Plandemic

[Wales-Bales]

Any reason you didn't mention Organ's track record?

He's already been found guilty by the CCMB judiciary hasn't he? So it's only facts that will set him free.

[Croesy Blue]

He's already been found guilty by the CCMB judiciary hasn't he? So it's only facts that will set him free.

The only thing he’s been found guilty of is being a silly billy. Smoking gun 2020

[cyril evans awaydays]

So it's Organ & Trump Vs the CCMB baying mob & the world's liberal media.

This should be an interesting contest, because the current US investigation into the WHO is already examining the possibility that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan biolab, and that it may have been present in Wuhan earlier than thought.

It should also be noted that the CCMB baying mob and the world's liberal media don't have a very good track record when it comes to all things Trump.

This thread was about none of that though. This, hyped by Org on the mainboard, was the massive take down of how novel the virus was and is.

Put simply he reasoned it shouldn't be called Covid-19 because it was mentioned in a Public Health England document in 2015 and posted on a Government website in that year as proof. But the only real mention of 2015 was in the file name. So total baloney.

No mention of Trump, WHO investigations, Wuhan, biolabs or liberal media. That's all extraneous stuff you just brought to the show. You should turn the dial down you are trying too hard!

[Wales-Bales]

The only thing he’s been found guilty of is being a silly billy. Smoking gun 2020

For the record, my opinion at the very beginning based on available information and limited subject knowledge, was that the WHO were doing a good job, and the CDC/CMO response was by the book. I am sure that Cyril will back me up on that. However, I also felt the was a political aspect running in parallel, with the media playing an active role. It's too soon to call the WHO situation, but there have been a few things along the way that don't seem right, so I will be watching developments with interest. BTW I hear that Bob is all in on the side of China and the WHO. Maybe he knows something that I don't, so let's see what happens. I also think this confrontation is a lot bigger than many people realise, and the US military at Guam airforce base have already sent out a subtle signal that they are prepared for all eventualities.

[Wales-Bales]

This thread was about none of that though. This, hyped by Org on the mainboard, was the massive take down of how novel the virus was and is.

Put simply he reasoned it shouldn't be called Covid-19 because it was mentioned in a Public Health England document in 2015 and posted on a Government website in that year as proof. But the only real mention of 2015 was in the file name. So total baloney.

No mention of Trump, WHO investigations, Wuhan, biolabs or liberal media. That's all extraneous stuff you just brought to the show. You should turn the dial down you are trying too hard!

Yes, but I know what a Plandemic is, and we will find out soon enough whether or not it was in fact a Plandemic.

[Croesy Blue]

For the record, my opinion

I’ll stop you there, I couldn’t give a shit about your opinion, ever, nor does the record

[Wales-Bales]

I’ll stop you there, I couldn’t give a shit about your opinion, ever, nor does the record

That's why nobody likes you, because you are not a nice person, and you can't exist outside of your own echochamber. Don't worry you are not unique, they are many people just like you

[Croesy Blue]

It’s none of that, its just I would never waste my time reading your opinion.

[Wales-Bales]

It’s none of that, its just I would never waste my time reading your opinion.

There is absolutely no reason to, unless you wanted to know the truth about lardy & cyril and their neverending propaganda campaigns, but that might shatter your illusions, so it's probably best to stick with your groupthink

[delmbox]

That's why nobody likes you

I like him, and I'm not alone in that. Who doesn't like him? You and Smoking Gun 2020?

[jon1959]

For the record, my opinion at the very beginning based on available information and limited subject knowledge, was that the WHO were doing a good job, and the CDC/CMO response was by the book. I am sure that Cyril will back me up on that. However, I also felt the was a political aspect running in parallel, with the media playing an active role. It's too soon to call the WHO situation, but there have been a few things along the way that don't seem right, so I will be watching developments with interest. BTW I hear that Bob is all in on the side of China and the WHO. Maybe he knows something that I don't, so let's see what happens. I also think this confrontation is a lot bigger than many people realise, and the US military at Guam airforce base have already sent out a subtle signal that they are prepared for all eventualities.

Not like you to misrepresent someone's opinion like that! You seem to have missed out the context.

You asked on another thread if he was 'siding' with China and the WHO in relation to Trump's WHO tantrum. He replied:

"Er, yes if the options are Trump or China and the WHO - especially on the subject of COVID 19".

What right-thinking person wouldn't take the side of China and the WHO if the alternative was Trump? China may have been less transparent than Trump originally claimed (although they supplied a lot of vital information on the virus very quickly) and the WHO may have taken a few days to sift the evidence and settle on their clear and accurate advice from late January, and also failed to force their way into central Wuhan against the wishes of the Chinese government. But both are light years ahead of Trump when it comes to a 'side' that is serious, grown up and generally effective.

[the other bob wilson]

For the record, my opinion at the very beginning based on available information and limited subject knowledge, was that the WHO were doing a good job, and the CDC/CMO response was by the book. I am sure that Cyril will back me up on that. However, I also felt the was a political aspect running in parallel, with the media playing an active role. It's too soon to call the WHO situation, but there have been a few things along the way that don't seem right, so I will be watching developments with interest. BTW I hear that Bob is all in on the side of China and the WHO. Maybe he knows something that I don't, so let's see what happens. I also think this confrontation is a lot bigger than many people realise, and the US military at Guam airforce base have already sent out a subtle signal that they are prepared for all eventualities.

No, I'm not "all on the side of China and the WHO", I.just back the latter in particular in this case over Trump - but given some of Trump's pronouncements on the virus, I'd back the opinions of Fred Flinstone on the subject over his.

Strange you only seem to have turned anti WHO after they became Trump's latest scapegoat isn't it - nothing you've posted on them in the last few days suggests you're really thinking "it's too soon to call the WHO situation".

[Wales-Bales]

No, I'm not "all on the side of China and the WHO", I.just back the latter in particular in this case over Trump - but given some of Trump's pronouncements on the virus, I'd back the opinions of Fred Flinstone on the subject over his.

Strange you only seem to have turned anti WHO after they became Trump's latest scapegoat isn't it - nothing you've posted on them in the last few days suggests you're really thinking "it's too soon to call the WHO situation".

I haven't turned yet, but there are some red flags, and I am sitting on some information that if true will shock a lot of people. I will post it if I can verify it through other sources. The fact that this has escalated to the current state tells me that something is up.

[Eric Cartman]

I haven't turned yet, but there are some red flags, and I am sitting on some information that if true will shock a lot of people. I will post it if I can verify it through other sources. The fact that this has escalated to the current state tells me that something is up.

Is covid-19 serious now that trump has found somebody to blame? Up until a few days ago you were pushing the idea that the response was an overreaction.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I'd guess the addition of one new disease to a long list wouldn't constitute a substantial amendment.

I was wondering about the copyright rules a few months ago when I noticed one of the documents we issue to shipping companies has a copyright date. The problem is that the date in the small text is some time back in the Eighties (probably 1988), while the regulations have been amended several times since then, as has the content of the document.

To be honest, that's the only document of ours that I can ever recall seeing a copyright on and it makes no material difference as we give copies away free of charge to the shipping companies. My guess is that it was copyrighted with new regulations in 1988 and that has been forgotten about since or ignored when new versions have been proof-read.

A few points in response:
I think that parties could spend a lot of money arguing over whether any amendment of a work constitutes a new copyright date.
The copyright symbol and accompanying dare added to any work constitutes a flag to other parties that reproduction of it (without permission) is not permitted.

A work is covered by copyright merely by being published, whether it is in a publication or even scrawled on a toilet door and whether anyone arbitrarily adds the copyright symbol or not.

Any action by a copyright owner to cease unauthorised reproduction of their work would have be accompanied with some date-related evidence.

Works are covered by copyright whether they are given away free or not.

You can own a work without owning the copyright of it. Sounds sensible if you think of music you have on vinyl or CD, doesn't it?
What about if you send someone a friend a typewritten or hand-written letter? The law interprets the recipient of a letter as the owner of it: sheet of paper,ink and envelope. However, you, as the creator of the content in that letter, own the copyright - and in such case of individuals the copyright lasts 75 years after the creator's demise.

Exceptions to copyright can be made for a number of reasons, however e.g. for review/criticism of work, news reporting and a few other things.

Licensing any work to other parties (even if the Licence is issued is free of charge) does not erode any copyright.

Works, whether they be electronic databases, a phone book or even paper maps can also be classified as databases and 'Database Rights' is another branch of IP Law which may or may not be an additional form of protection for a work. A phone book has little creative content and may not necessarily be covered by copyright but would be covered by Database Rights - as some effort has been made in collecting and presenting the data. A paper map* could be considered both a database and a work covered by copyright (if sufficient intellectual creativity was involved in creating it). Database rights cover the owner of a work for a mere 15 years though.

*I fell into the world of IP after many years of being a pure cartographer: I was assigned the role of protecting my employer's cartographic material and I was involved in a couple of groundbreaking legal cases against copyright infringers based in two different EU states.

[Rjk]

A few points in response:
I think that parties could spend a lot of money arguing over whether any amendment of a work constitutes a new copyright date.
The copyright symbol and accompanying dare added to any work constitutes a flag to other parties that reproduction of it (without permission) is not permitted.

A work is covered by copyright merely by being published, whether it is in a publication or even scrawled on a toilet door and whether anyone arbitrarily adds the copyright symbol or not.

Any action by a copyright owner to cease unauthorised reproduction of their work would have be accompanied with some date-related evidence.

Works are covered by copyright whether they are given away free or not.

You can own a work without owning the copyright of it. Sounds sensible if you think of music you have on vinyl or CD, doesn't it?
What about if you send someone a friend a typewritten or hand-written letter? The law interprets the recipient of a letter as the owner of it: sheet of paper,ink and envelope. However, you, as the creator of the content in that letter, own the copyright - and in such case of individuals the copyright lasts 75 years after the creator's demise.

Exceptions to copyright can be made for a number of reasons, however e.g. for review/criticism of work, news reporting and a few other things.

Licensing any work to other parties (even if the Licence is issued is free of charge) does not erode any copyright.

Works, whether they be electronic databases, a phone book or even paper maps can also be classified as databases and 'Database Rights' is another branch of IP Law which may or may not be an additional form of protection for a work. A phone book has little creative content and may not necessarily be covered by copyright but would be covered by Database Rights - as some effort has been made in collecting and presenting the data. A paper map* could be considered both a database and a work covered by copyright (if sufficient intellectual creativity was involved in creating it). Database rights cover the owner of a work for a mere 15 years though.

*I fell into the world of IP after many years of being a pure cartographer: I was assigned the role of protecting my employer's cartographic material and I was involved in a couple of groundbreaking legal cases against copyright infringers based in two different EU states.

I was just reading about trap streets the other day

[Wales-Bales]

Is covid-19 serious now that trump has found somebody to blame? Up until a few days ago you were pushing the idea that the response was an overreaction.

Trump is not running this, the intelligence services are. People who suffer from TDS will always come to the wrong conclusions, and lardy & cyril are a fine example of this phenomenon. There are two aspects to the Covid-19 response, and the overreaction I speak of is by the media and the Democrats who are using the pandemic as a political hammer.

[The Lone Gunman]

Has OM given up posting?

I hope nothing has happened to him and he's still well.

[life on mars]

I haven't turned yet, but there are some red flags, and I am sitting on some information that if true will shock a lot of people. I will post it if I can verify it through other sources. The fact that this has escalated to the current state tells me that something is up.

WHO should be held to account and perhaps therd is more to come , thier initial summary of Corvid 19 was weak , its willing (quick ) praise of China and suggesting in January their was little evidence of human to human transmission should be looked at and last week after the Chinese revised its death count the WHO simply praised them instead of criticising them ( why ?? )

Yes Trump is using it as a political deflection tactic , but perhaps it's not a bad time to hold them to account whilst they are in the spotlight and they may well be in line for a review of how they work and manage thier organisation, before Corvid19 corruption was known about and making headlines,.

This french article ( not American) perhaps highlight some issues
https://www.globalresearch.ca/politi...on-who/5702045

[cyril evans awaydays]

WHO should be held to account and perhaps therd is more to come , thier initial summary of Corvid 19 was weak , its willing (quick ) praise of China and suggesting in January their was little evidence of human to human transmission should be looked at and last week after the Chinese revised its death count the WHO simply praised them instead of criticising them ( why ?? )

Yes Trump is using it as a political deflection tactic , but perhaps it's not a bad time to hold them to account whilst they are in the spotlight and they may well be in line for a review of how they work and manage thier organisation, before Corvid19 corruption was known about and making headlines,.

This french article ( not American) perhaps highlight some issues
https://www.globalresearch.ca/politi...on-who/5702045

Which bits of the Global Research article did you find most compelling and why?

There are those who think the French Canadians who run the Global Research website are right wing whackos but we should at least discuss the rights and wrongs of the article you posted in an adult manner. So if you copy and paste or articulate the key bits that further your argument I promise to give an honest evaluation of why you think it denigrates the numerous people mentioned there from the WHO and why that undermines the organisation.

[Croesy Blue]

I see Organ is posting again, I was worried the FBI had picked him up after unearthing this startling information!

[life on mars]

Which bits of the Global Research article did you find most compelling and why?

There are those who think the French Canadians who run the Global Research website are right wing whackos but we should at least discuss the rights and wrongs of the article you posted in an adult manner. So if you copy and paste or articulate the key bits that further your argument I promise to give an honest evaluation of why you think it denigrates the numerous people mentioned there from the WHO and why that undermines the organisation.

I did that above the link ?

it's my view , and I guess you have a compltly different view , forget the link and have a look at there history on this virus .

( WHO should be held to account and perhaps therd is more to come , thier initial summary of Corvid 19 was weak , its willing (quick ) praise of China and suggesting in January their was little evidence of human to human transmission should be looked at and last week after the Chinese revised its death count the WHO simply praised them instead of criticising them ( why ?? )*

Try and put aside your Trump hatred he has just rmy and has called them out , let's wait and see where this goes hopefully the truth or some form of it will come out ,they certainly gave out some very strange assumptions at the beginning of this outbreak and are still doing it.

[trampie09]

I did that above the link ?

it's my view , and I guess you have a compltly different view , forget the link and have a look at there history on this virus .

( WHO should be held to account and perhaps therd is more to come , thier initial summary of Corvid 19 was weak , its willing (quick ) praise of China and suggesting in January their was little evidence of human to human transmission should be looked at and last week after the Chinese revised its death count the WHO simply praised them instead of criticising them ( why ?? )*

Try and put aside your Trump hatred he has just rmy and has called them out , let's wait and see where this goes hopefully the truth or some form of it will come out ,they certainly gave out some very strange assumptions at the beginning of this outbreak and are still doing it.

Trump and Johnson had more time than some other countries to react but wasted this time, many people think this inaction has resulted in thousands of more deaths than otherwise would have happened if we had started to prepare earlier.

[life on mars]

A non rightwing corruption article

https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-racism-sexism

[life on mars]

Never mind Trump and Boris the easy hate figures about this issue try looking at the so called experts :


Jan. 5

The WHO*reported*a "pneumonia of unknown cause" in Wuhan, China.

The health organization advised against restrictions to China: "WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the current information available on this event."

Jan. 9

The WHO released*a statement*announcing the source of the disease: "Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel (or new) coronavirus, identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan."

It added: "In the coming weeks, more comprehensive information is required to understand the current status and epidemiology of the outbreak, and the clinical picture."

Jan. 14

WHO officials gave conflicting signals about whether there is human-to-human transmission. At a press conference in Geneva, Maria Van Kerkhove of WHO's emerging diseases unit*told a Reuters reporter:*"From the information that we have it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission, potentially among families, but it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human-to-human transmission." However, that same day WHO*tweeted*a different take, stating that "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel*#coronavirus*(2019-nCoV) identified in*#Wuhan,*#China" and also told an NPR reporter that Van Kerkhove had been misunderstood and there was in fact no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Jan. 23

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a*statement*that it was too early to declare the coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. "Make no mistake. This is an emergency in China, but it has not yet become a global health emergency. It may yet become one."

Jan. 29

Dr. Mike Ryan, head of the WHO's Health Emergencies Programme,*said, "The whole world needs to be on alert now. The whole world needs to take action and be ready for any cases that come from the epicenter or other epicenter that becomes established."

Feb. 4

At*a WHO briefing, Tedros urged that there be no travel bans. "We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit. ... Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves."


Feb. 28

The WHO raises the global risk of the coronavirus from "high" to "very high."

March 5

In a*WHO briefing, Tedros praised China and the U.S. for taking "the right approach." He said: "After our visit to Beijing and seeing China's approach, and President Xi leading that, and also in the U.S., President Trump himself, and also for regular coordination, designating the vice president. These are the approaches we're saying are the right ones, and these are the approaches we're saying are going to mobilize the whole government."