Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

once you've figured it out maybe we can post up the leaflets on the 'stopnewnormal' site

https://www.stopnewnormal.net/downloads

 

standleaf1.webp

Leaf1.webp

 

leafGIf.webp

 

stopLeaf.png

 

leaf3.webp

 

Good idea.... never heard of that page before.

 

It's getting REALLY pathetic now....It is SO clear and can be PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT that this whole scam is NOT about health and that ALL the Government propaganda can be PROVEN to be false.

 

NO dept in the Gov can show that a virus exists (in reply to FOIA requests), deaths from all causes are the same or LOWER than any normal year (from ONS own website), flu has disappeared--and the "laws" they have brought out re fines etc etc have not been debated or ratified in parliament, therefore they are null and void. Headcock, Whiffy and Vallance ALL have conflicts of interest, especially Whiffy, being on the board of many companies that are involved in vaccines etc, Vallance being CEO of GSK. Headcock and others being given funds by Gates, as is the BBC (propaganda arm of the Gov and affiliated to MI6.

It WILL come crashing down, and hopefully the fascists will go to prison for a VERY long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government website reveals extensive 'COVID cases' fraud

October 31, 2020 Steve Cook

 

“RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present. “

Government report

by David Linden

Today’s breaking news is that a paper published on the government’s website has revealed that the infamous “PCR” test is of no use in detecting whether a live infection is present.

Ministers are said to be fearful of a furious public backlash in reaction to what is now known to be an ongoing fraud used to spread  disinformation about the infectiousness of a flu-like bug  that can prove serious in a small number of cases.

In essence what has happened is this:

The “PCR”test has been carried out on a large and growing number of people.

This has inevitably produced a large and growing number of “positives”.

The test has a number of possible flaws and proneness to inaccuracy and many have criticised the irresponsibility of using it as proof of the spread of any disease. However, if properly done can detect the presence of minute amounts of the remnants of genetic material from various viruses, the COVID19 virus among them.

The detection of the presence of these leftover bits of genetic material DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN the person is currently infected with a live virus.

It can show, for instance, that the person was to one degree or another previously infected (and often so mildly they scarcely noticed) and some of the viral material from the previous infection has not yet been flushed out of their system. The PCR test then detects these remnants and produces a “positive”.

These “positives” are then fraudulently called “cases” by the government.

It is not known at this stage the percentage of “cases” that were not actually cases but it is believed, given that the test CANNOT DETECT a LIVE VIRUS to be high.

This has then enabled Ministers to spread alarm at the “number of cases” that are showing up, justified instructing people to self isolate, instruct those they have been in contact with to self isolate, lock down entire communities, falsely declare that the “disease is spreading out of control” and various other aspects of social and economic mayhem that have inflicted misery on the populace.

An investigation is being urged into whether the fraudulent reporting of “cases” has also falsely inflated the “COVID death” stats. One source alleged that :

“When the focus is on testing large numbers of very old people who are in care homes and people in hospital undergoing treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer and such people “test positive” for COVID, then die of old age or their existing condition within 28 days of having allegedly tested positive, this  would push up the “COVID deaths” or “deaths with COVID” numbers, creating yet more needless alarm.”

In light of the information having been published on the government’s own website, it is evident that ministers may have known all along that their declared number of “cases” was fraudulent.

It is not known at this stage whether the government plans to apologise for the damage its miscreant behaviour has inflicted on the country or whether the ministers, advisers and so forth responsible will resign and/or face criminal charges.

Yet even though the uselessness of the PCR test has been admitted, the government is still using its “results” to justify further damaging measures and the ruination of thousands of businesses that rely on Christmas sales.

The seriousness of these revelations can be best understood in the context of admissions by the Chief Medical Officer as long ago as May that COVID 19 is only dangerous in a very small number of cases (see below).

These two facts throw into question what precisely the government has been playing at these past months.

One source told this reporter that:

“The disingenuous campaign by the government and its evident determination to use that disinformation to  bring down the country raise questions that every citizen should be asking, namely what the true agenda of the government is.”

The quoted government admission comes from

Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

A guide for health protection teams

You can find it at the top of page 6 .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REQUEST FOR FOI FROM GOVERNMENT FROM Bartholomeus Lakeman -MAY 2020

 

 

 

Dear Prime Minister's Office,
Please supply the following on Covid-19
1. Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus (SARS-CoV-2)?
2. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described?
3. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?
4. Where is (if there is proof of SARS-CoV-2) its antibody test that fulfils the Koch postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by SARS-CoV-2?
Should I not hear from you within 20 days with full answers to the above points, everyone will be entitled to assume that 1, 2, 3 & 4 are not proven to exist, and that there is no true scientific evidence for the virus causing ‘Covid-19’; and that all related legislation are null and void.

 

 

REPLY ON 26TH JUNE 2020

 

FOI Reference: FOI2020/06375 
22/06/2020 
Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman 
 
I refer to your request where you asked: 
 
1) Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and ful y characterised virus (SARS-
CoV-2)? 
 
2. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which said virus is 
il ustrated and its ful  genetic information described? 
 
3. What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper which provides 
unequivocal proof that the ‘Covid-19’ virus is the sole cause of a particular disease? 
 
4. Where is (if there is proof of SARS-CoV-2) its antibody test that fulfils the Koch 
postulates and has a false positive below 30%; that can confirm being infected by 
SARS-CoV-2?” 

 
I am writing to advise you that fol owing a search of our paper and electronic records, I 
have established that the information you requested is not held by the Cabinet Office. 
 
You may wish to try contacting Public Health England at the fol owing link: 
[email protected], who may be able to help you with your request.  
 
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request or wish 



to request an internal review, you should write to: 
 
Eirian Walsh Atkins 
Cabinet Office 
70 Whitehall 
London 
SW1A 2AS 
 
email: [email protected] 
 
You should note that the Cabinet Office wil  not normal y accept an application for 
internal review if it is received more than two months after the date that the reply was 
issued. 
 
If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may apply directly to 
the Information Commissioner for a decision. General y, the Commissioner cannot 
make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by 
Cabinet Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 
 
The Information Commissioner’s Office 
Wycliffe House 
Water Lane 
Wilmslow 
Cheshire 
SK9 5AF 
 
Yours sincerely  
 
FOI Team 
Cabinet Office 


 

FURTHER REPLY ON 17TH JULY 2020


 

17/07/2020 
Bartholomeus Lakeman 

(By email only[email protected] 
 
  
  
Dear Bartholomeus Lakeman 
   
Cabinet Office Internal Review Reference: IR2020/08461 
(Original Case Reference: FOI2020/06375) 
  
REVIEW OF REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 
  
Thank you for your email of  22 June 2020. You asked for an internal review of our 
response to your request for information of 21 May 2020. In your request you asked for 
information on Covid-19. 
  
I have careful y reviewed the handling of your request and I consider that our original 
response was incorrect. The Cabinet Office held relevant material, which lies in the 
public domain, at the time of your request. I am therefore applying Section 21 of the 
Freedom of Information Act, and you can find links to the relevant materials provided. 
 
For further materials or information, you may wish to contact Public Health England 
(PHE). 
  
I have considered the points you make about independent scientists, and it should be 
noted that Government policy is not informed by individuals, but by the Scientific 
Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely, 
coordinated scientific advice is available to support decision making at Cabinet Office 
Briefing Room (COBR) meetings.   
 
If you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information you, have the right 
to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information 
Commissioner can be contacted at: 
  
Information Commissioner’s Office 


Wycliffe House 
Water Lane 
Wilmslow 
Cheshire 
SK9 5AF Eirian Walsh Atkins  

REPLY FROM Bartholomeus Lakeman 22ND JULY 2020

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,
My FOI2020/06375 of 21 May to the Prime Minister’s Office (Cabinet Office): On 22 June, their respond was “the Cabinet Office does not hold the information you requested. However, you may wish to contact Public Health England, who may hold information relevant to your request.”
When I requested for an internal review their response of 17 July is that PHE or SAGE may hold info relevant to your request.
Reading PHE and SAGE responses to FOI requests similar as that of my; it appears that both state either that they cannot provide such answers in regards the science behind and about covid19 or they refer to the NOS (who neither have such answers) or that their ‘knowledge’ is an assumption and is not verified.
The Cabinet Office’ responds “we do not hold the information you requested” is unacceptable and not creditable. Due to them having imposed the Corona Acts’ measurements which are detrimental for many people: It is the Cabinet Office who is liable to providing the scientific evidence in support of said Act.

Consequently, either the Cabinet accepts another review or are do, via an appeal another review and provide claer answers, or do admit that the Corona Act fails to have scientific evidence in support

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAWSUIT ON COVID-19 SWABS
The undersigned ...
PREMISE
1) With a joint statement Dr. Fabio Franchi, M.D, Expert in Infectious Disease and
Virology; Dr. Antonietta Gatti Scientist, Expert in Nanopathologies, Dr. Stefano
Montanari, Pharmacist Scientific researcher and Nanopathologist, and Prof.
Stefano Scoglio, Scientific Researcher, Nobel Prize Candidate for Medicine 2018;
found that the results of the swab tests are completely unreliable and that “…to
continue to use swabs tests in order to obtain data to justify the proclamations of
the state of emergency, individual or group quarantines, and personal limitations
and lockdowns, from schools to businesses to families, it is a practice with no
scientific basis whatsoever."
2) In particular, Prof. Stefano Scoglio (Ph.D., B.Sc.) coordinated the expert
activities and carried out the study "COVID-19 SWAB TESTS PRODUCE UP TO
95% OF FALSE POSITIVE: CERTIFIED BY THE ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ.
With the most complete analysis on Covid-19 swab TESTS "(doc. 4).
3) IN PARTICULAR, THE ABOVE EXPERTS HAVE HIGHLIGHTED:
a) to have ascertained, from a document of the European Commission and one of
the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, that the types of swab tests circulating in Europe
as of May 16, 2020 were 78, none of which were authorized, evaluated or
validated;
b) having found, from the same documents, that most of the same swab tests are
also devoid of the declaration of the gene sequences they contain;
c) by the same admission of the American Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (doc. 3) and of the Covid Working Group of the EU Commission, the
SARS-Cov2 virus (doc. 2), allegedly responsible for Covid-19, has never been
isolated or physio-chemically quantified;
d) The pathogenic liquids used as a model for gene sequencing had no virus
titration or quantification, which implies that these liquids contained billions of
other viral-like particles (including non-pathogenic extracellular vesicles naturally
present in our organism);
This means that there is no specific marker of the virus to date, and therefore no
standard that can make reliable swab tests.
e) The swab tests currently in circulation, over 100, are exempted from the controls
provided for by the European law on medical devices of 1997;
f) At the same time, they are not yet subject to the new European standard of
2017, which will only come into force in May 2022;

g) This regulatory limbo makes manufacturers free to circulate any type of device
without any control. This means that the conformity of the swab tests produced to
the standards that can guarantee their correct effectiveness is today not verified.
h) There are numerous studies that attest to the continuous mutation of the virus,
and the health authorities themselves recognize that if the virus continues to
mutate, the swab tests become useless.
i) There are almost 150,000 different sequences of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the
GISAID virus database; they were 70,000 in April; and they continue to grow,
because new mutations are always found, and that makes the circulating swab
tests completely useless. On this point, see the scientific research of Dr. Scoglio
that analyzes this essential element.
This means that the circulating tests, even if they were to be considered abstractly
effective and actually compliant with the legislation, are completely useless as they
cannot ascertain the mutations.
j) There is also a substantial problem related to the methodology used in the swab
tests, the RT-PCR. As the leading experts of this methodology underline, to work
properly this methodology should ideally use between 20 and 30 PCR cycles;
however, it should never exceed 35 cycles, because above this threshold the PCR
begins to create completely random sequences. Well, as confirmed by several
documents that we enclose, almost all swabs exceed 35-40 cycles on average,
and are therefore to be considered completely ineffective and productive of false
positives.
k) Finally, as explained in a recent document from the Istituto Superiore di Sanità,
the effectiveness of swab tests depends on 3 factors: sensitivity, or the ability to
detect the presence of generic RNA; the specificity, that is the ability to limit this
RNA to the specific one of the virus being searched; and the prevalence, or the
presence of viral disease in the population. This is because the higher the
prevalence, the greater the circulation of the virus, and therefore the greater the
possibility of detecting it. To date, the prevalence in Italy, which in true pandemics
can reach up to 30% of the population, is 0.1%; and even if it were to be increased
10 times, it would still be a negligible level of prevalence; which means, based on a
table of the authoritative international organization FIND taken from the ISS, that
the medium performance swab tests, in Italy, produce around 85% -90% of false
positives.
In essence, the COVID-19 SWAB TESTS, PHARYNGEAL OR NASAL, HAS NO
DIAGNOSTIC VALUE WHATSOEVER.
CONSIDERATIONS
A) On the basis of the swab tests in question, in recent months ALARMING DATA
HAVE BEEN SPREAD relating to:
1) number of deaths from Covid;
2) number of people infected with Covid hospitalized;
3) number of asymptomatic people infected with Covid.
B) Based on the results of the same tests, MEASURES HAVE BEEN ISSUED:
1) limiting personal freedom by imposing quarantine measures;
2) limiting the freedom of movement between regions and within the national
territory;

3) limiting the freedom to enter the national territory or the regional territory;
4) which weighed heavily on public spending and the national economy.
C) On the basis of the same tests the following have been compromised:
1) the right to education;
2) the right to access public health;
3) the right to access kindergartens and nursery schools;
4) the right to work;
5) the freedom of private economic initiative.
These circumstances have in fact generated heavy repercussions on the general
economy of Italy and have irremediably compromised production activities and in
particular small and medium-sized enterprises as well as all “VAT numbers”
workers. Likewise, employees, directly or indirectly, have suffered significant
economic repercussions. In general, every citizen has suffered enormous damage
both of an economic and relational nature as well as on a personal biological level,
especially in reference to the high level of anxiety and fear determined in the whole
population.
Given the above considerations, and the facts set out above, the undersigned, as
better generalized above,
THEY ASK
that this addressed Authority will make appropriate investigations regarding the
facts as detailed in the narrative, evaluating any criminal and unlawful profiles and,
if necessary, identify the possible responsible subjects in order to proceed against
them.
With this statement it is intended to formulate a complaint-lawsuit, again in relation
to the facts described above, and in the event that the investigations carried out by
the competent Authorities should reveal offenses for which the law requires
admissibility on the base of a party complaint, in order to obtain the sentencing of
those who will be held responsible and the COMPENSATION FOR the PERSONAL
DAMAGES suffered by reason of the circumstances indicated under A), B) and C)
of the considerations.
The undersigned also ask to be warned, pursuant to articles 405 and 408 c.p.p. in
the event that Your Lordship wishes to request an extension of the terms of the
preliminary investigations or to proceed to the cassation of this complaint.
The undersigned also reserve the right to integrate the oral and documentary
evidence and appoint the lawyer ......., of the Court of ......., with office in .........
The following documents are filed:
1) EU test validation in Working document test performance 16 April 2020;
2) ISS Covid tests Part 2 https --- www.epicentro.iss.it-coronavirus-pdf-covidreport-19-46-2020;

3) CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
updated on 13-07-2020;
4) Prof. Stefano Scoglio - About Covid-19 Tampons;
5) FIND evaluation update - SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics - FIND;
6) Joint declaration of the Experts;

Date Place
Signatures

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

  •  

  • October 17, 2020

Story at-a-glance

  • The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss), launched July 10, 2020, was founded by four trial attorneys to investigate and prosecute those responsible for implementing the economically devastating lockdowns around the world, as well as using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic

  • The Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee will be working with an international network of lawyers to argue the most massive tort case ever — a case described as “probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed”

  • They argue that pandemic measures were intended to sow panic so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, and the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints

  • Lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong, the Inquiry Committee insists. The virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline when lockdowns were imposed; scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity, and the PCR test cannot be used to identify an active infection with SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus

  • While mortality statistics during the pandemic have been within the norms of any given year, meaning the pandemic has not resulted in an excess number of deaths or a death toll higher than normal, the collateral damage from pandemic response measures is nearly incalculable

The video announcement1,2,3,4 above by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich5 is long, but I strongly recommend listening to it in its entirety. Fuellmich has been a consumer protection trial lawyer in California and Germany6 for 26 years and is one of four founding members of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss7),8,9 launched July 10, 2020.

The other three founding members, all lawyers, are Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer and Justus P. Hoffmann, Ph.D.10 Fuellmich is heading up the committee's corona crisis tort case. All meetings are live-streamed and available on the Committee's YouTube channel11 (at least for now).

According to Fuellmich, an international class-action lawsuit will be filed against those responsible for implementing the economically devastating lockdowns around the world, as well as using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic.

This includes everyone from local policy makers all the way to the World Health Organization and drug companies. He claims more than 50 other countries will be following suit.

"I have been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche bank, formerly one of the world's largest and most respected banks, today one of the most toxic criminal organizations in the world;
VW, one of the world's largest and most respected car manufacturers, today notorious for its giant diesel fraud; and Cunard and Niagara the world's largest shipping company. We're suing them in a multi-million-dollar bribery case," Fuellmich says.
"All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by the German corporations pale in comparison in view of the extent of the damage that the corona crisis has caused and continues to cause. This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a corona scandal; and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages."

Exposing Corrupt Agendas

Fuellmich stresses that, on a political level, all-out efforts must be made to ensure "that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity, or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas."

To that end, the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee will be working with an international network of lawyers to argue the most massive tort case ever — a case Fuellmich describes as "probably the greatest crime against humanity ever committed."

As explained by Fuellmich, crimes against humanity, first defined during the Nuremberg trials following World War II, are today regulated in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three questions the committee seeks to answer through judicial means are:

1. Is there a COVID-19 pandemic or is there only a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test pandemic?

Specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and has COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the COVID-19 infection?

2. Do pandemic response measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world's population from COVID-19, or do these measures serve only to make people panic?

Are these measures intended to sow "panic in order to make people believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?"

3. Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied — more so than any other country — by the chief protagonists of this COVID-19 pandemic?

According to Fuellmich, Germany "is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence" to pandemic measures.

Answers to these questions are urgently needed, he says, because SARS-CoV-2, which is touted as one of the most serious threats to life in modern history, "has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world."

Pandemic measures, on the other hand, have "caused the loss of innumerable human lives, and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide," Fuellmich says.

He points out that in Australia, residents are now thrown into prison if they do not comply with mask rules, and in the Philippines, people can be shot dead if they defy lockdown orders or don't wear a mask.12,13 During the first week of April 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced he would "not hesitate" to kill anyone challenging his pandemic restrictions:14,15

"I will not hesitate. My orders are to the police and military, as well as village officials, if there is any trouble, or occasions where there's violence and your lives are in danger, shoot them dead.
Is that understood? Dead. Instead of causing trouble, I will bury you. Do not intimidate the government. Do not challenge the government. You will lose," Duterte said.

This hardly seems to be a strategy aimed at preserving life. Fuellmich goes on to present "the facts as they present themselves," based on expert testimony collected by the committee so far.

The German Congress on Global Health

According to Fuellmich, in May 2019, and again in early 2020, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) of Germany held a congress on global health. In addition to political leaders, including Mr. Tedros Adhanom, head of the WHO, and German health officials, speeches were also given by chief lobbyists of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. 

"Less than a year later these very people called the shots in the proclamation of the worldwide corona pandemic, made sure that mass PCR tests were used to prove mass infections with COVID-19 all over the world, and are now pushing for vaccines to be invented and sold worldwide," Fuellmich says.
"These infections, or rather the positive test results that the PCR tests delivered, in turn became the justification for worldwide lockdowns, social distancing and mandatory face masks."

He also points out that the very definition of "pandemic" was altered 12 years ago. Originally, a pandemic was defined as a disease that spread worldwide, resulting in widespread serious illness and deaths. Twelve years ago, the definition was changed to reflect a disease that spreads worldwide only. "Many serious illnesses and many deaths were not required anymore, to announce a pandemic," he says.

The Swine Flu Pandemic That Wasn't

This change to the definition of a pandemic is what allowed the WHO to declare the swine flu a pandemic in June 2009,16 which resulted in the sale of many millions of dollars of fast-tracked swine flu vaccines. Within months, cases of disability and death from the H1N1 vaccine were reported in various parts of the world.

In the aftermath, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO's handling of the pandemic. In June 2010, PACE concluded "the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a 'waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.'"17

Specifically, PACE concluded there was "overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO," and that the drug industry had influenced the organization's decision-making.

A joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) also uncovered serious conflicts of interest between the WHO — which promoted the global vaccination agenda — and the drug companies that created those vaccines.18 As noted by Fuellmich:

"These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned out to be a mild flu and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain to happen, if people didn't get vaccinated.
These vaccines also led to serious health problems: about 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers' money had to be destroyed, with even more taxpayers' money."

The Virologist Responsible for Germany's Lockdown Orders

One of the characters that drummed up panic in 2009 with his doomsday prophesies was German virologist Christian Drosten, head of the Institute of Virology at the University of Bonn Medical Centre, best known for developing the first diagnostic test for SARS in 2003. He also developed a diagnostic test for the swine flu.19

Drosten spoke at the 2019 CDU congress on global health, and according to Fuellmich, when it came time to decide on a response for COVID-19, the German government relied on the opinion of Drosten alone. 

"In an outrageous violation of the universally accepted principle audiator at ultra parse, which means that one must also hear the other side, the only person they listened to was Mr. Drosten, that is, the very person whose horrific panic-inducing prognosis had proved to be catastrophically false 12 years earlier," Fuellmich says.

Meanwhile, many "highly renowned scientists" painted a completely different picture of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them, professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California; professor Michael Levitt, a biophysicist at Stanford University and Nobel prize winner for chemistry; German professors Karin Mulling, Sucharit Bhakdi, Klud Wittkowski and Stefan Homburg.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, is also on this list. Yeadon recently went on record stating "there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen," and that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to "manufacture a 'second wave' based on 'new cases.'"20

"They assumed, and still do assume, that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of the seasonal flu; that the population had already acquired cross or T-cell immunity against this allegedly new virus; and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures and certainly not for vaccinations," Fuellmich says.

He also quotes21 from a scientific paper published in September 2020 by Yeadon and colleagues, in which they state:

"We're basing our government policy, our economic policy and the policy of restricting fundamental rights presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus. If it weren't for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over, because nothing really happened."

Situational Analysis

Commenting on "the current, actual situation regarding the virus's danger; the complete uselessness of PCR tests for the detection of infections; and the lockdowns based on nonexistent infections," Fuellmich states:

"We know that the health care systems were never in danger of becoming overwhelmed by COVID-19. On the contrary, many hospitals remain empty to this day and some are now facing bankruptcy. The hospital ship Comfort which anchored in New York at the time, and could have accommodated a thousand patients, never accommodated more than some 20 patients.
Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of the seasonal flu; even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading.
Then, the so-called 'panic paper' was leaked which was written by the German Department of the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that in fact the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. 
The accompanying irresponsible statements of the head of the RKI, remember the CDC, Mr. Wieler who repeatedly and excitedly announced that the corona measures must be followed unconditionally by the population, without them asking any question shows that he followed the script verbatim.
In his public statements, he kept announcing that the situation was very grave and threatening although the figures compiled by his own institute proved the exact opposite. Among other things, the panic paper calls for children to be made to feel responsible, and I quote, 'for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the corona rules.'"

Fuellmich goes on to cite data showing that in Bergamo, Italy, 94% of deaths were not the result of COVID-19 infection spreading wild but, rather, the consequence of the government's decision to transfer sick patients from hospitals to nursing homes, where they spread infection — colds, flu and SARS-CoV-2 — among the old and frail.

This was also done by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo,22 in direct violation of federal guidelines,23 as well as in Minnesota, Ohio,24 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and California.25 Fuellmich also points out the routine malpractice that occurred in some New York hospitals, where all suspected COVID-19 patients were placed on mechanical ventilation, which turned out to be a death sentence.

"Again, to clarify, COVID-19 … is a dangerous disease, just like the seasonal flu is a dangerous disease, and of course COVID-19, just like the seasonal flu, may sometimes take a severe clinical course and will sometimes kill patients," Fuellmich says.
"However, as autopsies have shown, which were carried out in Germany, in particular by the forensic scientist Professor Klaus Püschel in Hamburg, the fatalities he examined had almost all been caused by serious pre-existing conditions and almost all of the people who had died, had died at a very old age, just like in Italy, meaning they had lived beyond their average life expectancy.
In this context, the following should also be mentioned: the German RKI, that is again the equivalent of the CDC, had initially, strangely enough, recommended that no autopsies be performed and there are numerous credible reports that doctors and hospitals worldwide had been paid money for declaring a deceased person a victim of COVID-19 rather than writing down the true cause of death on the death certificate, for example a heart attack or a gunshot wound.
Without the autopsies, we would never know that the overwhelming majority of the alleged COVID-19 victims had died of completely different diseases but not of COVID-19."

Lockdowns Were and Are Unnecessary

Based on the expert testimony collected so far by Fuellmich and his colleagues, lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong. The three reasons for this are:

  1. Lockdowns were imposed at a time when the virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline

  2. Scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity from exposure to cold and flu viruses26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35

  3. The PCR test — which is being used as a gauge of infection rates and a justification for restrictive measures — "do not give any indication of an infection with any virus let alone an infection with SARS-CoV-2"

To the politicians, who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline, that can help you readjust your course of action and start the long overdue public scientific discussion and not go down with those charlatans and criminals. ~ Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

The PCR Test Fraud

First of all, the PCR test have not been approved for diagnostic purposes. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. As noted by Fuellmich:

"[PCR tests] are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease ... A positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does not mean that they're infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even the United States CDC … agrees with this and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests dated July 13 2020:36
  • Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

  • The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.

  • This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is … considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable.
However, the Drosten test as well as the WHO recommended tests … are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?"

Equally important is the fact that PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones. As a result, they may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk whatsoever to the patient and others. What's more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you've recuperated from a common cold in the past.

"Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014 … that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive," Fuellmich notes.
"In my view, it is completely implausible that [Drosten] forgot in 2020 what he knew about the PCR tests and told the business magazine in 2014. In short, this test cannot detect any infection, contrary to all false claims stating that it can.
An infection, a so-called hot infection, requires that the virus … penetrates into the cells, replicates there and causes symptoms such as headaches or a sore throat. Only then is a person really infected, in the sense of a hot infection; because only then is a person contagious, that is, able to infect others.
Until then it is completely harmless for both the host and all other people that the host comes into contact with … A number of highly respected scientists worldwide assume that there has never been a corona pandemic but only a PCR test pandemic …
Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology, Camera from Germany, Capel from the Netherlands and Cahill from Ireland as well as a microbiologist, Dr. Harvey from Austria, all of whom testified before the German corona committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found."

In the September 20, 2020 article37 "Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics — The Deadly Danger of False Positives," Yeadon details the problems with basing our pandemic response on positive PCR tests.

In summary, the PCR test simply measures the presence of partial DNA sequences that are present in a virus, but it cannot tell us whether that virus is active or inactive. Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious.

Collateral Damage

While mortality statistics during the pandemic have been within the norms of any given year,38,39 meaning the pandemic has not resulted in an excess number of deaths or a death toll higher than normal, the collateral damage from pandemic response measures is nearly incalculable. Public health, both physical and mental, as well as the global economy, have all suffered tremendous blows.

Fuellmich cites yet another leaked document written by a German official in the Department of the Interior, dubbed "the False Alarm paper,"40,41 which concludes that there's no evidence to suggest SARS-CoV-2 posed a serious health risk for the population, at least the danger is no greater than that of many other viruses, while pandemic measures have "manifold" and "grave" consequences.

"This, he concludes, will lead to very high claims for damages, which the government will be held responsible for. This has now become reality but the paper's author was suspended," Fuellmich says.
"More and more scientists, but also lawyers, recognize that as a result of the deliberate panic-mongering and the corona measures enabled by this panic, democracy is in great danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models …
According to psychologists and psychotherapists who testified before the corona committee, children are traumatized en masse, with the worst psychological consequences yet to be expected in the medium and long term.
In Germany alone, 500,000 to 800,000 bankruptcies are expected in the fall to strike small and medium-sized businesses which form the backbone of the economy. This will result in incalculable tax losses and incalculably high and long-term social security money transfers for, among other things, unemployment benefits."

Legal Consequences

In closing, Fuellmich reviews the legal consequences that are currently underway. This includes looking at the constitutionality of the measures. He notes:

"Very recently, a judge, Torsten Schleife … declared publicly that the German judiciary, just like the general public has been so panic-stricken that it was no longer able to administer justice properly. He says that the courts of law, and I quote:
'Have all too quickly waved through coercive measures which for millions of people all over Germany represent massive suspensions of their constitutional rights.' He points out that German citizens, again I quote:
'Are currently experiencing the most serious encroachment on their constitutional rights since the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. In order to contain the corona pandemic federal and state governments have intervened,' he says, 'massively and in part threatening the very existence of the country, as it is guaranteed by the constitutional rights of the people.'"

Then there are the issues of fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity. According to Fuellmich, there's evidence showing a range of falsehoods and misrepresentations of facts have purposely been circulated, such that, based on the rules of criminal law, "it can only be assessed as fraud," and "based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage."

"The German professor of civil law, Martin Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews in a comprehensive legal opinion of around 180 pages. He has familiarized himself with the subject matter like no other legal scholar has done thus far and in particular has provided a detailed account of the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the true facts of this so-called pandemic," Fuellmich says.
"Under the rules of civil tort law, all those who have been harmed by these PCR tests, PCR tests induced lockdowns are entitled to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate, that is, a duty to pay damages, for the loss of profits suffered by companies and self-employed persons as a result of the lockdown, and other measures.
In the meantime, however, the anti-corona measures have caused and continue to cause such devastating damage to the world's population's health and economy that the crimes committed by Messrs Drosten, Wieler and the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity, as defined in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code."

To address these grievances, the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee is prepared to file a class-action lawsuit — a legal remedy available in the U.S. and Canada — against the responsible parties.

"It should be emphasized that nobody must join the class action, but every injured party can join the class action," Fuellmich explains. "The advantage of the class action is that only one trial is needed, namely, to try the complaint of a representative plaintiff who is affected in a manner typical of everyone else in the class."

Such a lawsuit would also open the door to pretrial discovery, which requires all relevant evidence to be presented to the other party. Destruction or withholding evidence has serious consequences, as "the party withholding or … destroying evidence loses the case under these evidence rules."

In Germany, a group of tort lawyers have already started the process of disseminating information and legal forms, and estimating damages among German plaintiffs. Fuellmich concludes his announcement explaining how the lawsuit will proceed from here:

"Initially, this group of lawyers had considered to also collect and manage the claims for damages of other non-German plaintiffs but this proved to be unmanageable.
However, through an international lawyers' network, which is growing larger by the day, the German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues, in all other countries, free of charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing that the PCR tests cannot detect infections and they also provide them with all relevant information as to how they can prepare and bundle the claims for damages of their clients so that they too can assert their clients claims for damages either in their home countries, courts of law, or within the framework of the class action as explained above …
To the politicians, who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline, that can help you readjust your course of action and start the long overdue public scientific discussion and not go down with those charlatans and criminals."
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saved said:

Ticketmaster says fans will need proof they've had the vaccine or a negative COVID test result to attend concerts and sports games when they return.

 

https://trib.al/8GMBPXF

 

It is against the law (do we have any laws any more?) for someone to ask you for your medical details. It goes against the Equalities Act 2010 Sect 112/119 and carries a £9,000 fine.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good explanation of RNA PCR Test

 

 

The PCR test typically takes a fragment of a virus and duplicates (amplified) it to a size large enough to study under an electron microscope (in a nutshell). There is no 'gold' standard to this testing method and everyone amplifies to differing extents. At 35 amplification you are pretty much guaranteed to get a 'positive' result for any virus (error rate accounted for).....AND UK AMPLIFIES UP TO 45 TIMES!!

 

At 45 amplification you would get 100% positive results regardless of the human subject as everyone has virus fragments naturally.

So a PCR test is only accurate at a given amplification to detect 'viral load' - so what amplification is our testing system using? as there is no gold standard to follow, they could amplify however much they desire!

Needless to say, a positive result does not indicate infection, but simply that virus fragments are present - the PCR test was NEVER designed to diagnose infection, but simply to amplify a given sample to a size at which it could be studied. So any PCR test to diagnose infection is being used totally falsely - you could therefore conclude from this, that if the government wanted to scare people with a large number of 'infections', they could simply up the amplification to give positive results (not that this is in anyway an indication of infection!) and say a vaccine was rolled out, then any testing could simply reduce the amplification to conclude the vaccine works with nil positive results!

 

By this government conducting PCR tests and claiming "cases" (which implies infection), they are lying to the people - you cannot test for infection using the PCR method of testing as stated by the inventor of the test.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More BS from Tony Blair. He wants your data, big time!:

 

Quote

"We must not repeat the error of the tracing app when it comes to data. We need the best system in the world in place now, so that every aspect of Covid-19 data can be gathered together. That means all the information on patients; recording of every test, including those not carried out by the government; and the setting up of a vaccine registration system so that as we vaccinate, every part of the experience is recorded."

 

Light at the End of the Tunnel (2nd November 2020)

https://institute.global/policy/light-end-tunnel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jesuitsdidit said:

@ Epsom

Hi

can you please give link for

LAWSUIT ON COVID-19 SWABS

And

 

Good Explanation of RNA PCR test

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the links. I found the articles somewhere and saved them, but not the links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you get tested?  Costs 5 quid.

 

The daily £5 Covid-19 test that can give a result in 15 minutes could be the key to

The Government is reportedly set to buy 200million of the tests which give a 'yes' or 'no' result in 15 minutes. A negative result would allow millions of people the freedom to socialise and experts say this could be key to moving away from strict coronavirus restrictions. People who test negative could also receive a 'day pass' to go to the theatre, cinema or a sports event. Scientists have found the test can detect around three in four positive cases of Covid. This accuracy goes up to 95 per cent when dealing with a high viral load - which makes people most infectious. The tests are one of those at the heart of the Operation Moonshot pilot and could see the kits used in towns and cities across the UK to help the government get on top of the pandemic by the spring. Public Health England and the University of Oxford have evaluated 40 lateral flow tests - similar to the ones being used in Liverpool - which are like pregnancy tests in the sense that they provide a 'yes' or 'no' result for Covid within minutes. Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford, said: 'These inexpensive, easy-to-use tests can play a major role in our fight against Covid-19. They identify those who are likely to spread the disease and when used systematically in mass testing could reduce transmissions by 90 per cent. They will be detecting the disease in large numbers of people who have never previously even received a test.' Left: Mass testing site in Liverpool. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8940421/The-daily-5-Covid-19-test-result-15-minutes-key-opening-venues.html

Edited by alexa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Macnamara said:

If they achieve their new world order then brexit becomes a moot point

Yes, and stopping Brexit is a serious part of them achieving their new world order. You are looking at it at the opposite end, of exactly the same telescope, from which I am.

 

10 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

 

Regardless of the exact reason why this happened, it is nice to hear.

 

7 hours ago, Saved said:

Ticketmaster says fans will need proof they've had the vaccine or a negative COVID test result to attend concerts and sports games when they return.

https://trib.al/8GMBPXF

 

I wonder what Ticketmaster will say, after most folks politely tell them where to go.

 

6 hours ago, epsom said:

Headcock, Whiffy and Vallance ALL have conflicts of interest, especially Whiffy, being on the board of many companies that are involved in vaccines etc, Vallance being CEO of GSK. Headcock and others being given funds by Gates, as is the BBC (propaganda arm of the Gov and affiliated to MI6. It WILL come crashing down, and hopefully the fascists will go to prison for a VERY long time.

 

It's all very brazen.

 

6 hours ago, epsom said:

During the first week of April 2020, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced he would "not hesitate" to kill anyone challenging his pandemic restrictions:

"I will not hesitate. My orders are to the police and military, as well as village officials, if there is any trouble, or occasions where there's violence and your lives are in danger, shoot them dead. Is that understood? Dead. Instead of causing trouble, I will bury you. Do not intimidate the government. Do not challenge the government. You will lose," Duterte said.

This hardly seems to be a strategy aimed at preserving life.

 

 

Ha ha ha.

 

Edited by numnuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did do a very quick intuitive writing response to the news of the vaccine - this is what the heart of this soul had to say on the issue for anyone interested

 

Divide and rule must stop and we must reclaim our divine intelligence.

Yesterday the media celebrated the news that Pfizer have successfully produced a vaccine for Co-Vid 19. The news immediately triggered a series of media reports trying to designate ordinary people into two camps. 1) Pro-Vaccers who are seen to be “good” 2) Anti-vaccers, or the “bad” granny murderers. So, we have the issue of vaccinations and immediately we are encouraged to take a side. My issue with this is, that it leaves very little room for intelligence – because it is very unlikely that an intelligent human being - can take an absolutist stance on such an issue. History shows us that some vaccines by and large, have been very successful and by the same token, some have been terribly unsuccessful and caused untold harm, damage and even death.

 

Similarly, I have witnessed the media in recent times trying to divide and rule the population in this manner on a host of other controversial issues. Most namely; the environment, Donald Trump and Black lives matter. I am encouraged to either hate or love Trump. To completely believe climate change is 100% caused by man or be labelled a climate change “denier”, to support Black lives matter or face the alternative of being labelled a racist. What about folk who think that Donald Trump has done some terrific things but also done some not so great things? What about those people who can see that humans have caused a lot of damage to this earth, but also that perhaps many other, uncontrollable factors also, cause, at least; or far more damage to the earth? What about those people who agree that Black lives do matter but also think that the organisation Black lives matter has some serious nonsensical and dangerous issues and policies? Are we allowed a voice? And do we have to be constantly placed into these divisive camps which only leads to division, censorship, hatred and stifles intellectual debate?

 

In terms of the vaccine, if I must be labelled - then I would prefer to be labelled in the pro-safety camp, because this allows for intellectual manoeuvre on both sides of the argument. And I think it’s perfectly acceptable for any human being who takes responsibility for their own health, to be concerned about a vaccine that uses technology never tried before and has been rushed through in break neck speed. This is especially so when these companies have signed non-liability agreements with the government so if they do go wrong in the future and people are harmed, there is no financial or other recourse for these people. So, the only time to question these things IS right now!

However, there is even an effort to disable all discussion about the concerns of those who are pro-safety with calls to even make it a criminal offence. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../spreading-anti-vaxx.../...

 

As a sovereign being with intelligence, I do not appreciate this attempt at stifling discourse and dividing humanity constantly into two camps on every issue. It is my opinion that all sides of the argument should be discussed in a mature and intelligent manner and those with differing opinions should not be castigated, but welcomed with open arms into the debate. And we must all develop the emotional literacy to be able to accept that people do have different opinions to our own - and that is perfectly fine.

 

 
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice of Conditional Acceptance of Lockdown

Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal

 

Their Name (Acting as the Right Honourable Name)

Their Address

 

Re: Lockdown from 5th November 2020.

 

Dear [M.P. Name],

I am writing to tell you of my conditional acceptance of the above proposed Lockdown, subject to the following conditions:

1. Documented, independent scientific evidence that the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and proved to exist in reality

 

2. Documented, independent scientific evidence that Lockdown is, at the present time, the most effective method of eradicating the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2

 

3. Documented, independent scientific evidence that, within the United Kingdom, the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2 is registered as a High Consequence Infectious Disease

 

4. Documented, independent scientific evidence that, within the United Kingdom, the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2 is causing high numbers of fatalities across a range of age groups

 

5. Documented, independent scientific evidence that the method of detecting transmission used within the United Kingdom is fit for purpose as a test for the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2

 

6. Documented, independent scientific evidence that the method of detecting transmission used within the United Kingdom is able to isolate and detect the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2 only in each test subject

 

7. Documented, independent scientific evidence that the detection method of the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2 is being used in accordance with its design purpose

 

8. Documented, scientific evidence that the National Health Service nationwide has been, since March 2020, and still is, in need of protection due to the overwhelming number of hospitalisations for the alleged virus known as SARS-CoV-2

 

9. That you, as my current Member of Parliament, together with every other current Member of Parliament, who voted for this Lockdown (from 5th November) are prepared to take full accountability for your actions and are prepared to compensate me, together with any member of this country, to a minimum of £50,000 Sterling and a maximum of £5,000,000 Sterling from your own assets (not the privy purse or from the taxpayer) for any harm, loss or injury caused as a result of your decision to approve this Lockdown. The Notice Of Liability to be countersigned by a notary public and payment to be made within 30 days of proof of claim with compound interest accruing at 8% per day; solicitors’ fees for both parties paid from the member of parliaments’ assets, said letter of liability to be made public throughout the United Kingdom

 

10. That you, as my current Member of Parliament, together with every other current Member of Parliament who voted for this Lockdown, as a gesture of goodwill as a Public Servant, pledge to receive 80% of your gross salary (including expenses) for the full term of this Lockdown and donate the remaining 20% to your local foodbank in order to support those detrimentally affected by this Lockdown. Said pledge to be countersigned by a notary public and made public across the United Kingdom and evidenced at the end of the Lockdown by the individual foodbanks to which individual Members of Parliament donated. This also to be made public throughout the United Kingdom

 

If I have not heard back from you within 30 days with the independent, documented, independent scientific evidence, Notice Of Liability and Pledge Of Goodwill, then I will consider the matter closed and the Lockdown void, due to lack of evidence, lack of personal and parliamentary accountability and lack of goodwill in service to the people.

 

Sent without prejudice,

 

By:[Autograph]

All rights reserved.

Non waived ever.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
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...