The coronavirus lockdown narrative is clear but can we trust what we are told and what are the reasons we might questions the State’s coronavirus lockdown. In the first part of this 2 part series we look at the some of the ways we have been deceived and consider if the cure isn’t worse than the disease.
In Part 2 we look at the powerful forces apparently obstructing the trials of chloroquine as a potential preventative treatment for COVID 19. We consider the competing commercial forces possibly influencing this strange sequence of harmful events.
Chloroquine has emerged as possibly the best preventative treatment for COVID 19. Yet many in authority have seemingly been resistant to trialling it . In Part 1 of this two part series we look at the evidence suggesting trials would be a good idea and ask why the response has been so slow.
As the UK and other countries around the world enter “lockdown” in response to the coronavirus pandemic we ask if any of these draconian measures are remotely justified. Especially seeing as the evidence proving this is even a pandemic to be worried about is conspicuously lacking.
Coronavirus has made the world descend into panic. However it is becoming increasingly clear that the cheap globally available drug chloroquine has the potential to significantly limit both the scale and the severity of the outbreak. Evidence has been available for more than a month yet still we hear little from government.
Chloroquine has been found useful in the prevention and treatment of coronavirus according to Chinese scientists. So why isn’t this fantastic news? You’d think the UK would be racing ahead with trials. However it seems not.
COVID 19 is the new novel strain of coronavirus that has sent the world into a panic inducing tailspin. As we learn new terms like “self isolate” and “social distancing” we ask if any of the staggering levels of fear and alarm are remotely justified.
Fact Checkers claim they check facts for you, so you don’t have to. The dictionary definition of a fact is: Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof…
We are constantly reminded how lucky we are to live in a representative democratic State. The State exists to facilitate people power, enabling the people to decide what policies the State pursues. But is any of this even remotely plausible. Why do we believe in the State?
Online harms is a vague catch all term the UK State is using to roll out mass censorship of the Internet. Following public consultation on its Online Harms White Paper, the UK State ahs offered its response. There is every reason to be very concerned.