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

Featured

"No-one is Safe Until Everyone is Safe"

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 124

2026-09-26

"No-one is safe until everyone is safe".

Which means?

"No-one is safe".

Because making everyone safe is an impossibility.

But words appeal to different people in different ways. If you have spent your earthly life in IT then you are likely to respond to the logic. In which case you may agree with the above reasoning.

If you have spent your life in a more flexible "feel good" profession such as entertainment, publishing, film-making etc then you may well have a different interpretation, regarding logic as unnecessarily limited in its ability to convey meaning.

Those that prefer to trust "the authorities" (because fundamentally they find the idea that 'authorities may be seriously untrustworthy' is a notion that they don't feel able to cope with) may appreciate the first assertion as "caring" and therefore support it in preference to the second.

It's not a question now of right or wrong interpretations, it's a question of to which audience are we speaking?

"On Friday, September 25, governments met at the UN General Assembly in New York to work together on the next pandemic, according to the World Health Organization"

Of course, the unstated assumption is that the "next pandemic" (on a global scale) is a given, despite the rather consequential facts that

(a) the Covid "pandemic" was an exceptionally damp squib, having negligible effect of deaths from all causes prior to the vaccine roll-out 

(b) the previous "pandemic" was the Spanish Flu over a century ago (and that's not exactly uncontroversial either, but let that pass)

(c) the WHO is not exactly untainted by heavily invested Big Pharma interests for whom a new pandemic would represent a vast government-mandated financial payday.

So with what frequency is it really reasonable to expect an actual real pandemic?

My view is simple. Simply abolish the WHO to remove the threat.

Sadly that may not come to pass just yet, so until then we must work at it.

Note: for those who eschew simplicity of analysis and prefer to wade through the official story, HART have published a paper on the UK Covid Inquiry's view of "vaccine effectiveness". Good luck with that. I content myself with noting that the accuracy of the PCR test upon which diagnosis was totally dependent has never been established, probably because the test wasn't defined except in overall principle and implementation must have been subject to unknown levels of variability. Both aspects that I'd bet the Inquiry never looked into ... but without which all attempts to analyse the statistics must be discredited as worthless.

Ivor's Advice for Troubled Times

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 473

2026-09-26

Ivor Cummins came to prominence for us during the pandemic, when his analyses pretty clearly demonstrated that we were not being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Quite the reverse.

He gave us all confidence that we were absolutely right to question authority.

In some respects Ivor is very much a jack of all trades, someone who can review the facts and figures, tease out and explain the significant aspects regardless of subject-matter. It's how he made his living.

Ivor himself has grown through his experiences and moved on, to now offer some words of wisdom on how we may nurture our mental strength to survive endure and prosper in these seemingly unprecedented times of authorities with feet of clay, or worse. Those who have habitually constructed their world-view from official pronouncements and officially-approved news sources will need to review and update such predispositions if they want to keep up with incoming events ... it will be hard going.

(35 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

 

Meanwhile Down on the Farm ...

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 109

2026-09-26

" ... an entire way of life – a way toward health, well-being, and happiness – has been [and is being - ed] stolen from us ... forced out of existence"

We see it in the UK, where small way-of-life farmers are being driven off the land by exorbitant death duties and the like, no doubt to be bought up by corporate Big Agri.

When nobody can remember how to grow and raise food, what will we do?

"The same class of people who managed the pandemic response have been managing our food supply for many decades"

And given us glyphosate, amongst many other pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides and defoliants none of which are harmless but nearly all of which get sprayed over our crops (and in which our livestock gets dipped). And thence into the soil. And get used as weapons of war (eg: Agent Orange in the Vietnam war - they've been at this a long time).

Good luck trying to avoid it all.

"Food emancipation is not about suburban poseurs who buy ribbon-wrapped jars of pickled cabbage at the holiday fair. It’s about a full way of life that we are losing at the hands of an industrial and governmental cartel"

Brownstone Institute reports.

 

 

Let's Hear it for the CDC

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 93

2026-09-26

"Safe and Effective". Oh good, no worries, it will protect us.

"The sentence does not say “no evidence of a link.” It says the evidence is not sufficient to decide either way."

"Inherently Unsafe". Therefore we cannot sue the manufacturer, we can only apply to the government for "compensation". The government can afford bigger lawyers than we can.

You pays your money (in taxes) and you takes your choice (in life). 

But is this playing field actually levelled properly?

There is no prize on offer for a correct answer to the question "what product family do the above phrases reference?". 

The Centre for Disease Control is an American medical regulator.

From whom many regulators from other nations take their lead.

 

 

Let's Hear it for DMSO

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 109

2026-09-26

DMSO is not a wonder drug. It's a solvent made from wood.

And yet ...   it turns out according to many that it may be useful to address health problems that mainstream medicine does not.

And it's inexpensive (provided we don't all rush out to buy it at once).

So what's not to like? 

In many cases, whilst showing promise, it's a bit experimental in terms of dosage and the best way to apply/ingest it. 

On the other hand it does of itself seem to be very safe, even if (in common with much else) it may be painful if you get it in your eyes for example. 

And like castor oil, it's penetrative when applied topically, so may be used to "carry" other medications into the tissues concerned.

Worth getting to know perhaps.

 

Page 18 of 482