Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

Clif High - Trump Back?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1369

2022-11-16

Clif is his own man, working with his own tools, taking orders from no man (as far as I can see).

Here he is pontificating on the growing financial and pharmaceutical crashes.

Bix is the finance man who makes it his business to analyse the Gold-Silver-Crypto topography.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

But what's looming "out there" in January ...?

Yes, much of this is speculation, but I can't think of many who are better qualified to indulge.

Batten the hatches, this is going to be orders of magnitude more scary and confusing than where we are now.

(61 minutes) 

 

 

Trump's Remarks at Mar a Largo

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1631

2022-11-16

The video below will skip the intro and start at 1hr 36 minutes for the 45th President's appearance.

(Use the link above to start at the beginning)

(1 hr 18 or 2hrs 54 mins)

 

 

Sanctions? What Sanctions?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1631

2022-11-11

Alternative title: "Sanctions for thee but not for me?"

This video speaks for itself ...  but please don't throw anything at, or hit your screen ...

(14 minutes)

 

Like / Dislike this video here.

 

Trust me - I'm an Obstetrician/Midwife/Gynaecologist?

Details
Category: Health
Hits: 1138

2022-11-11

There are many now who believe that the Covid jabs have led to increasing numbers of stillbirths and other issues around maternity care, but DR EMMA JONES writing for Unherd catalogues a history of problems in NHS maternity units going back well before the start of the "pandemic", from the point of view of one who has personally lived the experience.

"I thought I had seen everything. But nothing prepares you for O&G"

"This internal politics put lives at risk"

"Once held up as a beacon of good practice, it is now seen as enabling the 'worst scandal in NHS history' "

"Following publication of the report, ... Police were said have identified 823 cases ... between 2003 and 2022. It bears repeating: this is a medical trust that had been celebrated by the NHS for having high standards"

"A ... NHS Foundation Trust obstetrician recently told a coroner that he had been pressured by an NHS manager to claim a baby delivered in the hospital was stillborn. Dr ... said it was done out of “loyalty” to the trust (his NHS manager denied this). This is the language of the mafia — not a taxpayer-funded, state-run healthcare system"

Unless of course the State is the mafia.

"Fail to pay your TV licence, and you can go to jail. Fail in your duty of care so that babies die, and nothing happens. There are simply no consequences for the worst and serial offenders within the NHS, and so a culture of mediocrity prevails"

Inform yourself.

 

Are Today's Nurses and Medicos Competent?

Details
Category: Health
Hits: 1483

2022-11-10

We would all hope so, indeed we should demand so, since nurses need numerical ability in order to get the decimal point in the right place when administering drugs to patients - who may well not think (for any number of reasons) to check their work in this department.

Startlingly, some experienced nursing professionals, writing in the Daily Sceptic, fear that nursing numeracy cannot at all be taken for granted.

"When George Orwell’s Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four taught that two plus two equals five, the point was that authoritarians can make people believe something they know to be untrue. If nurses are innumerate, a pandemic can be presented with whatever numbers that the Government wants to induce fear and compliance"

"Don't be ridiculous!" I hear you say, but - "How many trotted out the mantra about the COVID-19 vaccines being 95% effective, not realising (as has been often explained) the fundamental difference between relative risk as opposed to absolute risk reduction?"

Of course, dear reader, I don't have to explain the difference between "relative risk" and "absolute risk" to you, do I?

But I have another quibble with many of these statistics - the absolute risk that we will (for example) develop cancer may (or may not!) be twice as high if we measure that likelihood over a longer period. So my risk of getting cancer may very likely be twice as high when measured over a period of two years than if measured over a period of one year, if only because I have run much the same risk for twice as long.

Yet statements such as "95% effective" need to be similarly qualified by a time period, since it is now more or less universally accepted that Covid vaccine protection wanes over time - even to the extent of becoming negative ...  why else would we need constant boosters?

So to determine efficacy we must qualify this efficacy with a time period - how long is it efficacious for?

How many times did you hear any authority quote an efficacy or a risk together with an associated time-frame?

Is it any wonder then, given the above, what some pharmaceutical companies believe they can get away with?

 

Page 304 of 337