It's not conspiracy bollocks if it's true though, is it... The conspiracy was the initial denial from Hancock and his department that vitamin D would help, despite decades of evidence to the contrary - David Davis and Rupa Huq fought against this and pushed through the reversal of policy of advice. How many elderly victims lives could have been saved if this advice had been adopted immediately - the conspiracy is the cover up of lack of culpability of those who were in a position of power.
I can’t believe the amount of people still trotting out the “conspiracy” trope to people who are just pointing out genuine facts. We were lied to and coerced regarding lockdowns and vaccines. Now whether that was because the powers that be where panicking and needed to use fear to get people to comply or it was something more nefarious is up for debate. But there’s no disputing the undeniable truth that the general populous worldwide was lied to regarding many many things when it came to Covid.
None of them where personal insults just pointing out your personality which is clear for all to see ! Your tirade of posts on here just consist of abusing and calling numerous other posters if there view doesn't happen to align with yours. As for the conspiracy stuff as the previous poster said it's not a conspiracy when it's true but you seem incapable of admitting this and instead double down on insulting people. At this point you just come across as a coward hiding behind a computer !
I'm bored and waiting for the Missus to make some purchasing choices, so knowing that I've got a significant amount of time to kill, I went back to page 1 of this thread. It needs to go in some digital social history depository, a fascinating reminder of what life was like just a few short years ago. Only up to page 5 and you're taken back to the wonderful world of Tiers with Must and Should declarations; rumours of a vaccine to come and the perceived fecklessness of public sector workers. The world went mad, didn't it?
Calling someone a 'Covid nazi' is not a personal insult? You seem a touch over-sensitive, are you one of those snowflakes I keep hearing about?
Unlike me to stir the pot (lying ****) but expect this highly political post to be deleted. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Too late for some, I lost them, and glamogs, years ago. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
I feel sorry for all those people who died of covid, if they'd known it was all fake they'd be alive today
Yeah I know, I feel sorry for those people that clearly find it hard to own up to the fact that they’d been lied to.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/ufos-aliens-conspiracy-theories-twin-17116285 if people only knew the truth eh - some muppets still believe it was terrorists
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ed-man-217-covid-jabs-no-side-effects-germany We've all been lied to! Quel horreur!
Well worth explaining beyond providing the link. A chap in Germany managed to get himself vaccinated over 200 times with multiple doses of several different vaccines. Suggests he managed to evade Covid and also any side effects. He obviously wasn’t the full ticket anyway, but no worse for being a Covid pin cushion. Bizarre.
And still it goes on Covid Inquiry appears fundamentally biased, say scientists Leading academics claim process ‘not living up to its mission’ by failing to examine costs of lockdown Camilla Turner, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT andNeil Johnston12 March 2024 • 9:24pm please log in to view this image The Covid Inquiry appears to be “fundamentally biased” and is failing to examine the costs of lockdown, leading scientists have warned. In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic. They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”. In the letter, published on Tuesday, the group states that the inquiry is neglecting to hear evidence from those who suffered from the “negative effects” of pandemic policy decisions, or scientists who disagree with choices made by the Government. As the second module of the inquiry comes to a close, they call for this to be urgently addressed and greater focus to be placed on the “economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society”. Advertisement The letter was organised by Dr Kevin Bardosh, an expert in infection medicine at Edinburgh University and Prof Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University. Worklessness ‘a worrying trend’ It comes as Richard Hughes, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, warned on Tuesday that worklessness had become a “worrying trend” in the economy since the pandemic. Mr Hughes told the Treasury select committee that the economy had been growing as a result of net migration but now the it was suffering from a reversal in its workforce amid “rising levels of inactivity and a falling participation rate”. He said: “It looks as though persistently high levels of inactivity seem to be a feature of the post-pandemic environment and one which is worrying from the point of view of human welfare.” So far, the Covid Inquiry has examined the Government’s resilience and preparedness, as well as decision making and political governance across the UK. Advertisement The next set of inquiry modules include one on the Government’s business and financial response, and another focusing on education, children and young people. Academics hope the cost of lockdown policies will be scrutinised more closely in these upcoming sections of the inquiry. The group includes academics from York, Durham, Bristol and Exeter universities as well as Imperial College London and King’s College London, in fields ranging from global health policy and medicine to ethics, law and statistics. Dr Bardosh, who is director of Collateral Global, a British think-tank which was set up to examine pandemic policies, told The Telegraph ahead of the publication of the letter that he wanted to write to Lady Hallett before the list of “core participants” is drawn up for the next set of modules. While anyone can submit evidence to the inquiry, “core participant” groups enjoy special status, including the right to representation and the ability to make legal submissions, suggest questions for witnesses and receive disclosure of documentation. ‘Time to recognise their biases’ “The letter is an attempt to get the inquiry to recognise that they have got some things wrong, they still have time to redirect it to be more impartial,” Dr Bardosh said. “It is really important that the inquiry recognises they have had these biases and shortcomings in Modules One and Two so they don’t carry it over into the other modules.” Previously, MPs have written to Lady Hallett to urge caution about the direction of the inquiry. But this is the first time that a group of eminent academics have raised concerns. The letter goes on to say that the inquiry is taking “key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them”. It states: “The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods. “This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.” The academics also note that the inquiry “lacks impartiality” in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses. “It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on Sage, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations,” they say.
It is no surprise the inquiry is biased - any person or expert questioning anything regarding the actions performed is declared a conspiracy theorist, wanting to kill elderly ppl and the online army of lockdown and pharmaceutical multinationals supporters wage campaigns against them. Much easier to just say everything followed the international recommendations..
