Prior to the first Lockdown, the 'Experts' informed us that there was very little evidence that the wearing of face coverings would have an impact on the spread of the virus but the 'Science' evolves.

I understand only a couple of weeks ago, Professor Van Tam asserted that a 'Circuit break' would have been the appropriate action a couple of weeks previously but at present there was no justification for tight restrictions in areas where the virus was not prevalent.Now of course there are rumblings about a second Lockdown but the picture can change of course and we keep hearing about the virus spreading "Exponentially".

So lets examine the evidence here:

1. 2011 - Swine Flu - big pharma accused of exaggerating the impact and the number of deaths to push vaccines in order to profit. Predicts 65,000 deaths in UK when there is about 350 (Professor Neil Ferguson). Ferguson also gets it wildly wrong about Ebola and foot and mount resulting in the needless slaughter of millions of animals.

2. 2019 - Event 201 - war gaming of a global pandemic "novel zoonotic coronavirus". Organised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Recommendations from this include a push for vaccines (Gates being a major investor in this) and mass censorship of any alternative narrative i.e. "media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology"

3. Virus is thought to have started in December 2019 but deaths only start to increase significantly after lockdown in March once NHS healthcare is removed for almost everything other than COVID. large numbers of these death is are in care homes where residents and care workers are largely left to fend for themselves as hospital beds are cleared. DNR's are also pushed heavily with already sick residents it seems.

4. The original criteria of the registration of deaths of COVID are very loose indeed. Initially (up until about June) anyone who has had a positive test (see 6) at any time and dies of anything even unrelated is counted as a COVID death. This was changed later in the summer to anyone who has tested positive in the last month (but again, by any cause of death). There also seems to be general pressure to register any death as COVID and a positive test is not required for this. I have personal experience of this.

5. As deaths subside in the summer attention is switched overnight from deaths to "cases". Cases include any person who tested positive to a PCR test (see 6). This includes many who are asymptomatic. Government relentlessly pushes for "testing, testing, testing".

6. PCR tests are not designed to be a diagnostic but are used as such. False positives are common and would statistically account for many/most of the positive results as testing ramps up significantly in autumn. It's also understood that the results of PCR tests will vary with the number of "cycles". The higher the number the higher a chance of a false positive and the UK and many other countries seem to be using very high (35+) numbers of cycles which would increase the number of false positives. Also PCR tests would potentially pick up someone who already recovered weeks ago or only had a similar virus.

7. Currently deaths are *lower* than average for all but people who die at home yet we are on the verge of another draconian lockdown. Lockdown destroys smaller businesses and results in a huge transfer of wealth to corporations as seen in stock prices.

8. WHO, GAVI, Imperial College (Ferguson), BBC etc all linked financially (huge sums involved). Lot's of big pharma corporation "stakeholders" receive huge contracts for vaccines, contact tracing etc. See attached.

9. The UN, WHO, WEF, World Bank all pushing for the "great reset" to "build back better" also known as "stakeholder capitalism" as apparently the lockdown has been a great success and shown us the way forward. This will include a cashless society, mandated vaccines, track and trace apps, reduction in travel, not owning any property but most importantly a globally centralised administration. Situation is now somehow conflated with the green agenda as corporations do not stand to benefit from contracts to build huge and inefficient wind and solar farms, replace all cars with electric etc etc. They are doing all this for our benefit. The only thing that links COVID and the green agenda to my mind is they are "global".

10. None of the above is widely discussed in corporate media but most coverage is simply wildly hyperbolic about the risks and perpetuates the same narrative.

Have I missed anything? (can't be bothered to do masks)

Attachment: UK Column.jpg (134.99Kb)

It’s an option for people to find sense to the madness. But the madness is the western world trying to prevent anyone from dying because it’s become so unused to it and it’s become so unpalatable to many that they’d rather the younger generations and poor feel the consequences instead, for decades. Or they’re in denial of the long term deep consequences, as is the case this century. And we print more money as a solution so need to fret about finances anyway, until at some point there becomes a breaking point.

I’ve actually read left as well as right leaning/wing people make these conspiracy theories look exactly that.

COYP

4 weeks.

Doesn't include schools or borders.

It also isn’t to have a Covid only policy by government decree and to lie to and manipulate its people.

COYP