Coronavirus: A Perspective from Britain Part 5

Written by Andy Rowlands on May 9, 2020. Posted in Current News

Since Part 4 of my virus series was published last month, I have continued compiling information, and present my latest musings on the current situation. Some of this may already be known to readers, but I include it for the fullest record possible.

On April 20^th, the second, very long, part of an Off-Guardian piece was published, containing more information about how the virus ‘pandemic’ is being used to whittle away our rights and freedoms.

The article also goes into detail about who funds the World Health Organisation, and the behind-the-scenes machinations that benefit those who wish to sell us vaccines.

Below are various quotes from the article.

Effectively a small group of policy decision makers have placed an estimated 3.5 billion people under house arrest. It is only possible for them to do so with our consent. Consent is carefully cultivated by controlling the information we are given.

C19 can be fatal for those with pre-existing comorbidities, and possibly even some without, as can other forms of pneumonia and influenza-like respiratory illness. However, while every C19 death has been reported, none of the far greater number of people who have died in the UK this year from other respiratory infections have even been mentioned.

Systems have been created to ensure the C19 statistics are as terrifying as possible. Their statistical product is so vague it borders upon meaningless. It seems we have been inculcated with misplaced fear to justify the lockdown regime, to convince us to accept it and prepare us for what is to come.

On the 11th March the WHO declared the SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. On 15th March UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock stated that vulnerable people would be required to quarantine themselves or self isolate. 

The State issued a set of guidelines for avoiding the spread of infection. On the 16th March UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a statement advising people to practice social distancing, avoid non essential travel and warned that drastic measures may be needed to protect the NHS and the most vulnerable.

On the 20th of March Boris Johnson ordered the closure of all venues for social gathering, such as pubs, cafes and restaurants. On March 23rd the UK State legislated for the Coronavirus Act and placed the UK in lockdown, as instructed by the WHO.

The basic premise, apparently believed by so many, that the State has now decided to act to keep us safe is tragically comical. For us to swallow this tripe we need to be sufficiently terrified to willingly accept the imagined protection of the State. The MSM has been doing its best to make sure we are and that we do.

Most of this is based upon claims about deaths and stories about desperately overloaded hospitals struggling to cope with the pressure. Meanwhile, as millions of British people remain under house arrest, glued to their TV’s and fondle pads, the data that has been released by official sources doesn’t back up any of the tales we have been spun.

Evidence of NHS overload is entirely absent. The State will claim this is thanks to the lockdown regime. Certainly the fact that people with other serious conditions haven’t been treated has alleviated pressure on the NHS. Unfortunately, the evidence also indicates the lockdown regime is probably killing them in increasing numbers. Though it seems unlikely the State will claim responsibility for that. (Emphasis added)

The Financial Times reported that close to half of the UK’s hospital beds were empty. With just 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of acute beds occupied this is 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} less than this time last year. (Emphasis added)

During a supposed global pandemic we’ve had the lowest ever national A&E attendance. Manchester hospitals report a 57{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} bed occupation rate compared to their average of 94{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.

The Nightingale Hospitals erected in what must be record time by the British Army in such places as the Excel Centre in London and the NEC in Birmingham, have remained virtually unused. In fact, the 500-bed facility at the NEC has not seen a single patient, and the Excel one less than 40.

The article continues:-

Of the 1,555 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds available in London 1,245 are occupied. So questions must be asked why 19 patients, who presumably needed intensive care, were seemingly moved unnecessarily into the 4,000 bed London Nightingale over the Easter weekend. (Emphasis added)

Not only is there no evidence that the NHS is even close to struggling to cope with a non-existent surge, the likely severe health consequences of the State’s lockdown policy are starting to emerge. When we look at the data on claimed COVID 19 deaths the picture only becomes more alarming.

Elective surgery, life-saving operations, and things like cancer treatments have all been cancelled, so the death-rates for all of these have shot up, but most of the mainstream media is not reporting on this.

The article continues:-

Every day, for weeks, the MSM has reported every single UK death which was supposedly due to COVID 19. This has been central to their effort to convince us of the severity of the pandemic. The reporting always supports the State’s narrative that the lockdown is necessary. (Emphasis added)

Under normal circumstances, when someone dies, a person who knows them well, such as a family member, or someone who was physically close to the person at the time of death, is the qualified informant who can notify the registrar of the circumstances and non medical details of the death.

That is not true for suspected C19 patients. For them a funeral director, who has almost certainly never met the deceased, can be the qualified informant. This places far more emphasis on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) as registration can take place without any input from family or anyone else familiar with the circumstances of the death. (Emphasis added)

Prior to the Coronavirus Act, the last attending doctor to the deceased had the responsibility to register the death. However, in the case of suspected C19 deaths, that duty can be discharged by a doctor who has never met the patient. (Emphasis added)

It is crucial to understand that for C19 to be recorded on the MCCD, as the underlying cause of death, there does not need to be any test based diagnosis of the syndrome. (Emphasis added)

Even when a sample test is undertaken to identify C19, questions remain. The RT-PCR test commonly used to test for C19 does not appear to be very reliable, nor is it designed as a diagnostic tool for identifying viruses.

Most of these studies indicate RT-PCR failure to detect C19 in symptomatic patients, so-called “false negative” tests. When Chinese researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health conducted data analysis of the RT-PCR tests of asymptomatic patients they also found an 80{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} false positive rate. (Emphasis added)

It seems scientific claims that C19 numbers are underestimated are fine, claims they are overestimated are not. Either way, whether false negative or false positive, there is plenty of evidence to question the reliability of the RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID 19. (Emphasis added)

Further provision in the Coronavirus Act then allows for the body to be cremated, potentially against the family’s wishes, ensuring a confirmatory autopsy is impossible, though it is unlikely one will be conducted anyway. (Emphasis added)

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) have released analysis of the C19 deaths that occurred during March 2020. In total 3,912 deaths were recorded of which 3,372 (86{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) listed C19 as the underlying cause of death. Of these, 38 (1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) were cases where C19 was only suspected as the underlying cause, meaning neither a test nor any clear clinical presentation was observed.

Of the 3,372 deaths recorded with underlying C19, approximately 3,068 had at least one comorbidity with the majority having more than two. Not only does the RT-PCR test fail to provide any reliable proof that these people even had C19, the existence of other comorbidities provides further reason to question if the C19 was a contributory factor. (Emphasis added)

Of the 3,912 people who died, 540 of them merely mentioned C19 on the MCCG with no indication that it contributed to the deaths. With at least 91{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients having comorbidities, there is very little evidence that the people who died with a C19 infection wouldn’t have died without. (Emphasis added)

Another, perhaps even more alarming possibility has arisen. While heart disease accounts for 14{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of C19 comorbidities, reported deaths from heart disease have mysteriously dropped by the corresponding amount during the same period. This clearly indicates that patients dying from other causes, such as heart failure, are being recorded, and certainly reported by the MSM, as dying from C19. (Emphasis added)

This illustrates a far more complex picture than we have been given to believe. Why have the State and the MSM made so many alarming claims about people dying from C19 when the evidence supporting those claims is, at best, questionable? (Emphasis added)

On the March 30^th the MSM reported that the UK State had instructed the ONS to change the way they record C19 deaths. Explaining the change to recording “mentions” of COVID 19 an unnamed spokesperson for the ONS said:

“It will be based on mentions of Covid-19 on death certificates. It will include suspected cases of Covid-19 where someone has not been tested positive for Covid-19.” (Emphasis added)

This habit of states deciding to change the C19 mortality data, by adding in people who are assumed to have died from it, appears to be a global policy. The China CDC did the same and the U.S have just added a significant number to their statistics.

In every case the revision increases and never decreases the fatality statistics. Why do states around the world feel the need to do this? Is it because they are concerned about statistical rigour or are they more concerned about justifying their lockdown regimes? (Emphasis added)

The ONS reported all cause mortality for week 14 ending April 3rd. They recorded 16,387 deaths which was 6,082 higher than the ONS 5 year average. They stated that 21.2{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of total deaths “mentioned” Covid 19. The MSM immediately pounced on this claiming this meant COVID 19 had pushed up the death toll to unprecedented levels. This was outrageous disinformation. That is not what the data showed. (Emphasis added)

Therefore, at least 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of that excess mortality is being caused by other unknown factors that no one seems to care about. The MSM have absolutely no interests at all in this more severe health crisis. Why not? Once again they have completely misled the public and deny the existence of another, more significant reason for concern. (Emphasis added)

Short of openly stating that C19 is no more deadly than any other pneumonia like illnesses, the ONS appear to be trying to get a message across. Perhaps they can’t say it directly.

The MSM have recently started floating the idea that the lockdown regime could become the new normal. According to the state it may be necessary to go in and out of various levels of the regime from time to time, depending on the State’s threat assessment. (Emphasis added)

Seeing as it is increasingly evident that the C19 threat has been massively over-hyped, why would the State and its globalist partners want the economic destruction to continue?

Firstly it delivers on a number of long held globalist objectives.

A cashless society, mandatory vaccination, universal basic income, a surveillance state, restricted freedom of movement and a complete restructuring of the global economy have already been touted as necessary following the “pandemic.” All of these ambitions and economic realities existed before the pandemic first emerged in China. (Emphasis added)

The impact of the lockdown regime across the globe has already had a devastating economic impact. All the indicators are that the regime will throw the global economy into a deep depression. The longer it continues the worse it will get. (Emphasis added)

The tendency of some to claim this doesn’t matter because saving life is the only concern is hopelessly myopic. The link between poverty and significantly increased mortality is beyond dispute. The cure will definitely be far worse than the disease. As millions are forced into unemployment the outlook isn’t good. (Emphasis added)

This has led to increasing calls for the State to provide a universal basic income. This will create mass dependency upon the State for huge swathes of the population. Affording the State immeasurable control over people’s lives.

What the globalists needed was a reason to reset the economy without losing power. Perhaps it is another coincidence that the C19 lockdown regime just happens to deliver both the mechanism and the excuse to press that global reset button. That it also ushers in all the globalist’s desires is just another in a very long line of remarkable coincidences. (Emphasis added)

Now that global terrorism is no longer a daily threat and global warming has been put on the back burner, the new normal of the ever shifting threat from pandemic seems to be the novel war on terror. Training, funding and equipping terrorist groups has served the State well in the first two decades of the 21st century but now it is ready to move on to the next phase by exploiting a terror closer to the heart of every home. Disease.

In their totality, for those willing to look, it is transparent that these response measures have coalesced to create the framework for a totalitarian dictatorship. One rolling out at pace in the UK. Similar draconian diktats have sprung up across the globe. (Emphasis added)

A coordinated global effort like this doesn’t just happen. It takes years of training and planning. The only people who can’t see it are those who, for whatever reason, choose not to. (Emphasis added)

The article can be seen at off-guardian.org [1]

On the 25^th, Metro News carried an article saying the two-metre social distance rule was made up out of thin air. The article quotes Professor Robert Dingwall, of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), a committee of the Department of Health that feeds into the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which is advising the cabinet on the country’s coronavirus response.

The article quotes Professor Dingwall:

“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population. I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere.” (Emphasis added)

He added:

“Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. ‘There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.” (Emphasis added)

The article continues:

‘UK government advice currently recommends people maintain a distance of two metres, while the World Health Organisation advises staying at least one metre away from others. (Emphasis added)

Sociologist Mr Dingwall has previously claimed the government should ‘call off the dogs’, saying he has seen no evidence at NERVTAG that there is a major threat of coronavirus transmission outdoors. He told The Telegraph: “If it was entirely down to me, I would be calling the dogs off. I don’t think it is appropriate to harass sunbathers. It is an indictment of the political and scientific elite that they are not recognising that people living in flats and social housing do not have an alternative to going to parks.” ’

The article can be seen at metro.co.uk [2]

On the 27^th, the BBC website carried a piece detailing the five conditions required to lift the British lockdown. Copied from the website, they are:

1 Making sure the NHS can cope.

It has been clear for a number of weeks that the health service is in a good position to cope. In the first half of April, NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, was saying it was ‘increasingly confident’ the NHS had (the) capacity needed.

This is because of the work done to free beds in hospitals – about a third of the 100,000 plus beds across the UK were emptied as routine work was cancelled and community services agreed to take care of patients recovering in hospital. (Emphasis added)

2 A ‘sustained and consistent’ fall in the daily death rate

For the past few weeks it has looked like the number of deaths in hospital might be slowing, but it has been hard to call, from the daily figures released by government.

However, a new analysis now suggests the peak may have been passed in the second week of April.

This chart is from another BBC webpage, showing declining daily deaths as of May 5th:-

As it stands at the time of writing (May 7^th), the number of UK deaths (30,000) compared to the UK population (67,000,000) in round figures, gives a mortality rate of 0.044{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Of course, an accurate final figure will only be available after it is all over:

3 Rate of infection decreasing to ‘manageable levels’

This is a trickier one to call because there is limited testing outside hospitals at the moment.

Only key workers, health staff and care home residents were being tested up until late April.

So that means ministers are having to rely on the numbers being admitted to hospital with coronavirus as a guide and estimate the amount of infection in the wider population from that. (Emphasis added)

When it comes to measuring the rate of infection, scientists refer to something called the R0 number. This is a measure of how many people on average an infected person is passing the virus to.

Without any social distancing measures, the average person would [perhaps this should say ‘could’] infect between two and three people.

Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said he thought the R0 number was down to one, but he wanted it well below one to meet the definition of manageable levels.

Germany started easing restrictions when it got it down to 0.7.

The chart below, from the same BBC webpage as the one above, shows how hospital deaths are reducing across the UK, as of May 5^th, from a peak in early April.

4 Ensuring supply of tests and PPE can meet future demand

Currently the UK has capacity to carry out more than 50,000 tests a day, although the most that has been done is 37,000.

That’s partly because the drive-through testing centres are not always in convenient locations for everyone and also some teething problems with the way the process works.

To combat this, the government is rolling out mobile testing units run by the military and sending out home-testing kits.

The government’s target is to be able to do 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month.

Staff – in hospitals, care homes and, to a lesser extent, other public services – will also need personal protective equipment (PPE) if they are to cope with any rises in cases or at least a sustained stream.

It is pretty obvious that PPE remains a problem.

The British Medical Association is still warning its members are “frightened” by the lack of equipment and having to face difficult decisions over whether to continue treating patients.

The pinch-point for hospitals is gowns. The UK only has one manufacturer and therefore is having to do its best to secure supplies from abroad in an international marketplace where there is huge demand.

The government says a deal has been struck with China to supply 25 million gowns, but it is unclear exactly when these will be delivered. (Emphasis added)

China?? Oh the irony!

5 Being confident any adjustments would not risk a second peak

Without a vaccine, this will be a very tricky one to navigate.

As mentioned above, it will need widespread community testing to help contain any outbreaks.

But the government is also exploring the feasibility of using an app to log the close contacts of anyone who tests positive.

And 18,000 contact tracers are being recruited.

Council staff such as environmental health officer and sexual-health nurses may be used.

This test also requires the government to give itself some wriggle room to respond if infection rates start climbing, which is why Sir Patrick is aiming for an R0 number of well below one.

One advantage the UK has is that countries such as Germany and Austria have started relaxing their restrictions.

Officials will be closely monitoring those countries to see what happens. It will take several weeks before the impact will be known.

Where does that leave the lockdown?

Based on the five tests, it is clear we are not in a position to ease the lockdown.

The biggest hurdles seem to be the two issues the government is receiving most criticism for – testing and PPE.

Until they are resolved, it seems hard to see how the situation can change.

This sounds to me like we can look forward to an extended period of lockdown in the UK, so I think it’s safe to say we can kiss goodbye to the economy and face upwards of 10 million unemployed.

The webpage can be seen here:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52374513

On May 1^st, Fox News reported the WHO says Sweden should be the world model for coronavirus response, with moderate social distancing and no strict lockdown. Sweden has received much hostility for taking this approach, yet it seems to have worked.

They are in 22^nd place on the Worldometer list of countries, with just under 24,000 total cases and just under 3000 deaths, so it seems to me they must have been doing it right.

Putting countries under extended strict lockdowns has a very damaging effect on economies and businesses, allows excess deaths when routine medical treatments are cancelled, and results in extra deaths from domestic abuse and suicide.

The video can be seen at video.foxnews.com [3]

The following day, the Daily Mail had a commentary by Peter Hitchens, in which he said:

‘Let me say it again: the coronavirus is not as dangerous as claimed. Other comparable epidemics have taken place with far less fuss, and we have survived them. 

The death rate is lower than the Government believed. It passed its peak in this country on April 8, well before the crazy measures introduced by the Government on March 23 could possibly have affected matters. 

The actions we are taking against it are gravely out of proportion and will destroy the lives of thousands and the prosperity and health of millions. This is not life versus money. It is life versus life.

The country is having a gigantic self-inflicted heart attack and stroke combined. Heaven knows what sort of trembling, weakened shadow of its former self it will be when this is over. 

I think I can guarantee that it – and we – will need to take many doses of very bitter medicine for as far into the future as it is possible to see.

More than half the population have been literally scared silly. You meet them on pathways and pavements, flinching with real alarm at the approach of another human being as if bubonic plague were abroad. They genuinely fear to go back to normal life.

So we face months of continuing idiocy, as the wealth of centuries is frittered away for nothing and we sink into a grim penury, made worse by the increasing lack of freedom and the insolence of authority.

Nobody will be able to say, when the much-needed inquiry eventually sits in judgment on these times and on those responsible, that criticism is just hindsight and that nobody pointed out at the time that a grave mistake was being made.’

The article can be seen at  www.dailymail.co.uk[4]

On May 5^th, The Telegraph reported Neil Ferguson, The epidemiologist leading the team at Imperial College London, which advised Boris Johnson to lock down the UK, has resigned from his Government advisory position, after being caught allowing his married lover to visit him at his home during the lockdown, while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus.

The lover; identified by The Telegraph as Antonia Staats, a married mother, who was quarantined with her family at a separate address to the professor, is described as a “left-wing activist”, and is said to be in an “open marriage”.

Staat’s Facebook page shows strong left-wing themes, including paid activism as an employee of a campaign group, encouraging tactical voting in the last general election to oppose the Conservative party, and hard green activism.

Admitting his error, Professor Ferguson told the paper:

“I accept I made an error of judgment and took the wrong course of action. I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage [the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies].

I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus, and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms.

I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing to control this devastating epidemic. The Government guidance is unequivocal, and is there to protect all of us.”

The article can be seen at: www.telegraph.co.uk[5]

As noted in a PSI article yesterday, the professor is not the first government scientific figure forced to resign after taking a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do posture to the general public. Breitbart reported in April the chief scientific advisor for Scotland resigned her position after ordering citizens to obey the lockdown measures while breaking them herself in public.

While Britons have been ordered to stay in their normal residences and not travel to country homes in hope of enjoying a more comfortable and less cramped lockdown period, Dr Catherine Calderwood was photographed travelling to her country home. She received a police warning after being exposed in a national newspaper and resigned shortly afterwards.

In New Zealand, the government’s health minister was demoted after ignoring his own advice. Dr David Clark was photographed going for a country bike ride, and subsequently drove his family to the beach to go surfing. Reflecting on breaking the advice of his own department, Dr Clark noted: “I’ve been an idiot”.

Professor Neil Ferguson has been advising the British government for some years now, but his record of predictions is not exactly flattering. In 2001 his team’s modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection.

This led to the government ordering the culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.

The following year, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people could die in Britain from exposure to CJD, the human form of mad cow disease. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. There was no ‘sheep epidemic’, and so far, there have only been 177 deaths from CJD.

In 2005, he said that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. 282 people died worldwide from bird flu between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, Ferguson predicted that swine flu could kill 65,000 people in Britain. In the end it killed 457.

On March 22^nd this year, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.

Perhaps this is why it predicted a quarter of a million deaths from the virus. Surely Ferguson should not have advised the government of that predicted figure, as he must have known it was wildly inaccurate. Yet he did, which leaves us with the question; why?

To top it all, on May 6^th, the Police said they will be taking no action against Ferguson, not even the fine the rest of us would have to pay, and the BBC website covered his resignation, but did not mention once how badly wrong his previous predictions were. It can be seen at  www.bbc.co.uk[6]

Is there a hidden agenda here? I think we probably know the answer to that already.

References:

[1] https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/20/coronavirus-lockdown-and-what-you-are-not-being-told-part-2/?fbclid=IwAR1BMmobp0ccofZeYh0W87YRM-ctJCVM0GpcHyFFr8IAdpTpRQLgCOB1x9c

[2] https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/two-metre-social-distancing-rule-conjured-nowhere-professor-claims-12609448/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.facebook&fbclid=IwAR3s0tG38MPiPpW-_FMPWn-YccHMX5qWMdauPyodh_FiOLvXPi9ME2tlINA

[3] https://video.foxnews.com/v/6153524021001?fbclid=IwAR08h91thZmTfpeuFgg71bDjAcn0kd_m_HfdKgDabxe2PrB8qQfJShF81Wo#sp=show-clips

[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8281063/PETER-HITCHENS-destroying-nations-wealth-health-millions.html?fbclid=IwAR3Lb84emtAidlLnwQExrVtFdjpK1ZP8gSVLIkeXoR1TMpApOwdT-H_RCa8

[5] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/exclusive-government-scientist-neil-ferguson-resigns-breaking/

[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52553229?fbclid=IwAR1HTVajCKH80pQIlR8c2KkwN_qPmiocrHguSrXxpTcPsOJO1YXY1vXY3yQ

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY

Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.