Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ugly Covid Lies

By Ron Paul | July 25, 2022

After two years of unprecedented government tyranny in the name of fighting a virus, the prime instigators of this infamy are walking free, writing books, and openly pretending they never said the things they clearly said over and over.

Take Trump’s White House Covid response coordinator Deborah Birx, for example. She was, as the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker points out in a recent article, the principal architect of the disastrous “lockdown” policy that destroyed more lives than Covid itself. Birx knew that locking a country down in response to a virus was a radical move that would never be endorsed. So, as she admits in her new book, she lied about it.

She sold the White House on the out-of-thin-air “fifteen days to slow the spread” all the while knowing there was no evidence it would do any such thing. As she wrote in her new book, Silent Invasion, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.”

She was playing for time with no evidence. As it turns out, she was also destroying the lives of millions of Americans. The hysteria she created led to countless businesses destroyed, countless suicides, major depressions, drug and alcohol addictions. It led to countless deaths due to delays in treatment for other diseases. It may turn out to be the most deadly mistake [?] in medical history.

As she revealed in her book, she actually wanted to isolate every single person in the United States! Writing about how many people would be allowed to gather, she said: “If I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”

She wanted to prevent even two people from meeting. How is it possible that someone like this came to gain so much power over our lives? One virus and we suddenly become Communist China?

Last week in a Fox News interview she again revealed the extent of her treachery. After months of relentlessly demanding that all Americans get the Covid shots, she revealed that the “vaccines” were not vaccines at all!

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection,” she told Fox. “And I think we overplayed the vaccines. And it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization.”

So when did she know this? Did she know it when she told ABC in late 2020 that “this is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal. And so that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about the vaccine”?

If she knew all along that the “vaccines” were not vaccines, why didn’t she tell us? Because, as she admits in her book, she believes it’s just fine to lie to people in order to get them to do what she wants.

She admits that she employed “subterfuge” against her boss – President Donald Trump – to implement Covid policies he opposed. So it should be no surprise that she lied to the American people about the efficacy of the Covid shots.

The big question now, after what appears to be a tsunami of vaccine-related injuries, will anyone be forced to pay for the lies and subterfuge? Will anyone be held to account for the lives lost for the arrogance of the Birxes and Faucis of the world?

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Children Don’t Need COVID Vaccines, Canadian and Australian Groups Tell Public Health Officials

By Julie Comber, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 25, 2022

Groups in Canada and Australia are urging public health officials to reconsider rolling out COVID-19 vaccines for young children, following the authorization earlier this month in both countries of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months to 5 years.

The Australian Vaccine-risks Network (AVN) on July 19 sent an open letter to Dr. Brendan Murphy, secretary of Australia’s Department of Health and Aged Care, voting members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and members of parliament threatening to “move forward with preparations for seeking the intervention of the Federal Court of Australia” if officials don’t respond.

The Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) on July 14 published an open letter to Canadian health officials stating their members would “be happy to meet you to discuss findings documented in this letter in greater detail.”

Both letters emphasized three arguments against authorizing the mRNA shots in young children and babies:

  1. Children don’t need COVID-19 vaccination because they are at extremely low risk of COVID-19.
  2. In any case, the mRNA shots don’t work well.
  3. The potential harm from the mRNA shots outweighs the benefits for young children.

Both letters also referenced the June 30 open letter to U.K. health officials from more than 70 physicians and scientists warning against vaccinating younger children against COVID-19.

The U.K. letter, written in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in mid-June of the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shots for children as young as 6 months, urged U.K. health officials to not “make the same mistake” the FDA made.

All three letters referenced Søren Brostrøm, director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, who in June said, “We did not get much out of having children vaccinated against coronavirus last year.”

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration on July 18 provisionally approved a pediatric dose of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 shot for children ages 6 months to 5 years old. Rollout of the vaccines is contingent on input from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.

A few days earlier, on July 14, Health Canada authorized the use of Spikevax for children 6 months to 5 years of age. According to the statement, “As a result of this authorization, approximately 1.7 million children are now eligible for vaccination against COVID-19.”

Risks ‘far outweigh’ benefits for children

The 11-page CCCA letter contains 117 references and six pages of figures and graphs to support the group’s argument that “the data shows that, in the Omicron era, when population-based immunity is widespread, the risks associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines far outweigh the benefits in children.”

The authors of the CCCA letter criticized the FDA, stating, “no gold standard, placebo-controlled disease endpoint trials, large enough [with at least 800,000 participants] to categorically establish the clinical safety and long-term efficacy of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations in children 12- to 15-years-old, 5- to 11-years-old, 2- to 4-years-old, and 6-months-old to 23-months-old have been undertaken.”

Instead, the EUA for Pfizer was “based on the preliminary results of four very small immuno-bridging trials, enrolling fewer than 3,000 participants each.”

The CCCA letter presented data from the Canadian province of Ontario, which “reported a negative dose-response effect for the COVID-19 vaccinations [original emphasis].”

The letter continued:

“In other words, the proportion of cases of COVID-19 were highest among those who had been ‘boosted,’ lower among the ‘fully inoculated’ and least among the ‘not fully inoculated’ (which includes the ‘uninoculated’).”

The authors presented graphs from the Public Health Ontario website, noting a similar pattern was observed in the 12- to 17-year-olds and the 5- to 11-year-old age groups.

“Additionally, a greater proportion of ‘boosted’ Ontarians have died, revealing that the vaccinations may be associated with serious secondary effects.”

The CCCA letter concludes:

“We trust that our research has provided you with evidence needed to adjust Canadian health policy to protect our children from undue harm. We would be happy to meet you to discuss findings documented in this letter in greater detail.”

‘Huge gap’ in Pfizer’s vaccine trial documentation

According to the authors of the AVN letter, the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA had huge gaps in the evidence provided.

For example, the letter stated:

“The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.”

The AVN letter argued the Moderna shot for young children fails to meet Australia’s regulatory requirements to be granted “provisional determination” (similar to EUA in the U.S.) under regulation 10L(1)(a) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations.

To receive provisional determination, there must be “an indication of the medicine is the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition,” the letter stated.

The authors said Australia’s health department and TGA did not “show any data or science to support a conclusion that COVID-19, and particularly the Omicron variant now widespread across Australia, is ‘life-threatening’ to infants aged 6 months up through 4 years, nor indeed that infants 6 months up through 4 years suffer ‘seriously debilitating’ symptoms when infected with COVID-19.”

The authors also addressed the issue of manipulative strategies used to promote COVID-19 vaccination of children, and said pushing unnecessary and novel mRNA-based vaccines onto young children risks undermining parental confidence in routine immunization programs.

Julie Comber is a freelance science reporter for The Defender.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 25, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Lockdowns causing Hepatitis in Children

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | July 25, 2022

So they think they have found the likely cause of the mystery hepatitis outbreak in children. And surprise surprise, the cause was… Lockdowns.

A report by the BBC (which heavily promoted lockdowns) said “two teams of researchers, from London and Glasgow, say infants exposed later than normal – because of Covid restrictions – missed out on some early immunity to: adenovirus, which normally causes colds and stomach upsets and adeno-associated virus two, which normally causes no illness and requires a coinfecting “helper” virus – such as adenovirus – to replicate.”

Covid or vaccines were ruled out as a cause but I guess there is still the theory of shedding. Whilst children of this age were not vaccinated, some have speculated that spike protein shedding from vaccinated parents may have been the cause. There has been no evidence either way to support this however.

I would prefer to stick with what we do know and that is that lockdowns are extremely damaging. The report says that experts are hopeful cases are becoming fewer but are still on the alert for new ones. Great, if new cases disappear but “experts” got us into this mess in the first place.

The BBC article says more than 1,000 children (many under five) have been affected and focusses on one child who needed an urgent liver transplant. Fortunately, he is recovering but he has needed a liver transplant and will need to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of his life. Moreover, his Mum ended up in intensive care after she was going to donate part of her liver but ended up reacting to the drugs.

The Mum is quoted as saying “There is something really heartbreaking about that because you go along following the rules, do what you are supposed to do to protect people that are vulnerable and then, in some horrible roundabout way, your own child has become more vulnerable because you did what you were supposed to do.”

In a highly complex society, every tiny change can have massive consequences. Especially with things that we don’t fully understand, such as viruses, even if we like to pretend we do. Not only did “experts” not consider the unintended consequences that could and would occur due to lockdowns (publicly at least) but they actively supressed any discussion on the topic. The mainstream media was complicit by again not allowing these discussions to take place. They should hang their heads in shame and ensure it never happens again.

July 25, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

VACCINE PITCH MEETING

July 20, 2022

All the arguments you need to take the covid bioweapon injection explained clearly and persuasively.

Moonbase Commander can be found here.

July 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Get Ready For The 100 Year Long Climate “Emergency”

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 22, 2022

On March 13, 2020, then President Trump declared a “national emergency” due to the newly-arising outbreak of the Covid-19 virus. Three days later, on March 16, Trump set forth a program of “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” The program included strong recommendations for anyone who felt sick, or had tested positive for the disease, to stay at home during the two-week emergency window.

Here we are now some two years and four months later. The supposed Covid-19 15 day “emergency” has been repeatedly extended, first by Trump through the last ten months of his term, and then for the additional 18 months since January 2021 by President Biden. It’s been two-plus long years of lockdowns, work from home, business closures, school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and on and on, with little to no evidence that any of it ever did any good.

On Monday July 18 (2022) President Biden extended the Covid-19 “emergency” for yet another 90 days to mid-October. You might think that the whole concept of an “emergency” has lost all meaning if it can somehow persist for more than two and a half years, well past the point where normal people have stopped paying any attention to it whatsoever. “Emergency” used to mean something immediate, like a hurricane or a tornado wrecking a town, or someone having a heart attack, or a shooter actively firing. By any reasonable view of the word “emergency,” things connected with Covid-19 that might have fallen under that term ended months if not years ago. But for a bureaucracy, what the term “emergency” means is the opportunity to issue orders that you could not otherwise issue, and pass out money that you could not otherwise pass out. Now that you have gotten a taste of the heady drug of “emergency” powers, why would you ever give them up if you could avoid it? Years later, it’s still an “emergency” if the bureaucrats want it to be. Or at least, that’s their view.

Which brings us to the so-called “climate emergency.” Since the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA on June 30, the bureaucracies in the “climate” space, together with all the environmental activists, have been thrown into a tizzy. The Supreme Court just declared that the bureaucracies have no power to fundamentally transform the use of energy in the economy without a clear direction from Congress, which on the climate issue cannot be found in existing statutes. And it has become clear that no further such statutory direction is likely to emerge from Congress before the mid-term elections in November. After November, changes in the make-up of Congress will probably make further such legislation even less likely, if not completely off the table for years if not decades. So what is a self-respecting climate alarmist to do?

To those over there on the left, the answer seems obvious: Demand declaration of a “climate emergency.” With that declaration, the statutory gap could perhaps be filled by another whole category of laws providing special powers in the event of a declaration of “emergency.” The calls for President Biden to make such a declaration have been everywhere since the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of June. In the politician category, a collection of Democratic Senators (Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Alex Padilla of California, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) sent a strong letter to Biden on July 20 making the demand:

Declaring the climate crisis a national emergency under the NEA would unlock powers to rebuild a better economy with significant, concrete actions. . . . Under the NEA, you could redirect spending to build out renewable energy systems on military bases, implement large-scale clean transportation solutions and finance distributed energy projects to boost climate resiliency. All of these actions would employ Americans in new and emerging industries while securing American leadership in global markets.

Environmental groups were out even ahead of the Senators with the same demand. Here is Greenpeace on July 8:

Congress and the Courts are failing to protect our communities from the climate crisis and it’s time for President Biden to be the leader we need. By declaring a climate emergency, President Biden unlocks an expanded set of powers under the National Emergencies Act and other federal laws.

There are many, many more examples of the same demand from all the usual suspects.

Indeed, there was lots of talk that Biden was going to make the big declaration on Wednesday, when he went to Massachusetts to give a speech at a closed coal-fired power plant. He somehow stopped just short of the formal “emergency” declaration, but took the occasion to emit the usual clichés about the impending climate apocalypse, including liberal use of the term “emergency” itself. Excerpt:

“Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world,” Mr. Biden said. . . . “This is an emergency, an emergency, and I will look at it that way.”

It’s entirely possible that the climate “emergency” declaration could issue literally any day now.

What would declaration of an “emergency” mean? The idea is that there are plenty of existing statutes out there granting the Executive powers of various sorts in the event of such an “emergency,” provided that there had been a formal declaration of it. Thus arguably there would be a way around the lack of clear statutory authority that sank the EPA’s power plant regulations in the West Virginia case. The Nation on July 21 gives a rundown of some of the powers that the Executive could purport to exercise in the event of such a declaration with respect to the climate:

[S]uch a declaration would enable the Biden administration to access funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program for combating the impacts of heat waves, extreme weather events, and natural disasters and could enable faster implementation of critical mitigation strategies. An official climate emergency announcement could also allow the Biden administration to curtail crude oil exports and stop offshore drilling through laws and exemptions related to national security and energy development. The Biden administration could access financial support for clean energy infrastructure through FEMA and the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and it could cut energy costs for families by supporting domestic offshore wind projects, helping to facilitate an affordable clean energy transition.

Here’s the problem. There is no sense in which the climate is an “emergency” within the ordinary meaning of that word in the English language. Predictions by climate models of a few degrees of temperature rise over the next century are the opposite of an “emergency.” Indeed, the statutes granting various “emergency” powers to the Executive all deal with the question of time periods too short to give the Congress time to enact legislation appropriate to the situation at hand. That circumstance is the opposite of what we have with the climate.

But if you are on the left, or a climate activist, this situation is just too important to wait for Congressional action that may never come. An “emergency” must be declared, to last for — how long? A hundred years? During which time, the bureaucrats can issue whatever orders they want, and spend whatever funds they want, all in the name of saving the planet. None of which will or can have any effect on the 85% (and growing) of world carbon emissions that come from outside the U.S. and which the U.S. government cannot affect in any way.

It’s all a huge insult to the intelligence of the American people. I doubt that the courts will be fooled, most particularly the Supreme Court.

July 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Wrong, Legacy Media, Climate Change Is Not Causing Summer Heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe

By Anthony Watts | ClimateRealism | July 22, 2022

This past week, both the U.S. and Europe have had significant localized heatwaves. The one in Europe is particularly bothersome for the media, since the area is not prepared for temperatures that exceed 100°F like areas in the in the United States in places like California, Texas, and Oklahoma, where air conditioners are the norm, regularly experience. The mainstream media has uniformly blamed the heatwaves on human caused climate change. This attribution is wrong.

The headlines have been truly apoplectic, and absolutely wrong. For example:

With Record-Breaking Heat, Europe Glimpses Its Climate Future [Scientific American]

Climate change is killing people’: Europe’s extreme heatwave continues [EuroNews]

‘Climate change affects everyone’: Europe battles wildfires in intense heat [Reuters]

And in the United States, the media hype is just as wild and just as false:

Record-breaking heat waves in US and Europe prove climate change is already here, experts say [Yahoo News]

The climate crisis is driving heat waves and wildfires. Here’s how [CNN]

How the heat dome in Texas is related to climate change [Yahoo News]

Every summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it gets hot; that’s what summers do. Also, every year, a localized heatwave occurs somewhere in the world.

The error that is common to all of these news articles is the fact that weather is not climate.

Weather is an event that might last for minutes to a few days. A heatwave is a weather event that is typically linked to large scale weather patterns, such as a high-pressure cell which can create heat-domes in the summer. Climate is an average of weather over a thirty-year period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. Note my highlights:

Each of these stories trying to link climate change to the heat wave does so without any proof whatsoever. They are nothing more than speculative fearmongering.

And, it isn’t limited to print and Internet media, the TV stations are overhyping it as well to make it seem like a crisis with the use of color. Figure 1 is a comparison of TV graphics on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in Summer 2012, versus Summer 2022.

Figure 1: Comparison of TV weather Maps from the BBC in summer 2012, left, and summer 2022 right. Source: BBC

Note that in 2012, some of the temperatures were actually higher, and they didn’t need to fill in areas with red to make it look worse than it actually is.

Another thing that you won’t find reported in the BBC on in the newspapers/Internet media is the fact that while record heat was going on in Western Europe, Eastern Europe was experiencing well below average temperatures. Figure 2 below shows the juxtaposition of heat in the UK and Europe compared to the below normal temperatures in Eastern Europe, which the press has ignored.

Figure 2: Surface Temperature map for UK and Europe on July 19, 2022. Image from ECMWF output via WeatherBell Inc.

That dramatic regional temperature difference seen in Figure 2 is a sure sign of this being a weather pattern, and not global scale climate change aka global warming as the media would have you believe. The same applies to the heat wave in the U.S. as seen in Figure 3. It is regional in its scope, not global.

Figure 3: Maximum Temperature for the Contiguous United States July 21, 2022. Source NOAA

As reported in Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heatwaves,

… in recent decades in the United States, heat waves have been far less frequent and severe than they were in the 1930s.

The all-time high temperature records set in most states occurred in the first half of the twentieth century.

The heat wave of 1936 was far deadlier. To their credit, The Washington Post got it right in this report:

The killer U.S. heat wave of 1936 spread as far north as Canada, led to the heat-related deaths of an estimated 5,000 people, sent thermometers to a record 121 degrees Fahrenheit in Steele, N.D., and made that July the warmest month ever recorded in the United States.

But the real issue is that extended high temperatures like the U.S. and Europe have experienced this month have happened before climate change became the universal go-to for blame. It only takes a small amount of research to discover these facts.

A search of the term heatwaves, on Wikipedia, for instance, finds that a heatwave and drought in 1540 in Europe lasted for 11 months, and that a heatwave in 1757 was the hottest in the past 500 years until 2003. Also, Netweather Community TV, called the 1906 heatwave in the U.K during August and September, “one of the most exceptional heatwaves to ever occurred in the UK.” A 1911 heatwave in France contributed to more than 41,000 premature deaths. More recently, in Europe, there was a massive months-long heat wave in 1976. This came at a time when the Earth was experiencing a 30 year cooling trend, that led many scientists to warn the next ice age was looming. Wikipedia’s entry on the 1976 event reports:

The summer of 1976 was considered to be the hottest summer in Europe, and especially the United Kingdom, during the 20th century. A large high-pressure area dominated most of Europe for all of the summer months. The pressure system moved into place in late May 1976 and remained until the first traces of rain were recorded on 27 August.

. . .

For the entire period much of Europe was bathed in continual sunshine with the United Kingdom seeing an average of more than 14 hours of sunshine per day. 1976 was dubbed “the year of the ladybird” in that country due to the rise in the mass numbers of the insect brought on by the long hot period. In the United Kingdom, the summer coincided with a 16-week dry spell, the longest recorded over England and Wales since 1727.

That high pressure pattern is almost identical to what has been seen in UK and Europe today. The difference is that the media today immediately goes to blame climate change rather than weather patterns, and in the case of this article in The New York Times, they even try to convince you that comparisons between the hot summers of 1976 and 2022 are somehow “misleading.”

“Yet the comparison to 1976 is misleading. The highest recorded temperature then was 35.9 degrees Celsius, whereas on Tuesday it surpassed 40 degrees.”

The BBC reported:

“Thermometers hit 40.3C at Coningsby in Lincolnshire, while 33 other locations went past the UK’s previous highest temperature of 38.7C, set in 2019.”

Figure 4. Graph of Temperature at RAF Base Coningsby for July 19th, 2022 showing a max temp of 104°F, Source: WeatherUndergroud.com

What the BBC and the NYT don’t tell you is that the 40 degree Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) was set at a Royal Air Force (RAF) base next to the heat absorbing sea of runway asphalt and tarmac. Figure 4 shows the temperature hour-by-hour that day and where it was recorded.

By contrast, the BBC reports “… the [previous] highest temperature ever recorded in the United Kingdom was 101.7 degrees, observed in Cambridge [at Cambridge University Botanic Garden] in July 2019.“

A botanical garden is an entirely different environment than an RAF air base.  The latter would be expected to be much warmer due to the lack of shade, the heat absorbing materials present, and the hot air expelled from jet engines. So, the “misleading” claim of the NYT is really about the lack of solid journalism in reporting the environment under which these temperatures were recorded.

It is well-known that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect can contribute to warmer high temperatures, and given the UK went from 56 million people in 1976 to 67 million in 2020, it isn’t the least bit surprising that the UHI increased as infrastructure to support that 11 million extra people was added to that island nation.

The final word comes from meteorologist Cliff Mass, PhD, who did a thorough analysis of the short-lived heatwave event and writes (emphasis his):

The truth and overwhelming scientific evidence provide a different story: the recent European heatwave is mainly the result of natural processes but was enhanced modestly by human-caused global warming.

The situation is very much like the [Pacific] Northwest heatwave of last summer; with many of the same elements.

…

The bottom line is that the recent European heat wave was caused by an amplification of the northern hemisphere wave pattern, with global warming contributing perhaps 5-10% of the warmth. Natural variability of the atmosphere was the proximate cause of the warmth and does not represent an existential threat to the population of Europe.

Clearly, there’s no cause for alarm, no matter what the media says. But the media won’t tell you any of that, because it ruins their narrative of being able to blame the heatwave on climate change, while hoping you don’t notice their distortion of the truth about ordinary weather events we see every summer.

July 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

What has changed regarding asymptomatic spread?

Why did we adopt a totally novel theory overnight?

By Dr Clare Craig | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | July 22, 2022

In 2021, HART published a review of the evidence for asymptomatic transmission.

The concept of asymptomatic transmission formed the foundation for the belief that lockdown was necessary and might work and for mask wearing and amplified the atmosphere of fear with the idea that anyone could be a threat.

Key points from that article include the fact that:

  1. Presymptomatic people account for only 7% of spread in an outbreak
  2. People who are immune and healthy can test positive but, because of how testing has been calibrated, this is not evidence of either disease or infectiousness
  3. The medical literature contained multiple meta analyses where evidence from the same handful of poorly designed studies had been recycled to create the illusion of a body of evidence
  4. The only three instances of people becoming ill having allegedly been infected by someone who never developed symptoms were two cases of a “mild cough for one day” and one baby with a runny nose.

At the time it was possible to conclude that the global evidence of transmission from people who never had symptoms amounted to only three people with very mild symptoms, calling into question the idea that there should be any concern around the apparently healthy.

In the last year there have been two reports which have increased knowledge in this area. The first was a study of thoroughly tested marine recruits and the second was a carefully reported outbreak in Japan. Both studies failed to provide answers to critical questions – the key question being whether someone who tested positive after contact with a never symptomatic individual, ever developed symptoms themselves. This question has been repeatedly omitted from such studies of asymptomatic spread.

Marine study

Although this study got a lot of traction, it is ultimately the story of five young people with mild cold symptoms and the ubiquitous nature of viruses. Before the advent of molecular biology this would hardly be newsworthy! A total of 1,847 trainee marines were included in the study. The thrust of the study was in tracking different genomic sequences detected from swabbing people within platoons. The results were not clear at all about who had symptoms. In fact the failure to report on symptoms is a glaring weakness in the claim that they are diagnosing anything meaningful.

The marines were made to isolate for two weeks, before arriving at the training camp and then quarantined for a further two weeks (but in shared rooms) with constant mask wearing, social distancing, hand washing, daily temperature and symptom monitoring, banning of electronic devices, and repeated testing. They claim they diagnosed 46 asymptomatic positives. The PCR results were strong positives in the few marines with symptoms (a median Ct value of 22-23) but were weak in the asymptomatic (a median Ct value of 25-27 meaning there was 100 times less viral RNA present). A third of them had too little material present to carry out successful sequencing at all. For those that did, there was a pattern of clustering of genome sequences within platoons. Unsurprisingly, if there was virus in the air shared by the platoon then it would be detectable in the respiratory tracts of those people breathing that air.

The paper never reports on whether there was any instance of a person sharing a room with an asymptomatic positive person and becoming symptomatic. As a paper which set out to investigate the problem of asymptomatic positives, the failure to mention symptoms suggests either that spread with resulting symptoms did not happen or that the scientists involved were incompentent.

A paper demonstrating that asymptomatic people may be contaminated with enough virus that others in their platoon test positive, asymptomatically is of no clinical interest. If no-one developed symptoms due to exposure to someone who was asymptomatic then there was no meaningful asymptomatic spread. Every morning the marines had temperature checks and symptom checks and yet none of the symptomatic positive marines were detected this way. Nevertheless the claim is made that a total of five of these young people did develop symptoms during the week before a positive test result.

Japanese study

The Japanese study reported on an outbreak in Japan in January 2020. The outbreak began in Tokyo at a party attended by someone from Wuhan showed 36 people who tested positive over a period of 48 days. 25 of the supposedly infected did not spread it to anyone. Despite this being the entirety of covid in Japan at the time they failed to trace one link in the chain who was the source of a small outbreak in a remote part of Kanagawa, a coastal town south of Tokyo. The authors assume that there must have been a person from the Tokyo outbreak who was responsible for this infection as they seem unable to think beyond person to person spread as the only possible mechanism of spread.

The article makes a big point of the fact that a woman in her 80s died. The woman in question had pneumonia and had been ill from January before dying on 13th February. The diagnosis was made post mortem and the ministry of health tried to impress upon people that it was not clear that the virus had been the cause of her death.

Why is there still confusion on this issue?

The evidence that supports the belief in asymptomatic transmission appears to come from a combination of two factors:

  1. Positive test results in the absence of symptoms (without evidence of transmission of disease)
  2. The fact people become infected without a traceable source

The former is explainable through poor testing and a failure to acknowledge immunity. PCR testing has been set up to detect 3 or 4 virus particles per sample where 5,000 particles would be needed to indicate someone with infectious potential. Detecting virus in the air in someone’s respiratory tract is of no consequence if they have immunity and will never become an infection risk or develop symptoms themselves. Even where relatively large amounts of virus have been detected on testing, in the absence of evidence of transmission that results in a person with more than fleeting mild symptoms, this is also of no consequence.

The fact people become infected when there is no discernable source can be attributed to long distant aerosol transmission. Despite WHO officially acknowledging this mode of transmission there seems to be continuing total denial of the implications of that from most authorities. In Australia, the Delta wave began with a tourist from Sri Lanka who was quarantined after landing. During his stay in quarantine a total of 44 genetically similar cases were identified in the Melbourne community. Rather than acknowledge airborne spread, James Merlino, the acting premier of Victoria, said transmission had occurred due to “being in the same place, at the same time, for mere moments.”

Conclusion

Our ability to test and detect minute, irrelevant quantities of virus has created an utterly distorted view of reality. A test which when positive does not demonstrate pre-symptomatic infection, infectiousness or disease is of no use to anyone and should be replaced. The myth that apparently healthy people are a potential threat to others needs to be quashed for good so that people can stop treating each other primarily as potential vectors of disease.

July 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Fauci, Top Biden Officials Subpoenaed in Lawsuit Alleging They Colluded With Social Media to Suppress Free Speech

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | July 21, 2022

Top-ranking Biden administration officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — and five social media giants have 30 days to respond to subpoenas and discovery requests in a lawsuit alleging the government colluded with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech “under the guise of combatting misinformation.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Wednesday served third-party subpoenas on Twitter, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Youtube, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Schmitt and Landry on Tuesday filed discovery requests seeking documents and information from the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Fauci, its director; White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre; Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy; and former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz.

Discovery requests also were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its director, Jen Easterly; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“In May, Missouri and Louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit against top-ranking Biden Administration officials for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress free speech on topics like COVID-19 and election security,” Schmitt said in Tuesday’s press release.

Schmitt added:

“Earlier this month, a federal court granted our motion for expedited discovery, allowing us to collect important documents from Biden Administration officials. Yesterday, we served discovery requests and today served third-party subpoenas to do exactly that.

“We will fight to get to the bottom of this alleged collusion and expose the suppression of freedom of speech by social media giants at the behest of top-ranking government officials.”

Schmitt announced in a July 12 statement that Terry Doughty, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, ruled in favor of a June 17 motion for expedited preliminary injunction-related discovery and set a timetable with specific deadlines for depositions.

According to Schmitt, government officials “both pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter and Youtube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19.”

“The Court’s decision cleared the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather discovery and documents from Biden Administration officials and social media companies,” Schmitt said in a press release on Tuesday.

“The order states, ‘The First Amendment obviously applies to the citizens of Missouri and Louisiana, so Missouri and Louisiana have the authority to assert those rights,’” he said.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland, who also serves as CHD general counsel, praised the ruling:

“CHD welcomes this groundbreaking ruling from Judge Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana to discover whether the Biden administration has violated the First Amendment through censorship.

“For two years, CHD and many other media outlets have not been able to comprehend the mechanisms whereby our major media platforms have ruthlessly censored, suppressed and distorted our information.

“Now, through the discovery process that the judge has allowed, we’ll find out how Meta, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube have been colluding with the federal government to curb so-called ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation.’ This is a new day.”

Fauci, CDC, White House press secretary and more must turn over documents

According to the press release, Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Biden and director of the NIAID, was asked to turn over any communications with social media platforms related to content modulation and/or misinformation, and to disclose all meetings with any social media platform related to the subject and to provide all communications with Mark Zuckerberg from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present.

Fauci also must turn over all communications with any social media platform related to the Great Barrington Declaration; the authors and original signers of the Great Barrington Declaration; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya; Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D.; Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D.; Dr. Scott Atlas; Alex Berenson; Peter Daszak, Ph.D.; Shi Zhengli, Ph.D.; the Wuhan Institute of Virology; EcoHealth Alliance; and/or any member of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” including CHD chairman and chief legal counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is required to identify every officer, official, employee, staff member, personnel, contractor or any other person associated with the White House communications team who communicated or is communicating with any social media platform related to content modulation and/or misinformation — and to turn over those communications.

Jean-Pierre also must identify all persons who “engage[s] regularly with all social media platforms about steps that can be taken” to address misinformation on social media, which engagement “has continued, and … will continue,” as stated during an April 25 White House press briefing — and turn over all communications with any social media platform involved in such engagement.

Defendant Nina Jankowicz, who was tasked with heading up the Biden administration’s “Disinformation Governance Board” must provide all documents related to communications with social media platforms and content modulation and/or misinformation.

Jankowicz is required to identify the nature, purpose, participants, topics to be discussed and topics actually discussed at the meeting between DHS personnel and Twitter executives Nick Pickles and Yoel Roth scheduled on or around April 28.

The CDC is required to provide the names of every officer, official, employee, staff member, personnel, contractor or agent of CDC or any other federal official or agency who communicated or is communicating with any social media platform regarding content modulation and/or misinformation.

The CDC must disclose communications with any social media platform related to content modulation or misinformation, any meetings that took place with social media platforms related to content modulation and/or misinformation, and must identify all “members of our senior staff” and/or “members of our COVID-19 team” who are “in regular touch with … social media platforms,” as “Jennifer Psaki [former White House press secretary] stated at a White House press briefing on or around July 15, 2021.”

The agency must also disclose all “government experts” who are federal officers, officials, agents, employees or contractors, who have “partnered with” Facebook or any other social media platform to address misinformation and/or content modulation, including all communications relating to such partnerships.

Like Fauci, the CDC must turn over information and communications on the “so-called disinformation dozen,” Great Barrington Declaration, alternative news outlets and key experts and scientists who have spoken out against the government’s approach to treating COVID-19 or mandating face masks and lockdowns.

Meta (Facebook) was “commanded” to produce all communications with any federal official relating to misinformation and/or content modulation, to produce all documents and communications-related actions taken based in whole or in part on information received, directly or indirectly, from any federal official and to produce all communications and documents related to a list of search terms that include Kennedy’s name and/or the names of prominent doctors and physicians who were censored for their views on COVID-19.

Facebook also must disclose meetings, communications and documents related to remarks made by Psaki, who said the White House is “in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team,” and regarding the White House’s efforts to flag “problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

Similar requests were made to other government officials and social media platforms, including Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Lawsuit alleges collusion to suppress disfavored speakers and viewpoints

Attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri in May filed a lawsuit alleging government defendants “colluded with and/or coerced social media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by labeling the content ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation’ and ‘malinformation.’”

The court lawsuit alleges social media companies falsely labeled truthful content “disinformation” and “misinformation” and contends the suppression constitutes government action, violating free speech protected by the U.S. constitution.

The complaint also alleges that DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board was created “to induce, label, and pressure the censorship of disfavored content, viewpoints and speakers on social-media platforms,” and that HHS and DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act to “hold unlawful and set aside final agency actions” that are deemed to be an abuse of power and arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit provides several examples of truthful information that was censored by social media companies who later admitted the content was truthful or credible.

According to The Epoch Times, the lawsuit could help bring to light the Biden administration’s “behind-the-scenes efforts” to discourage the dissemination of information related to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins and the efficiency of masks and lockdowns.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Why Did Anthony Fauci Suddenly Switch One Day From Promoting Calm to Promoting Lockdown?

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 22, 2022

I’ve been looking again at Covid’s origins and the start of the pandemic. Last time I wrote on it I argued that Italy brought in China-style lockdowns on March 8th and 10th 2020 mainly as a result of panic owing to the leap in the death rate, with it being clear from the hospital situation there were many more deaths to come. I still believe that that was the immediate trigger for imposing lockdowns at the time. However, I now recognise that that is far from the full story. What it leaves out is the backdrop of who was pushing for lockdowns throughout the preceding two months, and why.

Two key pieces of data have emerged in the last few months that help to bring the picture into clearer focus. The first is that with the arrival of Omicron the Chinese have continued fanatically to pursue lockdowns, crippling their economy as they do it. To my mind, this is convincing evidence that the Chinese are sincere about their belief in the radical new disease management strategy they inaugurated on January 23rd 2020 in Wuhan. I initially (in 2020) thought it may be an elaborate ruse to convince the world to do something monumentally and pointlessly self-destructive. But it appears they really do think lockdowns are highly effective and the right way to fight a disease like COVID-19. I’m aware some suggest it could just be a cunning strategy to strengthen the grip of the ruling party on the population, but all the evidence indicates to me that they actually are trying to fight the disease in this way.

If this is accepted then one of the key pieces of the puzzle snaps into place: the global Covid narrative has, both behind closed doors and in front of them, been driven in part by the Chinese Government’s commitment to its extreme suppression strategy and its desire for other countries to adopt it as well. It’s been suggested this derives from a sense of national pride and seeking vindication of their efforts and ideas, and is part of a wider aim of achieving global Chinese cultural supremacy, which sounds plausible to me.

The second key piece of data are emails sent by White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, which reveal that behind closed doors as late as February 26th 2020, Dr. Fauci was still, as he had been consistently up to that point, advising people not to panic. But as of February 27th his approach suddenly changed and, from that moment on, he began consistently pushing restrictions.

On February 26th he wrote to CBS News that Americans should not yield to fear:

You cannot avoid having infections since you cannot shut off the country from the rest of the world… Do not let the fear of the unknown… distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day… do not yield to unreasonable fear.

But by the next day he was writing to actress Morgan Fairchild that the American public should prepare for pandemic restrictions:

It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers that although the current risk of coronavirus to the American public is low, the fact that there is community spread of virus in a number of countries besides China… poses a risk that we may progress to a global pandemic of COVID-19… And so for that reason, the American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures that include social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc. There is nothing to be done right now since there are so few cases in this country and these cases are being properly isolated, and so go about your daily business. However, be aware that behavioural adjustments may need to be made if a pandemic occurs.

Interestingly, February 27th was also the day the media narrative in the U.S. shifted, with the New York Times leading the way with its first alarmist piece, by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, and also an alarmist podcast with science and health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr., which quoted directly from China a 2% mortality rate for the virus.

The context for this shift was a WHO press briefing on February 24th by Bruce Aylward, who had just concluded a WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 and told the world that lockdown worked and “you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”

The timing obviously suggests the events are connected, but crucially it also implies that Fauci and those around him were not part of the behind-the-scenes decision of Aylward to throw the WHO’s weight behind the Chinese approach. This leaves, then, the question of why Fauci & Co flipped from their previous position of playing down the threat from the virus and not supporting extreme Chinese-style interventions to going all in with the panic.

The picture being painted here is of at least two ‘conspiracies’ going on – the Chinese one, seeking to push lockdowns as part of Chinese vindication and cultural supremacy, and the Fauci & Co one, the potential motives for which are discussed below. I am pretty confident these are not the same ‘conspiracy’, as I assume that Fauci and Co are not motivated by vindicating China and advancing its cultural supremacy (I’ve seen no evidence this should be the case).

A further element to throw into the mix is that the first Western lockdown occurred three days before the Aylward WHO briefing, on February 21st 2020, in a region of 50,000 people in Lombardy. Oddly, it seems to have been an isolated local initiative in response to the first identified ‘cases’ led by the regional health chief Giulio Gallera, with no clear links to the WHO or any other known lockdown protagonists. It would be interesting to ask Mr. Gallera why he decided to follow such a radical course of action that day.

Italy locked down on March 8th and 10th, a response it seems to the climbing death rate, and most of the rest of the world followed in the ensuing two weeks. The U.S. Government was persuaded by Deborah Birx and others to back lockdowns on March 16th. On March 12th-14th, U.K. Government ministers and officials did a media round promoting the idea of aiming for herd immunity and keeping calm and carrying on. However, that strategy soon collapsed in the face of shifting public opinion and alarmist models from scientists like Imperial’s Neil Ferguson. After March 23rd, Sweden was the only holdout among Western Governments.

Such a mess of uncoordinated action confirms to my mind a picture of different groups driven by different motives and agendas which sometimes overlap, catalysed by groupthink and hysteria, rather than any grand behind-the-scenes conspiracy involving all in a coordinated fashion.

The Chinese Communist Party is a crucial actor, of course. It invented lockdowns and since then has persistently pushed them to the rest of the world, including through an all too willing WHO. However, that doesn’t mean that all who promote panic and lockdowns do so because they are in thrall to China or doing its bidding.

So what was the deal with Fauci & Co – why did they oppose panic and lockdowns until February 27th, then flip to become among their most eager and high-powered proponents?

Fauci’s emails show that, starting at the end of January and into February 2020, he organised a series of secretive video conferences and phone calls because he and his associates suspected the virus may have been genetically modified and leaked from a lab. Yet despite these suspicions, on February 19th the group wrote a letter to the Lancet denouncing the lab leak as a “conspiracy theory”. The organiser of the letter was Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, one of Fauci’s associates who it later turned out had been funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of exactly the kind that was suspected as being responsible for creating COVID-19. Biologist Nick Patterson notes a grant application from EcoHealth Alliance to DARPA (the research agency of the U.S. Department of Defence), of which he says, “as far as I can make out, the plan here was for WIV to collect live virus, ship it to the USA, have U.S. scientists genetically modify the virus, and then ship modified virus… back to China”.

In light of information like this and Fauci and Co’s preoccupation during February 2020 with the origin of the virus, culminating in their cynical effort to suppress the claims of lab leak and genetic modification, I surmise that their major motivation was to cover themselves for the possibility that they and their research fields would be held responsible for the virus. Initially this took the form of suppressing the lab leak theory while also playing down the threat from the virus, which they would have been keen to be as uneventful as possible. But why then the flip to panic mode after February 27th? Did the WHO backing lockdowns on February 24th change the equation, so it was no longer deemed viable or good cover to oppose the new approach? The path of least resistance in other words. A related question is whether they were genuinely persuaded that the measures would be effective or if they retained an unspoken scepticism. If they did retain any scepticism there’s been precious little sign of it since March 2020.

Overall, I see no indication of a grand plan from the earliest days in which all are working from a common script to a common goal. Instead, I see various groups with their own agendas, interests and fears. It’s clear that, following Aylward’s team’s visit, China managed to capture the WHO and bring it on board with championing lockdowns. However, the motives of everyone besides China are largely opaque. Why did Aylward become China’s biggest fan – was he threatened or bribed or just duped and naïve? Why exactly did Lombardy regional health chief Giulio Gallera respond to the first cases in his region by imposing a Chinese-style lockdown even before the WHO had backed them? Why did Fauci flip on February 27th? What about curious figures like Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger, highlighted by Michael Senger, who despite being a known China critic, was a major alarmist influence within the White House from the get-go, drawing on mysterious ‘contacts in China’ to call for panic and restrictions as early as January?

What drove each of these people to get behind the closing down of society as the ‘solution’ to a respiratory virus? We can largely see now who did what and when. What’s mainly missing is the why.

July 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Sonia Elijah | Session 113: Mycelium

Corona Investigative Committee | July 16, 2022

REINER FUELLMICH INTERVIEWING SONIA ELIJAH CIC SESSION 113 – MYCELIUM 15/07/2022
SONIA ELIJAH ON PFIZER VACCINE SAFETY REPORT
Sonia Elijah – Investigative Journalist and Broadcasterat trialsitenews.com , Has a background in Economics and was a former BBC researcher. Her analysis of the Pfizer Covid vaccine safety report, received worldwide attention.
The Corona Committee was founded on the initiative of attorney and economist Viviane Fischer and attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. It is conducting a review of evidence on the Corona crisis and measures.

Learn more about the committee:
https://corona-investigative-committee.com

Anonymous tips to the Corona Committee:
https://securewhistleblower.com

Dr. Reiner Fuellmichs english Telegram channel:
https://t.me/s/ReinerFuellmichEnglish

Tor:
http://2hfjtvg32qm6kjo2esoqu3djhc6xctn2wofnkrpc4vjez47a5wei44qd.onion

Only through your support the work of the Committee is possible:
https://corona-investigative-committee.com/support/

July 22, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

They want you to feel climate change is a “personal threat”. Here’s why.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | July 21, 2022

“The climate crisis is a public health crisis”, that is a tweet by Hillary Clinton’s official twitter account yesterday afternoon.

The tweet included a link to a news story claiming that Spain and Portugal had seen over a thousand people had die in the past week, due to the heatwave (they’ve since amended that number to over 2000).

I don’t want to get into the maths of it, but across two countries totalling around 58 million people, 2000 in a week is not very many at all.

And, as I have pointed out, in a post-Covid world we can’t really be sure what “died due to the heat” even means.

Case in point – we’re already seeing drownings termed “heatwave deaths”… because they wouldn’t have been swimming if it wasn’t so hot.

But we’re not here to fact-check yet more figures or definitions. The point of this article is to highlight the message behind the tweet, and it’s not a new one. It’s all about taking the powers the states have acquired through “covid”, and then applying them to “climate change”

Maybe that means “climate lockdowns”, or “climate passports”, or rationing fuel or banning travel… but whatever terms or phrases they eventually use, it’s definitely some authoritarian fantasy made flesh.

That’s the target, and it has been from the beginning.

Since the earliest days of the “pandemic” there have been consistent (and ludicrous) attempts to try and associate “Covid” and “climate” in the public mind.

They started by directly linking the two, and to this day try and make out that climate change will cause more zoonotic pandemics. But that never really hit home.

The more consistent and pervasive messaging has been an effort to rebrand “climate change”, not as an environmental problem but as a “public health” problem.

This messaging first appeared in March 2020, when the pandemic was less than three months old the British Medical Journal published a paper titled “The WHO should declare climate change a public health emergency”, which argued that global warming was far more dangerous than a simple virus, and should be treated just as seriously.

Nobody really listened. In the two years since they’ve tried to bring it back over and over again, but it never lands.

Just weeks into lockdown we were already being told that lockdowns were healing the planet, and journalists were asking “if we can do this for covid, why not climate?”

By September of 2020 they were talking about “avoiding a climate lockdown”.

March of 2021 saw reports springing up claiming we needed a “covid lockdown every two years” to meet out climate goals.

In summer of 2021 the latest IPCC report prompted talk of “hinging from covid to climate” that never really took off.

This past March the think tank Public Policy Project repeated the demand that the WHO recognise climate change as a “public health emergency”.

And just yesterday, the BMJ was back at it, publishing two articles on the same topic. One warning about “The inconvenient truths of health and climate crises that can’t just be ignored” and another titled Groundhog day: the signs of a climate emergency are with us again

There’s a new push in the works, and the thinking behind it is clear.

After decades of propaganda that saw “global warming” become “climate change” become “global heating” and eventually “climate emergency”, people simply are not scared of it.

Maybe it’s subconscious knowledge that it’s a propaganda campaign, maybe it’s the literal 60 years of failed prophecies, but whichever it is people are not scared, not like they were of Covid anyway.

The powers-that-be have pretty much admitted this themselves, there’s a revealing Sky News article about it from just a couple of days ago, headlined:

Why is it so hard to get people to care about climate change?”

We saw, during Covid, the UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team published a memo which said people were not scared enough of Covid, and the messaging needed to change in order to scare people into compliance:

The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.

That same thinking holds with climate change. They want it to be the new covid, but to get there they need people to feel “an increased level of personal threat”.

That means hitting the dangers of climate change hard. It means fudging death numbers and manufacturing alarming statistics. And it means peppering those headlines with influential figures – like Hillary Clinton – calling climate change a “public health crisis”

That’s why the heatwave is being talked about in such absurd terms. That’s why the UK declared its first ever “heatwave” national emergency, and why Biden is considering declaring a “climate emergency” (whatever that means).

It’s why we’re seeing warnings of “thousands dying”, and suddenly getting “wildfires” (that turn out to be arson).

It’s why doctors have started literally diagnosing “climate change”, as if it were a disease.

They want – and need – to change the climate conversation. It’s not going to be about the environment anymore, it’s going to be about “public health”.

Climate change is being rebranded – it will no longer be a threat to the planet, from now on it is a threat to you.

And as soon as they that message has a grip on people, they will turnaournd and say “so, about those climate lockdowns.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Soft-launch for climate lockdown

By Alexander Adams | BOURNBROOK | July 19, 2022

Once upon a time, news that a top-level COBRA meeting was held at Downing Street – in the midst of a government re-shuffle – would stir a flicker of alarm or excitement (depending on one’s temperament). Now, when COBRA meetings are called due to a spike in positive tests for a strain of flu, we know that the government is more interested in showing it is responding rather than actually responding or indeed having anything worth responding to.

The reason for the cabinet-level emergency meeting was the arrival of summer. You might have thought that aides could have briefed senior government figures privately on a brief period of warm-to-hot weather that some years occurs over July and August in the British Isles. No doubt the aides had been watching weather maps on television news which have been showing the country seared scarlet, despite the fact that the temperature has been as expected. The establishment, which has been both pushing the idea of a climate crisis and has come to believe its own alarmism, takes the normal heatwaves as evidence of a climate emergency. To be fair, if you consume mainstream television news and radio – plus factual programmes – at high levels, your residual belief in climate emergency will have reached near unbreakable levels.

The Met Office – an arm of the scientific-governmental-media complex – has issued amber and red alerts for sunny days last week. Even GBNews has been running a chyron of dire warnings advising against unnecessary travel. The gleeful doomsayers of the mainstream media have been playing up the dangers of hot weather, adding obligatory comments about anthropogenic global warming. Some exaggerate for tactical effect – to scare people into new types of behaviour – while others simply follow the herd, led by untested assumptions and a climate of fear.

COVID hysteria is not as potent a tool of control and fear as it once was. News reports of a rise in positive tests (caused due to COVID becoming an endemic, mild infection) – which were notably not accompanied by data suggesting increased deaths – generated only a brief uptick in mask-wearing by the “doing their part” crowd. There will be another push to impose a COVID lockdown this winter, but the government, NGOs and international bodies wanting to use lockdown as a tool for restricting the freedom and independence of people are looking for extra excuses. Marburg virus and Monkey Pox have both been pitched as potential reasons to restrict freedom but seem to have been met with muted responses.

So, while authorities worldwide tinker with their systems of control, climate emergency looks like a viable route. It has already been used to promote green policies, lower vehicle emissions, stringent insulation regulations, phasing out of gas boilers. The aim is to restrict means of private travel, monitor energy consumption and use digital identities and social-credit systems to micromanage people, using all-pervading systems to instil fear and obedience. It seems likely that air-quality readings may be used to restrict non-electric vehicle use in cities. Expect this winter to see more “stay at home” advisory notices due to cold weather – essentially for any days with road ice – but a big push next summer for not only advisory notices but action. This may include local or national government imposing fines on businesses which “irresponsibly” remain open during hot weather, as well as more vehicle restrictions.

The government and its medical-environmental partners use fear and coddling to direct a compliant population away from free choice and towards authoritarianism. The exaggerated heat warnings have been a feature of British mainstream news and activist press releases for many years, mainly as a means of reinforcing the necessity of environmental measures. However, the government and its partners have seen how compliant and fearful the population is and are ready to use weather as a tool for population suppression via the means of lockdown.

Be watchful and notice how the mass-media, establishment science, giant corporations and government work together to knit ever tighter the control of the managerial elite in order to remove your ability to judge risk for yourself, travel independently and run your businesses.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »