The last few years have seen the climate alarmist industry go all in on ‘attributing’ bad weather to humans causing the climate to change. As global warming goes off the boil and the climate resolutely fails to break down on cue, an entire industry of pseudoscience has sprung up to scour the world and catastrophise every unusual natural weather event or disaster. It will not come as a surprise to discover that such attribution is based on climate models. As we shall see, the models do nothing more than produce worthless guesses.
When Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT noted that the current climate narrative is “absurd”, but trillions of dollars says it is not “absurd”, he was undoubtedly thinking of the product of climate models. Roger Pielke, a noted science writer and a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, is particularly scathing about attribution work: “I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits. But there you go.”
It is simple to explain what ‘attribution’ models do. First they simulate a climate with no human involvement that does not exist, and then compare it with another simulation that is supposed to reflect the involvement of humans burning fossil fuel. Any weather event at a local level that is magnified in the second is, abracadabra, said to be due to human-caused climate change.
To take such results seriously it must be assumed that the models have correct information in the first place. An inability over 40 years for climate models to predict an accurate temperature would seem to indicate they are work in progress. Ignorance of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) number – the amount the Earth will warm if carbon dioxide is doubled in the atmosphere – would be considered another handicap. In addition, it is interesting to observe some academics attempting to produce a perfect model capable of such precision when they are mapping a climate system that is non-linear with numerous, only partially understood, powerful forces at work. How anyone can take the results seriously, with all the inevitable ‘garbage in-garbage out’ possibilities, is a mystery. Measuring cats in a sack might be considered a marginally easier task.
Attribution studies fail the falsification principle outlined by the science philosopher Karl Popper. This is held to be the test that differentiates real science from pseudoscience. Any hypothesis must be testable and conceivably proved false. Unless a suggestion can be tested in this way, it is opinion, guesswork, or, more uncharitably, crystal ball-gazing. Stating, for instance, that a bad storm was caused by humans when a natural explanation is also available, or calculating that wildfires will consume so many more acres than before, is unprovable. It therefore fails the test to be termed science.
Of course, the attribution claims are all over the popular prints. Within just a few days of last July’s U.K. brief heatwave, the Guardian was reporting: “Climate breakdown made U.K. heatwave 10 times more likely, study finds.” Of course there was a natural explanation for the soaring summer temperature, caused by southern winds being supercharged by an adjacent intense low pressure system. Friederike Otto from the Grantham Institute at Imperial, an operation partly-funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham, said the 10 times finding was worrying, and if carbon emissions were not rapidly cut it could be “even worse” than previously thought.
According to Roger Pielke, the rise of individual ‘event attribution’ studies coincides with frustration that the IPCC has not ”definitively concluded” that many types of extreme weather have become commonplace. In his view they offer “comfort and support” to those focused on climate advocacy. Since they fill a strong demand in politics, Pielke suggests they are “here to stay”.
Friederike Otto is at the forefront of such studies and is the co-lead of World Weather Attribution (WWA), a body that specialises in near-instant weather attributions. On her Grantham CV, Otto claims WWA provides “timely scientific evidence” on single events, “paving the way for new sustainability litigation”.
Meanwhile any scientific work that, by suggesting the climate is not breaking down, is inconvenient for those promoting the command-and-control Net Zero political project, is be suppressed. Otto was one of four “experts” used by state-owned Agence France-Presse in a footling ‘fact check’ of a recent paper from four leading Italian scientists. They argued that a climate emergency is not supported by the data. She said the authors, including two physics professors, were “of course” not writing in good faith. “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should never have been published,” she demanded.
Contacted by the Daily Sceptic, she added that the paper was “bad science”. She obviously feels able to try to cancel professorial physics authorities since she has a “diploma” in physics from the University of Potsdam. Otto’s doctorate was in the philosophy of science, and before joining Grantham she spent 10 years teaching in the School of Geography at Oxford University. “I am not trying to ban anyone and I do not think it is relevant whether their first degree is in art history or physics,” she explained
Otto is also behind a WWA guide for journalists titled: “Reporting extreme weather and climate change“. In a foreword, the former BBC Today editor Sarah Sands bemoans the time when the former U.K. Chancellor Nigel Lawson managed to suggest there had been no increase in what she called extreme weather. I wish we had this guide for journalists to help us mount a more effective challenge to his claim, wrote Sands. These days , she enthused, attribution studies have given us significant insight into the horsemen of the climate apocalypse.
“In this way we are able to move from anecdote and conjecture, from superstition and wishful thinking, to science. We have evidence and we have facts. They are a secure foundation for news,” she said.
Science? Unverified guesswork would be more accurate. Popper must be turning in his grave.
Chris Morrison isthe Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
In a recent piece for the Daily Sceptic Chris Morrison alluded, ironically, to the ‘settled science’ on the subject of climate change. I have recently been reflecting on the oxymorons of our time, and this is one of the most provocative.
An oxymoron is a combination of words which offers us a contradiction. It is a contradiction in terms. The word comes from the Greek, oxus, ‘sharp’ and moros, ‘foolish’: meaning, literally, sharply or pointedly foolish. The reason why it is pointedly foolish is because the words are not vague or confusing: they are clear, but point in two different directions, like crossed swords. Hence what we see is something paradoxical.
So let us note, an oxymoron is not a simple weapon. A sword is a weapon. Crossed swords are something much more beguiling and odd. Anyone who uses an oxymoron in speech is attempting to confuse us by waving two swords around and clashing them together. Recall Sergeant Troy’s wooing of Bathsheba in Far From the Madding Crowd. This is, pretty much, what the authorities are doing to us now: playing soldiers, bent on seduction, using threat as part of that seduction.
There are many oxymorons in modern politics. One of the best is ‘sustainable development’. But that, at least, is obviously flawed: though perhaps it takes some knowledge of economics and history to know why. That is for another time.
‘Settled science’, however, is an affront to not only language, but also to science and to politics.
Let me make this as clear as I can.
Science is a scientific word.
Settlement is not a scientific word, but a political one.
Science seeks exactitude; it seeks truth; but though it attempts exactitude, it is aware that the price of seeking exactitude is tentativeness. We postulate the existence of a solution, but we propose hypotheses, which we test in various ways, through argument or observation or experiment.
Anything which is settled is not solved. But it is also not tentative, not hypothetical. It is actual: it is certain. It does not care about truth or exactitude. It is certain because it has come out of agreement, and this agreement may have involved compromise and cutting corners and concessions to the other side. It is decisive: but it is not decisive because it is true, but because it has been decided. A decision has been made. A settlement has been reached. And it is final. Everything is final and certain in politics – until the next settlement. But nothing is final and certain in science. There are no settlements.
The phrase ‘settled science’ has nothing to do with scientific truth, or scientific hypothesis. What settlement suggests is that a scientific hypothesis has been transposed from one sphere – that of science – to another – that of politics – and therefore its nature has been changed. It is no longer a hypothetical or tentative truth. It is settled, so it appears to be certain. But it is certain not because it is true: it is certain because it is agreed, and then decided. And we are entitled to ask about who is agreeing, and why, and who is deciding and why, and how, and who is paying for it, and what economic and moral and institutional incentives there are.
‘Settled science’ is a phrase which should curdle in the mouth of any scientist. Any ‘scientists’ who use the phrase ‘settled science’ are not making a scientific argument. They are making a political argument: and they are doing so coercively, by appealing to the authority of that exact, truthful, tentative thing, science. They are not arguing as scientists. Perhaps in the mornings they are scientists. But in the afternoons when they speak of ‘settled science’ they are no longer scientists. They are politicians, doing political work, and doing it by misusing the authority which comes to them from the high status of the work they do in the morning.
This of course applies to the IPCC, and all other institutions and individuals who speak of ‘settled science’.
Dr. James Alexander is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
Dr. Jeff Barke, a founding member of America’s Frontline Doctors, joins Del to discuss California’s new law enacted with the passage of AB2098, which effectively makes it illegal for doctors to disagree with politicians.
The authors do not deny that the world is a little bit warmer than a century ago, nor that the climate has been changing.But after analysing the official data they found no evidence of a climate crisis.
The study looked at various indicators of extreme weather such as temperature extremes, heavy rainfall, hurricanes, floods and droughts. It also reviewed trends in food production and yields. It concluded: ‘None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that according to many sources we are experiencing today is not evident yet.’
The scientists suggested that rather than burdening our children with anxiety about climate change, we should encourage them to think about issues like energy, food and healthwith a more ‘objective and constructive spirit’ and not waste limited resources on ‘costly and ineffective solutions’.
There really was little that was controversial in the study. A succession of reports from the IPCC, the UN climate panel, essentially have all come to similar conclusions once the political spin was taken away.
Any changes that have affected the climate have been slight and often undetectable. Moreover many of the changes have undoubtedly been beneficial; for instance drought is now much less common and severe in many parts of the world, such as India, Sahel and the US than it used to be in the past. It always was absurd to maintain that global warming makes everything worse.
No matter that the study was well written by highly respected scientists, factually based and peer-reviewed, its message did not fit the narrative. It therefore did not take long for the climate mafia to demand that the paper should be withdrawn by the European Physical Journal Plus which published it in January this year.
According to Phys.Org: A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP [the Paris-based news agency Agence France-Presse].
‘Appearing earlier this year in the European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.
‘Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study – of which they had been unaware – grossly manipulates data, cherry-picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.’
We are of course used to the climate establishment trying to censor heretical views. The Climategate emails a few years ago uncovered many such attempts, some even threatening journal editors. And it is worth noting the use of phrases such as ‘fundamentally flawed’, ‘manipulating data’ and ‘cherry–picking’ in an attempt to destroy the study’s credibility. Yet none of these critics are able to back upany of these claims with actual facts.
Doing science is all about facts. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on a factual basis and point out exactly where it is flawed.There is a well-established method of doing this, which is to ask the journal involved to print a response to the original article. Normally the paper’s authors would of course have a right of reply. That is the way facts are established. Simply to demand that the journal withdraws the paper is the worst sort of censorship.
Perhaps worst of all is the fact that the attack on this study was led by Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at the UK Met Office. As an employee of a taxpayer–funded agency, Betts has more obligation than most to be unbiased and open-minded.
He and his supporters may disagree with the European Physical Journal Plus paper: that is their prerogative. But they need to present facts instead of trying to force the journal into withdrawing the paper.
Social media has been in an uproar since a member of European Parliament posted a video of a hearing in which a Pfizer director admitted the company never tested whether its Covid mRNA vaccine prevents transmission prior to its approval for emergency use.
Though the fact that Covid mRNA vaccines do not prevent transmission was, of course, abundantly clear from the data soon after their implementation, this myth was a primary justification for vaccine passes and a primary cause of the unprecedented venom launched at those who refused Covid vaccines throughout 2021 and continuing through today.
Not only did governments exert this pressure through policy, but in many cases politicians and officials used their office to deliberately stoke the social stigmatization of the unvaccinated. Here’s a look back at some of the unprecedented vitriol that was launched at those who refused Covid vaccines from 2021 and beyond.
Officials in many jurisdictions proposed making the unvaccinated pay more for healthcare.
In Victoria, Australia — where lockdowns were longer than in perhaps any other city in the world—one politician proposed cutting the unvaccinated out of the national health system entirely.
A particularly disturbing idea that began to gain serious traction among the elite commentariat was to have hospitals triage emergency care to serve the unvaccinated last, or even deny healthcare to the unvaccinated entirely—a fairly clear-cut crime against humanity.
One vocal proponent of the idea of triaging emergency care to disfavor the unvaccinated was David Frum, Senior Editor of the Atlantic, most famous for his outspoken support for the invasion of Iraq. When his infamous tweet on the subject sparked an uproar, Frum doubled down.
Piers Morgan agreed that the unvaccinated should be denied emergency care.
Shockingly, this appalling idea of triaging emergency care based on vaccination status is still being proposed to this day.
The demonization of the unvaccinated was, of course, far from limited to healthcare. Vilifying the unvaccinated became a kind of illiberal fad among the elite commentariat. The US CDC even paid screen writers and comedians to promote Covid vaccines, which in some cases involved paying them to mock the unvaccinated.
In a bout of recidivism to the early 20th century, Austria and Germany introduced the chilling concept of “lockdown for the unvaccinated.”
“Lockdown for the unvaccinated” gained traction in the English-speaking world as well.
Most countries, cities, and states across the western world introduced vaccine passes that their own citizens had to show in order to partake in daily life. The World Health Organization published an extensive document on implementing a digital vaccine-pass system, including an international vaccine status registry and instructions on how to later revoke someone’s vaccine pass.
The most dystopian of these vaccine pass systems was in Lithuania, where the unvaccinated were banned from nearly all public spaces and employment outside their homes; the few shops where they could purchase essentials had to post large red signs on their doors indicating that unvaccinated persons could be present.
And of course, who could forget Justin Trudeau’s classic fuhrer-style rant about having to share public transportation with the unvaccinated, despite government documents later revealing that he had no science to back any of these claims.
Like so much of the response to Covid, these vaccine passes and the illiberal fad of stigmatizing the unvaccinated were unscientific, unprecedented, ineffective, totalitarian, brutal, and dumb.
It was never remotely realistic for any government to expect every single person to get vaccinated, especially when the vaccine in question involved a novel genetic-based therapy. Thus, these proposals to impose draconian hardships on those who refused Covid vaccines would inevitably involve the state imposing draconian hardships on a sizable portion of the population.
According to Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, one of the most credible voices on the subject, Covid vaccines likely yielded benefits for the elderly and vulnerable, but it remains entirely unclear whether Covid vaccines have yielded any benefit at all for healthy adults and especially for children. Coupled with the still-unknown risks associated with mRNA technology and the now well-documented cases of death and serious injury from these vaccines, for governments across the world to have exerted extreme pressure on children and healthy adults to get these vaccines is absolutely sickening.
That some healthy young people were surely coerced into receiving an injection that led to their death or serious injury, when the data showed that the benefits did not outweigh the risks, is an unconscionable tragedy.
In early 2021, CDC director Rochelle Walensky had no problem going on national television and declaring to the world that if you took the covid-19 vaccine “you will not get or spread covid.” Within weeks, this was found to be entirely untrue.
Dr. Anthony Fauci also spread the exact same misinformation, telling Americans that they had nothing to worry about once they took the shots. Yet hundreds of thousands of people who took the shots, got sick and died.
Joe Biden, Bill Gates, and countless other Pfizer shills in the media waged a massive campaign to convince Americans and the world at large that taking the vaccine meant that you could not get or transmit COVID-19. And they were all dead wrong.
Instead of apologizing and admitting they were wrong, team Pfizer doubled down and claimed that getting “boosted” was the real protection. Again, this was proven wrong.
Now that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have flowed into their coffers, Pfizer is admitting that they never even tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission before they released it. Read that again—Pfizer admitted that they never tested their vaccine’s ability to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 before its release.
During a hearing this week on the European Union’s COVID-19 response, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, made this bombshell admission.
Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Robert “Rob” Roos asked Small if Pfizer tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission. Her answer was a resounding “no.”
“Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market…No.,” Small said.
Given this telling admission that the vaccine was never tested in this manner, it raises the question as to where all the blowhards in the video above received this information. Who was telling them that the vaccine prevented transmission if the manufacturer never tested it?
Where did Walensky, Biden, Fauci, Gates, Maddow and others get this information from when they launched their concerted effort to spread this misinformation? This is a question we must all be demanding an answer to immediately.
We should also be asking why not a single mainstream outlet is reporting on this admission. Literally, no one in corporate media has touched this new information despite its bombshell nature. Americans would probably like to know that they were forced to take a vaccine that was never tested for prevention of transmission despite the entirety of the establishment telling them otherwise. Yet corporate media, largely funded by Pfizer, is silent.
We must never forget that politicians—all claiming to “follow the science”—locked us down, destroyed the economy, decimated the middle class through inflation, forcibly medicated us, and muzzled our children over the last 2 years. All the while we were told that our only way out of this was to take the jab.
We have been constantly reminded that if you don’t follow “The Science,” you are a science-denying buffoon who wants grandma to die, doesn’t care about the children, were an alt-right Nazi, a white supremacist, extremist, and most likely a domestic terrorist.
Those who stood against unconstitutional vaccine mandates were scorned by the mainstream, labeled as “anti-vaxxers” and had people wishing for their deaths. Even people who took the jab but stood against mandates were labeled anti-vaxxers as definitions were altered to fit the narrative.
We the people were pitted against each other in one of the most divisive propaganda campaigns in human history. The middle ground was eliminated and logic and reason burned to the ground alongside the economy. And all of it was based on lies.
The Biden Administration released its first National Security Strategy (NSS) document Wednesday, and it is exponentially more unhinged than any of its predecessors. The NSS was once understood as a serious document compiling a list of *actual* threats to the nation. It now resembles a hyper-political Blue Anon fundraising mailer.
Most of the items discussed in the supposed threat assessment have nothing to do with national security at all. And the things that are related to national security matters have major prioritization and politicization issues.
Biden Harris Administrations National Security Strategy 10
562KB ∙ PDF File
Prior to launching The Dossier, your humble correspondent was a somewhat seasoned national security correspondent. As a periodic consumer of these strategy documents, I can assure you that not even the Obama Administration inserted its political agenda as aggressively as the Biden regime is choosing to do this year.
A simple word search gives the reader a sense of the White House’s priorities.
Russia takes top billing. It is referred to 71 times, in the most hysterical way imaginable. According to Team Biden, Putin is a war criminal, whose armies entered Ukraine for no reason whatsoever other than to impose carnage upon Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Speaking of Ukraine, the memo discusses Ukraine 33 times.
China, on the other hand, only gets 14 mentions, and the CCP is likened to a friendly competitor, like a mere player on the other side of a chess game. Here’s a graph from the China section:
“While we have profound differences with the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government, those differences are between governments and systems – not between our people. Ties of family and friendship continue to connect the American and the Chinese people. We deeply respect their achievements, their history, and their culture. Racism and hate have no place in a nation built by generations of immigrants to fulfill the promise of opportunity for all. And we intend to work together to solve issues that matter most to the people of both countries.”
Other than Putin, the number one “national security” priority of this administration is Climate Change, which is referenced 63 times in the National Security Strategy.Moreover, the importance of the energy “transition” away from reliable energy resources is referred to 11 times in the document.
Now, a progressive neoliberal administration’s threat assessment wouldn’t be complete without discussing “diversity” (16 mentions), “equity” (14 hits), and “inclusion,” (24 times) or what the wokes refer to as DEI.
The document concludes that the United States is “making meaningful progress on issues like climate change, global health, and food security to improve the lives not just of Americans but of people around the world.”
The NSS has been prepared periodically by the executive branch since the Reagan Administration, upon the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986. The document is purposed with informing Congress and the public on the administration’s chief national security priorities, and how the White House intends to deal with them.
For this White House, the NSS reveals that its top priorities involve blaming Russia for everything, advancing the climate hoax, and facilitating the woke agenda globally through the U.S. military’s bloated bureaucracy and budget.
Pictured is the Federal President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, violating the Infection Protection Act, which requires masks in all local and long-distance trains. He pleads that he only took his mask off for a few seconds for the purposes of a short video message and some publicity photographs. Alas, the law provides for no such exception, and why should it? The official position of the German government is that unmasked people are a danger to themselves and others, particularly when they are on trains.
Dr. Paul Offit, MD is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and practices medicine in the Infectious Disease department at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and he also sits on the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).
Paul Offit admits he doesn’t see the benefits of the booster. And if he can’t find any benefits, it’s probably because there aren’t any. Click the image to watch the video.
The background
Several months ago, VRBPAC voted to approve a COVID vaccine novel booster formula that combined the mRNA instructions that targeted BA.4 & BA.5 – the two Omicron strains which circulated last spring and early summer.
There were no human clinical trials conducted on this booster. It was not tested on people. It was tested on just 8 mice. There is no long term data on what happened to the mice after injection. All the mice were challenged with Omicron and every mouse was infected showing that the vaccine had zero protection against getting the virus. The mice were sacrificed shortly thereafter because we don’t want to know the long term effects. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccines in general and the COVID vaccines specifically, in American medicine, than Dr. Paul Offit. He voted YES to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as 6-months.
Why did Paul Offit vote No on the boosters
Yet when VRBPAC recently voted on the novel COVID booster, Dr. Offit voted no, because (in his own words) “HELL NO was not a choice!”
How? Why? What happened?
First, there was no trial to show that there are any clinical benefits at all. And any clinical benefits must be weighed against the risks.
Secondly, according to Offit, once you have your initial injection, you’re already protected against severe disease so there is no additional benefit to a booster. In this MedPage Today interview, Offit explains:
The question is, does it matter? Because still it looks like you’re protected against severe illness, so does it really matter to get that third dose? I would argue ‘no.’
Thirdly, the FDA doesn’t really want the outside committee members to actually review the scientific data. They just want them to vote yes so it looks like outside experts reviewed the data. The FDA provides hundreds of pages of material just days before the meeting giving the members an inadequate amount of time to review the data before voting on it. It’s just another example of sham science: the panel is simply there to rubber stamp what the White House and FDA want to do; they are not there to protect the public.
Why is the government advocating for three or more doses when there is no evidence of a benefit?
The reason for three or more doses is because the press and the public health officials want you to get it. The science doesn’t support it. But science doesn’t matter. This is about compliance with orders, not protecting your health (or the health of others since even Pfizer admits that the vaccine doesn’t protect against transmission).
I think this is now a three-dose vaccine for the most part, because that’s the way the press and the public have handled it, it’s the way public administrators have handled it.
In short, the booster was created to give the public the perception that the government is doing something to protect them.
Even pro-vaccine doctors like Martin Makary, MD are reposting this important video.
Before you consent to take any vaccine, demand to see at least one all-cause mortality and morbidity study vs. placebo with at least a 12 month follow-up that are independently managed by multiple organizations with no financial ties to the vaccine manufacturers.
Currently, there aren’t any vaccines where such a study is available. Now you would think that if any vaccine had a true cost-benefit, such studies would exist, wouldn’t you?
I want to talk about Dr Aseem Malhotra. After the press conference on 27 September, there were concerns from some circles that World Council for Health was associating itself with Dr Malhotra. While some regard him as ‘controlled opposition’, others object to his lack of questioning vaccines in general, given Covid-19 “vaccine” and pharmaceutical industry corruption revelations.
We are living through interesting times. As the institutions entrusted with public service and care, reveal themselves to have betrayed our trust, as vaccine harms become ever harder to shove under the carpet, and as governments become ever more incompetent and unaccountable, we find ourselves apparently cast adrift on a turbulent sea, understandably wondering who is our enemy and who is our friend.
What helps me stay centred and free from fear, is the 7 Principles of A Better Way. They came out of the collective wisdom shared in May’s Better Way Conference, and they are a lodestar in these times of extreme pressure.
One of the Principles is:
We value different perspectives.
We celebrate respectful discussion as the means to ever more refined knowledge, compassion and wisdom.
It is in the spirit of this noble principle that we hosted Dr Malhotra’s press conference. Not all of us agree with his view that traditional vaccines are safe and effective. But we do agree that the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out should be halted immediately, and this is something that World Council for Health has been calling for almost since its inception. Dr Malhotra’s press conference has been viewed well over 100,000 times. Many wrote to us to say that they would be sharing it with their loved ones as it was just the thing that would reach them and get them thinking.
My hope is that his courageous efforts will, in particular, reach doctors and other medical professionals – those who are questioning the ‘safe and effective’ narrative but are afraid to speak up. They are certainly under the cosh: on Friday, California’s Governor Gavin Newsome signed a bill that means any doctor can lose their licence for sharing ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ about Covid-19. In Queensland, Australia, a similar bill is being presented to Parliament next week that goes even further, prohibiting doctors from giving any advice or opinion that goes against public health edict. Governments are going out of their way to shut doctors up, and while that may be terrifying for doctors – and their patients – it is also an indication of the power doctors hold. Governments know that if enough doctors speak up, the ‘safe and effective’ narrative will quickly crumble.
How we treat Dr Malhotra may be a deciding factor as to whether other doctors follow suit to stand up for medical ethics and their patients. Will we welcome them with gratitude and compassion, or shun them for not having spoken up sooner? This is a personal question for each of us, and one that we will all have to reckon with at some point. Is it for us to judge and does it serve the highest good of all to do so?
There are those who benefit from us dividing ourselves and each other into the binary camps of friend or foe. Of debating whether this or that person is controlled opposition, or bona fide. In this endless speculation we exhaust our precious life force, and find ourselves lacking the energy to create a better way.
If we can just relax and remember ourselves and why we are here, we can reclaim the broader view: that humanity is inherently fallible and yet capable of the most extraordinary acts of redemption. That we are all beings of light, but that we each have our own darkness as well. And, that we are all redeemed in the light of compassion for ourselves and each other.
This Saturday 15th October, we are holding a UK Doctors Conference in London. Our wish is for every doctor and health professional to feel they are welcome. It will be a safe and private space for people to ask questions, learn more about what’s really going on, and speak freely with each other. Please watch NHS Consultant Dr Julia Wilkens’ invitation (click on the image to view) – she could not have put the value of being there any better:
Please share this event widely: there is still space and we want as many people as possible to come together and realise that they are not a sole dissenter but one of many ready to question, to inquire, and understand.
‘Winning Doctors Back One at a Time’ Hearts of Oak podcast
I recently returned to the highly informative Heart of Oak podcast to speak about doctors, health, and of course the doctors conference. I really enjoyed our conversation – if you’d like to tune in, you’ll find it on the Hearts of Oak home page here.
Attempts by Oxford University and AstraZeneca researchers to induce mucosal immunity by introducing their adenovirus vector product directly to the mucosal membranes of 30 unvaccinated and 12 double-vaccinated volunteers, have gone down in flames. Only a minority of participants developed mucosal immunity at all, and serum-antibody levels were worse than those elicited by intramuscular injections.
From the Financial Times, we learn that the trial involved no new vaccine product at all, and that participants were merely asked to snort the AstraZeneca intramuscular formulation:
Oxford’s Sandy Douglas, chief investigator on the trial, said the spray, which used the same formulation as the intramuscular version of the vaccine, did not perform as well as researchers had hoped.
“We believe that delivery of vaccines to the nose and lungs remains a promising approach, but this study suggests there are likely to be challenges in making nasal sprays a reliable option,” said Douglas. He said the weaker result was possibly the result of the majority of the spray ending up being swallowed and destroyed in the stomach, although targeted delivery into the lungs could avoid that.
If you can’t just spray vaccine up your nose and hope for the best, then I guess all those nasal spray flu vaccines with frightening names like FluMist Quadrivalent and Fluenz Tetra are equally pointless. Probably the entire influenza vaccination project is a top-to-bottom pharmaceutical scam. Otherwise, companies like AstraZeneca are clearly struggling to find a market for all the obsolete spike protein juice they’ve spent the last two years brewing. The bivalent mRNA doses are one way to get rid of that excess product. It looks like remarketed nasal sprays aren’t going to fly, though.
Title says it all – the evil of Mandates, when they had to know they served no purpose but… totalitarianism and control! Great one to share with normies, as all the data is packed in here too.
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing, business travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=69ZSTYXBMCN3W – alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
I’ve just been included in a nonsense propaganda publication! A book no less – publishing tomorrow Oct 6th – “Web of Lies”. Unbelievable deceit dripping through the piece they decided to share with me before publication – and stunningly incorrect throughout. Btw if referring to this book or sharing thoughts, always use the hashtag #WebOfLies – and PLEASE don’t comment if talking depopulation, radio waves or any other such stuff – always stick to the pandemic response ‘science’, and to published science/data – I never associate with anything other than the latter, as you should well know… 😠
That said, this vid will give you and your friends/family an invaluable education on how these guys craft propaganda. Enjoy, while I blow their deceit out of the water with trivial ease – directly from the published data – as always 😉 p.s. the white paper I sent them – a key resource to download and share: https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Evidence-For-and-Against-the-Effectiveness-of-Lockdown-Policies-DRAFT-RevC.pdf
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
