Saturday 27th of February 2021

please wear your mask in mask designated areas...


Please note that Gus isn't inciting to rebellion. Gus is a law-abiding citizen even if the laws are stupid. By now we should know that protesting in the streets is only going to attract police on horseback and flies. Remember that stick and stones will break your bones... leaving your spirits in tatters...


So follow the signs that say stand here and don't ask questions aloud. A scientific explanation about wearing a mask was posted on this site at some people use masks as coffee filter... So please don't touch your face, because if you touch your mask then yourself, all the viruses that went to your mask — but avoided the rest of your face (because viruses only go towards masks — this could be a scientific fact) — will be transfered onto your face by your dirty hand... and you know the rest... Wash them hands with soap...


So we go one notch up:


These days, going out without wearing a face mask is considered poor form – and, in some places, an offense. But the mayor of an Italian town says fines should be slapped on those wearing a mask in an “inappropriate” situation.

In the same way global health authorities insist masks contain the spread of coronavirus, Vittorio Sgarbi, the mayor of Sutri, is confident his unorthodox initiative will help stem the spread of “pandemic-related hysteria,”as he put it, according to the TASS news agency.

The lingering Covid-19 pandemic has so far infected close to 275,000 people in Italy and killed more than 35,500 – almost seven times the entire population of Sutri. Yet, for Sgarbi, mandatory mask-wearing should have its limits, particularly when public safety is at stake.

Sgarbi, who is also a renowned art historian, cultural commentator, and television personality, told TASS he had issued a decree – yet to be approved by the Italian government – calling for imposition of a fine for wearing a mask in a situation when it’s not needed.

“My decree has been issued under the current terrorism prevention laws,” he told the Russian media outlet. The legislation in question says people shouldn’t have their faces covered in a public place. Breaching this law can result in a one or two-year prison sentence or a fine of up to €2,000 (around $2,365).

Sgarbi made it clear that anyone breaking his ban wouldn’t incur such a harsh penalty, but that people should wear a mask only when the occasion requires. “Wearing a mask at dinner is absurd,” he clarified.

The mayor is no stranger to going against the mainstream. Ahead of the pandemic, he reportedly dismissed coronavirus as “a flu” and ridiculed those raising concerns about the looming crisis. He later made a formal apology when the death toll surged.


Read more:


Thus we need signs that say this is a "non-wearing mask area" and others that tell us "masks obligato"... Our grand follies will be thus settled. Votaire is dead.


Imagine going to a doctor suspecting you may have a serious illness and being told that there are 2 tests available. With the first test, a swab, they do not know, should you record a positive result, whether or not you have the disease. With the second test, a blood test, they know for certain that the test is of no value in detecting the disease.

Would a patient find that situation satisfactory? Obviously not.

Yet that is exactly what the Australian government is admitting is the situation with its coronavirus testing. It is on the Therapeutics Goods Administration web site for “health professionals”:

The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined.”


There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.”

[We also have a screenshot, just in case they take the info down – ed.]

In other words, what are risibly described as the health ‘authorities’ do not know whether, if a person tests positive, they are infected or not. The TGA also admits that the ‘reliability of the evidence’ is uncertain because of the ‘limited evidence base’. 

They know their PCR tests are dodgy and the serology tests are useless, so they are hiding it in plain sight in the hope that no-one picks up on it.

Yet testing positive is what is being called a ‘case’ (a word that usually applies people who are obviously sick) and the rise in so-called ‘cases’ is being used as the rationale for abusive and absurd lockdowns in Melbourne (where this writer lives). 

Worse, most of the population has believed the propaganda and is more than willing to turn on any fellow citizens who have a different view, demonising them as ‘so selfish’ and cheering when they are subjected to fines of tens of thousands of dollars.

Meanwhile, the number of serious and critical patients (which should be the real definition of a ‘case’) has not risen above 70 in Australia since the pandemic scare started – in a population of 24 million. The per capita deaths are about 26 per million over a six month period, a fraction of the toll in other countries.

Worse, the same dodgy practices about causes of death have been followed in Australia as happened elsewhere. The chief health officer in Victoria admitted that they were not testing for the virus, just assuming that if there were flu-like symptom it must be COVID-19. Deaths by flu in Australia, it should be added, are running unusually low.

The blood tests are even worse. The Doherty Institute has tested about half a dozen of the serological (blood) tests and concluded in each case:

Overall, our findings continue to support recent position statements by the Public Health Laboratory Network (PHLN) and the Royal College of Pathologists Australasia (RCPA) that serological assays have limited, if any, role in the diagnosis of acute COVID-19 infection.” 

This conclusion has been replicated elsewhere. Beaumont Health in Michigan ran a longitudinal study, starting in mid-April, which was supposed to look at the rates of infection in health workers exposed to the virus. It was based on large scale serological testing.

So what did the study’s conclusion (which was not easy to locate):

Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.”

Same result: the blood tests are useless. You have to wonder why. The first explanation that comes to mind is that they don’t have the information they need about the virus to reliably test for its existence. 

The Doherty Institute in its test of a Chinese PCR kit used an artificially created virus. Why are they creating it artificially?

There are some serious questions to be answered here but the Australian so-called journalists are, with some exceptions, not of a mind to ask any of them. They are too busy generating traffic by scaring people. So they mindlessly parrot the politicians’ and health advisor’s reasons for turning Victoria into a medical police state.

In Melbourne there are lockdowns between 8 pm and 5 am, people being sent to jail for not wearing masks, police patrolling public places to ensure the health officer’s dictates are being followed, violently if necessary, and other outrages. 

The premier, Daniel Andrews wants to extend the state of emergency for another 12 months so he can hand all decisions over to the Chief Health Officer and claim he is doing the right thing.

Both the politicians and the mainstream media quack endlessly about ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘following the science’. That is a lie. 

They are relying on tests that, by the government’s own admission, are not reliable. This is not conflicting views amongst ‘experts’. This is the government itself. It is an extraordinary scandal and if there was a functioning media, the government would be exposed for gross incompetence and political aggression.

Victorian citizens who try to organise peaceful protests are being arrested in their homes and charged with ‘incitement’, whatever that means. The police have descended into total hypocrisy.

David James has been a business and finance journalist, editor, and satirical columnist for over 30 years. He has PhD in English Literature and his web site is

fined with precision...


“We have no hesitation in issuing $1,652 fines to anyone blatantly breaching the restrictions, as well as making arrests if necessary.”


I know... I know... Please don't tell me... Yes yes yes... Some mathematician genius came with this astonishing number 1,652, like 42 in Hitchwhatever... Yes It must be... No it can't be ... Are the fines INCLUDING GST?... OH YES?.... No?... 

melbourne used to be...

It was the image that shocked Australia and soon went global. A pregnant woman, handcuffed in her own kitchen, in front of her children, as police officers seized every computer, tablet and cell phone in the house before frog-marching her off to the station.

It’s the treatment that Australians are used to seeing meted out to drug traffickers, suspected terrorists and child pornography rings. But in Zoe Lee Buhler’s case, her ‘crime’ was a Facebook post.

Zoe had tried to organise a protest against coronavirus restrictions in place in the state of Victoria. For this, she was charged with ‘incitement,’ and now faces a sentence of up to 15 years. She has been released on bail, and will go to court in January.

The most remarkable thing, though, is it’s taken until now for some sort of protest movement to emerge. Melbourne—Victoria’s capital city—has been under some form of lockdown since March. When the coronavirus first hit, the premiers governing Australia’s eight states and territories descended into a kind of unspoken competition to see who could take the ‘toughest action’ against the virus—that is, which leader could close the most businesses, destroy the most jobs, and stifle the most liberties in the name of being seen to be ‘doing something’ about the virus.

It was a contest that hard-left Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews won by a mile. Almost six months later, Melbourne is still under what is by far the strictest lockdown in Australia, and probably the world. At time of writing, a city-wide curfew applies between 8pm and 5am. Melburnians are permitted to leave the house for exercise for an hour a day and in groups of no more than two. You’re allowed to go out to get food as well, but only by yourself, and only once a day. The increasingly few people with jobs must carry a government-issued permit indicating that they’re allowed to go to work—and even then only if your job is deemed ‘essential’.

If this shatters your idea of Australia as a rugged, relaxed, irreverent wonderland, then I apologise. That Australia died long ago, to the extent it ever really existed at all. Australia has no First Amendment, and its political culture is closer to continental Europe than the U.S. Fundamental freedoms have been largely left to conventions inherited from the British. They have proved fragile, though nobody ever imagined that they would be this fragile.


Read more:



Read from top.


Melbourne, the best place to live in the world, according to some surveys a few years ago, also used to be the ganglang centre of organised crime in Australia... Now the police goes after ordinary citizens who don't agree with the fascist state... What's the heck? Is Covid-19 making the authorities completely deranged? See also:

Lucius melbournius...


On at least 3 or 4 occasions in the past week we’ve had to smash the windows of people in cars and pull them out of there so they could provide their details – because they weren’t telling us where they were going; they weren’t adhering to the chief health officer’s guidelines, they weren’t providing their name and their address.”
Shane Patton, Victorian Chief Police Officer 04/08/2020


On Saturday 5th of September a national day of protest occurred in cities around Australia against the unnecessary and draconian lockdowns that have been occurring across the country and which are still occurring in Victoria. Similar protests have occurred in cities around the world, most especially in Europe.

These protests are a legitimate and rational response to despotic and often unconstitutional laws that unscientifically characterize every member of society as a bio-security risk to everyone else. They are also a protest against law enforcement bureaucracies that identify responsible, civic-minded citizens as criminals if they dare to question such laws or even worse, step out of their homes in defiance of the lockdown to register their dissent.

The Australian protests occurred peacefully and without incident in most places, including Brisbane where I participated. But it was not the case in Victoria where a State of Disaster has been declared due to the ‘extraordinarily high’ number of active Covid cases there. 

On the eve of the nationwide protests, mainstream news reported on the harrowing state of affairs in Victoria which was suffering from hundreds of active cases but, as it turns out, had only 20 people in intensive care suffering from covid-related illnesses. This is in a state of 6.35 million people that has 58 metropolitan hospitals and 69 rural hospitals and District Health services.

Despite the ‘extraordinarily low’ incidence of people who were actually sick from Covid 19, the Victorian Premier decided that new case numbers (>100 per day) were just too high to tolerate anyone leaving their homes for any reason other than the four exemptions provided by the government. 

What he neglected to mention when insisting on preserving his lockdown was that most new cases are occurring in the under-30 age bracket: a demographic that is almost always asymptomatic to SARS CoV-2 and which has more chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident than of Covid19.

Undeterred by inconvenient truths like this, the Premier announced he had to protect the public from the potentially catastrophic medical emergency that would doubtless result from masked people walking down St Kilda Road to the Cenotaph in a socially distanced manner, so he banned all participation in the national day of protest.

Just days earlier the Assistant Police Commissioner for the North West Metro Region, Luke Cornelius, warned everyone in Victoria against participating in the Saturday protests. He referred to people who planned to protest against lockdowns as “boof heads”, calling them an “anti-vax, anti-mask, tinfoil hat-wearing brigade who were batshit crazy”.

This oddly extreme language from one of the State’s most senior police officers is not accidental. It serves a specific purpose.

In order to get ordinary well-adjusted police officers – who may have joined the force out of a desire to be of public service – to brutalize a population whose only crime is that they object to being locked in their homes for 23 hrs a day for months on end, you need to demonize dissent. If your officers on the ground can identify in any way with the people they are being told to terrorize, they might not follow orders. 

This is a perennial problem for martial leaders everywhere. It’s particularly problematic when the rules being enforced are arbitrary or unjust. Hence the need to malign.

As Saturday rolled around, the police were out in force across Victoria on horseback with cuffs, batons, tasers and guns ready to intimidate, arrest and fine anyone unfortunate enough to attract their attention within the vicinity of a protest in any town in the State – even those towns where not a single case of Covid-19 has been recorded.

And here we get to the crux of the SARS-CoV-2 scam. Sure, there’s a virus out there. It’s real and it certainly kills people but we know enough about it now to know that the draconian response taken by Premier Danial Andrews is scientifically indefensible. So why is he persisting with the lockdowns?

My personal opinion is that the global program of lockdowns is a mechanism for reorganizing societies around the world along the lines of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset” agenda and all that this entails. It seems Daniel Andrews is fully on board with this agenda. But make no mistake, its coming to your state and country next.

I believe that sustained lockdowns are a “Stanley Milgram-style” experiment designed to see just how far bureaucrats in authority will exceed the moral limits of their power and how much abuse the Australian public will tolerate before they push back. 

As part of this experiment, the algorithms that once monitored every nuance of our social media interactions to make frighteningly accurate predictions about us have been extended to track and predict our off-line experience as well. It should come as no surprise that both the Azure and AWS cloud eco-systems have expanded by 50% since the beginning of the pandemic.

The purpose of all this surveillance is not to better understand us as potential marketing targets (the standard explanation) but rather to better control us as victims in a system of profound inequality. Such a system is already in place across much of the world and under the guise of a health pandemic, it is rapidly being expanded to developed countries as well. 

So far as I can see the whole experiment is going spectacularly well for the globalists, billionaires, and authoritarians, and very poorly for free citizens everywhere: mostly due to the effectiveness of media propaganda in driving public passivity.


Many medical practitioners are aware that Victoria’s management of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic is based on highly selective medical advice which doesn’t stand up to serious scientific scrutiny.

Recently a group of doctors wrote an excellent letter to the Premier advocating an alternative response to disease management, noting that more than 41,000 people die every year in Victoria, roughly 10,000 each from cardiovascular disease and cancer, yet in 7 months of a supposed pandemic less than 600 Victorians have died of Covid-19: 90% of them over 65 years of age and most with multiple co-morbidities.

The problem with the doctor’s alternative advice is that it assumes the government is merely mistaken or misinformed in its policymaking and implementation. The idea that the exercise of political power in Victoria has become pathological never seems to occur to them – despite a wealth of evidence supporting such a notion.

When governments pass laws that are extreme or unjust or which by-pass constitutional constraints, it is rarely by accident. As doctors they ought to be the first to appreciate what a pathological exercise of power means to the cultural and institutional bonds that hold a society together:

  • As bio-security increasingly substitutes for health care, doctors will find that the personal confidences of their patients are no longer inviolate and that the Hippocratic obligations they once held so dear can be easily compromised by legal mandates to force-medicate people regardless of need or consequence.
  • When politicians rule by executive decree the police force morphs from a public service comprised of citizens in uniform to the enforcement arm of a political clique. When this happens, public trust in the police is lost and this loss of legitimacy results in a loss of respect. Eventually this loss of respect becomes mutual and the police start to despise the people they victimize and abuse the power they have. The opening quote being a perfect example.
  • Similarly with the military: when the exercise of our democratic rights is pathologized by those in power, our servicemen and women eventually find they’re being asked to apply, at home, the counter-insurgency training and urban warfare tactics they learned for battlefields abroad. This is something that has occurred since the time of Thucydides and it’s happening again.
  • Even the tools we use to make sense of the world, such as the scientific method, cease to function properly when our governments become toxic. Once everyone in a society has been force-vaccinated by government decree, it will become legally impossible to prove a link between mandated vaccines and any potential vaccine-related injury. Not because the manufacturers will have immunity from liability (they will), but because there will no longer be a non-vaccinated control group left against which randomized double-blind control studies can be conducted.


Not one of these developments is accidental. All of them are known, predictable outcomes of policy decisions being taken today. And these policy decisions rob everyone of their integrity; health workers, academics, the police and the military. 

When those in power have a pathological relationship to the people they rule, you know you are on a road to perdition. We can see such a pathology evolving among our politicians most clearly in Victoria with its home invasions, curfews and lock downs but it is also evident in the overreach of governments around the country.

Western Australia’s recent dispute with mining magnate, Clive Palmer, over the State’s Covid border closure is a case in point. According to the WA Law Society the Government’s anti-Palmer legislation violates several of the fundamental legal principles that underpin the rule of law in a civilized society. Such overreach is also apparent in the ASIO Amendment Act 2020, introduced into Federal Parliament by Peter Dutton in May this year – right at the height of the Covid panic while most members were not even in Canberra.

This legislation is the latest in a succession of Bills that have been passed by our Federal government since 9/11 (85 and counting) which have vastly expanded the powers of law enforcement and security agencies in Australia while limiting public oversight. The legislation effectively criminalizes the free exercise of our basic democratic freedoms.

The Dutton amendment extends powers normally applied to terrorists, to any group or person engaged in any kind of civil disobedience or protest that could possibly result in ‘politically motivated violence’. That would include the anti-lock down protests that I participated in last week. 

Among a raft of frightening provisions this bill allows police and intelligence agencies to track, apprehend and question children as young as 14 yrs of age as though they were terrorists. It suspends the rules of habeas corpus and allows the State to arbitrarily restrict a defendant’s access to legal representation.

This is the sort of legislation you’d expect to find in China or Saudi Arabia, not Australia.

The permanent changes to our society that are now in place in Australia following the SARS CoV-2 pandemic mean we qualify as proto-fascist State by any measure of political freedom. This thought is anathema to most Australians and would be vociferously denied by paid-off mainstream media pundits – but probably not constitutional lawyers – because the legislative reality is that we are now much closer to full-blooded fascism than we are to the liberal democracy that existed when I was born in 1963. And we are a very far cry from the nation our diggers returned to in 1945. 

The only way we will arrest and/or reverse this trend is if we all take direct, non-violent, physical (not digital) action to exercise our civic and democratic rights at every opportunity we can. The time to speak up and stand up is now. It will be too late tomorrow.


Read more:


Read from top.

Alan Hamilton is the candidate for the Informed Medical Options Party in the seat of McConnel in the upcoming QLD State election.

masking the evidence of masks...


Is evidence masks don’t work being purged from the internet?

At least two studies have been removed from websites, with very little explanation given.

by Kit Knightly

The dentistry journal Oral Health Group has removed a research paper from its website which found masks do not work to halt the spread of disease. They claim the paper is “no longer relevant in the current climate”.

The article – “Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review” – has been used as a source before by us before, and was a great collation of all the research studies done on the effectiveness of masks as a disease prevention tool. In general it found the evidence suggested masks have little to no value as infection preventatives.

The author, John Hardie (BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC), is a 30-year veteran of dental practice, specialising in infection control. The paper had over 30 references and sources from academic journals and peer-reviewed studies.

It’s hard to say exactly when the article was taken down, but the Wayback Machine shows it to be intact on 25th of June, simply missing from July 2nd-9th, and replaced with the current statement on July 10th.

Fortunately once something is on the internet it is there forever, and you can view an archived version of the article.

The statement itself is worth reading, not for what it says so much as what it doesn’t say:

If you are looking for “Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review” by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC, it has been removed. The content was published in 2016 and is no longer relevant in our current climate.



Note it doesn’t say the work was “inaccurate” or “factually incorrect”, only that it is “no longer relevant in our current climate”. It also doesn’t say if it was taken down at the author’s request, or that he has formally repudiated his work.

This is not the first time evidence that masks don’t work has been removed from the internet.

Dr Denis Rancourt put together an evidentiary review titled “Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy” back in April. It received over 400,000 views on ResearchGate before being removed.

The justification for the removal was that it was “spreading information which may cause harm”.

Again, note the language. Not “false information” or “factually incorrect information” only “information which may cause harm”. Nobody (thus far) is disputing the method of the work, or the accuracy of the findings.

If thorough research “may cause you harm”, what does that really say about you? If truth doesn’t fit the “current climate”…what does that say about our climate?

This is an interesting situation, one that bears further investigation.

We have contacted the Oral Health Group editorial team for comment, and will update if/when they reply. We are also seeking contact information for Dr John Hardie.



Read more:



Read from top... Note the cartoon adapted by Gus to justify the use of masks by dead people...

of masks and masks...

From a AAAS member:

Yesterday,, I heard Dr. Fauci say that that wearing two masks to protect the person wearing the face covering "Just makes common sense." Actually it may seem to be common sense, but it is actually a lot more complicated than that. Having spent over 50 years wearing respirators, first as a lab chemist and then as a responder to toxic chemical incidents, I was taught that the first rule of respiratory protection is to make sure that the respirator fits properly so that a good seal is formed around the face. Cloth masks and the now famous N95 masks form a poor seal around the face. That means that too much of the air you breathe when wearing one of these masks is air that is not filtering through the mask, but rather is air that is leaking through the bad seal around your face and nose, the path of least resistance. If you wear a second mask over the poorly fitting mask you are probably actually increasing the amount of unfiltered air that you are breathing. This is true because air flow follows the path of least resistance and by wearing the second mask you are increasing the amount of resistance.

The main benefit of wearing cloth or paper masks is: they catch spittle and to some degree aerosolized spittle. The more people wear the spittle catchers, the less chance there is of Covid 19 containing spittle contaminating the air around an infected person and then settling on to surfaces. In other words, the benefit is not to the wearer of the mask but to the people around the wearer. If you want to protect yourself in a contaminated atmosphere, instead of a paper or cloth mask, wear a properly fitted NIOSH certified respirator!

This brings me to a pet peeve. People who are world renowned experts in one field who think they can opine with equal authority about other subjects. Dr Anthony Fauci is one of the world class experts in AIDs and communicative diseases. He is not an expert in respiratory protection. He said it "Just makes common sense." Science is not always common sense but when you understand what is actually happening it is logical. What Dr. Fauci should have said is
 that he didn't know and would have to check with NIOSH, a sister Agency in CDC.


At AAAS community...


Makes sense... Read from top.