Britain’s “Diverse and Reliable” Electricity System
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | September 19, 2021
According to Kwasi Kwarteng, we have a diverse and reliable electricity system:
Well, we used to anyway!
The chart below sums up exactly how we and Europe got into the mess we are now in:
BP Energy Review
Because coal power capacity has been squeezed out of the system, we are now ultra reliant on natural gas when renewables fail to deliver, with the inevitable impact on power prices which we are now seeing.
Meanwhile if the government is serious in getting energy prices back down, I would suggest the following actions should be taken immediately:
- Abolish carbon pricing forthwith
- Support the opening of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea
- Impose an Intermittency Tax on wind and solar farms, so that they carry the full cost of intermittency, instead of the consumer.
- Take action to increase the UK’s natural gas storage capacity
- Abandon all spending plans for Net Zero, allowing money to be returned to taxpayers or energy users.
These actions would have an immediate impact on energy prices, as well as providing longer term energy security at little or no cost to the Exchequer.
This Week in the New Normal #6
This Week in the New Normal | OffGuardian | September 19, 2021
1. IS THE UK HEADING FOR A WINTER BLACK-OUT?
This week it was reported that a fire at a power relay station has damaged a cable running electricity from France to the UK. The cable apparently can’t be fixed until March (although I have yet to see any explanation as to why), which means electricity prices are set to jump up this winter.
Real fire or no, you can be sure the power companies don’t mind the bump in revenue. But is there more to it?
We’re already seeing warnings of potential “blackouts” this winter, as the electrical supply fails to keep up with demand. Power shortages during cold weather could easily cause a heavy spike in the number of elderly or vulnerable people dying over the winter.
Those deaths, as pretty much all deaths are these days, could then be attributed to “Covid”, and used to enforce booster shots or another lockdown… or anything else they want.
Further, it’s conceivable that, just as lockdowns were sold as being good for the environment, any blackouts could be accompanied by news stories talking up the idea of living with less electricity.
Can’t you just picture the Guardian’s opinion section? “In the future rolling blackouts will be the new normal. And that’s a good thing.” or “temporary electricity outages are a small price to pay for healing the earth” and even “Back to nature: How the blackouts forced us outside to reconnect with our planet and our neighbours.”
It’s also possible, of course, that there was no fire, and there will be no blackouts, and that they’re just freaking people out to make them worry and stop them complaining when their electricity prices are hiked for no reason.
2. DOCTORS SHOULD “GIVE PRIORITY” TO VACCINATED PATIENTS
Ruth Marcus, a deputy editor at the Washington Post, has had enough of people pussy-footing around this issue and is going “come right out and say it” – unvaccinated people deserve healthcare less than vaccinated people.
She at least admits this “conflicts radically with accepted medical ethics”, which is completely true but for some reason that doesn’t seem to change her mind:
under ordinary circumstances, I agree with those rules. The lung cancer patient who’s been smoking two packs a day for decades is entitled to the same treatment as the one who never took a puff. The drunk driver who kills a family gets a team doing its utmost to save him
To be clear then – Ruth considers the unvaccinated as morally inferior to a drunk driver who ran over some kids. Which says a lot more about her, than the unvaccinated.
This is one of the feeler pieces. An antennae article, gently feeling the ground to see if it can bear the weight of the agenda coming behind it. It’s setting up the conversation. Because once we’ve established “anti-vaxxers” don’t deserve healthcare, those other people she’s so careful to mention – smokers and drunk drivers – they’re next. Along with the obese, or the clumsy, or the religious, or the politically inconvenient.
If you don’t believe me, just check the comments under the article. The WaPo has one of the most scripted comments sections on the internet, whose usual job is to play the “bad cop” to the author’s “good cop”. And, sure enough, BTL is full of hundreds of supposedly real humans saying the author doesn’t go far enough, and we should ration all kinds of healthcare based on personal choices.
This particular talking point is already being aired on CNN and by late-night talkshow hosts too. Expect it to spread quickly, especially when the flu season starts.
3. THE CAMPAIGN TO DE-FUND INDEPENDENT MEDIA CONTINUES
A Guardian article from today is warning that big companies might be “funding misinformation” through internet advertising. There’s a lot of words there, but you don’t need to read most of them, the agenda is clear from the headline:
Nike and Amazon among brands advertising on Covid conspiracy sites
The article is based on a report from the Bureau of Independent Journalism, which claims to be an “independent” non-profit, but which is funded by an entirely predictable list of billionaires. Seriously, check their “about us” page and play NGO Bingo with their donor list.
According to this “independent” report, internet advertising is too “opaque” and we need to increase the “transparency” of the system so that major companies don’t unintentionally back “misinformation” and only give money to “benign” websites.
This is a continuation of an ongoing campaign to make it harder for any independent content creators to exist. We’ve already seen PayPal team up with the ADL to “Fight Extremism and Protect Marginalized Communities”. You don’t need me to tell you what that means.
It’s not just political either, YouTube demonetises basically everyone for basically anything these days, turning their formerly public platform into a corporate desert devoid of individuality or creativity.
There’s a reason OffG has always resisted putting ads on the site, over the years that decision has cost us a lot of money, but we have our independence and don’t live under threat. For any independent media out there who do rely on advertising income, now might be a good time to develop a plan B.
… More at OffGuardian.
Hamas calls for revoking Abraham accords with occupation state
Palestine Information Center – September 19, 2021
GAZA – The Hamas Movement has called for renouncing the shameful Abraham accords and ending all forms of normalized relations with the Israeli occupation state, urging the Muslim and Arab nations to restore their role in defending Palestine.
In a press release on Saturday, Hamas stressed the need “to swiftly correct such wrong political trajectory and respond to the aspirations of the peoples in the region who reject any sort of normalization with the occupation state.”
“The so-called Abraham accords are a Zio-American project par excellence, aimed at establishing regional openness and normalization with the Zionist entity, integrating it into the region and forging alliances with it to shift the conflict priorities, instead of being with the Zionist entity that is occupying Palestine and considered the greatest danger to the region,” the Movement said.
“The US administration and the Zionist entity are working on deceiving our nations and anesthetizing their awareness through an intensive marketing and promotion campaign for the Abraham accords that have been brokered with rogue regimes working against the region’s history, present and future,” it added.
“Those accords are aimed at consolidating and achieving the Zionist hegemony over the region militarily, politically and economically, plundering its wealth, marginalizing the Palestinian cause and isolating our Palestinian people from its Arab and Islamic surrounding and depth,” the Movement underscored.
On September 15, 2020, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain officially signed normalization deals (Abraham accords) with the occupation state under the auspices of the previous US administration. Sudan and Morocco followed suit soon later.
Elderly Australian woman knocked down & Pepper-Sprayed by police during protest against lockdowns
RT | September 19, 2021
An elderly woman believed to be in her 70s was attacked by Melbourne police and pepper-sprayed while she was on the ground during a protest against Covid-19 lockdowns on Saturday.
As she held an Australian flag and stood on the road facing toward a group of approaching police, one officer shoved the woman, sending her tumbling to the ground. Another officer then pepper-sprayed the woman as she laid motionless and unable to protect herself.
Seconds after the attack – with the offending officers having already moved on – another group of police officers came to the woman’s aid and attempted to help her up.
Videos of the attack from multiple angles went viral on social media this weekend, with many Australians accusing the Melbourne officers of police brutality.
Australian MP Craig Kelly called the attack “despicable,” “disgusting,” and “ILLEGAL,” and tweeted, “This is not my Australia… We cannot accept Police in Australia pushing to the ground an unarmed 70 yr old woman (or anyone) who presents no threat & then have 2 officers pepper spray the unarmed, defenceless person in the face while on the ground.”
Former New South Wales Senator David Leyonhjelm also condemned the attack, calling the officers “gutless,” while journalist Ky Chow wrote, “I’ve watched several videos of this, and it’s hard to see how the Vic cops defend this.”
Several other incidents of violence between police and protesters broke out during the protest in Melbourne on Saturday and 235 people were reportedly arrested.
Melbourne police were also caught on camera pepper-spraying dozens of other Australians who were involved with the “unauthorized protest.”
Both Melbourne and Sydney have experienced repeated protests over the past few months in response to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in the two cities. In August, a man from the state of Victoria was sentenced to a maximum of eight months in prison for helping to organize a protest in Sydney, New South Wales.
New Study Shows Vitamin D3 Can Inhibit COVID-19
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 19, 2021
A study using active forms of vitamin D3 has shown that the vitamin’s metabolites can inhibit replication and expansion of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Summarized by Newswise, “researchers on this study say their findings help explain a possible mechanism for why low vitamin D levels seem to promote COVID-19 infection and poor outcome in certain individuals. This correlates to other studies showing a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and poor disease outcomes. More studies and clinical trials are planned to test the efficacy of vitamin D and lumisterol as an antiviral therapeutic for COVID-19 in animals and humans.”
Study authors commented, “Active forms of vitamin D and lumisterol can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication machinery enzymes, which indicates that novel vitamin D and lumisterol metabolites are candidates for antiviral drug research.”
In September 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he believed that vitamin D could help fight COVID, although he didn’t elaborate at the time on how he knew that to be true.
SOURCES:
ROBERT MALONE INTERVIEWED BY JIMMY DORE
anti_republocrat | September 15, 2021
Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, is interviewed by Jimmy Dore. Malone is not “anti-vax,” but he is “pro-ethics” and believes that all medical procedures require truly informed consent, with absolutely no coercion. He shares the view of Geert Vanden Bossche, whom he mentions in the interview, that the vaccines help to generate the variants because they are non-sterilizing. He says they should be targeted toward those who are at highest risk from the virus, seniors and those with multiple co-morbidities. I personally disagree with that. I think they should be taken off the market altogether, but at least he is adamantly against mandates.
FEC rules Twitter shadowbanning Congressman Matt Gaetz wasn’t election interference
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2021
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) unanimously rejected a complaint by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz against Twitter, alleging the social media company shadowbanned him in 2018. The complaint accused Twitter of election interference.
In 2018, Vice reported that Twitter subjected Republican legislators, including Gaetz, to shadowbans, which limited the visibility of their accounts in search results. Following the report, Gaetz filed a complaint against Twitter with the FEC in July 2018.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
The FEC also recently ruled that Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden corruption story was not election interference.
Last month, all six FEC commissioners agreed that Twitter’s shadowban did not break election interference laws.
Twitter explained that Gaetz’s account was shadowbanned because of being “associated with other accounts that already had high indicia of misuse or abuse.”
In the original complaint, Gaetz said that Twitter’s shadowban amounted to “making an in-kind contribution to [Gaetz’s] political opponents.”
He used a “free billboards” analogy to make his point: “Imagine the following: a billboard company in Florida wants to get involved in the political process, so it offers all candidates running for office… free billboards to promote their campaigns.”
“If the company did not randomly assign locations, but rather, offered large billboards in premium locations within the district to Democratic candidates, but only offered billboards stuck behind dumpsters, outside the district, to Republican candidates, it could not credibly argue that it was not giving an “in-kind” donation to the Democratic candidates.”
The complaint also argued that Twitter was a debate platform, and, therefore, it is supposed to follow FEC’s regulations on political debates.
“Twitter, as a self-identified news organization, and as a recognized debate platform, is a staging organization for candidate debates,” the complaint said.
The FEC rejected the argument, Business Insider reported, referring to a 2019 legal analysis by its general counsel that found out that Twitter could legally limit an account’s activity if it is concerned about “divisive content.” The analysis also concluded that Twitter messages are not “debate within the meaning of the Commission’s regulation,” as its definition of debate means “face-to-face appearances or confrontations.”
NONE OF THE ABOVE: THOUGHTS ON TWO ELECTIONS
BY PAUL ROBINSON | IRRUSIANALITY | SEPTEMBER 18, 2021
Citizens of Russia and Canada go to the polls over the next few days to elect new parliaments – the Duma in Russia’s case, the House of Commons in that of Canada. It’s fair to say that neither is generating a lot of international excitement. In Russia’s case, because the result is (within certain boundaries) a foregone conclusion; and in Canada’s case because nobody cares.
Insofar as the Canadian press is covering the Russian election, it’s to portray it as fundamentally flawed, if not downright corrupt – a pretence at democracy rather than the real thing. Typical is the latest by the CBC’s new Moscow correspondent Briar Stewart, which starts off by quoting the campaign manager of the liberal Yabloko party in Krasnodar, saying that, “the State Duma election is the most terrible election I have seen since my birth.” The rest of the article then hammers home the point in case any readers hadn’t got it already.
There’s an element of truth to the complaints about the Russian elections, although it’s worth noting that the authorities’ manipulation of the system occurs primarily before votes are cast rather than after. That’s to say that the ‘managed’ party of ‘managed democracy’ mainly involves making life difficult for opposition candidates, limiting their access to the media, and things like that, rather than practices like ballot stuffing or falsifying the count (not to say that these practices don’t happen, but the general feeling is that the authorities prefer to limit them so as to avoid ridiculous results that lack legitimacy).
Nevertheless, although the playing field is far from a level one, when Russian voters head into the booths to cast their ballots, they have quite a lot of choice.
It’s reckoned that four or five parties will gain seats in the Duma via the proportional representation system that assigns half the total to those parties that win over 5% (the other half are chosen by first-past-the-post constituency elections). Most of these likely winners fall, I would say, in the left-conservative bracket, but there’s a lot of variation – from the hard left Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), through the also fairly left wing Just Russia party, the centrist United Russia, the centre-right New People (the least likely to pass the 5% hurdle), and the nationalist LDPR.
If those aren’t to your liking, there’s another 9 parties on the ballot papers. Most are no-hopers, though one or two might win a constituency here or there. For instance, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that the CPRF has sold out communism, you can vote for the more hardcore Communists of Russia. Or, likewise, if you think that the LDPR are a bunch of softies and you want tougher action on issues like immigration, you can throw your support behind Rodina. Or, if you’re liberally-inclined and think that New People are Kremlin stooges, you can put your cross next to the name of Yabloko (also Kremlin stooges according to the bizarre logic of the Navalnyites) or the more free market-inclined Party of Growth.
In other words, despite all the manipulations of the authorities, even if the final result is not in doubt (United Russia will win a majority), once you’re in voting booth ready to cast your secret ballot you actually have a lot of options open to you.
Now, let’s look at Canada.
Outside of Quebec (where you also have the separatist Bloc Quebecois), there’s only three options if you want to vote for somebody who win will a seat: Liberal, Conservative, and NDP (Green might pick up one seat, but overall are somewhere around 3% in the polls). The only other party likely to get a reasonable number of votes is the People’s Party of Canada, which is enjoying a surge (6-7%), primarily, it seems, by appealing to anti-vaxxers. But it has no chance of winning any seats and is thus a wasted vote except as a protest.
In other words, in real terms you have a choice of three parties. Let’s see what distinguishes them. As far as I can see, their platforms run roughly as follows:
Party A: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend. Party B: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend! Party C: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend some more!
Party A: Here’s the list of interest groups I want to throw money at. Party B: Here’s my list. Look it’s even longer. Party C: Hah, you think your list is long – look at mine!
Party A: Woke is good. Party B: Woke is extra good. Party C: Woke is extra, extra good.
Party A: Russia is evil. Party B: Russia is very evil. Party C: Russia is very super evil.
Party A: We’ll be tough on China. Party B: We’ll be extra tough on China. Party C: We’ll be extra, mega tough on China. (Of course, in practice, none of them will!)
By now you get the point. It doesn’t really matter who you vote for, you end up with pretty much the same thing. That’s not to say that there are no differences, but they’re not on fundamentals. Basically, it’s three variations of a theme.
So there you have it. In one country, you have lots of choice, but the system’s fixed to make sure the same guys always win. In the other, it’s a fair fight – anyone can win – it just doesn’t matter who does – they’re all the same. You might say that one is rigged at the micro level, while the other is rigged at the macro level.
Which is better? I’ll leave it to you to decide. Meanwhile, I have the difficult decision as to whether Party A, Party B, or Party C is more worthy of my vote on Monday. What a choice!
SHARE THIS:
A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine
By Professor Robert Clancy | Quadrant | September 13, 2021
September 10, 2021, was a black day, the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the “Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling”, through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic’s coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.
The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, “Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick.” In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA’s decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga.
Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM’s use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for “off-label” indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas.
The driving source of “evidence” that IVM has unproven therapeutic value is the Cochrane Review, which concluded from a single meta-analysis that the benefit in treating COVID-19 was “unproven”. This was out of line with a series of supportive meta-analyses by non-conflicted competent epidemiologists. Yet results from Cochrane have singularly been adopted without criticism or discussion, initially by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET), then by diffusion via various professional and regulatory bodies while being fanned by an even less critical mainstream press. Thus IVM is seen by many, including some medical professionals, as the snake-oil of our age. What is not discussed is the validity of the Cochrane Review and the advisory messages from the NCCET. The influence of vested interest parties on Cochrane has been previously raised. The circumstances of generating the review by an unknown German group when experienced epidemiologists were available needs explanation. More immediately, critiques of the Cochrane analysis and the NCCET by unaligned British epidemiologists show defective methodology, cherry-picked data and exclusion of a raft of supportive data.
The information source used to formulate policy in Australia is both out of kilter with conclusions from over 60 controlled clinical trials and the positive experience recorded when IVM was used in national and regional programmes. Cochrane is an incomplete and unreliable basis for decision making on COVID-19 management in an Australian context. The views of international experts are trumped by unknown local bureaucrats.
Surprisingly, the reasons given by the TGA for their decision on IVM are not the usual mantra of “unproven”, based on Cochrane, although that is left hanging as a “given”. The reasons are even less defensible: “supply may become limited” (incorrect, but this nevertheless demonstrates there is a need for the drug); “concerns re toxicity due to dosage determined by social media” (this concern is easily remedied by controlling usage through front-line doctors), and, lastly, the real reason: “It may interfere with the vaccination programme”. What an extraordinary statement!
The reason for “vaccine hesitancy” has nothing to do with IVM use. Doctors promote IVM as complementing the vaccine programme, which, given concerns regarding vaccine resistance caused by Delta strain of the virus and waning of post-vaccine immunity, makes early drug treatment more needed than ever. It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its “bubble”, irrespective of the level of vaccination. The only parts of the world not experiencing a “third wave” of infection are those where lockdowns have been avoided, such as Sweden, or where IVM is used throughout the community, as is seen in parts of South America, Mexico and India.
The real cause of “vaccine hesitancy” is lack of transparency and discussion. Where is the discussion that death from COVID-19 is one thousand times greater than reported deaths linked to the vaccine? That is a fact easily understood. There are genuine concerns about experimental genetic vaccines, yet discussion is suppressed, and these issues are treated as “best kept secrets” by authorities. Failure to openly discuss these concerns in the context of a plan for a safe future vaccine strategy is reason in itself for uncertainty and conspiracy theories. It is unacceptable to shift blame onto IVM for “hesitancy”. Both vaccines and IVM are urgently needed, and suppression of IVM simply leads to unnecessary deaths and a postponed public reaction when evidence supporting the value of both becomes more widely known. Have we learnt nothing from the preventable thousand deaths that followed refusal in the US to allow cheap, safe prophylaxis against Pneumocystis infection in AIDS patients until a randomised clinical trial (RCT) was completed in the 1990s?
What is the influence of pharmaceutical companies? They have actively conspired against IVM while accepting hundreds of millions of government dollars to develop their versions of “early treatments”; in this they have been supported by the TGA that has now regulated against IVM. Meanwhile, the TGA recently registered a monoclonal antibody, Sotrovimab, based on a single small trial. This drug has a similar protection profile to IVM but costs $4,000 a dose (I support its registration, although it is hard to see how it could be superior to IVM). The TGA approved Remdesivir following one study showing its only benefit was four days less hospitalisation. Three subsequent RCTs failed to confirm benefit, yet the TGA allows the drug’s continued use in Australian hospitals. Just a week ago, the TGA reported with enthusiasm discussions with Merck about “son-of Remdesivir”, Molnupiravir, which comes with no clear clinical benefit noted from what are incomplete studies. The US government has bought millions of doses at $1000 per dose. Whose interests are being protected?
Second, the implications for medical practise are a more sinister and subtle consequence of the TGA decision. Preventing general practitioners prescribing IVM for early COVID-19, when there is evidence of safety and benefit, sends a concerning message to community-based doctors. It threatens the “doctor-patient relationship”, as patients with COVID-19 are also aware that drugs are available which could save their lives. It also challenges the traditional role of senior medical advisers, most of whom are hospital-based with no experience of early COVID-19, and are influenced by expert bodies such as the NCCET, and of course Cochrane reports.
Cochrane is promoted as the foundation stone of Evidenced Based Medicine (EBM), the holy grail of contemporary medical practice. Dr. Dave Sackett was the “father of EBM” at Canada’s McMaster University, where he and I led medical-admission teams for five years. We had numerous discussions of EBM, then in its formative stage, anticipating it would have an integrating role in medical practise. Dave died in 2015, which saved him the disappointment of seeing what has happened during COVID-19, where a limited Cochrane review is used as a lever to achieve political outcomes to the disadvantage of patients. The unravelling of well-established professional relationships between community doctors, their medical advisory structures and government bodies has not been helped by the confusion, the lack of organised education activities and the isolation enforced by the pandemic.
The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for “advertising” and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science. We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage.
Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development.
How the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | September 17, 2021
Back in the early 1990s, I spoke with John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book (1979) that helped expose the existence and range of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.
Marks related the following facts to me. He had originally filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests for documents connected to the CIA’s mind-control program. He got nothing back.
Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent Marks 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”
I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.
But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.
Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.
He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.
After publishing his book, Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.
The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.
In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency.
To give you an idea of how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here is what I wrote in 1995 about several human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:
“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”
“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of his cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”
People need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture “in the name of science.”
From a naturalnews.com article by the heroic whistleblower, psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”), we get insight into one aspect of that history.
Breggin:
“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.”
“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.”
“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”
The psychiatrists who later went to work for the CIA, in the MKULTRA program, were devoid of conscience. Any experiment was a good experiment. Human beings were “useful subjects.”
Here is an MKULTRA sub-project you may not have heard of. I wrote about it several years ago—
Some would say the 1940s and 50s were the most vibrant and innovative period in the history of American jazz.
During those years, it was common knowledge that musicians who were busted for drug use were shipped, or volunteered to go, to Lexington, Kentucky. Lex was the first Narcotics Farm and US Health Dept. drug treatment hospital in the US.
According to diverse sources, here’s a partial list of the reported “hundreds” of jazz musicians who went to Lex: Red Rodney, Sonny Rollins, Chet Baker, Sonny Stitt, Howard McGhee, Elvin Jones, Zoot Sims, Lee Morgan, Tadd Dameron, Stan Levey, Jackie McLean.
It’s also reported that Ray Charles was there, and William Burroughs, Peter Lorre, and Sammy Davis, Jr.
It was supposed to be a rehab center. A place for drying out.
But it was something else too. Lex was used by the CIA as one of its MKULTRA centers for experimentation on inmates.
The doctor in charge of this mind control program was Harris Isbell. Astonishingly, Isbell was, at the same time, a member of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on the Abuse of Depressant and Stimulant Drugs.
Isbell gave LSD and other psychedelics to inmates at Lex.
At Sandoz labs in Switzerland, Dr. Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD, also synthesized psilocybin from magic mushrooms. The CIA got some of this new synthetic from Hofmann and gave it to Isbell so he could try it out on inmates at Lex.
Isbell worked at Lex from the 1940s through 1963. It is reported that in one experiment, Isbell gave LSD to 7 inmates for 77 consecutive days. At 4 times the normal dosage. That is a chemical hammer of incredible proportions.
To induce inmates to join these MKULTRA drug experiments, they were offered the drug of their choice, which in many cases was heroin. So at a facility dedicated to drying out and rehabbing addicts, the addicts were subjected to MKULTRA experiments and THEN a re-establishment of their former habit.
Apparently, as many as 800 different drugs were sent to Isbell by the CIA or CIA allies to use on patients at Lex. Two of the allies? The US Navy and the US National Institute of Mental Health—proof that MKULTRA extended beyond the CIA.
In another MKULTRA experiment at Lex, nine men were strapped down on tables. They were injected with psilocybin. Bright lights were beamed at their eyes—a typical mind control component.
During Isbell’s tenure, no one knows how many separate experiments he ran on the inmates.
As I say, Lex was the main stop for drying out for NY jazz musicians. How many of them were taken into these MKULTRA programs?
As Martin Lee explains in his book, Acid Dreams, “It became an open secret… that if the [heroin] supply got tight [on the street], you could always commit yourself to Lexington, where heroin and morphine were doled out as payment if you volunteered for Isbell’s whacky drug experiments. (Small wonder Lexington had a return rate of 90%.)”
A June 15, 1999, Counterpunch article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, “CIA’s Sidney Gottlieb: Pusher, Assassin & Pimp— US Official Poisoner Dies,” contains these quotes on Dr. Isbell:
“Gottlieb also funded the experiments of Dr. Harris Isbell. Isbell ran the Center for Addiction Research in Lexington, Kentucky. Passing through Isbell’s center was a captive group of human guinea pigs in the form of a steady stream of black heroin addicts. More than 800 different chemical compounds were shipped from Gottlieb to Lexington for testing on Isbell’s patients.”
“Perhaps the most infamous experiment came when Isbell gave LSD to seven black men for seventy-seven straight days. Isbell’s research notes indicates that he gave the men ‘quadruple’ the ‘normal’ dosages. The doctor marveled at the men’s apparent tolerance to these remarkable amounts of LSD. Isbell wrote in his notes that ‘this type of behavior is to be expected in patients of this type’.”
“In other Gottlieb-funded experiment at the Center, Isbell had nine black males strapped to tables, injected them with psylocybin, inserted rectal thermometers, had lights shown in their eyes to measure pupil dilation and had their joints whacked to test neural reactions.”
If you think these experiments were so extreme they bear no resemblance to modern psychiatry, think again. Thorazine, the first so-called anti-psychotic drug, was researched on the basis of its ability to make humans profoundly quiescent and passive. Electroshock and lobotomy are straight-out torture techniques that also destroy parts of the brain. SSRI antidepressants increase violent behavior, including homicide. Among its many documented effects, Ritalin can induce hallucinations and paranoia.
Well, all these effects are part and parcel of the original (and ongoing) MKULTRA.
But now the whole population, via psychiatry, is included in the experiment.
Which is one reason why THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICATION must be protected and expanded.
Including, of course, the right to refuse VACCINES.
For example, the COVID vaccines.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.
The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right; It IS a “Poison-Death Shot”
BY MIKE WHITNEY • UNZ REVIEW • SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
“I’ll do one more mind experiment with you: If everyone on the planet were to get Covid and not get treated, the death-rate globally would be less than half a percent. I’m not advocating for that, because 35 million people would die. However, if we follow the advice of some of the global leaders– like Bill Gates who said last year said “7 billion people need to be vaccinated”– then the death-rate will be over 2 billion people! SO, WAKE UP! THIS IS WORLD WAR 3! We are seeing a level of malevolence that we haven’t seen in the history of humanity!” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Author of The Zelenko “Early Treatment” Protocol that saved thousands of Covid-19 patients. (“Zelenko schools the Rabbinic Court”, Rumble; start at 11:45 minutes)
Did the regulators at the FDA know that all previous coronavirus vaccines had failed in animal trials and that the vaccinated animals became either severely ill or died?
Yes, they did.
Did they know that previous coronavirus vaccines had a tendency to “enhance the infection” and “make the disease worse”?
Yes.
Did Dr Anthony Fauci know that coronavirus vaccines had repeatedly failed and increased the severity of the infection?
Yes, he did. (See here: Fauci on ADE)
Did the drug companies conduct any animal trials prior to the FDA’s approval that would have convinced a reasonable person that the vaccines were safe to use on humans?
No, they didn’t.
Did they complete long-term clinical trials to establish whether the vaccines were safe?
No, there were no long-term clinical trials.
Did they conduct any biodistribution studies that showed where the substance in the injection goes in the body?
They did, but the data was not made available to the public.
Do the contents of the vaccine largely collect in various organs and in the lining of the vascular system?
Yes, they do.
Do large amounts of the substance accumulate in the ovaries?
Yes.
Will this effect female fertility and a woman’s ability to safely bring a baby to term?
The drug companies are currently researching this. The results are unknown.
Does the vaccine enter the bloodstream and collect in the lining of the blood vessels forcing the cells to produce the spike protein?
Yes.
Is the spike protein a “biologically active” pathogen?
It is.
Does the spike protein cause blood clots and leaky blood vessels in a large percentage of the people that are vaccinated?
It does, although the blood clots are mostly microscopic and appear in the capillaries. Only a small percentage of vaccinees get strokes or suffer cardiac arrest.
Should people be made aware of these possible bad outcomes before they agree to get vaccinated? (“Informed consent”)
Yes.
Did the FDA know that Pfizer had “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”?
Yes, they did, but they did not demand that Pfizer fix the problem. Here’s more:
“The FDA noted that Pfizer, “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”. The EMA similarly acknowledged that “vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease” was “an important potential risk… that may be specific to vaccination for COVID- 19”.
Why neither regulator sought to exclude such dangers prior to emergency use authorization is an open
question that all doctors and patients are entitled to ask. Why medical regulators failed to investigate the
finding that large vaccine particles cross blood vessel walls, entering the bloodstream and posing risks of blood clotting and leaky vessels is yet another open question again.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament”, Doctors for Covid Ethics)
Did the drug companies vaccinate the people in the placebo group after the clinical trials in order to conceal the difference in the long-term health outcomes between the two groups?
That is the conclusion a rational person would make.
So, they nuked the trials?
Yes.
Did the FDA largely shrug-off its regulatory duties and abandon its normal standards and protocols because
a– It wanted to rush the Covid vaccines into service as rapidly as possible?
b– It knew the Covid-19 vaccine would never meet long-term safety standards?
We don’t know yet, but the adverse events report strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccine is hands-down the most dangerous vaccine in history.
Is the FDA rushing the “boosters” without proper testing?
Yes, it is. Here’s a clip from author Alex Berenson’s latest at Substack:
“Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk – it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.
No one.
As in NONE.” (“Are you kidding me, Pfizer, volume 1 gazillion”, Alex Berenson, Substack)
Have the boosters been modified or improved to meet the changes in Delta variant?
No.
Is there any additional risk in taking a booster-shot after already taking two experimental gene-based vaccines in less than a year?
Considerable risk. Here’s more from the Doctors for Covid Ethics:
“Given that booster shots repeatedly boost the immune response to the spike protein, they will progressively boost self-to-self immune attack, including boosting complement-mediated damage to vessel walls.
Clinically speaking, the greater the vessel leakage and clotting that subsequently occurs, the more likely that organs supplied by the affected blood flow will sustain damage. From stroke to heart attack to brain vein thrombosis, the symptoms can range from death to headaches, nausea and vomiting, all of which heavily populate adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.
As well as damage from leakage and clotting alone, it is additionally possible that the vaccine itself may leak into surrounding organs and tissues. Should this take place, the cells of those organs will themselves begin to produce spike protein, and will come under attack in the same way as the vessel walls. Damage to major organs such as the lungs, ovaries, placenta and heart can be expected ensue, with increasing severity and frequency as booster shots are rolled out.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament“, Doctors for Covid Ethics)
So, it’s the double-whammy. On the one hand, the booster will perform largely like the original vaccine, penetrating cells and forcing them to produce spike protein which, in turn, generates blood clots and leaky blood vessels. And, on the other, the newly-produced S proteins trigger a damaging immune response in which the complement system attacks and destroys the cells that line the inside of the blood vessels. Every additional booster will intensify this process weakening the vascular system and increasing the clotting. If the Doctors are correct in their analysis, then we could see a sharp uptick in all-cause mortality in the heavily-vaccinated countries in less than a year. Cardiac arrests are already rising.
Here’s another question that’s worth mulling over: Was there any reason for the regulators at the FDA to think that these problems would not arise following the launching of the vaccine campaign?
No. They should have known there would be problems as soon as they saw that the vaccine did not stay in the shoulder as it was supposed to. The vaccine wasn’t supposed to enter the bloodstream and spread across the body leaving billions of spike proteins in its wake. (The spike protein is a cytotoxin, a cell killer. It is not an appropriate antigen for stimulating an immune response. It is a potentially-lethal pathogen that poses a threat to one’s health even if it is separated from the virus.) Nor was the vaccine supposed to trigger Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) which is the condition we hinted at above when referring to “vaccine-associated enhanced disease”. Here’s a brief explanation:
“ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)
Is this what we are seeing right now? In all the countries that launched mass-vaccination campaigns early (Israel, Iceland, Scotland, Gibraltar and UK) cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rising faster in the vaccinated portion of the population than the unvaccinated. Why?
Are they really experiencing a fourth or fifth wave or have the vaccines generated “inactivity-enhancing” antibodies that make the disease worse? This 2-minute video helps to clarify what’s going on:
“Vaccines are made to a specific variant. And when that variant mutates, the vaccine no longer recognizes it. It’s like you are seeing a completely new virus. And, because that is so, you actually get more severe symptoms when you are vaccinated against one variant and it mutates and then your body sees the other variant. The science shows, that if you get vaccinated in multiple years (for the flu), you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized… We are seeing the same thing in Covid with the Delta variant. So we are actually mandating that people get a vaccine when they can actually get more sick when they are exposed to the virus… In fact, this week, a paper came out that showed that–with the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated your body is supposed to make antibodies that neutralize the virus, but they were supposed to neutralize the old variant. When they see this new variant, the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.” (“Expert testimony on mandatory vaccinations”, Dr Christina Parks PhD., Rumble, start at minute 5:05)
Repeat: “If you get vaccinated in multiple years, you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized…. With the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated …. the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.”
This is ADE, and this is probably why hospitalizations and deaths are rising among the vaccinated in Israel, UK and the rest. True, the Delta variant is less lethal than the Wuhan virus but, unfortunately, that rule does not apply to those who have been vaccinated and whose antibodies promote the uptake of the virus into their cells. This increases the viral replication function that increases the severity of the disease. In short, people are getting sicker because they were vaccinated. Here’s another short video that helps to explain:
“… The vaccine-induced antibodies will stand up against the virus. and once a virus is under pressure; it changes, it becomes a variant, and the variant cannot be stopped by vaccine-induced antibodies. Vaccine-induced antibodies. also shut down your innate immune system… so variants can come straight through and infect those that are vaccinated. That is viral immune escape, and that means that the vaccinated are defenseless against variants. This is no longer a pandemic of Covid-19. It is a pandemic of variants…
And there is something called recombination, and recombination means a vaccinated host can be infected by more than one variant at a time. …If a vaccinated host is co-infected by more than one variant, the variants will mix DNA, and change and camouflage and produce a super variant. And if a super variants are produced, nothing can stop them. And already they are saying that the latest variant to come out is vaccine resistant. And this is just the beginning. Dr Geert Vanden Bosche warns that if we do not immediately stop mass vaccination campaigns around the world, the world will experience an international catastrophe of mass mortality. I didn’t say that, he did. The vaccinated are a threat to us all.” (“Viral Immune Escape Explained”, Dr. Michael McDowell, Rumble)
It’s not the variant that intensifies the disease, it’s the fact that the vaccine targets one narrow endpoint, the spike protein, that gradually adapts to survive. As the virus progressively learns to avoid the vaccine, vaccine-induced immunity wanes. Natural immunity produces broad, robust immunity to the whole virus not merely one part of it. It is strong and enduring.
So how will the vaccinated fight new forms of the virus, after all, the vaccine is not a medicine that overpowers a particular pathogen. It is a subtle (genetic) reprogramming of the immune system that forces one’s cells to produce a particular version of the spike protein. Boosters that stimulate production of the same protein will have only modest impact. In short, boosters are still fighting the last war.
Also, as we mentioned above, coronavirus vaccines tend to create antibodies that “enhance infectivity” when they encounter adapted forms of the virus. That means that millions of inoculated people will now face forms of the virus for which they have almost no protection and for which their compromised immune systems can only provide limited help. Here’s more from the article above:
“Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe this risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)
“Blunder”, he says?
It wasn’t a blunder. It was deliberate. The Covid-19 vaccine was supposed to fail like all the coronavirus vaccines before it. That’s the point. That’s why the drug companies skipped the animal testing and long-term safety trials. That’s why the FDA rushed it through the regulatory process and suppressed the other life-saving medications, and silenced all critics of the policy, and pushed for universal vaccination regardless of the risks of blood clotting, cardiac arrest, stroke and death. And that’s why the world is on the threshold of an “international catastrophe of mass mortality.” It’s because that’s how the strategy was planned from the very beginning.
The vaccine isn’t supposed to work, it’s supposed to make things worse. And it has! It’s increased the susceptibility of millions of people to severe illness and death. That’s what it’s done. It’s a stealth weapon in an entirely new kind of war; a war aimed at restructuring the global order and establishing absolute social control. Those are the real objectives. It has nothing to do pandemics or viral contagion. It’s about power and politics. That’s all.
Featured Video
US Marines Seized Panama in 1903
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Precedents for Pizzagate
Marc Dutroux, Belgian pedophile, sadist, and serial killer with friends in high places
By Aedon Cassiel | Counter – Currents | December 23, 2016
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The U.S. Sanctions Cuban Journalist For Reporting On The U.S. Blockade
- Israeli firms transform cars into intelligence devices: Reports
- Zionist-controlled companies to surveil British citizens
- THE CHILDREN GAMBIT
- A note on comment posting at Alethonews
- Trump stalls over Iran strike plan, Iran holds all the aces
- Zelensky’s Ceasefire for Elections is Strategic Gambit, Not Democratic Move
- US and Dutch pilots flying F-16s for Ukraine – Western media
- West’s Claims of Non-Involvement in Ukraine Conflict ‘Epitome of Hypocrisy’ – Expert
- Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’
- If Americans Knew
- Help end the injustice against Shadi
- Israel’s Favorite American President
- Israel’s “Yellow Line” Is a Death Trap for Palestinians. We Drove Into It.
- Why Israel’s expanding occupation in Syria presents a critical legal test
- Gaza is not a natural disaster. It is the victim of genocide enabled by global inaction
- Netanyahu’s plan to “end” US aid to Israel is to give even more money under a different name
- Israel ceased firing on Gaza for just 15 days of the “ceasefire” – Not a ceasefire Day 130
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
Aletho News 