It can be argued that the NHS is being unfairly smeared by the media – perhaps to persuade people that it needs to be privatised. Media smearing is a valid hypothesis, or, rather, it was until a retired doctor shared with the world what he thinks about one current, horrendous, NHS media topic. It looks as if the NHS doesn’t need the media to smear it – it can do that itself!

I have to admit, there are certain “news” stories that I suspect at first might be made up. Completely made up, I mean, as opposed to the normal blend of true, possibly true and completely lacking in context that passes for much of the “news” in the corporate media. The story that ALL school books printed before 2008 are being banned in Canada was one such story.

Among the latter of course are the medical professionals who are practising what they know of science to improve the health and wellbeing of people across the entire world. They continue to do this even when faced with what they believe is extreme danger. In the early time of C19, doctors and nurses put their own safety aside to treat people with a life-threatening disease.

He stood alongside successive US presidents, in the White House press room, telling Americans – and the rest of the world – what his scientists were doing to track down the virus and - what people should be doing to protect themselves from the deadly disease. People will remember his advice – echoed by others - about stay at home, isolate and wear a mask!

Two stories of people successfully getting the solution that was needed, however, show us what to do. We need to go straight to the top!

That is the very type of people who hospitals and the wider medical field attract. These people join the medical profession – not because it’s a well-paid career – but because it’s all about helping people – caring for people and helping to make them well again. But something now has changed. The more recent stories are quite different. It’s as if nurses have been poisoned.

This is a classic case of ‘Who Done It’ and by definition, also a classic case of Conspiracy Theory. People will have noticed by now that whenever a theory is put up which challenges the Official Narrative, there are those who label it – in an effort to discredit the challenging narrative – a Conspiracy Theory.

They are stories that you do not read about in the MSM mainstream media - but they exist in other places less prominent. A question we have to ask, is – why is that? If there is a story, then it needs to be investigated – or at least one would think. The truth is, that in these modern times, the MSM is largely captured and will only print what it is allowed to print – or told to print.

And all those at the Forum are unlikely to include anyone who is NOT in a serious political position – or on the way to one – or is NOT in a serious wealth position – or on the way to one. Others fitting the bill for an invite to the annual meet up in Davos will include specially selected groups of mainstream media and, apparently, women with overnight service duties.

The court decision is still on the Internet today and can be read by anyone. It’s not hidden - and neither is the lie – the false evidence. One might ask the question – in which far-flung nation did this travesty of justice take place?

This issue isn’t new, of course. Criticism of the school system for serving the state, rather than students, has been around for a long time. What IS new-ish however is the debate over sex and gender – or, rather, the complete lack of debate. It’s coming up to the boil now, with stories surfacing in the media about young people identifying as cats and other animals. What’s going on?

I mean that in a kindly sense, since most of us – if not all – are just too busy to ask the questions we all have in our heads – so we DON’T get to voice them. It’s all too easy to accept that someone more informed must know the rational answer – but do they? And can we trust them anyway? If our leaders had a wrong agenda they’re following, would we know it – would we care?

Amusing though this is, it’s one of those instances of humour that’s based on reality. Are we living in an apocalyptical world? It appears so, except it’s not the kind we usually find in fiction – whether novels or films. The apocalypse we’re living through hasn’t so much happened – rather, it’s happening - consisting of an almost-daily onslaught of attacks in various forms.

There has been another debate prompted by more than 156,000 signatures appended to a petition. This debate concerned the UK parliament sanctioning the giving of rights to the WHO. If sanctioned, those rights would enable the WHO to dictate policy - and actions – to the UK’s parliament. The first debate was a shock in many ways. This latest version was just as bad!

Hannah Fry – not in the film, but a professor of mathematics – clearly has a deep interest in the subject and most probably a deep fascination with it too. So much so that she is well qualified to get other people interested – if not fascinated by the subject also. She is so well qualified in fact that Hannah is rolled out to present documentary films on maths and related topics.

One of the most useful forms of communication – and certainly when it comes to explaining and understanding a situation, which otherwise might be difficult – is the use of analogies. These are often perfect vehicles to see things in a particular way – maybe a completely different way. With that idea in mind, I wanted to look at the problem we have in OUR garden.

By all accounts, Nelson was a very brave seaman and competent strategist. During the sea battle he is said to have raised his telescope to his blind eye and was truthful when he said, he saw no ship’s signals. That was Nelson. But are we as a people today not seeing the signals – due to being blinded? Alternatively, are we looking through the wrong end of the telescope?

Over 70% of the children who died were under 2yrs of age, according to the World Health Organisation [WHO]. All the children died of Acute Kidney Injury between June and Oct2022, after consuming cough syrups which, according to a Swiss laboratory commissioned by the WHO to test the medicines, contained “unacceptably high levels” of diethylene glycol.

Now, I’d be the last to argue that safety – and I mean safety procedures etc - aren’t important. I would admit that safety routines are vital and certainly where common sense, knowledge or experience is missing. So why is it then, the gov’t drivers of policy seem to dismiss the issue about jab safety – saying in effect there’s no evidence of harm – when there is?

It’s as if the mainstream ‘media’ – in some way – is in cahoots with the government and/or other collections of persons unidentified.  The mere thought or expressed idea would immediately be labelled as an example – Conspiracy Theory – by that same collection of media platforms and the crowd of fact-checkers that leap on such notions to poo-poo them.