When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine?

When it's a genetically modified Simian virus that doesn't stop you getting the virus it's supposed to prevent and it doesn't prevent transmission of the virus it's supposed to.

So, lets state the facts.

The government itself has stated the Covid-19 "vaccines" don't stop you getting the virus, nor do they stop you passing it to others. The "vaccine" actually just lessens the risk of you personally being hospitalised. 

So I'm a bit confused by the narrative that it's selfish not to get the vaccine. Especially when the only person it benefits is you. That's a fact. 

It's also a fact that you are more likely to die from the virus if you don't get vaccinated, but surely that's a personal choice. It's your informed choice to accept the higher risk of serious complications from covid-19 rather than accept injection of a  genetically modified simian virus into your body.

I'm also confused by the narrative that getting the vaccine makes you less transmissible, it makes you less likely to infect others.  That certainly isn't a fact. 

This then leads on to mandatory vaccination for people in certain jobs. Initially I'm talking about carers, many of whom themselves have health issues. So they cannot take the vaccine on health grounds. Should they be sacked because of a health issue? Even if they refuse vaccination on religious grounds, or just personal choice, should they be sacked?

Especially if they can get the virus, take it into a care setting and pass it onto their residents even if they have been vaccinated. Why is the vaccination mandatory?

Are we looking at low hanging fruit? Are we seeing the persecution of a section of society to test the reaction of the population? Are we seeing the persecution of poor, low-paid workers who can't afford to fight back in order to establish employment case law? Will we see the case law then rolled out to include the suspension or sacking of anyone for transgressions of arbitrarily established rules?

So the authorities don't like your health status? Sacked.

They don't like your Political stance? Sacked.

Don't like the words you are using on Social Media? Sacked.

Don't like the company you keep? Sacked.

Think it can't happen? Just extrapolate what is happening right now and understand that government NEVER uses legislation for it's original purpose, no matter how narrowly defined. 

The anti-terror laws have been abused, the violent porn laws have been abused, the offense laws have been abused, the communications act has been abused. ALL of those laws, all of that legislation has been used in way it wasn't originally intended for. Call it mission-creep, call it overstepping the mark; it still boils down to the abuse of law. 

The rules being proposed now essentially are work permits. You will not be permitted to work unless you fulfil certain criteria. Initially it's based on your vaccination status, but very quickly could include political status, mental health status, family status, loyalty to the party, loyalty to the state, eh comrade?

If the government gets away with mandating vaccinations or allowing discrimination against unvaccinated people, then we will truly deserve the tyranny that will follow.

Aliens

 No, not the decidedly iffy sequel to the marvellous original Movie, but actual, real, extra-terrestrial beings. 

Let me first state that I'm not delving into nutjob conspiracies here, I'm just discussing our reaction as a species to certain phenomena. 

It's a given that currently we do not have evidence of actual life from another planet. Let's just park that there. No. evidence.

But, the question arises: should we be looking for it? Not just the far-away stuff like exoplanets, but closer to home?

Yes, I'm initially taking about the Congressional report that was released in America a couple of weeks ago. It seems it raised more questions than answers. While it conformed that there are unexplained aerial phenomena, it didn't really explain why they had not be fully and properly researched before. It did say that maybe now is the time we start to fit better sensors, to better identify and classify (80's reference) whatever it is the pilots in the air and people on the ground are seeing.

Now, I know when I look at some of the videos and pictures available on the web, I can see straight away that the majority are no alien tech, or some such. More likely blurry FLIR pictures of target drones, or camera artefacts of light sources at night. 

But there are a few that cannot be explained, hence the conclusion that we need clearer pictures, more data and more importantly more funds. 

Not just on the Earth, there are objects in the Solar System that cannot be easily explained.

I listened to a podcast from the fascinating "Event Horizon" channel on YouTube interviewing Avi Loeb regarding Oumuamua, the now confirmed extrasolar object that came into the solar system, slingshotted round the Sun and then went back on it's way into deep space. 

He explained that although the chance were it was a chunk of rock from another solar system, there's the possibility it was something else. But without the ability to intercept such objects, photograph and closely analyse them, we will never know if they are anything more. It's all just speculation. And he's right. Taking the little green men out of the equation, Oumuamua exhibited properties that couldn't be explained by a chunk of rock. Oumuamua accelerated  away from  the Sun at a greater rate than a simple chunk of rock. Outgassing, solar capture, all have been speculated. But not confirmed. 

And it's that confirmation, that certainty that is necessary to inform science. If we had confirmed it was a chunk of rock, then we can confirm that chunks of rock can work like solar sails and accelerate, pushed by the solar wind. 

The problem is the cost of confirmation: the cost of making a rocket that can blast off from the earth, with a big package of advanced sensors that can once in space accelerate to the extreme velocities necessary to intercept an object crossing the solar system itself at extreme (for us) velocities. It's Rocket Science, but not the easiest Rocket Science.

Which brings us closer to home: certainly it's easier and cheaper to identify these terrestrial objects by using better quality cameras and sensors. So why don't we improve the quality of reporting? Comparatively, cost is not as high as identifying opjects in Space, so why not?

And if, by some massive quirk of fate we find alien objects, then fair enough. But even if we don't, we will have confirmed the mis-identification of what should be explainable phenomena. Hopefully it will make airspace safer.

Persecution of The Poor - More Discrimination of the Poorest in Society.

 It seems the big corporations like to exploit the poor with stuff like zero hours contracts and also don't like to provide services to the poor either.

Witness the latest move by the Supermarkets to pre-authorise a charge of £99 at pay at pump fuel pumps. Now, I have a gas-guzzling petrol-engined 3 litre 4x4 and it still doesn't need £99 to fill the tank. 

So why have the big corporations decided on this vast sum of money to allow you access to fuel? Because you do know that if you don't have £99 in your account, the pump will not dispense fuel. You'll instead have to make the walk of shame to the kiosk to pay in cash or by card. That's as long as cash is accepted and as long as the kiosk is open. 

No 24-hour service for you, pleb. 

So yet again the poorest in society get discriminated against. Those just hanging in there, just able to pay the rent and buy food, those with just enough money in their account to pay for a week's fuel. Service denied for the likes of you.

Of course the supermarkets are blaming the banks and the card providers. I understand, but the supermarkets are the ones deciding on the £99 figure. A more reasonable figure would be er, more reasonable. £30, £40 or even £50, but not £99. I doubt the average fuel stop requires anywhere near that amount of fuel.

And what happens if the fee doesn't immediately get refunded back into your account? What happens if they take the £99 and "accidentally" hold onto it for a couple of days? Who compensates the person without the money? Will they be compensated? The answer is pretty obvious that all we'll get is apologies and the banks will be blamed and you'll just have to wait while you starve with no mopney to buy food, or your landlord gets on your case because your rent remains unpaid because your account is £99 shy and the bank rejected the transaction. 

This is just another move by the financial institutions to deny service to the poor. I worked at HSBC back in the Nineties and there was talk back then of providing tiered levels of service depending on the amount of money flowing through your account. The poor would get basic services and also be charged for the privilege. Banks, Leeches both the same thing.

Of course it's a money-making scam. By falsely inflating the bank's accounts they make even more money. That £99 even if it's in their account for the minute or two it takes to dispense fuel, means they've just made a couple of quid out of you. Multiply that by the many thousands of transactions over the course of 24 hours and that's a lot of money the banks and card providers are making out of you. Leeches doesn't come close in describing it. 

At any one time there will be hundreds of £99 pre-authorisations in their account, inflating their account and net worth by several thousand pounds. It's also amazing how you can make money out of leveraging cash flow. If the banks can prove they are doing several thousand £99 transactions into and out of their account, that money can be used to leverage loans, credit terms, you name it. It just makes things easier thanks to the plebs paying for fuel at the pumps.

They really don't like the poor. I wonder when Bill Gate's latest idea of synthetic protein will have a natural protein alternative. Maybe the synthetic version will be green and the natural one red... maybe call the product Soylent?

Maybe that's the future for the poor. Scoop 'em up and mash 'em into a pulp for protein tablets. Don't think it's not possible. Anything is possible once a section of society has been "othered".  The elites think that AI and robots will replace the poor with a more stable workforce. The poor will become superfluous, eventually described by the media and the elites as a drag on the economy. Then it'll be time to get rid of the poor in whatever way possible.

Once again I hear absolutely nothing from the Labour Party about this attack on the poor, this discrimination against those just hanging on. Nothing, Nada, Nowt.

I assume that those Labour MPs treading the guilded corridors of Westminster don't think that £99 is too unreasonable a sum of money, with their huge salaries and expense accounts. And that's the problem with the p[eople that are supposed to represent the poor. They are completely removed from the people they are supposed to represent. The Labour party now has a narrow Islington-centric view of the world. The poor in this country are not on the radar any more. Instead they prefer to virtue-signal and save the poor of the world, at the expense of the poor already in this country.

The Labour party is fucked up and is no longer of any value to the poor working class of the UK. It is no longer fit to warrant the votes of the working class.

My advice is to boycott those establishments doing this £99 pre-authorisation. If you can't avoid using them, don't pay at the pump and instead pay by cash in the kiosk. That way they make less money out of your money. It costs them to pay for a member of staff in the kiosk and also it costs them to convert the cash into money in their account. Fuck 'em.