People have asked me why I think people didn’t protest about lockdowns etc early on.
It’s a good question, and it remains relevant, because (& I wish I wasn’t) I’m absolutely certain there will be more, perhaps new, indignities heaped upon us all. The perpetrators will no doubt have noted carefully what reactions their assault on our freedoms elicited & will recalibrate the next steps.
Here are some thoughts. I’m not the best observer & I lived mostly in rural England, so what I saw was “not much”. In my village, we encountered maybe a dozen people who knew it was all BS, but only two who were much further down the rabbit hole & they were Polish.
Very many did resist.
1. We ignored the restrictions, to the best of our ability. Obviously, with all the pubs, small business etc closed, options to speak were limited. Nothing bad happened.
2. Speaking out on social media especially Twitter led to tirades of farmed & genuine abuse. None of us are trained to handle this.
3. Many of us joined demonstrations of up to hundreds of thousands of people. These weren’t reported.
In brief, while many did resist, it was fewer than a tiny % of those who didn’t think what was happening was right, because there was absolutely no mechanism to communicate to a mass of other people that they should resist.
4. We were paid to sit quietly at home & wait for the normal times to arrive. Unfortunately that was the intent & what’s coming instead are the end times.
Ian Brown wrote this in summer 2020. How he knew with such pin sharp precision is a matter of wonderment. I was months behind him.
Whatever you think of him, and the song, which undersells his musical abilities horribly, check his lyrics.
He was & still is hammered mercilessly for his “conspiracy theories”. He wasn’t wrong.
Best wishes
Mike

Ian Brown wrote this in summer 2020. How he knew with such pin sharp precision is a matter of wonderment. I was months behind him.
Best wishes

https://youtu.be/gOHn6KurHE0

ian brown little seed big tree lyrics https://g.co/kgs/ywtUyZ

This terse, high quality piece from Dr Sasha Latypova complements her two previous deep dives into the regulatory dossiers for the c19 injections from Pfizer & Moderna.

This one focuses on impacts on existing pregnancies.

It’s dreadful.

I’m not surprised.

Best wishes
Mike

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-injections-in-pregnant-women-lead-to-8x-increase-in-spontaneous-abortions-and-3x-increase-in-stillbirths.-a48c57af

Pregnancy Loss

"Alarming numbers for lost pregnancies are coming from a variety of sources now, from doctors and from safety surveillance databases. As of February 2022, the VAERS database contained over 2000 reports of loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks in injected women. For reference, the entire VAERS database, since its inception and for all products other than covid-19 injections (approximately 98 other vaccines) contained ~700 such reports."

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-injections-in-pregnant-women-lead-to-8x-increase-in-spontaneous-abortions-and-3x-increase-in-stillbirths.-a48c57af

THE HEIDELBERG APPEAL (1992)

We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …

4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates

https://americanpolicy.org/2002/03/29/the-heidelberg-appeal/

The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths. 

The science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report

"Ideology of climate alarmism (as preached by IPCC, complicit  NGOs and Obama administration) can be defined as a primitive cult complete with worshiping idols, claiming that natural disasters happen because we do not listen to its shamans and necessary sacrifices. Many prominent scientists and non-scientists talked about that. 

https://defyccc.com/climate-science-is-upside-down-recap/

Some examples: 

Lindzen: “As with any cult … they get more and more fanatical“, 

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate: “Global warming has really become a new religion.“, 

Monckton of Brenchley: “They have gotten religion, but they call it science“, 

Cardinal Pell: “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.“, 

William Happer, Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University: “climate change cult“,  

Michael Crichton (about environmentalism in general), and myself here & here.

The energy industry (including nuclear and hydro power, not only fossil fuels) is demanded as the first sacrifice.  I will not speculate what demands will follow, but humans emit CO2 when we breathe, and these emissions are substantial (about 5% of the total).  There is nothing metaphorical about calling climate alarmism a cult or a religion."

Monckton: Of meteorology and morality

"They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.

The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.

Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? 

As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.

Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.

“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus!"

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/

Steve Kirsch has written 700+ articles on COVID & he declares this as THE MOST IMPORTANT he’s ever written.
It exposes the scandal at the heart of the Israeli government that they knew the “vaccines” were harming people yet they says nothing.
It’s all coming apart.
No media in the world is reporting on this.
If anyone still thinks what’s happening is random incompetence, time to give your head a wobble.
Please share widely right now, before it gets smothered.
Best wishes
Mike
Mike

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/exclusive-proof-that-the-top-israeli

Filling Gasoline Cars Could Become Cheaper Than Charging EVs in the UK

Due to skyrocketing energy prices, Britons could soon face higher costs for charging their electric vehicles (EVs) at home than filling up gasoline-fueled cars, The Washington Times reports.

The high energy and electricity prices that could undermine the growth in EVs uptake in the UK and globally could be a cautionary tale for what could be the future in the U.S. if the energy transition is pushed to accelerate without accounting for whether EVs and renewable energy sources could replace fossil fuels, analysts tell The Washington Times.

Link to the article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/filling-gasoline-cars-could-become-cheaper-than-charging-evs-uk/5792349

⬆️ All carefully planned.

The EU is Weaponising Russian Gas Against its Own People

Corporate media claims Putin is weaponising energy against the EU.

The reality, as always, is almost the opposite: it is the EU who are weaponising energy against their own people, except the oligarchy of course.

Peskov: It is the EU, not Russia that has the contractual obligation of repairing Nord Stream 1
https://www.imolaoggi.it/2022/09/05/gas-cremlino-e-la-ue-che-deve-riparare-il-nord-stream-1/

GPs to receive incentive payments to deliver ‘accelerated’ care home Covid boosters

"GPs will be incentivised to deliver ‘accelerated’ autumn Covid boosters in care homes, with payments of up to £525 per completed care home.
The autumn programme is due to start from next week, but GPs have now been asked to complete care home vaccinations by 23 October where possible."

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/breaking-news/gps-to-receive-incentive-payments-to-deliver-accelerated-care-home-covid-boosters/

https://youtu.be/kLqHVKVuBaw

This is a huge change & it’ll affect everyone, either practically or psychologically, who has money in a UK registered bank.
It is proposed that, “if it is necessary due to economic circumstances, they may limit the balance in your account, either by applying a charge or a limit”.
Recall the Cyprus bail-ins?
If you’ve money, I doubt there’s anything you can do, such as moving it.
I’ve no doubt they’ll just take it, when they want.
Be aware & do whatever you’d decided you’re going to do under these circumstances.
Best wishes
Mike

The Pompous Fool is gone, long live the Pompous Fool!

https://youtu.be/VcnN1NTz3mE

Dear all,

In recent interviews describing the multiple fraudulent aspects of the entire covid19 fiasco, obviously & deliberately planned and executed, I’ve chosen no longer to speak in detail about the PCR method, employed in the so-called “PCR test”, on grounds that there are so many, much more easily-communicated fraudulent matters.
PCR is very complicated & ignorant enthusiasts, without lab experience of applying the reaction who also have deep appreciation of the underlying theoretical aspects, simply don’t know what they don’t know.
Applied as it has been all around the world for clinical diagnostic purposes, “the method” as described in the rushed paper by Corman, Drosten & co, is unequivocally useless, because of numerous, severe & unresolved flaws in the very design, in the methods & in the interpretation of results.
In brief, it cannot to shown to “do what it says in the tin”.
Yet, commercial kits based on this & related methods have been used for well over two years, branding a significant fraction of the population in advanced nations “positive” for SARS-CoV-2.
In my opinion, this is a criminal matter, inserting a known to be fatally flawed test protocol, into the clinical diagnostic workflows in rapidly established huge testing facilitates. I know from direct expert testimony given by a personally highly experienced laboratory research scientist in UK that, even if a test based in this paper had been fully validated, the way it was used, mostly using workers inexperienced in commercial laboratories, could not fail to generate large & undefined proportions of false positives.
This permitted the perpetrators to anticipate that a useful fraction of tested samples would return a positive result. Allied to deliberately malign & harmful medical treatment protocols, we see how the fraudulent claim that huge numbers of people “died within 28 days of a positive test” was created.
Remember, it was never considered necessary to corroborate a clinical, symptoms based diagnosis in order that a “covid case” or “Covid death” has occurred.
Stir in the global near-complete suspension of post mortem examinations, and this is the heart of the criminal fraud of epic proportions that has been wrought upon the world.

Just to illustrate how complicated this all is, the critical review of that original methods paper, still not corrected or withdrawn (“Corman-Drosten paper”, subject to the “Corman-Drosten Review, at the link) contains the short summary below.

If it’s difficult for good scientists, experienced in using the PCR method, to be able to discern what really is the utility & limitations of the method for clinical diagnostics, what hope do medical professionals without deep knowledge of PCR, let alone non-technical people have, in cutting through this fraud deception?

That’s why, once a large number of other, more easily communicated fraudulent matters arose, I chose no longer to feature deliberately bad PCR testing in my talks.

Please have a read yourself then share this critical review with anyone who you think might at least get the gist of why we’ve known that the diagnostic testing at the heart of this global fraud was so effective.

I do so because the perpetrators can do it again at any time & I expect they will. Billions of doses of “vaccines” are continuing to be manufactured & distributed. Fraudulent grounds will be manufactured which will result in drives to get a needle into every arm. At least, that’s what I anticipate, based in joining the dots. Any claimed infectious disease crisis involving a PCR based test is going to be fraudulent.

Best wishes
Mike

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/


SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:
1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.