RFK Jr’s cautionary position on Cell Phone radiation is supported by “the science”
Unlike mRNA technology, exposure to Cell Phone radiation cannot be avoided. Many studies confirm that it is far from harmless.
By Madhava Setty | An Insult to Intuition | July 11, 2023
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates communications technology but does not independently review its safety. It relies on the FDA, an agency that has been derelict in its duty to protect the public from emerging technology like mRNA “vaccines”.
Last month RFK, Jr appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast for another long form discussion. Rogan announced up front that he intended to allow Kennedy to speak without interrupting him. A lesson he learned after watching an embarrassing exchange between Kennedy and Krystal Ball, co-host of “Breaking Points”, in May.
In that interview, Ball stated that although she believed that Kennedy was a genuine person, she disagreed with his views on vaccines. But rather than allowing Kennedy to explain his position and cite the evidence that supported it, Ball stepped out of her role as an objective journalist and played the part of a defense attorney for the medical establishment, repeatedly raising objections every few seconds.
Her audience took note. She was skewered in the comment section while Kennedy was lauded for his composure and patience.
With license to riff on JRE, Kennedy laid out coherent and defensible explanations for the decline in our population’s physical and psychological health. As to be expected, the schismatic MSM framed his hypotheses as more kooky conspiracy theories from the biggest spreader of dangerous misinformation who also happens to be arguably the biggest and most successful environmentalist on the planet who has fought polluters in the interest of public health for over three decades.
What they still cannot seem to grasp (or purposefully choose not to) is that Kennedy is asserting that there are plausible explanations for our deteriorating health that need to be sincerely investigated before being dismissed out of hand.
Chronic diseases among children exploded with the expansion of the Childhood Vaccination Schedule. Shouldn’t we rule this out as a potential cause if we care about our kids?
How do we know that environmental toxins aren’t contributing to gender dysphoria? We don’t.
Midway through the conversation with Rogan, Kennedy floated the possibility that 5G radiation is opening up our blood brain barrier to toxins. The blood brain barrier is a highly selective biological system designed to protect our central nervous system.
Kennedy asserted that he never puts his cellular phone next to his ear while speaking and that he carries his phone in his rear pocket. Kennedy let us know that he has seen enough evidence that incriminates ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) as the cause of brain tumors in some cases.
Rogan asked Kennedy how 5G EMR could mess with the Blood Brain Barrier. Kennedy admitted that it was outside his scope of knowledge. Kennedy critics mocked the pair, criticizing him for his inability to explain complex biochemistry and Rogan for accepting the “crazy” theory prima facie.
Even Dr. Vinay Prasad, a sensible critic of public policy over the last three years tweeted that while Kennedy would be a formidable opponent in a debate with the scientific orthodoxy, his position on radiation spewing from your wifi router was nuts:
In his tweet above Prasad lets us know that he thinks Kennedy has made good points in his criticism of the pandemic response but is still prone to unsubstantiated opinions.
Prasad, a professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF, has been one of the saner voices coming from the medical establishment. He’s been critical of lockdowns, masking and the exaggeration of “long Covid”. He is a proponent of evidence-based medicine, peer-reviewed literature and meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies.
My biggest criticism of Prasad is that he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the bias in published literature nearly enough. I believe this has led him to reject the possibility of effective early treatment of Covid-19. Though I disagree with him on this subject, I acknowledge that he has investigated the evidence before coming to any conclusion.
For someone who prides himself on only taking stands that are backed by “good” data, Prasad’s blithe dismissal of the dangers of WiFi radiation is puzzling. I don’t think he has actually done any research into the topic. At the very least he hasn’t cited any data that proves that wifi technology is safe. Instead he is relying on his own common sense, which somehow in this case suffices for decisive proof.
Your wireless device exchanges vast amounts of information with cellular towers and wifi routers using electromagnetic waves. Download and upload speeds are dependent upon the frequency of the EM waves used. The higher the frequency, the more information that can be transferred in a given amount of time.
All good. Want quicker downloads of hi-def video? You’re going to need a system that relies on higher frequency photons.
The problem is that frequency of the EM waves is directly proportional to its energy. This fundamental relationship is known as the Planck-Einstein relation:
E = hv
Where v = frequency, h = Planck’s constant and E = Energy.
As you can see, our 3G phones from just a decade ago emit and receive EMR at frequencies 100x less than today’s 5G devices. The energy of photons emitted and received by our new phones is 100x greater than 3G phones, more or less.
Prevailing opinion assumes that photons are generally safe if their frequency is below a certain threshold, making it non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation cannot break chemical bonds. However with regard to the complex physiology of living beings where cellular function relies on tiny and ephemeral membrane potentials, this explanation is intuitively over simplistic.
The FCC has been busy auctioning 5G frequency bands to telecommunications companies:
“The FCC has made auctioning high-band spectrum a priority. The FCC concluded its first 5G spectrum auctions in the 28 GHz band; the 24 GHz band; and the upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands.”
Moreover they believe that this technology is vital for economic growth and needs to be pushed along:
“The FCC must update infrastructure policy to encourage investment in 5G networks. As Chairwoman Rosenworcel has said: ‘if we want broad economic growth and widespread mobile opportunity, we need to avoid unnecessary delays in the state and local approval process. That’s because they can slow deployment.’”
If the FCC is so clearly interested in the expansion of wireless technology, it must be safe, right?
Wrong.
Going down the Rabbit Hole…
The FCC has no formal body that investigates the safety of the technology it manages/regulates. The FCC takes its cues from the FDA and states:
“According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. The FDA further states that “the weight of the scientific evidence does not support an increase in health risks from radio frequency exposure from cell phone use at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC”
This statement on the FCC website then directs us to this page from the FDA, “Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety” where it is definitively stated:
“The state of scientific knowledge continues to demonstrate that:
- The current limit on radio frequency (RF) energy set by the Federal Communications Commission remains acceptable for protecting the public health. The FDA recently provided an updated assessment of the current limits based on the currently available scientific evidence (see Letter from the FDA to the FCC on Radiofrequency Exposure– PDF 74KB).
Okay. Now let’s look at this letter from the FDA that apparently provides an updated assessment of the available evidence.
It is a letter from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA to Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC in response to Knapp’s request for guidance with regard to safety standards of 5G technology. This letter was written on April 14, 2019.
Here’s the key paragraph from the letter:
Dr. Shuran, from the FDA, assures the FCC that no changes to safety standards are warranted at this time.
The rodent study from the NTP mentioned is titled “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation”. They summarize:
NTP conducted two-year toxicology studies in rats and mice to help clarify potential health hazards, including cancer risk, from exposure to RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones which operate within a range of frequencies from about 700–2700 megahertz (MHz). These were published as Technical Reports in November 2018.
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
- Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in:
- the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
- the blood cells of female mice, and
- the hippocampus of male rats.
So… the latest safety guidelines with regard to 5G radiation cite a study from 2018 that found evidence of heart, brain and adrenal tumors in rodents that were associated with exposure to 2 and 3G cellphone radiation.
The study also showed an association of RFR with DNA damage. This is reasonable evidence that there is more to be understood about the safety of non-ionizing radiation.
Moreover, there are studies like this one that was done over 40 years ago demonstrating that periods of RFR exposure in the 1.3 GHz range do, in fact, make the blood brain barrier more permeable in rats. Still sound nutty to you, Dr. Prasad?
But there’s no cause for concern because Dr. Shuran says that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.”
Most people in this country have abandoned their 2 and 3G devices years ago for ones that use the updated networks. Perhaps it’s time to do a few more studies around the technology that the FCC is so excited for us to enjoy.
Contrary to the public’s and the FDA’s complacency around this rapidly deployed technology, scientists from around the world have been urging the FCC to place a moratorium on the expansion of RFR bands required for 5G communications.
This is an excellent summary article that appeared in the Observations/Opinions section of Scientific American in 2019 around the time the FDA vouched for the technology: “We Have No Reason to Believe that 5G is Safe”.
Author Joel Moskowitz lays out a damning refutation of the FDA’s position citing over 500 studies that demonstrate biological effects from RFR from cellphones, celltowers, wifi routers and power lines. Furthermore, Moskowitz reports that:
- 240 scientists who have authored peer-reviewed, published papers on the topic have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for more stringent safety guidelines
- The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011.
- There is no research on health effects of 5G technology. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known about the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research.
- There are 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal which calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G
Beyond influencers like Dr. Prasad who call the potential risk of increasing EMR in our environment “nutty”, there is a clear campaign to frame any such danger as another “conspiracy theory”.
Articles like this one from the Science section of the NYT titled, “Your 5G phone won’t hurt you, but Russia wants you to think otherwise” attempt to convince us that EMR in the 5G band must be safe because publications like RT America (formerly known as Russia Today) say it isn’t.
The piece is a wonderful of example of propaganda from what is widely considered a reliable source of information among “educated” readers. It’s loaded with pseudoscience and citations that don’t actually substantiate the author’s thesis that 5G EMR is perfectly safe. It’s written for an audience that would rather be spoonfed than educated.
This was the article that opened my eyes to how far the Gray Lady would go to spin the truth. I was embarrassingly late to the game. I didn’t write a rebuttal until 2020:
What we are seeing today is an inexplicable abandonment of common sense. Highly profitable, international entities are granted the same rights as a defendant in a trial. They are innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why is the standard of proof of harm for new technologies like mRNA therapies and 5G so high?
One may argue that the Covid shots afforded a brief period of protection from a highly survivable disease and should be given some latitude, but what is the life saving benefit of faster downloads?
Unlike the jabs, which could be avoided (albeit often impractically), every person is constantly being bombarded with higher frequency radiation whether they like it or not. Shouldn’t this technology meet an even greater standard of safety?
Indisputable – Covid ‘cures’ caused the excess deaths
By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | July 21, 2023
‘Virologists have been exploiting us and screaming fire where there was none’: Dr Denis Rancourt giving his testimony to the National Citizens’ Inquiry in Ottawa, Canada.
This citizen-led, citizen-funded inquiry into Canada’s Covid-19 response, by definition cannot be commissioned or conducted impartially by the government whose responses and actions are the subject of the investigation. It has already held hearings in Vancouver, Ottawa and Quebec City at which scientific, medical, and legal experts have testified under oath, along with journalists and Canadian citizens who have pertinent testimony to offer. On May 17 Dr Rancourt, a scientist with a PhD in physics who has held key research positions in France and the Netherlands prior to becoming a physics professor and lead scientist at the University of Ottawa 23 years ago, gave his evidence.
For the last three years, with a team of statisticians and scientific researchers, he has been conducting a vast number of studies on all-cause mortality. These have focused on North America but have included other Western nations, resulting in more than 30 scientific reports. His findings appear conclusive, and establish that there was no particularly virulent pathogen on the planet in 2020; that excess deaths that year were entirely caused by the measures imposed against a fictitious threat, and then from 2021 onwards, by the vaccines.
He further concludes that none of the various ‘pandemics’ announced by the US and Canada since the Second World War was reflected in excess all-cause mortality. In other words, they too were fiction.
Importantly, at the inquiry hearings Dr Rancourt explained his focus on all-cause mortality data. It is because it contains no bias. It is a simple counting of deaths per age group, by sex, state, city and as a function of time. It enables one to spot and correlate events such as heatwaves, earthquakes, wars, economic depressions; anything that perturbs the population sufficiently to cause mortality. Its ‘power’ is that it provides a clear, unmanipulated picture of a given population.
During a 97-minute testimony he provided detailed evidence to show how he arrived at three core conclusions:
1. ‘If governments had done nothing out of the ordinary, if they had not announced a pandemic, not responded to a presumed new pathogen, done nothing more than what is usually done when there is high seasonal mortality in the winter, there would have been no excess mortality. There was the usual ecology of pathogens which we live with and are always present. People get ill, they recover, some die, but there was no pandemic that caused excess mortality beyond the historic trend, and that would have remained the case if we had just left things alone.’
2. The measures that governments applied were many different forms of assault, all of which contributed to excess mortality.
3. The Covid-19 vaccination campaign has caused huge excess mortality in clearly visible peaks which are seen directly associated with the roll-out of various vaccine doses to different age groups and in different jurisdictions, and likewise with the administration of boosters. The excess mortality occurs immediately following vaccination and lasts a few days, then the curve of mortality declines exponentially over a period of about two months. Dr Rancourt emphasises that it is not possible to have such an unusual pattern without it being causally connected to the injections.
Explaining why there was no pandemic of a viral respiratory disease, Rancourt shows that when one integrates the all-cause mortality in the ‘Covid’ period there were huge variations from area to area, which defies the hypothesis of viral spread.
The US excess mortality in this period was five times higher than that of neighbouring Canada proportionately to its population, which is epidemiologically impossible. These differences were also visible between US states, which means one has to look at social factors to explain the phenomenon. The excess deaths occurred mainly in the Southern states, which have a high incidence of seasonal bacterial pneumonia, and these infections went inadequately treated because during the ‘Covid’ period all Western nations cut antibiotic prescriptions by at least 50 per cent. Another strong population correlation factor was the number of people with disabilities. The US has a large number of registered disabled, and people who rely on outside support for everyday needs cannot function in a society in lockdown. It also has high numbers of poor people, and with the closure of churches, schools and community facilities, these populations were utterly stripped of their usual mechanisms of survival.
Excess mortality in 2020 in Europe was equally inconsistent with the notion of viral spread. Immediately after the pandemic was announced Lombardy in Italy became a hotspot, where hospitals put two people at a time on mechanical ventilators. But Italy’s crisis did not flow into Switzerland, nor did Spain’s high death toll cross the border into Portugal, and Alsace’s peak in Eastern France did not affect neighbouring Germany. This constitutes counter-evidence of a viral respiratory disease. Furthermore, although the lethality of ‘Covid’ was said to be exponential with age, mortality data shows no correlation with age.
Dr Mike Yeadon, who understands the biological effects of fear, told James Delingpole in their recent discussion: ‘Two mg of diazepam, a cup of tea and a biscuit, arm around the shoulder and give them an oxygen mask. I think most people would have gone home, but instead they admitted and murdered them.’
As the fraud began with the seeding of an idea of a pandemic, solid, irrefutable data is key in dismantling the illusion. This Dr Rancourt provided.
He completed his testimony with a plea to scientists and physicians to go back and look at the data of who is dying, and where and when, and what it correlates to. He believes there has to be a reset of thinking to recognise that virologists have been exploiting us and shouting fire where there was really nothing present. Clinicians and emergency staff have donned ‘Covid glasses’, he believes, making them see things as dangerous which at any other time would appear perfectly normal.
He postulates that the way to reset thinking is to use hard data that cannot be disputed, and that is all-cause mortality data. Unless this central data issue is addressed, he fears pandemics will be declared without basis, and populations will be assaulted at will.
FDA Approves New Anthrax Vaccine for Adults Despite Lack of Publicly Available Information on Testing, Ingredients
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 21, 2023
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday approved an anthrax vaccine for adults ages 18-65, according to Emergent BioSolutions, the vaccine’s maker.
The vaccine, Cyfendus, is approved for use after suspected or confirmed exposure to Bacillus anthracis, also known as anthrax, but must be administered together with other antibacterial drugs, Reuters reported.
Emergent said it had been delivering Cyfendus to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since 2019, under pre-emergency use authorization status.
The efficacy of Cyfendus for post-exposure prophylaxis was tested only on animals.
Dr. Meryl Nass, bioterrorism and anthrax expert, told The Defender she is skeptical about whether the vaccine offers any new substantive health benefit.
“Given the history of the company’s many failures, and the lack of proper safety or efficacy testing of prior anthrax vaccines, one can only expect problems,” Nass said.
“The fact that there is no label available, there is no information on how it was tested, what placebo was used, et cetera — that all adds to the consternation and concern people should have about the value of this product,” Nass added.
Emergent said the drug has been in development for 20 years in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), formerly headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Paul Williams, senior vice president at Emergent, said anthrax “remains a high-priority national security threat.”
Cyfendus is comprised of Emergent’s anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA), marketed as Biothrax, plus an additional adjuvant, the name of which the company did not disclose.
Cyfendus is administered in two doses over 14 days to elicit an immune response that the company said: “can be especially important in response to a large-scale public health emergency involving anthrax.”
Nass said that during the 2001 anthrax scare, where politicians and media organizations across the country received anthrax in the mail, five people died — but “everyone who got antibiotics early did not come down with anthrax and none of them died.”
“So,” Nass said, “antibiotics worked.” Nass emphasized that after exposure to anthrax, one needs treatment immediately — not over the longer period of time it takes for a vaccine to work.
“The fact that it’s required to be given with antibiotics,” Nass said, “which is what you should have when exposed to anthrax, raises the question: What additional benefit are you gonna get from this vaccine? I don’t know.”
Emergent’s stock shares gained 16.2% in pre-market trading after it announced the FDA approval.
Benchmark analyst Robert Wasserman said the approval provides “greater assurance” the company will reach its projected 2023 earnings of $260-$280 million, Bloomberg Law reported.
The price spike comes on the heels of “a difficult few years,” financially for the company, FiercePharma reported.
The company, founded in 1998 as government contractor BioPort to distribute and produce the anthrax vaccine for the U.S. military, reached its financial zenith early in the pandemic after earning lucrative contracts to produce Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines.
But a congressional report in 2021 revealed the company hid likely contamination problems at the plant from FDA inspectors and eventually had to destroy 400 million vaccine doses — which led its share price to fall from $133 to $7.
History of the anthrax vaccine
The anthrax vaccine was developed and in limited use in the military since 1970.
Biothrax has been produced by Emergent since 2002. Prior to Thursday’s announcement, it was the only anthrax vaccine licensed for humans in the U.S.
Nass explained that in 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) made the vaccine compulsory as part of the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) for all 2.5 million military service members — including active duty and reserve personnel and civilian contractors.
The DOD implemented the mass vaccination program in 1998.
Reports of adverse reactions and dissent on the part of service members led to congressional hearings and in early 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform recommended halting the mandatory program, although it was not officially halted.
As of 2000, more than 500,000 service members had received at least one dose of the vaccine, which was designed to be administered in six doses.
The plant where the government produced the anthrax vaccine faced a series of regulatory issues and was closed in 1997, according to Nass.
BioPort acquired it from the state-owned Michigan Biologic Products Institute in 1998 and rebuilt it, but was not FDA-authorized to produce the vaccine. So for a period, the vaccines were unavailable.
Then, starting on Sept. 18, 2001 — a week after the 9/11 attacks — when Americans were in a state of fear or heightened concern, media outlets began reporting that a sophisticated, weaponized and fatal form of anthrax had been sent via mail to numerous news outlets and American politicians.
New letters continued to appear over the next six weeks and the media and the government implied they were somehow linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Later, the media and figures such as John McCain linked the anthrax to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 2008, the FBI accused U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins of being responsible for the attacks, although Ivins took his own life before he could be prosecuted and the FBI’s claims are widely doubted.
ProPublica, McClatchy and PBS Frontline, which did their own investigation, questioned the FBI’s evidence.
The Government Office of Accountability (GAO) and the National Academies of Science both also found that the FBI lacked data to back its claims.
But the hype created by the anthrax letters primed the American public to support draconian legislation such as the Patriot Act, Dr. Joseph Mercola argued.
It also became the primary justification for continuing to produce the vaccine and administer it to service people, Pam Long wrote in The Defender.
In 2002, shortly after the FDA approved BioPort’s new vaccine plant, the GAO issued a report to Congress on the AVIP.
The report enumerated a significant number of adverse reactions to the vaccine — more than double the rate reported by the manufacturer — along with the mass exodus of military pilots and other valuable military personnel who refused the mandate.
It also noted that anthrax adverse reactions were very similar to Gulf War syndrome symptoms and that many veterans reported the vaccine as the cause of this illness, which they also reported in congressional hearings, according to Nass.
From 2000 to 2018, the military anthrax mandate was challenged several times in court for lacking FDA approval and licensure, and for lacking proven potency against fatal inhalation of anthrax.
During this time, the DOD restricted the anthrax vaccine to a smaller group of “at-risk troops” and halted and resumed the program several times.
Prior to 2001, the DOD concluded that biological agents such as anthrax were not a threat for mass casualties due to the limited number of countries with the expertise and sophistication required to weaponize and disseminate anthrax.
According to an investigation by investigative journalist Whitney Webb, the 2001 anthrax attacks also rescued Emergent Biosolutions, then BioPort, from certain financial ruin.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The heat is getting to everyone’s head
Heatwave across Europe on the morning of 10 July 2023 via ESA
By Alex Starling | Reaction | July 21, 2023
Nothing beats a good silly-season panic, it seems, but the latest handwringing about Summer heat is surely a step too far. Yes, it’s hot – “Southern Europe on fire” – but is this unusual when the jet stream is aligned as it is now, with hot Saharan air being pulled up from Africa? Judging by recent reporting, you’d be forgiven for thinking the end is nigh. There’s a climate emergency, didn’t you know?
Such scaremongering is of course a free pass, as usually no one really checks up on what actually takes place, but the catastrophic outcome can be milked to its full potential. “Drizzly day in Derby” never did sell any papers.
However, the fourth estate does have an obligation to present its viewers and readers with accurate information. This is where the story gets interesting – this is not just a case of eye-rolling pushback against apocalyptic hyperbole. Ranging from casual sloppy reporting to highly targeted attempts to influence the narrative, there is now a weight of evidence demonstrating the existence of a systemic bias towards catastrophising otherwise run-of-the-mill data.
Consider the following vignettes.
It is currently hot in Southern Europe. Earlier this month the European Space Agency (ESA) issued an attractively-coloured map as part of a press release forecasting air temperatures of 48°C in Sardinia and Sicily that would be “potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe”. The quotable quote was suitably amplified by the media, only this time it was picked up by astute observers who pointed out that the ESA had conflated land temperatures with the much cooler air temperatures at the standard 2m measuring height (i.e. while you might be able to fry an egg on tarmac, the same egg suspended 2m on the ground will take much longer to become a culinary delight). The ESA subsequently issued a clarification, with corrections being issued by media organisations such as Der Spiegel which had picked up the original story.
A recent article in this publication also came to my attention. Walter Ellis wrote a piece about urban migration in Zaragoza in Spain. Fascinating though it was, he included some doom-laden forecasts regarding an ongoing summer drought: “It hasn’t rained here for months and the [official forecast] prognosis is for more – that is to say, less – to come… today, as a direct result of climate change, temperatures even in the more northerly regions, including Aragon, are at record highs”. Walter is just relaying official forecasts – hardly a mortal sin and you would hope official forecasts could be relied upon. But a slightly inconvenient truth is that these forecasters managed to get these (very short-term!) predictions completely wrong – the Iberian Peninsula was given an absolute drenching throughout May and June. Oops.
None of this would particularly matter if this idle chatter about the weather was just that; reporting on meteorological curiosities du jour. But quoting Twain: “A lie can travel halfway round the world and back again while the truth is putting on its boots”. And these weather untruths – whether they be honest mistakes, sloppy reporting or cynical ploys – tend to have one thing in common: they are seemingly always yoked to a great article of faith. That is, they are always indicative of a climate ‘emergency’, or at least ‘climate change’ (the old term ‘global warming’ seems to have temporarily gone out of fashion following various postponements of the previously imminent Armageddon).
Walter Ellis’s passing comment mentioned above lays the blame for an (incidentally totally incorrect) forecast of ongoing drought “directly on climate change”, begging the question about this direct causal link given that the prediction did not come to pass. The ESA is able to state that as “climate change takes grip, heatwaves such as this are likely to be more frequent and more severe, with far-reaching consequences”. A Met Office spokesman recently produced this cryptic quote in The Times : “As we get this climate warming, the extremes are becoming more extreme”, in an article worrying about a temporary warm spell in Greenland when the actual data shows that the snow mass was way above average at the height of summer. Even Reaction – if you can believe it – has managed to publish bold conjecture: “As temperatures continue to rise, heatwaves will become more severe. It’s crucial that governments worldwide take swift and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately… while we can slow down the rate of global warming, the effects of climate change will continue to be experienced in the future”.
These are not cherry picked examples – this climate Lysenkoism is given blanket coverage. The message is ubiquitous (albeit sometimes subliminal) and in starker terms can be summarised as: “hot weather is caused by climate change, and mankind has caused climate change by producing CO2. There is an existential emergency!”
This ‘consensus’ is so consensual that it seemingly needs to be rammed home at every opportunity – almost as if this message (rather than the planet) is fragile, a complex construct that needs protection from awkward questions or detailed analysis. Grand proclamations and joint public statements are made by very serious organisations declaring The Truth that the faithful shall adhere to. Data is continually adjusted such that the graphs have suitable hockey sticks, and academics behind the scenes really know what they are doing. Armies of sycophants can be trusted to hound those who merely report on the weather without anchoring it to a climate scare, and senior sympathisers within the BBC enforce ‘appropriate’ edits and encourage activists to “flag similar cases in the future so they can adapt the content accordingly”.
Or consider Quentin Letts. He was court-martialled to have committed a “serious” breach of BBC rules on impartiality after producing a light-hearted Radio 4 programme entitled “What’s the point of the Met Office?” The recording was so offensive that it was eviscerated from BBC Sounds, lest a member of the public should stumble on such heresy. Not only that, the BBC has claimed that Letts had ignored a pre-production agreement “never to touch on climate change” – Letts categorically denies that this was ever agreed, let alone discussed. And in academia, even if the occasional journal paper with the ‘wrong’ conclusions does slip through the peer-review process, publishers can be relied on to create murky procedural grounds for retraction, especially when newspapers like The Guardian apply a modicum of pressure and editors are made to “think of the implications of publishing”.
That is quite a statement. Scientific curiosity is sidelined by today’s regime, which is tough on thought crime and tough on the causes of thought crime. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”: do not, under any circumstance, ask questions about recent cold weather events and records – which have seemingly abounded of late. Did you know that the Antarctic has been particularly and persistently cold in recent years? That the snow pack in California has been at extraordinarily high levels, resulting in mind-blowing skiing and white-water rafting conditions? That China and much of Siberia experienced record cold earlier in 2023? And that miserable and cold weather has persisted in Australia for many years now?
These are just anecdotes about the weather – our climate changes, after all. We should keep a weather (!) eye on this, as it was not that long ago that we were warned of an imminent ice age, and the earth’s magnetic field has been waning over the last century. Why don’t the BBC and The Guardian investigate and report on these fascinating phenomena rather than regale us with anecdotes about hot weather, as decreed by ‘Group Sustainability Directors’ who get to post-edit technical output within their organisations?
Perhaps, though, we should be grateful that the green lobby – this veritable hydra of loosely aligned eco-activists, shrieking media and sustainable energy salesmen – are there to protect ‘The Science’ from coming to harm at the hands of the scientific method.
Because surely – surely? – the public at large will eventually notice this pseudoscientific quackery and reject increasingly desperate attempts to apply cancel culture techniques to silence or ridicule heretics. Consider Dr John Clauser, the recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, who recently criticised the climate emergency narrative, calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people” and that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world”. People with such credentials should have their hypotheses examined — not shouted down.
How much more hot air will we have to put up with until a more reasoned debate ensues? It is clear to many that nihilistic climate alarmism is stopping us from investing in reliable energy and pursuing economic growth. If we continue down this Lysenkoist path, we risk deindustrialisation and pauperisation, which would spell an end to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in recent decades – and that our forebears could only dream of.
Bright Red Weather Maps and Fake Temperature ‘Records’ Drive Climate Panic
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 18, 2023
It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere so the heat hucksters are out in force. Alas, there are currently thin pickings in the U.K. – last year’s star of the show – where the summer has turned distinctly chilly. Further north is also very disappointing and largely absent from the public prints. Arctic sea ice continues its steady decade-long recovery, and current levels on the Greenland ice sheet are above the 1981-2010 average. But no matter – African countries surrounding the Sahara and nearby southern European locations can always be guaranteed to raise a scorchio cheer, along with Death Valley in the Arizona desert. Guaranteed climate change fearmongering in action here, every day of the week.
Come rain or shine, flood or drought, the weather is being ruthlessly weaponised to persuade us to embrace a collectivist Net Zero plan. Last week, heavy rain caused some flash flooding in Vermont. USA Today claimed that “dramatic flooding” was rare in Vermont, adding: “Expect more amid climate change.” The BBC reported the event, adding the routine house scare that “climate change makes extreme rainfall more likely”. What is missing in all this propaganda is any proof of the claims and any attempt to put bad weather into an historical perspective.
In a paper looking at the climate variability of the American state’s natural hazards, published in 2002 by the Vermont Historical Society, it was noted:
One of the most pervasive hazards that impinges upon and marks the Vermont landscape is flooding. Rarely does a year elapse without a flooding event of a significant magnitude being reported in at least one of Vermont’s 14 counties or perhaps state-wide, making this the number one hazard across the state.
On July 4th, Matt McGrath of the BBC reported that the world’s average temperature had reached a new daily high of 17°C. McGrath partly attributed the rise to “ongoing emissions of carbon dioxide”, and reported the view that July will be the hottest month in 120,000 years. Quite how anyone can know that is a mystery.
It turns out that the hottest day claim, which provided clickbait for headlines around the world, was the product of a computer model called Climate Reanalyzer, run out of the University of Maine. The operators perhaps felt a pang of guilt over the widespread use of their modelled figure noting, a few days later, that much of the elevated global temperature “can be attributed to weather patterns in the Southern Hemisphere that have brought warmer than usual air over portions of the Antarctic”. In other words, long-term climate change, human-caused or natural, had nothing to do with any rise, it was a local meteorological event.
It is important to understand that all these ‘records’ are based on historical data that are incomplete, often inaccurate and are rarely more than 100 years old. Until recently, sea temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were recorded from a bucket thrown from a passing ship. All the major land surface temperature datasets are ravaged by growing urban heat corruption, and recent temperatures have been further warmed on a retrospective basis via ‘adjustments’. Growing questions are being asked about the accuracy of many recordings, with the U.K. Met Office willing to declare ‘records’ from a runway used by Typhoon fighter jets and other sites that the World Meteorological Organisation states come with an error estimate of up to 2°C. Meanwhile, the most accurate record we have of air temperatures is compiled from satellite data by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and this shows less warming since 1979. The results are rarely noted in mainstream media, and last year Google demonetised one of the compilers by banning him from receiving money from its AdSense scheme.
Climate historian Tony Heller has released a short film noting that “fake historical data” and bright red maps are key tools being used to scare people into compliance with an anti-energy agenda. The highest temperature ever recorded on the planet was 58°C in the Libyan desert, and the record stood for 100 years before climate alarmists managed to erase it from the record. Temperatures over 50°C are not unknown in Libya, with 50.2°C recorded in June 1995 at Zuara.
In the past, Heller notes temperatures over 38°C were recorded in Alaska over 70 years ago. In 1957, the Soviet weather service reported a week of 38°C temperatures north of the Arctic circle. In Phoenix, Arizona, there were 18 consecutive days of 43°C in 1974, at a time, Heller notes, when there was a fear of global cooling. This record may be broken in the near future he continues, but it will not have anything to do with global warming, just as the temperatures in 1974 had nothing to do with global cooling. The U.S. is likely to see highs of 38°C in Texas and the desert southwest, observes Heller, but in 1936, 13 states were over 43°C and 30 passed 38°C. Illinois was over 45°C, and people were reported to be dying from the heat in Detroit at the rate of one every 10 minutes.
The fact is that the percentage of the United States that reaches 38°C sometime during the year has plummeted since the 1930s.
The graph above shows that since the mid 1930s, the number of U.S. weather stations recording at least 38°C (100°F) has fallen by half. In addition, it shows the trend sharply decreasing since the turn of the century. People in authority, argues Heller, are pushing for the demise of fossil fuels using fake statistics and blood-red maps. The red fires of hell, he suggests, have always been used to scare the public into conforming.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptics Environment Editor.
Greta Thunberg Gives Finger to Opponents of New EU Environmental Legislation
By Robert Kogon | Brownstone Institute | July 22, 2023
Greta Thunberg was photographed at the European Parliament in Strasbourg last Wednesday smiling broadly while flipping a double-bird – apparently to the opponents of heavily contested new EU environmental legislation known as the “Nature Restoration Law”.
According to the German news site Merkur.de, it was a “winner’s gesture” – if not the most sporting one – because at its last week’s session, the parliament approved the legislation, with some amendments, by the notably slim margin of 336-300. A prior motion to reject the proposal outright was defeated by the even slimmer margin of 324-312.
The proposed Nature Restoration Law, one of the main components of the European Commission’s “Green Deal,” would require 20 percent of allegedly degraded EU land and sea to be “restored” by 2030. (See, for instance, the factsheet on the law here.) A modified version of the proposal which was already rejected in the parliament’s Environment Committee would have raised this figure even to 30 percent.
Fearing the impact of such “restoration” on the livelihoods of farmers and fishers, European agricultural and fishery groups have vigorously opposed the proposal, and it was also rejected by both the parliament’s agricultural and fisheries committees.
The largest group in the European Parliament, the “conservative” European People’s Party (EPP), likewise opposed the legislation. Ironically, the largest national delegation within the EPP group is the German Christian Democrats of none other than European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Nonetheless, the legislation only managed to escape outright rejection in the full parliament thanks to 15 EPP members breaking ranks and voting with the Greens, the Social Democrats and the Left group. (See roll-call here, p. 52.)
It should be noted that, despite the Schadenfreude evident in Greta Thunberg’s “winner’s gesture,” the Nature Restoration Law has not now been passed.
Rather, the European Parliament’s approval of the legislation means that the text will now be the subject of so-called “trilogue” negotiations involving representatives of the three main EU institutions: the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council (in which EU member states are directly represented). The final text will then be resubmitted to the parliament at some future date.
Major fossil fuel producers cause rift among G20
RT | July 23, 2023
Saudi Arabia and Russia have prevented a consensus from emerging among the Group of 20 major economies on a road map to phase down the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix, Reuters has reported.
The G20 energy transition ministers held a four-day summit that ended on Saturday in the Indian state of Goa where they discussed ways to achieve global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
The summit ended without a consensus because major fossil fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, opposed a proposal to triple G20 countries’ renewable energy capacity by 2030, Reuters reported, citing its sources.
China, the world’s largest consumer of energy, as well as coal exporters South Africa and Indonesia, also opposed the plan, the agency added. India, the world’s most populous country and which currently generates 75% of its total power from coal, reportedly took a neutral stance on the issue.
As a result of the disagreements, the ministers issued an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique. A joint communique is issued when complete agreement among members on all issues is achieved.
According to the statement, “different national circumstances” drove “some members” to support a phase-down of unabated fossil fuels, while “others had different views” and suggested that “abatement and removal technologies” would address environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels currently continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix, eradication of energy poverty, and in meeting the growing energy demand,” reads the statement.
The document mentioned a number of technologies for countries to use “as per national priorities,” such as carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), a technology that can capture and make effective use of the high concentrations of CO₂ emitted by industrial activities.
The G20 comprises 19 nations and the European Union. The group’s aim is to address major issues related to the global economy, such as international financial stability and climate change. Together, the G20 member countries account for over three-quarters of both gross domestic product and global emissions.
RFK Jr. and the Jews
BY KEVIN BARRETT | JULY 23, 2023
To say that RFK Jr. goes out of his way to avoid offending Jews would be an understatement. He presents himself as the world’s biggest friend of the Jewish people in general and the Jewish (supremacist) state of Israel in particular.
The first mainstream article that covered RFK’s presidential run with a positive spin was David Samuels’s piece in the Jewish magazine Tablet. But since then there hasn’t exactly been a groundswell of Kennedy support in the mainstream Jewish community. Aside from free-thinking outliers like Naomi Wolf and some of my radio guests (Josh Mitteldorf, Barry Kissin, Steve Brown, Ron Rattner) it seems that most of American Jewry, or at least its media wing, views RFK Jr.’s candidacy with trepidation.
That trepidation metamorphosed into hysterical denunciation last week, when the candidate’s off-the-record dinner-table remarks about ethnic-specific bioweapons and COVID-19 triggered the biggest two-minute anti-Semitism media hatefest since Kanye West went defcon 3. The New York Post broke the story with a lying headline: “RFK Jr. says COVID was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews.” What Kennedy actually said, in informal conversation, was:
COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese…We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”
The candidate could be fairly accused of hyperbole: The study he was citing did not indicate how disproportionally COVID affected different ethnicities, but only analyzed one genetic factor, which may or may not have had much real-world effect. But that study does say pretty much what RFK says it does. What it does not say, and what RFK Jr. did not say, is that COVID was a Jewish-Chinese bioweapon designed to kill white and black people.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. Nor would you know it from remarks of Congressional reps like Debbie Wasserman Schulz, who tried to censor Kennedy’s anti-censorship testimony, saying “Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable antisemitic and anti-Asian comments.”
The witch hunt, of course, was unsurprising. What was surprising was that RFK Jr. would say something that was begging to be misinterpreted as “anti-Semitic.” This is the guy, after all, who presents himself as the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel candidate in the known universe. Why would he even bring up the “ethnic targeting” study, much less exaggerate it in such a way as to practically force the ADL and its friends to accuse him of blaming COVID on the Jews?
Some RFK supporters might wonder if their hero, like Trump before him, is playing 3D chess. Maybe RFK knows full well who really killed his father and uncle. In that case, his exaggerated philosemitic pro-Israel schtick would be a ruse. Like his father before him, who kept publicly quiet about the murder of his brother JFK in hopes of winning the presidency and undoing the coup, RFK Jr. could be blowing (pro-Zionist) smoke to camouflage the reality of his mission. Could he have deliberately provoked the hysterical attacks in order to garner free publicity and let the media and political establishment further discredit itself—the sort of thing that Trump has made a political career out of?
All things considered, the 3D chess scenario is unlikely. RFK is considerably smarter than Trump, but he is less manipulative. Unlike Trump, RFK is sincere. He is the what-you-see-is-what-you-get candidate. I don’t think he’s lying or being manipulative when he professes undying love for Israel, hatred for Nazi Germany, and concern about COVID affecting ethnicities differently in light of what we know about ethnic-specific bioweapon research.
But the question remains: Why is Kennedy so irrationally extremist in his support for Israel? And why did he intemperately exaggerate the COVID-ethnicity study in such a way as to invite attacks? Both his rabidly Likudnik Zionism and his ill-considered “anti-Semitic” bioweapon speculation seem, shall we say, immoderate, if not a little unhinged.
So let’s put RFK Jr. on Dr. Freud’s proverbial couch. Freud coined the term reaction formation: “a defense mechanism in which people express the opposite of their true feelings, sometimes to an exaggerated extent. For instance, a man who feels insecure about his masculinity might act overly aggressive. Or a woman with substance use disorder may extol the virtues of abstinence.” In many cases, the subjects are not even consciously aware of their true feelings. The peacenik who is so bellicose in his pacifism that he is always starting fights—I have known several—is generally unaware that his real motivation is not dedication to peace, but smoldering inner aggression. And then there are the greedy, ambitious, competitive, materialistic people who adopt leftist politics to conceal their real feelings about money and status. I’ve known more than a few of those too. And don’t get me started about the ranting anti-global-warming fanatics who seem to think their bloviations will save the world while your skepticism will destroy it, even as their excessively comfortable lifestyles emit far more carbon in week than you do in a month.
So reaction formations are quite common, and often a big driver of people’s political views. RFK Jr.’s grossly exaggerated, seemingly irrational pro-Israel extremism has all the hallmarks of a classic reaction formation. If such is the case, Kennedy would be hiding his repressed hostility to the Jewish state not only from others, but also from himself.
But why would Kennedy hate Israel, yet remain in deep denial of his real feelings? For the same reason that Hamlet hated his stepfather Claudius but couldn’t bring himself to act. Israel killed Kennedy’s father, just like Claudius killed Hamlet’s. But just as Hamlet grew up in Claudius’s household, vulnerable to Claudius’s despotic power, RFK Jr. grew up in post-Zionist-coup America, helpless and defenseless. Vulnerable people in the household of an abuser, especially children, have a tendency to engage in identification with the aggressor: “an unconscious mechanism in which an individual identifies with someone who poses a threat or with an opponent who cannot be mastered.” From RFK Jr.’s perspective, that would be the Zionists. He totally identifies with them, even with their most disgustingly vulgar mediocrities like Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and hyperbolically deems himself the biggest Zionist of all.
But What About the Blurt-Out?
If a reaction formation explains RFK’s ultra-Zionism, then what explains his COVID-targeted-to-spare-Jews blurt-out? Paging Dr. Freud again!
Actually, you don’t really need serious psychoanalytic chops to figure this one out. RFK’s repressed, unconscious hostility to Zionists, kept under wraps by his hyper-Zionist reaction formation, found a way of expressing itself. So although RFK was never consciously aware that what he was saying sounded a whole lot like “COVID was targeted to spare the Jews,” his unconscious mind was all-too-aware, and indeed put those equivocal words right into his mouth.
Like the classic Freudian slip, this kind of blurt-out scenario illustrates how the unconscious mind can occasionally short-circuit the conscious mind and speak unspeakable truths. Translation: “Outrageous Jewish anti-goy conspiracies are not always imaginary.” So the paranoid reaction of people like Debby Wasserman Schulz is not quite as crazy as it sounds: Debby’s unconscious is getting the gist of what Bobby’s unconscious is saying, and she doesn’t like it.
Intergenerational Trauma
The psychiatric symptoms on both sides stem from deeply-rooted intergenerational trauma. RFK Jr., of course, grew up with the trauma of his president-uncle’s dastardly murder in 1963, and his father’s equally dastardly murder (presumably by the same parties) in 1968. A modern-day Hamlet, he spent his formative years under tremendous social pressure to refrain from challenging his fathers’ and uncles’ murderers. We could also speculate about the Kennedy family’s roots in the holocausted earth of Ireland—the Irish have suffered real genocide and persecution to more than rival the Jews’ mostly-mythical suffering at the hands of alleged anti-Semites who supposedly hate them for no reason whatsoever—but let’s not go there, lest some of my less-enlightened readers start succumbing to Irish Holocaust denial.
On Wasserman-Schulz’s side, the intergenerational trauma is apparently so horrific that it can only be cured by psychedelic drugs. In “Can We Cure Anti-Semitism with Molly?” the Jewish Daily Forward’s senior editor Rob Eshman opens with a question:
“If you learned that a single pill had led a neo-Nazi to renounce his hateful beliefs, would you:
- Demand more research to find out if the pill really works
- Ignore existing evidence and continue to outlaw the pill?
Eshman notes that Israel, the world’s MDMA capital, uses the “love drug” to treat PTSD. We may imagine that child-murdering IDF snipers like the “I shot 13 kids today” tweeter are gradually eased back into what passes for Israeli normalcy with the help of psychedelic sessions that rewire their brains for love (of fellow Zionist Jews at least) instead of drooling 24/7/365 hatred of Palestinian kids (“little snakes”) and the mothers who bear them.
But can MDMA cure Zionist Jewry of its 3000-year-old collective case of PTSD? To answer that question, we would need to know whether individual Jews really suffer the pain experienced by their persecuted ancestors. Scientists are working hard to convince us that they do.
An alternative explanation of why so many ultra-privileged Jews experience so much suffering from historical collective memories blames culture, not genetics. The film Defamation memorably shows Israeli children being horrifically traumatized by their elders, who drum it into their impressionable little heads that the goys all want to exterminate them.
And speaking of Jews traumatizing Jews, what about infant circumcision? Paging Dr. Bowlby!
Attachment studies have shown that very young children—babies, really—are extremely vulnerable to psychological trauma. A terrible experience at eight months of age or even earlier is likely to ruin your life in a way that a vastly worse experience at a later age might not. Traumatic experiences involving damage to the mother-child bond, in particular, seem to be responsible for much if not most of the world’s misery. (Moral: To form a happy and peaceful person, keep the baby in skin-to-skin contact with the mother, and breastfeed on demand, for the first two years of life, as many traditional cultures do.)
What you do NOT want to do is rip the baby out of the mother’s arms and inflict unspeakable torture by carving up the most sensitive part of its anatomy with a knife. This will wreck the mother-child bond due to the mother’s perceived betrayal of her child (and create overcompensation in the form of the Jewish mother syndrome) while forming an unconscious memory of a horrific attack by a terrifying outsider. Later in life, the child will be culturally conditioned to transfer its fear and loathing onto the imaginary figure of a new terrifying outsider: the evil goy who wants to kill us. It’s the perfect formula for creating a profoundly neurotic, powerfully ethnocentric group identity.
So to summarize: RFK Jr.’s dysfunctional relationship with Zionism—which stems from the willingness of traumatized Zionists like Ben Gurion to commit outrageous crimes in order to preserve the nuclear weapons they imagine they need to save their lives from the evil Jew-hating goys—is a complete mess. I doubt that even the best therapist, armed with all the MDMA in Israel, could effect a cure.
Risk of Stroke Skyrockets with COVID-19 Infection after Vaccination
Breakthrough within 21 Days of Shot Confers 8-Fold Risk of Ischemic Stroke
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | July 23, 2023
Because the COVID-19 vaccines load the body with the genetic code for the thrombogenic and lethal Wuhan Spike protein, those who take a vaccine are vulnerable to a catastrophe if they get infected with SARS-CoV-2 after recently taking one of the shots.
Nahab and coworkers from Emory analyzed a statewide database of COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Approximately 5 million adult Georgians received at least one COVID-19 vaccine between December 2020 and March 2022: 54% received BNT162b2, 41% received mRNA-1273, and 5% received Ad26.COV2.S. Those with concurrent COVID-19 infection within 21 days post-vaccination had an increased risk of ischemic (OR = 8.00, 95% CI: 4.18, 15.31) and hemorrhagic stroke (OR =5.23, 95% CI: 1.11, 24.64).
This analysis shows one of many great dangers present in rapid vaccine development and rollout without sufficient data safety and monitoring. Stroke is a devastating outcome and it appears that a large number of debilitating cases could have been avoided if the COVID-19 vaccines were taken off the market in January, 2021 for excess mortality. The patients in this study would have been spared stroke and disability.
Nahab F, Bayakly R, Sexton ME, Lemuel-Clarke M, Henriquez L, Rangaraju S, Ido M. Factors associated with stroke after COVID-19 vaccination: a statewide analysis. Front Neurol. 2023 Jun 28;14:1199745. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1199745. PMID: 37448752; PMCID: PMC10337778.
These data highlight the need for Spike protein detoxification, in other words, methods to reduce the burden of Spike protein within the body. We have a widely anticipated manuscript in press featuring an ambulatory triple combination regimen of nattokinase, bromelain, and curcumin which works proteolytically clear Spike while providing a low level of thrombolysis and control over inflammation.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
- Ecological Impacts Of Offshore WindParks Are Worse Than Expewcted, New Study Finds
Aletho News 
