MLT goes turbo

[buctootim]

[buctootim]

 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777618329584218338

 

Tories to blame for rain

[skintsaint]

7 minutes ago, buctootim said:

 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777618329584218338

 

Tories to blame for rain

[Jeremy Corbyn]

24 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Very tempting, reckon it'd a laugh in many ways.

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Very tempting, reckon it'd a laugh in many ways.

Maybe. As long as you don't want any actual truth. 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

2 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Maybe. As long as you don't want any actual truth. 

Of course.  Spend the weekend making up wacky conspiracy theories to rile people up.

[badgerx16]

Workington makes Pompey look posh.

[Gloucester Saint]

He’s in some equally grifting company: 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abn33/dolores-cahill-covid-anti-vaxxer-big-pharma

https://news.sky.com/story/katie-hopkins-criticised-as-sick-for-mocking-kate-garraway-after-husband-derek-drapers-death-13048850 And https://news.sky.com/story/katie-hopkins-australia-orders-far-right-british-commentator-to-be-deported-after-appalling-behaviour-while-in-quarantine-12358885

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/this-mark-attwood-fella.1540168/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Shemirani

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clive-de-carle-speaker-dropped-from-conference-over-autism-cure-claims-2h2s7pj0t

The only surprise is that Piers Corbyn, Andrew Wakefield and David Icke aren’t on the bill. 

East Stand Nic, Scally and KevDoh will be snapping up tickets. 

 

Edited April 9 by Gloucester Saint

[Lighthouse]

Is it possible to build a full size marquee out of tinfoil? We can’t have the feds reading our brain waves.

[Lighthouse]

Apparently VIP tickets grant you a ‘seat near the front’. Somehow, I don’t think that’s likely to be a problem for anyone attending.

[beatlesaint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777618329584218338

 

Tories to blame for rain

oh my !

err, wouldnt they have wanted rain to keep everyone indoors rather than sunshine ? 🥷

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777618329584218338

 

Tories to blame for rain

In case anyone is confused, X has taken the time to fact check this claim with a verified source:

 

[egg]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777618329584218338

 

Tories to blame for rain

Feck, that's just mental. Bless. 

[S-Clarke]

He's going full in on the 'Government make the weather' stance now. I feel pretty sad reading MLT's tweets and what he's become. 

https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/1777647625526722825

 

 

[badgerx16]

Genius on the football pitch, complete fucktard off it.

[spyinthesky]

I am really surprised about MLT as every time I have met him he seems sensible and reasonable.

However anyone who feels it Ok to share a platform with Katie Hopkins needs their bumps feeling.

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

I am really surprised about MLT as every time I have met him he seems sensible and reasonable.
 

That's how it starts.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

One of his chums ("the saucers are real") was talking about Project Blue Beam. That had a bit about our secret rulers having an earthquake machine, mind control lasers and global hologram projectors. I guess his weather control fits into that. All part of the insidious picture. If only we'd wake up and see it. Utter nutters.

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, spyinthesky said:

I am really surprised about MLT as every time I have met him he seems sensible and reasonable.

However anyone who feels it Ok to share a platform with Katie Hopkins needs their bumps feeling.

That's it for me, I don't mind him and his mad views but him spending time with the total cunt Katie Hopkins is disappointing.

[Lighthouse]

Remember everyone, climate change is all a myth. Three centuries of worldwide industrial carbon output have had no effect on our atmosphere whatsoever…… but by sending a small squadron of aeroplanes up to spray a few chemicals every now and then, we can completely control the entire weather system for the whole country. 

[Gloucester Saint]

On 09/04/2024 at 16:26, spyinthesky said:

I am really surprised about MLT as every time I have met him he seems sensible and reasonable.

However anyone who feels it Ok to share a platform with Katie Hopkins needs their bumps feeling.

I saw an interview with Paul Merson in parallel with MLT’s own about why he departed from Sky, and Merson reluctantly admitted that MLT had several warnings about the stuff he was posting on social media and starting to say in public. He seemed genuinely sad about it all as he’s friends with Matt and working with him was a big part of his time there.

That’s not to say Sky wouldn’t have made the changes but it gave them a needless open goal. There’s more to it than MLT being a white guy in his 50s with strange views being replaced by ‘wokeness’. Thompson and Nicholas were a bit older, I think MLT would still be on there personally and not scraping the barrel at a festival with that cast of nutters.

Edited April 12 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

25 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I saw an interview with Paul Merson in parallel with MLT’s own about why he departed from Sky, and Merson reluctantly admitted that MLT had several warnings about the stuff he was posting on social media and starting to say in public. He seemed genuinely sad about it all as he’s friends with Matt and working with him was a big part of his time there.

That’s not to say Sky wouldn’t have made the changes but it gave them a needless open goal. There’s more to it than MLT being a white guy in his 50s with strange views being replaced by ‘wokeness’. Thompson and Nicholas were a bit older, I think MLT would still be on there personally and not scraping the barrel at a festival with that cast of nutters.

And Dawson and Sherwood are hardly ‘woke’ replacements

[Winnersaint]

On 09/04/2024 at 18:16, Lighthouse said:

Remember everyone, climate change is all a myth. Three centuries of worldwide industrial carbon output have had no effect on our atmosphere whatsoever…… but by sending a small squadron of aeroplanes up to spray a few chemicals every now and then, we can completely control the entire weather system for the whole country. 

Watch it, you’ll wake up GM from his slumbers, and then we’ll have that idiot telling us we’re wrong and he’s right along with MLT, Katie Hopkins, some northern monkey woman on X called June Slater, Donald Trump, Reform UK, Mogg et al.

[Guided Missile]

23 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Watch it, you’ll wake up GM from his slumbers.

I just woke up from my afternoon nap, ladies.

Unfortunately it appears the chances of reading informed posts on this board have not improved, just the same infantile abuse. So, my contribution on the climate change conspiracy theory, is heavily influenced, not by Matt fucking Le Tissier, but a proper informed scientist, with impeccable academic credentials. I spent 7 hours reading the book "Unsettled", which pretty much sums up my opinion, on the current bullshit surrounding the greatest con inflicted on the human race, that of net zero. Now to save our heroic posters the 7 hours to read the book, I have summarised it below, although I doubt the losers on this forum will spare the 5 minutes required reading, to spark their dull brains, let alone reading the book themselves.

Quote

Climate activists have misled the public into thinking there’s proof that our actions have led to global warming and possible climate catastrophe. Steven E. Koonin* argues that the facts about climate change are far from certain.

In his 2021 book, Unsettled, Koonin concedes that the climate is warming and humans are partially responsible for this warming. However, he contends that the evidence is overstated and climate scientists’ predictions are based on unreliable models. In turn, public misconceptions about climate change abound and the proposed solutions to climate change are unlikely to succeed.

To deliver more accurate results, Koonin compiled data illustrating the frequency of absolute high and low temperatures, which are simply the highest or lowest temperatures over the entire timespan. Using this data, he found no discernible trend in record-high temperatures since 1900, though record-low temperatures became less frequent. So, the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) claim about record high temperatures was at best misleading, if not outright false, according to Koonin.

In a similar vein, Koonin criticizes the US government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA), which reports that the intensity and frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes has been increasing since the 1980s. Once again, Koonin finds that this claim is misleading—upon examining the data on North Atlantic hurricanes dating back further to the 1940s, he says there’s no discernible long-term trend. In fact, any slight increase in hurricane activity from 1985 to 2010 is offset by a similar decrease from 1965 to 1985.

Indeed, Koonin notes that the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) confirms this result: In 2013, it reported low confidence in any long-term increase in hurricane activity. By extension, Koonin concludes there’s no evidence suggesting humans are responsible for an increase in hurricane activity—after all, we can’t be responsible for a trend that doesn’t exist.

Koonin also questions a related pair of weather phenomena: floods and droughts. As for floods, Koonin asserts that the IPCC’s AR5 reported low confidence in any global trends regarding the magnitude and frequency of floods. So, according to the UN’s own climate scientists, we aren’t sure whether floods are increasing globally.

As for droughts, AR5 echoes the same sentiment: There’s little evidence that droughts are becoming more prevalent worldwide since the 1950s. Koonin notes that the same is true in the US specifically, as average drought conditions have shown no discernible trend since 1890.

Koonin also casts doubt on the assertion that human activity is causing rising sea levels. Upon reviewing the scientific evidence, he contends that although sea levels are indeed rising, it’s unclear whether this rise is caused by human-induced climate change, rather than natural variation.

To put the recent rise in sea level in context, Koonin examines the average sea level over the last 400,000 years. He finds that the sea level repeatedly decreased by about 120 meters over 100,000 years, then rapidly rose about 120 meters over the next 20,000 years. So, the last 400,000 years have seen cycles of sea level changes that occur because shifts in the Earth’s orbit and tilt cause glaciers to either melt or grow larger.

Finally, Koonin argues that climate scientists face external pressures to pump up their findings. For instance, journals prefer to publish conclusive results, which obscures the uncertainty that afflicts climate science. Similarly, grant foundations only renew funding for researchers with clear findings, which encourages scientists to downplay any doubt in their findings. Moreover, climate scientists’ own peers expect them to conform to the narrative that climate change is catastrophic since that justifies the field’s importance.

*Steven Elliot Koonin  is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering. From 2004 to 2009, Koonin was employed by BP as the oil and gas company’s Chief Scientist. From 2009 to 2011, he was Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, in the Obama administration.

 

[badgerx16]

Critical responses to Koonin's book, ( taken from Wiki );

In 2021, Koonin published the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. Critics accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.

In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that Koonin "falsely suggest[s] that we don't understand the risks well enough to take action":

    The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).

Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack."

Nonprofit organization Inside Climate News reported that climate scientists call Koonin's conclusions "fatally out of date ... and based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, lauded the book in The Wall Street Journal as "rebut[ing] much of the dominant political narrative". Twelve scientists analyzed Mills's arguments and said that he merely repeated Koonin's incorrect and misleading claims. Koonin responded with a post on Medium.com answering these critics.

( links quoted above ;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/a-critical-review-of-steven-koonins-unsettled/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210505124154/https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052021/a-new-book-feeds-climate-doubters-but-scientists-say-the-conclusions-are-misleading-and-out-of-date/

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/

)

Edited April 14 by badgerx16

[spyinthesky]

I am not a scientist but from a personal perspective I can attest to my own observations that our climate is different now than when I was a lad.

Warmer and wetter winters and warmer and wetter summers.

I am sure there are plenty of examples of this happening around the world.

One interesting aspect of all this in the 'developed' world is that statistics show that the birthrate in 'developed' countries is running below the average 2.1 reproduction rate to ensure we have enough workers and tax revenue, to keep us all looked after in our dotage.

However in Africa, where climate change is likely to cause drought and a lot of other issues, the birth rate is over double 2.1.

Africa is heading towards a combined population that will surpass China and India who both seem to be on a downward trend in the population stakes.

[Golactico]

There are of course climate scientists who, for whatever motive, present a good argument to ordinary folk, for man made climate change being a myth. However, being an ordinary Joe without the brains nor inclination to become a climate scientist myself, I have to rely on the consensus of 97% of people who have put in the hard yards to become climate scientists and agree that man made climate change is real. This is backed up by my own observations over a nearly 60 year life-span.

[Whitey Grandad]

21 minutes ago, Golactico said:

There are of course climate scientists who, for whatever motive, present a good argument to ordinary folk, for man made climate change being a myth. However, being an ordinary Joe without the brains nor inclination to become a climate scientist myself, I have to rely on the consensus of 97% of people who have put in the hard yards to become climate scientists and agree that man made climate change is real. This is backed up by my own observations over a nearly 60 year life-span.

I don’t think many dispute that the climate is changing. But it always has. The question is how much, if any, of this is due to human activity.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I don’t think many dispute that the climate is changing. But it always has. The question is how much, if any, of this is due to human activity.

The real question is what can we do about it. The problems it’s causing are only going to get worse, whether it’s our fault or not. Quite clearly some of it is due to human activity; you can’t pump that much carbon (and other gasses) into the atmosphere and claim it’s doing nothing.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The real question is what can we do about it. The problems it’s causing are only going to get worse, whether it’s our fault or not. Quite clearly some of it is due to human activity; you can’t pump that much carbon (and other gasses) into the atmosphere and claim it’s doing nothing.

It might be delaying the next ice age.

The sun dominates everything.

[Golactico]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I don’t think many dispute that the climate is changing. But it always has. The question is how much, if any, of this is due to human activity.

Which is where I personally look to those 97% of climate scientists for the answer. Wasn't it Michael Gove that suggested that people have 'had enough of experts'? Well, I tend to disagree and rely on them to inform me about all sorts of things.

[Sheaf Saint]

18 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I just woke up from my afternoon nap, ladies.

Unfortunately it appears the chances of reading informed posts on this board have not improved, just the same infantile abuse. So, my contribution on the climate change conspiracy theory, is heavily influenced, not by Matt fucking Le Tissier, but a proper informed scientist, with impeccable academic credentials. I spent 7 hours reading the book "Unsettled", which pretty much sums up my opinion, on the current bullshit surrounding the greatest con inflicted on the human race, that of net zero. Now to save our heroic posters the 7 hours to read the book, I have summarised it below, although I doubt the losers on this forum will spare the 5 minutes required reading, to spark their dull brains, let alone reading the book themselves.

 

No you haven't. You've done what you always do and copy and pasted someone else's work and tried to pass it off as your own.

[Sheaf Saint]

14 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I don’t think many dispute that the climate is changing. But it always has. 

Yes, only over a vastly longer time period than we are seeing currently.

14 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The question is how much, if any, of this is due to human activity.

That is a good question, and the answer is approximately 100%

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

[spyinthesky]

Couple of interesting views on the recent total eclipse of the sun.

One that is had been planned by 'globalists' to affect world events, a sign from God that we all have to repent our sins and that it would promote disastrous earthquakes, the end of the world etc etc .

Heaven knows what the conspiracists will make of the forthcoming cicadas invasion in Louisiana.

[Whitey Grandad]

43 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yes, only over a vastly longer time period than we are seeing currently.

That is a good question, and the answer is approximately 100%

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

Not actually true. Look up Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum for just a start.

Try this link https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/06/new-studies-northeastern-china-was-7-10c-warmer-9000-years-ago-and-1-7c-warmer-in-the-1800s/

The link cannot possibly be true and it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to see that. When we have more time I will give you a whole list of links.

https://www.adividedworld.com/scientific-issues/clouds-and-global-warming/

It’s far more complicated than these ‘experts’ can begin to imagine.

Edited April 15 by Whitey Grandad

[Sheaf Saint]

18 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not actually true. Look up Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum for just a start.

Try this link https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/06/new-studies-northeastern-china-was-7-10c-warmer-9000-years-ago-and-1-7c-warmer-in-the-1800s/

The link cannot possibly be true and it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to see that. When we have more time I will give you a whole list of links.

https://www.adividedworld.com/scientific-issues/clouds-and-global-warming/

It’s far more complicated than these ‘experts’ can begin to imagine.

NoTricksZone is a notoriously biased, pseudoscientific misinformation site.

Any chance you could post some more credible links?

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not actually true. Look up Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum for just a start.

Try this link https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/06/new-studies-northeastern-china-was-7-10c-warmer-9000-years-ago-and-1-7c-warmer-in-the-1800s/

The link cannot possibly be true and it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to see that. When we have more time I will give you a whole list of links.

https://www.adividedworld.com/scientific-issues/clouds-and-global-warming/

It’s far more complicated than these ‘experts’ can begin to imagine.

As you have for many years now  - despite being corrected every time - you are still conflating two separate issues. 

1. Yes climate has always changed over time due to external factors such as meteor impacts, volcanic and sun activity. No-one, most especially climate scientists who warn of climate change disputes that. Anthropogenic (man made climate change) is separate and distinct   

2. Anthropogenic climate change is driven by industrial processes putting more insulating gases into the atmosphere and simultaneously reducing the earths ability to balance this by removing forest cover. It is a fact that longer chain molecules such as carbon dioxide and methane vibrate and trap heat in sunlight in a way that simple elements such as nitrogen and oxygen do not. It is exactly the same science that puts argon into double glazing to improve heat retention  

More GHGs in the atmosphere lead to higher surface temperatures than would otherwise happen without them. Man is not able to predict long term changes in solar activity, let alone volcanic or meteor activity in order to get the Goldilocks not too hot not too cold climate . Therefore it makes sense to control the controllables and keep climate at the same level as the one in which modern society grew up and to avoid forced migrations. No?       

 

Edited April 15 by buctootim

[trousers]

9 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Therefore it makes sense to control the controllables

I've done my bit... recycling my Remy Martin* bottles over the last couple of decades has paid huge dividends... now over to the rest of the world to do their bit...

 

(* one for the 2008 Takeover Thread posse there... #helpmerhonda)

Edited April 15 by trousers

[buctootim]

25 minutes ago, trousers said:

I've done my bit... recycling my Remy Martin bottles over the last couple of decades has paid huge dividends... now over to the rest of the world to do their bit...

Those figures only tell part the story. For example the UK's reductions have come about largely through de-industralising and getting our carp from China instead.  Saudi Arabia's emissions would be far greater if they had to account for all the emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels exported (as opposed to only those arising from its production)  

I can't stand Cognac anyhow! 

 

Edited April 15 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

As you have for many years now  - despite being corrected every time - you are still conflating two separate issues. 

1. Yes climate has always changed over time due to external factors such as meteor impacts, volcanic and sun activity. No-one, most especially climate scientists who warn of climate change disputes that. Anthropogenic (man made climate change) is separate and distinct   

2. Anthropogenic climate change is driven by industrial processes putting more insulating gases into the atmosphere and simultaneously reducing the earths ability to balance this by removing forest cover. It is a fact that longer chain molecules such as carbon dioxide and methane vibrate and trap heat in sunlight in a way that simple elements such as nitrogen and oxygen do not. It is exactly the same science that puts argon into double glazing to improve heat retention  

More GHGs in the atmosphere lead to higher surface temperatures than would otherwise happen without them. Man is not able to predict long term changes in solar activity, let alone volcanic or meteor activity in order to get the Goldilocks not too hot not too cold climate . Therefore it makes sense to control the controllables and keep climate at the same level as the one in which modern society grew up and to avoid forced migrations. No?       

 

No. Or rather, not necessarily.

Even if we keep our emissions the same as they were two hundred years ago the climate would be different. We cannot control the climate.

I know all the science, thanks. 
 

So what caused all the ice ages and when is the next one?

[buctootim]

18 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No. Or rather, not necessarily.

Even if we keep our emissions the same as they were two hundred years ago the climate would be different. We cannot control the climate.

I know all the science, thanks. 
 

So what caused all the ice ages and when is the next one?

Climate change over 2c will cause major major environmental, food, structural and population challenges. We can either

1. Stop fuelling it or 

2. Ignore the rise and hope that a new naturally occurring ice age saves us, and it turns up promptly. 

Whitey favours 2  

Edited April 15 by buctootim

[Sheaf Saint]

45 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So what caused all the ice ages and when is the next one?

We should be in a cooling phase right now, given the current natural forcings. But instead we are seeing global temperatures rising at an unprecedented rate. And when the effect of GHG emissions is included in the models, it accounts for that discrepancy with a high degree of accuracy.

[Barsiem]

I want the old Le Tiss back 😞

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Barsiem said:

I want the old Le Tiss back 😞

 

Madness. It's Diana in witness protection and Cruyff ressurected to lead a New World Order XI on the moon. Everyone knows that.

[rallyboy]

If Cruyff does come back from the dead it'll be the greatest turn since Jesus.

No, not that one.

[Lighthouse]

12 hours ago, Barsiem said:

I want the old Le Tiss back 😞

 

It's the sad world of diminishing returns that is the life of a conspiracy theorist. You start off with Covid jabs and moon landings but when that gets played out, you have to start exploring more and more off the wall theories in order to stand out as unique. Eventually you go from being as respected football pundit with a relatively well paid, comfortable job in broadcasting; to appearing in Youtube videos with some bloke dribbling about the alphanumeric pseudo-maths of Johan Cruyff being in witness protection.

[east-stand-nic]

So very sad that people are so myopic and refuse to see obvious signs that something just don't add up. Still, give it 4 or 5 years and I predict 50% of you will start to realise you have been lied to about many things for many years.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

So very sad that people are so myopic and refuse to see obvious signs that something just don't add up. Still, give it 4 or 5 years and I predict 50% of you will start to realise you have been lied to about many things for many years.

Won't the COVID jab have killed us by then ?

[Fan The Flames]

45 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

So very sad that people are so myopic and refuse to see obvious signs that something just don't add up. Still, give it 4 or 5 years and I predict 50% of you will start to realise you have been lied to about many things for many years.

We're just not that bothered or scared enough.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Won't the COVID jab have killed us by then ?

Only 50% of us

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

So very sad that people are so myopic and refuse to see obvious signs that something just don't add up. Still, give it 4 or 5 years and I predict 50% of you will start to realise you have been lied to about many things for many years.