Continuing the ‘scary variant’ story

This is a follow-up to my earlier article on the topic, which you can read here,

I should point out that BA.2.86, aka ‘Pirola’, is not the only alleged ‘scary variant’, although it was the most recent at the time I wrote my article. Mike Stone discusses the 3 main contenders for the title ‘most scary variant’ in some detail in his excellent article.

The Scariant Games

The reason for my continuing the ‘scary variant’ story is to highlight a few additional points I feel are important, so that if the ‘would-be controllers’ do decide to seriously ramp up their fear-mongering to the point of re-introducing ‘preventive measures’, we can all be prepared by being informed.

First of all, the latest tactic seems to be the introduction of even more online censorship in the form of measures intended to prevent people who are not medically qualified - me for example - from sharing information, by labelling it ‘misinformation’. This tactic is being trialled in the UK, as can be seen in a BBC article entitled, YouTube starts verifying health workers in the UK, that states,

“YouTube has launched a verification system for healthcare workers in the UK as it battles disinformation online.”

This is how they refer to the apparent need to ‘fight false information’.

The idea that the UK is ‘battling disinformation’ is actually a good sign that ‘we’ are making an impact. If we weren’t, they wouldn’t need to try to discredit us. Nevertheless, I am aware that some members of the general public may indeed be discouraged from reading my articles because of my apparent ‘lack of qualifications’.

I would like to point out here that the definition of the word ‘qualified’, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, includes,

“2 a:fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose : competent"

The definition of competence includes,

“2 :having requisite or adequate ability or qualities : fit"

In other words, it does not require someone to have passed certain examinations and received certain certificates in order to be considered ‘qualified’ to write about a particular subject. On the contrary, what it requires is the requisite ability and experience. Many people who have been trained within the medical establishment system have spent very little time studying the topics of ‘germ theory’ and ‘vaccines’; whereas I have spend many thousands of hours studying them, which I believe entitles me to consider myself eminently ‘qualified’ to discuss them.

For those who may be of the opinion that ‘methinks she doth protest too much’ - I am not trying to justify myself I am merely pointing out how we can overcome this prejudice for paper qualifications that merely show the difference between someone who answered examination questions in the ‘right’ way and someone who has actually studied and therefore understands a subject.

The key to recognising the difference lies in the ability to question what we are being told. Those who were trained in that system are rarely able to question their training - without repercussions that is! The pertinent question to raise is: Why are they not allowed to ask questions if what they have been taught is true? The fact that I am not restricted by any bias due to my training means I can pose questions and expose contradictions, which is something ‘they’ do not want.

This is what my friend Tracey Northern has to say on the subject of ‘ex-spurts’,

https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/07/31/ex-spurts-who-do-you-listen-to/

In my earlier article, I referred to the impending roll out of injections for the ‘flu’ as well as for so-called ‘Covid’; the flu vaccination campaign is now underway.

These are the people who are claimed to be ‘eligible’

• aged 2 and 3 years on 31 August 2023

• eligible school aged children (Reception to Year 11)

• those aged 6 months to under 65 years in clinical risk groups

• pregnant women

• all those aged 65 years and over

• those in long-stay residential care homes

• carers, those in receipt of carer’s allowance or main carer of an older or disabled person

• household contacts of immunocompromised individuals

• frontline health and social care staff

The UK government web page Annual children’s flu vaccination programme gets underway is sub-titled Parents will start receiving invites from next week as the annual NHS influenza (flu) vaccination programme for children gets underway. On this page can be found the following paragraphs,

“The annual NHS flu vaccination programme for children aged 2 to 3 years, school age children and children over 6 months with certain health conditions is getting underway. Parents will receive invites from next week.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and NHS England are calling on parents to make sure children’s consent forms are completed, and that eligible pre-schoolers are booked in for appointments at the GP practice, to help halt the spread of flu this autumn and winter.

Over 8 million children in reception to year 11 will be offered the free nasal spray flu vaccine, delivered in schools by immunisation teams up and down the country. Children aged 2 and 3 years (on or before 31 August) are eligible for the free nasal spray via their GP practice.”

Note the use of the words ‘offer’ and ‘invite’. As I have previously stated, the vaccine is not mandatory in the UK. (For people in other countries, you will need to check the actual wording of the applicable documentation.)

But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the UK government web page entitled Flu vaccination programme 2023 to 2024: briefing for primary schools states,

Notice also the reference to ‘consent forms’. These forms permit parents to not give their consent. I would point out, however, that children may be deemed to be competent to give their consent, despite the wishes of the parents.

One of the flu nasal sprays is called ‘Fluenz’; it is manufactured by AstraZeneca and said to be a ‘live attenuated influenza vaccine’. What is rather disturbing is that, according to the VigiAccess page on the WHO website, there are 311,980 reported ‘potential side effects’ associated with this vaccine. Most disturbingly, 12% (83,339) of those are listed as ‘nervous system disorders’ that include:

• Loss of consciousness (3026)

• Seizure (2995)

• Facial paralysis (1530)

• Paralysis (987)

The specific numbers provided by these statistics indicate that these adverse events are not ‘potential’; they are not ‘side effects’ either!

It is essential that all parents are aware of all of this information so that they can make a truly informed decision about whether or not they wish their children to receive these products.

Remember: We always have choices! We just need access to all of the available information to be able to make the best choices we can!

I would like to end this article with the following quotes:

“As a medical man I look upon vaccination as an insult to common sense, as superstitious in its origin, unscientific in theory and practice, and useless and dangerous in its character.”

Dr Walter Hadwen MD MRCS LRCP

“Of scientific basis or justification for the practice there is none, and the history of vaccination is the record of a superstitious rite pursued by a series of methods each in turn abandoned when experience proved its danger, and presenting a trail of extravagant claims not one of which has stood the test of time.”

M Beddow Bayly MD MRCS LRCP

“In addition to being a failure as a preventive, the vaccine produces a whole train of evil side effects and iatrogenic diseases.”

Herbert Shelton ND DC