2021-03-14
OK, we are straying well outside the normal parameters of good taste by presenting this article, but if the facts fit . . .
Let us review some key verifiable facts:
- The Covid statistics depend on a PCR test that many (including the WHO) say can present excessive false positive results in a population which actually has few infections.
- Governments around the world are demanding that ever more such tests are performed in the general population (kids in schools for example - kids who are not affected by Covid . . . but "might be asymptomatic carriers" - despite the AMA paper which concluded that onward transmission by asymptomatic carriers occurs in only around 0.7% of cases).
- Deaths are routinely ascribed by the NHS to Covid merely on the basis of a positive PCR test within the previous 28 days.
- Reported cases of flu this winter are scarce as hens' teeth! NB: Covid symptoms are indistinguishable from flu symptoms (amongst other ailments). Of course that might be put down to the success of the flu vaccine.
- A test for "Covid-19" was patented for Richard A Rothschild in the Netherlands on or before 22nd June 2016 (three years before the virus "hit the fan" in 2019) for publication "2020-09-03" - note the date "Last updated: 22.06.2016" at the foot of the patent page.
Conclusion?
At best, the reported Covid statistics are seriously exaggerated, possibly even to the point of being entirely spurious.
Add to the above the facts that the average age of "Covid" victims is close to our average expected life-span, and reported excess deaths from all causes do not reflect the numbers of reported "Covid" deaths . . . strongly suggesting that these "Covid" deaths are simply deaths from other causes that have been misclassified.
So why the desperate fear campaign to persuade us all to take experimental new technology "vaccines", developed at "warp speed" (in months rather than years, at taxpayers' expense) that have no evidence supporting long-term safety, and that have not been approved (except for emergency use) ?
In particular, where is the need to "vaccinate" age groups that the statistics confirm are at no significant risk anyway?
Where indeed is the "emergency" that might support vaccination for any age group?
Well, might the facts fit?
You decide.
