Experts in Experimentation

Those who seem to love to experiment with disease and humans have a strange curiosity that never seems to be beneficial for humanity. Mengele and Fauci had one thing in common – they wanted to play God. Mengele was experimenting to create the perfect race and Fauci was experimenting with deliberately taking a virus from animals and manipulating it to infect humans – hence Gain of Function.

We need to petition Congress toOUTLAWunder penalty ofDEATHfor anyone engaging in Gain of Function experimentation.

Top | New | Old

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Well, it was a dangerous pandemic! It was killing people all over the place, and putting many, many more in hospitals barely able to cope.

I didn't feel "imprisoned". Obviously it was frustrating and a bit lonely as it stopped or limited my leisure and social activities for a while, but "imprisoned"? No, if only because that was all it was doing to me.

I am very well aware there were many in far worse situations, such as stuck with young families in small urban flats; or residents in care-homes (as where one of my friends died from Covid on top of existing illness); so perhaps I should count my blessings.

It did seem strange in the first lock-down being able to cross the main road near my home without needing press the button, and I explored a lot of local highways and byways I'd not previously known despite their being within walking distance from home!

Hancock is not "guilty" in any legal sense, but I agree he was out of depth with it and may have made serious mistakes. A genuine mistake is not a matter of guilt though.

That does not exonerate the two-bit hack who sent what may well be her carefully biased selection of confidential messages to a paper too interested in sales to refuse to publish. (Though to be fair to it, she'd only have gone elsewhere, or set up her own "blog" to put them on.)

View 1 more replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF 100 000.... Has the paper been given all of them or only what the journalist (?) selected.? That's the problem - this woman broke everyone's trust for her own agenda, so how can we trust her?

Besides it would be unreasonable to expect all of them to be published no matter how fairly selected.

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell I presume a person wouldn't send more than 100k messages over a year or 18 months or however long it was, so it was probably all of them?

I don't think it's reasonable to set too much store by your opinion of the revealing journalist. What is important here is not whodunnit, but rather, what was in the mind of this government minister, who was bound by his position and profession as a public servant to act in the people's best interest, and to give no orders which were not the fruit of joint reasoning and full risk evaluation, instructed by real scientists and not computer "modellers" like Ferguson, whose previous disastrous "models" predicting millions of deaths for previous health scares should have disqualified him from being given credence here.

A minister foolish enough to allow a journalist access to all his private communications does not have the right to complain (and even less, to menace her!!) when she publishes them! Such a minister loses what little confidence the public still had in him.

And following these revelations, that confidence will now be nearing rock bottom.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF Neither of them - Matt Hancock and the journalist whose name I keep forgetting - come out of it with any credit, but I have the feeling it does not matter what they did you would attack the former Minister bitterly anyway.

You oppose everything that was done to try to fight off the Covid pandemic, and everyone doing it, but you do not say what you would have done instead.

As for him "menacing" her, that was only her hypocritical claim.

100 000 messages though. Ministers should be discussing things properly, in minuted meetings; communicating with each other and the Civil Service in proper ways, and issuing public statements formally via Parliament first where appropriate; not by using cheapskate chat-sites.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

We all know you are vehemently anti-vaccination, at least of vaccination against Covid.

We all know the USA is bitterly divided by its over-politicising of everything including how to deal with Covid.

To compare Dr Fauci with Dr. Mengele though is not only desperately absurd.

It is also extremely offensive - and I write that as one who will not worship Uncle Sam.

I think much of what you say is mistaken or exaggerated, but did think you normally above that Qanon-level of libel.

View 2 more replies »

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell It is strange, and surely highly irregular, that the previous long-in-preparation, thorough, tested Pandemic Preparedness plan / arrangement in the UK was summarily ditched in favour of the lockdown, we-must-stop-all-human-interaction approach, in order to "eliminate" a virus - obviously an impossible, unscientific position.

The human cost has been inestimable.

Why the irrational change? and why did so many governments operate in lockstep on this? In passing, it is to be noted that governments removed many basic freedoms from the individual. Few protested, as they had been successfully persuaded that all measures taken were to protect them from mortal danger. Few took the Orwellian view. Few saw the coming danger, that all opinions contrary to the official narrative would be SUPPRESSED.

I find it most gratifying that Hancock's devious behaviour is now being mercilessly exposed in the press. I hope it's a wake-up call to those who have complied with every diktat coming from the mouths of the Gang of Three wheeled out day after day at 5 pm, with the Union Jack behind them and the graveyard-voiced BBC commentators demanding ever harsher crackdowns.

This is a Great Britain I am ashamed to be associated with.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@WalterF Right, what would you have done?

Practically every government in the world, democracy and tyranny alike, was faced with a new, very infectious disease, affecting people in all sorts of ways including very unexpected ones, easily fatal - how else could they have responded?

I didn't like the lock-downs and associated restrictions any more than you do, but they have gone.

Yes, perhaps it could have been handled better, by any nation, and it is still putting people in hospital - but better in what ways?

I don't know - but do you? All I hope is that those who should know - biologists, doctors, politicians, administrators - do know and can handle the next pandemic better.

Even if still having to use quarantines among their precautions: the word being Italian and coined for the "Forty-Day" Isolation introduced by the Italians trying to stem the Black Death centuries ago.

++++

As for Matt Hancock, whatever he did or did not do, perhaps the best lessons there are that the wretched hypocrite of a journalist involved cannot be trusted to hold material safely and not to release it without authority to suit her own ideas; and that politicians should use proper means of internal communications, not "social media".

WalterF · 70-79, M

@ArishMell The Pandemic Preparedness plan was studied to be an effective response to a dangerous pandemic.

Covid-19 was classed as a dangerous pandemic (after convenient modification of the definition of a pandemic by the WHO).

Ergo, the existing plan was fully adequate. Prepared by experts.

So why on earth radicalise it, by imprisoning the nation? (lockdown being a term used in the prison context)

Suggested answer: the well-known politician's maxim - "never let a good crisis go to waste". In other words, milk it to the full. Use it to achieve your aims.

Hancock - entirely to blame for this release of information. It wonderfully displays his guilt.

Add a comment...