So point (5) from back in April 2020 and we see quite clearly the discrepancy between FACT and the instructions the crown's subjects were given.

 

 

 

31 May 2020

02:25

So point (5) from back in April 2020 and we see quite clearly the discrepancy between FACT and the instructions the crown's subjects were given. 5. Risk of outdoor transmission is significantly lower than indoors.   Crown's subjects were, deliberately, at significantly higher risk, shut indoors   This is a deliberate control of the crown's subjects person, knowing that a significant number would succumb to the Covid-19 illness and perish and higher numbers would become ill.  For many, they would become ill without any of their immediate family or carers and had become so because control of their person had been taken away from them.   For me it seems, this action was to deliberate cause people to become sick, to generate and/or continue to be caused panic, to be caused fear of other people, from being outdoors and generally being removed from their normal life.    The effect of withholding this information seems to be to cause illness to increase.  To cause illness and given the motivational factors of monetarising the crown's entire subjects through unlawfully vaccinating them,  rendering many fearful enough to submit to ongoing unnecessary, harmful biogenics can only have been beneficial to those who seek to or would benefit from the fear.    This is very grave, for causing harm to a person, is a further unlawful act to boot.

 

5