On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:44:03 GMT, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>>> Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
>>> conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
>>> wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
>>> which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
>>> they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
>>> doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions.
>>> These disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.
>>
>> Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
>> dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
>
>The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course masks
>are useful: it's hardly worth debating.
>
>Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
>laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
>against Dr Fauci about masks.

Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact
lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose
isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with
FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:29:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <j1474sFmv9rU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
><wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> > I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was
>> > quite enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read
>> > here or on a forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and
>> > insisting someone else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew'
>> > because he had an important TV programme to make.
>
>> Hearsay really, nothing more. I'm surprised that a man like you Jim, so
>> much an adherent of evidence-based science, would repeat it.
>
>I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the point
>that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder about mere
>assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.

NO is an archeologist. This type of thing is part of the job. Archeology is in
many respects more of an art than a science.

>
>e.g. look at the science and evidence for what NO was claiming, not just
>accept such a rant if we 'want' to believe it. And as far as I can see, the
>science indicates he is talking spheroids.
>
>I also wonder/wondered if the CalMac report was true. But having seen his
>rant it did come to mind as being at least possible given his behaviour in
>the Glum Bugger Nonsense video. And thought it might make a point here, as
>outlined above.
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 10:13 7 Dec 2021, Martin said:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:44:03 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I
>>>> suspect conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks
>>>> because wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official
>>>> advice, which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do.
>>>> The points they make on their social media forums make little
>>>> sense but that doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's
>>>> misconceptions. These disaffected misfits genuinely have
>>>> psychological issues.
>>>
>>> Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
>>> dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
>>
>>The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course
>>masks are useful: it's hardly worth debating.
>>
>>Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
>>laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
>>against Dr Fauci about masks.
>
> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
> contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the
> seal around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid
> masks should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

I use FFP2 respirators but mine all cause some steaming up of specs.
Someone in another group uses a swimmers nose clip which I might try.

On 07/12/2021 10:13, Martin wrote:

> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact
> lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose
> isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with
> FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

What is EU 95? I've heard of N95, which is basically equivalent to FFP2,
but not EU 95 (or EU95). FFP3 is N99.

I'm surprised that you have a problem with contact lenses. I though that
the issue with glasses misting up was because they were always colder
than the air expelled from the top of a mask, so leading to water vapour
in breath condensing on them. Aren't contact lenses at, more-or-less,
body temperature?

--

Jeff

In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?

Definitely.

Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
coincides and claim that is the cause.

However, take a look at this graph..

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png

Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.

Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.

Bob.

On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>
> Definitely.
>
> Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
> proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
> can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
> coincides and claim that is the cause.
>
> However, take a look at this graph..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
>
> Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
> Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
> waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>
> Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
> worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
>
> Bob.
>
While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling to
below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since masks
were not required.
Phil M

In article <fgcuqgdeojnqktilfqqfbf54tts32dfrv4@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:

> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
> contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal
> around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks
> should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

Yes, it would be good if more of the masks on sale were better. However it
remains the case AFAIK than wearing a mask does tend to reduce the
infection 'load' transferred. So even the basic masks help reduce infection
rates and severity. Hence better than not wearing any mask.

I found the the common masks have a 'bendy' strip on the 'top edge'. This
can be bent into a 'V' that fits around my nose. Helps keep the mask up
over the nose and reduces the gap at the top. As a result I don't get
breath noticably coming up over my eyes, or fogging my glasses.

Sadly, from what I see on TV many who do wear a mask don't fit it
optimally. So have their nose above the mask and do not use the above
tweak-to-fit.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <kvcuqglebdrnvarsis9k3dhisobd04sbgk@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the
> >point that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder
> >about mere assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.

> NO is an archeologist. This type of thing is part of the job. Archeology
> is in many respects more of an art than a science.

Yes. That said: 'Archeology' *can* mean almost anything from looking at old
coins to things like ground-penetrating radar or green lidar surveys. But
what little recollections I have of NO on history/archeology type
programmes he seems to be at the coins-and-old-documents end of the topic.
That can give someone a lot of scope for, erm, 'interpretation'.

One reason, perhaps, why various history books routinely paint quite
different pictures of the same time-and-place, etc.

As the old USSR joke used to say: "The Future is certain. The Past is
variable!"

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sonh33$k6l$1@dont-email.me>,
Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> > Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
> > proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
> > can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
> > coincides and claim that is the cause.
> >
> > However, take a look at this graph..
> >
> > http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
> >
> > Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
> > Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
> > waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
> >
> > Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
> > worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
> >
> > Bob.
> >

> While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
> to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
> masks were not required. Phil M

Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.

Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and peak
in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
that normal.

The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/ICU2.jpg
Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?

I suppose only some facts are facts and other facts are cherries if
the don't suite the narrative.

I realise that observations and indeed science need to be bent to
justify the socialist wet dream of more control over people's lives
and even lockdowns.

Bob.

On 07/12/2021 10:55, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I found the the common masks have a 'bendy' strip on the 'top edge'. This
> can be bent into a 'V' that fits around my nose. Helps keep the mask up
> over the nose and reduces the gap at the top. As a result I don't get
> breath noticably coming up over my eyes, or fogging my glasses.

First thing I do when putting on a mask, is to take off my glasses and
put them in my pocket. Fortunately since cataract surgery, I am no
longer blind as the proverbial without glasses and can get around
without them. Just need to change to put on reading glasses if there
is something to read.

On 07/12/2021 12:29, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sonh33$k6l$1@dont-email.me>,
> Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>> However, take a look at this graph..
>>>
>>> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / i n f e c t 2 . p n g

Yet another graph stolen pointlessly and unnecessarily from someone
else's website, so breaching their copyright. As 'Our World In Data' is
a genuine site, why not just provide a link to it? Perhaps you are so
used to trolling us with fake news that you can't get out of the
dishonest habits involved in trying to cover up its dodgy provenance.

>>> Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
>>> Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
>>> waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>>>
>>> Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
>>> worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.

SIGH! As long as you keep timewasting and trolling, others have to keep
debunking you. Here yet again is the debunking of your mask denialism:

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

The real world is not a lab experiment where you can vary one factor of
interest while keeping constant all the other factors that might skew
the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn from the results
of varying the one factor the are valid. You may be surprised to
discover that there have been no experiments done on whether washing
your hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, because it
wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet most of us accept
that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, and do
it without complaint. Likewise, there has been no such experiment on
whether or how much the wearing of face masks in an infectious
environment reduces infection rates because it would be equally
unethical to do as asking people not to wash their hands, nevertheless,
just as you should wash your hands after going to the toilet, so you
should also wear face-masks when the situation demands it, like being on
public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public space.

See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence

>> While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
>> to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
>> masks were not required. Phil M
>
> Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.

It's a simple fact, the totality of public measure previously taken,
including both lockdowns and masks, were effective at helping to control
the virus. What is directly counter-productive to controlling the virus
is irresponsible arseholes like you propagandising that they don't and
thereby encouraging equally irresponsible behaviour by others.

> Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and peak
> in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
> surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
> that normal.

Yes, that's perfectly true, but if lockdowns and masks don't work, why
did we have virtually now flu last winter? Of course, as everyone else
except a few right wing bigots know, the reason is that measures, such
as masks and lockdowns, that were taken against covid-19 were even more
effective at controlling flu.

> The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / I C U 2 . j p g

Yet another graph stolen pointlessly and unnecessarily from someone
else's website, 'Our World In Data' again, but probably from the Shitter
account of Dr Clare Craig, who has previously been debunked here for
having five factual mistakes at the same time on the first page of her
Shitter feed, who retweeted this from one M a r t i n F a r n e l l,
who, like so many on Shitter, seems to be rather to full of his own
self-importance:

h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / t i m p e r s 7 / s t a t u s /
1 4 6 7 8 3 6 6 0 8 3 9 3 4 0 0 3 2 1

> Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?

Note the first response from someone called Andrew Neil:

"France has had vaccine passports for sometime now. It has 600,000+
Covid cases. UK has 1m+. Which part of vaccine passports don’t you get.
They also encourage younger folks to be vaxxed, where UK is lagging.
And, as you say, vax works."

He might have mentioned also that France and the UK are very close to
each other in size of population, too close for any difference to
explain the above differences in case rate. Clearly France are doing
something better than us, and vaccine passports may be part of that.

> I suppose only some facts are facts and other facts are cherries if
> the don't suite the narrative.
>
> I realise that observations and indeed science need to be bent to
> justify the socialist wet dream of more control over people's lives
> and even lockdowns.
Which is exactly what you do all the time.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12:29 7 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <sonh33$k6l$1@dont-email.me>,
> Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>> > In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
>> > Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>> >
>> > Definitely.
>> >
>> > Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a
>> > negative proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't
>> > happened you can't just pick something that suites your
>> > opinion/narrative that coincides and claim that is the cause.
>> >
>> > However, take a look at this graph..
>> >
>> > http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
>> >
>> > Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
>> > Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
>> > waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>> >
>> > Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a
>> > lot worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
>> >
>> > Bob.
>> >
>
>> While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
>> to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
>> masks were not required. Phil M
>
> Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.
>
> Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and
> peak in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
> surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
> that normal.
>
> The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/ICU2.jpg
> Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?

What a good example of false correlation. You may as well ask "Guess
which country isn't in the EU?"

Why don't you view death rates rather than ICU beds? For that the UK
comes out middling.

And why have you left out major countries like Italy and Spain (both with
much lower death rates and ICU occupancy than the UK)?

In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?

Oh dear.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Bob.

On 08/12/2021 08:51, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Oh dear.
>
> h t t p s : / / s w p r s . o r g / f a c e - m a s k s - e v i d e n c e /

Oh dear indeed!

FAKE NEWS REPEATED:

S w i s s P o l i c y R e s e a r c h
s w p r s . o r g

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

[explanation of the rating]

Overall, we rate Swiss Policy Research (SPR) a Moderate Conspiracy
website based on the promotion of unproven claims. We also rate them
Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources and complete
lack of transparency."

In other words, they're just another right-wing pressure group telling
lies - the last time they featured in this ng, it was as the source of
a totally faked graph.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08:51 8 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>
> Oh dear.
>
> https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
>
> Bob.

Bob, that page is a series of claims which don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you visit the sources given, they clearly do not back up what your
page claims they say.

Presumably the page is a pseudo-official summary designed to fool
those too idle or too thick to spot the deception.

The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:05:11 +0000, Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/12/2021 10:13, Martin wrote:
>
>> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact
>> lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose
>> isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with
>> FFP3 or EU 95 standards.
>
>What is EU 95? I've heard of N95, which is basically equivalent to FFP2,
>but not EU 95 (or EU95). FFP3 is N99.

The article I read equated [N]95 to FFFP3

>
>I'm surprised that you have a problem with contact lenses. I though that
>the issue with glasses misting up was because they were always colder
>than the air expelled from the top of a mask, so leading to water vapour
>in breath condensing on them. Aren't contact lenses at, more-or-less,
>body temperature?

Seems not, otherwise I wouldn't get condensation on the lenses.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:38:16 +0000, Phil_M <notused@freenet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <soirgu$1k9$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>> Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
>> proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
>> can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
>> coincides and claim that is the cause.
>>
>> However, take a look at this graph..
>>
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
>>
>> Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
>> Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
>> waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>>
>> Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
>> worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
>>
>> Bob.
>>
>While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling to
>below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since masks
>were not required.

The rate in Central West Netherlands is the highest it has ever been. It varies
enormously by local authority. I live in one of the worst local authority areas.
One to the west is much higher whilst those to north south and east are much
lower. Distances between high and not so high areas are quite small, just a few
kilometres.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
>
> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
> gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?

Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in
Shitter!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
>> gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
>
> Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in
> Shitter!

The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.

It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.

In article <XnsADFA7F954A96B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> > On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
> >>
> >> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
> >> gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
> >
> > Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in
> > Shitter!

> The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
> cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.

> It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.

Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
masks, they will not save you or anyone else.

Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
population, for others they are a comfort blanket.

Bob.

Here is an interesting publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxkb2yhdLiA

In a nutshell:
The "vaccines" do not reduce all-cause mortality.
There are peaks of increased all-cause mortality - these peaks are
synchronised with "vaccine" rollouts.
There is systematic miscategorisation of the "vaccination" status of
the deceased. People are not classed as being "vaccinated" until 14
days after their 2nd jab, so if they die after the jab(s) but before
that time has elapsed, they go down as an "unvaccinated" death.
(That's handy for big pharma, isn't it.)

Here also is an update from the funeral director whistleblower,
referenced in one of my earlier posts to this NG:
https://rumble.com/vqcw53-update-from-john-olooney.html

He reports an abnormally high number of young healthy people dying
from thrombotic events. Heart attacks, stroke, etc. He's seen more
this year than he has in the previous 14.

And some powerful words from Dr Yeadon; a leading voice in the
'resistance':
https://fnqldcc.com/home/dr-michael-yeadon-no-one-has-primacy-over-your-right-to-bodily-autonomy/

On 08/12/2021 12:44, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADFA7F954A96B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
>> cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
>>
>> It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.

Which is exactly what I would expect from a site like that, it's very
much their modus operandi to completely distort reality to favour an
otherwise insupportable right-wing point-of-view.

> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
> masks, they will not save you or anyone else.
>
> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.

Right-wing sites, such as the Swiss cess-pit to which you linked, spread
right-wing FUD in order to control the population, and look just how
extraordinarily successful they've been with you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12:44 8 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADFA7F954A96B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
>> > On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those
>> >> hotbeds of gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you
>> >> found it?
>> >
>> > Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life
>> > wallowing in Shitter!
>
>> The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the
>> source it cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
>
>> It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.
>
>
> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
> masks, they will not save you or anyone else.

Bob you're displaying the hallmarks of a conspiracy theorist such as:

- you have access to special knowledge,
- the people are being controlled,
- the authorities are trying to manipulate the truth,
- you must protect yourself from a hostile world,
- you must rise and challenge potential oppressors,
- etc.

It must be an exhausting life to feel threatened all the time.

> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.
>
> Bob.

In article <59979b52a8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust masks,
> they will not save you or anyone else.

> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.

Bob, you keep on making plain that you're simply unable to judge or
understand the actual science. Instead you just pick cherries that are
easily shown to be flawed or faked, but which you 'like' because they
support your pre-fixed beliefs. You then start throwing out what look
pretty much like increasingly extreme paranoid delusions. Not science or
evidence. That doesn't help you, or the case you keep asserting.

Your problem is that exampled by the way you attack the content of the
'BBC' *whilst also refusing to watch it*. Ditto for the book I've
suggested. That just shows your mind is closed, and you aren't willing to
risk reconsidering if it might make you find you've been mistaken. You are
telling us what you rigid belief is about them, NOT their actual content
that you refuse to examine. That's behaviour typical for a rigid religious
belief.

Again, that's not how science works. Scientists continually recheck and
find alternative ways to assess what is currently accepted. They also know
how to spot the flaws in sour cherries as well because they understand and
use the method that can test them. People here patiently read the nonsense
you link. You refuse to return that behaviour and reject the BBC, the book,
etc *on the basis of not knowing what they actually say*.

Your behaviour simply undermines others taking you seriously. Particularly
when your linked items are generally so flimsy or faked.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander trolled:

[
Covid-19 and vaccine disinformation that has been reported to
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk