EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Not everybody accepts that the SARS-CoV-2 virus even exists - and there may be good reasons to think that way.

Such a position necessarily raises uncomfortable questions about what big pharma are actually putting in their jabs, but from the point of view of the man in the street, whatever is on the label we have no way of verifying the actual contents anyway so we either trust them or we don't.

Nevertheless if we still have any trust in our medical establishments there is plenty of reason to suppose that all the medical authorities in the world are not wrong, so the question of where this virus came from is important. If it was of natural origin then that's one thing, but if it was created by humans in a lab that is quite another thing - and we have all heard of the virus lab in Wuhan, China, the city where the Covid-19 sickness was first identified.

This site touched briefly on this topic area last month but we now have a new article that goes into this question of origin in considerable detail, for those who have a mind to inform themselves of the ins and outs - for those that don't, the comments of Dr Robert Redfield, former director of the CDC (mentioned in our earlier article) summarise.

Not to be thought asleep on the job, Senator Rand Paul has been taking Dr Fauci to task for his alleged funding of this "gain of function" research (a charge he denies):


and more commentators are weighing in alleging that there is substance to this accusation:


None of which probably yet amounts to full proof of a specific charge, but it is indicative of where the politics may be going.


Today's UK Column News takes up the messaging in the Queen's Speech, noting how the Covid pandemic measures will likely be used to reshape societal norms to facilitate the Government's green agenda and the move away from fossil fuels.

The alleged use of "honeypot" groups on Facebook to attract "conspiracy theorists".

The US National Institute of Health has confirmed the normal function of the immune system in creating antibodies in those who have recovered from Covid-19. Nice to know that our natural immune systems still work.

But the antibodies produced in response to the inoculations are "different" . . .   it's not clear what that means, maybe they will protect you from future inoculations?

Meanwhile they report that the NHS confirm that it's OK to give blood 28 days after a jab if you had mild side effects.

Much more, including the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on the UK pharma industry, regulatory bodies, and government advisers - no real surprise there, just confirmation that the whole establishment might seem to some to be riddled with conflicts of interest.

For supporting links, visit the UK Column page.


Lockdown Sceptics may not be everybody's cup of tea but they do come up with some interesting nuggets. One such is the record of our boys in blue - or perhaps more accurately our justice system - in prosecuting offences under the Coronavirus Act 2020 - and other acts that have been used to imbue the coronavirus restrictions with the supposed force of law.

We have seen footage of arrests made (with unprecedented levels of force and sometimes what appears to be gratuitous violence) at protests where people simply want to exercise their traditional rights. Yet the government, by imbuing the Covid menace with previously unknown powers of transmission depending upon seemingly arbitrary circumstances, has sought to deny us our critical long-established freedoms.

It has been truly said that we don't value what we have until it is taken away.

So according to Lockdown Sceptics information, the enforcement of covid regulatory infractions has been singularly unsuccessful when push came to shove, with successful prosecutions remaining somewhat elusive.

Worth reading.


Is Covid-19 a crime against humanity?

Or are the vaccines a crime against humanity?

Or both of the above?

A crime must cause damage. An attempted crime need not cause damage but must have been attempted in order to cause damage.

It could be argued that Covid-19 itself (whatever it actually is) did not cause damage (being little worse than the infuenza which it seems to have somehow replaced), but was used by certain governments as the reason for the undoubted damage caused by imposition of severe lockdown restrictions.

But the case against the virtual imposition of vaccines through fear of Covid-19 induced by psychological manipulation is much stronger. The vaccines have not been fully authorised, they have only been given approval for use in an emergency, long-term safety is unknown. The trials are ongoing and will not be completed until 2022/2023. Yet the vaccines are being pushed onto the credulous with little apparent attempt to inform them of either the risks or the relatively small claimed benefits.

This is prima facie a major breach of the Nuremberg Code (download).

"Studies on how best to psychologically manipulate citizens to consent to enrolling in an experiment were undertaken by, among others, UCLA’s COVID-19 Health and Politics Project. Marketing, not science was part of the focus"

Jefferey Jaxen has the story.


Governments love to be thought to be the saviour of the people - listen to any politician and they will intervene in any number of ways known and as yet unknown to man to assure the future of the nation, the region, the city, the countryside, the ports, the railways, the hospitals, the towns, the rivers, the parks, the farmers, the fishermen, the housing market, the children, the pensioners, the veterans, the small businesses, etc etc (apologies to any I have omitted).

When have such interventions ever delivered their promised outcome (let alone at the promised cost)?

So will Boris Johnson's latest wheeze to level up the North bear the promised fruit of increased prosperity for the "grim up North", or will it simply expand the burden of stultifying central control outwards from London?

Brexit-watch has the story.