf of the people.

 

For the record I do not agree with this argument. I am just stating that it is the justification for the State.

 

But my point is that these rights are derived in natural law and not through the divine right of kings.

 

Page 20.

 

"COURT OF RECORD. A court of record must conform to four requirements:

 

1. power to fine or imprison for contempt

2. keeps a record of the proceedings

3. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)

4. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

 

You will only find all the above Items in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Editions of Black's Law Dictionary. The Fifth and later editions only show items 1 & 2."

 

Okay. Let's have a look.

 

Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Edition by Henry Campbell Black - PDF Drive 

 

Court of Record p 291 - See Court.

 

Court p 284. Courts of Record and Courts not of Record. "the former being those whose nets and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded. for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not or record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and In which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded." 

 

So another fail.

 

I've looked at many of these common law arguments over the years.

 

All of those I have seen grossly misunderstand the origins of law.

 

You'll get yourself into a lot of trouble relying on these arguments.

 

Thanks for your input S.O.S

 

What are your thoughts  about coming from this from the laws of commerce position?

 

https://www.thehighersidechats.com/cal-washington-the-inpower-movement-babylonian-commerce-the-notice-of-liability/

 

If you are truly informed and speak to them in their language, they appear to shit their britches.

 

 

Edited by MarcusOmouse
Wrong name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KingKitty said:

I became aware of this a few months ago, as I tend to use the self-check out at my local grocer (USA). The camera seen my wallet in hand and "suggested" that I had an unpaid for item in hand, while showing me a video of me with my wallet in hand. I proceeded to show it one of my fingers on that hand.

Co-Op in th UK have been trialling facial recognition tech which came in for some criticism,didn't stop them though

Why on earth does a supermarket chain need to use facial recognition technology....and more importantly....where is the data going ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ink said:

Just looking at the new bullshit mask 'rules' .... could one of you read this paragraph (from the explanatory memorandum) and highlight a certain aspect?

 

12.3 The Department has considered the fact that some people may be deterred from visiting the settings where these Regulations apply due to them being required to wear a face covering either because they cannot source a suitable face covering or they have protected characteristics (e.g. a disability) which makes it difficult to wear a face covering. The definition of face covering used is broad and includes any covering that securely covers the mouth and nose. As such, the Department considers that it will not be prohibitively costly or difficult for people to obtain a suitable face covering. The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering. This Regulation requires people to wear face coverings in many of the same places that they were required under previous regulations. Compliance with regulations was high, and most people are familiar with the requirement.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/pdfs/uksiem_20211340_en.pdf

 

It does, by the way, allow any 'reasonable excuse' for not wearing a face nappy.

 

7.8 A person is not required to wear a face covering if they have a ‚Äúreasonable excuse‚ÄĚ for not wearing a face covering. Transport workers are exempt from having to wear face coverings. A non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse is set out in regulation 5, and includes an inability to wear a face covering because of medical reasons or disability, to avoid the risk of harm or injury, or for eating and drinking or taking medication. Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations. Further information on this is available in the relevant guidance published on GOV.UK.

 

This part would seem to be (in part) created to stop businesses like the Cardiff cinema ....

 

Prohibition on preventing a person from wearing a face covering

7.‚ÄĒ(1)¬†A person responsible for carrying on a business in a relevant area must not prevent, or seek to prevent, a person (‚ÄúP‚ÄĚ) from wearing a face covering while P is present in the relevant area, except for a purpose set out in regulation 5(g) or (h).

(2)¬†In this regulation‚ÄĒ

(a)‚Äúbusiness‚ÄĚ includes any undertaking, whether carried on for profit or not;

(b)a business is carried on in a relevant area if any part of the premises from which the business operates is in the relevant area.

(c)‚Äúrelevant area‚ÄĚ means any place where a person is required to wear a face covering under these Regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eddy64 said:

so anybody get the sinister nhs email, they were  suspiciously quick to produce a new test :-

 

 

 
 

Get Your Omicron PCR today to avoid restrictions

 

NHS scientists have warned that the new Covid variant Omicron spreads rapidly, can be transmitted between fully vaccinated people, and makes jabs less effective.However, as the new covid variant (Omicron)has quickly become apparent, we have had to make new test kits as the new variant appears dormant in the original test kits.

What happen if you decline a COVID-19 Omicron test?

In this situation, we warned that testing is in the best interests of themselves, friends, and family. People who do not consent or cannot agree to a COVID-19 test and refuse to undergo a swab must be isolated.

 

How do order Omicron PCR test?

You can order your Omicorn pcr test via NHS portal by clicking the link below:

 

 

https://nhs-order-pcr/COVID-10-omicron-research/

 

 

What happen if you are positive?

If positive, they must isolate for 10 days and should be reported to Public Health England.

 

 

Getting difficult to tell the difference between official scammers and unofficial ones. Note that Public Health England is not healthy at all - it's an organisation that was spun out off the chemical/biowarfare establishment at Porton Down. The place where they tested out nerve gases on National Servicemen, under the pretense of common cold research..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pete675 said:

 

Getting difficult to tell the difference between official scammers and unofficial ones. Note that Public Health England is not healthy at all - it's an organisation that was spun out off the chemical/biowarfare establishment at Porton Down. The place where they tested out nerve gases on National Servicemen, under the pretense of common cold research..

Isn't there a private company at Porton down with a prominent politician as a major shareholder ?

sure i read something recently about it ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic
  • Beaujangles featured this topic

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.

Guest
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...