This is very long and in the meantime I will take a break.

See you when I see you.

Courtesy Search Engine Journal

Hello and a hearty welcome first two inserts may just, just, just see a small crack in the ban and correctness and fact checking. Maybe some of the hostile censoring and all that will be able to be challenged, one can expect and severe and nasty retaliation I just hope and pray this farcical debacle comes to an end and imprisonment sought for the perpetrators who wickedly conjured so much suffering, needless deaths and mental health problems.

Courtesy Scroll.In

In case some of you may not be familiar with the image next 'Zucker' it is a character named 'Data' from a science fiction programme 'StarTrek'. Data is an android (a robot with human appearance) need I say more or just no comment.

Facebook’s Zuckerberg Called Out by The BMJ for ‘Incompetent’ Fact Check on Pfizer Story

In an open letter to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, The BMJ calls the tech giant’s fact checkers “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible,” saying they failed to “provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong.”

See How we are being scammed and told lies----what more is in the mainstream media(Geoff)

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/facebook-zuckerberg-the-bmj-fact-check-pfizer/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f3a62176-7e02-49bf-bb0e-d1bbd8fa01c6

Courtesy Thesaurus.com

The welcome above says my view about this; this brave doctor below Dr Samuel White risked his career and they earn on average £160,000 plus every vaccine shot money and perks from the pharmaceutical companies and I know several who know of this gagging order and nurses with doctors are warned an told to only do and never the question the 'official narrative' I know many who wrestle with their conscience and are caught between a rock and hard place.

Courtesy Img.Flip

I know this place only to well and several times I was a sheeple this great doctor was not.

A gagging order that barred a Covid-sceptic family doctor from posting on social media has been lifted by the UK’s highest court.

Dr Samuel White had been banned by the UK’s medical regulatory authority, the General Medical Council (GMC), from posting any articles that questioned the conventional narrative on Covid-19, including testing, vaccinations and treatments.

Last summer, Dr White, who practises in Hampshire, had posted several videos on Instagram in which he questioned the safety of the vaccinations, claimed that mask wearing was useless and that proven treatments for Covid were being suppressed and doctors were not being allowed to use them.

In its response, the GMC initially barred Dr White from practising—but rescinded the order a month later—but imposed a ban on his social media activity because his views were a danger to the public and discredited medicine, it claimed. He was barred from posting his Covid views and was not permitted to respond to other posts.

Dr White appealed the ruling on the grounds that his freedom of speech rights had been violated. The UK’s High Court of Justice last week agreed that the GMC had not followed proper process in imposing the ban, and also felt that it had failed to demonstrate that Dr White was wrong in his views.

(Source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/White-v-GMC-judgment-031221.pdf)

· Vaccines not preventing Covid deaths

· Covid vaccine doubles chances of miscarriage

· Most Covid cases caught in hospital and care homes

· Covid jab protection falls to just 16% after six months

· Why Covid vaccines aren’t for everyone

· 70 percent of Covid cases detected by rapid testing are false

· Covid’s X-factor discovered

· Early batches of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine were ‘unstable’

· How to reset your immune system

· Covid lateral flow test not fit for purpose, doctors warn

· The common problem among serious Covid patients (WDDTY)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

· Thanksgiving gatherings were discouraged once again in many parts of the U.S., and many government leaders are now urging residents to cancel their Christmas celebrations too

· The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has little to do with the spread of an actual virus, and everything to do with the planned global takeover and implementation of a technocratic agenda known as the Great Reset

· Mask mandates, social distancing, business shutdowns and online working and learning are all forms of “soft indoctrination” to get us used to a way of life devoid of our rights and freedoms

· While the Great Reset plan is being sold as a way to make life fair and equitable for all, it’s really a wealth redistribution scheme that transfers wealth from the working class to the technocratic elite

· The mass vaccination and boosters-for-life agenda are part of the technocratic coup underway

Klaus Schwab is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Agenda in June 2020,¹ which includes stripping people of their privately owned assets.

In addition to being a poster boy for technocracy, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a hallmark of which is the merger of man and machine, biology and digital technology.²

According to Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.”

Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Underway

While the Great Reset plan is being sold as a way to make life fair and equitable for all, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system.

On the contrary, as noted by Patrick Wood in an interview with James Delingpole, the wealth distribution and circular economies promoted by the technocratic elite will never benefit the people, because what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of wealth from the people, to themselves.

Evidence of this can be seen in the decision to allow big box stores to remain open during the pandemic while forcing small businesses to close, no matter how small the infection risk.

There’s really no rhyme or reason for such a decision, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations. More than half of all small business owners fear their businesses won’t survive.³

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the collective wealth of 651 billionaires in the U.S. rose by more than $1 trillion (36%).⁴ To put their current wealth in perspective, not only did the number of billionaires in America swell to 745 during the pandemic, but their assets grew by $2.1 trillion.⁵

According to the online newsletter Inequality, “The $5 trillion in wealth now held by 745 billionaires is two-thirds more than the $3 trillion in wealth held by the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households estimated by the Federal Reserve Board.”

As noted by Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, “Never before has America seen such an accumulation of wealth in so few hands.”⁶

That’s technocratic wealth redistribution for you. Ultimately, The Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no voice.

That the COVID-19 pandemic is a form of class war is also evident in the way rules are enforced. While citizens are threatened with fines and arrest if they don’t do as they’re told, those who lay down the rules repeatedly break them without repercussions.

What Vaccines Have to Do With It

If you need more evidence that we’re in the middle of a technocratic takeover, look no further than the mass vaccination agenda and the promotion of fake, lab-grown meat. Bill Gates, another frontline technocrat, has repeatedly stated that we have no choice but to vaccinate everyone against COVID-19.

Naturally, he’s heavily invested in said vaccine and stands to gain handsomely from a global mass vaccination campaign. Technocrats are nothing if not self-serving, all while pretending to be do-gooders — much like COVID Claus in our little video.

Eventually, your personal identification, medical records, finances and who knows what else will all be tied together and embedded somewhere on or in your body. Every possible aspect of your biology and life activities will be trackable 24/7. You will also be digitally tied into the internet of things, which eventually will include smart cities.

All the different parts of this giant population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The global vaccination agenda ties into the biometric identity agenda, which ties into the cashless society agenda, which ties into the social credit system agenda, which ties into the social engineering agenda and so on.

When you follow this experiment to its ultimate conclusion, you find all of humanity enslaved within a digitized prison with no way out. Those who rebel will simply have their digital-everything restricted or shut down.

Fake Meat Is Part of the Reset Too

The rise of fake, lab-grown meat is a puzzle piece of The Great Reset agenda too. According to the World Economic Forum, lab-grown, cultured meat is a more sustainable alternative to conventional livestock, and in the future, we’ll all be eating a lot less meat. As noted on its website:⁷

“As the world looks to reset its economy, along with food systems, in a cleaner way post-pandemic, one more sustainable solution coming to fruition is cultured meat … Cultured meat takes much less time to grow, uses fewer of the planet’s resources, and no animals are slaughtered.”

But don’t think for a second that this has anything to do with environmental protection. No, it’s about controlling the food supply and preventing food independence.

Already, multinational corporations have taken over a majority of the global food supply with their patented genetically engineered seeds. Patented cultured meats and seafood will allow private companies to control the food supply in its entirety, and by controlling the food supply, they will control countries and entire populations.

Public health will undoubtedly suffer from this dietary switch, as canola and safflower oil⁸ are primary sources of fat in these fake meat concoctions. Vegetable oils are loaded with linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fat that, in excess, acts as a metabolic poison, causing severe mitochondrial dysfunction, insulin resistance, decreased NAD+ levels, obesity and a radical decrease in your ability to generate cellular energy.

Our LA consumption 150 years ago was between 2 and 3 grams per day. Today it is 10 to 20 times higher. If fake meat becomes a staple, the average LA intake is bound to increase even further.

In a court filing, attorneys for Meta, formerly Facebook, admit that their fact check labels aren't based on facts at all -- they're actually just opinions

The "fact checks" that Facebook, now known as Meta, has used to silence and censor throughout the pandemic are actually just "opinions." The stunning admission came from Meta's own attorneys, who stated in a court filing, "The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion."^[1]

The court filing came in response to a lawsuit filed by television journalist John Stossel, who claims the social media giant's fact-checking amounted to defamation when it flagged his content as false, causing all would-be viewers to doubt its integrity.^[2] Stossel wrote in October 2021:^[3]

"I just sued Facebook. I didn't want to sue. I hate lawsuits. I tried for a year to reach someone at Facebook to fix things, but Facebook wouldn't. Here's the problem: Facebook uses 'independent fact-checkers' to try to reduce fake news on their site. That's a noble goal.

Unfortunately, at least one Facebook 'fact-checker' is a climate-alarmist group that cleverly uses its Facebook connections to stop debate. Facebook is a private company. It has every right to cut me off. But Facebook does not have the right to just lie about me, yet that's exactly what Facebook and its 'fact-checker' did. That's defamation, and it's just wrong."

Sage has no molecular virologists, immunologists or intensive care experts. This could have cost thousands of lives

The success of any advisory group of scientists surely depends on a culture of openness, independence and diversity of opinion. Unfortunately this culture of openness has been conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies. It’s only through the persistence of Guardian journalists that we can now identify 23 participants in Sage. Of these, 13 are paid government employees, working as ministerial, health or civil service advisers. As such, the presence of their bosses, Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty, to say nothing of the prime ministers’s most senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, might well influence their ability to speak freely.

Beyond that, what does the membership of this committee actually tell us? We’ve learned from the list of attendees at a crucial Sage meeting on 23 March, leaked to the Guardian, that the group includes seven clinical academics, three microbiologists, seven modellers, two behavioural scientists with backgrounds in disasters and terrorism, one geneticist, one civil servant and two political advisers, one of which is the most powerful prime ministerial lieutenant in recent memory.

The makeup of Sage reflects an oddly skewed and overwhelmingly medical view of science. Indeed, there are many other perspectives that could bring value to a pandemic crisis team. Did Sage consult public health epidemiologists at the frontline of the response to coronavirus in China or Hong Kong, such as Prof Gabriel Leung? Did the group get input from infectious experts at the World Health Organization, such as the epidemiologist Mike Ryan, who leads the team responsible for containing of Covid-19 across the world?

The group includes no molecular virologists who could explain detailed pathogenic differences between Covid-19 and influenza, not one intensive care expert or nursing leader, and no immunologist to examine whether this virus produces lasting and protective immunity. There are no social scientists who could work on community engagement, nor a logistician, who would have expertise in planning for the delivery of supplies and resources during a pandemic. A balanced scientific advisory group would at the minimum include experts working at the frontline of the pandemic, such as those in public health, primary care and intensive care.

As to other measures of diversity, the gender balance of Sage is predictably skewed, with 16 men to seven women and only one ethnic minority person. Given that coronavirus has been shown to disproportionately affect people from black and ethnic minority communities, the comparative lack of black and ethnic minority experts seems a troubling omission.

In the absence of meeting minutes, we may never know whether, despite these deficiencies, a culture of openness exists within Sage. The lack of a paper trail also makes two of the group’s most important decisions particularly difficult to understand. At its first meeting on 28 January, Sage didn’t ask its mathematical modellers to model a community testing programme. Community testing and contact tracing reportedly wasn’t included as a possible strategy in the original modelling because not enough tests were available. The UK had been among the first countries to develop a Covid-19 test in mid-January, approved by the WHO, and has an exceptional national research infrastructure. Yet our national capacity to respond to a pandemic challenge appears to have been ignored. The basic principles of public health, and the daily mantra of the WHO – to find the virus, test, trace and isolate, to promote social distancing, and to do it all at speed – appear to have been effectively disregarded.

Whatever was discussed by Sage during February led to an alternative strategy, laid out by Boris Johnson, Vallance and Whitty at the beginning of March: to move from containing the virus to delaying its spread, allowing it to move through the population so that we eventually acquire “herd immunity” at a delayed speed.

So at a moment when the UK had fewer than 10 deaths from Covid-19 and less than 500 confirmed cases of coronavirus, the government, informed by Sage, decided to stop all community testing and tracing. The public health community were perplexed. It is difficult to think of other severe viral epidemics managed in this way, apart from influenza, which differs from coronvirus in important ways.

Six weeks later, the approach favoured by the WHO – testing, tracing and isolating the virus – is ostensibly back on the agenda. Matt Hancock has pledged that the UK will deliver 100,000 tests a day by the end of this week, with the army, Deloitte, Serco and Boots setting up test centres across the country. Health workers and their families can sign up for tests immediately. All hospital patients will be tested. Yet the government is bypassing the local authority public health teams and GPs who are at the forefront of routine screening and testing in the NHS and local communities. Its strategy still appears to be about flattening the curve, rather than finding every case of coronavirus.

Without testing, tracing those who have come into contact with infected people and isolating these clusters, the virus will flare up again. Future lockdowns will be necessary, and economic recovery extremely difficult. In a month’s time, we could be heading towards 60,000 deaths or more. It’s impossible to tell whether things would have played out differently had Sage included people from public health and primary care backgrounds. But had its membership and details of its decisions been revealed earlier, there would have been a chance for the wider scientific community to offer constructive criticism, maybe in time to save thousands of lives.

Anthony Costello is professor of global health and sustainable development at University College London and a former director of maternal and child health at the WHO

‘ Missing line at top of article’

Unfortunately this culture of openness has been conspicuous by its absence when it comes to the government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies. It’s only through the persistence of Guardian journalists that we can now identify 23 participants in Sage.

FOI Ref: FOI/2021/3099

You asked

Please provide the following information:

How are the statistics for compiling the deaths and hospitalisations for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated calculated in relation to Covid 19/SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – specifically, what counts as an unvaccinated death?

For example, the CDC in the USA has stated that it counts the death of a person who was vaccinated less than 14 days prior to their death as being unvaccinated. So, anyone dying within 2 weeks of having had one or more of the Covid 19/SARS-CoV-2 jabs is counted as an unvaccinated person.

Please note that I am not asking for figures for deaths from vaccinated or unvaccinated people - I simply want to know what you, or whichever relevant government organisation is involved with compiling the data, class as an 'unvaccinated' death. I would expect, therefore, that given the simplicity of subject of my request, it is not feasible that you or the relevant government organisation would not have the information to respond fully to this request.

We said

Thank you for your enquiry.

Both the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) produce data on deaths by vaccination status. We explain below how we define COVID-19 vaccination status for people who have died.

Please note that the UKHSA (formerly known as Public Health England) uses a slightly different definition, based on the testing data. Our method is solely based on vaccination data linked to death registration.

Definition of unvaccinated

COVID-19 vaccination status is determined on the date of death occurrence if a death has occurred, and on the last day of each week if not.

Possible values are:

unvaccinated
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is within 21 days of vaccination
vaccinated with the first dose only, date of death/last day of week is 21 days or more after vaccination
vaccinated with both the first and second dose, date of death/last day of week is date of second vaccination or later

For further information on our methodology and guidance in regards to counting deaths by vaccination status please see our Quality and Methodology publication: Weekly COVID-19 age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status, England: methodology.

For further information, please contact [email protected].

Before YouTube take this down as one of the 'fact checkers' You can get a back issue of Mercola.com which describes it a length.

Courtesy ITU

I have received several emails saying 'your take on climate change is confusing, make up your mind, natural cycle, humanity adds only 10%, 6th extinction, solar system changes'.

Yes it is a natural cycle and we do contribute some 15% simply because the other cycles did not have the technology we have now that causes such extreme pollution; however that same technology and evolved consciousness (studies that show that meditative mindfulness does effect weather and through the connection of the heart, mind, Earth 7.87 frequency, 'quote by several scientists {the secret of the Universe is vibrations, frequencies, wave lengths}

Courtesy Universe is just a Thought

Einstein was not alone in this; so with technology turned away from weaponry, cell and mobile phone, computers and 'Both fission and fusion are nuclear reactions that produce energy, but the processes are very different. Fission is the splitting of a heavy, unstable nucleus into two lighter nuclei, and fusion is the process where two light nuclei combine together releasing vast amounts of energy---As a source of power, nuclear fusion is expected to have many advantages over fission. These include reduced radioactivity in operation and little high-level nuclear waste, ample fuel supplies, and increased safety' and there are many more harmless technologies to Nature. I can go on and on so I suggest your refer to;

Courtesy Reddit

May I suggest that you read the trilogy May 31 2021 in side bar or search bar or and Monday 21st September 'Welcome to Smart City' should you read these it will save a lot of repeats.

Courtesy of Google Images.

At this point I would like to introduce an English Scientist Sir James Hopwood Jeans.

Sir James Hopwood Jeans.

physicist, astronomer and mathematician.

In an interview published in The Observer (London), when asked the question "Do you believe that life on this planet is the result of some sort of accident, or do you believe that it is a part of some great scheme?", he replied:

I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.

What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes.
— James Jeans, addressing the British Association in 1934, recorded in Physics and Philosophy, ^[15]

Finite picture whose dimensions are a certain amount of space and a certain amount of time; the protons and electrons are the streaks of paint which define the picture against its space-time background. Traveling as far back in time as we can, brings us not to the creation of the picture, but to its edge; the creation of the picture lies as much outside the picture as the artist is outside his canvas. On this view, discussing the creation of the universe in terms of time and space is like trying to discover the artist and the action of painting, by going to the edge of the canvas. This brings us very near to those philosophical systems which regard the universe as a thought in the mind of its Creator, thereby reducing all discussion of material creation to futility.
— James Jeans in The Universe Around Us, ^{[16] Courtesy Wikipedia}

GEOFF FREED ONLINE

Saturday, 1 January 2022

CONTROVERSIAL?