Aletho News


How freedom of choice on gender divides children and their parents

By Anastasia Safronova | RT | November 4, 2021

As schools increasingly push freedom of self-identification, parents are often unaware of how deeply rooted this ideology has become among their children. A number of international experts tell RT there’s reason to be concerned.

You can never know for sure what’s going on in another person’s head – especially when that person’s a child. And, while you might imagine otherwise, particularly when it’s your own child. Are you so certain you really know everything about them? The reality may shock you.

The scenario in which children trust their ‘virtual’ friends more than their parents is nothing new. The rift between generations is deepening. And, in many places, one of the key factors contributing to this division is the education system. Schools are so focused on honouring students’ freedom of expression and self-identification – including when it comes to their gender – that they often make children’s lives more complicated and stressful rather than less.

“Projects to be worked on”

Angus Fox, a British academic who represents a global alliance of parents and professional groups in his role as the MD of Genspect, is of the view that, in countries where the debate over gender issues being on the school curriculum is raging, the education system has become too political. He says, “Teaching children the basic skills they need to value themselves, to look after their own mental health first and foremost – that seems to have gone. Practical things seem to have disappeared from the curriculum, to be replaced by very ideological stuff.”

Some teachers even appear to view their pupils as a sort of scientific experiment, Fox suggests. “They see children as projects to be worked on, so they start to have this very emotionally intrusive relationship,” he explains. Younger teachers, in particular, may reject the normative beliefs of the older generation – and that applies not only to more senior colleagues, but to some children’s parents too. “They see these very vulnerable children asking, ‘What am I?’ and they take advantage of that – almost, in a way, attacking their parents. What’s happening in schools is terrifying.”

“It’s not about child welfare – it’s about teachers creating the kind of the world they want to live in.”

The situation is very concerning, according to British science teacher and writer Debbie Hayton, who is herself transgender. What happens in schools is going far beyond the concept of ‘safeguarding,’ she says. “Safeguarding is where we protect children from possible harm. As teachers, we tell children that we can’t keep secrets. If children tell us something important, we need to share it with other responsible adults. But there’s a different standard being applied to these transgender-identified children, which is that secrets can be kept from their parents.”

Whatever the situation, the same rules should be applied, Hayton insists. Last year, she spoke to a mother from Massachusetts whose 14-year-old daughter had identified as transgender for three years. Jennifer, a physician in her 50s, told Hayton her child’s school hadn’t revealed that she had started to question her gender identity. When the teenager asked to be prescribed puberty blockers, Jennifer realized no one had warned her daughter about the possibly irreversible side effects.

Fox is aware of stories like Jennifer’s. He says, “I heard of a young girl who started to take testosterone, and her mother said, ‘It can damage your bone health, as you’re a girl.’ But she replied, ‘I identify as a man, so why would testosterone affect me differently from anyone else who’s a man?’ These kids truly believe they can say they’re something and they become something. When the enormity of that hits the parent, it’s often too late.”

“There’s a whole generation of kids who find it very difficult to believe you if you say, ‘Hold on! It’s not that simple. You’ve got this body and you can’t mess it up!’”

“I have a friend who’s a male de-transitioner, and he says that the people he was hanging around with treated their body like it was a customizable object, like a doll,” continues Fox. Young people are often very naïve, no matter how smart they are, and the danger is that their decisions can be influenced by campaign groups, some of which receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, he cautions.

“Influencing children towards a specific way of thinking”

Mary Laval, a member of Genspect’s press team, is the mother of a gender-questioning teenager. She thinks schools should be inclusive and encourage children to be open-minded. “However, it’s not their place to start teaching kids ideology and to spread misinformation,” she says. In her view, gender ideology has become akin to religion, and, and, as in non-religious schools, parents have the right to expect that their children are not taught religion. It’s a plea made by many parents: to have the right to choose whether their son or daughter is taught that they have the freedom to choose their gender.

Reports of schools trying to hide their students’ gender preferences from their parents – usually justified by the institution’s need to protect vulnerable minors – are frequently reported in the media. Occasionally, parents file lawsuits, being of the view that they have the right to know what’s going on with their children.

Sometimes, the pursuit of ideological goals leads to major problems, as evidenced by the recent scandal involving the Loudoun County School Board, in Virginia, US, which became far greater than just a local conflict between parents and the education system. Two sexual assault cases were filed in two different schools in the space of six months, with the same student convicted of one charge and facing a sexual battery charge for the other. Parents in the county were furious, blaming the authorities for seemingly having tried to silence the matter after the first case, which saw the male student in question enter the female toilets wearing a skirt and carry out the aforementioned assault. Students themselves staged a protest demanding their school guarantee their safety.

According to Genspect founder Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist and best-selling author, it’s inappropriate for schools to misuse their position of responsibility to influence children into thinking a certain way. She says, “​​Schools are for educating young people, for broadening their minds. Young people need to be allowed the opportunity to first learn about concepts in a neutral manner so they can ultimately decide for themselves their own views on any given topic.”

There’s one more angle to this issue that’s worth considering here. Relationships between teenagers are not always straightforward – they’re often not very kind to each other. Last month, it was reported that a group of students from an Illinois high school staged a survey asking whether “queers” should be allowed to use the restroom alongside “normal people.” That’s just one example of the anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment coming to the fore in some American high schools, fanned, it would appear, by an insistent focus on gender and sexuality. Many professionals believe the question of gender wouldn’t have become so difficult for youngsters of all persuasions if the debate – which was originally initiated by adults, after all – hadn’t been allowed to get so heated.

Fox says most parents don’t believe it’s a problem to teach about gender in school until it affects their family personally. He explains: “You get this phenomenon of ‘Well, yes, but not my child.’ A lot of parents I work with have been very honest and said, ‘Mea culpa. I made a terrible mistake. Because, before it was my child, I saw other children going through this and I thought, it was a good thing that we now have more trans people.’” However, when it comes to being told by their child’s school about their own offspring’s wish to transition, Fox says, their opinion often changes drastically. “They say, ‘It can’t be true. I don’t believe what you say.’”

The situation is exacerbated by mainstream and social media pouring fuel on the fire, while, at the same time, avoiding covering all sides of the argument. Fox says, “It’s as if you say you’re trans and everyone should jump up and celebrate, and anyone who does anything different is a figure of hate. It’s very difficult to operate in that climate.”

However, the tide may be turning. According to Hayton, the public is starting to challenge the one-sided narrative, at least in the UK. “The line being pushed is that children have their gender identity and only they know about it, and that needs to be affirmed at all cost. But people are speaking out against that, and there’s a debate now,” she says. “In other English-speaking countries, I’m seeing less of it, however – they seem to be further behind.”

Those who feel there should be a broader dialogue are coming under a lot of pressure, but they’re persevering, determined to ensure alternative views get airtime too. “There are a lot of people willing to start the debate,” she concludes.

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Are Vaccines Driving Excess Deaths in Scotland, a Professor of Biology Asks

The Daily Sceptic • November 4, 2021

Professor Richard Ennos, a retired Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Edinburgh University, writes:

In Scotland this summer there has been excess mortality for the past 21 weeks with the total excess now exceeding 3,000 deaths. I and others have written to MSPs about the dreadful situation asking for a thorough analysis of what is responsible. In response we have been sent a reply from Anita Morrison, Head of Health and Social Care Analysis and Support, that I reproduce below. Five possible explanations are given, none of which reflect favourably on the Scottish Government’s public health policy. To paraphrase her reply, 45% are due to COVID-19 and the rest are accounted for by one or more of:

  1. COVID-19 deaths that were not recognised.
  2. Unintended consequences of the Scottish Government’s non-clinical response to COVID-19 (masks, social isolation etc.).
  3. Problems with access to the health and social care services (presumably due to Scottish government policy of withdrawing these).
  4. Patients not accessing services that were available (presumably because they were too scared of catching COVID-19 due to Scottish government exaggeration of the risks).
  5. Some other cause that has not been identified.

What follows is my reply to Anita Morrison to point out that her response is a damning indictment of Scottish Government public health policy whose outcome should ultimately be measured by the metric of excess deaths.

FAO: Anita Morrison
Head of Health and Social Care Analysis and Support
Directorate for Covid Public Health
Cc Dr. Gregor Smith, Jason Leitch, Caroline Lamb, Maree Todd MSP, Kevin Stewart MSP, Nicola Sturgeon MSP

28th October 2021

Dear Anita Morrison

Thank you for your response to my letter, originally addressed to Sarah Boyack MSP, concerning the unprecedented rise in excess deaths in Scotland this summer that continues as I write (252 excess deaths above five-year average in the past week 42, 24% higher than normal). It is now indisputable that some major health catastrophe is unfolding in Scotland this summer. It is clearly essential that there is serious scrutiny of the health policies that have been adopted by the Scottish Government that have led to this situation. To help with this I would like to look in some detail at the explanations that you have provided for the incredibly worrying situation, and set out the implications of what you have written.

In your response you have put forward the argument that some 45% of these excess deaths have been caused by Covid. This proposition relies on the assumption that all Covid deaths represent excess deaths, a position that is hard to sustain given that Covid deaths are associated with multiple comorbidities, and therefore are unlikely to be exclusively in addition to deaths that would have occurred anyway from other causes.

Setting aside this difficulty, and assuming that 45% of excess deaths are due to Covid, this indicates that the policies that have been pursued by the Scottish Government have been unsuccessful in controlling deaths from Covid this summer. This is in contrast to the summer of 2020 when there was no such excess of deaths due to Covid or any other cause. This increase in the impact of Covid in Scotland between the summers of 2020 and 2021 is nicely illustrated using National Records of Scotland data from the two years stratified by different age groups.

A simple and compelling explanation for these data is that a policy has been enacted in 2021 that was not enacted in 2020 that has caused a three- to six-fold increase in summer Covid hospitalisations. What could that be?

Let us now turn to the majority of excess deaths that cannot be accounted for by Covid. I will be using the most up to date figures from the National Records of Scotland for the summer period 2021 up to week 42 that indicate 3,028 excess deaths (rather than your figures that extend only to week 40). The National Records of Scotland classify these deaths according to their causes, location and age. This is illustrated below.

Here we see that Covid can actually account for a maximum of only 26% of excess deaths in summer 2021. Significant rises in cancer and circulatory deaths are concerning, but perhaps of greater note is that 44% of excess deaths come under the classification of ‘Other’. They are not the kinds of deaths that are readily classifiable into the normal categories that we expect in Scotland, or they would have been placed in those categories. It is therefore these ‘Other’ deaths, some 44% of the total, that we need to investigate in great detail.

From the other panels in the graph above we can see that these ‘Other’ deaths are occurring at home, implying that they are likely to have been sudden because there has been no hospital admission. Furthermore, these excess deaths are not confined to the oldest age groups, where we expect most deaths, but are extended into the younger age group. Analysis of the timing of this rise in excess death shows that it started in the oldest age group and is initiated sequentially in ever younger age groups (see graph below). This strongly suggests that there is some cause for these excess deaths at home that operates first in the elderly and works its way sequentially down the age groups in Scotland. What could this be?

Now let us look at the non-Covid explanations that you have provided for the dramatic increase in excess deaths in Scotland over the past summer.

Your first explanation is that the summer excess deaths recorded as non-Covid are actually due to Covid, but have not been certified as such. I see that you yourself are not convinced by this explanation given the level of testing that has taken place. However, let us suppose this to be true. In that case the Scottish Government’s public health measures that have been put in place in summer 2021 to prevent Covid have been far worse than those put in place in summer 2020 – indeed they have been disastrous.

Your second explanation is that the non-clinical responses to COVID-19 put in place by the Scottish Government (mask-wearing, social isolation etc.) have had unintended deleterious consequences on public health and have dramatically increased the rates of death in the Scottish population. This is an admission of abject failure of the Scottish Government’s public health response to Covid. Public health policy is all about balancing the benefits and risks of interventions to achieve the lowest possible impact during a health emergency. It is pertinent to remember that no benefit-risk assessment of non-clinical interventions on the physical and mental health of the Scottish population was conducted before these interventions were enforced.

Your third explanation is that there has been a problem with access to health and social care services, and patients have not received the care they required from the NHS. Access to these services over the past 20 months has been under the control of the Scottish Government, so if this explanation is correct, then the Scottish Government is culpable for increasing the death rate in Scotland. Numerous policies have been deliberately pursued to dramatically reduce GP face-to-face consultation, to cancel appointments and operations in hospitals etc., so the evidence to support this, as at least a partial explanation, is overwhelming.

Your fourth explanation is that individuals who are in poor health have not referred themselves to health and social care services as they would at other times. To some extent this would be confounded with Scottish Government policies of restricting health care provision discussed above. However there has also been a concerted and relentless media campaign by the Scottish Government to increase fear in the public, particularly fear of hospitals where they may catch Covid. This has meant that they have not gone for treatment when it was necessary. Whatever the proximal cause of failure to seek medical attention, the ultimate cause and responsibility lies in Scottish Government policy.

Your final explanation for the dramatic rise in excess deaths in summer 2021 is that there is some other cause that has not yet been identified. As noted earlier the phenomenon of excess deaths in the presence of a Covid epidemic was not seen in summer 2020, but is seen in summer 2021. What differs between the two years? The glaringly obvious answer is the rollout of COVID-19 vaccination. There was no COVID-19 vaccination programme in 2020, but there was rollout of Covid vaccinations in a sequential way to increasingly younger age groups in 2021, a pattern that we see in the manifestation of excess deaths. All of the COVID-19 vaccines are novel and experimental with no long-term safety data. They are now associated with a wide range of serious side-effects (blood clotting, myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome) whose likely frequency in the wider population was not assessed in the small-scale phase one and two trials that included only a subset of healthy volunteers. The Yellow Card adverse events reporting system, that capture only a fraction of events, has already recorded over 1,700 deaths in the U.K. population associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. There is therefore a prima facie case for COVID-19 vaccination being a contributing factor to the dramatic rise in summer excess deaths in Scotland in 2021.

I am very grateful for your response to my original letter. It has been extremely helpful in crystalising my thoughts about the causes of the dramatic and continuing rise in excess deaths that we currently see in Scotland. My conclusion is that whatever the true explanation for the phenomenon, it is rooted in the misguided and disastrous public health policies of the Scottish Government. The analysis has moreover highlighted that a significant contributor to the excess death of the Scottish population this summer may be adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, a factor that apparently has not occurred to either the Scottish Government or yourself. I would be grateful if you would pass on this insight to the Scottish Health minister so that unnecessary suffering and death is not meted out on the adults, and now children of Scotland.

Yours sincerely

Richard Ennos

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Full Extent of COVID Vaccine Reactions Won’t Be Known for at Least 10 Years, Physician Says

The Defender | November 3, 2021

The latest two-part episode of CHD.TV’s “Against the Wind” with host Dr. Paul Thomas featured two medical professionals who successfully treated COVID patients without a single fatality.

The guests — Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist with advanced medical training in immunology and interventional endocrinology, and Scott Miller, a physician assistant with Miller Family Pediatrics — focused on this question: How do medical professionals transcend the fear of condemnation to save patients from often deadly mainstream treatments?

Thomas opened the segment by describing how, on a recent drive to work, he passed a group of young schoolchildren, all wearing masks and “socially-distanced” by 6 feet. As a father and a pediatrician, “It just felt so wrong,” he said.

“Looking into the eyes of some of these kids, you could just see the lights were gone,” Thomas said.

Thomas and Meehan talked about masks, the COVID vaccine and vaccine injuries.

Meehan shared his evidence-based scientific analysis of why masks are ineffective, unnecessary and harmful.

Meehan also discussed his experience treating COVID patients using available therapies not offered in hospitals, and how his social media posts about COVID treatments were banned.

Of the approximately 4,000 COVID patients Meehan treated, none died. Meehan said his patients came to him early enough for treatment. In the hospital, he successfully treated more than 20 patients who were failing hospital COVID protocols, including a 66-year-old man who had taken two rounds of Remdesivir.

Meehan said shortly after the COVID vaccine rollout, he began recognizing vaccine adverse effects, including miscarriages, vasculitis, inflammatory pathologies and blood clot formations.

Thomas saw a case of myocarditis after vaccines in his pediatric practice.

Meehan said:

“This could have been you. This could have been your child. Your daughter. This could have been your father … These are experimental vaccines. It will be a decade before we know how severe the adverse reactions are going to be. It’s going to be years before we determine that we might lose 10% of the population to antibody-dependent enhancements.”

After Meehan started to see young and college-aged patients with COVID vaccine injuries, he added an emergency declaration to his website. Later he was banned from social media for posting about the danger of spike proteins and how animal studies showed those proteins cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological harm.

Meehan said his safety warnings against COVID vaccination apply across the board, but especially pregnant women, children and youth.

“We must not vaccinate children who are statistically at zero risk of dying from COVID-19,” he said, sharing data from a recent Johns Hopkins University analysis that found of the more than 330 COVID deaths in kids under age 25, data suggested most or nearly all appeared to be in kids with a life-threatening, pre-existing condition.

Next, Thomas interviewed Miller (starts at 37:14) who discussed his experience successfully treating approximately 1,400 patients, including a 100-year-old, with unconventional immune-boosting protocols he learned about through research and case studies.

Miller used FDA-approved therapies that were not FDA-approved for treating COVID, which resulted in him losing his medical license.

Miller treats children as well as adults in his practice. He has had none of his pediatric patients die or become hospitalized from COVID.

Miller discussed the research and moral obligation that compelled him to buck the system and advocate for proven treatments that work for COVID. He said:

“I got to a point where it felt so futile telling people one by one, when there are so many people who needed this information, that I just started openly talking about it.”

Watch this week’s episode here.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 2 Comments

Let’s Compare Sweden’s Covid Outcome to That of Its Lockdown-Crazed Former Possession of Latvia

We’re only allowed to compare Sweden to its former possessions of Finland and Norway

Sweden’s historic cross-Baltic empire (in 1814 it was given Norway as a reward for abandoning Napoleon before Denmark did)
By Marko Marjanović | Anti-Empire | November 3, 2021

Covid curves of Sweden and Britain are remarkably similar. Britain’s peaks are slightly higher, as are its cumulative deaths per capita, but in general, the two share the same ups and downs and the same Covid seasons.

This might lead some to conclude that for Covid purposes Sweden and Britain are in the same region and highly comparable, but such comparisons have been outlawed by the Covid fanatics. For some reason, Sweden can for Covid reasons only ever be compared to just three other countries; Norway, Finland, and Denmark, and no others.

Sweden and Britain had outbreaks at exact same time albeit British death peaks were higher

Sweden with its 1,450 deaths per million takes 54th place, the UK with its 2,050 deaths per million takes 27th

That trio indeed had a better Covid outcome (if not a better rights, dignity, and calmness outcome) than Sweden, which supposedly means that if Sweden had locked down as they had it would have likewise experienced similarly low Covid deaths. What is the proof of that? If lockdowns “mitigate” Covid deaths then why wasn’t the UK with its even more Draconian lockdown able to replicate low Norwegian and Finnish numbers? Why wasn’t lockdown UK able to show Sweden “how it’s done” and embarrass her? (Or lockdown world leader Peru for that matter which is instead nonetheless also world’s Covid deaths leader.) Why didn’t lockdowns work in the UK, but would have in Sweden?

The answer of the lockdown lemmings is usually population density. Supposedly having a greater landmass per capita means that Sweden with its 88% urbanization rate is less densely populated than the UK with an 84% urbanization rate, and this makes all the difference.

In reality, Sweden’s three largest metro areas contain fully 32% of its population (for the UK that figure would be 22%) with most of the rest also living in densely populated (if smaller) cities and towns (disproportionally along the coast). That these historical maritime Baltic trade cities come with vast swathes of frozen northern wasteland attached, does not mean that Swedes are somehow stretched out across secluded permafrosted mountain villages. To the contrary, the very fact that Sweden is much more rugged than Britain means its population is much more concentrated in the few “good” parts of the country.

But anyhow, Sweden is only ever to be compared to its “neighbors”. But in this context what exactly is a “neighbor”? Denmark and Sweden are actually separated by a strait albeit since 2000 there is a 12-kilometer bridge-tunnel across/underneath. Sweden and Finland technically share a border, but that is in the far north where few ever visit and even fewer live. Actual Swedish-Finish links are maritime across the Baltic Sea.

Despite the theoretical land route, historically Finland functioned as a Swedish overseas possession, communication to which was maintained by sailing past the Åland islands and then up the Gulf of Finland (and up the Gulf of Bothnia when it’s not frozen). Another trans-Baltic possession of the Swedes was Latvia (Duchy of Livonia). Finland was lost to Russia during the Napoleonic period and Latvia to Peter the Great a century earlier.

The pair gained independence from Russia at the same time in 1918, but Latvia experienced a “second stint” under the Soviets from 1940 to 1991.

Owing to Swedish (and earlier Baltic German) influence Latvia remains a Lutheran country with recognizable northern historic architecture.

Finland had been under Swedish rule for basically forever, while Latvia was originally conquered and Christianized by mainly German-speaking crusaders who secularized and switched to Protestantism after Luther.

Latvia speaks a Baltic language very different from Germanic Swedish, and Finland speaks a Finnic language that is not even in the Indo-European family of languages.

A ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki takes 16 hours and 15 minutes and runs five times a week. A ferry from Stockholm to Riga takes 18 hours and 30 minutes and runs once a week. (Helsinki is twice the size of Riga and there are more reasons to go there.)

So if we are allowed to compare Covid outcomes in Sweden and in its former overseas territory of Finland, may we also be so bold as to compare it to the outcome in its (previously German-ruled) former territory of Latvia?

Let’s say that we are.

If we do that we find that Latvia has been extremely gung ho on lockdowns, locking down early, hard, and often, and garnering considerable praise for doing so. We also find that despite coming out of the first wave almost completely unscathed and continuing to dutifully lockdown ever since Latvia by now has 20% more per capita Covid deaths than never-lockdown Sweden and rising.

Latvia with 1,750 deaths per million and quickly rising

Lockdown enthusiasts maintain that Latvia’s lockdown was responsible for the country not experiencing the first wave in the spring of 2020 at all, but since that wave skipped entire Eastern Europe, including neighboring Belarus which never locked down, that is highly debatable. More likely Latvia and the rest of the eastern half of the continent would have never experienced the first wave regardless of what they did. Or what else explains the instruments which supposedly worked so flawlessly in the Spring of 2020 failing so utterly ever since?

A possible argument in defense of Latvia’s Covid record could be that comparison to Sweden is not fair given the latter’s much higher vaccination rate.

That argument doesn’t hold up because Sweden faced both of its major outbreaks before vaccines were a factor. Meanwhile, Latvia has only hit its biggest outbreak now that many of its residents have vaccine protection.

The vast majority of Swedish Covid cases occurred before February 2021, that is to say before vaccines. Meanwhile, Latvia gets the luxury of not having to face its biggest, deadliest wave until it has reached a 57% vaccination rate, and it is lockdown Latvia, rather than laissez-faire Sweden, which is hitting higher peaks and has already accumulated more Covid deaths. Explain that.

Latvia didn’t hit peak Covid until a considerable vaccination rate

And for the record, Latvia’s urbanization rate is 68%. Unlike Sweden, Latvia actually is still significantly rural. (Not that any of that matters in the least, as a cursory glance to lockdown North Dakota and non-lockdown South Dakota will tell you, both of which recorded relatively high Covid deaths despite their low population densities. (Incidentally, like Latvia, South Dakota also completely skipped the first wave, despite never locking down.))

Riga in its Hanseatic-Lutheran style

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

White House Expands Vaccine Mandate To Cover 80 Million Workers

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | November 4, 2021

The White House has just released new policies requiring all companies – big and small – to coerce their workers into accepting the vaccine, or face termination, as the Biden Administration continues to up the pressure on all working Americans to get vaccinated before Jan. 4.

According to Axios, President Biden is planning to announce Thursday that employers with more than 100 workers on their payroll must guarantee that their workers are fully vaccinated, or tested weekly, by Jan. 4, 2022. If not, they could face federal fines starting at tens of thousands of dollars per offense.

What’s more, health-care workers will face even tougher restrictions which will effectively require every health-care worker in the country to be vaccinated, or lose their job, despite the fact that millions of health-care workers have already been infected with the virus by natural means.

To be sure, managing weekly testing programs for a minority of corporate employees will be extremely costly, and the ramifications of this new policy will essentially force employees for the biggest companies in the US to accept the vaccine.

Per Axios, the new rules – formally known as the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard – will be enforced by OSHA. They will affect roughly two-thirds of America’s workforce, or roughly 80MM people. Many businesses and hospitals have already started to enforce vaccine mandates, and while Axios reports that they have seen “minimal” noncompliance, that doesn’t exactly square with the fact that less than 60% of the American population is fully vaccinated.

While corporations might be able to absorb some of these costs, small businesses will likely be left with some difficult decisions to make. However, there’s one important catch: OSHA will mostly rely on “complaints” to enforce the rule, meaning it will be up to American workers whether or not they want to hold their fellow workers accountable for defying the policy. This incentive to snitch out co-workers and neighbors has already elicited criticism from some, including Conservative Radio host Dan Bongino, who has pushed back against vaccine mandates in favor of bodily autonomy.

The strict mandate for health-care workers is already creating some problems because, while 40% of health-care businesses have purportedly already enforced the policy, the supposedly “minimal” level of noncompliance is reportedly exacerbating worker shortages at hospitals and other critical service providers.

In another indication of how companies are struggling with the mandate, some federal contractors had been expected to enforce the Biden Admin’s vaccine mandate by Dec. 8, but those expectations have now been pushed back to Jan. 4. When asked whether the pushback was due to worker shortages, or the timing of the holiday season, they refused to comment, saying only that the delay is meant to “align” with health-care facilities and US employers.

Perhaps President Biden (and VP/President-in-waiting Kamala Harris) have already forgotten the lessons of Tuesday’s “off-year” election?

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , , | 1 Comment

Pfizer Is Calling The Shots To Jab Kids

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 1, 2021

In late February 2021, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported1 that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.

While at least two countries, Argentina and Brazil, initially rejected the demands, calling them abusive, many others accepted Pfizer’s terms from the start.

Public Citizen has now reviewed and published the secret contracts2,3 between Pfizer and Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, the European Commission, Peru, the U.S. and the U.K. These contracts reveal nations have handed over unprecedented power to Pfizer. In virtually all scenarios, Pfizer’s interests come first.

Pfizer Is Calling The Shots

Public Citizen points out six ways in which nations are allowing Pfizer to call the shots. For example, Albania, Brazil and Colombia have handed over unilateral authority to the company for the delivery schedule and other key decisions. As reported by Public Citizen:4

“As a condition to entering into the agreement, the Colombian government is required to ‘demonstrate, in a manner satisfactory to Suppliers, that Suppliers and their affiliates will have adequate protection, as determined in Suppliers’ sole discretion’ … from liability claims.

Colombia is required to certify to Pfizer the value of the contingent obligations (i.e., potential future liability), and to start appropriating funds to cover the contingent obligations, according to a contribution program.”

Pfizer also maintains tight control over vaccine supplies, and dictates who can buy their vaccine, when, and who can give and receive vaccine donations. If there are shortages, Pfizer decides which countries get priority.

Bypassing Pfizer can be costly. For example, if Brazil were to accept vaccine donations from another country without Pfizer’s approval, the company can terminate the contract and force Brazil to pay the full prize for all remaining contracted doses. Meanwhile, Pfizer incurs no penalty if its delivery is late, even if it’s so late that the shots are no longer needed.

Some countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, also ended up agreeing to Pfizer’s demand to put up sovereign assets as collateral for vaccine injury lawsuits, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings.

In short, theses governments are guaranteeing Pfizer will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it, so the company won’t lose a dime if its COVID shot injures people — even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice!

At the same time, government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown. This is the ultimate corporate maleficence, using their leverage to force the kill shot down these countries’ throats and avoiding any personal responsibility for damages.

Secret Arbitration

The contracts also dictate how contractual disputes will be settled. As reported by Public Citizen:5

“What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators — not a U.K court — is empowered under the contract to make the final decision. The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret:

‘The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.’

The Albania draft contract and Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru agreements require the governments to go further, with contractual disputes subject to ICC arbitration applying New York law. While ICC arbitration involving states is not uncommon, disputes involving high-income countries and/or pharmaceuticals appear to be relatively rare

Private arbitration reflects an imbalance of power. It allows pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer to bypass domestic legal processes. This consolidates corporate power and undermines the rule of law.”

Pfizer Secured Intellectual Property Rights

Amazingly, the contracts not only secure Pfizer’s intellectual property rights, but should Pfizer be found guilty of stealing the intellectual property rights of others, some of the contracts shift the responsibility away from Pfizer onto the government purchasers! What this means is that Pfizer can steal the intellectual property of others without consequence in at least four countries.

“For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill,” Public Citizen writes.6 “Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.”

Pfizer Given Right To Silence Governments

Perhaps most egregious of all, some of the contracts give Pfizer the right to muzzle government. In Brazil, government officials are prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” without the written consent of the company.

The gag order also includes commenting on the government’s relationship with Pfizer in general. Similar nondisclosure provisions are included in the contracts with the European Commission and the U.S. government. The only difference, Public Citizen notes, is that the nondisclosure rules apply to both parties.

Pfizer Can Prevent Use Of Other Remedies

Equally shocking, though, is that countries are forced to follow through on their vaccine orders even if other drugs or treatments emerge that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.7 Is it any wonder, then, that governments around the world have suppressed the use of drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?

If these drugs were allowed to be used and could be proven to work, the COVID injections would be completely unnecessary, yet governments are on the hook for hundreds of millions of doses. While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.50 per dose. In Albania, the cost of each dose is $12, and in the EU, $14.70.

In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine.

As noted Public Citizen, Pfizer is being allowed to profit from this self-inflicted global disaster in unprecedented ways. In many instances, a nation’s laws will not apply to Pfizer.

These secret contracts grant Pfizer total control over its product and ensures full payment, regardless of whether the shots are needed or usable, while simultaneously eliminating all liability. In short, Pfizer wins, no matter what the outcome of the vaccination campaign might be.

At the same time, Pfizer is also controlling media through its advertising dollars. As you’ve probably realized by now, media companies in most instances will not report on anything that might jeopardize the profits of its advertisers.

As illustrated in the short video above, it couldn’t be more obvious that Pfizer is bankrolling the media, which in turn will refuse to bite the hand that feeds it. You can see the wide spectrum of media programming being sponsored by Pfizer, including “Nightline,” “Making a Difference,” “CNN Tonight,” “Early Start,” “Erin Burnett Out Front,” “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” “CBS Sports,” “Meet the Press,” “CBS This Morning” and “60 Minutes.”

The terms of these contracts are all the more disturbing when you consider how dangerous the Pfizer shot is turning out to be. No wonder the company refused to accept any liability.

According to Pfizer’s own data, one COVID death per 20,000 fully vaccinated individuals is prevented. That means 10,000 lives are saved if 200 million are fully vaccinated.

But how many lives are lost from the shots? This is the other side of the equation that simply demands to be analyzed before any governmental authority can make a decision as to whether the mass vaccination campaign is of benefit or not.

Here, we find that Pfizer’s data10 show the shots are actually killing more than they save. To look at this information yourself, click on “Supplementary Material” on the right-hand side of the paper, then, beside Supplementary Appendix, click on supplements/261159 and scroll down to page 12, Table S4.

In the vaccine group, 15 died; in the placebo group 14 died. Two people died from COVID-19 in the placebo group, while only one died from COVID pneumonia in the vaccine group. That’s how you get a net false positive impact — one life is spared from COVID. However, the all-cause mortality was actually higher in the vaccine group (15, compared to 14).

So, while the shots saved one person from dying from COVID, they also killed one extra person. So, the net effect is nil. There’s no mortality benefit at all. Other investigations using different data strongly suggest the net effect is profoundly negative, and the shots are doing FAR more harm than good.

We Face Looming Vaccine-Induced Public Health Catastrophe

For this, Kirsch cites a paper11 by Dr. Bart Classen, published in the August 2021 issue of the journal Trends in Internal Medicine. Classen points out that Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are all using a “dangerously misleading” clinical trial design. The problem is that they’re all using a surrogate endpoint for health, namely “severe infections with COVID-19.”

Disease specific primary endpoints are no longer used in many fields of medicine, for the fact that it can hide problems. If a person dies from the treatment or is severely injured by it, even if the treatment helped block the progression of the disease they’re being treated for, the end result is still a negative one.

For this reason, the appropriate endpoint that should be used is all-cause mortality and morbidity. When Classen reexamined the clinical trial data from all three manufacturers using all-cause severe morbidity as the endpoint, a disturbing picture emerged.

As explained by Classen in his paper, “US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, ‘All Cause Severe Morbidity’”:12

“‘All-cause severe morbidity’ in the treatment group and control group was calculated by adding all severe events reported in the clinical trials. Severe events included both severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events in the treatment arm and control arm respectively.

This analysis gives reduction in severe COVID-19 infections the same weight as adverse events of equivalent severity. Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statistically significant increase in ‘all-cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.

The Moderna immunized group suffered 3,042 more severe events than the control group. The Pfizer data was grossly incomplete but data provided showed the vaccination group suffered 90 more severe events than the control group, when only including ‘unsolicited’ adverse events.

The Janssen immunized group suffered 264 more severe events than the control group. These findings contrast the manufacturers’ inappropriate surrogate endpoints:

Janssen claims that their vaccine prevents 6 cases of severe COVID-19 requiring medical attention out of 19,630 immunized; Pfizer claims their vaccine prevents 8 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 21,720 immunized; Moderna claims its vaccine prevents 30 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 15,210 immunized.

Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.”

To make the above numbers more clear and obvious, here are the prevention stats in percentages:

  • Pfizer 0.00036 percent
  • Moderna 0.00125 percent
  • Janssen 0.00030 percent

CDC Claims COVID Shots Lower All-Cause Mortality

Despite all of that, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now claims Americans “vaccinated” against COVID-19 have lower all-cause mortality rates.13 As reported by Forbes:14

“Partially and fully vaccinated people died from non-coronavirus causes at a lower rate than their unvaccinated peers, according to the study,15 which looked at millions of patients at seven U.S. health organizations from December to July.

All three vaccines approved by U.S. regulators were tied to lower non-COVID death rates, though the difference in mortality among people who took Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was slightly smaller than for recipients of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines …

This result suggests the vaccines don’t increase a patient’s risk of death, which ‘reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines,’ the study said.”

October 26, 2021, the FDA unanimously voted to grant emergency use approval of the COVID shots for children between the ages of 5 and 11.16 This despite acknowledging they have no idea what the long-term risk to children might be. As noted by one voting member, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”17

All we have at present is two Pfizer trials, one in which 5- to 11-year-olds were followed for two months and another with just six weeks of follow-up. Both were too small to detect potential risks such as myocarditis. That won’t be studied until AFTER the shot is authorized for children. As reported by The Defender :18

Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is “almost nil” — at all.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.

‘Three thousand children received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company’s safety analysis,’ Nass said.

‘Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient … All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine’

Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment. ‘There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,’ Rose said.

In a peer-reviewed study19 co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout. In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates …

Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18. Rose explained: ‘In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that ‘product administered to patient of inappropriate age’ was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.’”

During the meeting, Dr. Cody Meissner noted we don’t know whether the shot is safe for this age group, and the risk of COVID is extremely low. If the shot is authorized, mandates will likely follow, which would be “bad.”

Brownstone Institute is also objecting to the authorization. In an October 20, 2021, article,20 Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D., a former assistant professor of evidence-based medicine and research methods, called the plan to vaccinate young children “absolutely reckless” and “dangerous based on lack of safety data and poor research methodology.”

Meanwhile, data show not a single child has died from COVID-19 who did not have a serious underlying health condition. Alexander reviews a lot of that data in his article.

Staggering Conflicts Of Interest

When you look at the roster of the FDA’s committee members21 who reviewed and voted to authorize the Pfizer shot for children as young as 5, the unanimous “yes” vote becomes less of a mystery. As reported by National File,22 they have staggering conflicts of interest. Members include:

  • Gregg Sylvester — A former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines
  • Arnold S. Monto — A paid Pfizer consultant
  • Archana Chatterjee — A recent Pfizer research grant recipient
  • Myron Levine — Mentor to Raphael Simon, senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer
  • James Hidreth — President of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer vaccines
  • Geeta Swamy — Chair of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program
  • Steven Pergam — Proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine
  • Several people who are already on the record supporting coronavirus vaccines for children, including Ofer Levy, Jay Portnoy and Melinda Wharton

In addition to that, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb is currently on Pfizer’s board of directors.

FDA Buries Data On Seriously Injured Children

With these shots now being pushed on young children, it’s more imperative than ever to understand how data are being massaged and manipulated to support the ongoing lunacy. Of particular concern is evidence that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is burying data on children who were seriously injured in the vaccine trials. As reported by Aaron Siri on Substack:23

Pfizer’s clinical trial for children aged 12-15 included only 1,131 children who were vaccinated and at least one of those children suffered a devastating, life-altering injury which, despite incontrovertible proof and the cries of both the victim and her parents, has not been appropriately acknowledged by Pfizer or the FDA.

Putting aside that one serious injury in a small trial should alone raise blaring alarm bells, one must ask: what other serious adverse events have been hidden and ignored by regulators?”

Siri tells the story of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, who along with her two brothers were enrolled by her parents in Pfizer’s clinical trial. That decision has changed the lives of the entire family, possibly forever. Within 24 hours of her second dose, Maddie suffered crippling pain and systemic injuries.

Maddie is now wheelchair-bound and requires a feeding tube. Pfizer’s principal investigator initially claimed Maddie’s injuries were unrelated to the shot and treated her as a mental patient. Eventually, her injury was listed as “functional abdominal pain” in Pfizer’s report to the FDA.

“For a virus that rarely harms children, the need to assure safety of the Covid-19 vaccine is high. A study with only 1,131 children is underpowered. It will not pick up anything but the most common adverse events.

If what Maddie suffered will occur in 1/1,000 children, that would result in 75,000 children in this country suffering this serious injury. If it happens 1/10,000 children, that is 7,500 suffering this serious injury.

It could be that the cure is worse than the disease. But that will only be known if there is a properly powered (a.k.a., sized) clinical trial with children,” Siri writes, adding that:

“International scientists have declared that ‘inadequately powered studies should themselves be considered a breach of ethical standards.’24 Without a clinical trial of sufficient size that reviews all potential adverse events, such as that experienced by Maddie, for a sufficient duration, this potentially catastrophic result will not be identified prior to authorization or licensure …

The real lesson is not that pharmaceutical companies, or the FDA should act better or do a better job. That just won’t always be the case. The real lesson is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Never.

Preserving those rights to choose whether to get a medical product, without any government coercion, is the final and ultimate safeguard.

Removing that right results in dangerous authoritarianism because just as the FDA will not admit to Maddie’s serious injury after having promoted this vaccine, politicians that mandate the vaccine will not want to later admit a mistake by repealing the mandate.”

FDA Sued To Access COVID Jab Trial Data

We’re now in a position where it’s near-impossible for many to refuse the COVID jab, and if injured, they cannot sue anyone for damages. Adding insult to injury, we don’t even have access to all the data governments are supposedly relying on to mandate these hazardous products.

To address this last point, an organization called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) is now suing25 the FDA after the agency refused to release the data on which it based its decision to approve Comirnaty.26

The FDA denied the PHMPT request for expedited processing of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the basis that no “imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual” existed. Per the complaint:27

“… in an effort to ensure that the FDA acts in furtherance of its commitment to transparency, PHMPT seeks to obtain the data and information relied upon by the FDA to license the Pfizer Vaccine.

The importance of releasing to the public this information is also recognized under federal law which provides that: ‘After a license has been issued, the following data and information in the biological product file are immediately available for public disclosure unless extraordinary circumstances are shown: (1) All safety and effectiveness data and information. (2) A protocol for a test or study …’”

‘Just Say No’ To The COVID Shot

While U.S. authorities are doing their best to hide incriminating data and manipulating the rest to show some sort of benefit, common sense, medical facts and available data all point in the opposite direction. It’s crystal clear to me that children do not need the COVID shot, as their risk of serious COVID-19 infection and death is virtually nonexistent.

On the other hand, children are quite likely to be seriously injured by these injections. The reason you’re not getting the truth from the media is explained by Dr. Peter McCullough in the video above. In short, it’s a planned propaganda campaign — “the promotion of false information by the people in charge.”

According to McCullough, anyone under the age of 50 has a less than 1 percent chance of a bad outcome if they come down with COVID-19. “Why would you take the vaccine?” he asks. “My advice,” he says, “is just say no to this [shot], especially young people who are not at risk.”

Sources and References

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

NIH Colluded With EcoHealth to Evade Restrictions on Virus Experiments

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 4, 2021

It sounds like a script in a science fiction movie, but it’s not: Emails obtained by The Intercept show that the National Institutes of Health worked together with one of its grantees, EcoHealth, to evade gain-of-function (GOF) research restrictions.

While EcoHealth’s plans for the research “triggered concerns at NIH,” staff went ahead and “adopted language that EcoHealth Alliance crafted” so the work could go on. The Intercept added that none of the featured experiments could have triggered the current pandemic, but the idea of the deceptive move shows what persons in a position of authority at the highest levels will do to circumvent safety rules and regulations.

The violations were serious enough to spark concerns from Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “The discussions reveal that neither party is taking the risks sufficiently seriously,” Bloom told The Intercept.

Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, minced no words with his opinion on what happened. “It’s absolutely outrageous,” Wain-Hobson said. “The NIH is bending over backward to help people it’s funded. It isn’t clear that the NIH is protecting the U.S. taxpayer.”

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Dodgy Climate Models Should be Discarded

By Chris Morrison • The Daily Sceptic • November 3, 2021

A devastating indictment of the accuracy of climate models is contained in a paper just published by the highly credentialed Physicist Nicola Scafetta from the University of Naples. Professor Scafetta analysed 38 of the main models and found that most had over-estimated global warming over the last 40 years and many of them should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”.

But the majority still are. In the absence of conclusive proof that humans are causing all or most global warming, the science is deemed to be settled almost entirely on the basis of forecasts from models that have never been correct. And of course this lies at the heart of a drive to so-called net zero and the removal from human use of the one cheap and efficient fuel we all rely on to sustain a comfortable, healthy, modern lifestyle – namely, fossil fuel.

At the heart of the climate model problem is determining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). This is defined in climate science as the increase in the global mean surface temperature that follows a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Nobody knows what this figure is – the science for this crucial piece of the jigsaw is missing, unsettled you may say. So guesses are made and they usually range from 1C to as high as 6C. Models that use a higher figure invariably run hot and Professor Scafetta has proved them to be the least accurate in their forecasts.

Scafetta demonstrates this clearly in the graph (below). The thick green line is the actual average global temperature and all the other lines are the models’ projections. The red lines show the models that put the temperature at 6C. Interestingly, the models started to go haywire at a time when global warming was gaining political traction and debate on the science started to be discouraged. Perish the thought, of course, that the two are in any way related. Scafetta also goes into great detail about the performance of models in all latitudes and concludes “significant model data discrepancies are still observed over extended world regions for all models”.

Many scientists are highly sceptical about climate models. The reason the hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming is unproven is that the atmosphere is too chaotic a place to pin the blame for warming (and cooling) on our meagre contribution to CO2 emissions, which accounts for about 3% of the total each year. Professor Scafetta points to the influence of the sun and other scientists look at the role of orbits, the moon, ocean currents, naturally occurring weather oscillations, volcanoes – the list is almost endless. We have little idea about the role of other greenhouse gases such as water vapour, which accounts for 6% of the atmosphere, and the way they all react with each other to increase, or decrease, their ability to trap heat.

More detailed research into this by Professor William Happer at Princeton has led him to conclude that a very low ECS, suggesting gentle if any warming, occurs when CO2 rises above the current atmospheric level of 420 parts per million. Far from being harmful, the extra CO2 is highly beneficial for plant growth and food. Slightly warmer temperatures can also be desirable. Homo Sapiens started in the tropics and only ventured out when the ice age started to lift – we like being warm and far more people die of the cold than the heat.

Failing to discuss the science behind climate change and simply blaming it all on humans is not science, it is anti-science, leading to faith-based green ideology. A plea for a more scientific approach was made two years ago by Professor Scaffeta along with a group of over 70 Italian scientists, including many distinguished academics, in a direct plea to Italian politicians. They stated that the human responsibility for climate change observed in the last century was “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. Signatories of the letter included Antonino Zichichi, Professor emeritus of Physics and the discoverer of nuclear antimatter, and Renato Angelo Ricci, also an emeritus Professor of Physics and former President of the Italian Society of Physics. In total it was signed by 48 science professors. Needless to say it went unreported in the mainstream media at the time

The scientists said that climate models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate of the past, notably the Medieval warm period and the hot Roman period, noted to be warmer than the present “despite the CO2 concentrations being lower than the current”. Of course, models are not alone in downplaying the balmy climate in medieval times. The IPCC produced its infamous hockey stick in 2001 to emphasise recent warming, but it disappeared quickly when the Climategate emails were published eight years later.

The Italian scientists were also of the opinion that the ECS is “considerably lower” than that estimated by the IPCC models. “The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data,” they wrote. Natural variability, they said, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850″. Catastrophic predictions “are not realistic”.

And finally they have a swipe at the so-called 97% ‘settled’ consensus, a mad-up figure recently inflated to 99%. “In fact there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognise an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.”

One minute to midnight to save the world, proclaimed Boris Johnson at COP26. Perhaps he forgot to put his clocks back last weekend.

November 4, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 2 Comments