Question The Narrative and Out You Go!

Updated: Nov 14, 2020


If you wanted to subjugate a population how would you do it? Apart from lying to them you would work to instil a permanent fear into them and say you have to control their lives to save their lives.

Goebbels , Hitler’s propaganda expert once stated words to the effect, “Keep people in fear and you can control them.”



In the current climate of uncertainty and financial upset a safe haven to park assets is always welcome and gold has traditionally been a safe haven but Why?


In other words, keep people in FEAR and tell them lies they are easy to manipulate and do not question your authority . Keep a population in fear and they are easy to manipulate.

It has recently come to light that dozens of medical experts around the world who disagree with the fear induced narrative that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous are being forced to resign their positions. If they question the narrative and say how the COVID-19 Virus is NOT dangerous but more like a mild flu they are being forced out of their jobs and made to resign for their protest that the virus is not dangerous.

For example, Last month Dr Martin Feeley was forced to resign from his Health Board position after publicly stating that the virus was not dangerous and lockdown policies were doing more harm than good.

And recently, Dr Marcus De Brun – an Irish GP was forced to resign his government post for his protest over their Covid policies .

More and more medical experts are feeling distinctly uncomfortable with the general trend of enforcing fear of what is professionally considered, and what statistics support as being a mild flue. (For those that cry death and destruction, may I point out that the Flu or influenza causes more deaths than the Corona Virus each year) and it is being given an altered importance far far out more than is warranted.


Here are some examples of other eminent expert Governmental Medical health experts that have either been forced to resign or sacked.

Dr Dolores Cahill. an Irish research scientist specialising in immunology and oncology, and professor of Translational Science at the University College Dublin School of Medicine. Sh has been a science advisor for three national governments – Ireland, Sweden and Germany – and is the Vice Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Inovative Medicine Initiative.

“There’s two things, two major things I want to say to people…First of all there should be a lot of hope that this virus is not as dangerous as it is being shown to be, and also there’s major issues, like the media are reporting the number of cases when actually someone who has had the virus –like me I had this virus in January and February – your immune system clears it after ten days and then you are immune for life. So you’re not a case you are immune for life…"

Then the second thing is we can see that in Ireland, as in globally, half of the people who die are over 80 and that we’ll say children and anyone under 50 – unless they have chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis – they will have no issue. So what I am saying is there is no need for the lockdown and that we could all actually go back to work.”

Prof Carl Heneghan is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College. He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. He is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative calling for all studies to be published, and their results reported.


“There’s two things, two major things I want to say to people…First of all there should be a lot of hope that this virus is not as dangerous as it is being shown to be, and also there’s major issues, like the media are reporting the number of cases when actually someone who has had the virus –like me I had this virus in January and February – your immune system clears it after ten days and then you are immune for life. So you’re not a case you are immune for life…"


Then the second thing is we can see that in Ireland, as in globally, half of the people who die are over 80 and that we’ll say children and anyone under 50 – unless they have chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis – they will have no issue. So what I am saying is there is no need for the lockdown and that we could all actually go back to work.”

Prof Carl Heneghan is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College. He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. He is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative calling for all studies to be published, and their results reported.

What he says:

“In the course of our evidence gathering activities, we have gone through a few thousand papers reporting studies on all aspects of Covid-19 spread. We found that not very many defined a case of Covid, which is a sign of sloppiness when that is what you are looking for. Those that did, reported different definitions and ways of ascertaining what they meant by a ‘case’”

According to the Off Guardian, “Now this may seem a pedantic academic remark, but in reality, it underlines the chaos which has crept into Covid-19 science and decision-making. […] What does a Covid 19 case mean and how do different nations define a case? We looked at the definition of a case given by the World Health Organisation, the US and EU Centres for Disease Control, China, Italy, Spain, France. […] The UK government definition is based on clinical symptoms, and testing is recommended for cases who are well enough to remain in the community. No guidance is given as to how to interpret such a test or any decisions. Interestingly the Public Health England explanation of the methods for counting cases is as follows:

‘If a person has both a negative and a positive test, then only their positive test will be counted. If a person is tested as positive under both pillar 1 and pillar 2, then only the first positive case is counted.’

An asymptomatic person who tested positive could have two confirmatory negative tests, but would still count as a confirmed case. But in Wales, data is reduplicated on 42-day episodes; if someone is tested twice, 43 days apart, they will be included in the case count measure twice.”

More Medical Experts in their field.

Dr Karol Sikora is a British physician specialising in oncology and professor of Medicine at the University of Buckingham. He is a founder and medical director of Rutherford Health, a company providing proton therapy services, the former director of the World Health Organization Cancer Program and Director of Medical Oncology at the Bahamas Cancer Centre.

What he says:

“In summary, our view is that the existing policy path is inconsistent with the known risk-profile of Covid-19 and should be reconsidered. The unstated objective currently appears to be one of suppression of the virus, until such a time that a vaccine can be deployed.


This objective is increasingly unfeasible (notwithstanding our more specific concerns regarding existing policies) and is leading to significant harm across all age groups, which likely offsets any benefits.”

and

“Behavioural interventions that seek to increase the personal threat perception of Covid should be reconsidered, as they likely contribute to adverse physical and mental health impacts beyond Covid. Consideration should also be given to whether policies that are intended to ‘reassure’, may in fact reinforce a heightened perception of risk. Providing the public with objective information on the actual risk they face from Covid-19, by age and health status, would be preferable.

And, a Medical Research scientists, former chief officer with the gigantic Pfizer Pharmaceutical company and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.Dr Michael Yeadon stated

[The UK] Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus […] They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses…might also react in the PCR test.

But there’s a final setting in which a person can be positive and that’s a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the ‘bait’ sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called false positives. […] Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them.

Dr Jean-François Toussaint is a French doctor and professor of physiology at the Université Paris-Descartes. He is also director of the Institute for Biomedical Research and Sports Epidemiology (IRMES) and a former member of the High Council of Public Health.

He stated:

In addition to those directly linked to the essential measures to combat SARS-CoV-2, the social, economic and health consequences of generalized confinement will be considerable. It is to be expected that all of these effects will lead to a decline in life expectancy in the coming years. […] [The Lockdown] was guided by estimates that were proposed on March 12…In this work, however, many things were wrong: the models were wrong, the projections were wrong; the simulations are still not reproducible, the justifications remain unfounded. And the studies currently published repeat the same errors: naive and outdated models, unstable algorithms, useless predictions…Yet it is on such simulations that the paralysis of half of humanity was played out.

An inappropriate response can lead to the death of an individual. At the level of a society, it can cause its collapse and block the future of our children.

Dr Priyad Ariyaratnam is a British surgeon, medical researcher and NIHR Clinical Lecturer & Speciality Registrar in Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Hull York Medical School. Said

“Although it is important to mitigate loss of life wherever possible, we can never reduce risk to zero. The majority of people will survive from their natural immunity defences.

While waiting for a vaccine then, I don’t believe that we should be destroying the income and livelihoods of millions of people, preventing children’s education and social development unnecessarily or cancelling treatment for other diseases such as cancer, as this will cause more harm than the virus in the long-term.

– Three reasons why a coronavirus vaccine might not be possible, The Spectator 23rd May 2020

[W]e have learnt during this pandemic that there are alternative and less draconian methods, such as those successfully employed in nations like Sweden and Taiwan, that can be integrated with lessons we may have learnt in the UK (such as the importance of protecting care homes) to create effective and more socially acceptable strategies that the population is more likely to adhere to.


While it is important that we do not take the threat of this virus lightly and do all we can to protect the most vulnerable in our society, it is equally important that many of the rights we take for granted – such as the right to work, the right for our children to receive the optimum education and the right to peacefully assemble – are not compromised unnecessarily. If not, we may be setting a very dangerous precedent”

And the list goes on. For a full picture check out https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/06/another-10-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/ but it seems plain that an agenda of control is being perpetrated on the population of most countries with COVID-19 being used as an excuse to implement these controls.

21 views0 comments

News