🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

This payslip is from 2005. A doctor took home £2,416. In 2025, resident doctors are still taking home roughly the same amount - but everything else has gone up: rent, bills, food, fuel. That’s a 23% real-terms pay cut since 2008. Doctors aren’t asking for a pay rise. They’re

🧠 COVID Truth Defense Playbook A Strategy Guide for Responding to Anti-Science Doctors and Bad-Faith Medical Professionals (on social media… something I’m still working on) Disclaimer: This is NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. 🔑 Core Principles 1/ Don’t debate science deniers—define

2. Airborne Biohazard ☣️ Denier 🌬️ Definition: Any doctor who minimizes or denies the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and refuses to mask or take precautions, despite overwhelming evidence from fluid dynamics, outbreak investigations, and expert consensus. 📌 “We no longer

3. Science Denier 📚 Definition: Any professional who handwaves away peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, or expert consensus published in top-tier journals, demanding only RCTs—especially when ethical or logistical constraints prevent them. 📌 “RCTs aren’t the only valid

4. Cognitive Harm Minimizer 🧠 Definition: A doctor who ignores or trivializes the brain damage, cognitive dysfunction, and neurovascular harm caused by repeated—even mild or asymptomatic—COVID infections, despite MRI, fNIRS, biomarker, and neuropsychological evidence. 📌 “If you

🔁 Reframing Tactics Instead of playing defense, use sharp questions that expose the absurdity of their logic: “You’re asking for RCTs while ignoring autopsies, PET scans, and immune signatures?” “Do you require RCTs to prove parachutes work too?” “We don’t have time for your

🛡️ Final Defense: The Ethical Mirror If all else fails, call them in—not just out: “You swore to do no harm. What if the harm isn’t just individual—but unfolding across an entire population? I ask myself that question every day. Do you? Will you allow yourself to consider

Dr. Sean Mullen Excellent thread, Sean. I made headway with my neuro last week. Rather than debating whether long COVID can last for five years, I told her of a supplement that had helped me, and that I'm looking for a drug trial. Which led to her asking what drugs are being trialed. Baby steps.

2/ They have their own website and I went to read their mission statement. I read it three times. To me, every paragraph seems to contradict itself. I invite you to read it. Honestly. Do. See, if you can make sense of it. bluelabour.org/about-us

3/ I stumbled across: "Blue Labour is a force within the Labour Party committed to the politics of the common good. Our socialism is both radical and conservative." Ah. So they are not actually part of the parliamentary party. OK. So who are they? I read on.

4/ Wikipedia tells me they are a campaign group (aha!) & currently have 4 members that sit in parliament, and another 4 in the Lords. I researched the members & hit a brick wall. Their founder & leader is Labour peer Maurice Glassman.

5/ Excellent, so I research on. I find an iPaper piece. It says

6/ The whole piece is illuminating, actually, so here is a link: inews.co.uk/news/politics/…

7/ Right. So it's a campaign group with not even a handful of parliamentary supporters with views that I would place far outside Labour ethics. They are certainly not "a force within Labour" as they claim. And seeing this, I do wonder why the Guardian reports this.

TheBossRoss 🇪🇺 🧶 ❄ 📷 6x💉 Something looks rather clandestine about all of that. Some sort of populist bait & switch with people assuming they’re connected to Labour?

Ken Macbeth Knowles That is what it seems to me when they claim they are a force within Labour. They are neither that nor a parliamentary sub-group.

TheBossRoss 🇪🇺 🧶 ❄ 📷 6x💉 I believe Paul Embery is part of Blue Labour.

Dr. Sean Mullen

Iain4Europe #FBPE 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇧🇪 🇪🇺 He is indeed. Thank you! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Embe…

TheBossRoss 🇪🇺 🧶 ❄ 📷 6x💉 It seems to me that they're trying to marry traditional right-wing "family values" with left-wing socialist values. They seem to be saying individualistic identity politics has replaced a politics based on belonging (to a family, faith group, or place). I don't agree with that.