Mystery lurgy spreading across Yorkshire - 'People have never been so sick'

People in Yorkshire have increasingly experienced covid-like symptoms but have tested negative for the virus

PA Features Archive/Press Association Images

People in Yorkshire say they are suffering from a mystery illness similar to Covid but are testing negative for the virus itself

Georgina Cutler Producer, GB news

Published Monday 19 December 2022 - 11:37

Residents in Yorkshire have increasingly been experiencing covid-like symptoms but say they are continually testing negative for the virus.

The past two Christmases saw Covid cases spike during the height of the pandemic, but people are reporting a different kind of illness.

Colds, respiratory illnesses and flu are more common during the winter months, however residents in Yorkshire have said they cannot get rid of their colds.

One said they’ve even gone through two sets of antibiotics and steroids and still don’t feel better.

People in Yorkshire say they can't 'shift' their illness
PA Features Archive/Press Association Images

Becky Watson said: "I'm on my second month's now. Two different lots of antibiotics, one course of steroids and it still hasn't shifted."

Rachel Fox-Allen added: "Started the year with Covid. Ending it with whatever this is. "[It] feels like a really really bad cold - sore throat, runny nose, streaming eyes, aches, blocked sinuses, absolutely shattered, and that cough.

"Had it for a few weeks mildly but it's taken a rough turn this last few days. Sleep and a good decongestant seem to be helping. But this is life."

According to government data, the number of people testing positive for Covid went up by 17.2 per cent in the seven days up to December 10 compared to the week before.

Research by YorkshireLive revealed that hundreds had shared symptoms similar to Covid but had been repeatedly testing negative.

Many say they have tested negative for covid

Danny Lawson

Philip Butterworth said: "I had it for four weeks. Strangely enough I never really at any time felt ill. What I did have was this horrendous cough and gunge on the chest. Could not get under it to clear myself.

"After the first day I called the quacks who said you sound bad but no appointment for 2 weeks. Ended up phoning 111, had a course of antibiotics but did not clear it up. Any how it's gone now tested several times for Covid. All negative. Good luck if you have it. Lots going down with it."

Karen Humphreys added: "Absolutely floored me this last few days, can’t seem to shake it off. Covid test clear but feel absolutely rotten, take care everyone." 

 Former CEO of Local Government Assn claims to be an "EXPERT" on regional Issues

The following are words from Greg Hallam in response to the tragic police shooting:

"Ambush shines a light on state's secret fringe-dwellers - the 'blockies'"

This is not simply a Western Downs problem, with parts of southeast Queensland having their own challenges. This is a whole of state problem.

We are destined to have more social dislocation, under-privilege – and tragedy – if all future dwellings in these fringe communities are not stopped in their tracks.

Hopefully, this horrible tragedy will raise the circumstances of these communities for all Queenslanders to see, and cause the State Government to retrospectively remove the right to build on historical subdivisions.

We need a Statewide Task Force to tackle this challenge, and fast.

Greg Hallam is a former CEO of the Local Government Association of Queensland and is an expert on Queensland’s remote communities. He writes occasionally for InQueensland about regional issues.

Response by David McLintock:

Above is part of Mr Greg Hallam's comments in an article published in INQUEENSLAND ( https://inqld.com.au/insights/2022/12/14/police-shooting-tragedy-has-exposed-states-secret-fringe-dwellers-the-blockies/)

Why does this “one off” tragedy mean that everyone who wants to live a quiet life away from the cities, the smog, the 5G and the chemicals mean that they are all conspiracy theorist and a danger to anyone?

Is Mr Hallam really an expert in anything, especially remote communities?  It would seem he has little knowledge about what is truly worrying remote Queensland families which begs the question as to what his and his cronies real agenda is in publishing this nonsense and insulting the  intelligence of Queensland people.

What's wrong with parents wanting to shield their children from their “smart cities” and toxic EMF waves and city pollution and their new digital world?

One crazy does not make everyone guilty. My experience with anyone wanting to live a healthy life is that they would give you the shirt of their backs and help you in any way they can. They are genuine Australian citizens who simply want to turn back time a little to when life had some freedoms and you aren't exposed to a toxic environment 24/7.

Mr Hallam it seems is deliberately pushing an agenda to control anyone who doesn't want to be part of his “smart city” ideology and who cares about his family's health enough to make a physical change for the better.

Why shouldn't they be able to live away from this “Great Reset” and be part of nature in our wonderful Queensland outback countryside?

These people who committed this heinous crime against our young police officers no doubt had no respect for the lives of others. Gun laws do nothing to take the firearms out of the hands of criminals and any further changes to our gun laws will once again just take them further away from law abiding citizens who have nothing but respect for the lives of their fellow man, including our police officers.

 

SWITZERLAND CONSIDERS ELECTRIC VEHICLE BAN TO AVOID BLACKOUTS

By  Tsvetana Paraskova 

December 3, 2022

Switzerland could limit the use of electric vehicles (EVs) in cases of electricity supply shortages this winter under a new four-step plan to prevent power cuts and blackouts.   

To ensure energy security this winter, Switzerland could become the first country to limit the driving and use of EVs, German daily Der Spiegel reports, citing multiple media reports on the Swiss four-stage action plan to avoid blackouts.  

Driving EVs could be banned in Switzerland unless in cases of “absolutely necessary journeys” in stage three of the power conservation plans. The country also plans a stricter speed limit on highways in the recently proposed action plan, which has yet to be adopted.

Switzerland typically imports electricity from France and Germany to meet all its power demand, but this year supply from its neighbors is constrained.

In France, the nuclear fleet availability is much lower than usual, which has led to the country becoming a net importer of electricity after decades of being a net exporter. The French electricity grid is at higher risk of strained power supplies in January 2023 than previously estimated due to lower nuclear power generation.

The country could face the risk of power cuts this winter when electricity supply may not be enough to meet demand, Xavier Piechaczyk, the head of grid operator RTE, said earlier this week.

In Germany, the situation is similar, as utilities are having to make do with no Russian pipeline gas supply. 

Switzerland’s power supply remains uncertain for the winter and troubles with enough electricity capacity cannot be ruled out, the Swiss Federal Electricity Commission, Elcom, said as early as in June. Due to the expected lower availability of French nuclear power generation and of France’s power exports to Switzerland, the Swiss imports of power generated in France is likely to be much lower this winter compared to previous winter seasons, Elcom said.

Therefore, Switzerland may need to cover its electricity import needs of around 4 gigawatt hours (GWh) from imports from its other neighbors Germany, Austria, and Italy.

However, the power export availability of those countries would heavily depend on the available fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, according to Elcom.

We Need To Stop All Vaccines

Play Video

Nano structures found in Pfizer vaccine that "expand" in the presence of EMF (5G), Dr. David Nixon 💉 Dr. David Bruce Nixon, General Practitioner, Australia, interviewed by ZeeeMedia.com, 25 Oct 2022. Dr. David Bruce Nixon has found that: These nano-structures are being assembled by micro-machinery / by nano-construction. “We need to stop ALL vaccines until we understand what is going on.”

By John Andriano - 11 December 2022  5.00 AM

The golden thread rule running through criminal law in our common law system is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule of law is crucial to the operation of a fair trial and a fair outcome.

The rule presupposes that the accused person who pleads not guilty to a crime for which they stand accused is as innocent as any other person inside or outside the courtroom. Even as innocent as the accuser.

In the recent ACT case of The Crown v Bruce Lehrmann, the accused man Lehrmann was charged with raping a woman known as Brittany Higgins in March 2019.

Lehrmann pleaded not guilty. There was a trial where a jury could not unanimously convict him, and the Prosecution subsequently dropped the charges.

Lehmann was therefore innocent before March 2019, after March 2019, and now is still innocent after December 2022. At no stage in this process is he anything other than innocent. He is as innocent as the prosecutors, as the judge, as the accuser Higgins, and every journalist, commentator, and politician who sought to presume him guilty.

I am not trying to defend Lehmann. He does not need defending. I am here to defend the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and the bedrock of our legal system which is continuously coming under attack.

The main problem is that the attacks on the law are coming from those who are sworn to uphold it.

The former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese both made remarks which presupposed Lehrmann’s guilt by apologising to Higgins. The former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister each take oaths upon accepting their office to uphold the laws of Australia and they each have shown that they had no respect for the presumption of innocence.

The Prosecutor Shane Drumgold, a lawyer who must have sworn to uphold the laws of the ACT, made the most extraordinary public statement, ‘In the light of the compelling independent medical opinion and balancing all factors, I have made the difficult decision that it is no longer in the public interest to pursue a prosecution at the risk of the complainants life.’ If a victim’s life was truly at risk, and the person who placed the victim’s life in that terrible state can be prosecuted for the crime, then it is precisely in the public’s interest that such a prosecution be mounted.

The truth is that there was not enough evidence to pursue the matter and find Lehrmann guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No doubt, Mr Morrison, Mr Albanese, and Mr Drumgold were concerned of the media reaction when uttering their comments.

This is sadly not an isolated incident.

In February 2022, a six-week trial of a Northern Territory Police officer Zachary Rolfe took place. Rolfe was charged, inter alia with the murder of an Aboriginal man, Kumanjayi Walker, after being called to investigate a domestic violence incident in November 2019.

Rolfe pleaded not guilty, therefore prior to the trial he was innocent, during the trial he was innocent, and after being found not guilty by the jury he was still innocent.

After the verdict Adam Bandt, leader of the Greens Party and a member of Parliament in Melbourne, was most vociferous in alleging that justice was not achieved for Walker. His utterings, and the media commentary, contributed to an inquest being conducted in the Northern Territory about the shooting. Precisely who is on trial at the inquest, because it can’t be Rolfe, he has already been found not guilty. The rule of law is on trial in that inquiry.

In a recent case in Sydney a former footballer, Chris Dawson, was tried for the murder of his wife. He also pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was innocent before the trial and during the trial. He was innocent until the judge sitting alone found him guilty of the crime. Now he is no longer innocent unless the conviction is overturned on appeal. The fact is he is guilty now.

In all three cases justice was served by the fact of an objective trial, where the media input is irrelevant, and the evidence is paramount.

The accused exercised a right to plead not guilty and therefore profess innocence. The verdict is the result of justice being played out.

Lehrmann could not be found guilty, and no further proceedings continued. He is therefore still innocent, and justice is served. Rolfe was found not guilty; he is still innocent, and justice has been served. Dawson was found guilty; he is, therefore, no longer innocent and justice is served.

Justice, the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence, has therefore worked in three completely different circumstances to present the correct outcome yet many sections of the media and political activists are committed to trying to change the system.

In the current system the prosecution has the resources of the state behind them, police powers of investigation, well-paid and always very competent lawyers, funds to use scientific evidence, and expert witnesses to present such evidence. Armed with all those resources if they can’t convince twelve people of the accused’s guilt then the accused is probably innocent. That is precisely why the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

No fair-minded person wants a guilty person to walk free. Nor do they want an innocent person to be imprisoned.

Laws change constantly both Federally and State-wide and usually for the better. The fundamentals of the common law system, such as the presumption of innocence have not changed over 120 years and for good reason, they work to preserve justice.

At the end of the trial process there can be degrees of guilt. The guilty person is always permitted to ask for lenience in sentencing. There is not however a degree of innocence.

 

Labor Have No Bloody Idea How To Fix Energy Crisis

Pauline Hanson December 09, 2022

You just have to look at Labor's ridiculous plan to pour another 10 billion dollars into unreliable "renewable" energy to see that Anthony Albanese's government hasn't got any bloody idea what they are doing or how they can solve Australia's energy crisis.

The public have to realise we have only had higher electricity prices since we went down this "green" energy path to disaster.

Labor is closing reliable baseload power stations and refusing to replace them with new ones be it coal, gas or nuclear.

Until we get common sense and realise that spending billions more on solar panels and windmills won't cut it and that we have to have a true diversity of power to deliver the needs of Australians, you will all continue to suffer serious power price pain.

We’re going to have blackouts, we’re going to have increased electricity costs, and you are going to have Labor to thank for it.

 

International Pandemic Treaty: WHO Meets to Impose Censorship of “Misinformation”

The unelected health agency inches closer toward being granted unprecedented, legally-binding censorship powers.

Members of the World Health Organization (WHO), an unelected international public health agency, are meeting to consider a draft version of a proposed international pandemic treaty which will give the WHO new powers to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” and be legally binding under international law.

The draft treaty contains various provisions in Article 16 (“Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy”) that require the WHO’s 194 member states (which represent 98% of all the countries in the world) to target so-called misinformation.

Member states are told to “conduct regular social media analysis to identify and understand misinformation,” design their own messaging to “counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news,” and manage “infodemics” (a phrase that was created by the WHO and describes “too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak”).

While the provisions in Article 16 don’t directly call for member states to censor content that’s deemed to be misinformation, a provision in Article 14 (“Whole-of-government and other multisectoral actions”) paves the way for Big Tech to perform this censorship on the WHO’s behalf.

Under this provision, member states are required to collaborate with non-state actors and the private sector through an “all-encompassing whole-of-government, multistakeholder, multi-disciplinary and multi-level approach.”

Before this pandemic treaty existed, Big Tech willingly mass censored any content that it deemed to be “Covid misinformation,” even though there were no agreements or laws forcing them to do so. YouTube even introduced a far-reaching policy that made going against the WHO a violation of YouTube’s rules and deleted over 800,000 videos under this policy.

Under the pandemic treaty, the ties between governments and pro-censorship Big Tech companies will become even stronger and collaboration will be required.

WHO Member States Agree to Develop Legally-binding Pandemic Treaty

We obtained a copy of the draft international pandemic treaty for you here.

 

Not only are these Big Tech-government ties being reinforced by the treaty but the WHO has also demonstrated its willingness to censor anything that it brands misinformation. Earlier this year, it called for Big Tech to work with it to censor monkeypox “misinformation.”

Additionally, the idea that the WHO should be acting as an arbiter of truth is especially ironic given that it was one of the most infamous producers of misleading information during the Covid pandemic. In a January 14, 2020 tweet, the organization stated that “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of the coronavirus.

The meeting to discuss the draft treaty began on December 5 and will run till December 7. It’s being attended by members of an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) that was established by the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the WHO, in December 2021.

The INB was tasked with drafting and negotiating a “global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This global accord has become known as the international pandemic treaty.

Based on the current proposed timeline, the INB expects to finalize the international pandemic treaty by May 2024 and present a final report to the seventy-seventh WHA meeting.

We obtained a copy of the INB’s current proposed timeline for you here.

If passed, the international pandemic treaty will be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. This article gives the WHA the power to impose legally binding conventions or agreements on WHO member states if two-thirds of the WHA vote in favor of them.

This process of lawmaking circumvents the usual process of elected officials voting on the laws that apply to their country by allowing a handful of global representatives to decide on the rules that apply to all countries. Even if representatives from a third of the WHO’s member states vote against the international pandemic treaty, it will still be applied to their country under international law.

Not only does this process limit the power of politicians to decide on the laws that apply to their specific country but it also limits the power of citizens to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. Most of the representatives for member states are unelected diplomats who remain in their positions, even when new governments are elected. And most of the votes that determine whether an international law applies to a specific country are cast by representatives from other countries.

Despite this undemocratic process, the international pandemic treaty has the support of numerous democratic countries including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Council (EC) (which represents 27 European Union (EU) member states).

Some politicians from these countries have opposed the treaty and several petitions, including those that can force a parliamentary debate on the treaty, have gained traction.

However, the international pandemic treaty is still very much on track to being finalized by May 2024 and the WHO has shown no intention of abandoning its far-reaching power grab.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Reclaim the Net

The original source of this article is Reclaim the Net

Copyright © Tom Parker, Reclaim the Net, 2022