First dates and the ‘gender’ wage gap – a response to Anne Rucchetto.

In her article ‘why most men should pay on first dates’ – an article powered by feminism and drenched in the usual left wing cliché about how the ills of our ‘socially constructed’ society are due to power and oppression – Rucchetto became disillusioned with the idea of splitting the bill.

In fact, according to her, the turning point came five years ago when her friends and teachers introduced her to ideas that enabled her to question that approach. Ideas based on other feminist writers such as Bell Hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) – a radical left wing feminist writer known for her work on race, capitalism, oppression and power – inspired Rucchetto to change her mind since:

‘People benefit differently based on the current structure of society, so depending on who we’re spending time with, it shouldn’t be expected for both parties to pay equal amounts’.

Though this statement might come across as socially just and virtuous, it is really a facade that masks her feminist agenda.  For who, might you ask, are the general beneficiaries of this ‘structure of society’? Well it is the devil himself: man of course.

To make her case, Ruchetto resurrects the ‘gender’ pay gap argument and uses it to suggest that since men generally earn more than women, they should pay most, if not all, of the bill.

Personally I always thought dates were about discovering whether there is any chemistry or spark between the two parties dating.  I thought that they provided an opportunity in finding out whether you are actually attracted to that person, and whether you get along with their personality.  But fundamentally I assumed that dates – particularly first dates – provided an opportunity to asses whether you want to see that person again.

Ruchetto on the other hand states that dates provide:

‘a small opportunity to recognise that people in society have different access to resources’.

But why focus on such a small area when there are more important factors to consider when dating? Surely getting to know your date is a greater good than noting their social-economic status.  I mean if you are  already thinking about who’s going to pay the bill, the date can’t be going all that well can it?!

Of course the reason why Ruchetto focuses on this area is because for the large majority of feminist thinkers like her, everything must be interpreted in terms of power and oppression.

Indeed, it’s quite natural to form a mental picture about how wealthy you think your date is presenting themselves.  But Ruchetto is essentially viewing the innocent role of dating and applying a postmodern feminist political slant on it, in order to highlight the ‘power’ imbalances between men and women, and then using social justice theory to correct for it.

I mean take her personal experience into account:

‘When I went on a first date with a man who spent most of the time boasting about his sports car and travels, it confused me when he wanted to split the bill. Curiously, it is often these privileged men that have declared to my friends and I: “I’m a feminist, so we’ll split it”’.

So Ruchetto expected the man to pay for the date just because he appeared wealthy.  But is that really indicative of his membership to a beneficiary class of society?  And does that really make him one of societies privileged few and therefore following on from this, has an obligation to pay for his date?  Did it not cross Ruchetto’s mind that perhaps he was exaggerating or even outright lying? Since first dates provide a short window of time to impress the other person then this could well have been the case.  And even though he wanted to split the bill this was not good enough for Ruchetto since she ‘clearly’ sensed that his version of feminism wasn’t compatible with his privilege!

Does anyone else sense how ludicrous this statement is?!

Yet on the other hand I could well understand why he would want to split the bill if it happened to be an expensive date. But if it was just a coffee and a slice of cake then chances are he probably wasn’t as rich as Ruchetto believed.  Remember there is a difference between appearances and reality.

It is well known that men tend to advertise their material possessions to women, but that doesn’t mean that women should feel entitled to being paid and hence provided for – even though that is the expected norm in dates.

By adopting the only method feminists use to interpret the world around them (namely power and oppression); Ruchetto sees dating as a way of assessing how much power your date has in terms of material wealth relative to their date.

But dates are not an opportunity to asses how well your date is faring in society, they are simply an opportunity to asses whether you like them or not.  And if you are forming part of that decision on your dates’ proclivity to earning power, material possessions, or wealth, then you are more than likely setting the foundations of a relationship on unbalanced grounds.

On the other hand we don’t need to go on a date to see how people are faring in society, as it should be abundantly clear that there are differences in all walks of life across cultures and even historical time frames.  So what if people have more resources than others? That no way entails that they have an obligation to pay for their date.  There are other factors to take into consideration.  Why should someone pay for someone else they don’t like or don’t enjoy their company?

In saying all this however, it is shown that heterosexual dating scripts remain fairly traditional, with the man not only expected to ask a woman out but also to pay for the date (Emmers-Sommer et al. (2010)).  It is important to state that in this study both men and women expected the bill to be paid by the man.  But firstly the reason isn’t because of the gender pay gap and secondly as we all should know by now, the pay gap has almost nothing to do with gender.  It’s much more likely, however, to be due to evolutionary reasons – perhaps even biological.

So when Ruchetto writes, in what sounds like a fist pounding statement of truth:

‘Whether or not men believe women’s labour is underpaid, it is. Further, whether or not men agree with women being underpaid, they directly benefit from it’.

She is wrong.  Women are not underpaid in the sense that they are purposefully paid less for the same job just because they are a woman.  In fact they are not underpaid at all.  They are paid in accordance to what job they perform, whether they are full or part-time, and, finally, in accordance with equal pay laws.  In other words they are paid equitably.  This statement is only controversial to those who have a left wing political agenda.  But facts – though may hurt one’s feelings – don’t lie.

Further I do not quite understand what Ruchetto means when she says ‘they(men) directly benefit from it(women being underpaid). Surely, being underpaid affects everyone in the medium to long term.  Perhaps she means that it benefits men in the sense that it allows them to retain a monopoly on all the ‘top’ jobs so to speak.  But if this is the case why do companies opt to pay men more when they could just as well hire women to do the same job for less money.  Either Ruchetto’s thinking is confused at this point, or I do not understand exactly what she means by how men benefit from women being ‘under paid’, in which case clarification is needed.

On thinking a little more deeply about Ruchetto’s argument, I wonder if she thought about how much time, work effort and dedication rich ‘privileged’ people put into their career. They almost certainly don’t sit around smoking big fat cigars and playing golf all day, and are much more likely to make a big impact on other people’s lives by providing work, jobs and products which benefits society as a whole. So perhaps we should be buying them a coffee and patting them on the back for a job well done? This might seem like an extreme example but you get the point.  If we are to follow this idea of equity then surely the coffee is on us?

As I continued to read her article, I couldn’t help but sense the typical liberal tick-box approach to it.  She talks about dating, but feels impelled to tell us that she has dated both ‘men and women’ and even implies that she has dated a ‘gender-diverse’ person even though it adds no value to the core of her message and if anything appears to be an attempt at virtue signalling.  She further makes a very generalised statement without qualification regarding the subject of women’s physical appearance being the subject of ridicule across all sectors of employment:

‘Women’s physical appearances are held to impossibly high standards and a routine subject of ridicule everywhere from the entertainment industry to The White House’

But once again, her comment adds no value to the core of her message other than trying to remind us how oppressed women are in the workplace.  Ruchetto believes that expectations surrounding women’s appearances and behaviors have both material and personal costs, and that these should also be factored in for consideration.  Behavioural expectations such as: calmness, attentiveness, understandability and  flexibility are mentioned as though society has enforced these expectations upon women – which I do not believe.  Naturally however her ‘argument’ is one side since she does’t mention any type of behaviour or apparant social norm that men are expected to act out.  Expectations such as paying the bill perhaps?

Since it is well documented and researched that women prefer people over things – as opposed to men who prefer things over people – then isn’t it possible to interpret these so called ‘expectations’ not as socially constructed but biologically determined instead?  I think this is a valid argument.

But of course the point Ruchetto is trying to make in all this is that women have it hard.  They don’t get paid as well as men. Society is constantly stigmatizing and body shaming them. And that they feel they have to act in accordance to a dictatorial society that tells them how to behave and feel.  All this keeps her oppression narrative alive, and as a consequence believes this should come at a cost.

Now Ruchetto does of course waver around centre ground by adding that if she earned more than the guy she would gladly pick up the check, and that she admits also that the payer of the bill cannot be reduced to just men vs. women, but should take other factors into consideration – which I whole heartily agree.  But this I feel is an attempt to soften the blow so to speak.   Remember the title of the article is ‘why most men should pay on first dates’ and that her reasoning is based on a narrow minded misunderstood view of how the world operates; i.e in terms of power, oppression, privilege and victimization.

Apart from a sprinkling of positive points regarding the importance of consideration and respect between each other, Ruchetto’s argument is conclusively this:

Most men should pay on the first date because on average they earn more than women.  Most men should pay on the first date because society is socially constructed to benefit men whilst oppressing women by holding them to impossibly high beauty standards and social expectations.

But these arguments fall flat on its face at a moments reflection.

Personally I always found that women tend to put pressure on themselves to look beautiful or indeed attractive, though I admit this desire to attract may have some outside factors.  But this is not to say that young men are dissimilar!  But here’s the point:  no one is forcing us to abide by socially constructed expectations.  If we allow ourselves to get sucked in to this way of thinking, then the consequence is damage to our own and others psyches which could well produce unwanted feelings of anxiety, resentment and anger which is not good in any society.

You can read the full article here:


Filed under Society

The ‘flaw’ of RT-PCR testing – BBC.

On the 13th of February 2020, reporter James Gallagher from the BBC ran a short article titled: Are Coronavirus tests flawed.

In summary, the article discusses in very simplistic terms how RT-PCR diagnosis works; namely, by extracting the ‘genetic code’ of the virus from lung samples which is then ‘repeatedly copied’ ( or in other words amplified) which thus makes ‘tiny quantities ( of virus ) vast and detectable’ in order to a positive or negative diagnosis. Gallagher then goes on to discuss how flawed the process is but only in terms of producing false negatives.

False positives, the importance of germ isolation and purification, and the processes by which these tests are carried out – namely by performing an arbitrary number of cycles in order to amplify the ‘virus’ – are not discussed, nor even mentioned.

I suppose these factors are too inconvenient for the BBC’s narrative, so best leave them out.

So let’s break it down shall we.

Gallagher: A sample is taken from the patient. Then, in the laboratory, the virus’s genetic code (if it’s there) is extracted and repeatedly copied, making tiny quantities vast and detectable.

This explanation is plainly wrong. It assumes that if the viral RNA isn’t there then it won’t be extracted and repeatedly copied. The RT-PCR test does not specifically look for COVID-19 genetic code. It simply can’t do that UNLESS the genetic code of the COVID-19 virus has been isolated, purified and shown to cause illness prior to testing. Only then can the RT-PCR test be set up in such in a way as to detect this specific ‘genetic code’. This has not been done. So whatever the RT-PCR test is testing positive for, it is certainly not the COVID-19 genetic code.

Gallagher: These “RT-PCR” tests, widely used in medicine to diagnose viruses such as HIV and influenza, are normally highly reliable.

Yes they are used to diagnose HIV and influenza, but even in these areas they suffer from the same lack of scientific proof regarding isolation and purification of the virus – that is why many doctors and medical professions have questioned – and still do – the HIV causes AIDS theory.

But still, lets play ball and assume the test can infact detect COVID-19 RNA. What Gallagher fails to talk about, or even mention, is that the PCR test requires a certain number of cycles in order to amplify the RNA of the virus thus making it more detectable. The cycles are run until an arbitrary cut off point is reached. Once this is reached the result will be either positive or negative. It is important to realise that this cut off point differs across labs worldwide.

In his paper Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test, David Crowe writes:

“This cycle number (Ct) used to separate positive from negative is arbitrary, and is not the same for every organization doing testing. For example, there is a paper published that reported using 36 as the cutoff for positive, 37-39 as indeterminate, requiring more testing, and above 39 as negative. Another paper used 37 as the cutoff, with no intermediate zone. In a list of test kits approved by the US FDA one manufacturer each recommended 30 cycles, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. 40 cycles was most popular, chosen by 12 manufacturers, and one each recommended 43 and 45.”

Does that sound highly reliable ?

Gallagher then goes on to discuss false negatives. He cites one paper in the Journal or radiology, claims there are ‘numerous anecdotal accounts’ and cites a Chinese journalist who claims that people have tested negative six times before testing positive.

False negatives are clearly a problem. But Gallagher makes out as though this is the only problem – it’s not.

In his flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory, David Crowe meticulously studied the data thus far and found that people can test positive, negative and then positive again. He also found that in 4,087 samples people tested negative, negative, negative – this sample included 337 people returning from China who were tested twice and 37 who suspected infection. Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely to receive a 100% negative rate.

Given the evidence it would appear that the test is not fit for purpose.

But why did Gallagher focus on the false negatives and ignore the rest? Simply to instil fear into convincing us that there could be people walking this land who despite testing negative are in fact positive. It’s a scare tactic and nothing more.

Gallagher then brings in Doctor Nathalie MacDermott to provide some possible answers to ‘what might be going on’ with these tests.

Here are some explanations by Dr. MacDermott with my comments in bold:

One possible explanation is the tests are accurate and the patients do not have coronavirus at the time of testing’ – We know the tests are not accurate. Even if the person doesn’t have COVID-19 it could raise a false positive for the detection of other genetic material.

‘It is also cough, cold and flu season in China and patients may confuse these illnesses for coronavirus. – This is irrelevant to the general thesis of the article. If the RT-PCR tests were accurate in detecting Coronavirus, then there wouldn’t need to be this confusion.

“The early signs of coronavirus are very similar to other respiratory viruses,” Dr MacDermott says. – Indeed, which indicates that the PCR test fails to distinguish between the Coronavirus and other ‘viral’ ailments.

“Maybe they weren’t infected when first tested – That is true maybe they weren’t. But we can never know because what the RT-PCR test is purported to diagnose dosen’t.

“Then, over the course of time, they became infected and later tested positive for the coronavirus. That’s a possibility.” Or positive, negative, then positive again just as Crowe found.

Another option is the patients do have the coronavirus but it is at such an early stage, there is not enough to detect. Perhaps this is where the ‘importance’ of the number of cycles come into play. The more cycles undertaken, the increasing chance of producing a positive result. 60 cycles is said to produce a 100% positive rate.

Only after all these possibilities have been exhausted does MacDermott discusses the possibility that the ‘RT-PCR test is itself based on flawed science’. Though she discusses problems associated with the extraction process of samples from people’s lungs, the real flaw is that the test is itself unreliable.


Click to access CoronavirusPanic.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Goat and Pawpaw test positive for COVID-19.

COVID-19 test equipment has raised eyebrows in Tanzania after a goat and pawpaw tested positive for COVID-19.

Yes, that’s right. The virus which initially was thought to have jumped from bats to humans has now ‘jumped’ into fruit.

John Magufuli, the president of Tanzania who raised concerns over the accuracy of the tests, had samples taken from a goat, sheep and pawpaw and sent them under the guise of human names to a laboratory for testing.

The result: Positive in all cases

Magufuli swiftly followed this up by suspending the laboratory director in charge of testing, Nyambura Moremi, and has further began an immediate investigation.

Magafuli, who has drawn criticism over his handling of the pandemic, is reported to have said that the testing equipment imported into the country had ‘technical errors’ and that they should be investigated.

Magafuli’s concern’s are warranted. Since the ‘outbreak’ many prominent doctors and researchers have voiced their concern over the accuracy and validity of the RT-PCR tests. Dr. Kary Mullis – the inventor of the test – said himself that the PCR test is not a test for viral disease. This came about at a time when PCR was being used to test for HIV.

I have already written a short piece on the problems associated with PCR testing which can be found here. But to sum up the test cannot be used to diagnose a viral ailment in test samples because the isolation and purification of the virus was never carried out in the first place ( Koch’s postulates ).

What is being tested for is genetic material ( something we all – including fruit – have ), which when amplified to a certain amount of cycles, increases the likelihood of recording positive.

The conclusions drawn from Magafuli’s little experiment is twofold. Either fruit can randomly become infected with a virus that affects lungs when no respiratory system is present, or what it being detected is general to all life.

I take the latter the view.

The replication of Magafuli’s experiment is imperative to ensure validity for the sake of truth. It needs to be carried out in numerous settings with sufficient controls put in place so that we can tear down and expose this scam for what it really is.

The pawapw is reported to be recovering well. We wish him a speedy recovery.


Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

The Ministry of Truth’s worry over the spread of misinformation.

The BBC’s Marianna Sprigg is at it again.

The Orwellian titled ‘specialist disinformation and social media reporter’ notes the ‘concerning’ but unsurprising ‘increase in highly polished videos promoting conspiracy theories being shared on YouTube.

Unsurprising because, according to Sprigg, accurate information shared by trusted public health bodies ( meaning the WHO and anyone who peddle their narrative ) tends to be more complex than the simple easy to fall for nature of so called ‘conspiracy’ videos.

A gentle way of insulting the intelligence of millions of people who not only seek clarity and understanding in today’s madness, but also seek alternative explanations – something which Sprigg, the BBC and other mainstream media outlets are hell bent on making sure you are not presented with.

It ( the message of trusted public health bodies ) lacks ‘the popular appeal’ she says ‘of the conspiracy videos, which give misleading explanations to worried people who are looking for quick answers, or someone to blame.’

Or, I might add, they are seeking alternative information because they doubt what is being peddled by the so called ‘trusted’ health bodies, and their messenger the Ministry of Truth (BBC). Why? Because mainstream journalists have failed to do their honourable duty by reporting unbiased news, providing a platform for all to give their opinions, whilst remaining impartial. It’s a difficult job but can be done.

But of course Sprigg reminds us that we are too stupid to understand the so called trusted health experts, so we ignorantly accept the alternative view because:

‘High-quality production values and interviews with supposed experts can make these videos very convincing. Often facts will be presented out of context and used to draw false conclusions.’

Sorry, I thought you were discussing conspiracy theory videos not Neil Ferguson’s computer model. Which I am still waiting for Susan Wojcicki to remove due to violating community guidelines.

But no.

For Sprigg the quality of production and supposed experts being interviewed ( she names none ) are what convinces our silly little minds in believing silly little things.

It’s not about the videos message. It’s not about the data / evidence that is being displayed. It’s not about our ability to think for ourselves and go on to investigate further if we so wished.


It’s all about the front. The production costs, the snazzy colours, dramatic music and the white coats. Perhaps this is the way Sprigg draws her conclusions ?

To bolster her claim, she does cites a paper titled: ‘YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation?’. The paper analysed 69 out of a total of 150 YouTube videos using the keywords ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’. They found, surprise, surprise, that:  ‘Over one-quarter of the most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 contained misleading information.’

Now, anyone with a university education knows that the deployment of one study isn’t sufficient to support one’s claim; it also needs corroboration and a criticism of any evidence that is contrary to it. But in a graver sense, this single ‘study’ fails, just like Sprigg, to provide a clear definition of what ‘disinformation’ means. Claiming that it is anything that goes against the message of the World Health Organisation, the Centre for Disease Control or any other major public health agency is not a sufficient definition in terms!

A more reliable study would have reported exactly what videos were screened and assessed. It would have recorded exactly, and in context, the sentences, paragraphs and/or phrases that were deemed misinformation and then checked and verified not only against the narrative of major public health agencies, but against the available evidence that is elsewhere. This obviously requires time and a very very meticulous approach to reading and study.

True the authors include some examples ( see Box 1 in their study ). But these examples in themselves are not sufficient since they include out of context statements such as ‘the only way to eat is to be violent’ ( what the hell does that even mean ?! ), as well as flagging up what they believe is non-factual when one could argue that it is in fact factual e.g. ‘the Chinese virus’ – true since this pandemic began in China. (Notice the slight dig at Trump though?)

The lazy reliance on authoritarian sources is not science. We must not assume that authority is correct and therefore not open to question and / or scrutiny. Like everything else, one must always check their sources for validity and investigate further to see if any corroborating and/or contradictory evidence exists. Something that neither Sprigg nor this study did which, in my mind, makes the whole project invalid.

But then what are we to expect from the BBC’s Ministry of Truth?

Certainly not the truth!

Reference to the study:

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Scientists behaving badly – June 2005 study shows why we must always question ‘the science’.

How many times have you heard the media claim that they are following the science on a particular issue?

How many times do they begin their reports with the sentence ‘Scientists say ….’ as though the very mention of authority tries to make the rest of us acquiesce blindly with what is being said ?

True science involves, testing, re-testing and and the constant examination of hypotheses and sources of data. True science involves the continuous need to verify results and duplicate experimental methods in ensure validity.

Instead the media peddle ‘general agreement’ rather than delve into the data and debate those who disagree. After all, it’s easy that way.

Yet a report exposing certain fraudulent practises of ‘scientists’ back in June 2005 reveals why we should always question the prevailing narrative cooked up by the media and so called scientists.

The report gathered data from over 3,200 scientists across their entire career span ( early to late ) and found alarming behaviours that jeopardise the integrity of science ( See Table 1 below ).

Astonishing as this is, what I found particular alarming was the high percentage of scientists who admitted to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source. If ever you need evidence implicating the involvement of a funding source in an attempt to manipulate research results then here you are.

The results of this study makes grim reading. It’s no wonder that, earlier in 2002, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the Association of American Medical Colleges objected to a proposal by the US Office of Research Integrity ( ORI ) to conduct a survey collecting empirical evidence of behaviours that undermine research integrity (p.737).

In conclusion, the authors state that their findings suggest US scientists engage in a range of behaviours extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. For six of the behaviours, reported frequencies were under 2%. Remaining behaviours reported frequencies of 5%, but the authors note that most behaviours exceeded 10%.

Overall 33% of the respondents said they had engaged in at least one of the top ten behaviours during the last three years. Among mid-career respondents, this rose to 38% with a 28% response rate for those in the early-career group.

The authors note that this figure is conservative since the scientists were self-reporting and hence dishonest.

The argument from authority fails and should never be used as a valid method for justifying the results of a study. The media and all social media platforms who peddle one-sided information, while deliberately shutting down and censoring dissenting views needs to be reformed now more than ever if we truly value our democratic freedoms.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Social media’s tyrannical scramble for the hearts and minds of the people.

Social media platforms are scrambling for the hearts and minds of the people.

Censorship of so called ‘misinformation’ is taking place at a colossal pace. From videos of medical staff blowing the whistle on the manipulation of death certificates, investigative journalists and medical professionals who dare speak out against the mainstream narrative, as well as videos of empty hospitals claiming to be overcrowded with Covid-19 patients; the information wars are heating up.

However, there is one video doing the rounds that has got the mainstream media’s knickers in a twist and that is a video called “The Plandemic”.

It must have caused a right stir since the growing number of articles and videos being published in order to debunk it are popping up faster than mushrooms.

The British Bullshit Corporation ( BBC ), have even created a specialist disinformation reporter’ ( Marianna Spring ) in order to combat what they think is fake news or information that is not supported by reliable medical and scientific advice.

Even Twitter said that they too will remove unverified claims that could prove dangerous.


So why didn’t the BBC report on the misinformation the public and Boris Johnson was sold in Ferguson’s flawed, unreliable and unverified computer model ? Why didn’t they go out of their way and conduct an independent investigation of A: Ferguson’s prior false predictions, and B: the accuracy of his model ( which only now has started to come to light).

In essence the journalists don’t have the cojones to question authority, nor do they posses the freedom of thought to go out and independently investigate their sources.

Instead, and in many cases, they simply summon the argument from authority when they want debunk a theory that doesn’t agree with them, or go on and attack the personality or credentials of the video maker.

If they did a shred of research ( which there is a surprising lack of when you consider that most ‘journalists’ are university educated ) they would indeed find research papers and studies purporting to disprove what they have been told.

For example in the book Invisible Rainbow, Arthur Firstenberg makes a compelling case that many environmental problems as well as certain diseases are related to electrical pollution. It is therefore not necessarily a conspiracy – as they like to call it – to suggest that the upcoming millimetre wave 5G technology as a potential contributing factor to illness.

But one could go on for hours debunking debunking articles and videos. That is not the point. The main issue is whether these media platforms have the right to decide for us what to believe in.

And a firm staunch NO! is the answer to that.

In a true free democratic society, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to believe in. They should be able to read whatever they like, and watch whatever they like and form their own opinions, judgements and analysis of the content they have consumed regardless of any authority that is looming over their heads.

But history shows we have been here before. Take the invention of the printing press for example. With copies of the bible now available at a much cheaper price, the layman could afford to read the bible on their own in complete context instead of giving that privilege to a priest – who read snippets of it here and there. It was no wonder the church felt it was losing control over the printed word, which led to pope Innocent VIII issuing a declaration of censorship, requiring all printed publications to be approved by the church.

Note any similarities? Social media and their mainstream media partners want to control the flow of information themselves. They want people to get their news and updates from their own sources – not third party sources. This is their job, this is what keeps them earning their coin and daily bread. Even if that means rubbishing the content of others. So be it. But you must buy into their news.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and many other platforms have got their strategy totally wrong. They risk content and ideas going underground unmonitored, while potentially losing content consumers to rival alternatives as people begin to lose trust with the mainstream platforms.

As people begin to wake up, one can imagine massive repercussions heading their way.

Could it spell the end social media operates ?

Could it usher in a new era of true democratic social media ?

I don’t know.

But once all this is over I hope an independent enquiry into the mainstream media’s coverage and practise during this ‘pandemic’, and social media’s tyrannical grip over user content will be carried out for the whole world to watch.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Reasons for doubt…

Reasons to doubt

6 weeks ago I was a believer. Despite possessing a rather hard head, a strong distrust of government organisations and the media; I found myself, on this occasion at least, starting to worry about this virus.

But then something got my tail up. While scrolling down my Facebook feed one day, a ‘friend’ had posted that he had contracted the virus. It was clear that this was big news based on the amount of comments and get well soon messages he was receiving.

But when someone asked him if he had tested positive he said that it was more than likely since he was told over the phone that his symptoms seemed to indicate that.

Wait, what? Someone being diagnosed over the phone based on a generalised list of symptoms that could well be caused by other diseases / factors? That didn’t make any sense to me.

Research led me to the Royal College of Practitioners, where they have a page dedicated to offering telephone and online assessment of COVID-19 symptoms. They even discuss, in one of their videos, how to get patients to assess their own respiratory rate using Youtube videos.

Sound professional? The plot thickens.

Further investigation led me to discovering and reading Virus Mania – a brilliant book detailing the numerous frauds, scams and lies the medical establishment undertake in order to blame illness and disease on so called ‘viruses’ when in fact other factors like toxic waste, pollution, heavy drug usage are more viable causes of such illness – and have been shown as such.

Koch’s postulates – The gold standard of germ theory that has never been satisfied.

It was there I learned about Koch’s postulates – the gold standard criteria in proving whether microbes are causative agents of disease. Developed by Robert Koch ( 1843 -1910 ); his postulates for determining whether germs causes a specific illness ( i.e. symptoms ) are thus:

  1. The microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease. But not found in healthy cases.

2. The pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture.

3. The pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal.

4. The pathogen must be re-isolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen.

Sounds like common sense to me. You simply take the microbe you think is causing the disease out of an infected host, clean it up a bit so as to procure a pure culture, and then inoculate it into a healthy host to see if they too develop symptoms, then repeat.

To my astonishment, Virus Mania details the constant failings the medical establishment have had on carrying out this simple experiment in some of the most ‘major’ life changing diseases of our modern day: AIDS / HIV, Polio, Hep C and many others.

And now it’s COVID turn to join the heap of other diseases which haven’t fully satisfied Koch’s postulates.

I feel it is at this point that I have to make a disclaimer. Because it’s usually about this point where people start thinking I’m stupid, crazy, ignorant of science, and/or just plain thick. I am not saying there is no such thing AS A VIRUS AND HENCE NO SUCH THING AS COVID-19. I am saying that the evidence suggesting that COVID-19 is caused by a virus has not been proven.

This is not just my own subjective opinion. Many people in the medical profession like Dr. Kaufmann and Dr. Cowan and other independent researchers and investigative journalists have also claimed this to be the case.

And to support their claim one just needs to go look at the original studies which can be downloaded and read by anyone with an enquiring mind.

The first paper: Identification of a novel coronavirus causing severe pneumonia in humans: a descriptive study, was one of the first, if not the first, study of its kind to examine this new illness in Wuhan, China.

The study claims to have isolated the virus but the isolation was not carried out in accordance to Koch’s postulate. On page 3, the authors discuss the isolation process. They took BAL ( lung ) samples from symptomatic individuals and inoculated Vero cells with it – Vero cells are kidney cells specific to green monkeys. Now I’m not a medical doctor, by why would they inoculate kidney cells with infected lung tissue ? How can a kidney cell reproduce the symptoms of something that affects and harms the lungs ? Am I missing something?

Regardless, Koch’s postulates simply states that you must inoculate a healthy host in order to see if they too would go on to produce symptoms of the disease. This was clearly never done in this study.

In any case, the conclusion makes grim reading. ‘CPE ( a technical term for changes that occur in a cell following the introduction of microbe ) were observed in 30% of Vero cells innoculated with the new CoV’.

So what accounts for the 70% of the variance? Well other factors. But what factors? Environmental ? Unfortunately the paper does not discuss this, but go on to conclude that ‘it remains to be determined whether this novel CoV is capable of causing similar diseases in experimental animals’.

Still, how did they know that this ‘virus’ was a novel coronavirus? Well, they simply looked at the BAL samples under an electron microscope, performed genome sequencing using the RT-PCR technique – which as we will see is a very unreliable diagnostic method – and went on to conclude that this ‘virus’ looked similar to the Coronavirus strain discovered in 2003.

But even the ‘discovery’ of this 2003 Coronavirus hasn’t been sucessfully isolated in line with Koch’s postulates.

The May 2003 paper: The outbreak of COVID-19, An Overview briefly discusses the history of SARS and the notable similarities COVID-19 has to the Coronavirus of 2003. Interestingly, the authors cite a paper that claims they have successfully isolated this Corona virus in line with Koch’s postulates.

However it becomes immediately apparent that what they purported to satisfy wasn’t Koch’s postulates as such, but a derivation of it by Rivers (1937). Why was this derivation used? Simply because they found it extremely difficult / impossible to isolate virus’ using Koch’s postulates so a modification would enable them to soften up the experiment some what in order to prove what they set out to.

Despite some overlap with Koch’s postulates, Rivers postulates are six in total. These are:

  1. Isolation of the virus in a diseased host. ( Doesn’t specify that a healthy host should be virus free )

2. Cultivation of virus in a host cell and ( not pure culture as specified by Koch )

3. Proof of filterability ( the filter should be able to purify the virus and virus only – leaving all other microbes out of the sample )

4. The virus should produce the same disease in host.

5. Re-isolation of the virus

6. Detection of specific immune response

These are the criteria this paper claims to have satisfied –not Koch’s postulates.

In an in depth video, Dr. Andrew Kaufman went on to study this paper and the subsequent papers it cites as evidence of isolation and purification using Rivers’ six postulates ( a total of four papers are cited claiming this ) and he went on to conclude that:

“Despite the claim of satisfying Koch’s postulates, not one of 6 Rivers ( Koch ) criteria was met for SARS ( SARS-CoV).

In essence the May 2003 paper is not only misleading, it purposefully deceives and makes unsubstantiated claims that are on the verge of fraudulent.

The ‘indirect’ fake test

So what about these tests the government and media keep going on about? The first thing to note is that without a reliable method of isolating the virus and proving that it causes illness first, it is pointless to even implement a test since you don’t know what your looking for.

Despite this major problem – which the main stream media refuse to address – the government go on about reaching their target of producing 100,000 tests per day! But a test for what!?

Dr. Thomas Cowan and other medical doctors, as well as good investigative journalists, scientists and others people in the medical profession have professed that the RT-PCR test that is being rolled out and used to test for Covid-19 infections in people exhibiting symptoms is not a test that is designed to diagnose viral illnesses. Indeed, even the creator of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, himself cautioned against the use of PCR for the purpose of diagnosing infectious diseases.

The PCR test is an extremely technical procedure, but in simple terms the test involves taking a specimen ( or swab ) of an infected person’s lungs which is then analysed for genetic material by amplifying it a number of times. One sample of RNA that is found in the material is too small to achieve a positive result, so a certain number of cycles is needed to achieve this. In his Youtube talk, Dr. Thomas Cowan suggests that 60 cycles are needed for a 100% positive result. A major issue with this, Cowan points out, is that there is no universally agreed number of cycles to carry out, so it is possible that if someone wanted to achieve a positive result, all they would have to do is increase the number of cycles. Likewise, if they were looking for a negative result then decreasing the number of cycles would suffice. It is therefore plain to see that this system can be easily open to abuse and sinister manipulation of the figures.

That is perhaps the major flaw with the PCR test. However, there are also other problems associated with it.

Firstly taking a swab of someones lungs will produce a whole host of germs, bacteria and other microbes that happen to be present in the patient exhibiting flu-like symptoms. So trying to find which microbe is causing the ailment ( which remember is a very vague general set of symptoms with numerous causes ) is close to impossible. And we are not just talking about a handful of microorganism. In the digestive tract alone, researchers came upon around 100 trillion microorganism, which meant, according to Jeremy Nicholson of Imperial College, London, that there are an interaction of around 1,000-plus known species, and these probably contain ‘more than 100 times as many genes as exists in the host’ ( Engelbrech & Kohnlein, 2007). So there is no way in knowing which of the many microbes caused the illness because the ‘exact virus determination has not been carried out’. In short, the PCR test simply indicates that an immune response, ‘or some disturbance or activity’ at the cellular level exists. But what caused this disturbance remains unknown.

Secondly the PTR test tests for genetic material ( which most if not everyone has anyway, especially when amplified to 60 cycles ), and not the actual viral RNA. In order to do that, you must have accomplished isolating and purifying the virus from an infected host, and then administer this pathogen into a healthy host to see if they too become ill. If they do, and you repeat this test numerous times and find that the healthy subjects all become sick 100% of the time, then that will be deemed sufficient proof to proclaim that the isolated microbe caused the illness, and only then can you say, with certainty, that the symptoms that developed was caused by such a microbe. Following this, if the RNA found from the PTR test of the ‘infected’ lung matches that of the RNA that was thus isolated, then that would be proof that the virus caused the illness.

But we know that this has never been done. So far anyway.

The manipulation of death certificates (MCCDs)

One of the most striking consequences resulting from this ‘pandemic’, is the swift action taken by the UK government to implement ’emergency’ legislation. This has never been done before. Part of the legislation – which covers a whole range of topics – describes the process by which the registration of deaths are recorded in relation to Covid-19.

Media reports thrive of death figures. It is their life blood; the very thing that keeps them engaged because they know that’s what grabs and sucks us in. From flashing text, to sensationalised sounds effects and music,;we are all drawn into this morbid addiction to the point where everyone tunes in to see how many people have died.

But analyse the language. What do you read? They report on those who have died WITH Covid-19 or died AFTER BEING TESTED FOR Covid-19. They also report deaths just because Covid-19 was put down on the death certificate – but this doesn’t indicate that they died FROM Covid-19 since the layout of death certificates means doctors can fill in as much info regarding the direct cause of death, while adding any additional information.

Obviously dying with something does not entail dying from it. I could die with a loaded gun in my pocket, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the gun that killed me. This is basic logic. Further, dying after testing positive doesn’t entail that the presence of the virus in the body killed its host either. Again, I could die of heart disease whilst having flu.

Upon further investigation regarding the recording Covid-19 related deaths, I came upon a short pamphlet produced by The British Medical Association. In it it states that:

‘Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the MCCD, even without the results of a positive test, and it is important that likely Covid-19 deaths are reported as such via the registrar.

That doesn’t sound reassuring does it? The CDC in America similarly remarks that:

Covid-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.

How on earth is it acceptable to put down a cause of death or contributing factor without the reassurance of a positive test ?! It simply doesn’t make sense. In all honesty it doesn’t even matter because the test in itself is flawed.

It is becoming clear therefore, that what is happening is not the result of a viral infection. Indeed it could be; but until there is hard evidence and direct proof I will suspend judgement.

It is at this point that many people ask me what is killing so many people. My response to this is that it is a mistake to assume that one disease has one cause. There are an array of reasons as to why people are dying. Here are a few:

Multiple illnesses – Strong possibility since many people dying have underlying health conditions anyway.

Environmental – Toxic pollution ( especially in Wuhan, northern Italy and Iran )

Toxic substances / waste – a notable factor in the 2003 SARS outbreak.

Prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation – noted in the book ‘The invisible Rainbow’

Pneumonia / flu– Covid-19 seems to bear resemblance to these illnesses.

Whatever the causes be, its always important to keep an open mind and challenge the mainstream narrative. Never allow others to do the thinking for you. That is why I am in serious doubt as to whether what is happening is viral related.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Computer says no – How Imperial’s error riddled computer model has confined us all to house arrest.

Well. The plot thickens.

No sooner had professor Neil Ferguson resigned as a government adviser for breaking lock down rules, than a damning review of his error stricken computer code emerged which have subsequently left millions imprisoned inside their own home.

Sue Denim, a software engineer and independent consultant, managed to review a ‘ heavily modified derivative‘ of the original code – which apparently consisted of a single 15,000 line of code ( imagine trying to read a book with no paragraphs ) and found that the code was so buggy it produced different results given identical inputs.

She elaborates by illustrating a point where a team at the University of Edinburgh attempted to use a particular mode that should have enabled them to store data tables in a more efficient way that will enable faster loading times. But to their surprise, they found ‘that the resulting predictions varied by around 80,000 deaths after 80 days.

It hence became clear that this was a bug since the code they wanted to modify to enable faster loading times had nothing to do with the meat of the model itself e.g. population movement and virus spread.

Upon questioning one of the modellers, he responded that they were ‘aware of small non-determinims’ but given the nature of the randomness of the model this was acceptable.

What? a variability of 80,000 deaths is acceptable? In other words, it doesn’t matter. Don’t worry about it.

However in an attempt to provide a solution to the problem, Imperial recommended that they try running the code on PCs that use single-thread CPUS – just like they do. Because to run it on a multi-threaded system obviously breaks the model down – which only serves to fortify the sceptics view that the code is inherently trash.

Yet Denim notes that even using single cores the problem still exists, and despite a 2014 build which attempted to implement multi-thread optimisation they ‘never made it work reliably’.

All indicative that either the code is beyond repair due to the challenging nature of the bugs ( why base policy on this build? ) or they don’t have a clue what the problem is. I’d hedge my bets for the latter.

Yet bugs weren’t the only thing causing havoc with the code. Denim notes that different results could also be obtained just by using different computers regardless of what single/multi threads!

Further the lack of regression testing – ‘programs that run the program with varying inputs and then check the outputs are what’s expected’ – is found wanting. In Denim’s own words:

“The Imperial code doesn’t seem to have working regression tests. They tried, but the extent of the random behaviour in their code left them defeated. On 4th April they said:  “However, we haven’t had the time to work out a scalable and maintainable way of running the regression test in a way that allows a small amount of variation, but doesn’t let the figures drift over time.”

That’s right. They haven’t had time to implement the fundamentals of testing the very thing they built. That’s a bit like an automobile manufacture building a car without testing whether the wheels will drop off at 70mph. Yet Imperial had the time to wrap this error stricken model up, string a pink bow tie around it, and hand it over to our Prime Minister to mull over the prospect of blood on his hands if he didn’t lock the country down.

Denim’s conclusions are potent and to the point:

All papers based on this code should be retracted immediately. Imperial’s modelling efforts should be reset with a new team that isn’t under Professor Ferguson, and which has a commitment to replicable results with published code from day one.

Good science is replicable. Good science is open to scrutiny, critique and discussion. Good science is not hindered by secrecy and the holding back of data. The fact that people are checking the code now is worrying.

The event over the last couple of months will have massive ramifications for the future. Imperial’s reputation has suffered a huge blow, while Ferguson lies in complete disgrace.

But that’s fine, we are all in this together. Clap. Clap. Clap.

Click here to read Denim’s article in full.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

The happy clappies – England’s new emerging ritual.

It’s Thursday night. Some people are out on the streets. Some stand on their balconies. Others congregate in their back yards. Clap. Clap. Clap. Two meters apart.

Welcome to England’s new emerging ritual. Where every Thursday evening, people show their appreciation to all the carers and medical staff who are helping COVID-19 struck victims, by putting their hands together in a mass act of solidarity. Some grab their pots and pans in an effort to be the loudest. Heck, even the dogs join in; though more than likely in response to the noise pollution.

This new #clapforourcareres campaign turned religion, instigated by Annemarie Plas back in March, has swept the UK by storm. From postman Pat to David Beckham, from Bob the builder to Boris Johnson; there they are. Clap. Clap. Clap. Two meters apart.

Some hold up placards displaying gratitude to the NHS. Others get their rainbows out. Smiles, tears and fist punching the air in determination to defeat this virus fiend. Clap. Clap. Clap. Two meters apart.

It’s all about the carers. It’s all about the NHS staff. It’s all about the little Joe’s that strive to keep the economy open; your postmen, your newsagents, your drug dealers.

No you can’t clap for politicians, how dare you!

To be frank, I find this whole clapping thing a little disingenuous. A little ‘you’re doing it so I better do it’. A little, you know, silly. But rituals are interwoven into the very fabric of human nature. You can find them in every corner of human existence. Footballers conduct pre-match rituals. Followers of the worlds popular religions take part in rituals. Even birthday gifts are ritual-like.

I get it. I totally understand. But at heart of the ritual are highly charged emotions. And highly charged emotions often blinds us to the facts, to the truth; to reality.

And here’s why.

You see, a little research reveals that contrary to what we are told, our hospitals are not teeming with COVID-19 patients. Birmingham’s Nightingale hospital has yet to receive patients since it opened on April 16th, while London’s Nightingale hospital is due to shut next week because:

established hospitals in the capital coped much better with the influx of critically ill patients after hugely expanding their intensive care units.’

In other words they totally underestimated their current capacity while over estimating the destruction caused by this virus ( thanks Prof. Ferguson).

Whats more many nurses, doctors and other medical professionals have been blowing the whistle on this scam. Despite YouTube et al’s disgraceful crack down on censorship of late, they don’t seem to be quick enough to shut down the many dissenting videos posted online that are telling the world how doctors and nurses are being laid off due to lack of COVID demand.

Further, the mainstream media have FAILED from day one to question the validity and outright unreliability of PCR tests, which are being dished out left, right and centre to the masses on a monumental scale, delivering false positives all over the place. If they did any ounce of investigative journalism, the panic, the fear, the anxiety would be relieved, and the project destroyed.

Let’s stop clapping together and start standing together to end this madness.

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

Prof Neil Ferguson – How one man’s magical time machine has destroyed our economy.

Cometh the man, cometh the hour. And boy did his hour come!

It was a sensational result. The computer model – sorry, the magical time machine – designed and implemented by Ferguson had calculated that hundreds of thousands would die here in the UK alone if the British government failed to act.

It was certainly a number Boris Johnson didn’t want hanging over his head. So on March 23rd Boris announced a nation wide lockdown – all but essential shops and services were told to close, the people apprised to stay at home until we are all given the green light to resume as before.

Neil Furguson saves the day!

Or rather not.

Did Boris Johnson make the decision in panic? Or did he simply fail to think things through. Well, if someone from authority sat you down, discussed their findings and gave you these figures – what would you do? I mean personally I probably would have made the same decision.

But of course there’s more to it. What if this same person – again from authority – approached you not once, but on multiple times in the past to give you advice when it was later discovered that ALL his findings were proven wrong and false. Would you still take his advice?

Most likely no. But you’d probably be polite about it: ‘Oh, that’s interesting’ you might say. ‘Yes that’s an interesting model you have predicted. We should keep an eye on it’. And after a brief discussion – with perhaps a little hint of irony about his past predictions – you’d drop it.

But that didn’t happen. And now we are in a complete and utter mess.

You see there is a big problem: Neil Furguson has a track record of producing false predictions. Here is a summary courtesy of The Specator:

  1. In 2005 Furguson said that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. Result: 282 people died.

2. In 2009, Furguson claimed that Swine flu had a mortality rate between 0.3% to 1.5%. A government estimate based on Furguson’s ‘findings’ said that the worst-case scenario would see around 65,000 deaths. Result: 457 deaths, 0.026% mortality rate.

3. In 2001, Furguson’s Imperial team influenced government policy to cull six million cattle, sheep and pig at an estimated cost of £10 billion due to foot and mouth.

Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, claimed that the Imperial team’s model was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.

4. In 2002, Furguson predicted that between 50 to 50,000 people could die from mad cow disease. He further made the claim that should there be a sheep epidemic, then this number could rise to 150,000. Result: 177 deaths.

So now I ask you the same question again. What would you do?

On the 5th May, Ferguson left his post as adviser to the UK government after breaking the very lockdown restrictions his magical time machine had imposed across the entire country. He fittingly decided that getting his leg over was far more of a priority than helping to stop the spread of a so called highly infectious disease that is ravaging the world during this unprecedented plandem I mean pandemic.

When we will stand together and say enough is enough?

Leave a comment

Filed under The Plandemic

The banning of all male comedy writing teams by the ITV IS blatant sexism of tyrannical proportions.

On the 18th of June, the BBC published an article stating that ITV ‘will no longer commission comedy shows with all-male writers’ rooms’.

Saskia Schuster – the broadcaster’s head of comedy – implemented this change following her enlightening realisation last year that ‘an awful lot of my comedy entertainment shows are made up of all-male writing teams. She goes on to criticise the writing room as often insensitively run, aggressive and inclined to bullying – because, sure, we all know women can’t be aggressive or bullies right?

After taking further note that for every 5 scripts received for consideration only 1 came from a female writer, Schuster’s first call of action was to ‘change the terms of commissioning’. She implemented changes in contracts, and with an air of dictatorial sexism she blasts: ‘I won’t commission anything with an all-male writing team.’ Yes that’s right. There will be no discussion based on the quality of the scripts but for the sake of gender based equality she will just plainly refuse to commission them.

Not only are Schuster’s intentions blatantly sexist, but her interventions could potentially degrade the quality of comedy because Schuster doesn’t care about how funny the scripts are in themselves but rather what sex the writer is. This is blatant sexism and why it is accepted and publicly published and branded as a progression is beyond stupidity.

No sane person denies the fact that women make good comedians and good writers whatever their genre. But to selectively judge a script based on the sex of the writer and not on the quality of the script is a human rights violation.

Schuster then goes on having to revert to ‘force’ to get producers to have a 10 minute conversations with three female writers.

Why force was used Schuster doesn’t explain. But the feeling I get reading the article is that she had to force the producers to speak to the writers because they were female. If they are good producers they themselves wouldn’t judge a script based on the sex of the person writing it, but would happily produce a script they believed was funny. So perhaps Schuster had to force the producers to talk to the writers because their scripts were actually shit? And what happened after this discussion? Were the scripts put into production? We can but only guess.

Finally to further address this issue of gender imbalance, Schuster launched a scheme called Comedy50:50 – a scheme she hopes will get the finely tuned balance perfectly right at long last.

Now this 50-50 saying is very popular among those on the far left. For they seem to illogically believe that obtaining a 50/50 gender distribution balance is far better than one’s proficiency in their production of work. Regardless of qualifications or competence; gender trumps all and becomes the priority. It is crazy, irrational and bad for society and the economy as a whole, because our task as members of this society is to become skilled and competent in what we do regardless of whether we are male or female. And the goal of employers is to select the most competent, skilled and experienced member of society.

But I couldn’t help but ask myself: what if we did achieve a 50/50? What then? What else will the far left attempt to equalise? Worryingly one of the writers commissioned by Schuster – Brona C Titley – spoke about the importance of having diverse diversity in comedy:

‘If you have the same type of writers in terms of race or sexual orientation or gender, then you’re only getting one kind of joke, and if you’ve got different voices in the room, you’re getting different kinds of jokes’

Further she says:

‘You want to represent the wide audience that’s watching. You want diversity in voice, or else it won’t be as funny because it won’t be appealing to as many people’

So black people can tell one kind of joke, whereas white people can tell another kind of joke so that both races (I presume) of the audience will find a joke that’s appealing to them. Is it me or can anyone else see the racist undertones in Titely comments?! The whole premise of her thought is based not on the joke itself but on the colour, or identity, of the person who told it. Eddie Murphy was a brilliant comedian in my opinion and I found him funny as hell but that wasn’t because he was black!

Read the full story here. What are your views? Have I missed anything? Comments are welcome.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics