Fauci’s legacy lives on under new directors Hugh Auchincloss (NIAID) and Lawrence Tabak (NIH)
I previously revealed a 2021 CDC-authored study showing that, based on death certificates, only 25 US babies per year die from RSV. 97% of US babies have been exposed to RSV by age 2, providing partial immunity. This also tells us that RSV is and has been widespread in the environment and is not a NEW virus that is suddenly killing us and for which we must get armored up.
CDC says elders die from RSV, but CDC has no idea how many. For most of us elders, an RSV infection is probably a cold—or nothing at all.
I wasn’t kidding when I said armored up. There are vaccines for pregnant women (but they appear to cause premature labor) in order to protect the babies; monoclonal antibodies for the babies themselves because, I guess, those vaccines given to their mothers don’t work very well; and vaccines for elders.
All rolled out at (nearly) warp speed. All paying royalties to the NIAID. All have efficacy that wears off very quickly. Which is a win for the manufacturers but a loss for the vaccinees.

But a $9 billion market is projected, cause you can get doctors to recommend just about anything, it seems. After all, following the CDC is the “standard of care” and the best guarantee against a malpractice case.
UPDATE: Now the mfr of ONLY, an RSV shot for the elderly, predicts $9 billion alone in that market—and more for the pregnancy and baby market. Yee gads.
“The company [GSK] has said the price of Arexvy in the U.S. will fall between $270 and $295 per dose. GlobalData pegs the 2023 market for RSV vaccines at $1 billion, with growth to more than $9 billion by 2029.”
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Corruption | United States |
1 Comment
On Friday the Mail website reported on the heart attack suffered by US basketball player Bronny James, aged 18, on court. According to two UK doctors cited by the Mail and described as ‘leading experts’, the suggestion that this might be the result of a vaccine injury is a conspiracy theory. The article concedes that deaths from heart disease are at record levels and that Covid vaccines cause heart damage, but stiffly maintains that connecting these two facts is an error. The BBC chimes in with an article claiming ‘there is no evidence to support the implication vaccines might be involved’.
The basis of these claims is the suggestion that vaccine-induced myocarditis is so rare that it could not possibly be causing the huge rate of excess deaths from heart disease which amounts, according to the British Heart Foundation, to a massive 30,000 extra UK deaths per year when compared to pre-pandemic levels.
At the same time as Bronny James was suffering a heart attack and its aftermath, Swiss scientists finalised a scientific paper for publication entitled Sex specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination. This is a landmark study because it is a gold standard prospective study with a rigorous schedule of tests rather than an incomplete retrospective assessment of past events.
A total of 777 health care workers with a median age of 37 were tested for myocardial damage three days after Moderna booster vaccination and compared with the same number of controls. Forty (1 in 20) had elevated troponin levels indicative of damage to cardiac cells. These subjects (65 per cent of them women) had follow-up tests and 22 (1 in 35) were judged to have vaccine-induced myocardial injury. This careful study proves that myocardial injury has been massively underreported. The Mail reports that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had previously estimated a rate of just one in 666. Wrong by a factor of 20.
By no stretch of the imagination can myocardial injury be judged to be ‘extremely rare’ as the Mail suggests. Nor according to this detailed discussion by Dr John Campbell is this level of risk something any of us would consider taking on unless we faced imminent death as an alternative, which we don’t. For another discussion see this informative substack article.
Fortunately the short-term effects among those in the Swiss study did not include severe outcomes, but another prospective study completed in 2022 in Thailand on 314 high school students did find such severe effects. It is well known that myocarditis has both short-term and long-term outcomes. The elevated rate of excess deaths from heart disease in the general population does point to the need to ask questions, and asking does not amount to a conspiracy. The dismissal of these claims suggests there is an attempt to cover up on the part of the same doctors who coerced us to take the jabs and told us they were effective and safe.
Other causal factors for the steep rise in excess deaths from heart disease suggested by the Mail include the rise in typical ambulance response times to cardiac incidents from 30 to 90 minutes. Another suggestion widely touted was a supposed failure to prescribe statins during the pandemic; this disappeared when it was shown that statin prescriptions have not decreased.
If you want to know just how convoluted denial of responsibility can become, read a translation of an article from Sweden where a 30-year-old man died after receiving a booster jab. The government paid his family financial compensation but listed the event as the result of a medicine given in error. A paper analysing post-mortem results following Covid vaccination underlines the intentional obfuscation of this kind of doublespeak.
Behind this posturing and denial of responsibility lies something much darker with more chilling implications for public health. It is not just heart attacks that are up to levels never seen before. Ditto cancers, kidney injury, neurological injury, strokes, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, stillbirths, cognitive decline and, crucially, unexplained deaths.
These statistics point to the need for probing questions of a different type. Are the vaccines or indeed Covid infection, which the balance of evidence suggests came from a biotech lab, causing generalised immune instability? How long is this going to go on and how bad will it get?
Sometimes you have to face up to extreme challenges in your personal life. Our responses to these crises define who we are and what we can become. This can require admitting to ourselves and others that we got it all wrong. Apology and humility build character and support honesty.
Crises can also engulf the whole of society. The casual dismissal of questions about vaccine safety shows we have arrived at just such a societal crisis: a crisis of health and truth whose dimensions appear to dwarf anything civilisation has had to face in our lifetimes. The beginnings of this crisis are not yet certain, but the turning point came when decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry at the start of the pandemic decided it would be safe to unleash biotechnology on the general public. We are just at the beginning of this era. The World Health Organization 2030 Agenda predicts that we will all be subject to hundreds of novel vaccines within the decade.
Before the pandemic, biotechnology medicine was well known to be unsafe and inherently mutagenic (having the ability to cause a permanent change in an organism’s genes). Crucially it wasn’t so much what we knew, but what we didn’t know that constituted the colossal error of judgement, hubris, cruelty and greed. A single cell, the origin of life, contains 100trillion atoms organised into 42million protein molecules and 20,000 genes. Scientists have only a vague picture of how cells work. They have no idea how cells produce consciousness or how they join together (37.2trillion of them) to form a single human identity with amazing autonomic functions and immunity. Scientists don’t understand how intra-cellular transport and selection is managed. They have only a hazy comprehension of the role of electric fields, molecular shape, vibrational modes, so-called dark areas of our genome and multi-gene cooperative functions. Their knowledge can be described as a crude notion put together from a few isolated facts derived from a countable number of experiments.
What we do know for certain is the immense precision involved and the vulnerability of cells to minute edits to their structure. Cells work very hard to protect this precision: each one completes over 70,000 self-repairs every day. With this in mind, it is perfectly plain that those working in the field of gene therapy knew from previous failures and disasters just how potentially dangerous Covid vaccines could be. Some did warn their superiors who not only ignored them but set about telling the general public that biotechnology was completely safe and near 100 per cent infallible. This was not only a big lie but the crime of the century.
The new generation of biotech medicines are squarely aimed at editing the internal operation of cells, the control system that keeps our physiology and our life flying safely. It shouldn’t be a surprise that handicapping the pilot might crash the plane. The only surprise is that millions of crashed planes worldwide are being ignored. We are living in a very different world from the one we thought we inhabited. I hope we are not so daft that we stop asking questions on the advice of those manifestly profiting from the pandemic.
After reporting earlier that there have been 100,000 extra UK deaths from heart disease alone, the Mail concludes by claiming without evidence that the number of vaccine-related deaths in Britain pales in comparison to the estimated 230,000 lives that Covid inoculation has supposedly saved, a figure widely disputed, impossible to prove and believed to be wildly inflated. Even so, 2/5 are not odds that I would accept if I had to put my life up as collateral – would you?
Once you have told one lie, it is very hard to avoid telling more lies which can eventually become a world of untruth that eats away at your conscience and peace. This has become the fate of society during the pandemic. No one is participating more enthusiastically than the Fourth Estate. Every day, the mainstream media are claiming that excess deaths, which are running into millions worldwide, are normal or non-existent and have nothing to do with the obvious culprit. Governments are looking the other way and piously washing their hands of the matter like Pontius Pilate, while medical authorities are busying themselves hiding the data and refusing to carry out tests and autopsies.
Articles like those I have cited in the Daily Mail and the BBC (and there are many of them published every day) are not just bad journalism: they are part of an insidious promotion of drugs that are known to harm people. The articles are intended to quiet the concern of people worldwide who are waking up to the vaccines’ terrible side effects and complete ineffectiveness. The purpose is the inflation of the profits of a trillion-dollar industry which has proved itself callous and criminal, unfit to dominate public health policy as it does through revolving doors between regulators and industry insiders and through obscene advertising expenditure and gifts to medical professionals.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
1 Comment
A major increase in spontaneous abortion among pregnant women was directly linked to the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in Switzerland, according to a new analysis by statistician and Luzern University professor Dr. Konstantin Beck.
Beck, a former adviser to the German Minister of Health and the Swiss Parliament, analyzed publicly available Swiss and German data from scientific publications, health insurance companies and the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics (FOS).
He found that miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.
And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look. Instead, they presented the information to the public in a way that obscured the risks.
Beck presented his groundbreaking research findings on Wednesday to Doctors for Covid Ethics.
Also, contrary to public statements by Swiss authorities that, “There is no relevant excess mortality among young people ” in Switzerland, Beck’s re-examination of the government’s own data reveals significant patterns of excess mortality among young people emerged in late 2021 and early 2022.
He said these findings show that during the COVID-19 pandemic, “We exposed the most vulnerable unnecessarily to new risks that outweigh by far the original pandemic risk.” And that “today, more and more heavy consequences of our Corona measures pop up in our official statistics, but only a few are interested to know [about them].”
“By analyzing the rollout of these vaccines, especially for pregnant women and their unborn, I found plain evidence from the very beginning that rethinking and postponing the vaccination strategy would have been imperative,” he said.
COVID shots led to ‘the baby gap’
Switzerland saw a historic drop in the rate of live births in 2022.
Every month that year, there were fewer births than there had been on average over the previous six years, for an overall reduction of 8.5% in the national birth rate, according to Beck’s analysis.
In some places, the drop was even more significant — Zurich had a 16.5 % drop in its birth rate.
The last comparable drop in births, 13%, Beck said, was during the 1914 mobilization of the Swiss Army at the start of World War I.
The 2022 plummet in birth rates came on the heels of a small “Corona baby boom” — a 3% spike in birth rates in 2021, that had followed the pandemic lockdown.
According to data compiled by analyst Raimund Hagemann, COVID-19 vaccination rates among Swiss women in 2021 and early 2022 corresponded very closely to the drop in birth rates nine months following vaccination.
Figure 1 (below), which adjusts the birth rate timeline by nine months to account for the time of pregnancy, shows this strong correlation between rates of vaccination and decline in the birth rate — the two numbers mirror one another.

Figure 1
Researchers have offered a few different hypotheses for this “baby gap,” which Beck evaluated.
Some proposed a behavioral explanation, hypothesizing that people changed their behavior out of fear associated with the pandemic itself or the associated economic uncertainty.
But Beck said this hypothesis did not match historical behavior patterns — the baby boom itself happened in the middle of World War II. And, it can’t account for the baby boom that followed the beginning of the pandemic, when public fear and unemployment were both at their height.
He also dismissed the hypothesis that COVID-19 infection reduced fertility. If that were the case, he said, there would not have been a 2021 spike in the birth rate following the first wave of infection in 2020, and there was no evidence of reduced fertility following the Omicron virus wave.
In fact, Beck said, there is no evidence of reduced fertility at all. On the contrary, the data show women were becoming pregnant at the same rates as before the pandemic.
Using German health insurance data — because Swiss data are not yet available — he showed the number of women seeking pregnancy tests and visiting doctors to be treated for pregnancy remained constant throughout 2021 and 2022.
There was even slight ongoing growth, and a spike related to the mini-baby boom of 2021.
That makes COVID-19 vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion the most plausible hypothesis for the drop in birth rates — because the same number of women were becoming pregnant, but fewer of them were carrying their pregnancies to term.
Supporting that claim, data from German health and Swiss insurers show that beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021, there are clear and significant increases in the number of pregnancy complications treated and in the length of hospital stays following birth — both of which had been trending downward for years.
German data also indicate that the number of stillbirths was up 20% in the fourth quarter of 2021.
Although data on stillbirths were not available for Switzerland, he said, there is no reason to believe that it would be substantively different.
‘Anyone who had read the leaflet, would have been informed’ of dangers
The vaccines’ impact on pregnancy was not simply a tragic and unanticipated outcome, because it was already evident in the vaccine manufacturers’ own data or lack thereof, Beck said.
Anyone who had “read a leaflet from the manufacturer,” he added, “would have been informed” that there were no pregnancy data, but that there were serious concerns about the possible effects of vaccines on infants.
The German version of the Moderna Spikevax warning said, essentially, “We have no clue what the risk is for pregnant women. There are no good controlled studies done. There is not enough data available,” Beck said.
The leaflet also recommended against vaccination for breastfeeding mothers, but strongly recommended it for pregnant women, Beck said.
“But isn’t pregnancy usually preceding breastfeeding?” he asked, “And what should you then do after giving birth to get rid of vaccination?”
On April 20, 2021, Pfizer sent its report regarding the mRNA vaccine and pregnancy to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to the Pfizer documents.
The following day, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published preliminary findings on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women based on an analysis of V-safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
On April 23, in a White House press conference, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recommended pregnant women get vaccinated based on the findings of that paper.
The paper explicitly stated that researchers found no safety signals with respect to pregnancy or neonatal outcomes in the third trimester, but that it could make no conclusions about the first or second trimesters.
Given that the first and second trimesters are the highest risk periods for pregnancy, Beck said, the NEJM paper concedes the researchers didn’t know what additional risks the vaccines might pose to pregnant women at their most vulnerable time.
The paper also included an irrelevant comparison of the most frequent symptoms post-vaccine between pregnant and non-pregnant women, and used live birth as the only measure of the potential health effects on the newborn.
And perhaps most importantly, it explicitly stated that “The most frequently reported pregnancy related adverse events were spontaneous abortion.”
The paper reported 46 spontaneous abortions related to vaccination out of 104 total reported. That, Beck said, is a 73.1% increase in spontaneous abortion.
Making calculations based on that NEJM data, Beck found that the reported vaccination rate of 75% of pregnant women in Switzerland, 1 in 10 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
He concluded that alternative existing hypotheses can’t account for this phenomenon, and the vaccine-induced miscarriage hypothesis corresponds to both the manufacturer’s data and the relevant findings reported as the basis of the CDC’s campaign to vaccinate pregnant women.
125% spike in pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14
The presentation also raised a series of concerns about the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination on young people and how statistical manipulation can obscure those potential effects.
Based on several examples of how the health and mortality of young people worsened over the course of the vaccination period, Beck posed the question, “Why did we vaccinate children? I mean, they were not the target group of this virus.”
An examination of data from major health insurers, for example, showed that during 2020-2021, people ages 19-39 had the highest growth in healthcare costs, while they typically have the lowest costs, indicating a change in the health of that demographic.
Data on the frequency of pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14 showed a 125% spike in events. While the numbers were still small, they went from an average of 20 events per year over the several preceding years to a total of 45 events in 2021.
A second look at data analysis by the FOS, which had reported that there was no excess mortality for young people in 2022, raised red flags, Beck said.
Excess mortality measures the difference in reported deaths versus expected deaths in a given period. Baseline projections of excess mortality are typically based on previous averages.
Re-analyzing the FOS mortality data, but keeping the expected number of deaths in line with previous averages — which the FOS had not done — Beck found a 12% increase in overall excess mortality.
When he analyzed the excess mortality by age groups, Beck found that for young adults ages 20-39, there was a spike in excess mortality beyond normal expectations in late 2021 and in 2022. And for children ages 0-19, he identified a similar trend.
Excess mortality data, he said, can be easily hidden by widening confidence intervals for predictions, combining demographic groups with different health profiles or changing the baseline expected number of deaths to hide variation, which made it possible for Swiss officials to announce there was no excess mortality for young people.
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.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The Justice Department has dismissed all charges related to campaign finance leveled against Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder and CEO of the Bahamas-based crypto exchange FTX. The grounds were a bit unusual. Officials in the Bahamas said that such charges were not the basis of the extradition. “The Bahamas did not intend to extradite the defendant on the campaign contributions count,” said the Justice Department. “Accordingly, in keeping with its treaty obligations to the Bahamas, the Government does not intend to proceed to trial on the campaign contributions count.”
And just like that, charges are gone. What’s strange is that this claim jumps out in the financial trail of FTX. Indeed, it seems obvious. It was an impressive caper. FTX said it practiced “effective altruism” and so intended to give away $1 billion to charity. It raised venture funding from many sources that wanted to pay off politicians but were restricted from doing so by law. FTX classified this as investment and then altruistically gave money to many charities involved in “pandemic planning” but many were not real charities. They were 501c4s that fund political campaigns. With just a few hops in the money trail, this mechanism allowed vast funding of mostly Democratic political interests in advance of the 2020 election.
Once you have a look at the details and players (and we have done so in two articles here and here), it becomes clear that “effective altruism” was simply a cover for a politically driven money scheme. FTX was founded and then went into bankruptcy exactly in keeping with this purpose. It remains possible that SBF will face trouble over claims of wire fraud but that could be plea-bargained away. We shall see. What’s striking is that the most obvious issues have been swept away on a legal technicality.
Central to the charity of FTX was the issue of pandemic planning, or so they said. SBF’s brother ran a pandemic organization. Linda Fried, Sam’s aunt on his mother’s side, was Dean of the School of Public Health at Columbia University and on the board of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Aging. SBF’s girlfriend Caroline Ellison’s mother is a professor of economics at MIT with a research specialization in the pharmaceutical industry while her father has written at least four papers on epidemiological modeling.
The “Together Trial” was a trial of therapeutics that ended up inveighing against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and was generously funded by FTX together with the Koch Foundation. The head of Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, received $150,000 from FTX to write SBF’s autobiography. HelixNano, a vaccine company that claims to be developing mutation-resistant vaccines, received $10M in funding from FTX Future Fund. And Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security: This institution ran the Event 201 lockdown tabletop exercise in 2019, and received at least $175,000 for a single employee, from FTX coffers.
This barely scratches the surface and we would like to know more. It would be glorious if the New York Times or some other big media organ would assign 50 reporters to dig deeper, as they did with the supposed Trump-Russia connection that turned up nothing after years of high dudgeon. But nope: all we get is silence. In contrast, the national media mostly treats SBF as a confused genius who got in over his head because his wonderful company achieved too much too fast.
How the national media treats money trails entirely depends on the political drive behind the effort. In the second term of the Reagan administration, the executive branch became involved in an effort to fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua in the name of fighting the spread of Soviet influence and winning the Cold War. Congress had specifically stopped these funding efforts so the Reaganites turned to the usual suite of shell companies, friendly governments, intelligence agencies, and secure money-movers to get the cash to those who wanted it.
The result was many years of intense investigation. Every center-left and left-wing outfit was all over the Iran-Contra money scandal, seeking receipts and subjecting the major players like Oliver North to sworn Congressional testimony. There was nothing wrong with this and everything right: in the American system, the executive branch cannot fund global projects without the approval of Congress. The search to ferret out the scandals seemed like part of the effort to clean up government.
Here we are nearly 40 years later and the Biden administration is embroiled in an astonishing version of something similar, with familial connections, shell companies, cash moving here and there, foreign governments like Ukraine, and intelligence agencies serving as essential tools of covering it all up. It was the Hunter Biden laptop that provided the clues and that led to more receipts of an amazing nature. This week I received a call from a man who was instrumental in discovering the laptop who explained many of the funding connections but after about 15 minutes of detail I could not keep up even though he went on for another 30 minutes. It was all mind-boggling. This one makes the Iran-Contra scandal seem like the age of innocence.
How deep does this rabbit hole go? Consider the attacks on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the attempt to close the primary such that only Biden can win it? The effort is primarily funded by Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook which itself cooperated very closely with the federal government in suppressing contrary opinions on lockdowns and vaccines. Liam Sturgess explains:
The group behind the campaign is the Progressive Turnout Project, a political action committee (PAC) that has been described as “the largest voter contact organization in the country.” It has a series of sub-organizations operating under different names, two of which are also engaged in the BAN RFK petition: Stop Republicans and Progressive Takeover. … Using the most recent publicly-available data from OpenSecrets, we discovered that the single largest donation to the PTP came from Dustin Moskovitz.
Moskovitz also co-founded a project management application called Asana in 2008. Between these two massively profitable companies, Moskovitz generated so much wealth that he was identified by Forbes in 2011 as the world’s youngest self-made billionaire, even beating out Zuckerberg.
After earning his fortune in Big Tech, Moskovitz and his future wife, Cari Tuna, signed on to “The Giving Pledge,” committing to give away the vast majority of their money before the end of their lives. The Giving Pledge was the creation of mega-millionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, with co-signatories including Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, George Lucas, David Rockefeller, and Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the recently-collapsed FTX cryptocurrency trading platform.
To accomplish their goal, Moskovitz and Tuna embraced a philosophy of “effective altruism.” According to its proponents, effective altruists seek to direct funding towards the people and organizations most likely to accomplish a given intended outcome for the betterment of humanity and the planet —often focusing on topics such as artificial intelligence, natural disasters, and combating “misinformation/disinformation.”
With effective altruism as their anchor, Moskovitz and Tuna started the Good Ventures Foundation in 2011. The focus of their philanthropy was to include biomedical research, pandemics and bioterrorism, education, food security, foreign aid, geoengineering, global health and development, immigration, nanotechnology and treatment of animals. Good Ventures also partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to co-fund research related to infectious diseases in Africa.
In August 2014, Good Ventures partnered with a similar organization called GiveWell to launch the Open Philanthropy Project, which would recommend grants for Good Ventures to fulfill (paid for by Moskovitz).
In the years leading up to COVID-19, Moskovitz used Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures to provide significant funding toward pandemic preparedness and biosecurity. Open Philanthropy is also listed as the primary sponsor of a series of tabletop pandemic “war games,” during which world leaders practice how they might respond to various scenarios involving outbreaks of novel viruses, whether man-made or of natural origin. Some examples include Clade X (May 2018); A Spreading Plague (February 2019); and of course, the infamous Event 201 (October 2019).
If you have followed this article carefully, you see that we have come full circle, from the effort to silence and stop Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., back to Sam Bankman-Fried, the phony crypto exchange FTX, and the money trails through pandemic planning straight to political control of people by a single political party that tolerates no competition. One might suppose these connections would launch a thousand investigations and calls for reform. They should.
Instead, the charges were dismissed, by the very regime that stands to lose all credibility in light of all these strange money trails. And now we see major banks canceling accounts by major medical dissidents, as a warning to others.
Let there be no mystery as to why the public has lost trust in government, public health, media, and virtually every other official institution. Even as Americans have been pillaged and had their foundational rights violated by governments, the people on the inside have done very well for themselves within this tangled web of graft and corruption. They have every intention to forever block curious journalists from knowing more.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Because if officials did, they might have to ‘confirm’ something that blows up all their bogus narratives.
In Part 1 of this article, I presented my iron-clad Covid maxim: “Officials never investigate that which they don’t want to confirm.”
One of the first Reader Comments this article generated was from the always-astute Substacker SimulationCommander:
“This goes for much more than Covid, too. Like the Nordstream bombings or cocaine in the White House. Then you can have the press parrot, “No evidence exists…”
And how, SC. This maxim does apply to every “taboo” subject that could/might detonate any false or bogus narrative. Alas, if I was going to list examples of every taboo topic that can’t be investigated (because inconvenient truths might be “confirmed”), I’d be writing until midnight.
This caveat stipulated, what follows are a few more Covid examples I think “confirm” my maxim that non-authorized conclusions cannot be “confirmed” … because they simply won’t be investigated. Or, if they are “investigated,” said investigation will itself be a scam, designed to protect the authorized conclusion.
Don’t perform autopsies.
Don’t investigate or follow-up on all the people listed on the VAERS data base.
Make sure medical personnel don’t go overboard inputting VAERS reports. (Make sure the VAERS system is capturing only a tiny percentage of the possible vaccine-injured).
Make sure the MSM doesn’t interview or investigate the claims of family members who possibly died or had vaccine injuries.
Don’t perform any statistical comparisons from previous years.
Don’t interview any doctors, nurses or hospital administrators who believe the “Covid protocols” were actually killing patients.
Don’t report it or investigate it.
Don’t question any life insurance companies or their actuary experts.
Don’t question any funeral home directors or coroners about any possible spike in deaths.
Don’t question any clergy that perform funeral services.
Don’t survey ambulance companies to see if they were/are responding to more emergency calls.
Don’t question florists to see if they were/are preparing more floral arrangements for funerals.
If some journalist or official must mention a spike in all-cause deaths, attribute these deaths to “long Covid” or “Covid that won’t go away” (even though the “vaccines” were supposed to prevent death in at least 95 percent of cases.)
Don’t seek to tally these incidents or compare them to previous years.
Censor the YouTube videos of hundreds of athletes collapsing while in competition.
Or: make sure said videos do NOT “go viral.”
Censor or “de-boost” the many thousands of headlines and stories that report on these incidents.
To reduce the length of this article, I refer readers to this article (“27 ways officials concealed evidence of early spread.”)
One mechanism that might suppress evidence of early virus spread would be to NOT perform any antibody studies of all naval personnel who were on a ship between November 2019 through March 2020.
(See end of this article for my latest “eureka!” observation/theory. This possibility is a stunner even to me.)
Don’t give research money to any college or “scientific” research organization that might perform studies on taboo topics that could de-bunk the authorized narratives.
If some awkward or embarrassing studies are performed, censor them … or produce a “counter-study” designed to discredit the previous inconvenient study/anecdotes.
Steer studies to researchers who will produce results that match the authorized narratives.
Note: This is the “carrot” approach: “We’ll pay you if you produce a good study for us!”
More yummy carrots: Pay news organizations (via advertising spends and “Excellence-in- Journalism” grants) that run stories that support the narrative.
The stick: Boycott, censor, de-platform the few media organizations that persist in challenging the authorized narratives. Try to shut these sites down or get their key dissenting journalists fired (Tucker Carlson, James O’Keefe, etc).
Or: Put dissidents or “dangerous extremists/traitors” in jail for the rest of their lives (Julian Assange).
Or: Force them to flee to Russia (Edward Snowden).
Use non-stop propaganda to encourage other vaccines: “Don’t forget to get your flu shot. It’s not too late to get your flu shot. Flu shots prevent the flu.”
More carrots: “$10 gift card at Publix for everyone who gets their flu shot … or Covid shot.”
More sticks: “We’ll fire you if you don’t get your shot.”
Carrot and stick at the same time: “You can now go to a Broadway play … If you’ve gotten your shots and can prove it to us.”
As I’ll soon report, the CDC and Navy actually tested 382 crew members (out of 4,800 crew members) of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier for antibodies. Blood for these antibody tests was collected from a “voluntary … convenience sample” on April 20-24, 2020.
The results showed that 60 to 62* percent of the Roosevelt crew members who got an antibody assay tested positive for antibodies (which provide antigen evidence of “prior infection.”)
*Note: Some sentences in this study say “62 percent” of crew members tested positive for antibodies, other sentences say “60 percent.”
Previously-reported PCR test results had suggested only 20 percent of Roosevelt crew members had been infected by the time this ship made it to port in Guam in late March, 2020.
In researching the “Roosevelt outbreak,” I learned there’d also been Covid outbreaks on a French aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the approximate same time period as the Roosevelt outbreak; there was also an outbreak on the USS Kidd missile destroyer.
The French aircraft carrier had about 1,800 crew members and 90 percent of these crew members were later tested for antibodies (for some odd reason, only 7.9 percent of Roosevelt crew members were tested for antibodies).
The de Gaulle antibody results were almost identical to the percentage of the Roosevelt study, showing that 60 to 65 percent of these sailors had been previously infected.
On the USS Kidd, which had 333 crew members, at least 41 percent of its crew members had been previously infected based on PCR and antibody results.
I believe the antibody results on the Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Kidd are trying to tell us something about the real R-naught number of the novel coronavirus.
The R-naught number tries to quantify how contagious a particular virus is. It seeks to tell researchers how many people one infected person might later – directly or indirectly – infect.
An R-naught number over 2 means “virus” spread” is going to be significant. If this number is 3 or 4 (or more), Katie bar the door!
True, naval vessels constitute the worst possible “spread” environments, but, if nothing else, these antibody results tell us that the majority of people in any “congregate” and extended virus-spread environment will at some point contract this virus.
NOTE: If any person has relevant information about a potential “early outbreak” on the Roosevelt or any naval ship (and a possible cover-up of same), please email me at: wjricejunior@gmail.com
Another key take-away from my non-authorized research project is that only one of approximately 7,000 sailors on these three ships died from Covid (and this lone Covid victim was 41.)
In other words, the antibody studies show that of at least 4,000 or so sailors infected with this virus, only one infected person died (and details of this one fatality are sketchy and include odd elements).
This means the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for sailors under the age of 41 on these three ships was 0.0000 percent.
I argue this finding – if widely publicized – would have slain the false narrative that Covid was a threat to young adults.
Upon deeper contemplation, I find it very interesting that no antibody studies were done of crew members of other ships that were at sea between December 2019 and March 2020.
Question: What if later antibody studies had been done of all naval crew members who had been at sea in these “pre-official Covid” months?
If this pro-active prevalence investigation (or “active surveillance” as Alex Berenson highlighted in a recent study about vaccine-caused heart issues) had been performed, I think researchers and the public might have found that 40 to 60 percent of crew members who served on every ship in any nation’s Navy might have also tested positive for Covid antibodies.
The reason more antibody studies weren’t performed is probably that no other “outbreaks” were publicly identified on any other ships.
However, the reason no or few possible early “cases” were identified on other ships is that no PCR tests were available on these others ships and no sailors were being tested with PCR tests before mid-March 2020.
So we got only “passive surveillance.” This, I argue, is why more early cases throughout the population weren’t identified. There were simply no PCR tests being given to people who may have been infected.
In my opinion, if these tests had been available and had been administered, PCR positive results would have started coming back “positive” just like they did on the other ships that did get these (then) scarce tests and started testing crew members.
Maybe more “PCR evidence” of early infections on more naval vessels would have prompted more later antibody studies of all the crew members of those ships (just like what happened on the Roosevelt, Kidd and de Gaulle).
With the exception of the outbreaks on these three ships, PCR and antibody testing didn’t happen. I suspect that wide-spread antibody testing of all naval vessels didn’t happen … for a reason.
Again: Don’t test for (or genuinely “investigate”) that which you don’t want to “confirm.” This strategy works every time!
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
RFK Jr., whose father was assassinated on the presidential campaign trail in 1968, says the Biden Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has denied his request for Secret Service protection.
“Since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided Secret Service protection. But not me,” Kennedy tweeted.
“Our campaign’s request included a 67-page report from the world’s leading protection firm, detailing unique and well established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats.”
A misleading community note was added to the tweet, which suggests that candidates will only be protected within 120 days of the general election…

The Secret Service’s website suggests the same:

The actual text of the law, however, makes clear that the 120-day guidance is for spouses.
“Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates.“
Punctuation matters.
Meanwhile, an argument for why Kennedy should receive SS protection:
(continued, emphasis ours)
The law authorizes Secret Service protection for major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses within 120 days of the general presidential election. However, the evolution of the protective detail is based upon actual threats and acts of aggression against both the highest public office in the land and those who seek the position.
History shows there is precedent for candidates receiving protection >120 days ahead of the general election.
Donald Trump & Ben Carson were provided Secret Service protection 365 days before Election Day in 2015
Barack Obama was provided Secret Service protection 551 days before Election Day in 2007
RFK Jr is within the time range of the precedent set by the candidates above (465 days from Election Day) and is arguably under even greater threat given the Kennedy family’s tragic history of assassinations.
The Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas) has the discretion and the ability to approve or deny Secret Service coverage to presidential candidates at any point in the campaign.
Given that the Biden Administration began to censor RFK Jr within days of getting into the White House and is continuing that censorship even through last week’s censorship hearing, it is not surprising that a Biden appointee has denied a political opponent’s request for Secret Service protection.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | United States |
2 Comments
Pensions etc. can’t be paid in future. More fear porn to push 7 very important narratives.
The NY Times ran a major story today to get in front of the depopulation narrative, it seems. Countries don’t actually need to depopulate to stop the world population from increasing. Depopulation is already here, happening organically. [By that I mean families are having fewer children in response to the strip mining of the middle classes everywhere.] I described the lack of a growing world population last February, here.
No doubt both depopulation and the aging of all our nations has sped up as a result of COVID vaccinations being forced on 2/3 of the world’s population.
Yes, forced. Illegally forced. By spewing lies at everyone about the vaccines’ benefits and harms, which governments, regulators and manufacturers knew were lies, by scaring the Bejesus out of people by lying about the severity of COVID, by threatening and sanctioning refusers, by exhorting the world to shun refusers, by demanding vaccine passports to participate in normal activities like shopping… the list goes on and on. The people who wrote, spread and repeated these lies are culpable of crimes against humanity.
But the COVID lies and the vaccine lies were only the beginning. Governments also lied about borders, about immigration, about unaccompanied children crossing borders, and most importantly about WHY all these bizarre policies were being hoisted on most of the developed and developing world. The NY Times has been front and center in carrying the dirty water—and amplifying it—for each of these criminal lies and the policies they buttressed.
Now the NYT is at it again.
I see many narratives that the NY Times may be trying to push with this piece:
ONE: Lack of intent. We did not create the COVID virus nor the vaccines with the intent to depopulate, because we actually need more young people as workers. Therefore, such claims make no sense, and must be dismissed in their entirety.
TWO: In fact, we knew the population was decreasing. It has been obvious for years. Why would we shoot our economies in the foot by depopulating? Don’t blame us. [Ignores the fact that by crashing our economies, the assets can be purchased on the cheap, while putting people and nations into a debt trap that will close in on them later as interest rates rise, or money gets tight, or using other schemes.]
THREE: The NYT provides the justification why pensions cannot be paid in full, and why retirement ages must increase.
FOUR: If we were in fact trying to depopulate, we would have aimed for the elderly. The fact that so many young people have myocarditis, sudden deaths, and that there are 40% more deaths in working age groups should be additional evidence that vaccine depopulation was accidental, not intentional.
FIVE: To justify crazy ‘immigration’ policies [the border is open, just wade across] the NYT reveals that with a younger group of workers entering the country, maybe we can pay your pension after all. Fingers crossed. So shut up about immigration if you want to retire.
SIX: All those unaccompanied minors crossing the border? Shut up, they will become our young workers in a few years, the ones that pay for your pensions. Stop asking what happened to them.
SEVEN: We could so easily fix this if it wasn’t for those right-wing populist movements nipping at the heels of our totalitarian one world governance project.
Excerpts follow.
The world’s demographics have already been transformed. Europe is shrinking. China is shrinking, with India, a much younger country, overtaking it this year as the world’s most populous nation.
But what we’ve seen so far is just the beginning.
The projections are reliable, and stark: By 2050, people age 65 and older will make up nearly 40 percent of the population in some parts of East Asia and Europe. That’s almost twice the share of older adults in Florida, America’s retirement capital. Extraordinary numbers of retirees will be dependent on a shrinking number of working-age people to support them.
In all of recorded history, no country has ever been as old as these nations are expected to get.
As a result, experts predict, things many wealthier countries take for granted — like pensions, retirement ages and strict immigration policies — will need overhauls to be sustainable. And today’s wealthier countries will almost inevitably make up a smaller share of global G.D.P., economists say….
As in many young countries, birth rates in Kenya have declined drastically in recent years. Women had an average of eight children 50 years ago, but only just over three last year. Demographically, Kenya looks something like South Korea in the mid-1970s, as its economy was beginning a historic rise, although its birth rate is declining somewhat more slowly. Much of South Asia and Africa have similar age structures…
there is evidence that sub-Saharan African countries’ fertility rates are dropping even faster than the U.N. projects… [Uh oh, what else have we done to them?]
The transformation of rich countries has only just begun. If these countries fail to prepare for a shrinking number of workers, they will face a gradual decline in well-being and economic power….
To cope, experts say, aging rich countries will need to rethink pensions, immigration policies and what life in old age looks like. [Do they mean what life in old age looks like, or do they mean enforced death in old age?]
Change will not come easy. More than a million people have taken to the streets in France to protest raising the retirement age to 64 from 62, highlighting the difficult politics of adjusting. Immigration fears have fueled support for right-wing candidates across aging countries in the West and East Asia.
“Much of the challenges at the global level are questions of distribution,” Dr. Myrskylä said. “So some places have too many old people. Some places have too many young people. It would of course make enormous sense to open the borders much more. And at the same time we see that’s incredibly difficult with the increasing right-wing populist movements.”…
“You can say with some kind of degree of confidence what the demographics will look like,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “What the society will look like depends enormously on policy choices and behavioral change.”
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, New York Times, United States |
Leave a comment
For years, children at public schools have been offered only nonfat and 1% milk — but that may soon change, thanks to a bill that aims to put whole milk back on kids’ lunch trays.
The “Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023” would override the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) current guidelines on milk by amending the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow school cafeterias to offer unflavored and flavored whole milk.
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 30 advanced the bill, which has been scheduled for a floor vote. The date of the vote is not yet publicly available.
According to the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.), “Bad federal policy has kept whole milk out of our school cafeterias for too long. … Milk is the number one source of 13 essential nutrients.”
The bill would bypass the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee, which determine U.S. dietary guidelines — which in turn determines what foods schools can serve.
Whole milk banned in public schools since 2012
In what they said was an effort to curb childhood obesity, lawmakers passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which revamped the National School Lunch Program to conform to the standing dietary guidelines recommending reduced saturated fat in children’s diets.
The National School Lunch Program provides low-cost or free lunches to roughly 30 million children in nearly 100,000 public and nonprofit private schools, as well as residential childcare institutions.
This led two years later to a ban of 2% and whole milk at participating schools.
Since then, schools have served non-fat and low-fat milk, including sweetened flavored varieties.
This experiment was “clearly a failure,” said Dr. Michelle Perro, “as rates of obesity continued to rise, now affecting 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 children.”
Perro, an integrative pediatrician with more than 38 years of experience, applauded Thompson’s “recognition that food policies can be revisited and changed,” telling The Defender:
“Fat is good for children. It is one of the three macronutrients the body needs for growth, nervous system health, hormone production, prostaglandins, etc. Additionally, fat in the diet helps with the absorbable and key vitamins A, D, E, and K, and are a concentrated energy source.”
The Nutrition Coalition, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that “aims to improve health in America by ensuring that the public receives evidence-based nutritional advice,” last month sent a letter to Thompson in support of the legislation.
The group noted that whole milk was removed from schools in 2010 “due to longtime fears that saturated fats cause heart disease” — but “those fears are now outdated, as they are not supported by the current science.”
Health writer James Capon tweeted his support for the amendment:
‘We got it wrong on saturated fats’
According to the Nutrition Coalition, an “authoritative 2020 ‘State of the Art Review’” in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that there is “no robust evidence that current population-wide arbitrary upper limits on saturated fat consumption in the United States will prevent CVD [cardiovascular disease] or reduce Mortality.’”
“More than 20 other review papers by independent teams of scientists around the world have concluded the same,” the Nutrition Coalition added.
USDA’s 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) found that the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was “strong.” However, a 2021 peer-reviewed investigation by outside scientists showed 88% of the studies reviewed by the DGA committee did not support that conclusion.
The scientists noted that of the 39 studies the DGA committee reviewed, 25 had null or negative findings — meaning saturated fats were found either to have no effect on cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease, or were associated with lower risk.
Additionally, the DGA committee looked at 11 studies on saturated fatty acids and stroke. Of those 11 studies, 8 had null findings and 3 reported higher intake of saturated fatty acids was associated with a lower risk of stroke, the scientists pointed out.
Despite those findings, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an independent consumer advocacy organization, on June 6 issued a statement against bringing whole milk back into schools, calling it “troublesome” that most U.S. children exceed the recommended limits on saturated fat and claiming that “too much saturated fat is linked to raises in LDL (‘bad’) cholesterol, a known cause of heart disease.”
Science journalist, author and founder of the Nutrition Coalition Nina Teicholz on June 12 pushed back against CSPI’s statement, noting that the committee for the current U.S. Dietary Guidelines found that there was “‘insufficient evidence’ to show that restricting saturated fats in childhood could prevent heart-disease or mortality in adulthood.”
Teicholz — who in her 2014 book, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” reviewed thousands of scientific studies and argued that the saturated fats in animal foods have been unfairly maligned based on weak, inconclusive evidence — said in a recent Substack post:
“Over the past 13 years, nearly 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of both clinical trial and observational data, by independent teams of scientists have been published, and nearly all concluded that we got it wrong on saturated fats.
“The most rigorous clinical trial data show that these fats do not cause cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. Mortality (death) data is definitive. That should be the last word.”
Nonetheless, the USDA and the American Heart Association managed “simply to ignore these findings on mortality,” Teicholz said, “even when presented personally with these data by top scientists in the field … as reported in the BMJ.”
Meanwhile, the CSPI — which says it values “independence, scientific rigor, and transparency” — depicts the fight to get whole milk into schools as being led by “Big Dairy.”
But according to Teicholz, this claim lacks evidence:
“Interestingly, I’ve discovered that dairy behemoths like Danone make more money by skimming the fat off the milk and charging for it in other products, like ice cream, rather than selling the whole milk itself. These multinationals have shown themselves to be dis-interested in promoting whole milk.
“From what I can see, whole-milk advocacy seems mainly to be driven by people concerned about child health and farmers from the rapidly diminishing number of dairy farms in the U.S., 95% of which are family-owned.”
Teicholz questioned why CSPI would go to such lengths to keep whole milk out of schools. Part of the answer, she said, likely is that the group for decades has adamantly opposed saturated fats, so they are slow to acknowledge that current science no longer supports their stance:
“CSPI was so much against saturated fats that in the late 1980s, the group ran a major campaign in favor of replacing these harmful fats with trans fats, billed by the group’s newsletter as ‘healthy’ and ‘not a bad bargain’ for combatting heart disease (whoops! trans fats turned out to be even more of a heart-disease threat than saturated fats and were ultimately banned from the food supply).”
Studies ‘build the case for possible benefits’ of dairy fat
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in November 2019 featured three peer-reviewed studies that called into question the narrative that the saturated fat in whole milk is harmful to people’s health.
The first study examined dairy fat consumption and the onset of diabetes in three cohorts of U.S. health professionals and found that higher dairy fat intake — when compared with calories from carbohydrates intake — was associated with lower diabetes risk in one cohort and not significantly associated with diabetes in the other two cohorts.
In an editorial about the study, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, dean emeritus and distinguished professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, wrote that the findings added to a “growing body of literature which call into question the soundness of conventional dietary recommendations to avoid dairy fat.”
The second study reported reductions in Type 2 diabetes were correlated with yogurt consumption and increases in cheese consumption, but could not form a conclusion on whole milk because few people in their study reported drinking it.
The third study looked at dairy consumption and death from cancer, cardiovascular disease and all causes in Italy.
The researchers found that compared with no milk consumption, moderate milk intake (≤200g or ∼6.5 ounces per day) was associated with around 25% lower mortality overall and 50% lower cardiovascular mortality. However, higher levels of milk consumption — either low-fat or whole milk — were not associated with lower mortality risk.
The three studies together, Mozaffarian said, provide “little support” for the notion that consuming dairy, or dairy fat, is “harmful,” but rather, “They continue to build the case for possible benefits.”
Americans more obese, unhealthy after push for low-fat diets
According to pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, “Low-fat diets have been pushed by the health, medical and food industries for many decades.”
He said:
“Fat was demonized as a health hazard, and, as low-fat or non-fat items were pushed into American society, Americans became more overweight, obese and unhealthy. Why?
“Polyunsaturated fats (more inflammatory omega-6 seed, vegetable, corn and soybean oils than healthy anti-inflammatory omega-3 oils) were substituted for saturated fats, and processed bleached white sugars and high fructose corn syrup sugars were added to low-fat and non-fat foods to make them more palatable.
“These changes, all in what we were told were in the best interests of our health, only made Americans sicker and more overweight.”
Perro, too, believes the attack on fat and promotion of carbs stems from industry advocacy. The USDA food pyramid — originally designed by former USDA Director of Dietary Guidance and Nutrition Education Research Luise Light — was “hijacked and thwarted by the wheat and corn industries,” according to Perro.
Palevsky said he is not afraid of saturated fats in the diet. “What I do fear is the consumption of saturated fats from animal sources that are poorly fed with inappropriate and toxic diets, and those animals that are abused and poorly cared for in concentrated animal feed operations.”
These inappropriate diets and toxic exposures and living conditions, he said, make consuming the fat of the animals unhealthy:
“Most people are unaware that toxins are stored in animal fat tissue and that is what makes the saturated fats unhealthy for us when we consume milks and products from these animals.
“When animals are grass-fed and pasture-raised, and allowed to live in the wild, and we choose to cook them in a way that doesn’t destroy the quality of the fat, these saturated fats will generally not harm us. In fact, we may gain many benefits from consuming them.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
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.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | United States |
Leave a comment
Last week, the BBC reported that seawater along the tip of Florida had exceeded “hot tub” temperatures of 37.8°C (100°F) in recent days, “making it potentially the hottest ever measured”. The Guardian was in fine alarmist form noting that the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water. Similar hysteria was to be found across most of the mainstream media. Alas, curiously missing from all this excitable coverage was a note that just 48 hours later the temperature plummeted to around 85°F.
The reading was taken from a buoy in Manatee Bay which is managed by the Everglades National Park, and located north of Key Largo. The upper left graph below shows that the temperature moved between 90-101°F on consecutive days, then fell away rapidly to around 85°F.

Examining the ‘record’ on the climate site Watts Up With That?, the former ecology lecturer Jim Steele observed that water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2. Steele noted that the Manatee Bay buoy measuring the water temperature was in a small embayment surrounded by landform, and this forms a natural hot tub. Low winds and a high pressure system further helped heat the bay, while muddy waters darkened the water enhancing solar heating.
Steele noted that the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.
To maintain the “crisis hoax”, Steele suggests it’s also important to ignore conflicting data. Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air, and some both. Just 56 miles to the south-west of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days, as shown in the lower left graph (above), which then cooled to 86°F. Manatee Bay lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph) which then cooled to the low 80°Fs, even dipping to 76°F. “These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented,” said Steele.
Jim Steele has a lifetime’s experience in working for environmental educations projects. For 25 years he ran the Sierra Nevada Field Campus for San Francisco State University. As part of one monitoring project, he studied the effect of regional climate change on bird populations in the Sierra Nevada.
Mainstream media is now clearly in the grip of a climate catastrophisation mania where activists scour the world for any unusual weather event or recording. Normal reporting standards seem to have been abandoned in the rush to scare populations to comply with the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Top level politicians encourage widespread panic with Al Gore ranting about “boiling oceans”, while a deranged Antonio Guterres claimed earlier this week that we live in an age of “global boiling”. At a stroke, the UN Secretary General seems to have retired the Guardian’s ‘Global Heating’ invention. Last year’s Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser says the climate narrative has corrupted his beloved science. Meanwhile, global boiling is promoted as global surface temperatures are retrospectively adjusted upwards by state-funded bodies, while the accurate satellite record shows a near nine-year pause. In the U.K., the Met Office happily uses corrupted station temperature data that the World Meteorology Organisation states has a error estimate of up to 2°C. The British weather service still seems inordinately proud of its 60-second U.K. heat record last year, despite evidence that three Typhoon jets were landing around the time on the runway next to the measuring devise at RAF Coningsby.
On Wednesday, the BBC’s Georgina Rannard wrote a story asking if the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025? This is pure Day After Tomorrow sci-fi territory, promoting fears of catastrophic cooling in the northern hemisphere, with widespread impacts across the planet. Again the story was all over the mainstream media with USA Today reporting the Atlantic Ocean currents could soon collapse, adding, “how you may endure dramatic weather changes”.
The story originated from a recently published scientific paper and was pure clickbait for impressionable activists. The claims are based on limited observation evidence producing computer model projections. The authors state “with high confidence” that the change will occur between 2025-2095. However, the paper does contain this massive caveat, which went unreported in any of the media coverage: this prediction is only valid “under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger”.
Needless to say, the story went around the world and was reported in blazing headlines. However, it seems eyebrows are starting to be raised about this sort of guff, even in alarmist circles. The climate alarmist’s climate alarmist is Professor Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann of Penn University, but rerunning the Day After Tomorrow script was not wholly to his taste. According to USA Today, he said: “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science |
1 Comment