Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Dr. Paul Marik Discusses Ivermectin And Vitamin D

Drbeen Medical Lectures | February 17, 2021

Dr. Paul Marik Discusses Ivermectin and Vitamin D. Wikipedia tells us Dr Marik is “a professor of medicine and serves as Chief, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. He is known for the vitamin C sepsis cocktail, which is under active multicenter clinical trial.”

Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance” meaning that the article did “not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19”.

More from Drbeen Medical Lectures at youtube

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi Made an Ominous Phone Call That Could Change Everything

revolver | March 28, 2021

The Democrats and the mainstream media have successfully branded the January 6th melee as an “armed insurrection” even though nobody was armed.

In reality, the only people who had loaded guns were the Capitol Police. And as a result, one unarmed Trump supporter by the name of Ashli Babbit was shot and killed — and sadly, nearly four months later, her death still remains a mystery.

The January 6th event was a mixed bag of goodies. Many different types of people showed up for a lot of different reasons. Fed-up Americans who believed their votes were stolen were there to let their voices be heard. Rowdy patriots showed up ready to take back the government and drain the swamp.

Left-wing agitators and reporters were on sight to stoke the fires of “revolution,” and good-hearted MAGA “grandma and grandpas” who just wanted to support President Trump were innocently meandering around as well.

Some agitators fought with police in front of the cameras, while other groups were quietly ushered into the Capitol building by DC officials who looked more like friendly tour guides than law enforcement.

What happened on January 6th was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, it was a jumbled assortment of protest and political theater that was cleverly molded by Dems and the media to form a “domestic terrorism” narrative.

But unbeknownst to most Americans, there actually was an “insurrection” that took place at the Capitol — however, it didn’t happen on January 6th. It took place on January 8th and it was carried out by Nancy Pelosi.

Two days after the Capitol melee, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made an ominous phone call that could change the entire game.

On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi picked up her phone and bypassed the military chain of command by making a jaw-dropping direct appeal to Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

Nancy Pelosi asked General Mark Milley to take action against President Trump.

Think about that for a minute: a politician who has no place whatsoever within the national security chain of command went around the already-established chain of command channels and used her power and position to try and give direct orders to the nation’s top military officer.

Unbelievable.

What Nancy Pelosi did when she made that phone call was as close to an “insurrection” that you can get, and it was far more menacing and dangerous than anything “politically motivated” that went down at the Capitol on January 6th.

And Pelosi knows it.

That’s why now, both the Pentagon and Pelosi are trying to cover up that very phone call.

However, Judicial Watch is all over the case — and they’re now suing to get their hands on that damning phone call.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January phone call with U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — in which Pelosi raised concerns about what she described as an ‘unhinged’ President Trump — is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Watchdog group Judicial Watch announced its legal action this week, saying the call between the House speaker and the nation’s top military officer – regarding the powers of a sitting president – set a “dangerous precedent” that could affect future presidencies. The group said its Jan. 11 request for information regarding the Jan. 8 call between Pelosi and Milley received no response from the Department of Defense. [Fox News]

Below is a tweet thread from Judicial Watch discussing the FOIA request in more detail:

In addition, Nancy Pelosi foolishly documented her conversation with General Milley in a letter to her Democrat colleagues. Here’s some of what she said:

This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike… The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.

Later, she added:

As you know, there is growing momentum around the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which would allow the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to remove the President for his incitement of insurrection and the danger he still poses… Yesterday, Leader Schumer and I placed a call with Vice President Pence, and we still hope to hear from him as soon as possible with a positive answer as to whether he and the Cabinet will honor their oath to the Constitution and the American people. [CNS News]

Based on Pelosi’s own description of the phone call in that letter, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is convinced that the Speaker of the House stepped way, way over the line.

Fitton said Pelosi has set a “dangerous precedent that could undermine the president’s role as commander in chief and the separation of powers.”

Indeed. However, what Pelosi did was even scarier and crazier than that. This woman tried to push the US military into taking “action” in a national domestic incident.

Insanity.

The only question now is — once her call is made public will Republicans pounce and use Pelosi’s power-crazed move to flip the false “insurrection narrative” on its ear, or will they let another golden opportunity to blow up the Dems’ narrative quietly slip away?

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | | 4 Comments

The “Unvaccinated” Question

By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory | March 29, 2021

So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us? No, not those who haven’t been “vaccinated” yet. Us. The “Covidiots.” The “Covid deniers.” The “science deniers.” The “reality deniers.” Those who refuse to get “vaccinated,” ever.

There is no place for us in New Normal society. The New Normals know this and so do we. To them, we are a suspicious, alien tribe of people. We do not share their ideological beliefs. We do not perform their loyalty rituals, or we do so only grudgingly, because they force us to do so. We traffic in arcane “conspiracy theories,” like “pre-March-2020 science,” “natural herd immunity,” “population-adjusted death rates,” “Sweden,” “Florida,” and other heresies.

They do not trust us. We are strangers among them. They suspect we feel superior to them. They believe we are conspiring against them, that we want to deceive them, confuse them, cheat them, pervert their culture, abuse their children, contaminate their precious bodily fluids, and perpetrate God knows what other horrors.

So they are discussing the need to segregate us, how to segregate us, when to segregate us, in order to protect society from us. In their eyes, we are no more than criminals, or, worse, a plague, an infestation. In the words of someone (I can’t quite recall who), “getting rid of the Unvaccinated is not a question of ideology. It is a question of cleanliness,” or something like that. (I’ll have to hunt down and fact-check that quote. I might have taken it out of context.)

In Israel, Estonia, Denmark, Germany, the USA, and other New Normal countries, they have already begun the segregation process. In the UK, it’s just a matter of time. The WEF, WHO, EU, and other transnational entities are helping to streamline the new segregation system, which, according to the WEF, “will need to be harmonized by a normative body, such as the WHO, to ensure that is ethical.”

Here in Germany, the government is considering banning us from working outside our homes. We are already banned from flying on commercial airlines. (We can still use the trains, if we dress up like New Normals.) In the village of Potsdam, just down the road from Wannsee (which name you might recall from your 20th-Century history lessons), we are banned from entering shops and restaurants. (I’m not sure whether we can still use the sidewalks, or whether we have to walk in the gutters.) In Saxony, we are forbidden from attending schools. At the Berliner Ensemble (the theater founded by Bertolt Brecht and Helene Weigel, lifelong opponents of totalitarianism and fascism), we are banned from attending New Normal performances.

In the USA, we are being banned by universities. Our children are being banned from public schools. In New York, the new “Excelsior Pass” will allow New Normals to attend cultural and sports events (and patronize bars and restaurants, eventually) secure in the knowledge that the Unvaccinated have been prevented from entering or segregated in an “Unvaccinated Only” section. The pass system, designed by IBM, which, if history is any guide, is pretty good at designing such systems (OK, technically, it was Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, IBM’s Nazi-Germany subsidiary), was launched this past weekend to considerable fanfare.

And this is only the very beginning.

Israel’s “Green Pass” is the model for the future, which makes sense, in a sick, fascistic kind of way. When you’re already an apartheid state, what’s a little more apartheid? Here’s a peek at what that looks like …

OK, I know what the New Normals are thinking. They’re thinking I’m “misleading” people again. That I’m exaggerating. That this isn’t really segregation, and certainly nothing like “medical apartheid.”

After all (as the New Normals will sternly remind me), no one is forcing us to get “vaccinated.” If we choose not to, or can’t for medical reasons, all we have to do is submit to a “test” — you know, the one where they ram that 9-inch swab up into your sinus cavities — within 24 hours before we want to go out to dinner, or attend the theater or a sports event, or visit a museum, or attend a university, or take our children to school or a playground, and our test results will serve as our “vaccine passports!” We just present them to the appropriate Covid Compliance Officer, and (assuming the results are negative, of course) we will be allowed to take part in New Normal society just as if we’d been “vaccinated.”

Either way, “vaccine” or “test,” the New Normal officials will be satisfied, because the tests and passes are really just stage props. The point is the display of mindless obedience. Even if you take the New Normals at their word, if you are under 65 and in relatively good health, getting “vaccinated” is more or less pointless, except as a public display of compliance and belief in the official Covid-19 narrative (the foundation stone of the New Normal ideology). Even the high priests of their “Science” confess that it doesn’t prevent you spreading the “plague.” And the PCR tests are virtually meaningless, as even the WHO finally admitted. (You can positive-PCR-test a pawpaw fruit … but you might want to be careful who you tell if you do that.)

In contrast to the “vaccine” and the “test” themselves, the forced choice between them is not at all meaningless. It is no accident that both alternatives involve the violation of our bodies, literally the penetration of our bodies. It doesn’t really matter what is in the “vaccines” or what “results” the “tests” produce. The ritual is a demonstration of power, the power of the New Normals (i.e., global capitalism’s new face) to control our bodies, to dominate them, to violate them, psychologically and physically.

Now, don’t get all excited, my “conspiracy theorist” friends. I haven’t gone full QAnon just yet. Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are not sitting around together, sipping adrenochrome on George Soros’ yacht, dreaming up ways to rape people’s noses. This stuff is built into the structure of the system. It is a standard feature of totalitarian societies, cults, churches, self-help groups, and … well, human society, generally.

Being forced to repeat a physical action which only makes sense within a specific ideology reifies that ideology within us. There is nothing inherently diabolical about this. It is a basic socialization technology. It is how we socialize our children. It is why we conduct weddings, baptisms, and bar mitzvahs. It is how we turn young men and women into soldiers. It is how actors learn their blocking and their lines. It is why the Nazis held all those rallies. It is why our “democracies” hold elections. It is also basic ceremonial magic … but that’s a topic for a different column.

The issue, at the moment, is the Unvaccinated Question, and the public rituals that are being performed to make the New Normal ideology “reality,” and what to do about those of us who refuse to participate in those rituals, who refuse to forswear “old normal” reality and convert to New Normalism so that we can function in society without being segregated, criminalized, or “diagnosed” as “sociopathic” or otherwise psychiatrically disordered.

For us “conspiracy-theorizing reality deniers,” there is no getting around this dilemma. This isn’t Europe in the 1930s. There isn’t anywhere to emigrate to … OK, there is, temporarily, in some of the US states that have been staging rebellions, and other such “old normal” oases, but how long do you think that will last? They’re already rolling out the “mutant variants,” and God only knows what will happen when the long-term effects of the “vaccines” kick in.

No, for most of us denizens of the global capitalist empire, it looks like the New Normal is here to stay. So, unless we are prepared to become New Normals, we are going to have to stand and fight. It is going to get rather ugly, and personal, but there isn’t any way to avoid that. Given that many New Normals are our friends and colleagues, or even members of our families, it is tempting to believe that they will “come to their senses,” that “this is all just a hysterical overreaction,” and that “everything will go back to normal soon.”

This would be a monumental error on our parts … very possibly a fatal error.

Totalitarian movements, when they reach this stage, do not simply stop on their own. They continue to advance toward their full expressions, ultimately transforming entire societies into monstrous mirror-images of themselves, unless they are opposed by serious resistance. There is a window at the beginning when such resistance has a chance. That window is still open, but it is closing, fast. I can’t tell you how best to resist, but I can tell you it starts with seeing things clearly, and calling things, and people, exactly what they are.

Let’s not make the same mistake that other minorities have made throughout history when confronted with a new totalitarian ideology. See the New Normals for what they are, maybe not deep down in their hearts, but what they have collectively become a part of, because it is the movement that is in control now, not the rational individuals they used to be. Above all, recognize where this is headed, where totalitarian movements are always headed. (See. e.g., Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45.)

No, the Unvaccinated are not the Jews and the New Normals are not flying big Swastika flags, but totalitarianism is totalitarianism, regardless of which Goebbelsian Big Lies, and ideology, and official enemies it is selling. The historical context and costumes change, but its ruthless trajectory remains the same.

Today, the New Normals are presenting us with a “choice,” (a) conform to their New Normal ideology or (b) social segregation. What do you imagine they have planned for us tomorrow?

#

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | 4 Comments

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL BOONDOGGLE

By Paul Robinson | IRRUSSIANALITY | March 29, 2021

Today in my defence policy course my students and I shall be spending some time discussing defence procurement. As luck would have it, as I was munching on my morning bread and marmalade, a highly relevant article swam into view in the op-ed page of my local rag, The Ottawa Citizen, after which I then discovered a new US report on a similar topic.

The Citizen article concerns Canada’s shockingly badly managed naval shipbuilding program. Written by a former Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence, Alan Williams, the article declares that ‘Canada’s Warship Program is Sinking Fast.’ In this Williams reports that Canada’s plan to build 15 new surface combatants originally had

an estimated cost of $26 billion, with deliveries to begin in the early 2020s. Today, the forecasted costs to build these ships is far beyond that. Deliveries are to start in the early 2030s, a decade later than scheduled … [The Parliamentary Budget Office] estimates that it will cost $77.3 billion … to maintain these ships over their expected total life-cycle would amount to an additional $208 billion, for a total life-cycle cost of $286 billion. In comparison, the funds available in DND’s [Department of National Defence] budget over the next 30 years to acquire and maintain its capital goods for the army, navy and air force combined is only $240 billion. This program alone would bankrupt the department’s capital and maintenance accounts for the next 30 years.

Despite this, DND insists that, ‘It will neither entertain a new design nor undertake a new procurement process.’ Williams adds that the United States is building very similar ships for about one-third of the price of the Canadian ones, and also that DND rejected an offer by the Italian company Fincantieri to build the ships in Canada ‘at a fixed cost of $30 billion’, less than half what DND is now paying. ‘As currently planned, these ships will likely never be built. They are simply unaffordable,’ concludes Williams.

But could the government cancel such a project after throwing so much money at it? That’s where the US report comes in. Published by the American Enterprise Institute, and entitled The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch, the report mentions how the shift in priorities during the War on Terror led the USA to cancel a whole series of projects originally designed for fighting wars of a different type. You can see the details in this chart, showing cancelled projects from 2002 to 2012 alone.

The ‘Sunk Cost’ column shows how much the US government had already spent on the project by the time it was cancelled. For instance, the Future Combat System, designed to revolutionize the US army by equipping it with networked vehicles, cost a staggering $22 billion before it was scrubbed. In total, in just one decade 2002-2012, projects were cancelled that had cost $81 billion. That’s $81 billion of taxpayers’ money that produced absolutely nothing! Nadda. Think about that for a second.

Waste on this scale is quite staggering. You’d think people would be outraged. But for whatever reason, it seems like nobody cares very much. It’s as if it’s just assumed that this is the cost of doing business.

Meanwhile, some people are doing very well out of it, namely defence industries. They, no doubt, would tell us all that the money isn’t wasted, because it all helps to stimulate the economy. ‘Money spent on defence boosts growth’ they tell us. But does it? I decide to check, and discovered this little table that summarizes economists’ research into the multiplier effect of defence spending.

For those of you without economics training, the multiplier effect is a measurement of how much the economy grows as a result of expenditure. The idea is that if the state spends some money on x, then that produces spending on y, which in turn produces spending on z, so that for every buck you spend, you stimulate the economy as a whole by several bucks. So what’s the multiplier of defence spending? The table tells us.

As you can see, research on the matter suggests strongly that for every dollar spend on defence, you get less than a dollar’s growth in the economy, with most studies showing a multiplier of around 0.6.

So, defence spending isn’t so great for the economy after all. I can’t say that I’m surprised. Yet somehow, we allow huge sums of money to be squandered on unnecessary and grotesquely overpriced military projects. I don’t know about you, but it suggests to me that there’s something seriously wrong with our democracy.

PS. An article published yesterday in Sputnik News tells us that the Russian Navy is planning to test its new Zircon hypersonic missile at the start of the summer. Coming on top of the deployment of Russia’s Avangard intercontinental hypersonic glide missile, this puts Russia well ahead of the rest of the world in the realm of hypersonic technology. Russia’s defence spending is about three times that of Canada in raw dollar terms (about $65 v. $22 billion). Yet, it’s in a completely different league. We can’t build a few ships. They can develop hypersonic missiles. All of which makes me think that raw numbers of defence spending don’t tell us everything. Just as important is how effectively the money is spent. From that perspective, we don’t seem to be doing so well.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | 2 Comments

UK Now Considering Digital Face Scanning to Enter Pubs

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | March 29, 2021

The UK government is funding companies that are producing technology which will utilize digital face scans to check people’s vaccination status and allow or block them from entering pubs, stadiums and other venues.

“Britons could have their faces scanned to allow them to access pubs, gigs and sports events under one government-funded plan being drawn up for vaccine passports,” reports the London Times.

Two companies – Mvine and iProov – are working together on the system after being given a £75,000 grant by the government having already worked with the NHS on facial recognition technology in the form of the contact tracing app.

The technology is being proposed as a solution to concerns that presenting vaccination status via an app on a phone will be too slow when multiple people are entering a busy venue.

“Whoever is standing on the door of the pub is going to have to scan the certificate, read the name and date of birth, then ask the person for an ID document, check that the name and date of birth on the ID document are the same, squint at the photograph on the ID document and then make sure that the person in front of them is that person,” iProov CEO Andrew Bud said. “To which the answer is, that’s not going to happen.”

Bud said that the facial recognition system would reduce this process to a matter of seconds, streamlining the system.

“It speeds the process up and it absolves people of what would otherwise be a very heavy responsibility,” he added.

After months of promising that there would be no domestic vaccine passport, every indication is now that the government is going ahead with it.

Millions of Brits will refuse to submit to digital face scans to go about their everyday business, but the vast majority are likely to accept it without question, creating a two tier society where those who resist the biosecurity surveillance state will remain in a de facto permanent state of lockdown.

This again underscores the fact that the ‘vaccine passport’ is a digital identity card that citizens will be expected to carry at all times and use whenever they want to engage in basic commerce or other normal leisure activity.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

The Covid-19 pandemic has taken thought policing and wokeness to a whole new level

By Rachel Marsden | RT | March 28, 2021

What’s the link between vaccine militancy, Covid jab passports, and a woke Church of Sweden theologian suggesting Christians should accept Prophet Mohammed out of “respect” for Muslims? Let me tell you.

For years now, Western society has been on a slippery slope towards total rejection of the old philosophy of ‘live and let live’. And that slope is a slip’n’slide with a brick wall at the end of it. It was only a matter of time before society slammed into it. There were many exit ramps and flashing warning signs en route, but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It all seemed to start innocently enough when social justice warriors advocated in favor of tolerance of diversity. Fair enough. What reasonable person would have a problem with people being able to live their own life as they see fit, as long as it didn’t impede on anyone else’s?

The only real confusion was that by focusing on the kind that’s based on appearance or traits that individuals can’t control, these activists limited their mission to increasing only the most superficial kinds of diversity, which is in itself a form of discrimination against the very people for whom they purport to advocate. These militants effectively reduce people to one-dimensional figures by underscoring the kind of traits that are only visible on the most cringeworthy dating hook-up apps while negating the kind of diversity that is unseen and far more deep. But society ultimately conceded to their worldview, which served only to embolden them.

The next step was to advocate beyond simple tolerance in favor of the policing and rejection of any thoughts that diverged from theirs. It was the view of social justice warriors that everyone should be able to call themselves what they wish – he/him, she/her, ve/ver, xe/xem, ze/hir, (f)ae/(f)aer, etc – and have the right to dictate how others view them. Those lacking the bandwidth to wrap their minds around this new language system have been able to sidestep it by simply referring to people by their name, for example. But it was the beginning of the emergence of two parallel languages and cultures, and, ultimately, social segregation, with one for the “woke” and their sympathizers, and the other for the traditionalists.

More recently, the push for diversity has even reached realms that are by definition traditional in the strictest sense. Literally nothing is sacred anymore, not even religion. Earlier this month, a theologian of the Church of Sweden, who may or may not be a woke millennial, suggested that Christians could accept Prophet Mohammed in the interests of greater respect for Muslims, apparently seeking to treat centuries-old institutions like they’re a Marvel/DC crossover akin to having Spider-Man and Superman team up.

So, where is all this leading now? It’s pretty obvious. The Covid-19 pandemic has taken the militant policing of others’ thoughts and behaviour to a whole new level. Anyone making their own decisions about their life amid this global fiasco has been shamed for wrong-think, in a page taken straight from George Orwell’s ‘1984’, written in 1949, in which a character is executed for thoughtcrime. It’s not uncommon for workers nowadays to be fired from their jobs if the company feels the individual has violated what it considers to be proper conduct in the Covid-19 era. It’s not quite the same as Orwell’s imagined punishment by ‘vaporization’, but we seem to be getting there. Woke citizens who are completely intolerant of anyone whose views and behaviour diverges from theirs amid the pandemic are already in hysterics over people choosing not to wear face masks or electing where to wear them, or opting to go about their daily life as normally as possible.

Now we’re starting to see these same militant sanitary authoritarians wanting to dictate to others whether they should be forced to be vaccinated. And governments are playing along, with several nations evoking the notion of vaccine passports for travel or simply to enter certain indoor venues. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, has raised the possibility of British pub owners having the option of reserving the right of access to their establishment to those who have been vaccinated against Covid-19.

Similarly, it appears that even higher education may soon be something reserved for the vaccinated class, with Rutgers University in New Jersey setting the tone for the next school year by requiring that students be vaccinated in order to attend.

Will others follow suit? How about mass transit, gyms, libraries, restaurants, movie theatres, shopping malls, swimming pools? Are we currently witnessing the beginning of the segregation of society based on vaccination? If so, it’ll be to the detriment of anyone skeptical about turning their body over to Big Pharma lest they find themselves barred from what most would consider normal life.

Yet there are people cheering for exactly that. The mere thought of people who think and behave differently to them is intolerable. The authoritarian policing of other people’s lives – the sort of extremism that used to be relegated to science fiction – is now nearly a fait accompli. And authoritarian wokeness disguised as benevolence is exactly how we ended up here.

Rachel Marsden, columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

New York’s Covid Vaccine Passport Makes No Sense

By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute For Political Economy | March 29, 2021

NY Governor Cuomo is establishing a Covid passport that will show vaccination or a recent negative test. It will serve as permission to enter events or venues.

Will this passport be efficacious, or is its purpose to get us accustomed to a “your papers please” way of life?

Allegedly, the combination of people with vaccinations and those recovered from infection have, or are, bringing about “herd immunity.” If so, what is the point of a passport?

There are credible reports that some who have been vaccinated have nevertheless come down with Covid, which raises doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine. There are other reports that antibodies produced by the vaccines are not long lasting.

How recent must the Covid test be to make the passport valid. A person could have a negative test and catch Covid on the way home. If the passport relies on a negative test, the passport will have to expire after some designated period unless the passport is renewed with a new test.

There is also the problem that the widely used PCR test produces false negatives and false positives. In other words, is the information on which the passport is issued valid information?

We can laugh at the passport as a silly over-reaction to a virus that in most cases is hardly more dangerous than flu, or we can understand it as a control measure over our freedom of movement and association. We are the safer if we view it as the latter.

Police already have too much power to invade homes without warrants and to stop and search people on the streets without warrants. “Probable cause” has been used to curtail civil liberty.

I am convinced that no health purpose will be served by Covid passports, and that the public should protest the introduction of a Soviet-style internal passport.

Once established, the Covid passport will be a boon for Big Pharma. A yearly booster shot will be decreed, and without it your passport will expire.

Keep in mind that Florida avoided lockdowns and mask mandates and has no worse infection and death rate than lockdown states.

Notice also that many highly qualified experts have criticized the lockdowns, mask mandates, use of untested vaccines, and the prohibition on using safe effective treatments such as HCQ and Ivermectin. Why were their voices censored and the information kept from the public? The only explanation I can think of is that Covid is being used for an unstated agenda. We should not be deceived into cooperating with this unstated agenda.

A democracy that censors expert testimony and prohibits public debate is well on its way to a police state.

A public that can be stampeeded by orchestrated fear into being jabbed with vaccines that could be more dangerous than Covid is not a public that can expect to remain in freedom.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 1 Comment

BBC Presenter “Won’t Hug Parents” As It’s “Not Permitted”

By Richie Allen | March 29, 2021

“I’m really looking forward to seeing my parents later”, Rick Edwards told Rachel Burden this morning. The BBC Radio 5 Live presenters were discussing the gradual easing of lockdown, which begins today. “I won’t hug them though”, Edwards hastily added. “Hugging is still not permitted.”

Edwards hasn’t seen his parents in a long time. He’s been avoiding them for fear of killing them with covid. The planet is an open-air lunatic asylum now. Madness reigns supreme. Who’d have believed that such conversations would ever be possible let alone normal?

“How long is it since you saw yer mum?”

“Six months.”

“Shielding?”

“Yep, the government told them to shield cos they’re vulnerable. I’m seeing them later though.”

“Looking forward to it?”

“Yes, but I can’t hug them. Hugging isn’t permitted.”

I met a man in my local park this morning. Lovely bloke. Our dogs were playing and we had a natter. He told me he hasn’t seen his grandchildren in a year.

His daughter is a real stickler for the rules. They get on fine and pre-covid he watched them three times a week. They’re in Liverpool. He’d usually make the short drive.

Now he chats with them on Skype. His daughter won’t hear of them meeting up. She took the “don’t kill granny/grandad” nonsense to heart. The little ones are terrified they’ll make him sick. He has no say in it. He’s concerned that the fear-porn is damaging the kids.

It’s a madhouse. As I write this, Stephen Dixon on SKY News is telling viewers that he’s thrilled to bits that outdoor swimming is “allowed” and that he can now meet with up to six people, because the government said it’s permitted.

A new ad campaign, fronted by ITV resident doctor Hilary Jones, tells us all to “be firm” with friends and relatives if they try to hug us and give them “gentle reminders” about distancing.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

Study: U.S. Media’s Covid Coverage Slants Heavily Negative

Mainstream outlets stoke fear while shielding us from encouraging facts

By Brian McGlinchey | March 27, 2021

If you’ve felt the media has heavily emphasized bad news throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, your judgment now has some scholarly corroboration.

Dartmouth College and Brown University researchers have analyzed tens of thousands of Covid-19 articles and found major U.S. media outlets have overwhelmingly pushed negative narratives about the virus.

“The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-U.S. stories are classified as negative,” according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.

Thwarting Public Clarity About Covid-19

Though the study doesn’t delve deep into the societal implications, there’s little doubt excessive media negativity has contributed to public misunderstanding of the nature of the disease and the risk it poses to various segments of society.

Consider one of the study’s most glaring findings: Even when Covid-19 cases were falling nationally between April 24 and June 27, major media discussed rising caseloads 5.3 times as frequently as falling ones.

The impact was evident: A June CBS News poll found a record number of Americans felt the fight against coronavirus was going badly. Of course, news of the poll was itself another negative story, feeding a media-facilitated vicious circle of fear.

In July, a Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll found Americans had a poor understanding of the risk of Covid-19 death for different age cohorts:

  • Participants said people aged 55+ accounted for a little over half of the deaths, when the actual share was 92%.
  • Those under age 25 accounted for just 0.2% of deaths—participants overestimated the share by a factor of 50.

The results aren’t surprising, given the media’s compulsion to accentuate rare occasions when teens and twentysomethings fall victim to the virus.

In June, CNN served up a particularly flagrant example of Covid scaremongering: an article titled “Healthy teenager who took precautions died suddenly of Covid-19.”

The many who skimmed the headline received an anecdotal infusion of fearful misinformation. The minority who made it to the tenth paragraph would finally learn that doctors treating the purportedly “healthy” yet visibly obese teen found he had Type 1 diabetes with a blood sugar level 10 times the norm.

Two months earlier, the Centers for Disease Control announced that about 90% of those hospitalized with the virus had one or more underlying conditions. Among the most common were obesity (48%) and diabetes (28%). Rather than using this teen’s grim story to enlighten the public about who is at greatest risk, CNN aggressively pushed a perception that nobody is safe.

The media’s failure to foster understanding of Covid-19 also seems evident in the many people still seen wearing masks while alone outdoors. According to Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious diseases and virology scientist at the University of St Andrews, “outdoor risk is negligible unless it involves close interaction or you are in a crowded or semi-outdoor environment.”

Perceptions of the Virus Influence Policy Opinions

Overly-negative Covid-19 reporting has implications well beyond individual feelings and practices: Those who’ve been led to an exaggerated perception of their personal risk are more prone to support strict government policies to counter the virus.

A recent Pew Research poll confirms that individuals’ perception of the pandemic heavily influences their opinions about various government interventions.

For example, Pew asked if limiting restaurants to carry-out service has been necessary to counter the virus. Among those who think Covid-19 represents a minor threat to the U.S. population, 21% agreed. Support soared to 66% among those who deem the virus a major threat.

Many are likely opining from a position of ignorance: How many know that a New York contact tracing study attributed less than 2% of Covid-19 case transmission to bars and restaurants?

Negative About Positives

The Dartmouth and Brown researchers found “the negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive developments, including school re-openings and vaccine trials.”

When schools reopen to in-person teaching—a move validated by the experience of European schools—U.S. media has been quick on the scene with a wet blanket: The study found 86% of mainstream media articles about school reopenings are negative.

The easing of government restrictions reliably attracts negative media. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds’s lifting of the state’s mask mandate in early February sparked a wave of negative reporting and opinion pieces, including a Washington Post piece that was actually titled “Welcome to Iowa: a state that doesn’t care if you live or die.”

In September, similar derision was heaped on Florida governor Ron DeSantis when he lifted major statewide restrictions.

However, when neither Florida nor Iowa experienced negative consequences, there was little media reporting of the good news that government restrictions and mandates may not be worthwhile after all.

We see a similar pattern with the media’s never-ending cycle of warning that various holidays and special events will bring a surge in contagion. From Thanksgiving to Christmas to the Super Bowl and spring break, we’re constantly presented headlines stoking fears these occasions will cause major virus spikes.

When predicted surges don’t happen, the media gives little attention to the happy news that their alarms proved false. Instead, they’re apparently hard at work drafting warnings about whatever’s next on the calendar.

It’s as if mainstream journalists feel duty-bound to stoke Covid-19 fear, while paternalistically shielding us from welcome facts that could lead us to “let our guard down.” In doing so, they negligently disregard the collateral harm they do to mental health and our quality of life.

Hope for Greater Media Balance?

The Dartmouth-Brown study on U.S. media negativity prompted The New York Times’ David Leonhardt to call for introspection: “If we’re constantly telling a negative story, we are not giving our audience the most accurate portrait of reality. We are shading it.”

That’s a welcome acknowledgment: Until recently, Leonhardt’s own Times email newsletter has mirrored the negative slant found across U.S. media.

There are hints of a growing balance. For example, in recent weeks, major outlets have finally started acknowledging that Florida’s post-reopening experience conflicts with the media-reinforced notion that shutdowns are an essential strategy.

Concluding his review of the study, Leonhardt expressed gratitude to researchers Sacerdote, Cook and Sehgal for “holding up a mirror to our work and giving us a chance to do better.” Let’s hope his sentiment proves highly contagious.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Another Climate Scientist With Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks

“Our models are MICKEY-MOUSE mockeries of the real world”

 

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.

There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).

Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.

DATA FALSIFICATION

When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).

But now we have Nakamura.

The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.

Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.

The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.

NAKAMURA ON CO2

He writes: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

You can read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle. Arm yourself with the facts, and then spread them — facts such as those highlighted below (all lifted from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”

SOLAR FORCING

Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.

As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.

Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.

Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.

March 29, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment