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.
