Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[MacCruiskeen]

Front-page BBC World News. This just epitomises the neurotic nuttiness of the last two years and the dire state of medical science:

Cook Islands braces after Covid-positive traveller

Published 55 minutes ago

[...]
According to Cook Islands data, 99.6% of the population aged 12 and over are double vaccinated. A further 70% of those eligible have had a booster shot.

But Mr Brown warned about "silent transmission" in his statement, where the country's "high vaccination rate is so protective that people get Covid, but so mildly that they do not realise they have it."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60365647

[Harvey]

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/04/do-you-want-to-hear-very-brave-doctor.html

Friday, April 30, 2021
Do you want to hear a very brave doctor (Tess Lawrie) start out talking about corrupt data , and finally beg her colleagues to remember their oath and end their complicity with an evil system? Don't miss this. 8 minutes

^ Earliest text mention of Dr. Tess Lawrie on RI. She's been mentioned by a few at RI over the last year and show context - alongside the allegations against WHO and UK outlined by Meryl Nass MD here - of the larger criminal enterprise.

These two topics are a great way to open a conversation with Covidian friends because they show hard evidence - proof - pointing to a widespread and concerted effort (involving conspiracy, fraud and murder) to deny life saving medication by deliberate falsification of reports (see below) and the sabotaging of trials (see Meryl Nass link above) through deliberate over-dosing of test subjects. The two events have already given rise to criminal trials.


Extract from zoom discussion referenced below, between Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Andrew Hill: https://twitter.com/kdkshelby/status/14 ... 6766710788


Full story here: https://rescue.substack.com/p/i-dont-kn ... p-at-night

The following excerpts of Andrew Hill’s conversation with Tess Lawrie, recently printed in media stories, are from Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense).

Lawrie: I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground…You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.

Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.

Hill: Well…

Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply…

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials…

Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies…we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative…that is a sensitive position.

So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this.

I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival. (Author’s note: Hill says IVM has a significant effect on survival? And he STILL bows to a murderous master?)

Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?

You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

Lawrie: But, Andy—know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.

When Dr. Hill tells Dr. Lawrie that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will not be on board with a positive recommendation for ivermectin, Dr. Lawrie snaps back:

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about. (Author’s note: Really, Dr. Hill? I, for one, am buying it.)

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so. (Author’s note: I do.)

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

This is bad research…bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know…you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up…you know?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?

Hill: Well, I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough. (Author’s note: What about the people who will die of covid-19 but can be saved by ivermectin, Dr. Hill? Do they get a say about when they think enough is enough?)

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future…at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there. (Author’s note: “WE’LL be there? As in, you’re in this to win it too with ivermectin? You’re in this to keep your job and a healthy paycheck, punk. Watch out for traffic jams at the cemeteries on your way to work.)

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.

These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people…

I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do.

I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to…whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it…Unitaid…

Lawrie: I think that…it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah. (Author’s note: Does Unitaid do the scientific and medical research or did you?)

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t…

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name…but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance…

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah…it’s a very strong lobby…

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.

And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry…As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.

Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.

Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?

Hill: From my side. Okay…I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks. (Author’s note: Hey Hill, you said six weeks? 15K people dying daily? That’s 630,000 people dead. So what about pushing for it…like…right now instead? That’s hundreds of thousands fewer people dead. Do the math.)

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks…because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum… (Author’s note: “Everything you can” means searching your soul and conscience—both seemingly laying dormant—and acting to save these lives.)

Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.” (Author’s note: So maybe, Dr. Hill, you did not have the authority to change Unitaid’s conclusions. But you shouldn’t have checked your spine at the door. You had veto power over the use of your name (which is the banner carrying your professional integrity) on that noxious paper, didn’t you? Maybe you could have said something like, “Though I led the team that conducted this research, I cannot allow my name to remain on a paper with conclusions I did not reach, words I did not write, and which will cause people to die if those words go unchallenged.” What do you think, Dr. Hill?)

Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.

Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of…everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.

Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ. (Author’s note: “Agree to differ?” People differ on what they like for dinner, their opinions on whether they like novocaine or gas at the dentist. But what they DON’T differ on is whether or not lives should be saved in a damn pandemic.)

Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

There’s one more thing you should know.

One week prior to Dr. Andrew Hill’s pre-print posting of his revised paper, the University of Liverpool, where Hill works, received a $40 million grant from Unitaid to study infectious diseases—Dr. Hill’s specialty.

Forty million reasons to silence the irrefutable evidence for ivermectin. Forty million reasons to let folks take their inevitable place on the train tracks with permanent adhesive on their shoes.

Hill’s “six-weeks” has now turned into nearly one year—a year during which Hill threw out most of the studies in the original paper, and proclaimed that ivermectin offers no mortality benefit. “There is no longer evidence for clinical benefits after removal of trials at risk of bias or medical fraud,” Hill wrote recently.

Killer words.

And that, dear reader, is why in late February, 2021, when the WHO received Dr. Hill’s paper with the sponsors’ conclusions written in, they decided not to recommend ivermectin for covid until long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies could be conducted.

And that is why nearly one million people have died since Dr. Lawrie’s conversation with Hill took place. These innocent people were doomed—stuck on the tracks, unable to get out of the way of the racing covid-19 freight train.

Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, Norman Bourlag, and James Harrison…

Unitaid, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO, and Dr. Andrew Hill could have done what was best for humanity. They could have looked at the unassailable medical evidence for cheap, exceedingly safe, readily available ivermectin with benevolent, humane eyes. Doing so would have certainly altered the oceans of revenue that were forecast to come from the vaccines and the novel anti-viral therapies made by Big Pharma. (No anti-viral pill can match the high safety profile of ivermectin, or its extraordinary efficacy against covid-19.) But at the same time, it would have reshaped the fates of the thousands who will never take another breath; because though their lives could have been saved, money became monarch…and the sentence was passed.

Epilogue

This is not over. Not by a long shot. The courts will have something to say about these murders that occurred (and are still occurring) throughout the world.

The BonSens citizens group in France commissioned an analysis of the text in Dr. Andrew Hill’s preprint paper and the finding was that it was highly likely that there were two and possibly three “shadow authors” involved in manipulating the text, with the intent to undermine the positive evidence on IVM. This issue is now the subject of legal action in France.

Other jurisdictions are also readying their cases against Dr. Hill.

Certainly, justice will not bring back loved ones who were sacrificed for love—of money. But it might possibly save those just alighting on the tracks.

Dr. Tess Lawrie in conversation with Dr. John Campbell from March 2021:





More links:

https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... drew-hill/
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multi ... r-20-2021/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Bring it.

Haka dance performed by Maori during protest in Wellington, New Zealand

Feb 13, 2022

[stickdog99]

He probably gets away with it because it's almost always in response to bad faith "when did you stop beating your wife" bullshit like your post, which you do all the time.

How is it bad faith to critically address widely held beliefs that each and every one of us know people who currently share?

I'm not the asshole who continually personalizes things here. Why am I continually personally attacked?

It's total deflection. I'm personally terrible, and I am critical of leaky mRNA gene therapies! So there! And I was even critical of mRNA gene therapy mandates when they made slightly more sense than the zero sense they make today! So there!

It seems that several here pipe up more about me personally than about anything COVID-19 related. Why the fuck am I the issue? Could it be because it's far easier to criticize me personally with vague vilifying generalizations of my "shitting on people" than it is to address the current "merits" of mRNA gene therapies, especially for young and healthy people?

I'm sorry but when do we have to virute signal to you about how we feel about shit or you'll start implying we support it?

You're the cunt who said I would report you to authorities for not taking a vaccine.

You never fucken apologised or even just said you were mistaken in that assumption.

That sort of thing disgusts me. I'd never do that.

But if we ever meet I might beat the fuck out of you for suggesting I would.

Once again, I am now the only issue. And because of perceived slights by me that I don't even remember making, I am to be subject to a physical beating.

WTF?

[Belligerent Savant]

EXCLUSIVE: Pfizer Vax Trial Manager Tells All; Blows Whistle on Data & Medical Integrity, Alleged Fraud During Covid-19 Clinical Trial; Brook Jackson’s Shocking Revelations During Her First Sit Down w/ Paine & Former Blackrock’s Ed Dowd

Pfizer Vax Trial Manager Brook Jackson’s Shocking Revelations During Her First Sit Down w/ Paine and Former Blackrock’s Ed Dowd

Prepare for a rollercoaster ride here as we trek where few have gone before. I think perhaps this is the first interview of someone who was at Ground Zero of the scamdemic — the so called ‘vax’ trials. And it is as ugly as you can imagine.

https://paine.tv/exclusive-pfizer-vax-t ... -sit-down/


Previously cited in this thread:

Feature BMJ Investigation

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635 (Published 02 November 2021)
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:n2635

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.

Paul D Thacker reports

In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open letter to the billions of people around the world who were investing their hopes in a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine to end the pandemic. “As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science,” Bourla wrote, explaining to the public when they could expect a Pfizer vaccine to be authorised in the United States.1

But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.

Poor laboratory management

On its website Ventavia calls itself the largest privately owned clinical research company in Texas and lists many awards it has won for its contract work.2 But Jackson has told The BMJ that, during the two weeks she was employed at Ventavia in September 2020, she repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues. Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management. Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box. Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants. Ventavia executives later questioned Jackson for taking the photos.

Early and inadvertent unblinding may have occurred on a far wider scale. According to the trial’s design, unblinded staff were responsible for preparing and administering the study drug (Pfizer’s vaccine or a placebo). This was to be done to preserve the blinding of trial participants and all other site staff, including the principal investigator. However, at Ventavia, Jackson told The BMJ that drug assignment confirmation printouts were being left in participants’ charts, accessible to blinded personnel. As a corrective action taken in September, two months into trial recruitment and with around 1000 participants already enrolled, quality assurance checklists were updated with instructions for staff to remove drug assignments from charts.

In a recording of a meeting in late September2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. “In my mind, it’s something new every day,” a Ventavia executive says. “We know that it’s significant.”

Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organisation with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: “The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.” ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which “Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.” According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred “to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.”

Worries over FDA inspection

Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks. In a list of “action items” circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to “Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.” One of them was “verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,” a note indicates.

At several points during the late September meeting Jackson and the Ventavia executives discussed the possibility of the FDA showing up for an inspection (box 1). “We’re going to get some kind of letter of information at least, when the FDA gets here . . . know it,” an executive stated.

More at link -
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This is an excellent resource to share broadly to any parties or individuals questioning the legitimacy of mRNA product adverse events; 80 pages in total:

https://stevenyager.org/wp-content/uplo ... edical.pdf

Sample screenshots:

[stickdog99]

[conniption]

Grand Jury | Day 2 (English)

Watch >>> https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f/Grand-J ... online_1:f <<<

Grand Jury
@GrandJury
February 13th, 2022

Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion

Day 2 - Historical Background

A group of international lawyers and a judge are conducting a criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings in order to present to the public all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against "leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices" who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic. This investigation is of the people, by the people and for the people, so YOU can be part of the jury.

Through showing a complete picture of what we are facing, including the geopolitical and historical backdrop - the proceeding is meant to create awareness about
the factual collapse of the current, hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence
the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and
the necessity to first stop this plandemic´s measures by refusing to comply, and
the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.

More information https://www.grand-jury.net

[Belligerent Savant]

FreedomConvoy USA "We have a right to resist and we have an obligation & duty to do so!" T. Lindsay

Premiered Feb 12, 2022

Tricia Lindsay "We have a right to resist, and we have an obligation and duty to do so" USA | #IrnieracingNews #usafreedomconvoy #freedomconvoy #tricialindsay

[Harvey]

^ She gets it, and damn is she good!

[Joe Hillshoist]

He probably gets away with it because it's almost always in response to bad faith "when did you stop beating your wife" bullshit like your post, which you do all the time.

How is it bad faith to critically address widely held beliefs that each and every one of us know people who currently share?

I'm not the asshole who continually personalizes things here. Why am I continually personally attacked?

It's total deflection. I'm personally terrible, and I am critical of leaky mRNA gene therapies! So there! And I was even critical of mRNA gene therapy mandates when they made slightly more sense than the zero sense they make today! So there!

It seems that several here pipe up more about me personally than about anything COVID-19 related. Why the fuck am I the issue? Could it be because it's far easier to criticize me personally with vague vilifying generalizations of my "shitting on people" than it is to address the current "merits" of mRNA gene therapies, especially for young and healthy people?

I'm sorry but when do we have to virute signal to you about how we feel about shit or you'll start implying we support it?

You're the cunt who said I would report you to authorities for not taking a vaccine.

You never fucken apologised or even just said you were mistaken in that assumption.

That sort of thing disgusts me. I'd never do that.

But if we ever meet I might beat the fuck out of you for suggesting I would.

Once again, I am now the only issue. And because of perceived slights by me that I don't even remember making, I am to be subject to a physical beating.

WTF?

You're on the other side of the Pacific don't worry too much.

Where the fuck do you get off just accusing other posters of being dogs?

Or what ... you just post shit and don't remember it?

You hassled me cos I was vaccinated and you weren't and accused me of wanting to call the cops or other authorities on you because of it, then when I said I'd never do that, you ignored it and went on implying it with what seemed like every second post. Making me more and more annoyed, obviously.

You might be surrounded by fuckwits in your real life but you can't just transfer your stress over that onto other people. You keep doing the same shit you accuse the "other side" of.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Bring it.

Haka dance performed by Maori during protest in Wellington, New Zealand

Feb 13, 2022

Did you know the elders of the mob that own that Haka (ie have IP rights on it and should have the same copyrights that music publishers and artists have) told anti vaccination protestors not to use it three months ago?

[JackRiddler]

You're the cunt who said I would report you to authorities for not taking a vaccine.

You never fucken apologised or even just said you were mistaken in that assumption.

That sort of thing disgusts me. I'd never do that.

But if we ever meet I might beat the fuck out of you for suggesting I would.

I understand anger at being the target of persistent bad-faith misrepresentations of your position, as you see it. But I shouldn't have to explain to you why you don't do shit like the bolded part in print on RI or elsewhere. Don't do it again, and don't make me suspend you. Please.

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Bring it.

Haka dance performed by Maori during protest in Wellington, New Zealand

Feb 13, 2022

Did you know the elders of the mob that own that Haka (ie have IP rights on it and should have the same copyrights that music publishers and artists have) told anti vaccination protestors not to use it three months ago?

A shame it's subject to IP Rights. Glad to see protesters lift a figurative middle finger to the elders and perform the dance anyway.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproj ... oning.html

DAN WOOTTON: Canada shows how the end of Covid is going to bring a long-overdue reckoning for the so-called liberal leaders who are still trying to use it to oppress their people and steal their freedoms


Two years on since the pure evil that is Covid-19 arrived, leaked most probably from a Chinese lab, in the UK at least there feels reason to hope that divisive corona politics are starting to fizzle out.

It's possible to leave the house without a mask; the pubs are packed; even friends and relatives who were terrified just a few months ago are, quite frankly, over the scaremongering broadcast media, modellers and scientific advisers still trying to control our lives.

But, most fundamentally, in England at least, society is not divided into two tiers.

Boris Johnson's short-lived and unworkable experiment with ghastly vaccine mandates for care home workers and NHS staff has been wisely ditched.

While there are still clear divisions between a hard-core of lockdown/mask fanatics and sane folk who are desperate for the old normal, there is a chance for Brits to emerge from the dark days of this pandemic as one.

That's not an opportunity being given to the citizens of America, Canada, New Zealand and France – so-called liberal democracies buckling under the hatefulness of vaccine division advanced by their leaders.

Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern in particular have been exposed as the real Covid extremists, tearing their societies apart with divisive mandates and draconian restrictions no longer backed up by scientific evidence.

It's hard to believe the need to say it in 2022, but any leader who truly believes segregation is a way to advance society needs their head read.

That's why the inspirational Freedom Convoys that first won many millions of hearts in Canada are now spreading across the globe, despite the best efforts of Biden and Trudeau to demonise them as 'swastika-waving' far-right extremists.

We're not buying the bulls*** from these international leaders who try to convince us it is these folk – many of whom have lost their jobs because they believe in bodily autonomy – who are the ones trying to divide us.

While swathes of the mainstream media, taking cues from their revered prime ministers and presidents, may try and dismiss the various Freedom Convoys as the domain of racist and violent conspiracy theorists, that's not what we're seeing with our own eyes on the various live streams provided by the honest folk on the ground.

At the forefront of this hypocrisy are Canada's Trudeau and New Zealand's Ardern, Prime Ministers whose 'Be Kind' mantras are being exposed as meaningless drivel.

It's this pair of lefties who are the nasty ones, doing all they can to drive a wedge through their once harmonious and quiet societies, where most people don't like making a fuss.

The rhetoric from both has been downright nasty – and it's worth taking a closer look at how their own words have fuelled unnecessary discord.

Trudeau, who fled Ottawa and claimed he had Covid rather than enter any form of dialogue with the Convoy, was first out the gates.

In an extraordinary intervention that helped encourage the formation of the Freedom Convoy, he made sweeping statements about Canadians who had chosen, for whatever reason, not to be vaccinated.

In an incendiary TV interview, Trudeau said: 'They don't believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist. It's a very small group of people, but that doesn't shy away from the fact that they take up some space.'

That's right, Mr Blackface himself, a Prime Minister who seemed to spend his entire adolescence smearing dark paint over his smug mug, had the cheek to brand those who turned down a jab as being discriminatory.

But he wasn't done there. Trudeau went on: 'This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people? Over 80 per cent of the population of Quebec have done their duty by getting the shot. They are obviously not the issue in this situation.'

Do we 'tolerate these people'? These people! It's hard to believe a virus fast becoming endemic with a sky-high survival rate would take us to such a divisive place. Especially given Omicron has made it abundantly obvious that even being triple jabbed doesn't stop transmission.

So what is this really about? Well, for one, the 'tolerant' left simply will not tolerate anyone with views different to their own.

'When people see that we are in lockdowns or serious public health restrictions right now because of the risk posed to all of us by unvaccinated people, people get angry,' Trudeau threatened.

Since then, the weak PM – who eventually crept out of hiding – has done all he can to smear the Freedom Convoy, when the vast majority of the protests are peaceful and, at most times, purely joyful.

'People of Ottawa don't deserve to be harassed in their own neighbourhoods, don't deserve to be confronted with the inherent violence of a swastika flying on a street corner, or a confederate flag, or the insults and jeers just because they're wearing a mask. That's not who Canadians are,' he raged, disingenuously focussing on reports of bad behaviour by a tiny proportion of the protesters.

When demonising the Convoy for causing disruption to day-to-day life, it's impossible not to laugh at the barefaced hypocrisy of it all, given Trudeau has been responsible for some of the world's toughest lockdowns, which rendered it impossible to run many businesses for months on end or live a normal life in Canada.

Ardern, who once assured her Kiwi population that she would never countenance mandates for Covid vaccination, has since become the wicked face of such a policy approach, even if she does it with that incessant toothy grin.

Last October she was asked by a journalist from the New Zealand Herald: 'You've basically said, and you probably don't see it like this, but two different classes of people if you're vaccinated or unvaccinated. If you're vaccinated you have all these rights.'

Ardern replied sinisterly while nodding: 'That is what it is. Yup, yup.'

She's been true to her word.

Ardern's vaccine mandates have seen teachers, midwives, nurses and many others lose their jobs, while seeing 13-year-olds whose parents choose not to jab them banned from school balls and from playing competitive sport.

This week a peaceful Kiwi Freedom Convoy set up shop on the lawn outside the New Zealand Parliament buildings in Wellington, with children in attendance and singing, dancing and the performance of powerful hakas by the Maori contingent in attendance.

Just like in Ottawa, most protestors are clear they are pro-choice when it comes to the vaccine and simply want the removal of mandates, then they will happily leave.

But Ardern has refused a dialogue and instead gone on a Trudeau-style media tour to disingenuously brand the Convoy a far-right mob of anti-vaxxers 'imported' from the US.

'I've seen Trump flags on the forecourt, I've seen Canadian flags on the forecourt,' she said.

Ardern added later: 'I very clearly have a view on the protesters and the way that they've conducted their protest, because it has moved beyond sharing a view to intimidation and harassment of the people around central Wellington. That cannot be tolerated.'
Both Trudeau and Ardern were staunch supporters of the imported Black Lives Matter movement, which was responsible for far more violent riots, especially across the US.

Of course, Canada and New Zealand should have taken the warning from Europe, where countries as diverse as the Netherlands, France and Austria have become hotbeds of discontent as a result of mandates and mandatory jab policies.

Macron has been the most arrogant in his defence of such division, admitting of the unvaccinated: 'I really want to p*** them off.'

He added chillingly: 'We have to tell them you will no longer be able to go to the restaurant. You will no longer be able to go for a coffee. You will no longer be able to go to the theatre. You will no longer be able to go to the cinema. We will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy.'

Such a strategy comes at a cost: Despite the policy, Covid rates soared far higher than the UK throughout late winter and social cohesion has been smashed.

The long-term consequences of pursuing a strategy of division can only be grim.

Of course, we have already seen that in the US, where Sleepy Joe has presided over lazily draconian policies and the causal denigration of Republican states where freedom has resulted in better health outcomes.

Nevertheless, his grumpy attacks on the unvaccinated have continued ad nauseum for months.

He said last October: 'My message to unvaccinated Americans is this: What more is there to wait for? What more do you need to see? We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us, so please, do the right thing.'
And Biden later added: 'This is not about freedom, or personal choice, it's about protecting yourself and those around you, people you work with, people you care about the people you love.'

Not surprisingly, the President has missed the fundamental point: People get vaccinated to protect themselves.

You only have to look to Israel, one of the world's most vaccinated countries, to see that transmission remains rife, even among the quadruple vaccinated.

What none of these leaders has been prepared to do is address genuine concerns that many of the protestors have about the vaccination, especially in regards to heart conditions like myocarditis in children, whose chances of becoming seriously ill from Covid is minuscule.

It's also a complete misnomer to dismiss the protestors as anti-vaxx rather than anti-mandate. I am personally vaccinated; I made the choice after carefully weighing up my own health profile with the risks and thinking of how difficult my life would become if I made another choice, given I need to travel.

But further boosters no longer make sense for me, especially given I have had Covid twice (the Wuhan strain in March 2020 and Omicron in December 2021). In fact, much of the science suggests further jabs could do more harm than good. Hence, I have been and remain anti-mandates.

It's always intrigued me that the leaders prepared to throw out the principle of bodily autonomy are always on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. How do they marry up those positions?

Surely, the only way to emerge from this pandemic with any respect for each other is to understand and learn from each other's choices when it comes to what medical procedures we undergo and what we put into our own bodies.

As the UK government proves, it's never too late to stare down the crazed health officials and mandate fanatics and say: ENOUGH!

Boris did just that before Christmas, ignoring fanciful suggestions from his discredited scientists of 6,000 deaths a day; making that bold call is probably the only reason he has survived the Partygate scandal thus far.

Trudeau, Ardern, Biden and Macron have done very little other than employ the politics of fear since the start of the pandemic – and now they're going to have to deal with the consequences.

That includes the presence of Freedom Convoys for many weeks and possibly even months – because their participants have been unfairly cast out of society.

I'd be stunned if voters decide to stick with these hate-filled leaders when they realise the devastation of the societal division they have wrought.

The world will be better off when they're out of power.