2024-02-22

That the NHS was overwhelmed in early 2020 is, in my view, completely obvious.

The question however is:

Overwhelmed by what?

By a novel and deadly virus...   or by a well-planned tsunami of authoritative propaganda that swept aside all doubts and reasonable concerns?

It's for you to decide.

2024-02-20

"The New Zealand Court of Appeal has ruled against the NZDF's Covid-19 vaccination mandate, citing breaches of rights"

"New Zealand... has made a decent ruling where they decided the government did not use the least burdensome method by imposing vaccine mandates. The court was only asked to stop the mandates and it complied"

Read all about it.

2024-02-19

With the world psychosis ratcheting incrementally every week, the latest example of over-reach comes from the home of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - yes, the government of La Belle France has legislated for... well, watch for yourself.

(11 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2024-02-17

Dr Angus Dalgleish explains for the Daily Sceptic quite a lot about virology that I might take the time to quibble with.

He also reviews the WHO's obsession with disease X, noting the emergence of very disturbing stories that some conspiracy theorists may regard as fear-mongering designed to drive a popular demand for the safety supposedly derived from control of the global medical response by the same WHO that made such an excellent job of defending us against the Covid menace. 

So is this yet more propaganda to push us into the arms of those who would rule the world, or does he have a good point to make?

Sadly I'm not going to spoil the ending - you'll just have to read it for yourself!

2024-02-16

A very hard-hitting, hard to watch report from UK Column covering chapter and verse of the Covid "pandemic" vaccines trials, and subsequent approvals under Emergency Use Authorisation by the MHRA.

"The FoIA request was eventually granted by court order through the PHMPT's attorney, Aaron Siri. The judge in the matter required the FDA to release all 451,000 pages of information over eight months, despite the FDA planning to retain the data for 75 years"

Yes, there's a lot of detail here but in summary form (phew!), all based on documented results from many thousands of volunteers for the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials.

It's a long presentation at a little over one hour, but keep going because the final summary of how the "outbreak" went all the way from "we've got a

2024-02-15

Personally I'm pretty fed up with the unstoppable folk at the WHO (and the UN and their multiple associated agencies and corporate associates with massive vested interests). It's high time they met with the irresistible force of mass non-compliance.

Their incessant obsession about pandemics and their supposed expertise giving them sole untrammelled authority to

(a) identify and declare a pandemic and
(b) dictate the interventions that we must all submit to in order to survive it

are become frankly boring. The are boring precisely because the WHO etc are impervious to rational argument, and push on with the same old same old regardless of all logical persuasion.

Their claim to be worthy of such powers can be refuted by simple logic in a few lines:

1. They are (we must assume and assert) human, and humans are infamous for their propensity to make errors,

2024-02-11

"We follow Government policy"

Dr John Campbell interviews John O'Looney, funeral director. 

It seems that the only difference between this and "disease X" is the preparedness of officialdom to talk about it.

Nothing new here, except the latest information on official exchanges. A reminder, if any were needed, of the dedication of our governing authorities to our welfare and safety.

(32 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2024-02-06

Once upon a time (and not so long ago) judges in Britain declared that freedom of speech without the freedom to offend was not worth having.

But under what circumstances does one man's "hate speech" override another's "freedom of speech"? It's a question that our parents/grandparents would not have understood, but with which we today must grapple.

Back in the day, Britain's judiciary used to take a robust view on people who decided to be offended by mere words. Provided that there was no incitement to commit a crime, Joe/Jemima Citizen was invited to take the rough with the smooth and grow a thick skin. It's a clear and unambiguous approach that used to put everyone on an equal footing in law, and facilitated full and frank discussion around many topics that some believe have become treacherous legal minefields

2024-02-03

Message (2nd February) - a recording of Reiner speaking (I assume by telephone since he is held for trial) from Germany.

An interesting update on his trial, and the circumstances that led up to it.

"Only one of these two narratives can be true"

(6 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

2024-02-03

Yes, this is new news of past events, but sometimes we need a reminder of just how "our" Government operates, and no doubt still operates.

If the government would wish to reduce wasteful expenditure that clearly lies within their power to control, then maybe ensuring that their procurement systems are protected from interference, and prosecuting those who did interfere "pour décourager les autres" would be a good place to start.

And the excuse that "there was no time because it was an emergency" does not wash.

In any emergency, the very last thing you need is product that isn't fit for purpose, so the procurement rules on quality control should have been tightened up and rigorously enforced.

2024-02-02

Some things take an exorbitantly long time to get resolved.

Take the case (currently in the news) of the Post Office managers who were pursued through the courts for imaginary losses that never existed, but were reported as deficient by the new Post Office computer system - and the courts agreed that the computer was infallible and therefore they were guilty. As an IT systems engineer of many years standing, I cannot conceive of how any competent (and honest) IT professional could possibly stand up in court and swear that his system was infallible. It also beggars belief that it could have got to court if either P.O. management or their accountants had been both competent and honest. 

Yet somehow it did. So who was professionally deficient and how? In the way of matters governmental, we will probably never find out, and that too should no longer be tolerated.

"It seemingly did not occur to anyone to ask why over 750 managers with hitherto unblemished

2024-01-31

Dr Tess Lawrie relates a convoluted story about the events that led to the "founding" of the WHO, a story which Is frankly too complex for me to corroborate.

Still, if true then it is indeed a tale of remarkable manipulation that drove a coach and horses right past any normal ratification process that would be required by a democratic system of national governance.

As a basis for annulling our membership through the courts it would likely be possible to spend an eternity in the courtroom painstakingly delving into all the events that are alleged and whether or not they would affect our membership, so it all boils down to whether either (a) we believe Dr Lawrie or (b) we don't believe Dr Lawrie or (c) we decide to check all the details out for ourselves (or can get someone to do that for us).

Over to

2024-01-26

Shocking testimony of Covid19 nurses - in the NHS and in the USA.

2024-01-26

Early in 2020, according to Professor Mark Woodhouse in his  evidence to the Covid Inquiry, the BBC (no less) was reporting "misinformation". Yet it went uncorrected "throughout 2020" which surely makes it "disinformation" (as in "d" for "deliberate")?

But his declared suspicions about the real reason for this failure to report this pretty important truth  to the public - that the risk of "dying from Covid" was vastly greater to the aged than to the young - had to do merely with justifying lockdown in the public mind.

This clearly marks him out as merely an amateur conspiracy theorist. A true conspiracy theorist would have recognised that if the actual impact of Covid was minimal for most of the population, then not only would lockdown never have been tolerated, nor would there have been any chance of jabbing the entire population with an untried and largely untested experimental gene therapy described as a "vaccine" in order

2024-01-19

Dominic Cummings issues a commentary on current and recent politics, and doesn't hold back (or does he?).

He has some interesting propositions for you if you have the odd few grand laying around with nothing better to do, some of which may well turn out to be worthwhile (though I would want a bit more detail if I were to get involved... ).

Whilst he fires plenty of arrows at the Covid scenario it is noteworthy that he never mentions the "v" word or the WHO or the global and completely novel nature of the Covid response - so nul points for totally missing the point. Maybe he was too close to the Covid action to notice the elephants in the Covid countermeasures corner? Or perhaps he just doesn't think bigly enough to escape the political assumptions upon which the system is built?

He does recognise that it's the political system that's broken, but sadly he doesn't draw

2024-01-18

ICAN release their latest legal update, with more data collected by the CDC (but not previously released) concerning adverse reactions to the Covid "vaccines". A lot of detailed information, including lot numbers, and links to previously released data for Pfizer and Moderna.

"ICAN recently broke the news that its legal team had wrangled detailed lot and dose data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines from CDC. Now, ICAN is happy to announce that we have likewise also obtained the critical lot and dose data for the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine"

2024-01-13

This short review of the Covid episode starts with an unlikely interview with the Russian military, and progresses with a selection of video clips that illustrate how the truth about the matter dawned on a number of influential people.

(13 minutes)

2024-01-08

The Archbishop addresses Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.

(Expand the video notes to view the transcript)

(16 minutes)

2024-01-06

This article is kind-of surplus to requirement, since even if it didn't exist there is to my mind ample proof that Covid was never a real thing - otherwise why would they need to bend all the rules you could think of (and several that you couldn't) worldwide,to ensure that everyone that had any kind of positive PCR test (a test that was never proven accurate by any measure!) would be counted as a Covid case?

But for good measure, here is an article by "dpl" who points up the embarrassing alleged truth that in addition to no virus at any time having actually been isolated, many studies over the years have shown no contagion due to viral transmission (of multiple varieties) although they obviously tried very hard, and none seem to have actually demonstrated contagion.

So if a virus has never been isolated nor been shown to be contagious, where does

2024-01-06

In the aftermath of the Covid imbroglio (not to mention the Nuremberg trials) we are now aware I think that our medical profession (egged on by sundry "experts" government officials and other agencies) fell very short of advising everybody of the real risks of the "emergency use authorisation" "vaccines", with consequences that they seem very keen not to explore.

So it is indeed (as it always was) up to "we the patients" to ask the right questions when we are offered a treatment by "our" NHS, or by any other health practitioner.

But - what are the right questions?

Inevitably perhaps, it's not as clear-cut as we might like, and I doubt very much if anybody is taught about this in school these days (nor were we in my schooldays either). But not asking the right questions (and not recognising unsatisfactory answers!) can have severe life-changing consequences - and it won't be much consolation to be told that that consequence is "very