by Steve at 11 hours ago
Smartmatic admits using unofficial servers -

THE CAMP of former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. was surprised to learn directly from Smartmatic that it used several servers apart from those sanctioned by the Commission on Elections during the May 2016 elections....


https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/07/22/n...75442/amp/
by ellyrmolier at 11-24-2020, 05:12 PM
Obviously used an alias to join the conversation.

Today on morning BBC 3CR they were talking about the Oxford vaccine and how it is an early "christmas present" for us Brits. I felt the presenter was doing a poor job interviewing and asking questions reinforcing the MSN. I have never called into a radio station before, so the nerves were running high. However, I felt compelled today, in order to provide some sort of alternative veiw away from the bludgeoning MSN.

However, I feel the presenter or the guest didnt really anser my concern - i.e unknown longterm side effects.

Here it is. Tell me what you think. Lets speak up!!! its our bodies and our lives!

Link to Audio of the call
by Steve at 11-24-2020, 10:08 AM
“Sidney Powell is registered as a MILITARY LAWYER and is the only one who can prosecute TREASON at a TRIBUNAL!”



https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/...15TPC3jnGI
by Steve at 11-19-2020, 08:26 AM
Monkey Werx Overwatch 11.18.20 -
https://youtu.be/6RcLE-TVW_4
by remap1 at 11-17-2020, 02:23 PM
Vernon Coleman on last night's show (16th Nov 20) said that the new covid vaccines (particularly the moderna one) would definitely change your DNA, and quoted from a Moderna white paper. I found the white paper he referenced... https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/...7_v8_4.pdf

Vernon quoted from the section titled "DNA VACCINES" page 3, and it does say under these vaccines that they do affect DNA. BUT, the vaccines just released by Moderna and Pfizer are mRNA and in that section of the white paper it specifically says under the section titled "mRNA Vaccines" .......:

"mRNA vaccines do not need to enter the nucleus, nor do they risk being integrated into our DNA, and they are directly translated into protein antigens."

So I'd like to know specifically what are Vernon's references for saying these vaccines definitely can change your DNA. The BBC release an article saying these new vaccines do not affect DNA. Are the BBC right or is Vernon right? Have I mis-understood what Vernon said???
by Muggles at 11-14-2020, 12:49 AM
Check out my new site The Lesser Reset 
https://www.lesser-reset.com/
by Steve at 11-02-2020, 11:52 AM
Any suggestions / ideas / thoughts on this forum as to the way forward?

Message from Richie via FB -

Good morning. Firstly, I never uploaded Sunday View to Podomatic, YouTube etc yesterday, because it was appalling. A throat infection left me barely able to speak, so I rushed through the running order and finished the show in 20 minutes. I deleted it immediately. I should have said something. I'm sorry about that. 

My voice is still pretty rough, so I'm going to rest it today. Otherwise I feel fine, just a bit knackered. However, there's something I need to say, or to share. Before I do though, I want to make it clear that I am not here for your sympathy or your praise. I want neither. This isn't a case of sadfishing. That's what they call it right, when narcissists emote on social media to draw compliments and attract attention? What a cesspool...

I'm not sure if I can carry on producing the radio show in the current climate, for much longer. Something I've always loved doing, has become utterly joyless. For more than six months now, I've been covering Covid and nothing else. It has been tremendously challenging, trying to find fresh angles and approaches, across five live radio shows a week. It's taken a big toll on me. I'm shattered. It feels like I have been having the same conversation over and over and over again. Groundhog Day doesn't come close. And there's no end to it in sight.

Commercial presenters have producers and editors to lighten the load. Typically, a commercial presenter is handed an information sheet by a producer, containing information on the guest(s) and talking points. Most of the work is done for you. In the case of The RA Show, I do it all. It's relentless. Coping with the workload pre Covid, when I was covering a multitude of subjects, was always challenging, but as I said, I loved it. Now it has become a chore, something I have come to resent. Again, I don't want or need your sympathy or your praise. I have no time for that nonsense whatsoever. I'm just levelling with you.

Ironically, if it wasn't for Covid, I'd be on the road now. Plans for a UK tour of small theatres was at a fairly advanced stage last Winter. You'll remember me mentioning this on the show around Christmas last year. That's unlikely to ever happen now. I was looking forward to breaking off from the radio show, to do that and then return to the radio reinvigorated and full of new ideas. Ho hum. Tough sh*t Paddy.

So what's the point of this? That's a fair question. I suppose I'm giving you a heads up really, a bit of notice that one of these days I'm going to get up and decide that's it. There won't be any notice or long goodbyes. That's the way I've always been. Look, I've featured Ivy league scientists, doctors, academics, politicians and businessmen and women, who have pulled apart the government's virus lies. I cannot keep doing that day in and day out. There's nothing left to say, is there?

A respiratory infection that is harmless to the vast majority of people, is being used as the excuse to create a nightmarish world, a technocratic dystopian society, where everything we do is strictly controlled, from cradle to grave. And by everything I mean everything. What you do, what you say, what you think, where you go, who you are with, all of it monitored and controlled by the long-planned social credit model, which can be observed in China now. You know this. I know this. But the question is, how long to sing this song?

I've got some really good guests lined up this week. Beyond that, I don't know. Before doing one (walking away), as they say here in the North West, I would close down the bank/Paypal thingy's. I'll spend the rest of my life in gratitude to those of you who have supported it, believe me. So again and please read this bit carefully, I don't post this for your sympathy or compliments. Please understand that. Nor do I post it, to elicit appeals for me to stick around. I suppose I'm saying that something has to change and when it does, it'll be sudden.
Have a good Monday and join me tomorrow at 5 on the usual channels.
by Steve at 11-01-2020, 09:36 AM
FB POST

Good write up from the telegraph. However, you’ve got to ask the question....why is the mainstream media now speaking out the truth ? when we all know they are all controlled by the people behind this evil agenda.

This is the text:

Britain's Covid response is utterly mad – here are 10 reasons why
There is no reasonable scientific or medical justification for lockdowns, convoluted social distancing rules, masks or travel restrictions

DR JOHN LEE
29 October 2020 • 12:54pm
Dr John Lee
How did we come to this?

This year, like many years, there’s a new respiratory virus on the block. But this year, unlike any year ever before, the world has gone mad. Governments around the world have decided that their remit extends to micromanaging risk on behalf of everybody, for just about everything: where and when you can travel, what you must wear, what you can buy. Even in your own home, for goodness sake, amongst your own family, the state thinks it is “right” to regulate who you mix with, who you can see and who you can touch.

How did we come to this? Could such an approach ever be regarded as genuinely reasonable? To be honest, I think that it would be a stretch under any circumstances. But I could envisage a situation where a new pathogen was so nasty – say highly transmissible and reliably killing 30 per cent of people of all ages that it infected – that the very fabric of society would be at stake unless the state acted decisively.

But even in such dire circumstances the state would need to understand very clearly indeed what it was doing, in order to be absolutely sure that compelling populations to act in one way or another would definitely cause less harm than giving people the facts and letting them make their own decisions about risk. After all, what other justification could there reasonably be for trying to restrictively rewrite the rulebook of human interaction?

Of course, this has been tried before for all sorts of ideological reasons, and resulted in a 100 per cent track record of failure and disaster; responsible for untold misery, suffering, tragedy and deaths. One would have thought that there is a lesson there somewhere. Suffice it to say that Covid is orders of magnitude away from causing the level of societal damage that would justify even considering such a response.

Current consensus on the infection fatality rate (which has been continually falling as better data arrives) is 0.2 per cent. When we look back at this period any visible mortality signal will be well within the envelope of the last 30 years when deaths caused by lockdown are excluded. The average age of death from Covid is actually above the average age of death from all causes.

So why are governments around the world persisting in, and indeed elaborating, responses that are progressively being seen, as evidence accumulates, to be fundamentally wrong?

You don’t have to listen too hard to hear the sound of many, many pigeons coming home to roost simultaneously. I think this is why it has been so hard to explain what is happening, and why so many people remain deeply unsure as to what the right course of action should be. Any given article or interview tends to deal with only one or two key points, leaving so many unanswered questions for most people that doubt and confusion fill the gaps. Neither governments nor their advisors seem able to see the big picture, let alone explain it. So here is my attempt to assemble, in one place, the most important of the very many drivers of the Covid response.

1. Preconceptions
Current ideas about how to “control” viruses are based on Spanish flu, smallpox, SARS, MERS, HIV, influenza and Ebola, among others. This coronavirus isn’t the same as any of them. The idea of “controlling” an airborne, easily transmissible virus on a population basis, beloved of “public health” “experts”, is largely myth, based on mediocre observational or questionnaire-based studies using unverified and unverifiable methods.

2. Incorrect framing
Television pictures from China, Italy and New York painted a picture of a deadly new global plague and were highly instrumental in determining the initial response. But TV pictures are highly selective and often unrepresentative, as was the case with coronavirus. Months ago, real-world evidence conclusively disproved initial perceptions of this virus, yet the initial framing still seems to be a key driver of government responses around the world.

3. Fear
It is a strong and evolutionarily valuable human emotion. Broadcast and social media are effective in maintaining it, especially with government backing aimed at generating the “correct” reactions from people. Written media is often more nuanced and thoughtful, but narrower in appeal, and slower to take effect. It has struggled to balance the broadcast narrative, which has thrived on highly selective presentation of information.

4. Poor quality data
The prerequisite for our current shambles of rubbish-in, rubbish-out, affecting all areas of our understanding of Covid. Suspension of peer review in the name of speed has removed a crucial quality control, undermining much research in the field and encouraging false consensus.

5. Excessive risk aversion
The anti-scientific Precautionary Principle has become so entrenched in public decision-making that it seems almost normal to respond to an unquantified threat with responses that have had no prior assessment for either effectiveness or harm.

6. Suppression of debate
In their eagerness to entrench the “right” course of action, governments have radically reduced the chances of it being found by suppressing contrary views. There is also an inability to have a grown-up and measured public conversation about human lifespan, illness and death. What does “saving lives” actually mean? Whose lives, and saved for what? And where is the discussion about quality of life? Old people do die, and we all are, in fact, more susceptible to dying of everything with advancing age. Covid is no exception to this.

7. Flawed testing
Detailed technical problems with the rapid development and mass rollout of tests (by technicians who are often marginally trained), without a sound biological understanding of the tests’ basis or meaning. Few are armed with the knowledge needed to understand (among other things) the technical subtleties of PCR or antibody tests, the meaning (if any) of weak positives, the relevance of antibodies versus T-cell reactions, the statistical invalidities of test and trace, the inadequacies of death certification, or the details of why get-out-of-jail-via-vaccination has such a low probability of success. These details matter.

Show more
8. Perpetually moving goalposts
Save the NHS, save lives, reduce “cases”, reduce positive tests, “control” the virus….

9. Focus on a single threat
And the virtual exclusion of everything else. How “public health” doctors can claim to be protecting “public health” with this approach seems incomprehensible, as well as being medically negligent.

10. Skewed motives
Political desire to be seen to be taking action. Media-driven and short-term, taking action is apparently politically desirable even if it means subjecting entire populations to experimental, unverifiable, oppressive methods of viral “control”. This also mirrors a cultural divide in medicine between interventionists and nihilists.

There are probably more drivers of the Covid response that could be listed, but you can see the many-tentacled head of the medusa that is petrifying society.  It seems pretty clear that if we are asked to make major sacrifices there should be solid, quantifiable evidence of benefit to justify them. Unfortunately the solid, quantifiable evidence of benefit of the current approach to Covid simply does not exist.

The secrecy surrounding the basis for the government’s decisions speaks volumes. In fact, real-world data suggests that the harms caused by current actions outweigh the benefits when measured even in terms of deaths, and massively outweigh the benefits when measured in terms of quality of life – which, after all, is central to the human experience at all ages.

How can we know what would have happened if we had never locked down? The simple answer is that, for our particular circumstances, we cannot know for sure. But countries which have not enforced lockdowns, of which Sweden is the nearest, have not been noticeable outliers in terms of deaths or illness.

More importantly, by allowing the virus to spread in the way that viruses do, these places are now in a much better position than countries which made major economic sacrifices, but still have to face the virus. Lockdowns may (perhaps) slow down slightly our arrival at herd immunity (through exposure of a large enough proportion of the population), but we will all get there in the end.

The only differences will be the extent of the own goals caused along the way by restrictions. Countries that have isolated themselves, such as New Zealand, will have to face the virus in due course or remain isolated from the world (their only get-out-of-jail-free card would be an effective vaccine). Yet the costs of such isolation seem highly suspect, since data suggests that very few cases of Covid are caught or spread by travellers. This virus has already circled the globe while we have been largely staying put. So we might as well start travelling again, since the risks, in a majority of countries, are rather similar.

So how can we find the right way forward? Revocation of progressively inappropriate emergency powers, with restoration of parliamentary scrutiny, accountability, transparency and debate must be part of it, along with involvement of a more diverse base of scientific and medical advisors.

If the NHS is struggling for capacity – which is debatable, and anyway substantially due to self-imposed rules related to “controlling” Covid – then sort it out: build more capacity, and remind NHS workers that they are there to look after the sick.

The bottom line is that, at the present time, there is no reasonable scientific or medical justification for lockdowns, convoluted social distancing rules, masks, travel restrictions, quarantines or most of the rest of the flotsam that has attached itself to the Covid response. The sky is not falling. And the more people who understand the multifaceted reasons why this is the case, the sooner we will all get our lives back.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comme...1604078118
  • 1(current)
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 104
  • Next 
Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.
Username

Password


Login
Search Forums

Forum Statistics
Members: 1,999
Latest member: laurenab2
Forum threads: 1,037
Forum posts: 9,210
Online Users
There are currently 82 online users.
2 Member(s) | 77 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, MichaelGoank, RichardJed