Bill Gates and the Frame Game
BY THOMAS HARRINGTON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 16, 2022
A few weeks back, at the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Bill Gates said some surprising things. In the course of a 56-minute panel discussion the vaccine pusher extraordinaire admitted (starting at the 18:22 mark) that the Covid vaccines do not block infection and that the duration of whatever protection they bring to the table is extremely short.
He later talked (starting at 51:00 mark) of the absurdity of implementing any Covid passport program—and one can logically deduce any other measure to segregate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated—when the injections have shown no ability to do the least that one should expect from a vaccine: prevent infection and transmission.
These admissions violently kick the stool out from under the arguments made in favor of the more assaultive and damaging Covid “containment measures” taken in the past two years, many of which are still being pursued with pitiless vigor by public officials, CEOs, and educational “leaders” all around the world.
Are we to believe that Bill Gates had a sudden impulse to undermine all that he used his billions to mercilessly promote over the last two years? And that he was giving all those currently carrying out those plans permission to stand down?
It’s a nice thought. But I don’t believe it to be the case.
No. Bill was simply engaging in one of the more tried and true techniques of elite information management, the limited hangout, or what I prefer to call a drive to “save the frame” of an argument that is quickly taking on water.
Since Bill and many of the people he has paired up with to force the experimental and often harmful vaccines upon the world, effectively own or have donated untold amounts of money to many of the world’s more important media outlets, he knew beforehand that he did not have to worry much about his words being widely circulated.
And so it was. Only relatively small independent news gatherers took any note of what he said.
So who was he addressing his words to and why?
He was speaking to the fellow true believers and providing them with a rhetorical model for handling the loss of faith some among their ranks are having in the face of the vaccines’ abject failure.
The key to understanding the frame game here is the clause Gates uttered right before the “but” with which he introduced his truthful words about the “vaccines” pitiful infection-blocking capabilities and short duration of effectiveness: “The vaccines have saved millions of lives.”
Those familiar with the work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff, or the activities of pollster and so-called political wordsmith Frank Luntz will know what I’m talking about.
What these two men have in common—despite their divergent political allegiances—is their belief in the extraordinary power of rhetorical framing; that is, the tendency of the human brain to subordinate the careful analysis of empirically proven details to the embrace of an overarching cognitive metaphor that appeals to their deeper, if often unstated, cultural and emotional values.
It’s the difference between, for example: “The US invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destroyed it, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.” and “In its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, the US made a number of tragic mistakes.”
The first states a bald empirical truth. The second obfuscates that crude reality and subordinates it to the noble vision, so cherished by Americans when contemplating their role in the world, of a country that is constantly helping people around the world to better their lives.
And with widespread imposition of mental frames like this through the media, “poof!” go all the gory, on-the-ground details, and with them more importantly, the need to actually interrogate what we did and how we might seek to repair the lives we broke.
Going back to Davos, Bill was effectively saying to his minions, “You are on a great moral crusade. We’ve had some small problems along the way, but don’t give up, because the world needs us to continue to be heroic and save more lives.”
And with that cognitive frame in place, any creeping doubts those in the audience might have about what they have done, and their future mission, disappear just like that.
We see the same gambit used when the US government inevitably links the apparent waning of the pandemic to the use of vaccines. Here, for example, is what the CDC said to CNN shortly after lifting requirement that US citizens be tested before returning home from foreign travels:
“The Covid-19 pandemic has now shifted to a new phase, due to the widespread uptake of highly effective Covid-19 vaccines, the availability of effective therapeutics, and the accrual of high rates of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity at the population level in the United States. Each of these measures has contributed to lower risk of severe disease and death across the United States.”
It’s no accident that the first factor adduced to explain the onset of happier days, the one that sets the frame for all that follows, is the “widespread uptake of highly effective Covid-19 vaccines.”
The goal here— as it was in the case of Gates at Davos—is to preserve, in the face of abundant empirical evidence to the contrary, the frame that presents the forced administration of vaccines as the great slayer of the pandemic and gifter of our vanquished freedoms, and to turn that suggestion into an established fact through constant repetition.
But, of course, neither Gates’s claim about the vaccines saving “millions of lives” nor the CDCs’ assertion that “widespread vaccine uptake” was the key reason for ending the pandemic are established facts. Far from it. Indeed, there are no scientific studies that I know of capable of authenticating either claim. But that’s just the point.
The elites that deign to rob us of our bodily sovereignty and so much more in the name of Covid, or whatever other “mortal health threat” that they choose to publicize next through their carpet-bomber control of most media, have all done their homework on the frame game and carefully tailor their communications to fit with its imperatives.
Unfortunately, most citizens are still not clued in to how it operates in their lives. Verbal details such as the ones cited above matter because they play an enormous role in establishing and maintaining what the now sadly tarnished Chomsky once brilliantly called the field of “thinkable thought” in our public discussions.
To open up that field we need to smash their frames. But to smash those frames we first need to admit they exist, and where we can go to find them.
Thomas Harrington, Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute, is an essayist and Professor Emeritus of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA) where he taught for 24 years. He specializes in Iberian movements of national identity Contemporary Catalan culture. His writings are at Thomassharrington.com.
Rash of blood clots caused by… the heat?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 17, 2022
Perhaps you’ve heard about the rash of blood clots in young healthy people, recently?
Well don’t you worry your silly head about it, they were caused by dehydration due to the hot weather.
Some of them, anyway. Maybe. Definitely the most recent ones, and certainly any you may hear about in the future.
Naturally, any reported spike in blood clots before the summer was nothing to do with the hot weather.
… that was the cold weather.
Or maybe it was a long-term side effect of Covid19 infection.
Or maybe it wasn’t a clot, it was just Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
Or one of the 300,000 symptomless cases of aortic stenosis wandering around.
Or maybe they were suffering from “post-pandemic stress disorder”.
Or maybe there weren’t any deaths at all, and the fact-checkers have debunked all of that.
It doesn’t matter. Forget it. There’s no point even considering what may or may not have caused the blood clots that may or may not have happened in the past.
The point is, in the future, they will be caused by the hot weather.
And nothing else.
Have a good day.
Our Letter Putting Colleges on Notice
Presidents, senior leadership and trustees can’t say they didn’t know.
No College Mandates | June 12, 2022
No College Mandates has launched a major letter campaign to put colleges on notice that continued Covid-19 vaccination mandates put their students, their reputations, and potentially their endowments at risk. The purpose of the letter is to make these policy makers aware of new information they likely did not know existed and to prompt them to further investigate.
To date, more than 60 college presidents have received this letter via certified mail. Across those 60 colleges, approximately 1400 individuals were copied. Many more college letters are in process. By the time we are finished, thousands of college administrators and trustees will be notified.
No College Mandates is so proud to have the following organizations as signatories on our letter: Health Freedom Defense Fund, The Mendenhall Law Group, Health Freedom Counsel, and The Unity Project.
The letter is below. If you are interested in working on this effort, email us at info@nocollegemandates.com. We’ll set you up to fight this fight with us and make change.
To College and University Presidents, Senior Leadership and Trustees:
We are writing to notify you of recently available information prompting concern that fraud has been committed by Pfizer and by the FDA in the development and continued distribution of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. Given that your institution mandates Covid-19 vaccination for students as a condition of enrollment, it is incumbent upon you to be fully informed about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines and the claims of fraud that call both into question.
If fraud or willful misconduct is proven, the manufacturers and those involved in the distribution or mandating of the vaccines will lose immunity from liability granted to them under the existing EUA and the PREP act.
We urge you to further investigate. We believe that once you do, you will see how continued Covid-19 vaccine mandates jeopardize the safety of your students and the reputation of your institution.
The new information consists of Pfizer’s biological product file used to obtain FDA approval of Comirnaty and data from the insurance industry showing a huge rise in excess deaths in Millennial and Gen X populations concurrent with the implementation of vaccine approvals and mandates. The excess death data is raising concerns in the insurance industry and on Wall Street. We are also including timely news about product safety, given the FDA’s recent restriction of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to blood clotting concerns.
Following is a brief overview of each category and starting points for further inquiry. We are standing by to provide you with additional information or to connect you to scientists, lawyers and investors who are reviewing the current and evolving data.
Pfizer Biological Product File – background and highlights:
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) is a nonprofit group made up of public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists. The group exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license Covid-19 vaccines. Four days after the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine was approved for children over 16, this group submitted a Freedom of Information Act for all data within Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine biological product file. When the FDA asked for 75 years to release that data, PHMPT sued to obtain it and won. Beginning in March 2022, the public has access to Pfizer’s clinical trial data, which is being downloaded in batches monthly. You can find the document releases to-date here.
Thousands of volunteers including scientists, statisticians, doctors, and lawyers continue to examine these downloads and publish their findings. For ready reference, below are just a few of the findings of greatest concern that call into question the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer product and support a thesis of fraud:
- Pfizer failed the all-cause mortality endpoint in their unprecedentedly short 28-day clinical trial. In brief, more people died in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. This was known yet has still not been widely disclosed to the public.
- The CDC talking point that vaccines stopped transmission was based on no data, as this metric was not evaluated during Pfizer’s clinical trials. Pfizer and the FDA knew this yet did not disclose it to the public.
- Pfizer and the FDA knew as early as November 2020 that Pfizer’s clinical trials showed:
- Vaccine failure
- Waning vaccine efficacy
A baseline condition for granting a product Emergency Use Authorization is that it must be safe and effective. The data showed that the products are not effective. Yet, based on FDA approval, the CDC promoted them as such. From the initial roll-out in December 2020 through April 1, 2021, the public health messaging was that if you received the shot, you could not get infected and could not transmit the virus. The Pfizer documents are proof that they and the FDA colluded to lie to the American people and the CDC created false public health narratives based on these lies.
- Pfizer and the FDA most likely knew in May 2021 that the vaccines caused heart damage in teenagers based on a paper that was already in peer review at that time. The FDA approved the product for teenagers in June 2021 yet did not disclose this risk factor to consumers until August. During that time, all those who received this product did not have informed consent. Parents were not made aware of this known potential risk to their children.
- Brook Jackson, a regional director employed by Pfizer sub-contractor Ventavia Research Group, came forward in September 2020 with documented evidence that the company falsified data, unblinded patients and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial conducted by Ventavia. Her findings call into question the integrity of not only Ventavia’s results but of all of the results from Pfizer’s other trial sites and the entire clinical trial. Further information is available in The British Medical Journal.
Excess death data and the insurance industry:
In December 2021, Midwest insurer One America CEO Scott Davidson disclosed a 40% increase in excess deaths over pre-pandemic levels in the working-age (18-64) population in the third quarter. Putting the number into context Davidson said, “The data is consistent across every player in this business . . . Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be a 10 percent increase over pre-pandemic. So 40 percent is just unheard of”. Other major insurers have subsequently reported increases in death claims ranging from 21–57 % over expected levels. Most of these deaths are not Covid-19 deaths. Long-term disability claims are also seeing an uptick.
These reports prompted a former institutional investor who was a #1 ranked Wall Street sell-side insurance analyst to confirm the numbers using CDC reported data. His findings, independently confirmed by others, show the spikes in excess deaths are related to the timing of vaccine approvals and mandates. This data is prompting concern at insurance and reinsurance companies, who will bear the financial brunt of this unexpected and unprecedented rise in mortality. It is raising questions about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines in the investment community and beyond.
Of related interest is Pfizer’s amendment in February of its business risk disclosures in its Q4 2021 earnings report. The changes from the Q3 2021 report language center around disclosures of unfavorable safety data and “further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection”.
It is likely that neither Pfizer nor the FDA anticipated the court-compelled release of their clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data and the subsequent public scrutiny of it.
Additional product safety concerns:
The FDA announced on May 5 that they were restricting use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine due to the risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a syndrome of rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots in combination with low levels of blood platelets. The decision to restrict was based on 60 reported cases and 9 fatalities. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also have serious risks and fatalities associated with them including but not limited to blood clots and myocarditis in college-aged populations. These are shown in Pfizer’s post-marketing surveillance data and in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System (VAERS). As of April 29, 2022, there were approximately 1.2 million reports of adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination including more than 18,056 reports of deaths following the Pfizer vaccine, and 7,223 following the Moderna vaccine. Logic demands that Pfizer and Moderna products be restricted immediately as well. Why have they not been? Further, a recent Danish review of all three products in preprint in The Lancet showed that the J&J reduced all-cause mortality but that Pfizer and Moderna did not and may have increased it. Given all this, it is reasonable to think that Pfizer and Moderna products could be restricted or discontinued very soon due to safety concerns. This might well trigger a much higher level of scrutiny of the now-publicly available Pfizer data and the actions of our public health institutions. How would such a situation impact institutions such as yours that continue to mandate the products while knowing such risks exist?
One last thing to consider is the nature and associated secrecy of the contracts that Pfizer forced upon governments as conditions of sale and distribution of their Covid-19 vaccines in their respective countries. A review of some of these contracts can be found here. Terms included such things as the waiving of sovereign immunity, countries assuming full liability in the event that Pfizer was shown to have used another entity’s intellectual property, and that Pfizer be held harmless in the event of injury or death from the products. Why would a company require such terms if it knew its conduct and its products were sound?
We sincerely hope this information has been useful and that you will investigate this matter fully. We urge you to end your vaccine mandates to protect your institution’s students, reputation, and, in the event that fraud is proven, potentially your endowment.
Yours truly,
No College Mandates is a coalition of thousands of concerned students, parents, professors, staff, and community members working to end college Covid-19 vaccination mandates and restore medical choice on college campuses. Contact us at info@nocollegemandates.com
Health Freedom Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) non-profit which seeks to protect and advance health freedom, educate Americans on informed consent, advocate for human rights and bodily autonomy for all people, and legally challenge unethical mandates, laws, and policies when necessary. (HealthFreedomDefense.org)
The Mendenhall Law Group is a mission-oriented practice focused on holding government, educational institutions and corporations accountable. The group is keenly interested in medical freedom and provides legal support for those concerned about Covid-19 mandates and policies. Mendenhall Law has offices in Ohio and Massachusetts and a national network of affiliated practices. (WarnerMendenhall.com)
Health Freedom Counsel believes in the right to medical choice and provides clients with the resources to stand up to mandates that infringe upon medical freedom. (HealthFreedomCounsel.com)
The Unity Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate for students, kindergarten through 12th grade. We have enlisted globally esteemed physicians, scientists and business leaders and more than 150 grassroots groups and concerned individuals focused on preserving medical freedom.
Minsk deal was used to buy time – Ukraine’s Poroshenko
Petro Poroshenko said the Minsk agreements “meant nothing” – ©STR / NurPhoto via Getty Images
RT | June 17, 2022
Petro Poroshenko has admitted that the 2015 ceasefire in Donbass, which he negotiated with Russia, France and Germany as president of Ukraine, was merely a distraction intended to buy time for Kiev to rebuild its military.
He made the comments in interviews with several news outlets this week, including Germany’s Deutsche Welle television and the Ukrainian branch of the US state-run Radio Free Europe. Poroshenko also defended his record as president between 2014 and 2019.
“We had achieved everything we wanted,” he said of the peace deal. “Our goal was to, first, stop the threat, or at least to delay the war – to secure eight years to restore economic growth and create powerful armed forces.”
He cited Sun Tzu’s stratagems as an inspiration for the deception. Winning a war does not necessarily require winning military engagements, Poroshenko said, calling the deal he made a win for Ukraine in that regard.
Poroshenko failed to be reelected in a landslide vote for President Volodymyr Zelensky, who promised voters that, unlike his predecessor, he would secure peace in Donbass.
In the interviews, Poroshenko spoke about his role in negotiating the Minsk agreements, a roadmap for reconciliation between his government and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The former president apparently confirmed that Kiev hadn’t come to the talks in good faith, but simply wanted a reprieve after suffering a military defeat.
The agreements included a series of measures designed to rein in hostilities in Donbass and reconcile the warring parties. The first steps were a ceasefire and an OSCE-monitored pullout of heavier weapons from the frontline, which were fulfilled to some degree.
Kiev was then supposed to grant general amnesty to the rebels and extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Ukrainian troops were supposed to take control of the rebel-held areas after Kiev granted them representation and otherwise reintegrated them as part of Ukraine.
Poroshenko’s government refused to implement these portions of the deal, claiming it could not proceed unless it fully secured the border between the rebellious republics and Russia. He instead endorsed an economic blockade of the rebel regions initiated by Ukrainian nationalist forces.
Zelensky’s presidency gave an initial boost to the peace process, but it stalled again after a series of protests by right-wing radicals, who threatened to dispose of the new Ukrainian president if he tried to deliver on his campaign promises.
Kiev’s failure to implement the roadmap and the continued hostilities with rebels were among the primary reasons that Russia cited when it attacked Ukraine in late February. Days before launching the offensive, Moscow recognized the breakaway Ukrainian republics as sovereign states, offering them security guarantees and demanding that Kiev pull back its troops. Zelensky refused to comply.
Now an opposition MP, Poroshenko, called on Western nations to provide more and heavier weapons for Kiev so that Ukrainian soldiers can “do [the West’s] job” and defend Europe from Russia. He also called for more anti-Russia sanctions and for his country to join the EU and NATO as soon as possible.
Poroshenko claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who broke the Minsk agreements. He claimed credit for Ukraine not falling into Russia’s hands within a matter of days, which was the prediction of some Western officials. The country stood up to the attack thanks to military reforms that his government implemented, the former president claimed. Moscow never gave a timeline for its military operation in Ukraine, stating only that it has proceeded as intended.
The Ukrainian official also called for the “de-Putinization” of Europe, his own country and Russia itself. He said this meant curbing Russian influence in other nations and toppling Putin. It is the only way to save the world from an “existential threat” that, Poroshenko claimed, the Russian leader poses.
State Dept. Not Investigating Saudi Use of US Weapons in Alleged War Crimes: GAO
Samizdat | June 16, 2022
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a scathing report Monday which found that the Department of Defense and the Department of State “have not fully determined the extent to which U.S. military support has contributed to civilian harm in Yemen.” The news comes on the heels of the announcement that US President Joe Biden will be paying a visit next month to Saudi Arabia, a country which in 2019 he pledged to turn into a “pariah.”
“Despite several reports that airstrikes and other attacks by Saudi Arabia and UAE have caused extensive civilian harm in Yemen, [the Department of Defense] has not reported and [the State Department] could not provide evidence that it investigated any incidents of potential unauthorized use of equipment transferred to Saudi Arabia or UAE,” the GAO report concluded.
In February 2021, US President Joe Biden declared he was ending “all American support for offensive operations” in the Saudi war on Yemen. GAO monitors pointed out that while US Military Training Mission staff claimed that “all of the equipment the US sells… to Saudi Arabia must be for defensive purposes,” the “officials could not provide a definition for equipment that is defensive in nature when asked how they distinguish between equipment used for defensive purposes and equipment used for offensive purposes.”
Instead, the report’s authors noted, State Department officials “told us they have no specific definitions for what constitutes ‘offensive weapons’ and ‘defensive weapons’ to direct the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.”
The report also found that from fiscal year 2015 to 2021, the “Department of Defense administered at least $54.6 billion of military support to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, of which over a third, or $18.3 billion, came in the form of missiles. The remaining military aid was reportedly spent as follows: $7.6 billion on equipment maintenance, $6.2 billion on aircraft, $4.9 billion on “special activities,” $4.6 billion on communication, detection, and coherent radiation equipment, $3.3 billion on ships, $2.8 billion on training, $1.4 billion on construction, $1.2 billion on ammunition, $1.1 billion on support equipment, $900 million on weapons, and $1.8 billion on other expenditures like combat, tactical, and support vehicles, as well as research and development.
Although “the United Nations has characterized the conflict in Yemen as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises,” the report’s authors explain that the US has “long-standing security relationships with Saudi Arabia and UAE—two primary actors in the conflict—and has continued to provide them military support, including for operations in Yemen since 2015.”
In April, 32 US Congress members urged Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to commit to a “recalibration of the US-Saudi partnership,” noting that the US’ “continued unqualified support for the Saudi monarchy, which systematically, ruthlessly represses its own citizens, targets critics all over the world, carries out a brutal war in Yemen, and bolsters authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa, runs counter to US national interests and damages the credibility of the United States to uphold our values.”
But with Biden’s announcement that he’ll be flying to Riyadh next month for what the Saudi embassy described as “official talks” between Joe Biden and Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the odds of such an adjustment taking place–and of US agencies taking a more proactive approach towards American involvement in alleged Saudi war crimes–are growing ever-slimmer.
Senators want DHS chief Mayorkas to answer for “misleading” testimony about disinformation board
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 15, 2022
In a letter to Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Gary Peters, senate Republicans are demanding that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas answer for his testimony about the paused Disinformation Governance Board that contradicts newly-discovered documents.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
According to the letter, Senators Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley obtained documents from a whistleblower with detailed information about the disinformation board that contradicts what Mayorkas testified.
According to the documents, the disinformation board was created to to monitor online speech about “conspiracy theories about the validity of elections” and “disinformation related to the origins of effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the efficacy of masks.” It also said that the controversial board wanted to partner with Twitter to suppress certain speech and wanted to meet with Twitter executives to determine how this could be done.
Under oath on May 4, Mayorkas said that the disinformation board had not yet started working. Speaking to media outlets, Mayorkas said that the board would focus on cartels and foreign adversaries and would not spy on Americans, something that was contradicted by the leaked documents.
The letter demands that Mayorkas testify again to clear the contradictions between his previous testimony, his public statements, and the documents provided by the whistleblower.
The letter states: “We are deeply concerned that documents recently obtained by Senators Josh Hawley and Chuck Grassley contradict the Secretary’s testimony and public statements about the Board. The American public deserves transparency and honest answers to important questions about the true nature and purpose of the Disinformation Governance Board and it is clear that Secretary Mayorkas has not provided them – to the public or this Committee.
“Therefore, we request you hold a hearing with Secretary Mayorkas and join us in insisting that all records related to the Board be provided to the Committee prior to the hearing.”
Four Scare Stories designed to (literally) put you off your food
Suddenly perfectly ordinary foods are set to give you cancer, why? And who stands to gain?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 14, 2022
We’ve been covering the emerging food crisis for months now. Detailing how the economy was deliberately sabotaged to drive up the cost of living, especially food, via lockdowns and sanctions.
But propaganda wars are like regular wars: They have theatres, fronts and overt for covert campaigns.
Yes, the big noise on food is that we need to change to “save the planet”, but there’s more going on in smaller spheres. A constant drip-feed of stories, articles and studies designed to undermine public faith in the food we eat.
Here are four examples, all from just the last ten days.
1. BEEF CAUSES CANCER
On June 3rd MedicalXpress reported on a new study which – allegedly – (we’ll be using that word a lot) found red meat increased cancer risk in certain people.
The “study”, carried out at the Boston University School of Medicine and originally published in the Journal of Nutrition, claims to have found that “unprocessed” red meat increased the risk of colorectal cancer {CRC} – in black women:
Unprocessed red meat intake was associated with an increased CRC risk in the present study, the first positive evidence that red meat plays a role in the etiology of CRC in Black women.
2. SO DOES FISH
Then, on June 9th, Sky News reported another study which found eating fish on a regular basis also increases your risk – this time of skin cancer.
This “study”, done out of Brown University and published in the journal Cancers Causes and Control, alleges those who eat over 40g of fish per day had a 22% increased risk of skin cancer:
We found that higher total fish intake, tuna intake, and non-fried fish intake were positively associated with risk of both malignant melanoma and melanoma in situ. Future studies are needed to investigate the potential biological mechanisms underlying these associations.
3. … EVEN MORE CANCER, THIS TIME FROM DAIRY
A third study, again in MedicalXpress and this time from June 9th, found an increased risk of prostate cancer in men who drink a lot of milk.
The “study”, done at Loma Linda University Health and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concludes:
Men with higher intake of dairy foods, but not nondairy calcium, had a higher risk of prostate cancer compared with men having lower intakes. Associations were nonlinear, suggesting greatest increases in risk at relatively low doses.
This parallels a study from last year, done by the same researchers, which found drinking milk increased the risk of breast cancer.
4. OH, AND KEEPING YOUR OWN CHICKENS GIVES YOU FOOD POISONING
Not a study this time – and technically not just about food either – but on June 10th CBSNews reported that the US CDC was launching a “probe” into an increase in food poisoning cases allegedly linked to people keeping their own chickens:
Federal health officials are probing several multi-state outbreaks of salmonella infections linked to backyard poultry, saying more than 200 Americans have been stricken so far this year, with one death reported.
Already in vogue in parts of the U.S., the earthy hobby of raising backyard flocks grew even more popular during the pandemic, as Americans stuck at home set up coops with an eye on fresh eggs and animal companionship. But such efforts at small-time farming can come at a cost.
Of course, this is coming straight off the back of a “bird flu outbreak” which has seen 10s of millions of poultry culled, and price of eggs and chicken skyrocket.
Interestingly, organic and free-range chickens are already said to be the most impacted by bird flu, leading some to ask if bird flu could spell “the end of free-range chicken”.
No free-range chickens, no keeping your own chickens…hmmm…seems like some time soon the only way to get chicken (and eggs) will be through Big Food corporate giants.
THE SOLUTION
So, according to The ScienceTM – all natural food humans (and most other animals) have been eating for literally thousands upon thousands of generations is somehow suddenly contriving to give us all cancer.
Personally, I’m freaking out.
But don’t worry, because there’s a few ready made solutions to this problem: If you want to save yourself from all that nasty chicken, eggs and milk, try “alternate forms of protein”.
That’s media-speak for eating insects.
The push on that front started years ago, with articles like this one from March 2021: “If we want to save the planet, the future of food is insects”
There was a lot of pushback, with “Eat Ze Bugs” becoming an ironic slogan for those resisting the new normal. That reaction effectively bullied the “let’s eat insects” stories out of the news for a while. But now they’re back.
On May 22nd, Forbes reported yet another a new “study” which apparently found “Eating Insects Could Cut Your Environmental Impact By More Than 80%”.
On May 28th, The Sun claimed that eating insects (among other things) could “solve food shortages”.
On June 6th the BBC’s kid-focused Newsround prompted children to ask the (rather leading) questions “Eating insects: Should we be eating more? Why are they so good?
And then on June 11th, the Toronto Star simply asked
Why aren’t we all eating insects yet?”
So, yes, there’s a renewed energy behind the pro-bug-eating media. But the big move being touted is undoubtedly the pivot to lab-grown meat and dairy. The propaganda is flowing thick and fast on that.
In late May, science magazine FreeThink reported a new company called Formo is researching lab-grown dairy products – “real cheese without the cow”. While TechCrunch was talking up YoEgg’s plant-based egg substitutes.
On June 6th Forbes reported that “Cell-Cultured Seafood Isn’t just An Idea; It’s A Reality”.
Just three days ago it was announced the Israeli company ReMilk was approved to begin selling its “precision fermented cow-less dairy products” across the US.
So, while the news cycle floods with stories that beef and fish and milk are causing cancer or food poisoning, the mainstream media is packed with stories on the benefits of cultured proteins.
Medical journals are publishing articles like this one, suggesting lab-grown meat is “healthier” than natural meat.
A Schmidt Foundation-sponsored article in the Guardian, on June 4th, tells us that lab-grown meat could save the planet if people can be “convinced to make rational food choices”.
On June 6th, CNN headlined:
How ‘lab-grown’ meat could help the planet and our health
… and goes on to suggest fake meat would prevent “future pandemics” by removing the risk of zoonotic viral transmission.
The messaging could not be clearer.
CUI BONO?
So, let’s say that over the next year or so more and more natural meat/fish/dairy products are replaced on the market by lab-grown or vegetable-based alternatives. Who stands to benefit?
The answer to that is unfortunately predictable: It’s the same people that always benefit.
The problems are manifold, the reactions diverse, but the solution is always pretty much the same – giving the elite more money and more power.
Bill Gates has heavily invested in lab-grown meat companies, as well as companies that make vegetable-based “eggs”. Jeff Bezos has been doing likewise.
It’s interesting to note that, just yesterday, the CEO of one of the biggest poultry suppliers in the world has called on the EU to allow the sale of cultured meat.
Why?
Because, just as big oil companies have responded to climate change hysteria by heavily investing in renewables, corporate meat producers are busily buying up alternate “meat” companies.
As “market forces” and “climate friendly policies” come into play, governments will institute measures such as the proposed “meat taxes”, making it cheaper to buy fake meat than real meat.
In the end the same people benefit no matter where you get your electricity, and – as the war on food continues – the same people will benefit whether you get real meat, lab-grown meat or “alternate forms of protein”.
The people most hurt by this will be family farms, small local companies, and any producers of organic and ethically sourced meat and dairy. Many of whom will be driven out of business.
Meanwhile the public will be left with a “choice” between extortionately expensive mass-produced actual meat clogged with hormones and antibiotics, or fake lab-grown meat made of god-knows-what.
And since the same corporate giants will be making both options, you’ll line the same pockets either way.
Bon appetit.
They Attempt to Justify Approval for Use in Infants and Toddlers
They want the COVID-19 vaccine approval for children so bad, Peter Marks himself and his cronies published the very study he has to use to evaluate for approval.
By James Lyons-Weiler | Popular Rationalism | June 11, 2022
As promised, the FDA has ginned up a report that ostensibly will be used to try to justify “approval” (whatever they mean by that now) of COVID-19 vaccines for infants and toddlers (children < 5 years old). Here’s the report for your reference.
This report comes after a torrent of massive reports from Moderna and Pfizer that claim to review studies of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children. It is not hard to see what shenanigans the FDA has been up to to try to bolster a vaccine that fewer and fewer adults want. It’s more of the same: exaggerate the apparent risk of the virus and minimizing the perception of risk. In other words, lies.
- There is no evidence of clinical urgency. Infants and toddlers (and children in general) do not get COVID-19; they do not (yet) die from COVID-19. All that can change when antibody dependent enhancement kicks in for the vaccinated. FDA’s own reports cites 1,086 deaths “from COVID-19” and 10,700,000 “cases” of COVID-19 in children aged 0-17. There have been 832 days since April 1, 2020 when diagnoses started for COVID-19. For the entire population of children in the US (73,000,000), the risk of COVID-19 infection since the onset of COVID is 10,700,000/73,000,000 = 0.14657. The risk of a child dying if they have a diagnosis is 1,086/10,700,00 or 1086/10700000 = 0.00010149532. The risk of any child dying of COVID-19 over this time period is 1,086/73000000 = 0.00001487671. The per-day risk is on the order of 1.78806611e-8 (0.000000001788). There is no real unmet clinical need and the FDA needs to go back to college to understand how to use RT-PCR correctly. Children do not get COVID-19, and they do not die.
- Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccinated”. This has been the pattern from the very first study. FDA, CDC, Moderna, Pfizer, and others pull out whatever definition of “vaccinated” they want. Examples: “Vaccinated” is defined in the original trials as people who received both doses and who did not develop COVID-19 before two weeks passed after the second exposure to the vaccine. In fact, that means that people who developed COVID-19 due to disease enhancement were dropped from the study calculations. First, this is the first time people were dropped from a vaccine trial for getting infected with the pathogen targeted by the vaccine up to 13 or 14 days after being vaccinated. Second, it’s actually five entire weeks – one month and one week – 44 days – after the first exposure. ALL of the vaccine efficacy being cited by FDA is suspect. Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines never achieved >90% true vaccine efficacy; the best estimate is more like 75%.
- Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccine efficacy”. Over the time period since the first COVID-19 vaccine trials, various definitions of “vaccine efficacy” have been used. Decreased transmission. Reduction in infection rates. Reduced hospitalization. Presence of neutralizing antibodies. Presence of antibodies. All are used and cited in FDA’s report whenever convenient, all in an ad-hoc manner. It’s more than irritating. It’s moving the goal post and represents reckless (and ineffective) attempts to manipulate public perception. This practice continues in the reports and studies that are cited by FDA. I do not trust the efficacy data FDA cites in their report (why would we given Point 1?).Further evidence of the futility of the evidence used to claim efficacy comes from Moderna’s Sponsor Briefing report to the FDA:“3.3 Regulatory Considerations for Clinical Development of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children
Effectiveness
Regulatory precedent with other preventive vaccines provides a basis for inference of vaccine effectiveness in pediatric populations based on immunobridging to a young adult population in which clinical disease endpoint vaccine efficacy has been demonstrated for the same prototype vaccine. The immune marker(s) used for immunobridging do not need to be scientifically established to predict protection but should be clinically relevant to the disease. Based on available data in humans and animal models, FDA considers neutralizing antibody titers (a functional measure of the vaccine immune response against SARS-CoV-2) to be clinically relevant for immunobridging to infer effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pediatric age groups. Because no specific neutralizing antibody titer has been established to predict protection against COVID-19, two immunogenicity endpoints (GMT and SRR) are considered appropriate for comparing the range of neutralizing antibody responses elicited by the vaccine in pediatric versus young adult populations.
Also embedded in this piece of work is the fact that FDA does not need evidence of long-term immunity; they are settling for something called “immunobridging” – guessing at the efficacy of a vaccine in one clinical population from measurements made from other clinical populaton.
They also are making people dependent on vaccines… expecting patients to have antibodies from one vaccine to the next. This makes no sense immunologically. We don’t need continuously high antibody levels against any pathogen. We have memory B-cells and T-cells. In accepting this paradigm, FDA is completely off its rocker and will cause immune exhaustion with constant vaccinations every 3-4 months.
- Incomplete consideration of the scientific data (Barnstable County, Israel, Ontario). We know that months after vaccination, those who are vaccinated are at higher risk of infection and now of hospitalizations. Data actually show negative vaccine efficacy in children (per Jeremy Hammond). See: “Evidence for Negative COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Children”. From that article:“vaccine effectiveness (VE) in children becomes(sic) negative within several months since receipt of the second dose.Researchers from the New York State Department of Health published a study on the preprint server medRxiv on February 28 noting that the evidence for vaccine effectiveness in children, particularly those aged five to eleven, was “limited”. So, they aimed to provide data to inform policymaking.“During Omicraon variant predominance,” the authors concluded, “VE against infection declined rapidly” for young children in the state of New York, “with low protection by one month following full-vaccination.”Comparing COVID-19 cases during January between unvaccinated and vaccinated children, they estimated initial vaccine effectiveness for children aged twelve to seventeen to be 76 percent, but this dropped to below 50 percent after just five weeks since receipt of the second dose.Moreover, for young children (aged five to eleven), they observed a drop from 65 percent to just 12 percent after only one month.Thereafter, their estimate indicated significantly negative effectiveness for this age group, as shown in Figure 2 of their paper: by 35 to 41 days, VE reached negative 10 percent, and by 42 to 48 days, it reached negative 41 percent.
Jeremy goes on to report (correctly) that the authors of the article misinterpreted their own data. History will remember Jeremy as a reporter with great integrity.
- Moderna and Pfizer reports fail to study long-term risks. Like I said, more of the same shenanigans. In this report, for example, Moderna offers data on myocarditis only up to Day 28 after the vaccine. Why Day 28? Why not “since the vaccine has been administered” to more accurately reflect the real-world clinical situation? They also state that myocarditis in a large concern in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 – but the comparison is to the uninfected, not the vaccinated, and we know that the spike protein is the cause (syncytia among heart muscles caused by the spike protein). The spike protein, of course, is the basis of their mRNA vaccines.
- Incestuous COIs/Unjustified Influence by Regulators. Peter Marks is charged with setting the decisions at FDA whether to consider vaccines for specific populations. Why the hell is he involved in a study conducted to bolster the vaccines he is going to have to decide upon? See “Benefit-risk assessment of COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) for age 16–29 years”. That “study” is also guilty of all of the same loose logic as above; it is noteworthy that the study assumes as “worst case scenario” of zero deaths from myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination (Credit: Toby McDonald, who wrote this to me:“I’m reading the Moderna “Sponsor Briefing Document” and they built their benefit-risk assessment off of Funk et al. (2022). So I looked up Funk and it’s a recent paper by six staffers at the FDA including Peter Marks, Richard Forshee, and Hong Yang (who wrote the dreadful benefit-risk assessment for kids 5 to 11 back in October). Quite literally in their “worst-case scenario” they predict 0 deaths from myocarditis in the vaccine group. It’s a stunning work of fiction.”
- I’m on an email thread with Steve Kirsch (he considers me part of his “debate team”. Last week, Steve challenged Peter Marks to a debate:“Hi Peter,You are right about the vaccine uptake problem. According to independent survey we just commissioned, only 33% of Americans opted to go further than the first 2 doses.You were quoted in that CNN article:“We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States and anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do,” said Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.Isn’t it time for you to end the misinformation problem by debating us in a public forum?My colleagues and I look forward to hearing from you.
The only way to end the misinformation is to debate the top misinformation spreaders. You will never win by trying to censor us.
We would be HAPPY to debate to you to end the misinformation problem. As you can see from this slide deck, all the evidence we’ve been able to find shows there was clinical trial fraud and that the vaccines are very dangerous. We would love to know how we got it wrong
I look forward to hearing from you.
-steve
To my knowledge, Marks has not replied. I replied to Steve and the entire email thread, including Marks, though:
“Steve,
History is going to remember one person on this email thread in a manner in which I would not ever care to be seen associating with.
I would therefore decline to participate in such a debate.
Sincerely,
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
I could continue and debate dozens more points in the report dump by the FDA. I don’t have to. Marks himself provides evidence of being way off-target immunologically and lying about the “need” for COVID-19 vaccines for children.
Here’s an old video of Prevaricating Peter lying about the need for “high antibody titres” for immunity, and that children’s immune response is “not enough for some of these variants” (no data on that, just words):
The comments in that video have not aged well. Call your Senator and Congressional Reps and demand that Peter Marks resign. Email them this article. Marks and the FDA are NOT basing their considerations on independent fact, science and logic. He and his cronies are either incompetent or working for the industry. Either way, he and his cronies have to go.
Met Police Invokes “National Security” about Epstein Meeting with US Senators in the UK
BY WHITNEY WEBB |
UNLIMITED HANGOUT| JUNE 13, 2022
A Freedom of Information request filed by UH in connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book was blocked by UK Metropolitan police on “national security” grounds. The request sought information on the two sitting US Senators who met with Jeffrey Epstein at a Wexner-owned residence in the UK, a meeting where Met Police officers had provided security.
In connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, One Nation Under Blackmail, Unlimited Hangout filed a Freedom of Information request asking UK law enforcement and the Ministry of Defence the identity of two sitting US senators who were present at Foxcote House in North Warwickshire, UK on September 1, 2002. UH contributor Johnny Vedmore had previously obtained information from eyewitnesses of that meeting that, not only were two US Senators present at that location that day, but that Metropolitan Police officers had supplied security for the meeting. The FOI request was filed to Metropolitan Police, the UK Ministry of Defence and North Warwickshire Police and only a response from the Metropolitan Police was received.
The motive for UH’s FOI request is as follows. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein, as attested to by Epstein’s flight logs, was present in this part of the UK during this same period (from August 31, 2002 to September 2, 2002) and eyewitnesses saw him attend this specific meeting at this location with two attractive and glamorously dressed women on each arm. One of these women was Nicole Junkermann, a former model and apparent intelligence asset as revealed in Vedmore’s previous investigative work. The other woman was described by eyewitnesses as a tall brunette. Per those eyewitness accounts, Epstein personally escorted the two women into the room where the two senators were waiting.
Notably the house where this meeting took place, Foxcote House, has been owned by the family of Leslie Wexner, specifically his wife Abigail Wexner, since 1999. Wexner’s role in financing much of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities, legal and illegal, is a major focus of Webb’s upcoming book and Wexner has encountered considerable difficulty in explaining away his relationship with Epstein, despite the largely servile posture of mainstream media in this regard.
Given the circumstances, it seems highly likely that this meeting was a high-profile instance of Jeffrey Epstein engaging in the sexual blackmail of sitting American politicians. However, due to the well-known scandal around Jeffrey Epstein, his name was not used in our FOI request in order to avoid potentially “spiking” the response.
Despite the omission of Epstein’s name, Metropolitan Police responded to the request stating that they can “neither confirm nor deny whether it holds” the requested information. Their response goes on to state that confirming or denying “whether any United States of America (USA) senators were afforded protection could undermine the safeguarding of national security.” It also notes that it blocked providing the requested information on four other grounds aside from “national security” (five in total), including “international relations”, “law enforcement”, “health and safety”, and “personal information.” It also states that providing the requested information could place “those who are afforded protection, protection officers and members of the public at risk.”
Screenshot of the response from Met Police
UH has since re-filed a new, related FOI request asking why Metropolitan Police officers were providing protection to a meeting where Jeffrey Epstein was present, since his criminal activities are undeniable.
The UK changed the definition of “case” to INCREASE Covid numbers. Again.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 11, 2022
Yesterday Sky News and the Huffington Post and several other outlets all flared up near-identical headlines warning that …
Covid Infections Increase For First Time In Two Months
The HuffPo goes on to explain in more detail…
The jump is thought to have been caused by increases in cases compatible with the original Omicron variant BA.1 and the newer variants BA.4 and BA.5, according to the Office for National Statistics.
All the articles cite the Office of National Statistics (ONS) talking about Omicron and seem to consider this an explanation.
None of them mentions the fact the UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) literally changed the definition of a Covid “case” back in February, making it almost inevitable cases would go up.
It’s all detailed in this post from the UKHSA site, helpfully titled “Changing the COVID-19 Case Definition”.
The article explains that the UKHSA will be moving on from the traditional meaning of “cases”, and instead counting what they call “case episodes”.
Meaning that, up until now, one person repeatedly testing positive for “Covid” throughout the pandemic was considered one “case”:
Until now, COVID-19 cases have been reported at the individual level: every positive test taken and reported by one person has been considered part of a single case record, initiated by their first positive test.
But from now on different positive tests of the same person will be considered separate “cases” as long as they are 90 days apart:
Positive test results that are 90 days apart (regardless of negative tests in between) will be considered as a separate episode of infection, and therefore the person is counted as a case more than once.
The supposed justification for this decision is “waning immunity” and the Omicron variant causing spikes in “reinfections”:
Although reinfections were initially very rare, we have seen the number rising slowly over the last two years, as immunity from prior infection wanes and new variants emerge. During the Omicron variant wave, the number and proportion of people being reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 has increased.
However, the inevitable consequence of this decision will be to make the case numbers go up. The press not including this in their story about the rising case numbers is – at best – astonishing incompetence.
In fact, making case numbers go up is literally the only impact it will have.
The UKHSA goes out of its way to point this out, highlighting that the change will have no effect at all on how they monitor infections, since they already treat new positive tests as new cases for the purpose of contract tracing, and have been doing so all along:
contact tracing has undertaken a very safe practice of following all positive cases, regardless of whether they were possible reinfections or cases of prolonged infection.
So, in short, whether or not the change is scientifically justified, it is a purely aesthetic one that will have no impact on anything, except to make case numbers look bigger.
And, of course, it’s not scientifically justified.
They have already stretched the meaning of “cases” well past its breaking point by defining anyone who tests positive as a “Covid case” whether or not they have any symptoms.
Now every single person who, over the past two years, tested positive on the useless PCR tests and was declared a “case”, can test positive again on the same useless PCR and be declared a new case.
Of course, messing with language to inflate statistics has been the modus operandi since the beginning of the “pandemic”. “Fully vaccinated”, “herd immunity”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “case” all have been subject to “updated” definition.
Clearly, this further torturing of statistics is about maintaining the flagging “pandemic” narrative.
Allowing people to become more than one “case” means the ever-increasing numbers of people rejecting the vaccines, masks and hysteria can be countered by the steadily dwindling number of NPCs who still religiously take Covid at face value.
It’s a desperation move. One that, hopefully, people will see right through.
Featured Video
Death Spikes & Rising Cancer In Our Youth Explained
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Politicians lie
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The day-after at the White House: USA and Xi Jinping
- The Geopolitical Balance in the Red Sea: The UAE Being Displaced by New Players
- Iraqi resistance group vows to stage airport sit-ins over Iran aerial blockade
- Turkish parliament to review Saudi-Pakistan defense pact next month
- DEATH SPIKES & RISING CANCER IN OUR YOUTH EXPLAINED
- Iran offers Trump deal before US election
- Merz regime wants ‘secret police’ – opposition
- Israeli settlers terrorize West Bank Palestinians with state-provided drones: Report
- They see them, then kill them: Israeli quadcopters track, deliberately target civilians in Gaza
- Debunked: Trump’s egregious UNGA claims on war against Iran crumble under scrutiny
- If Americans Knew
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- In UN Speech, Iran’s President Displays Pictures of Children Killed by US, Brings Attention to Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
- Israel displaces hundreds of Palestinians amid wave of demolitions in West Bank
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
