Aletho News


New Proof Emerges of the Biden Family Emails: a Definitive Account of the CIA/Media/BigTech Fraud

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer warns that emails and other documents reported on by The NY Post about Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China may be “Russian disinformation,” Oct. 16, 2020.
By Glenn Greenwald | September 22, 2021

A severe escalation of the war on a free internet and free discourse has taken place over the last twelve months. Numerous examples of brute and dangerous censorship have emerged: the destruction by Big Tech monopolies of Parler at the behest of Democratic politicians at the time that it was the most-downloaded app in the country; the banning of the sitting president from social media; and the increasingly explicit threats from elected officials in the majority party of legal and regulatory reprisals in the event that tech platforms do not censor more in accordance with their demands.

But the most severe episode of all was the joint campaign — in the weeks before the 2020 election — by the CIA, Big Tech, the liberal wing of the corporate media and the Democratic Party to censor and suppress a series of major reports about then-presidential frontrunner Joe Biden. On October 14 and then October 15, 2020, The New York Post, the nation’s oldest newspaper, published two news reports on Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China that raised serious questions about his integrity and ethics: specifically whether he and his family were trading on his name and influence to generate profit for themselves. The Post said that the documents were obtained from a laptop left by Joe Biden’s son Hunter at a repair shop.

From the start, the evidence of authenticity was overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-time and they compared the emails in their possession to the ones in the Post‘s archive, and they matched word-for-word. One of Hunter’s own business associates involved in many of these deals, Tony Bobulinski, confirmed publicly and in interviews that the key emails were genuine and that they referenced Joe Biden’s profit participation in one deal being pursued in China. A forensics analyst issued a report concluding the archive had all the earmarks of authenticity. Not even the Bidens denied that the emails were real: something they of course would have done if they had been forged or altered. In sum, as someone who has reported on numerous large archives similar to this one and was faced with the heavy burden of ensuring the documents were genuine before risking one’s career and reputation by reporting them, it was clear early on that all the key metrics demonstrated that these documents were real.

Despite all that, former intelligence officials such as Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led a group of dozens of former spooks in issuing a public statement that disseminated an outright lie: namely, that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.” Note that this phrase contains two separate assertions: 1) the documents came from Russia and 2) they are fake (“disinformation”). The intelligence officials admitted in this letter that — in their words — “we do not know if the emails are genuine or not,” and also admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” Yet it repeatedly insinuated that everyone should nonetheless believe this:

Letter from 60 former intelligence officials about the New York Post reporting, Oct. 19, 2020

But the complete lack of evidence for these claims — that even these career CIA liars acknowledged plagued their assertions — did not stop the corporate media or Big Tech from repeating this lie over and over, and, far worse, using this lie to censor this reporting from the internetOne of the first to spread this lie was the co-queen of Russiagate frauds, Natasha Bertrand, then of Politico and now promoted, because of lies like this, to CNN. “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say,” blared her headline in Politico on October 19, just five days after the Post began its reporting. From there, virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington PostThe Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.

On October 21 — exactly one week after the Post‘s first report — The Intercept published a false story under the melodramatic headline “We’re Not a Democracy” about these materials from former New York Times reporter James Risen. This propaganda assault masquerading as “news” mindlessly laundered the CIA’s lies about the laptop. This is what appeared in this outlet that still claims to do “adversarial” reporting:

Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post…. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.

Note that even the intelligence officials, who acknowledged they had no evidence to support this claim, were more honest than The Intercept, which omitted that critical admission. Days later, this very same outlet — which I co-founded seven years earlier to be adversarial, not subservient, to evidence-free assertions from the intelligence community, and which was designed to be an antidote to rather than a clone of The New York Times — told me that I could not publish the article I had written about the Biden archive because it did not meet their lofty and rigorous editorial standards: the same lofty and rigorous editorial standards that led to uncritical endorsement of the CIA’s lies just days earlier. It was that episode, as Matt Taibbi recounted at the time, that prompted my resignation from the outlet I created in protest of this censorship, in order to report instead only on free speech platforms such as this one.

But the media disinformation about the Post‘s documents — obviously designed to protect Joe Biden in the lead-up to the election — were not the worst aspect of what happened here. Far worse was the decision by Twitter to prohibit any discussion of this reporting or posting of links to the story both publicly and privately on the platform. Worse still was the immediate announcement by Facebook through its communications executive Andy Stone — a life-long Democratic Party operative — that it would algorithmically suppress the story pending a “fact check” by “Facebook’s third-party fact-check partners.” Despite multiple requests from me and others, Facebook never published the results of this alleged fact-check and still refuse to say whether it ever conducted one. Why? Because the documents they blocked millions of Americans from learning about were clearly true and authentic.

As indicated, there was ample proof from the start that these documents were genuine and that the only ones engaged in “disinformation” and lies was this axis of the CIA, corporate media, and Big Tech. Yet the most dispositive proof yet emerged on Tuesday — not from a right-wing news outlet that liberals have been trained to ignore and disbelieve but from one of the most mainstream news institutions in the country.

A young reporter for Politico, Ben Schreckinger, has published a new book entitled “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power.” To his great credit, he spent months investigating the key documents published by The New York Post and found definitive proof that these emails and related documents are indisputably authentic. His own outlet, Politico, was the first to publish the CIA lie that this was “Russian disinformation,” but on Tuesday — without acknowledging their role in spreading that lie — they summarized Schreckinger’s findings this way: the book “finds evidence that some of the purported Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy.” In his book, the reporter recounts in these passages just some of the extensive work he did to obtain this proof:

A person who corresponded with Hunter in late 2018 confirmed to me the authenticity of an email in the cache. Another person who corresponded with Hunter in January 2019 confirmed the authenticity of a different email exchange with Hunter in the cache. Both of these people spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fears of being embroiled in a global controversy.

A third person who had independent access to Hunter’s emails confirmed to me that the emails published by the New York Post related to Burisma and the CEFC venture matched the substance of emails Hunter had in fact received. (This person was not in a position to compare the published emails word-for-word to the originals.)

The National Property Board of Sweden, part of the Swedish Finance Ministry, has released correspondence between Hunter and House of Sweden employees to me and to a Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, under the country’s freedom of information law. Emails released by the property board match emails in the cache.

Excerpts from POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger’s new book: “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power”, Sept. 2020

Given what I regard as the unparalleled gravity of what was done here — widespread media deceit toward millions of American voters in the weeks before a presidential election based on a CIA lie, along with brute censorship of the story by Big Tech — and given that so much of what was done here took place on television, we produced this morning what I regard as the definitive video report of this scandal. I realize this report is longer than the standard video — it is just over an hour — but I really believe that it is vital, particularly with the emergence of this new indisputable proof, to take a comprehensive look at how the intelligence community, in partnership with Big Tech and the corporate media, disseminated massive lies and disinformation, using censorship and other manipulative techniques, to shape the outcome of what was a close election. (We will very shortly institute our new feature of producing transcripts for all videos above ten minutes in length, but I really hope that as many people as can do so will watch this video report).

After observing what they did, I hope and believe you will have a similar reaction to the one I had after spending the day compiling and reporting it all. No matter how much you despise this sector of the corporate media, it is nowhere near close enough to the level of contempt and scorn they deserve. You can watch our video report on my Rumble page.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

Barricaded from Covid reality by government and media

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2021

THE analyst Dr Will Jones has observed that the world is in the grip of something akin to religious mania in its response to the arrival of Covid-19. I feel sure he is right. We have suffered greatly from this mania and are in real danger of an even greater crisis ahead.

Dalek-like cries of ‘Vaccinate! Vaccinate!’ are everywhere, and yet many reputable doctors and scientists have warned for months of existing hazards from the jab, including deaths and injuries linked to its unique and experimental mode of action, and future risks that may be even more dire. (See also here and here.)

I have written some 35 articles on Covid over the past year, first for Lockdown Sceptics, now renamed The Daily Sceptic, and then for The Conservative Woman, now renamed TCW Defending Freedom. Both these daily newsletters, with associated websites, run largely by volunteers, are doing a far better job than any of the well-funded mainstream media or indeed academic journals in consistently questioning and challenging Covid orthodoxy, from a strong ethical as well as factual basis. It is a dynamic field, and they have risen to the challenge magnificently.

With some sadness, I have decided I must step back from the controversy for a while. As with ‘HIV’/Aids, another scientific nonsense which I covered as a journalist but which survived for decades because it suited so many powerful interests, Covid-19 has gripped the public imagination and discourse in such a way that facts, reason and ethics are playing little part in the global response to the crisis.

To see a recent example of how crazy things have become, please watch this five-minute video by Julie Ponesse, a professor of ethics at the University of Western Ontario.  She recorded it for first-year students, having been threatened with dismissal after 20 years because ‘I will not submit to having an experimental vaccine injected into my body’.

‘My job is to think critically,’ she says. ‘To ask questions. Questions like, Says who? Who is the authority giving this order? Should I trust them with my body?

‘As a professor, I don’t have to watch the news to find out if the Covid vaccines are safe. I read medical journals, and I consult my colleagues who are professors of science and medicine. I’ve learned from doctors that there are serious questions about how safe these vaccines really are. There are questions about how well they work.  Nobody is promising that I won’t get Covid, or transmit Covid, if I get the vaccine.

‘But ultimately, none of that matters to me. Because I am a professor of ethics, and I am a Canadian. I’m entitled to make choices about what does and does not enter my body, regardless of my reasons.

‘If I’m allowed back into my university, it’s my job to teach my students that this is wrong. It is ethically wrong to impose an experimental medical procedure as a condition of employment. This is my first, and potentially my last, lesson of the year.’

On September 7, Ponesse was dismissed. Now Joe Biden is threatening 80million unvaccinated Americans with mandatory jabs – more than he is threatening the Taliban, as a Fox News commentator put it.

Most of my former medical and science correspondent colleagues, and indeed the social media giants such as Facebook and Google (whose ad department has just de-platformed TCW Defending Freedom), have been drawn into the false belief that we are in a war that can be won only if everyone gets the jab.

That belief has been supported and promoted from the start by a scientific establishment seeking to assuage its guilt over the fact that science itself gave us SARS-CoV-2. The virus was clearly a product of genetic engineering by American and Chinese scientists, but a high-level decision was taken to try to hide this fact from the public.

Top UK scientists, including Sir Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust and Sir Patrick Vallance, former president of research and development at global pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline and now chief scientific adviser to the Government, took part in secret talks the day after Covid-19 was declared a global health emergency to decide how to respond.

Bibles of the scientific world such as Nature and The Lancet vigorously promoted the idea that the virus jumped across to humans from an animal host, and I believed them myself at first, in common with most reporters.

The initial cover-up proved inadequate, however, and though Nature has continued to fudge the issue, last week The Lancet – 18 months on – published a letter from 16 scientists declaring that there is no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports the natural origin claim.They called for an ‘objective, open and transparent debate’.

For all this time, since the pandemic began, it has been left to individual ‘maverick’ researchers – often barred from official channels of communication – to demonstrate that years of laboratory work brought about the modifications which turned a bat virus into a danger for humans.

Yet nearly 18 months ago, an Anglo-Norwegian team of vaccine researchers using electron microscopy described six ‘unique fingerprints . . . indicative of purposive manipulation’ in the virus’s spike protein, enabling it to enter a wide range of human cells. They warned that the protein in itself was hazardous and that specific precautions would be needed when using it in any vaccine candidate.

Their report was suppressed, and even today the scientific community continues to avoid considering its devastating implications, which include an explanation for the blood clotting belatedly acknowledged as an adverse effect from vaccines based on the spike.

Was Covid a plandemic? High-level, international pandemic scenario planning did precede the arrival of SARS-CoV-2, but the evident panic in China when the first cases emerged, and attempted cover-up of British and American involvement, speak more to an accidental escape than a planned crisis.

However, immensely influential foundations, whose own financial interests and investments are served as they fund campaigns for so-called ‘global health security’ and ‘pandemic preparedness’ (see for example hereherehere and here) have contributed to the crisis.  They have helped bring into being the very threats they were supposed to counter. Unless and until these influences are exposed, and the malign consequences acknowledged, we look set to perpetuate the mistakes.

At least in the UK, ministers may be realising that lockdowns intended to ‘save’ our NHS had the opposite result. The service is on its knees, with many staff dispirited, and millions are awaiting care and treatment. Children and old people have especially suffered.

Yet public opinion has been whipped into such a frenzy of fear that there is widespread acquiescence in the face of proposals for more punishing controls, especially surrounding Covid vaccines.

This is despite a lack of clear evidence as to whether Covid vaccination is truly ‘safe and effective’, as we are constantly assured by government scientists, or may actually be doing more harm than good. The issue has become so political that it is difficult to sort out facts from propaganda, but I believe that Public Health England, while promoting vaccine passports and ‘no jab, no job’ policies, has its head in the sand over evidence that we may face a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

It tries to justify lives lost to the jab by plucking huge numbers of ‘lives saved’ and ‘infections avoided’ out of thin air.  Data showing declining vaccine effectiveness and a need for booster shots tell us that these claims are at best, huge overestimates. The latest experience of highly vaccinated Israel (see here and here) is discouraging, to say the least.

Before I learned of the toxicity of the spike protein and the way it is carried through the blood and distributed throughout the body, accumulating especially in the ovaries and potentially damaging fertility, I admired the ingenuity of the RNA vaccines and hoped they would work.

Today, however, despite being aged 77, I would far prefer to take my chances with the virus, which we now know is dealt with successfully by most people’s natural immune mechanisms, than with the jab, which is designed to bypass the body’s first defences.

The human body has astonishing resilience and intelligence, and I am sure most of the millions who have received and recovered from the jab, usually without more than a day or two of discomfort, will be fine.

Yet now the NHS is gearing up to roll out the jab for 12- to 15-year-olds, and teachers’ leaders are all for itObjections by experts who know that healthy children are at essentially zero risk from the virus, while the jab itself can injure or kill, have been acknowledged, but set aside, by the UK’s four chief medical officers. This is despite heartfelt pleas such as from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.

Vaccinating 12-year-olds with an experimental jab of certain toxicity, even against their parents’ wishes? How could we have reached a state of such stupidity as even to contemplate such measures?

And it won’t necessarily end there. Pfizer and Moderna are both seeking authorisation to extend the jab drive to 5-11-year-olds.

An element that has surprised and distressed me is the almost complete lack of Parliamentary oversight of the handling of the crisis. It is as if our elected representatives have been reduced to a single party, and even that party has been dancing to the tune of unelected advisers and officials.

I wondered about writing to Labour leaders to urge them to challenge the Government much more strongly, but then read a long essay, The Unions and the U-turns, which provides an important piece of the puzzle as to why ministers have stumbled along so disastrously for so long, usually with cries of ‘Too late!’ or ‘Hit harder!’ from the Opposition.

Written by philosopher, author and campaigner Ben Irvine, it describes the driving role that public sector unions have played, largely behind the scenes, in what Irvine calls the ‘coronapanic debacle’ in Britain. Understanding the role of socialists in pushing the Prime Minister into repeated U-turns on Covid policy, he writes, ‘is key to unlocking this whole sorry mess’.

For instance, you may not know that the first lockdown was set in motion the day after the largest teaching union threatened unilateral schools closures. Or that numerous teaching unions refused to return to work during the first lockdown. Or that in the summer of 2020 a transport workers’ union threatened to strike unless the government mandated masks on trains. Or that in the same summer a retail workers’ union threatened to strike unless the government mandated masks in shops. Or that the third lockdown happened the day after there was a colossal teaching mutiny with hundreds of thousands of teachers refusing to return to work in January 2021. Or that the reason why children have been cruelly masked in schools was that mutinous teaching unions demanded it.

In the time I now intend to take out, I want to explore what is missing in the human spirit that makes us vulnerable to such madness.

Greed plays a part. It is obvious that Big Pharma, with its friends in government and the World Health Organisation, has been well placed to capitalise on the crisis.

How much better it would have been if the incredible £400billion cost to the nation of the UK’s handling of the crisis to date had been spent on strengthening immunity to the virus through nutritional and social support structures, rather than poured into furlough schemes, mass testing with dodgy kits, and untested vaccines.

But the discovery that powerful unions helped amplify the disaster makes me realise it is not just scientific embarrassment, and capitalist greed, driving the policy errors, but also the false compassion to which those on the Left seem especially vulnerable. ‘Save Lives – Stop Living’ is one of my favourite slogans from these Orwellian times.

In the early years of Aids, I joined media colleagues in raising the alarm about a virus that we were told put all sexually active people at risk because of a long time lag between infection and illness. We were happy to feel we were contributing to the public health effort.

But thanks to the work of ‘dissident’ scientists in the USA and Australia, I gradually learned that ‘HIV’ was not a genuine pathogen. ‘HIV/Aids’ was a concept, marketed with skill and urgency by American government scientists with support from colleagues in the UK and elsewhere, after a period in which the plight of early Aids victims had been cruelly neglected.

The virus theory democratised the illness and brought compassion in place of condemnation. Gay Lib leaders had fought for years to end discriminatory laws and attitudes and when Aids came along, its early characterisation as a ‘gay plague’ linked to promiscuous anal sex and heavy drug use threatened to derail the movement.

Then big money, combined with political correctness, created a monolithic belief system, never fully dismantled, that caused enormous harm. Under the leadership of the US ‘Aids czar’ Anthony Fauci, now playing a similar role with Covid, HIV/Aids became a business worth hundreds of billions of dollars, supporting countless well-meaning NGOs as well as science journals and researchers.

The use of unvalidated test kits bequeathed poor African countries with a false belief that the continent was in the grip of a terrible epidemic. A lethal, hugely expensive, US government-sponsored drug marketed by Burroughs Wellcome killed and tortured thousands of gay men, as well as ‘HIV’-positive children, and patients with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia. (See PoIson By Prescription – The AZT Story, by John Lauritsen, published by Asklepios, New York, 1990.) A futile search for a vaccine to a non-existent virus continues to this day – 35 years on!

The scientific community fiercely resisted challenge and never owned up to the mistakes at the heart of the HIV paradigm, which I have summarised here.

When the then Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil persisted in publishing Aids heresies, the response was censorship, suppression and ridicule. Other mass media, notably the BBC, GuardianIndependent and Observer, bayed for our blood. The Health Education Council started an Aids journalism award specifically in our dishonour. The science journal Nature contemplated picketing the ST offices.

This was despite challenges from top scientists, including Nobel laureates such as Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test widely used in Aids research and now (grossly misused) in purportedly diagnosing Covid, who insisted there was zero scientific evidence of HIV being the cause of the collapse of the immune system seen in the syndrome.

I learned at that time that the bigger the evidence vacuum, the greater the intolerance of dissenting views and the tighter the attempted mind control.

Doctors who sought to treat aids by means other than the official drug, called AZT, were struck off the medical register or otherwise hounded out of the profession. Scientists who advocated different ways of tackling Aids were unable to publish.

The censorship was absolute. At one point, a major paper deconstructing the HIV theory was accepted by a well-respected journal. But the defenders of the HIV/Aids faith got to hear of it, the editor was removed, and his successor withdrew the paper from the publication pipeline. Even patients who dared question the orthodoxy were viciously lied against and abused, sometimes with lethal results.

It took 25 years for the WHO to acknowledge that there was no world pandemic among heterosexuals, although it continued to maintain that sub-Saharan Africa was being devastated by the disease. That too was untrue, as I learned in 1993 during several weeks reporting from supposed Aids hotspots in Africa. I found that scarce resources were being misdirected to an imaginary epidemic created by the unvalidated ‘HIV’ test. The scientific and medical establishments went into a frenzy over these reports but they were never refuted.

Unlike ‘HIV’/Aids, Covid-19 is all too real. For reasons that are not well understood, the disease comes in definite though generally short-lived waves, and it can be lethal in people who are already near death’s door through other illnesses or because of old age.

I am sure that those who knew of its genetically engineered status when it first escaped from the Wuhan lab feared the worst, and that was why a global alert was sounded.

However it has been known since late last year that overall the proportion of virus-infected patients who die is less than 0.2 per cent, not much more than in a bad year for flu, and far lower than was initially thought.

By that time, though, full-scale fearmongering propaganda was under way. An uncalibrated diagnostic test had been rushed out, giving the false impression that ‘cases’ were rampant when in fact many of those who tested positive were in good health.

Deaths among the elderly were reclassified as Covid even when from cancer or heart disease or inappropriate drug use (see this funeral director’s report for a moving account of this scandal).

Just as with ‘HIV’/Aids, cheap treatment approaches such as vitamin D and ivermectin that were being used by some doctors to keep patients out of hospital were officially rubbished and even banned.

Mask mandates, lockdowns and enforced separations were used indiscriminately, and largely without scientific justification, to bring about a completely disproportionate fear.

Now, in what seems to me to be a continuing effort to divert attention from the laboratory-induced, chimeric status of the Covid virus, scientists are telling us there are many more like SARS-CoV-2, jumping from animals into humans all the time and potentially causing new pandemics.

They also talk up the threat posed by genetic changes in the virus, when in fact the variations are generally insignificant and natural, as explained here by Oxford University’s Professor Sunetra Gupta.

They ignore evidence that ‘natural immunity not only confers robust, durable and high-level protection against Covid, but also provides better protection than vaccine-induced immunity’.

And meanwhile, the so-called variants provide a convenient excuse for the failure of the existing vaccines and an argument for booster shots which could become the basis of a never-ending bonanza for the pharmaceutical companies.

Is there any hope that we may come to our senses sooner with Covid than with Aids?

Government agencies worldwide, including the UK’s (Bill Gates and Big Pharma funded) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), have been supine in the face of a huge range of adverse effects potentially related to the Covid jab. More than 1,500 deaths and thousands of injuries have been reported under the UK’s ‘yellow card’ scheme, and many thousands more in the US, but the regulators have shown extreme reluctance to acknowledge the harm being caused.

One big difference from the ‘HIV’/Aids era is that the internet has enabled critics of Covid orthodoxy to post challenging data and opinion, despite online censorship.

When celebrity rapper Nicki Minaj, with 22.6million followers, tweeted that her cousin’s friend became impotent through swollen testicles after receiving the Covid vaccine, she was almost universally mocked. But as analyst Steve Kirsch reported in TrialSite News, Minaj was right and all the world’s experts wrong: there are more than 60 cases of testicular swelling on the US database of adverse reactions to the Covid jab.

Information that could end the ‘vaccine dystopia’ is out there. It is present in a multitude of sources, including the UK’s own TCW Defending Freedom and The Daily Sceptic, but is still largely withheld from the wider public by governments, their advisers, and the mainstream media.

I do not share the view that there is a depopulation agenda at work, or that super-prisons are being built to house the unvaccinated, or that microchips are to be implanted in us by crazed technocrats. But I can understand how such theories gain credence while top scientists who funded the work that created the virus remain in denial about what they have done, and world leaders who were informed of SARS-CoV-2’s laboratory origin remain in the panic mode that brought such a disastrous response.

Our leaders, both scientific and political, have barricaded themselves behind a wall that is preventing them from seeing and hearing the reality. This time, unlike in the tragic ‘HIV’/Aids story, perhaps the fourth estate will soon recognise that it can step back from its own well-intentioned panic stations, and bring that wall down.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

CANCER ALERT: Conventional cancer treatment shortens lifespan, according to study

By Lori Alton | NaturalHealth365 | September 20, 2021  

Newly diagnosed cancer patients typically feel overwhelmed – by the prognosis of their illness as well as the mountain of decisions that often face them.

And now, those decisions may become even more complicated. The Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy (FACT™) is pointing to a quarter-century of research that brings into question the decision cancer patients often make to undergo conventional treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, in hopes of prolonging life.

Study finds increased mortality with conventional cancer treatment

Drug company-controlled news reports and popular thinking have led cancer patients to believe that decades of research have resulted in treatment practices that have improved cancer survival rates.

But, FACT™ points to credible cancer researchers’ work that seems to fly in the face of this commonly held belief. For example, the late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, California, conducted research spanning 25 years in the life of cancer patients that led him to conclude that untreated cancer patients did not die sooner.

In fact, in many instances, they lived longer than those undergoing conventional cancer treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

Professor Jones first presented his shocking research results at the American Cancer Society’s Science Writers’ Seminar in 1969. His findings confirmed an earlier paper he wrote in 1955 that shed doubt that common forms of treatment truly extended patient life.

Research proof:  Conventional cancer studies give a false perception of reality

In his earlier paper, Dr. Jones illustrated how cancer study results were skewed to conclude that treated patients fared better. For example, patients who died while receiving treatment were not included in the results, giving an unrealistically rosier picture of the survival rate of treated patients.

In his 1969 presentation, the professor pointed out that research continued to shift results in favor of treatment. For example, patients whose cancer was extremely advanced were routinely placed in the group not receiving treatment. This left more patients who were less seriously impacted in the treated group, resulting in a higher survival rate.

Once this bias was statistically corrected, Dr. Jones found that the survival rates among untreated patients were greater than among the patients undergoing treatment.

Dr. Jones determined that survival among people with breast cancer was four times longer when conventional treatment was refused. Such patients typically lived an average of 12 1/2 years, compared to those undergoing treatment who lived only three years on average, leading the cancer researcher to conclude that without a doubt, radical surgery did more harm to cancer patients than it did good.

Meanwhile, FACT™ points out, there has been no published work refuting the evidence presented by Dr. Jones. On the contrary, his conclusions have been supported by the work of other recognized researchers. Among them was Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Dr. Maurice Fox who published his paper in 1979 stating that radical mastectomy did not bring about better survival rates than simple lump removal.

He also wrote that patients opting out of medical procedures actually had a lower mortality rate than those who chose to undergo treatment. Further, patients who received early diagnoses died even sooner, likely due to the duration and intensity of treatment.

The devastating effects of conventional cancer therapy revealed

Even those advocating conventional treatment as the best choice for cancer patients cannot dismiss the toll such procedures take on the body. Cancer patients opting to undergo such treatment plans must cope with greater pain and suffering, often to the point where it dramatically impacts quality of life.

Patients undergoing conventional treatment can expect to cope with an often horrific list of severe side effects, including cancer growth and death. For example, as a known cancer-causing agent, radiation can actually spread cancer and lead to deadly metastases. Left untreated, however, the original cancerous tumor can often slow the cancer’s spread.

Other common conditions that develop as a result of treatment include hemorrhage, tissue death, compromised immunity, liver failure, kidney dysfunction, blistering, prolonged vomiting, disorientation, anorexia, enteritis, and bone marrow depression, among other serious ills.

The case for ‘informed’ decisions

Bringing these researchers’ conclusions to light leaves cancer patients with a more difficult decision-making process, but one that may offer renewed choices. As always, patients ought to consult with a trusted medical doctor and loved ones in formulating the decision of whether or not to undergo treatments like radiation or chemotherapy.

As with many decisions they face, cancer patients will need to review all information available to determine the best course of action. Choosing a path that includes conventional treatment should be done based on available scientifically-grounded evidence and personal preference, not out of pressure or fear that avoiding treatment will surely condemn the patient to a shorter life expectancy.

Sources for this article include:

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Americans Have No Clue What the True COVID Numbers Are

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 22, 2021

Knowledge gives you the power to make informed decisions based on evidence. A bank will not lend money to an entrepreneur without a business plan. Companies that operate without a budget will fail.

You would not consent to fly in a plane with a pilot who didn’t have his license. You wouldn’t knowingly hire an attorney who didn’t pass the bar. You wouldn’t get into a taxi with a driver who couldn’t drive.

And yet, many have been making health decisions based on misconceptions, misinformation and sometimes outright lies. A report1 released in 2020, six months into the pandemic, revealed that most Americans had significant misconceptions of the risks involved from COVID-19. Months later, evidence suggests not much has changed.

Firm Calls Results ‘Nothing Short of Stunning’

Six months after the start of the pandemic, investment management organization Franklin Templeton Investments, in collaboration with Gallup,2 released a report about Americans’ understanding of the COVID-19 infection. The research focused on fundamental and undisputed facts of the risk for individuals and did not address any information that might be seen as controversial, such as treatment options and lockdown policies. In the report, the firm wrote:3

“Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19 … These results are nothing short of stunning. Mortality data have shown from the very beginning that the COVID-19 virus age-discriminates, with deaths overwhelmingly concentrated in people who are older and suffer comorbidities.

This is perhaps the only uncontroversial piece of evidence we have about this virus. Nearly all US fatalities have been among people older than 55; and yet a large number of Americans are still convinced that the risk to those younger than 55 is almost the same as to those who are older.”

The Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study of Americans found there were misconceptions in the general population about the risks associated with infection. The analysts then separated the beliefs and compared those to the actual data. This is from the report:4

  • On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%.
  • Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%.
  • Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).

When the data were broken down by age groups they found that most people under age 65 really had no concept of the actual number of deaths for their age group:5

Age | Percent worried about serious effects | Percent of actual total deaths
18-24 59.1% 0.1%
25-34 67.1% 0.7%
35-44 69.3% 1.9%
45-54 67.9% 5.0%
55-64 69.8% 12.2%
65+ 77.6% 80.0%

“The discrepancy with the actual mortality data is staggering: for people aged 18–24, the share of those worried about serious health consequences is 400 times higher than the share of total COVID deaths; for those age 25–34 it is 90 times higher.”

Writing in Wirepoints,6 Mark Glennon commented on the findings saying, “The only good news there is that folks 65 and older are much more aware of the heightened risk for their own age group.”7

The report8 identified two major culprits of the fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts from a COVID-19 infection. Those culprits were misinformation predominantly shared on social media and the partisan bias for Democrats to “mistakenly overstate the risk of death from COVID-19 for younger people.” Templeton’s chief investment officer Sonal Desai, Ph.D., commented:9

“This, sadly, comes as no surprise. Fear and anger are the most reliable drivers of engagement; scary tales of young victims of the pandemic, intimating that we are all at risk of dying, quickly go viral; so do stories that blame everything on your political adversaries.

Both social and traditional media have been churning out both types of narratives in order to generate more clicks and increase their audience.”

Recent Evidence Suggests Nothing Has Changed

The data for the Templeton-Gallup study were gathered between July 2, 2020, and July 14, 2020, and were based on a sample size of 10,014 U.S. adults.10 As disturbing as these misperceptions reported in the news and shared on social media may have been in the first six months of the pandemic, later evidence suggests not too much has changed.

February 10, 2021, CNN reported11 that 25% of the people surveyed thought there was a small risk to returning to prepandemic levels of activity and 66% reported there was a large or moderate risk. The poll was taken between February 5, 2021, and February 8, 2021, and “based on a nationally representative sample of 1,030 people age 18 and older.”12

From this small sample, CNN found that the group least likely to view COVID-19 as a risk were people aged 18 to 29. However, the percentage of individuals in this age group was nearly equal to that found in the Templeton-Gallup Study done seven months earlier.13

In the Templeton-Gallup Study,14 59.1% of 18-to-24-year olds were worried about serious side effects, while in the CNN poll,15 58% of 18- to 29-year-olds were worried about serious side effects. Yet, the percent of death in that age group is also nearly identical: 0.1% in July 202016 and 0.4% in August 2021.17

The partisan divide identified in the Templeton-Gallup Study can also be found in vaccination rates around the country. In other words, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be fully vaccinated.18 This follows along with data found in the CNN poll,19 which revealed that 76% of the people who had been vaccinated continue to see COVID-19 as a high risk.

Based on the percentage of individuals who are vaccinated in the U.S., there continues to be nearly a majority of Americans who are operating under the misconception that the infection has a broad effect on every age group. According to Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 tracker20 approximately 52.7% of adults in the U.S. were fully vaccinated on August 31, 2021.

The Washington Post21 reported August 2, 2021, that 70% of adults had received at least one shot. Extrapolating this information, if 76% of those who are vaccinated believe that COVID is a broad risk for the population, this means from 40% to 53.2% of the country continues to hold this belief.

From the small CNN22 sample, it appears the percent who are worried about serious side effects across a broad age range may not have dropped significantly since the first six months of the pandemic, and 18 months later people continue to operate under misconceptions.

Those Who Didn’t Take the Jab Think It Is the Greater Risk

Another published poll by Kaiser Family Foundation23 conducted from July 15, 2021, to July 27, 2021, found that 67% of adults have received the COVID vaccine and 3% say they will get it as soon as they can. This number has remained relatively unchanged since a previous poll in June 2021.24 Of those who responded, 10% want to “wait and see” how the vaccine performs and 14% say they will “definitely not” get a vaccine. This number has also remained relatively steady since December 2020.

A fourth poll25 found that vaccinated individuals are nearly twice as likely to worry about the new COVID variants over those who were unvaccinated. Additionally, the same poll shows that many of the unvaccinated adults believe the shot is a bigger risk than the infection, which is opposite from the 88% of vaccinated adults that believe the infection is a larger risk than the vaccine.

The majority of unvaccinated adults believe that the news media have “generally exaggerated” the seriousness of the pandemic, which is likely the result of publishing broad data without accurately representing the number of individuals who are seriously ill or who have died.

President Biden is quoted in The Washington Post 26 reiterating the same data from health experts in the U.S. Biden said:27 “If you’re unvaccinated, you are much more likely to, one, get COVID-19; two, get hospitalized; and, three, die if you get it. This is a tragedy.”

However, this is opposite of data from other reporting countries such as Israel and Scotland, where half or more of those hospitalized in August and September 2021 were vaccinated.28,29,30,31

When misinformation is being spread from the top down, it’s easy to understand how Americans continue to believe the infection is killing equal numbers in each age group. While any death from this infection is one death too many, so is any death from heart disease, lung cancer, car accidents and drownings.

Yet, people have not stopped eating poorly, smoking, driving cars and swimming. Nor has the government mandated these activities stop.

If the Pandemic Is so Bad, Why Censor Social Media?

The debate over social media censorship is raging.32,33,34 At no time in history could you imagine that people would support censoring ideas in a country built on freedom of speech.35 Your rights to free speech and “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”36 are your First Amendment rights. And yet, some news media and opinion writers have long lists of utopian-like advantages to censorship that include:37,38,39

  • Reducing conflict and avoiding panic in emergencies
  • Adding layers of security to internet platforms
  • Stopping perceived “false” content and influencing public opinion
  • Keeping the local population under control
  • Protecting social media users

The issue with these purported advantages is that someone must be responsible for determining what should be censored, what is false information and in what direction public opinion should be influenced — not to mention how to decide what events would warrant “controlling” the population, and what the control measures might be. In other words, censorship ensures that the opinion of a few will influence the majority. And that’s what has happened in the past 18 months.

As has been demonstrated, many Americans are unaware of the real numbers behind the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, it appears that the only people being censored in social media are those who oppose the vaccine, who want to ensure proper treatment for those infected and who share their physical health challenges after taking the genetic therapy injection.

In other words, Americans are still uneducated by the news media or information posted in social media about the number of people who died from the COVID-19 infection and about proper treatment. The information being censored, and called false content, has enabled the government to reduce conflict by reducing debate over vaccines, masks and treatment protocols, as well as helped keep local populations under control.

These are the very same so-called “advantages” listed for censorship which have been used to manipulate your behavior and influence your thoughts. Ironically, one of the arguments against censorship is that:40

“It reduces the overall intelligence of the general public. Censorship requires that the general population be under tight controls so that specific outcomes are achievable every time. It is an attempt to prevent individuals from discovering what the truth of any situation happens to be.

Even an attempt at suggesting that content is fake or untrustworthy … is a way to create censorship from an official capacity.”

Unfortunately, it’s clear that much of the population doesn’t realize what their acceptance of censorship is doing to them. It’s not just about losing your freedom of speech and right to think freely; allowing censorship at the levels you’re now seeing also reinforces your compliance while it represses your access to truths — truths that could save your life.

Blinded From Science or Lies?

As was written in the report from the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Study, the American public has been “blinded from science,” and more often than not, it has been done using lies. In fact, some of the inconsistent statements made by health experts are positioned in the same statements or interviews.

For example, in an interview with MSNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president of the U.S., exhibited his unique brand of justifying behavior as he talked about the virus and the shot program, saying:41

“The delta variant is the totally dominant variant now in this country. More than 80 or 85%, and in some areas 95%, but even more importantly it is clear now that when there are breakthrough infections, namely people who are vaccinated but still get infected with the delta variant, which happens because no vaccine is 100% effective.

We’ve learned clearly now, without a doubt, that people who are vaccinated get a breakthrough infection, actually have enough virus in their nasopharynx, that they can actually transmit it to other people and have documented transmission to other people.”

From here he advises all people who have been vaccinated to wear a mask indoors to prevent the spread of the infection. His explanation is that the Delta variant has “changed the entire landscape.” However, as we know from other viruses, the coronavirus will continue to mutate and change, which means, from Fauci’s explanation, people will always be wearing masks to prevent the spread of a continually mutating virus.

The interviewer points out that as the virus continues to change, it means we won’t be able to “turn the page on coronavirus, because there might be new variants …”42 to which Fauci responds, “It doesn’t have to be if the overwhelming majority of the people in this country get vaccinated. We could nail this down by just crushing it.”43

So, within the space of four minutes Fauci said that without a doubt, people can get infected after vaccination and carry enough virus to transmit the infection — BUT — if the overwhelming majority of people are vaccinated the virus would be crushed.

This highlights the need to seek out verifiable news reports and independent research evidence. However, it isn’t enough to know it yourself. In this period in history, it is everyone’s responsibility to share the truth in a nonadversarial way that helps to educate your family, friends and neighbors without alienating them.

Sen. Warren Threatens Amazon to Ban ‘The Truth About COVID-19’

Since the publication of my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” which became an instant best seller on, there’s been a significant increase in calls for censorship and ruthless attacks against me.

Most recently, so-called “progressive” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in an outrageous, slanderous and basically unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, sent a letter to Amazon, demanding an “immediate review” of their algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”

Warren specifically singled out “The Truth About COVID-19” as a prime example of “highly ranked and favorably tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wants to see banned from sale.

Two days later, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., followed in Warren’s footsteps, sending letters to Facebook and Amazon, calling for more prolific censorship of vaccine information. Even President Joe Biden has recently used a debunked report as his sole source to call for my censorship.

Sadly, these attacks are being levied by the very people elected to safeguard democracy and our Constitutional rights. Essentially, what they are calling for is modern-day book burning. This is a democracy, not a monarchy.

Sources and References

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 3 Comments

Owner Of Diagnostic Lab Reports 20 Times Increase Of Cancer In Vaccinated Patients

Great Game India | September 18, 2021

A doctor, who is also the owner of a diagnostic lab has found a 20 times increase in cancers since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Explaining his findings he said that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.

On March 18, Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist and owner and operator of a diagnostics lab, reported to the public in a video produced by Idaho state government’s “Capitol Clarity” project,  that he is seeing a massive ‘uptick’ in various autoimmune diseases and cancers in patients who have been vaccinated.

“Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis,” reported Dr. Cole in the video clip shared on Twitter.

“I’m not exaggerating at all because I look at my numbers year over year, I’m like ‘Gosh, I’ve never seen this many endometrial cancers before’,” he continued.

Explaining his findings at the March 18 event, Cole told Idahoans that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.

Cole explained that two types of cells are required for adequate immune system function: “Helper T-cells,” also called “CD4 cells,” and “killer T-cells,” often known as “CD8 cells.”

According to Cole, in patients with HIV, there is a massive suppression of “helper T-cells” which cause immune system functions to plummet, and leave the patient susceptible to a variety of illnesses.

Similarly, Cole describes, “post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,”

“And what do CD8 cells do? They keep all other viruses in check,” he continued.

Much like HIV causes immune system disruption by suppressing CD4 “helper” cells, the same thing happens when CD8 “killer” cells are suppressed. In Dr. Cole’s expert view, this is what seems to be the case with the COVID-19 jabs.

Cole goes on to state that as a result of this vaccine-induced “killer T-cell” suppression, he is seeing an “uptick” of not only endometrial cancer, but also melanomas, as well as herpes, shingles, mono, and a “huge uptick” in HPV when “looking at the cervical biopsies of women.”

This is not the first time the COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to serious issues regarding women’s health.

According to Intermountain Healthcare doctors women who were recently vaccinated for COVID-19 may show symptoms of Breast Cancer as a side-effect of the vaccine.

As per reports women are experiencing irregular menstruation after getting vaccinated against COVID with more heavier and painful periods.

Six months after the coronavirus vaccines were widely distributed in the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has called for a $1.67 million study on how the COVID-19 vaccines affect women’s menstrual cycles.

According to March data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 34 cases reported where pregnant women suffered from spontaneous miscarriages or stillbirths post COVID-19 vaccination.

Recently, according to VAERS data a breastfeeding baby died of blood clots and inflamed arteries weeks after his mother was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

Meanwhile, researcher at the University of Miami have recommended men to have a fertility evaluation before receiving the COVID vaccine and to consider to freeze their sperm before vaccination in order to protect their fertility.

Dr. Cole states in his video that, not only are melanomas showing up more frequently, like endometrial cancers, the melanomas are also developing more rapidly, and are more severe in younger people, than he has ever previously witnessed.

“Most concerning of all, there is a pattern of these types of immune cells in the body keeping cancer in check,” stated the doctor.

“I’m seeing invasive melanomas in younger patients; normally we catch those early, and they are thin melanomas, [but] I’m seeing thick melanomas skyrocketing in the last month or two,” he added.

Cole came into prominence in January of 2021 when the Idaho government put in place an effort called “Capitol Clarity,” with the stated goal of keeping Idahoans informed about the facts surrounding COVID-19.

Capitol Clarity has since hosted Dr. Ryan Cole multiple times to provide information to the public about vaccine safety and COVID-19 measures more broadly.

The videos of Dr. Cole at these events, which were originally posted on YouTube, have since been deleted by the Google owned video platform in a continual effort of censorship by Big Tech.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Facts Debunk NPR Claim that Global Warming Is Causing Dying Trees, Power Outages

By James Taylor | ClimateRealism | September 21, 2021

At the top of Google News search results this morning for “climate change,” National Public Radio (NPR) claims global warming is causing a mass die-off of trees in California and throughout the country, with the trees falling on power lines and causing power outages. In reality, objective facts show forests are becoming healthier during recent years and decades, falsifying any assertion that global warming is causing dying trees and power outages.

The NPR article, “Climate Change Is Killing Trees And Causing Power Outages,” attempts to shift blame for California power outages away from utilities’ negligence and poor government forest management to blaming global warming, instead. Quoting utility company personnel, NPR asserts, “According to more than a dozen of the country’s largest utilities, branches and trees falling on power lines are a leading source of power outages. Some utilities say that because of factors related to climate change, trees are dying faster than they can reach them on their normal trimming cycles.”

“We have never seen the sort of mass mortality that we’re seeing now,” said Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) advisor Igor Lacan in the NPR article.

Claimed NPR, “Extreme storms, droughts, disease and insects are stressing and killing trees, and these trees pose a growing threat of wildfires and to grid reliability, many large utilities say.”

If NPR’s claims are true, we should be able to see the declining tree numbers and “mass mortality” of forests in forestry data. Objective scientific data, however, show exactly the opposite is occurring.

Globally and throughout the United States, tree canopy gains far outweigh tree canopy losses. Since 1982, tree canopy cover in the United States has increased by more than 100,000 square miles. That is an area larger than Colorado. Globally, tree canopy has increased by more than 650,000 square miles.

Notably, the increase in tree canopy is occurring not just because forests are expanding their range. Tree growth within each forest acre is also outpacing tree mortality.

NPR focuses much of its tree mortality claims on California, yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports there are presently three times as many trees per forest acre in California as there were  150 years ago. The tree growth is so significantly outpacing tree mortality that U.S. Forest Service ecologists are urging forest managers to thin the forests by chopping down trees. This is not consistent with NPR’s claim that forests are in a “mass mortality” die-off caused by global warming.

Power outages have the potential to create tremendous disruption and danger to our daily lives. Recognizing this, climate activists like NPR attempt to further their alarmist climate agenda by blaming power outages on global warming. In reality, objective science shows forests are becoming healthier in a warmer world with more atmospheric carbon dioxide, which reduces the factors that NPR claims are responsible for recent power outages.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Energy poverty is not an option for India’s 360 million poor

By Vijay Jayaraj | American Thinker | September 22, 2021

The global call to impose climate shutdowns akin to the COVID-19 lockdowns fails to recognize that there are millions of poor people for whom there is no room to compromise on energy liberty.

Political organizations like the World Economic Forum see the pandemic-driven economic pause as an opportunity to impose energy restrictions to address climate change. Many organizations now want to “save the planet” by implementing policies that will help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or at least make them appear sensitive to the issue. However, the poor in the developing world cannot forgo access to fossil-driven economic development just because of the climate delusions of politicians in luxurious European offices.

Speaking for my own country, India, the 360 million people living in poverty should have more of an option than continued deprivation. Presenting as morally superior their choosing to sacrifice the use of fossil fuels for the sake of a faux battle against climate change is itself immoral.

I know a family’s sole breadwinner whose only livelihood is stitching clothes in a poor neighborhood of Indias most populated city. For her, the electrical sewing machine — recently bought with help — is an absolute essential. Any intermittency in power supply is likely to make her lose out on precious money.

File photo.

For this woman, who is already below the poverty line, the real possibility of not being able to buy basic groceries is a much larger problem than a few degrees’ change in global temperature. In fact, the United Nations has forecasted that even a large rise in global average temperature during the next 80 years will result in a loss of less than five percent in global GDP (gross domestic product).

So why would this impoverished woman give up her access to cheap and reliable coal-powered electricity just because of a theoretical loss of GDP postulated as a worst-case scenario by the year 2100? How dare anybody — least of all affluent jet-setters — ask her to?

While governments in the U.S., Canada, and Europe offered cash payment during the economic lockdown, the poor in developing parts of the world suffered without any help.

Yes, many small businesses in the West suffered during the COVID-19 lockdown. But the situation in developing countries was worse. A majority of the poor in these countries work in a sector of the economy that requires no documentation or proof of identification, making it difficult to get aid to them.

We are talking about numbers larger than the entire U.S. population who do not have a home or a vehicle or people to help them.  Studies have shown that India lost years of progress against poverty during the four-month initial COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. For this reason, the countrys federal government refused to impose a nationwide lockdown during the second wave. Economic restrictions were mostly imposed by state governments.

The proposed climate lockdowns would be not at all different from the brutal COVID-19 lockdowns. They would deny the poorest hope of climbing the socio-economic ladder.

Even worse are stealthy energy restrictions that international political bodies have been imposing on developing economies. Climate alarmists have made a consistent effort to disrupt the fossil-fuel sector during the past two decades.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are requisites for the sustenance of the poor. Without them, there is no cooking fuel for billions of people in the Third World. Even a slight interruption of the coal supply will result in blackouts for more than a billion people on an everyday basis.

It makes absolutely no sense for governments to switch to intermittent renewables like wind and solar in the name of climate change. Firstly, there is no backup solution (other than fossil) that can substitute for intermittent sources in real time during peak hours. Secondly, even advanced economies like the U.K. are unable to cope with the power demand when their renewables fail. Why would developing countries fare any better? Thirdly, wind and solar are proven contributors to a rise in electricity prices globally.

Oh, yes — we should mention that there is no climate emergency. The world has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years, and predictions of a warming catastrophe are based on consistently wrong computer models.

The clarion call from the world’s poor is not a climate SOS! Rather, they desperately need economic growth that can be fostered only through extensive use of fossil fuels.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate for the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a masters degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England.  He resides in Bengaluru, India.

Photo credit: Jorge RoyanCC BY-SA 3.0 license.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

US demands Russia boost natural gas deliveries to Europe through Ukraine

RT | September 22, 2021

The US says Russia must increase supplies of natural gas to Europe through Ukraine to curb skyrocketing energy costs, sticking to its negative stance on the launch of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

“The reality is there are pipelines with enough capacity through Ukraine to supply Europe. Russia has consistently said it has enough gas supply to be able to do so, so if that is true, then they should, and they should do it quickly through Ukraine,” Amos Hochstein, senior adviser for energy security at the US State Department, said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

Hochstein said supplies of gas from Russia to Europe are “inexplicably low compared to both previous years and to what they have the capacity to do.” He also said that Russia’s state energy giant Gazprom’s refusal to book additional gas transit through Ukrainian territory for October “increases the concern.”

The US official also accused Moscow of trying to use Europe’s energy crisis to speed up the launch of the newly constructed Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which runs from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea. Hochstein underlined that US President Joe Biden and his administration oppose the launch of the project.

Gas prices in Europe have been hitting records, with October futures on the Dutch TTF exchange reaching record $963.9 per 1,000 cubic meters this month, while on September 20 the estimated price was $911.2.

Russia’s Gazprom has repeatedly pointed to the connection between high gas prices and lower-than-needed reserves in European underground storage facilities ahead of the approaching winter. As of September 19, those reserves were only 72% full, TASS reported, which is nearly 14% lower than in the past five years.

However, Gazprom emphasized last week that its current volume of gas supplies to Europe is in full compliance with the existing contracts. The company has been uneager to book additional volumes in the pipelines running through Ukraine due to high fees.

Gazprom is also counting on the launch of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline capable of delivering 55 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas annually. The pipeline’s daily capacity of gas supply is comparable to the entire volume of liquefied gas that is now supplied to Europe.

However, Russia may have to wait up to four months for EU certification required to start deliveries. The project has been repeatedly delayed under pressure from Washington and some Eastern European countries, which view increasing energy imports from Russia as a threat to Europe’s energy security.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , | 1 Comment

Who represents Afghanistan: Genuine activists vs ‘native informants’

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | September 22, 2021

Scenes of thousands of Afghans flooding the Kabul international airport to flee the country as Taliban fighters were quickly consolidating their control over the capital, raised many questions, leading amongst them: who are these people and why are they running away?

In the US and other Western media, answers were readily available: they were mostly ‘translators‘, Afghans who ‘collaborated’ with the US and other NATO countries; ‘activists’ who were escaping from the brutality awaiting them once the Americans and their allies left the country, and so on.

Actually, the answer is far more complex than that offered by Western officials and media, which ultimately – although inaccurately – conveyed the impression that NATO armies were in Afghanistan to safeguard human rights, to educate women and to bring civilization to a seemingly barbaric culture.

Though political dissent is a basic human right, there is a clear and definitive line between the legitimate right to challenge one’s government/regime and willingly collaborating with another – especially when that collaboration can have dire consequences on one’s own people.

In the United States and Europe, there are thousands of political dissidents from many parts of the world – from South America, the Middle East, East Asia, and others – who are, sadly, used as cheerleaders for political and military interventions, either directly by certain governments, or indirectly, through lobby and pressure groups, academic circles and mainstream media.

These individuals, often promoted as ‘experts’, appear and disappear whenever they are useful and when their usefulness expires. Some might even be sincere and well-intentioned when they speak out against, for example, human rights violations committed by certain regimes in their own home countries, but the outcome of their testimonies is almost always translated to self-serving policies.

Thousands of Afghans – political dissidents, NATO collaborators, students, athletes and workers seeking opportunities – have already arrived in various western capitals. Expectedly, many are being used by the media and various pressure groups to retrospectively justify the war on Afghanistan, as if it was a moral war. Desperate to live up to the expectations, Afghan ‘activists’ are already popping up on western political platforms, speaking about the Taliban’s dismal record of human rights and, especially, women’s rights.

But what is the point of appealing to the western moral consciousness after 20 years of a NATO-led deadly invasion that has cost Afghanistan hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

In Afghanistan, an alternative narrative is evolving.

On September 11, hundreds of Afghan women protested in Kabul University, not against the Taliban, but against other Afghan women who purport to speak from western capitals about all Afghan women.

“We are against those women who are protesting on the streets, claiming they are representative of women,” one of the speakers said, AFP reported.

While AFP made a point of repeating that the women protesters have “pledged” their commitment to “all Taliban’s hardline policies on gender segregation”, emphasising how they were all covered “head to toe,” the event was significant. Among many issues, it raises the question: who represents Afghan women, those who left or those who stayed?

A large banner held by the protesters in Kabul read: “Women who left Afghanistan cannot represent us.”

The truth is no one represents Afghan women except those who are democratically-elected by Afghan society to represent all sectors of that society, women included. Until real democracy is practiced in Afghanistan, the struggle will continue for real freedom, human rights, equality and, obviously, representation.

This fight can only take place within an organic, grassroots Afghan context – whether in Afghanistan or outside of the country – but certainly not through Fox News, the BBC or US Senate hearings.

The late Palestinian-American scholar, Professor Edward Said, repeatedly warned of the pseudo reality painted by the ‘native informants’ – supposed political dissidents recruited by western governments to provide a convenient depiction of the reality in the Middle East and elsewhere, as a moral justification for war. The consequences, as the 2003 Iraq war and invasion have demonstrated, can be horrific.

Said challenged a particular ‘native informant’, the late Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese academic, whose ideas about the Iraqi enthusiasm for the US war, though proved disastrously wrong, were used by George W. Bush and others as proof that the impending war was destined to be a ‘cakewalk‘.

Ajami’s ideas were long discredited, but the political machinations that still prefer ‘native informants’ to genuine human rights defenders and good scholarship remain in place. Many of the Afghan escapees are sure to be strategically placed through the same channels, which continue to promote interventions and sanctions as sound policies.

The war in Afghanistan has ended, hopefully for good, but the conflict on who represents the people of that war-torn country remains unresolved. It behooves the Taliban to deliver on its promises regarding equal representation and political plurality, otherwise there are may others abroad who will be ready to claim the role of legitimate representation.

In the Middle East, in particular, we have already witnessed this phenomenon of the west-based ‘legitimate’ democratic representations. Ultimately, these ‘governments-in-exile’ wrought nothing but further political deception, division, corruption, and continued war.

War-torn Afghanistan – exhausted, wounded and badly needing a respite – deserves better.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | | 1 Comment

Poll: 80% of Palestinians call for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resign

MEMO | September 22, 2021

A recent poll found that about 80 per cent of Palestinians want Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to resign, Quds Press reported yesterday.

The poll was conducted by Khalil Shikaki, who runs the Palestinian Center for Survey and Policy Research in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

According to Shikaki, 1,270 Palestinian adults were interviewed for the survey across the occupied West Bank and besieged Gaza Strip between 15-18 September.

“This is the highest number we have seen calling for Abbas’ resignation since Abbas’ election in 2005,” Shikaki told the media.

“If presidential and parliamentary elections were held today,” Shikaki said, “Hamas will win against Fatah if Abbas was Fatah’s choice, but if Fatah nominated Marwan Al Barghouti, it will win.”

A large majority of the Palestinians, the poll found, believe that Hamas deserves to represent the Palestinians, while Fatah, the PA and PA security services have lost people’s confidence.

Meanwhile, most of the Palestinians want Hamas to launch rockets at Israel if it expels Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah and puts restrictions on accessing Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The poll found that the Palestinians have confidence in Hamas’ pledges to free Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, but they do not believe Fatah and the PA’s promises to do so.

Two-thirds of the Palestinians saw that Hamas fought the last war with Israel in defence of the residents of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | Leave a comment

Lomborg criticizes medical journals for alarm about climate change

Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg has reacted sharply on the claim of over 200 medical journals, earlier this month, that there are significant health risks to any temperature rise. He concludes that there are very basic mistakes underlying the alarmist claims and sent the following letter to the editor of The Lancet, one of the journals involved. Lomborg posted his letter on twitter.

Below the full letter.

Malmö, September 8, 2021

Dear Dr. Horton,

I read with interest your co-authored editorial “Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health” published in BMJ (2021;374:n1734) and many other international journals. As a core argument you write that there are significant health risks to any temperature rise and document it with “In the past 20 years, heat related mortality among people aged over 65 has increased by more than 50%.” However, this mortality increase [i] is a simple count, not a rate. The overwhelming part of the increase is due to the fact that the global population of people aged over 65 increased more than 40% in the same time period. Indeed, the increase in heat mortality rate is a much lower 9.4%. I am sure you agree that making a causal claim without adjusting for a dramatically changed population is fundamentally unsound. In fact, I am positive that you and your journal would demand a rewrite of any paper making such an argument. It is analogously flawed to claiming that Brexit led to better health for the European Union because total deaths overnight dropped 600,000 per year when the UK left. Given the enormous attention that your paper received, I therefore reach out to you to hear what action you will take to ensure that this unsound argument is rectified.

Yours truly,

Bjorn Lomborg President, Copenhagen Consensus, and Visiting fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University

I hope it might be useful to visualize the issue.

Below, the left box illustrates your editorial’s claim that temperature rises have increased the number of heat deaths of people aged 65+ by 53.7% while disregarding a 40% increase in the relevant population. The middle box shows the rate of heat deaths for the same population group, which takes into account the rapid increase in the population. I hope you will also find the right box interesting: it compares the heat deaths (which are slowly rising) with the much greater risk from cold deaths (declining much faster) from the Global Burden of Disease study. It highlights the problem with only looking at more heat death but neglecting the much greater fall in cold deaths.

This result is comparable with a new Lancet study that shows global warming increased heat deaths of all deaths by 0.21% (from 0.83% in 2000-03 to 1.04% in 2016-19) and decreased cold deaths by 0.51% (from 8.70% to 8.19%).[ii]

[i] Your reference is indicator 1.1.3, which shows a 53.7% increase in heat mortality from 165,000 annual deaths in 2000-04 to 253,000 annual deaths in 2014-18, from “The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises” in the Lancet (

[ii] Table S5&6, “Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study” Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5:e415–25.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 18, 2021

In a Highwire exclusive, Deborah Conrad, a hospitalist physician’s assistant on the frontlines of the pandemic, pulls back the curtain on the complete lack and disregard in her hospital for reporting Covid vaccine injury to VAERS, this country’s only mechanism to track the safety of these rushed-to-market, mandated products.

In riveting detail, including emails & recorded phone conversations, Conrad exposes the internal push to turn a blind eye to injuries and “tow the company line” that this vaccine is safe.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Video | , , | 2 Comments