Nor I for your 'Virtual experience'.

Then again why would you, why would anyone believe anything anyone has to say unless it fuels the fire to ignite delusional thoughts and opinions within themselves that can fill the void of anything of substance in their experience of reality?

I don't know you, nor do you know me, however I will say this: I genuinely wish you all the best. In the main, I do come on here mostly to disrupt the monotony during the working day but also to converse and share the tumultuous experience with kindred spirits who too have seen the light, or rather dim glow in following the Palace.

I do think those who scrutinise those in power and the messages/media etc we are fed serve a very pivotal and necessary role within society. You do come across however as being of the stereotyped ilk of basement dwelling, angry, tin hat conspirators. Not saying that to be cruel or even suggesting it's correct however it does come across, to me anyways, in that way. I'd also suggest if I come across as a worshipper of MSM and figures in power you'd be sorely mistaken.

I do get somewhat embroiled in the drama of it all however and perhaps make the odd joke or remark that comes across as aggressive, a fault which I will unreservedly admit to having. I'm leaving my opening statement in as an example but upon reflection apologise if I have offended at any point.

I will end by saying that I do think it unhealthy to become too consumed with what will remain as 'conspiracy theories' and would be inclined to suggest they are extremely detrimental to people's mental health/wellbeing and at best a waste of time. I would also speculate that there are many out there, especially on social media, who are attuned to this and willing to exploit it for financial gain. Not stating definitively that is the case here, with you, or anyone else but in any circumstance sincerely hope not. i do disagree with your stance however I will resist from any further provocation or 'joke' and once again wish you all the best. I genuinely do have 5h!t I need to do today! COYP

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

You are some form of zealot so it's pointless debating with you.

99.99% of Doctors in the world agree with the vaccinations but you know better.

We always knew there was a 'with COVID' and 'of COVID' differential, we just could not quantify it and 'with' can be the final straw for some who are unwell.

You have clearly proved nothing except you can't understand the points made by the ONS, which does indeed factor in false positives. The ONS believes that the positives are under-reported, not over-reported.

I recommend you discuss your views with intensive care nursing and medical professionals and see whether they are convinced.

Incorrect.

No vaccine is 100% if we go by what you are stating which is your opinion then no vaccines exist for anything.

(VPN) - [Link]
(Alt VPN) - [Link]

But no vaccine is 0% right?

Had I made an ad hominem attack on you I would have simply said you are a swivel eyed loon. Calling you a zealot is a statement of fact.

There are 9.2m doctors in the world. Please enumerate those that disagree with vaccination.

As I ran Care Homes, we discussed ‘with’ vs ‘of’ from the outset, as did all medical professionals.

We also discussed viral load, the underlying question in respect of PCR cycling

For those who are unaware:

In most commonly used COVID PCR tests, a positive result is given if a fluorescent signal develops after a number of ‘amplification’ cycles. The cycle threshold (Ct) is the number of amplification cycles required for the fluorescent signal to become strong enough to confirm a positive result. Because of the way PCR works, the more virus in a sample to start with, the fewer cycles are needed for a signal to be detected – the lower the Ct value.

A low Ct value is associated with a high viral load. This means the amount of virus in a given sample was high, and therefore the infected person is more likely to go on to infect others.