Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

The only way Starker gets in is if they use Dominion voting machines. No way anyone is voting for him, he's a turd. 

 

They will vote Labour though, either because that’s what they’ve always done, or because they won’t vote Tory. Most people consider voting for independents a wasted vote unfortunately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeartSpirit said:

They will vote Labour though

Who's they?

 

If that was the case it would've happened the last two times, however, since labour cannot seem to get a leader with balls and instead have a slime ball as a leader, I would confidently say that without dominion they'd win and that's fuckin sad. My area was always Lib Dem, turned fuckin blue last time out. Go figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, at some point you need to be like 'If people believe this shit, then there's really no saving them anyway'.

 

'Let the dead, bury their dead'.

 

 

Edited by Nemo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2022 at 11:54 PM, MarcusOmouse said:

Whether virus are pathogens or not - I dont believe that most of them are, other than those with attached parasites - I got the genuine impression that Wolfgang Wodang was getting a lecture,  as to  his own indoctrination, also known as education.  I saw it on his face.

 

The good news is that ALL of these people are on our side.

Those who believe that viruses are pathogenic and those who don't.

 

The truth about that can wait for the time being

 

 

I neglected to mention another important point here.

 

Wodang states in his reply to Kaufman and Lanka that to introduce  the idea that viruses are, essentially non-pathogenic, is such a mind-fuck for people to deal with ( as you can tell from even his  face, as a world renowned "virologiest" during their presentation).

 

This would create an unneccesary shit storm, that may well jeopardize or certainly delay any justice that all of the participants in the interview, along with the rest of us so desperately seek and need.

 

I for one, get that.

Edited by MarcusOmouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Who's they?

 

If that was the case it would've happened the last two times, however, since labour cannot seem to get a leader with balls and instead have a slime ball as a leader, I would confidently say that without dominion they'd win and that's fuckin sad. My area was always Lib Dem, turned fuckin blue last time out. Go figure. 


It has been my observation over more than 60 years that most people vote for a party not individual. So they either vote the same as usual, or if their normal party has been in power and not done well, they vote for the opposite party. Very few people that I have know look outside the main 2 parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lady friend who is an awake nhs nurse and she is obviously mightily relieved she won't lose her job by not being jabbed. 

 

In complete contrast I also have another awake lady friend who used to be someone I worked with in Adult Social Care who also has declined to be jabbed but still has the threat of losing her job hanging over her but hopes that threat will disappear in the coming weeks.

 

However by not agreeing to be jabbed she told me her sympathetic boss has told her that he has been instructed by the local authority to give her an official warning which he thinks is a measure designed to placate the jabbed employees to make them feel it wasn't a waste of time succumbing to the poison. 

 

This makes me wonder if this will be common practise in other work sectors to avoid an employee divide but I'm thinking it may not make much difference and that divide between jabbed and unjabbed employees will remain until at least the jabbed start getting a "short illness" 

 

My friend in Adult social care is the only one not jabbed in the day centre and hopefully the centre will not enforce the no jab no job rule but I was wondering could she like a lot of NHS workers were rumoured to have done gone to their local  Police station and make an official complaint about the Local Authority trying to coherse her into taking a trial drug under emergency licence that has killed thousands already and accuse them of attempted murder? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusOmouse said:

 

 

I neglected to mention another important point here.

 

Wodang states in his reply to Kaufman and Lanka that to introduce  the idea that viruses are, essentially non-pathogenic, is such a mind-fuck for people to deal with ( as you can tell from even his  face, as a world renowned "virologiest" during their presentation).

 

This would create an unneccesary shit storm, that may well jeopardize or certainly delay any justice that all of the participants in the interview, along with the rest of us so desperately seek and need.

 

I for one, get that.

 

So you are saying the whole truth is too much for people to believe, so stick with less than whole, so that it is more likely to appeal to a greater number of people. The same was said about 9/11 in the past, not sure if that got us anywhere with those types of people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Number6 said:

Out of likes, seems to be a false flag to pathe the way to the ammendment of the Human Rights Bill. The consultation ends in March. Every little staged event helps. 

 

If any politician walks past a group of youtube streamers who consider themselves journalists, then they should expect to be followed and asked questions. Walk past a group of protesters, from any side and you will likely get a similar reaction. 

 

Also there is certainly a lot of co intel pro attending these gatherings in my opinion but how can you ever know these days. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Basket Case said:

 

Thanks. 

You reminded me that I had this tucked away to watch later:

"The British Constitution" 

 

 

Thanks great post BC

 

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/07/our-liberty-goes-back-to-natural-law/

 

Quote

Transcript

Hello my name is Deana Pollard Sacks and for the past 22 years I’ve been a law professor, constitutional scholar and civil rights activist and litigator.

I’m here today to discuss the derivation of our liberty clause, which goes back to natural law, and to explain why the Covid-19 vaccines are all unconstitutional based upon our history’s jurisprudence.

On the 4th of July 1776 our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. And, here’s what they said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1891 our Supreme Court in a case called [Boxford] explained that medical liberty is inalienable and one of the most cherished rights we can ever have they said: “No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority law. The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone.”

In 1914 Justice Cardoso, who later became a United States Supreme Court Justice, put it this way: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

These same exact concepts and verbatim statements by our court have been reiterated over the decades. In 1990 for example, in a case called Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health the Supreme Court basically held that each individual has a right to reject medical treatment. That goes back to the English Common Law. And here’s what Justice Brennan said in the Cruzan case: “Anglo-American Law starts with the premise of thoroughgoing self-determination it follows that each man is considered to be the master of his own body and he may, if he be of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment.”

How is it then that our governments are pushing a medical treatment on us without consent? Not real consent. They are coercing our people to take a vaccine that’s experimental in nature upon threat of their livelihoods, their homes and their education.

Well, our government’s relying on a case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  So, I’m going to explain the case and explain why it actually supports our side that we get to choose medicine and medical treatments for our bodies. The case does not support the vaccine manufacturers and does not support vaccine mandates.

In 1902 during a smallpox pandemic, that killed hundreds of millions of people internationally, the state of Massachusetts passed a law and the law said that each person must be vaccinated for smallpox or pay a five dollar fine. That’s exactly what the law said. It was an ‘either-or’ law giving people the option to pay a five-dollar fine if they don’t want to get vaccinated.

Well, Mr Jacobson believed that his liberty interest protected him both from the vaccination and from paying the five-dollar fine. So, he went all the way to the US Supreme Court after paying the five-dollar fine and he wanted his money back.

And the Supreme Court looked at the medical evidence. The smallpox vaccine had been in use for a hundred years it was being used all over the world with a great deal of efficacy and it was quelling one of the worst pandemics in the history of the world. After reviewing the medical evidence carefully, after making findings concerning the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and the need for the smallpox vaccine, the court decided that Mr Jacobson did not get his five dollars back.

Now, keep in mind also Mr Jacobson believed he had a liberty interest to run around town and be seen out all over town without being vaccinated. So, he sort of flaunted the fact that he wasn’t vaccinated because he believed he had the right to be out and about without the medical treatment he did not want. And so, the court’s opinion was based on all of these facts.

And these facts do not support Covid mandates today. In fact, one of the last things the court said in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and I quote, “we now decide only that the statute covers the present case and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff, Mr Jacobson.”

There are several reasons why Jacobson does not support the vaccine mandates of today concerning the coronavirus.

First, there’s an enormous difference concerning the public risks involved. The smallpox pandemic was killing up to 60 percent of people in villages when the smallpox came through. Anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of people were dying with an overall death rate of about 30 percent. In some, at some periods, over 90 percent of babies who were exposed to smallpox were dying. Now compare that to Covid-19 that kills a tiny fraction of one percent of people, the public risk is not even close.

The second thing is, the Covid-19 vaccines are not really vaccines at all. Unlike the vaccines in history which stopped infection and stopped transmission these vaccines do neither. These are experimental vaccines. They haven’t been around for 100 years. They haven’t been tried and tested. And our people are being subjected to an experimental vaccine when none of us really know what the long-term effects are going to be.

And finally, the law in Jacobson v. Massachusetts gave an option for the people to pay five dollars. Today that would be just under $150. Compare that to people losing their livelihoods, all that they’ve worked for, their homes and their college education because they won’t submit to an experimental vaccine. There is simply no comparison. Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not support the vaccine manufacturers or the vaccine mandates.

So, some of you may be wondering then why haven’t the Covid vaccine mandates been declared unconstitutional fully. Well, some of them have been. But, there’s one that withstood the Supreme Court scrutiny on January 13, 2022. So, I want to explain that.

First of all, the health care worker vaccine mandate arose from the taxing and spending clause of the US Constitution found in Article 1 section 8. Congress has historically been given great latitude to attach strings to Federal monies. So, you take the sour with the sweet. And if you want Federal monies you have to submit to the conditions by Congress.

Throughout history Congress has been allowed to put conditions on the receipt of Medicare and Medicare funding, and specifically has authorised conditions to limit the transmission of communicable diseases. Still, the opinion was five to four. With only five justices agreeing that the vaccine mandate for health care workers passed the original test to see whether or not the court would stop the enforcement of the vaccine mandate.

But the real question is, as Justice Thomas indicated, why wasn’t the efficacy and safety of the vaccine considered? It was not considered. And Justice Thomas made that very clear in his dissent, joined by three other justices.

The reason that the vaccine’s efficacy and safety was not considered is because the issue is not before the court. Of the 22 states who challenged the health care vaccine mandate, no state claimed that the mandate violated the liberty clause. The liberty clause is where we find our medical freedoms. Throughout history the liberty clause is the clause used to protect us against unwanted medical procedures and even to allow us to demand medical procedures that we want.

So, you will see behind me a picture of the United States Supreme Court house. I have faith that when our justices are presented with the medical facts concerning the efficacy of the vaccine, the need for the vaccine and the way our governments are bullying and coercing people to take the vaccine against their desire, the court will uphold our liberty rights and they will declare all the vaccines unconstitutional.

Later today, in the and in the days that follow, you’ll be hearing from a number of medical professionals describing why this vaccine is nothing like the vaccines of the past

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! Gorgeous George just tweeted what I just posted here about the tunnel!

 

One of the things I used to do when going into HoC was to always use the stairs. On each floor I'd press the 'Call Lift' button, for no other reason than to make anyone travelling in the lift to stop on each floor for absolutely no reason! Bit childish and passive aggressive, I know! The way I saw it, I was just doing my duty to decent people!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SimonTV said:

So you are saying the whole truth is too much for people to believe, so stick with less than whole, so that it is more likely to appeal to a greater number of people. The same was said about 9/11 in the past, not sure if that got us anywhere with those types of people. 

 

No.

What I'm saying is that from a legal standpoint, with regards to the PCR test and irrefutable proof of a plandemic in general, why allow the most controversial to bog it all down?

 

You, like myself know that this virus isn't pathogenic.

But as someone who thought that  nothing about the lies told to us would surprise me, this rocked my world for sure, when I first came to fully realise this.

 

Explaining the fakery of the PCR test is far easier for the layman to understand. ( No disrespect intended)

Explaining, with detailed facts and written statement from the instigators, that this  has been long planned is clearly proven.

Explaining that the vaccine is actually a bioweapon is also proven.

Explaining from their own writings that this is a depopulation agenda is a given

 

Trying to dissect sophisticated biological analysis of viruses and whether or not they are pathogens, is a completely different ball game.

I say get on with what you can prove, without getting into an areas which even we don't fully understand- except in our hearts. This is another hill of beans, which can clearly be seen from the look on a world renowned virologists face when confronted with an incredibly uncomfortable truth.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

 

No.

What I'm saying is that from a legal standpoint, with regards to the PCR test and irrefutable proof of a plandemic in general, why allow the most controversial to bog it all down?

 

You, like myself know that this virus isn't pathogenic.

But as someone who thought that  nothing about the lies told to us would surprise me, this rocked my world for sure, when I first came to fully realise this.

 

Explaining the fakery of the PCR test is far easier for the layman to understand. ( No disrespect intended)

Explaining, with detailed facts and written statement from the instigators, that this  has been long planned is clearly proven.

Explaining that the vaccine is actually a bioweapon is also proven.

Explaining from their own writings that this is a depopulation agenda is a given

 

Trying to dissect sophisticated biological analysis of viruses and whether or not they are pathogens, is a completely different ball game.

I say get on with what you can prove, without getting into an areas which even we don't fully understand- except in our hearts. This is another hill of beans, which can clearly be seen from the look on a world renowned virologists face when confronted with an incredibly uncomfortable truth.

 

 

I think the answer to this old topic is a question, what is the platform? If it is on an internet forum then no reason not to present the whole truth. If you are making a case against criminals, in the court system or going on mainstream TV for an interview, then I think stick with the most credible arguments that prove their fraud or crime. 

Edited by SimonTV
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, wingwang said:

Ha! Gorgeous George just tweeted what I just posted here about the tunnel!

 

One of the things I used to do when going into HoC was to always use the stairs. On each floor I'd press the 'Call Lift' button, for no other reason than to make anyone travelling in the lift to stop on each floor for absolutely no reason! Bit childish and passive aggressive, I know! The way I saw it, I was just doing my duty to decent people!

 

The fuckers probably claimed it as travel expenses though.

  • Haha 2
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...