YouTube has scrubbed a public Lake Forest High School District 115 board meeting from its platform after numerous parents at the meeting spoke out against required masking.
Ben Bradley, a news anchor and investigative reporter for WGN TV News, tweeted: Our understanding is that people reported the content to youtube as a violation of its terms, which triggered the removal while youtube reviews.”
Twitter user Harriet Smith Martin said “numerous parents spoke against required masking” at the meeting and added that the video was removed before she had finished listening to it.
“The video was up as of 10:30 or so last night (I was watching it.),” she tweeted. “When I went back to finish listening this morning, it was gone.”
Under its far-reaching “medical misinformation” policy, YouTube prohibits a wide range of claims about masks including claims that “wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects,” that “wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels,” or that “masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.”
As a result of this policy, numerous public debates and meetings on mask mandates have been censored by the tech giant.
In May, a public Shawnee Mission School District board meeting was removed under similar circumstances. The meeting was open to public comment and parents urged the district to remove mask mandates. YouTube flagged these comments as “misinformation” and removed the video.
After he published a video discussing YouTube’s censorship last month, video producer Matt Orfalea was censored and had his channel demonetized. Now, YouTube has targeted Orfalea once again and removed another video where he and his guest, independent journalist Alison Morrow, called out the tech giant’s censorship.
This censorship began in June when Orfalea’s YouTube channel was suspended for uploading what he described as “unpublished rough cuts” of a video highlighting YouTube’s censorship of ivermectin.
Orfalea was then demonetized in July after YouTube flagged a seven year old, 13 second parody video for allegedly violating its “violent criminal organizations” policy. After facing backlash, YouTube admitted “error” but did not re-monetize his videos.
A few days after Orfalea was demonetized, he was a guest on Morrow’s channel in a video where she highlighted how mainstream media outlets are allowed to violate YouTube’s “medical misinformation” policy without facing sanctions. This video was censored and then reinstated after YouTube faced pushback for taking it down.
In the “YouTube BANS Reporter Exposing YouTube HYPOCRISY” video, Morrow suggested that her video may have been removed because of Orfalea’s guest appearance and speculated that YouTube’s artificial intelligence (AI) could be flagging people that have previously been sanctioned by YouTube and then censoring videos from other creators that associate with those that have been flagged.
“This is just a perfect example of what’s happening now,” Orfalea added. “Where we have this caste system, this blatant double standard… so clearly, as you’ve described, this is not about protecting viewers from misinformation, this is about allowing, you know, some privileged class of journalists… corporate media and allow them to say things without being challenged.”
Shortly after Orfalea posted this video where he and Morrow criticized YouTube for its censorship, YouTube took it down for allegedly violating the platform’s “medical misinformation” rules.
Orfalea appealed but YouTube rejected the appeal and told him: “We reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our medical misinformation policy.”
“I’ve been dealing with this insanity for almost a full month now,” Orfalea said after YouTube rejected his appeal. “YT reinstated Alison’s video. So they should reinstate my video, referencing hers, too!”
YouTube’s consistent targeting of Orfalea is reflective of the double standard on YouTube between independent creators and mainstream media outlets that he called out in this now-censored video.
Today the ONS announced that there were 8,808 deaths in England and Wales in the week ending 2nd July 2021. This is 118 more than the previous week, but still 5.2% below the five-year average. Here’s the chart from the ONS:
Deaths in England and Wales have now been below the five-year average for 14 of the past 17 weeks. Over that time, there were 9,484 fewer deaths than you’d expect based on the average of the last five years. And recall that, due to population ageing, the five-year average understates the expected number of deaths. Hence the true level of “negative excess mortality” is even greater.
The number of deaths registered in the week ending July 2nd was below the five-year average in seven out of nine English regions. (Only the North East and North West saw positive excess deaths.) Compared to the five-year average, weekly deaths were 10.7% lower in the East of England, and a remarkable 12.1% lower in the South East.
The fact that “negative excess mortality” has now persisted for three consecutive months supports the hypothesis that deaths were “brought forward” by the pandemic.
It’s been widely noted that the link between cases and deaths has weakened substantially in recent weeks, thanks to the build up of population immunity. Although the number of daily infections has surpassed 20,000, the number of daily deaths remains in the low double digits. However, the situation is actually even more positive: measured by excess deaths, the pandemic hasn’t taken any lives since early March.
Facebook yesterday removed the page of the Palestinian Shehab News Agency from its platform.
News Director at Shehab, Hossam Al-Zayegh, described Facebook’s action as a new violation of freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed by international law.
“Deleting our page is a reprehensible and condemned action which aims to fight Palestinian content under the pretext of violating standards and inciting violence,” he added.
“Facebook overlooks incitement and violation of society’s standards by Israelis or Israeli political news sites or associations while preventing the publication of the Palestinian response to these provocations and incitement,” Al-Zayegh said, explaining that the agency had more than 7.5 million followers on Facebook.
The Palestinian Journalist Bloc condemned thew social media platform’s action, described it as “arbitrary and unjust”.
In 2020, the Echo Social Center documented 1,200 violations of Palestinian digital content on social media platforms.
Legal rights centre Adalah revealed in 2018 that social media giants are collaborating with Israeli authorities to censor user content.
In 2018, the Israeli Ministry of Justice said that Facebook has responded to about 85 percent of Israel’s requests to remove, block and provide data on Palestinian content on the site throughout 2017.
In this group interview facilitated by Sam Dubé, M.D., Ph.D., four physicians from across Canada – emergency physician Dr. Chris Milburn, rural family physician Dr. Charles Hoffe, general surgeon Dr. Francis Christian, and pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson – tell their stories of persecution at the hands of their governing bodies. Their only crime: practicing evidence-based medicine by questioning the safety of their patients and the public during the pandemic.
A legal representative for their cases, John Carpay, Esq., provides insights and legal commentary, invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These physicians, and others like them, are the living embodiment of the medical mantras of “do no harm” and “informed consent”.
An explosion has been reported at the Israeli regime’s Ashdod reactor facility in the south of the occupied territories, with reports not providing details on the cause of the blast or the number of possible casualties.
The blast was reported by the Israeli journalist Edy Cohen, who posted a video on his Twitter account on Tuesday and said the explosion had taken place at the Ashdod reactor facility in southern Israel.
Israeli media sources said the blast had rocked the regime’s Ashdod oil refinery and that firefighters had been dispatched to the scene after hearing the sound of the explosion. Hebrew-language sources said the blast caused fuel leaks at the refinery and efforts were underway to stop the leakage.
The sources have not yet mentioned the cause of the explosion and whether there were any casualties.
In recent months, similar incidents have taken place in important facilities run by the Israeli regime.
In April, a powerful explosion rocked a sensitive Israeli missile factory allegedly during a test for advanced weapons in the city of Ramla.
If one were only limited to viewing or reading the US mainstream media the story of how President Joe Biden went down on his knees to honor two visiting Israelis would never have surfaced. Fortunately, the story did make considerable waves in both the Israeli and the alternative media, though not enough to convince the faceless editors at CBS news and elsewhere to run with it. The kneeling incident reportedly took place while Biden was meeting in the White House with soon-to-be retired Israeli president Reuven Rivlin. Rivlin was doing something like his victory lap, having presumably completed his term of office without being charged with corruption, which is what the Jewish state’s leaders have traditionally been noted for.
In fact, the good news re Israeli corruption is that recent ex-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been dogged by corruption charges for years, no longer can claim immunity and just might now have to pay the piper and go to jail together with his lovely wife Sara. The thought of Netanyahu in the slammer brings tears of joy to my eyes, not only because he is dishonest and a thief, but also because he was part of an Israeli spy ring that obtained nuclear triggers to construct bombs, which was operating against the United States back when he lived here in the 1970s-80s. But that is another story for another day.
Rivlin was in town to say goodbye but also to discuss Iran. The Israeli view on Iran is that the Mullahs have a secret nuclear weapons program so any kind of agreement with them allows work to proceed clandestinely. Israel believes that allowing the United States to re-enter into 2015’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would take the heat off Iran and would virtually guarantee that the Islamic Republic would wind up with a nuclear weapon, which would threaten the entire region, most particularly Israel and the Saudis. This line is, of course, being echoed by Israel’s many friends in the United States.
The other view, supported by both the United Nations and the US intelligence community, is that it is Israel rather than Iran that has a secret nuclear arsenal which is not subject to international inspection. Everyone but Israel believes that Iran, for its part, long ago gave up an exploratory program that might plausibly have led to a weapon. The only so-called evidence challenging that view consists of information on a lap top that was fortuitously discovered by some opponents of the Iranian government which had previously been fabricated by Israeli intelligence and placed so as to be found and exposed.
Biden, completely predictably, assured the Israeli president that his personal commitment to the Jewish state is “iron-clad.” No doubt Rivlin for his part passed the Israeli view regarding Iran on to Biden during their meeting, though there has been no subsequent document describing in any detail that aspect of their discussion. The White House press release described their interaction as follows: “President Biden conveyed his unwavering support for Israel’s security and his commitment to deepening the cooperation between the two countries across all fields. The leaders discussed the many challenges facing the region, including the threat posed by Iran. The President emphasized that under his administration, Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. He also assured President Rivlin that the United States remains determined to counter Iran’s malign activity and support for terrorist proxies, which have destabilizing consequences for the region.”
In reality, of course, it is Israel and the US that are nuclear armed and have been supporting terrorist proxies in the Middle East, but we’ll give that one a pass. Rivlin had with him his 45 year-old chief of staff, a Haredi Orthodox Israeli woman named Rivka Ravitz who has borne twelve children. Many Orthodox Jews apparently believe that procreating up to maximum capacity is a requirement that comes straight from Yahweh. Joe responded with something like delight at the report of the “cheaper by the dozen” offspring and he got so excited that he went down on one knee to honor the lady and, presumably, her boss. And to make matters worse, a photographer who accompanied the Israeli entourage was in the room with the beaming trio and was able to take a picture of Joe on one bended knee, though it also has been claimed that he might have gone down on both knees which raises the question how he managed to get back up at his age. Are Secret Service Agent required to lift up kneeling presidents?
So here we have the president of the United States down on one or two knees in front of two former Israeli government officials. Doesn’t look good, does it? But it could be a metaphor for what the entire United States government and Establishment choose to do when it comes to Israel. Too bad there is no recording of what Honest Joe was saying as he was going down. Was it the usual inarticulate mumble or something acknowledging the power and majesty of his visitors? As noted above, avowed Zionist Joe reportedly said either before or maybe after his prostration that the commitment to Israel is “iron-clad,” which one might suggest to be the unofficial motto of the United States Congress.
I know that Joe Biden and almost everyone else in Washington politics would not share my view of the Israel-US relationship, which to put it succinctly goes as follows: the United States relationship with Israel is a strategic liability that has been a major factor in US involvement in avoidable wars that have cost a great deal of money and have done terrible damage to actual interests, while also leading to the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians and American soldiers. On top of that, the US inexplicably gives Israel, a wealthy nation, billions of dollars each year and uncritical political support that has contributed to America’s sharply declining international standing. Finally, though the Israel Lobby that has brought all of this about through corruption of congress and the media includes a rabid Christian Zionist subset, the money and access to genuine political power nearly all comes from American Jewish groups and wealthy individuals who are guilty of dual loyalty, or actually singular loyalty to Israel. They should all be registered as “foreign agents” to make completely clear where their allegiance lies.
Biden is, to be sure, a funny bloke who wants to pretend to being a devout Roman Catholic while also supporting abortion as a form of birth control. He also appears to want to be President of the United States while giving “iron-clad” guarantees of loyalty to a foreign country. Given that, his kneeling to Israeli officials in the Oval Office is under the circumstances appropriate as it reflects who is actually in charge. Biden, like Nancy Pelosi and the other bottom crawlers that make up the US Congress, reflexively and automatically defers to Israel and to the powerful Jewish community on both foreign policy and many domestic issues. If one cannot accept that simple truth it will become impossible to understand what is actually at play.
Apart from a handful of liberals, who in the Congress is complaining about using readily and even illegally supplied American weapons to kill Gazans? What do we have to do to have a president that actually puts Americans first, since neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden seem prepared to do so? It is an unavoidable fact that on so many of these issues the American federal and even many state and local governments have been dominated by Israel’s interests. The only question is “What can be done to change that dynamic?” That’s the underlying problem, but change just might come if and when more Americans begin to realize the extent to which their president and governing system have been compromised and their tax dollars stolen by Israel!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
One of the strangest things about the last few months on planet Earth has been the relentless drive to vaccinate everyone, regardless of what their individual risk from the virus is, and whether or not they’ve already had the disease. It was well known long before covid came along that people who have had an infection are usually at least as well protected as those who get vaccinated. The whole point of vaccination is, after all, to mimic infection so as to stimulate immunity. If you’ve had measles, you don’t need to take the measles vaccine. If you’ve had hepatitis A, you don’t need to take the hepatitis A vaccine. If you’ve had chickenpox, you don’t need to take the chickenpox vaccine. Yet if you’ve had covid, you should supposedly still take the covid vaccine. Strange.
The obsession with vaccinating everyone is particularly odd in a situation where access to vaccines is limited and the stated goal is to reach herd immunity as quickly as possible, since wasting time vaccinating people who have already had the infection will inevitably delay the time it takes for a population to reach herd immunity.
Yet many people who should know better have been happy to play along with the “everyone needs to be vaccinated” mantra, in spite of the fact that it runs counter to the stated goal of governments and public health agencies. Many doctors had covid during 2020, yet they were more than happy to stand at the front of the line and take the vaccine in late 2020 and early 2021, even though they knew (or should have known) that they were almost certainly already maximally protected from the virus, and that taking the vaccine would inevitably mean a delay in vaccination of those who had not yet had the infection.
A few months back I wrote about a study, published in The Lancet in April, that showed a 93% decreased risk of re-infection in people who had already had covid. That would make prior infection equivalent to the most effective vaccines, in terms of its ability to protect against covid (which is as we would expect).
For those who remain unconvinced that prior infection is at least equivalent to vaccination, however, a very interesting study was recently posted on MedRxiv. This was a retrospective cohort study of the 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic, who were followed from December 16th 2020 (when the Cleveland Clinic started vaccinating its staff) until May 15th 2021. The objective of the study was to compare the relative rates of infection between four groups of employees: Thos who had had covid and been vaccinated, those who had had covid but not yet been vaccinated, those who had not had covid but had been vaccinated, and those who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated.
A PCR test was used to diagnose covid in the study. The Cleveland Clinic was not engaging in any screening of asymptomatic staff during the study period, so tests were in almost all cases carried out when participants developed symptoms suggestive of covid. In other words, the method used to diagnose covid in this study was equivalent to the method used in most other studies, and also the method that is used in the real world.
So, what were the results?
There were 2,139 new covid infections among the 52,238 participants. In other words, 4.1% of the participants in the study developed covid during the five month period. 99.3% of these infections were among participants who had neither had covid nor been vaccinated. The remaining 0,7% were among participants who hadn’t had covid but had been vaccinated.
2,579 participants had already had covid at the start of the study. Not a single one of them developed covid during the five month period. This includes both the 1,229 with prior infection who were vaccinated, and the 1,359 who weren’t. What that means is that prior infection was associated with a 100% reduction in the relative risk of infection. That was true regardless of whether the person with prior infection was vaccinated or not. Vaccination did not provide any additional benefit to those who had already had covid.
What can we conclude?
Prior infection is highly effective at protecting against covid. There is thus no need for people who have already had covid to get vaccinated. When governments do vaccinate people who have already had covid, they are wasting taxpayers money and putting people at risk of side effects for no good reason.
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it?
One answer is that it was relatively easy to do. Easier than for many other viruses. Scientists like to tinker.
Okay, but after the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002-3, and a series of SARS-1 lab leaks over the ensuing several years in China, Taiwan and Singapore, which killed a few people, especially lab workers, didn’t scientists know it was dangerous to do this?
SARS viruses were designated by the US government as “Select Agents,” meaning they had the potential to cause a deadly pandemic and/or severe economic damage to crops or livestock. Scientists had to handle them in special ways, and get permission to transfer or share them with other labs. Scientists working on SARS coronaviruses had to have been aware of the risks in what they were working on.
I previously cited a statistic from STAT. The statistic is that Fauci’s NIAID has been funding coronavirus research for over twenty years, and at a price of up to $51 million per year, pre-Covid. Until 2002, everyone thought that all coronaviruses did to humans was cause colds: 10-30% of all colds. NIAID doesn’t spend money on colds.
Coronaviruses do cause animal diseases. But still, animal diseases are not in NIAID’s bailiwick. USDA funds research on them.
Some coronavirus research made sense, such as the 2005 CDC study that showed chloroquine killed SARS-1 at achievable human doses, in the test tube. Or the 2014 NIAID study that showed chloroquine killed MERS.
But no new drugs or vaccines came out of the hundreds of millions of dollars in coronavirus research sponsored by NIAID. And when Covid hit, Fauci and his NIAID hid information on the drugs they had found to be effective against coronaviruses in the lab.
So, what were Fauci and NIAID actually doing with all the coronavirus research? What were they looking for?
It seems they were remarkably successful in creating new chimeric, pathogenic coronaviruses. But they buried the research on effective treatments.
Americans need to ask, what in heaven’s name were Fauci and his masters trying to accomplish? Who are his masters? And what other deadly viruses have they created, with or without their friends in Wuhan?
We need to know what they heck they were doing. What did these programs create? Why did these programs exist?
We need to know now, before the fear of the variants wears off, and the next dangerous bug might appear.
Other than circumstantial evidence of zoonotic cases in mink farms in the Netherlands, no cases of natural transmission from wild or domesticated animals have been confirmed. More than 40 million human COVID-19 infections reported appear to be exclusively through human-human transmission. SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 do not meet the WHO definition of zoonoses. We suggest SARS-CoV-2 should be re-classified as an EID of probable animal origin.
Unfortunately, I did. I caught snippets on 9 July of an interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme with Gemma Peters, Chief Executive of the charity Blood Cancer UK. Ms Peters has already declared and tweeted that ‘19 July won’t be freedom day for everyone’ so she is going to keep wearing her mask. Fair enough, I don’t care if she wears a paper bag over her head. But why tell us about it? And then I heard something so absurd that I had to go to BBC Sounds to re-run that section of the Today programme to verify it. And I had heard right.
According to Gemma Peters, many people with blood cancer and who may thus be immune system compromised either do not know they are compromised (something to do with ‘saving the NHS’ apparently) and others who do and who may or may not have been vaccinated may still be vulnerable to COVID-19. The answer? You probably worked it out. We should all be wearing masks all the time and socially distanced indefinitely to protect this group of people. We never know when we might be sitting next to someone who is vulnerable due to being immune compromised. I could, perhaps, appreciate this advice: 1. if face masks were effective; 2. if immune compromised people were coming down our streets in droves. But we all know masks are ineffective and the risk that Gemma Peters was pointing to applies, in the UK, to half a million people; 0.7% of the population.
So, Ms Peters, the immune compromised tail must wag the immune competent dog. Of course, that will be interpreted by my detractors as insensitivity to people with blood cancer. But what have these poor people, for whom I have every sympathy, done during influenza, norovirus and common cold epidemics? In fact, is this what they want? Do they really want to impose an ineffective and damaging restriction on the rest of the population? To tweak the heartstrings, the slot on Today opened with an interview with a man suffering from blood cancer who said how difficult it would be for him to get to work using public transport if people were unmasked. Hardly a representative sample but, of course, it gives meddling do-gooders like Gemma Peters the excuse to lecture the rest of us on how we should behave.
It strikes me that Gemma Peters and her executive team may not have enough to do. After all they have changed the name of their charity twice in four years. This undoubtedly involved a consultancy company and a fat fee. Now they have decided it is their job to try to control the lives of the rest of the population. I can imagine a host of other charities jumping on this bandwagon. How long before The Stroke Association, The Alzheimer’s Society and the British Heart Foundation weigh in? If they do, we must resist this ‘tyranny of niceness’.
FEW MPs have a science background, which is why the government needs scientific advice. Sage, for instance: the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies provide scientific and technical advice to support government decision-makers during emergencies. Since early last year we have had a great deal of advice from them and there have been (and still are) times when they are clearly running the country.
How do these 87 scientists from different fields agree about how to deal with Covid-19? Another group, HART: the Health Advisory and Recovery Team, point out that ‘A lot of what people have come to regard as clear scientific consensus over the last year is nothing of the sort. The voices of scientists with different views have simply not been heard.’
A similar thought must have occurred to Sir David King, scientific adviser to the Government 2000-2007. Last year he formed Independent Sage, which their website says is ‘a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain’s recovery from the Covid-19 crisis.’
Why are so many scientists working for us? We now have proper-Sage, still busily advising/instructing the government. Then we have pseudo-Sage, busily telling us what we should really be doing. Curious.
But there’s more, even more curious.
Global warming scientific advice comes from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), whose purpose is ‘to advise the UK and devolved governments on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change’.
It is chaired by Lord Deben, otherwise John Selwyn Gummer (who read history at Cambridge), and has about a dozen members. In May 2019 they said the UK must aim to reach net zero by 2050. Again there seems to be no disagreement between members about either the reasonableness of this target if Asian countries continue to build coal-fired power stations, or the possible enormous cost to householders of their recommendations.
How were these people chosen? How can they be so dogmatic about such an uncertain topic? How can they possibly recommend such extreme actions? Our climate changes can be interpreted in many different ways. Why is there no input from, for instance, the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
Sir David King, ever critical of government committees, thought that the CCC were not capable of interpreting the climate situation and giving suitable advice. He has recently formed the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG), with 14 experts from ten nations, which ‘aims to have more of an international reach and provide the global public with regular analysis about efforts to tackle the global heating and biodiversity crises’.
Here we have an additional committee, unofficial, saying we should conduct experiments on the Arctic, in our atmosphere, and on the oceans. These projects (called geo-engineering) have been much discussed for years, but many scientists have expressed grave concerns about conducting potentially uncontrollable experiments on our planet.
The media are doing their best to make us believe that we need to be rescued by science. Every outbreak of unusual weather is now apparently caused by global warming. Temperatures, rainfall, forest fires, tornadoes, flooding, droughts, every new record is seen as indisputable evidence. This line of reasoning is nowhere more evident than in the CCAG report quoted above.
England has the longest temperature record in the world: 362 years from 1659. Nowhere else has measurements of temperature, rainfall or anything else for even half that. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago. We therefore only have data (though only for England and only for temperature) for 3 per cent of that time. If 97 per cent of world weather data is unknown, records will be broken for hundreds of years to come.
MPs without a scientific background are reluctant to challenge or question the advice given by their committees. But we cannot let these mysteriously selected and unbelievably single-minded bodies tell us what we must do. Covid-19 and our climate are both very complex subjects. There are many different, strongly held and soundly-based opinions about how to deal with both. We need to hear them all.
In the Covid-19 nightmare we have had only one group of scientists telling us what to do, when to do it, and how. In the growing hysteria about the global warming ‘crisis’ it seems as if we will again have only one source of advice.
The Covid-19 pandemic is a hoax. The public are convinced that their lives are in danger, largely due to the media’s relentless reporting of cases and deaths every hour of every day.
Climate change is also a hoax. There is no evidence that CO2 is warming the planet and is responsible for extreme weather events. No really, there is not a jot of evidence to support the claim. Most people are indifferent to it. They’re not scared enough. What to do?
Climate evangelicals calling themselves scientists, want deaths caused by climate change, to be reported every day, just like covid. They also want climate change to be declared a global emergency.
According to SKY News today:
Climate change should be treated with the same urgency as the covid-19 pandemic, according to a study. The study, which was led by Glasgow Caledonian University Centre For Climate Justice, reported concerns that resources used for the pandemic response, would detract from those allocated to climate action.
It said that the recovery from covid-19 should be integrated with tackling climate change and that the public should be able to see climate data as easily as they were able to see data on coronavirus.
This would include real-time reporting of deaths and damage caused by adverse weather.
SKY News is there already. Since March, it has presented a climate change show called “The Daily Climate Show.” It’s usually hosted by Anna Jones. The programme features reports on adverse weather events from all over the world and how they ruin livelihoods, render people homeless and in some cases kill.
The show never offers any evidence that links Co2 to the bad weather. Along with the BBC, SKY has declared the science on climate change to be settled.
As I’ve reported on The Richie Allen Show, there are plans to introduce climate lockdowns in the future to reduce carbon emissions. Flights will be grounded, driving restricted, events shut down, certain foods banned and all in the name of protecting the planet.
It might be an easier sell, if people are shown a daily climate death count on the 24 hour news channels. It certainly worked with covid-19.
Despite the fact that bodies were not piled high in the streets, despite the fact that most people hadn’t been unwell or even known someone who had been seriously unwell or died, they believed that they were in imminent danger.
They believed it because it was repeated ten times a day, seven days a week. I believe that absent that level of propaganda, most people would have ignored covid-19 and we’d have been all the better for it.
Most people are indifferent to climate change. On some level they know that it is nonsense. Will their heads be turned by the reporting of daily death totals by the mainstream media? Time will tell.
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.