Sunday, 27 September 2020

David Icke - Speech Save Our Rights


Dave To all Members of the UK Government IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST We have serious concerns that the elected government is not acting for the people. As an MP it is your duty to serve the public and protect their interests and the UK. It is clear that this has not been happening since the passing of the Coronavirus Act in March 2020 and we need your help. We DO NOT consent to the renewal of the Coronavirus Act at its 6 month review in September because that would clearly not be in the public interest. It is not needed, as there is now a mass of information proving that this virus is in no way as severe as the government is making it out to be. QUESTIONS: 1. Why did the UK government itself state on the 19th of March, that the Covid19 virus was NOT a "High consequence Infectious Disease", then, on the very same day start the process of the Coronavirus Act 2020 with all its draconian rules and regulations, and going against all medical advice? 2. Why was this not called the Covid19 Act? as that was the name of the virus which we were supposed to be fighting. Instead, it was named after a group of viruses which include the common cold and Influenza, as well as other viruses for which we have not taken such draconian actions for, or destroyed our economy for? 3. The Covid19 virus has never been isolated and proven to exist! So why therefore, did the government use the words Covid19 to strike fear into the nation and bringing it to a standstill. 4. Why did the government give instruction to hospital medical doctors to place Covid19 on death certificates as the cause of death? Even when tests had not been carried out to confirm the actual cause of death? Instead, they advised doctors to include "Died with" and "suspected of having" as actual deaths from Covid19 (a virus that has never even been proven to exist). 5. Why did the government give instructions to medical staff in hospitals and care homes, to apply "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR)notices on patients over 45, who were suspected of having Covid19? Also it issued the same instructions on disabled people suspected of having the disease, regardless of age? And why did the government give advice for elderly people in care homes with the disease, not to be admitted to hospitals? THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO MANSLAUGHTER! 6. Why is the government using a testing method that cannot detect Covid19 and secondly, was never designed to carry out this function, as stated by its designer and originator? These tests are at best 50% accurate and repeatedly give "false positives". You are actually not testing for covid19, but testing for Coronavirus which could show positive even when a person has had a common cold or influenza. So why is the Government using this method to perpetuate the fear mongering statistics, and spending billions on future similar testing, wasting tax payer's money just to support its argument. (As stated in Sunday express 06/09/2020) 7. Why did the government place a gagging order on hospital staff, instructing them not to communicate with the media, under penalty of disciplinary action? 8. Why has the Government instructed hospitals not to carry out treatments in hospitals during this period, causing the deaths of people with ongoing serious conditions, and causing around an estimated 20,000 avoidable deaths? In addition, the lack of diagnostic tests being carried out by hospitals during the last 6 months is estimated to result in future premature deaths of up to 30,000 people. Together these amount to more deaths than caused by the virus. 9. Why has the government rolled out laws around the wearing of masks in enclosed spaces, when it has never carried out any risk assessments around the dangers of wearing masks. Evidence around the wearing of masks is scientifically divided, with many saying it can actually be dangerous and cause additional diseases. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. Prof Neil Ferguson has been involved with generating projected figures of COVID19 infection and mortality. Ferguson is on the management team of the "Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium". This group is overseen and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In the normal course of things, where experts are advising government on matters, conflicts of interest are meant to be disclosed. Bill Gates (who has no medical qualifications or training) implied in a BBC interview that he treats mass vaccination, and possibly tracking to whom these vaccinations have been administered, as a “business interest.” It appears Professor Ferguson is also involved in this “interest.” and therefore should have never been an advisor to the government. Prof. Chris Whittey is the UK's Chief medical officer, and involved also in advising the government with regards to the Corona virus. In 2008 he was awarded £38 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for Malaria research in Africa. A year later he was appointed Chief Scientific advisor to the Department for International Development. Prof. Whitty was also part of the government's SAGE committee, which has made recommendations about the duration of the UK's Covid19 lockdown. Concerns are being raised about the intention to keep some of the SAGE activities secret, and the connections and conflict of interest of Prof. Whitty to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There are also concerns about Mr Hancock having ties to a company called "Babylon healthcare services which promotes an App called "GP at Hand". It has not escaped peoples attention that as part of Covid measures that GP's have vastly increased their use of telephones or remote appointments. PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE PEOPLE. In a government document entitled "Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures" (22nd March 2020) we come across the following: a) Perceived threat. "A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened." Action to be taken, "The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased amongst those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging." b) Also stated in this document it says "Use media to increase sense of personal threat", "Consider enacting legislation to compel required behaviours" Consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply." This document strongly suggests that Government ministers, and/or their advisors, have committed an offense under the UK Terrorism Act . There are many other instances of inappropriate behaviour and law breaking by this Government which we hold in reserve. WE PLACE THIS GOVERNMENT ON NOTICE. That "WE the PEOPLE of the UNITED KINGDOM, disagree and disapprove, of all the actions taken by the Government with regards to the alleged Covid19 Pandemic. We request that ALL CURRENT LEGISLATION surrounding the Covid19 pandemic be removed, and life in the UK be returned to normal. Also, that a full and detailed Public Enquiry be held as soon as possible. We hold this Government in its entirety, responsible for all avoidable deaths caused by their draconian measures including suicides, for their lies and deceit to the people of this country, and will seek retribution in the courts for their actions. Signed on behalf of the People of the United Kingdom.

Corruption and vested interest at the heart of Covid 19 policy?

Revealed: Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 shareholding in firm contracted to develop vaccines

Government denies claims of potential conflict of interest, maintaining he is not involved in commercial decisions on coronavirus vaccines

Saturday, 26 September 2020



(As per UK Column here: )

“INFECTION FATALITY RATE” should actually labeled INFECTION FATALITY RATIO. The data in the second column should therefore have no percentage ‘%’ sign after the numbers as per the CDC source



Correct numbers are therefore as follows:

AGE GROUP INFECTION FATALITY RATIO 0 - 19 0.00003 20 - 49 0.0002 50 - 69 0.005 70 + 0.054



Friday, 25 September 2020


Policeman shot dead in Croydon custody suite.

Flowers have been left in memory of the police officerCredit: Reuters

Following from:

One man known as MusicBox MB, 33, from Croydon told the Sun Online: “I’ve been in there a few times. Before they take you into the station they search you outside and the van you come in. 

“There is no way you can get into that station with a gun, you can't get in there with a tiny bag of weed. 100 per cent they won't have searched him properly, that's why this happened.”

And one local man, 31, who had also been detained in the custody centre, said: "It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know how this guy has the freedom to start shooting up the place.

"They arrested me at home and still searched me and cuffed me. This guy is walking in there with arms, uncuffed, unsearched."

Asked about how someone could enter the building while armed, former Det Ch Insp Chris Phillips said: "I think police officers are probably less likely to search people now with all the furore that goes on.

"When people get arrested there is a general view that they should be searched before being transported to the police station but that doesn't always happen - and it depends on what the man was arrested for.

Both former police officers and offenders expressed surprise at the possible lack of checks, with it understood the suspect was being booked in for possession of ammunition.

The 23-year-old suspect was detained by special constables after he was seen 'acting suspiciously' and was taken by van to the custody suite in Windmill Lane just after 2am.

Commissioner Cressida Dick issued a statement this morning on the deathCredit: PA:Press Association

My initial reaction is sadness at the loss of life and the grief this causes to the immediate family  But in these very strange times we need to be very cautious in the way we approach the story. 

The twenty-three three year old unnamed man who apparently carried out the murder inside the custody suite is currently in hospital in a critical condition, having it is said, turned the gun on himself. So far no information has been forthcoming on the weapon or the circumstances of the event, other than in broad outline. Virtually all reporting has concentrated on demonstrations of respect by colleagues and public alike. The Mayor, the Commissioner and an unidentified female have been filmed attending a hastily convened religious prayer gathering led by an ordained CoE priest in red vestments, all of course keeping their social distance, though not wearing the obligatory masks. 

Is it just me that finds this sort of novel theatrics for presumably some public relations purpose - the thing was videoed and released to the media - slightly if not distasteful, inappropriate? It appears to be the 'new normal' in certain tragic events, but significantly not others. It is not disrespectful to the victim, to enquire about the mechanics of the arrangement. Who suggested it? Who organised it? Only then can can we come to a conclusion as to its genuineness or if it was a calculated public relations exercise for political or psycho/social goals.

Although we 'the public' have no idea what happened and are wholly dependent on the police and news media to tell us, those professionals investigating the murder, should already have a very clear picture. After all, it happened in a very controlled environment with at least two other officers present and subject to state of the art CCTV which will provide complete and timed coverage.  Please do not tell us the CCTV was not working on the day or my suspicions will rightly go into overdrive! 

In the circumstances, both audibly and visually, there should be absolutely no doubt as to the precise sequence of events, that in time should inform the public. Issues of policing and custody are of genuine public interest, both for the protection of the public and the officers dealing with them. However, despite our current ignorance, certain questions, so far unexplained, jump out to the casual, or not so casual, observer.

The most obvious is how in the hell did a man with a gun on him, get into the building, let alone the custody suite? Unlike a knife or sharp implement, a gun is hardly easy to conceal. Any person of a suspicious character would surely be frisked. Even in this day and age, no person is arrested lightly. What was this man arrested for? Then was the arrested person not handcuffed? No trained policeman would remove handcuffs before asking, "Have you anything on you that we should know about" and ensuring he hadn't.

What is even more extraordinary in this case, is the fact that we are told he was arrested in the early hours of the morning (approximately 2 am) for "possession of ammunition"!  What? In other words, this man was already flagged up as a potential gun owner and user. This would have been a red flag to any arresting officer, demanding extra caution. Protocol would surely demand the involvement of armed officers in such a situation, and as a very minimum a thorough body search. This would surely have occurred to the dullest civilian let alone trained officers.

But trained officers raises another question. We are told he was detained by two 'Special Constables'. Two Special Constables, at 2 am to deal with someone suspected of 'possessing ammunition'?  If true this sounds so reckless as to be almost unbelievable. Who were these 'Special Constables'?  Is it normal for two special constables to be out and about at 2 am in the absence of a properly trained conventional Constable? It is well known that 'Special Constables', i.e. people from normal life who sign up for unpaid police support work, are held in contempt by regular officers. How come these volunteers were assigned such a potentially dangerous undertaking?

However what if the term 'Special Constable' was in fact used to cover a different breed of 'Special' entirely?  

We have seen in previous events how non-traditional policemen have appeared to confront terrorists or terrorist events. It is becoming a bit of a habit. 

At the Westminster attack when PC Palmer was stabbed to death, two armed individuals appeared at just the right moment to shoot the attacker, Khalid Masood. The identity of them has of course never been revealed, though the explanation of who and why they were there has never seemed credible. At London Bridge it just happened to be a retired British Transport policeman who was available to take a leading role. (In fact BRP keep popping up inexplicably at terror events) In the Streatham Road, Richmond stabbing event, it was an MI5 Officer on the scene following the terrorist who shot him dead, the police arriving only subsequently.  

So it is reasonable to ask, who and what were these 'Special Constables' and the exact circumstances of the said 'detention'? Did they come across the 23 year old by accident or were they tasked to find him? Were they on foot or in a police vehicle? How did they transfer the man to the holding centre and what precautions were taken to ensure he wasn't in possession of an offensive weapon - even a firearm?

One final question arises in my mind: why did the man shoot only the Custody Sergeant? How many shots were fired before he turned the gun, allegedly, on himself?  Why were the 'Special Constables' not injured if they were in the same confined space?  These are all valid questions that of course the media do not pursue, and the authorities do not answer, preferring instead to deflect the attention to the sentimental and emotional. We should not be surprised. It has become the norm. Investigative, sceptical journalism has been replaced with celebrity soap.

It of course comes at a time when Julian Assange is fighting an extradition charge and the police have come under considerable criticism for its enforcement of the unprecedented Covid lock-down. 

LATEST! (23:30 25.9.2020)

Saturday's Times reports the gun was 'hidden in suspect's jacket'.

Whereas the Mail states he 'produced a revolver he had stuffed down his trousers'. 
There is obviously a direct conflict there.

Then we are told the man was on the terrorist list which makes the lax precautions even more incredible. At the time of the shooting it is reported he was still handcuffed, with his hands behind his back. How in this condition he retrieved the pistol either from his coat pocket or underpants, and managed to aim a shot, and to shoot himself, is not explained.

Then another strange feature is the statement that the Custody Sergeant now named as Matiu Ratana (54) was about to carry out a search in a Covid screening cell. All previous experience suggests this would not be a task for the Custody Sergeant but for other officers. The Custody Sergeant usually remains behind the reception desk to ensure protocols are followed, before a person is taken to the cells. All possessions and risk items are removed at that stage. To be hit several times in the heart, at point blank range, as is reported, raises questions as to why Sergeant Ratana wasn't behind his protective counter.

The Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has now stated that the suspect was arrested by regular police officers on patrol. This conflicts with earlier report that they were 'Special Constables'.  Her update here:

Met Police Commissioner speaks on 'shocking' death of Croydon police officer

25 Sep 2020

Croydon police shooting: "Police have been taken for granted for too long, we are paying the price"

25 Sep 2020

Croydon police shooting: "One of Sadiq Khan's biggest failures has been to tackle crime"

Then as extraordinary co-incidence would have it in Paris....

Paris attack: Stabbing near Charlie Hebdo office 'an act of terror'  


French Prime Minister Jean Castex visited the scene flanked by Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo

The attack came as a high-profile trial was under way of 14 people accused of helping two jihadists carry out the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, in which 12 people were killed.

In an interview with broadcaster France 2, Mr Darmanin described the stabbing as "a new bloody attack against our country, against journalists".
"It's the street where Charlie Hebdo used to be. This is the way the Islamist terrorists operate," the interior minister said.
He said he had ordered security to be stepped up around synagogues this weekend for Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

Thursday, 24 September 2020

 The Bidens up to their eyes in the proverbial?

Following from:

Hunter Biden Received Millions From Wife Of Ex-Moscow Mayor, Paid Suspects Allegedly Tied To Trafficking, Had Contacts With Individuals Linked To Chinese Military, Senate Report Alleges

A bombshell report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the Committee on Finance makes a series of damning new allegations against Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat presidential nominee.

The investigation launched after Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) publicly raised conflict-of-interest concerns about the sale of a U.S. company to a Chinese firm with ties to Hunter Biden a month before Congress was notified about a whistleblower complaint that was the catalyst for Democrats’ impeachment of President Donald Trump. The Senate’s investigation relied on records from the U.S. government, Democrat lobbying groups, and interviews of numerous current and former officials.

The report outlined the following key findings from the investigation:

  • In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
  • In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
  • Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent).
  • The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V.
  • Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anticorruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.”
  • Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.
  • Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to U.S. officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
  • Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials.
  • In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
  • Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.
  • Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

The report also stated that the investigation found that the Obama administration “knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.”

Sunday, 20 September 2020


Chinese scientist who defected to US: COVID-19 not from nature but created in lab

Chinese whistleblower Dr. Li-Meng Yan just published a scientific paper summarizing how the 'unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggest … sophisticated laboratory modification rather than natural evolution'
Tue Sep 15, 2020



September 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The coronavirus was man-made and did not originate from a wet market in Wuhan, says a Chinese whistleblower and one of the first scientists to study COVID-19 in China.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan, 36, a medical doctor and virologist who fled to the US in April to tell the world about the origins of the virus, said that based on her own research the coronavirus “did not come from nature at all. It was created in a lab.”

Dr. Yan and her colleagues have just published a scientific paper summarizing how the “unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggest … sophisticated laboratory modification rather than natural evolution.” In it, she lays out exactly how the deadly pathogen could have been synthesized in the P-4 lab in Wuhan.    

And now various scientists from around the world are saying she may be right.

Before she defected, Yan worked at Asia’s top virology lab – the P3 Lab at the University of Hong Kong. The lab is the global center for coronavirus research where its famous “SARS hunters” cracked the code of the first SARS coronavirus outbreak in 2003.

She soon discovered that COVID-19 has two artificial, man-made “insertions” that make it particularly deadly to human beings. The first “insertion” allows it to spread easily from person-to-person, while the second “insertion” allows the virus to infect different kinds of tissue once it is already in the human body.

“Any scientist who has this knowledge will know that it is not from nature,” she told me. 

“The properties that we now see in the virus, we have yet to discover anywhere in nature,” said Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen in a July 13 interview with the scientific journal Minerva.  “We know that these properties make the virus very infectious, so if it came from nature, there should also be many animals infected with this, but we have still not been able to trace the virus in nature”

“When we compare the novel coronavirus with the one that caused SARS, we see that there are altogether six inserts in this virus that stand out compared to other known SARS viruses,” said Sorensen.

An internationally renowned scientist, Prof. Joseph Tritto, who is the president of the Paris-based World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), has also published a book describing how the China Virus was created in the lab.  I have summarized Prof. Tritto’s book here.  EXTRACT ENDS.

In the current geo-political climate, we need to consider all anti-Russian and anti-Chinese stories with caution. 

Dr Yan has run from her Hong Kong position to America and has said she is fearful for her life. Hong Kong itself is subject to considerable internal tension, resulting from Beijing and the CCP's intention to undermine its constitutional independence. No doubt America will use her story to attach blame to the Communist regime and stoke public animosity towards it, as part of the over-arching realignment that is projecting China as the potential enemy. 

However, no one should doubt the involvement and responsibility the USA itself carries in the development of this SARS Cov-2 strain, both initially at Fort Kendrick, and when this was stopped in 2015, the CDC's financial and other support afforded to the Wuhan lab. It is impossible to point the finger at China without three pointing back at the United States. 

Prior to Dr Yan disputing the claim that this virus occurred naturally from bats and other animal intermediaries, others such as Dr Paul Cantrell and Dr Judy Mikovits have made similar convincing assertions. It is notable that both have been subject to extensive censorship by the media, a sure sign they are on to something. 

Meanwhile Dr Yan is in a precarious position, dependant on the United States for her safety. Her evidence may be factually correct and important but it may not be complete. It significantly omits any suggestion of USA involvement or culpability. Perhaps that is understandable. 

Covid-19, is as many have suspected, not only a laboratory created bio-weapon, it is also a tool of mass psychology and propaganda, aimed at China. The Novichok poisoning incidents against Skripal and Navalny, as parallel propaganda tools against Russia, are chilling. In both cases there is clear circumstantial evidence of deep American involvement, both in production and application. 

Undoubtedly these may be examples of deliberate and calculated deception, to facilitate increased international friction, whilst truth-tellers such as Assange and Snowden are mercilessly persecuted. If so, it is just a continuation of a clear pattern set by the United States around the world since the Second World War, of which we should all be aware and fore-warned, if we are to survive these very dangerous times.

See also:


  • Positive PCR tests do NOT indicate Coronavirus infection or that person being infectious to others.
  • A person suffering flu-like symptoms is not either necessarily infectious or suffering from Covid-19.
  • Those suffering from Covid-19 during the incubation and infectious period in the first five days, do not necessarily exhibit symptoms.
  • To base public policy on the number of 'positive' PCR tests is therefore fundamentally flawed.
  • By shutting down the NHS to deal with the hugely over-emphasised Covid-19 threat, means that many more will suffer premature death from all other fatal diseases.
  • The shutting down of the economy, the increase in unemployment, increased poverty and crime, is also inevitably linked to increased mortality.
  • To consider Covid-19 in isolation from all other health issues is therefore not only not sensible, it is positively dangerous to the best interests of public health.

Nobel Prize winner PCR creator Kary Mullis categorically stated that his PCR test should not be used to detect a virus because of false positives before he died (murdered) on the 7th Aug 2019 of "Pneumonia"

Boris Johnson's televised address to the nation. 22.9.2020

"We have succeeded before." Really? If you check out the covid alleged deaths graph, and I use the term 'alleged' advisedly because it is far from clear that covid was actually the primary cause of death in the majority of cases - it went up immediately AFTER the lock-down measures were introduced, and then followed a natural curve that probably had little to do with mask wearing and 'social distancing'. Why, because overwhelming it was the old and sick, often in an institutional setting, who died, a group for whom the measures were irrelevant. In other words the whole covid policy is built upon a misnomer of risk and an illusion of protection, that undermine any claims of government 'success', or efficacy in continuing the same policies, with their disastrous effects in health and other spheres.

I admire the confidence you have in the test. As I understand it, even when you can get one, a significant proportion are either false positive or false negative. In either case there is still no certainty a positive will involve either illness or infectivity; or a negative that the very next day infection or infectivity is not a possibility. What in all the circumstances is the point of testing pray?

Covid-19 listed as 'Notifiable Disease' in 2015!!!! Now explain THAT one!

Dale Vaughn


1.) They told you fluoride was for your teeth. It's actually a neurotoxin linked to cognitive and neurological issues. ie: Alzheimer's.

2.) They told you 9/11 was orchestrated by cave dwelling, box cutter wielding muslims. It was actually an inside job perpetrated by greedy elitists that has created 16 yrs of war profiteering and counting.

3.) They told you vaccines create immunity. That's false, they cause inflammation in the brain sometimes damage even death. They destroy gut health which ultimately destroys the immune system with known toxic ingredients leading to neurological problems and pharmaceutical customers for life.

4.) They told you operations in the middle East are about freedom and democracy. That is a lie. They are about global domination and control of other countries resources while pushing the one world order agenda far and wide.

5.) They told you medications fix depression and other ailments. Actually they have more side effects than you can list and create a toxic storm within your body that furthers a diseased state. Poisoned and depleted, period.

6.) They told you the sun causes cancer. In truth the sun protects you from cancer and toxic sunscreens create more cancer than the sun ever has. Sun burning is not good, so you spend your time outside mindfulli6 with natural support.

7.) They told you mammograms prevent breast cancer. False...mammograms expose you to radiation then causes cancer. Private medicine has made huge headway, non invaise, safe and quality of life. No cure. Fix terrain, correct cellular health and environment, remission to maintenance thereafter.

8.) They told you the media reports the "news." In reality they report propaganda and create false fear for our tyrannical government. The media is owned by 5 people on this planet.

9.) They told you GMO's are safe and would save the world from hunger. Actually GMO's cause cancer and other disease. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in roundup is classified as a cancer causing agent. We see roundup sold everywhere.

10.) They told you it’s your duty to pay taxes. In truth taxation is and always has been theft.

11.) They told you that by being good at repeating and memorizing in school meant you were really smart. That is false and turns children into drones, robots, and obedient slaves.

12.) They told you your vote matters. Another lie they sell people to make them believe in "democracy." Elections are controlled and the easiest way to convince slaves they are free.

13.) They told you terminating an unborn infant's life is a "choice." It's actually murder tied to ancient rituals of child sacrifice.

14.) They told you circumcision is about reducing infections. Its actually mutilation also tied to ancient rituals. All part of their design to make you believe you are born faulty.

15.) They told you donating your money to disease charities will create cures that never cure. This is a con job that just funnels your money to elite people at the top of the pyramid. They already have many healing methods they are just withholding them. Knowing this will expose the true meaning of disease, this affects their guidelines and rules regulations we are told to live by and their governance and allowances.

16.) They tell you to drink just don't drive. Their message is about you being a sedated slave just not a dead one.

17.) They told you genetics determine if you become diseased. This is another fabrication to make you believe you are faulty and not it control of your health. Genetics is knowing how your body works to fix it. Period.

18.) They tell you Chemotherapy is effective against cancer. The truth is chemo has killed more people than cancer ever will. Life expectancy is cursed.

19.) They told you pasturized milk builds strong bones. Another lie designed to keep you in an acidic inflammatory state of ‘health’ leading to osteopenia.

20.) They told you Doctors make people healthy. Perhaps the greatest lie we are ever told is that people who can't make anyone healthy is who we should see when we are sick.