Coronavirus - Part Two.

[top4718 838]

19 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I can not get past their paywall. In any event, I think you implied earlier that you regarded the mainstream media as unreliable. I was wondering do you regard the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as also unreliable? More specifically, how do you feel about the numbers they provide on deaths from all causes? It is a data sequence that runs for many years (I think). Would that kind of data be reliable?

I said it’s an interesting read if you take heed of it, it does imply the death figures are not accurate, only time will tell but if I was a betting man I know where my money would be going. 
 

The fear is strong with this one.

[swarfendor437 14]

https://odysee.com/CBBC-EVIL-NEWSROUND-VACCINE-PROPAGANDA-Hugo-Talks--lockdown:b84f4a0bf94ff0246b8d2870b356b972198e0048?src=embed

 

Clearly some false information here that ignores official US Data contained in the video later on.

 

Woman serves notice of liability on NHS trust;

 

https://odysee.com/Woman-CALLS-NHS-and-SERVES-NOTICE-OF-LIABILITY-Hugo-Talks--lockdown:9f16742d73d5fc21077be93d8a74b4271a270c83?src=embed

 

and hypocrite Tony Blair, funded by Bill and Melinda Gates foundation:

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by swarfendor437

[Carbuncle 0]

12 minutes ago, top4718 said:

33 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I can not get past their paywall. In any event, I think you implied earlier that you regarded the mainstream media as unreliable. I was wondering do you regard the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as also unreliable? More specifically, how do you feel about the numbers they provide on deaths from all causes? It is a data sequence that runs for many years (I think). Would that kind of data be reliable?

I said it’s an interesting read if you take heed of it, it does imply the death figures are not accurate, only time will tell but if I was a betting man I know where my money would be going. 
 

It is difficult to have a productive discussion unless one has some facts in common. If you don't believe any of things I 'know' (and vice versa) how could any of my arguments make sense to you (and vice versa). That is why I am interested whether we have any information sources we both regard as reasonably reliable.

[top4718 838]

5 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

It is difficult to have a productive discussion unless one has some facts in common. If you don't believe any of things I 'know' (and vice versa) how could any of my arguments make sense to you (and vice versa). That is why I am interested whether we have any information sources we both regard as reasonably reliable.

As I said it’s much easier to find data if your a “believer” as alternative views tend to be censored. Follow James Melville on Twitter he has a host of charts from a variety of websites, many show comparisons to different levels of lockdowns against no lockdowns, the results are quite surprising. Check which websites they are from and decide which you feel you can trust.

 

Incidentally he also published the graph that showed no excess deaths but trawling back I can’t find it, Twitter is the easiest to navigate for older articles.

Edited June 10, 2021 by top4718

[butlers 261]

That "woman" is Professor Devi Sridhar of Edinburgh University.

She's been advising the Scottish Government and who's twitter feed has been bang on the money since the start.

Indeed her online lecture from 2016;( I think) is very prescient

[Carbuncle 0]

2 minutes ago, top4718 said:

As I said it’s much easier to find data if your a “believer” as alternative views tend to be censored. Follow James Melville on Twitter he has a host of charts from a variety of websites, many show comparisons to different levels of lockdowns against no lockdowns, the results are quite surprising. Check which websites they are from and decide which you feel you can trust.

And are there any of these websites which you would be prepared to recommend as reliable?

[top4718 838]

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

And are there any of these websites which you would be prepared to recommend as reliable?

No make you own judgment, some are from UK Gov.com 

[Carbuncle 0]

What about the ONS? Is that reliable?

 

12 minutes ago, top4718 said:

14 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

And are there any of these websites which you would be prepared to recommend as reliable?

No make you own judgment, some are from UK Gov.com 

But I already have a host of sites I regard as reliable, the challenge is to find ones we have in common.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Guest makapaka]

38 minutes ago, top4718 said:

As I said it’s much easier to find data if your a “believer” as alternative views tend to be censored. Follow James Melville on Twitter he has a host of charts from a variety of websites, many show comparisons to different levels of lockdowns against no lockdowns, the results are quite surprising. Check which websites they are from and decide which you feel you can trust.

 

Incidentally he also published the graph that showed no excess deaths but trawling back I can’t find it, Twitter is the easiest to navigate for older articles.

If there were no excess deaths - how do you account for the number of deaths  in 2020 compared to previous years

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020

 

what with them being 10-15% higher than any recent year?

 

just a coincidence that it coincided with a pandemic?

Edited June 10, 2021 by makapaka

[swarfendor437 14]

More damning evidence against Fauci:

 

 

[Longcol 604]

5 minutes ago, swarfendor437 said:

More damning evidence against Fauci:

 

 

Rather than me watching 10 minutes of youtube, please explain in a couple of paragraphs that I can read in minute the signifcance of this.

[Guest sibon]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Rather than me watching 10 minutes of youtube, please explain in a couple of paragraphs that I can read in minute the signifcance of this.

I’m not sure that you’ll find a whole minutes worth of significance in that clip.