Unboostered Brits Infected and Dying at Higher Rates than Unvaccinated
UKHSA Vaccine Efficacy Statistics: Week 3
eugyppius | January 20, 2022
The UK Health Security Agency has been condemned for literally months now to report incredibly inconvenient vaccine efficacy statistics. How they have struggled. They have composed disclaimer after disclaimer. They filled a whole blog post with special pleading. They have greyed out the inconvenient numbers.
In their latest report, published just this evening, they’ve tried something new and bold. They now only calculate case, hospitalisation and death rates for the unvaccinated and the triple vaccinated. The double vaccinated have been banished entirely from Table 12. This will make the evil negative efficacy go away, right?
Ha, no:
The numbers are unadjusted, it is true; much certainty surrounds the size of the unvaccinated population and therefore case rates within that group. What is more, these are cases, not true infection statistics. Nevertheless, res ipsa loquitur. It does not look great.
In fact, the UKHSA have given us a great gift, in that they finally provide separate case and severe outcome statistics for the triple-vaccinated and the double vaccinated, allowing us to compare rates across all three groups. They don’t do that themselves, of course, but no matter. We can use the raw numbers and rates from last week’s report to derive the total number of double and triple vaccinated, and the rates in this week’s report to derive the triple vaccinated population. A little subtraction then gives us a decent estimate of how many double but not triple vaccinated people there are in each age bracket.
Here is the graph the UKHSA don’t want you to see:
This is plainly a pandemic of the vaccinated.
The double vaccinated death rate is also a problem. You can tell this just from looking at the numbers in each category:
The crucial 70+ demographic is over 90% boostered, and yet the very few double vaccinated in this cohort manage to match or exceed theeir death numbers.
The death rates have the double vaccinated worse than the unvaccinated in the 70+ cohort, and roughly matching the unvaccinated in the 60–69 group:
This isn’t all that surprising, given that Public Health Scotland data has shown across-the-board negative efficacy for the unboostered for some weeks now:
This is also true of deaths, but beware of the extremely low numbers, particularly in the singly vaccinated:
Fallen Icon: Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 19, 2022
In 2019 Netflix in conjunction with WWF broadcast Frozen Worlds, an episode in the Our Planet series and narrated by David Attenborough. The scenes it showed shocked and horrified viewers around the world.
After a brief introduction about the recent loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the ‘inevitable’ devastation this will cause for Arctic animals, it shifts to a series of amazing shots of tens of thousands of walrus, crowded cheek-by-jowl on a beach in Siberia.
The camera pans out to a rocky cliff, which several walrus are attempting to climb. Then suddenly, one after another, the walrus are shown falling off the cliff to their deaths on the rocky shore below.The scenes are shown in slow motion and repeated in order to maximise the shock effect.
As the scenes unfold, Attenborough coolly informs viewers that the walrus would not normally be there, but out on the sea ice instead. But because of man-made global warming, the poor walrus have been forced onto land in crowded conditions, where they will inevitably suffer and die.
But was it all as simple as Attenborough portrayed?
A number of suspicions were immediately evident. Far from these beach haulouts being unusual, walrus in fact regularly use these beaches every year, in order to rest and feed while waiting for the sea ice to move south in autumn.
Walrus also invariably crowd together in these situations, both for warmth and protection from polar bears. Indeed, far from walrus being threatened by climate change, their populations have been growing in recent years, explaining why so many were hauled out that day.
And what made those walrus try to climb the cliff?
Dr Susan Crockford is a professional zoologist, who has specialised in Arctic mammals for many years, particularly polar bears and walrus. She immediately smelled a rat.
Her newly released book, Fallen Icon, tells the story of how she uncovered exactly what went on that day on the Siberian beach. Her detective work reveals how it was polar bears stalking them that forced the walrus up that cliff; how this is a common hunting tactic and how the bears then fed off the carcasses down below.
She uncovers evidence that WWF already knew about this hunting tactic at that particular location, and that was precisely why this beach was chosen for the film.
She goes on to describe how retreating sea ice actually increases the food supply for walrus and how their populations are both healthy and increasing.
And how Attenborough used this horrifying imagery to jump-start a three year campaign against human-caused global warming that included ten documentaries laden with groundless climate emergency messaging, much of it aimed at the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. Attenborough’s relentless climate activism included a utopian vision of global changes for society eerily similar to the one proposed by the World Economic Forum.
It is hard to disagree with Crockford’s conclusions:
The public’s trust in science and medicine now appears to be at an all-time low. People who had been blind to the abuse of science rampant in the climate change narrative have had their eyes opened by the pandemic response. These things cannot be unseen.
In a worrying trend, traditional scientists struggle to be heard or have their concerns and criticisms published, both for climate change and Covid-19 related issues. Research that features testable hypotheses and reproducible studies seem to be rare birds while predictive modelling projects gobble up grant funds as well as the media attention.
Is science as we used to know it already dead? If so, how much of a role has Attenborough played in this progression? Over the last three years, he has used weaponized science presented to a trusting public in a most egregious manner.
My ultimate goal in writing this book is not to denigrate Sir David but to correct the misinformation he has deliberately or unwittingly promoted in his documentaries and public statements.
I am a traditional scientist standing up for science as it is meant to be – without activism and without politicization – because its loss to society will be incalculable.
Over the years but especially since 2018, Attenborough has shown that he lets others do his serious thinking for him and has often placed his trust where it was ill-advised, as he has done with the WWF. By that I mean he has relied on others to present information to him in an easily digestible manner rather than delving into the literature himself.
And having spent a lifetime taking this easy way out, when he decided he wanted his legacy to be something more substantial than ‘a good storyteller’, he seemed to take on the role of spokesman for others with ideological political agendas.
It appears to me that when he agreed to present the gruesome falling walrus film footage in Our Planet as evidence of climate change, Attenborough compromised his principles to achieve a specific end result. Such noble cause corruption is common in the conservation world but it was new for Attenborough.
I am convinced that what Attenborough has done with the falling walrus episode will be remembered long after he’s dead but not for the reasons he intended. It will go down as another ‘own goal’ for the climate change movement and judged as the moment Attenborough fell from grace as a trusted British icon.
Susan Crockford’s book is now available on Amazon here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0991796691
Susan Crockford adds:
As I point out in my new book, Fallen Icon, David Attenborough devised a three year campaign on the falsehood that hundreds of Russian walrus died falling off a cliff due to climate change because he also desired what the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting online this week, say they want: immediate and drastic changes, supposedly to mitigate an invisible ‘climate emergency’ and other societal ills.
Despite the fact that walrus and polar bears are thriving in the Arctic, this fabricated ’emergency’ seems to be the reason that its new chairman plans to make the G7 into a ‘climate club’.
Test, Jab, Boost, Repeat
By Jane M. Orient, M.D. – Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – January 13, 2022
Joe Biden introduced his “new” plan to save us from the dread coronavirus. He will provide 500 million “free” tests (paid for by taxpayers or with borrowed money); 1,000 National Guard troops to overstressed hospitals; and more pressure to get vaccinated and boosted.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, we would need 2.3 billion tests per month to test every person over age 12 twice per week at the recommended frequency of twice per week. What type of test, and where would we get them? Pharmacies are running out of home antigen tests. We have no data on the likelihood of false negative or false positive tests, but we do know that with any test, even very good ones, the vast majority of positive tests will be false positives if only a small percentage of the tested group is diseased. Also, tests may remain positive long after a person has recovered and is no longer infectious.
Can the tests harm? False positives lead to isolation with destruction of livelihoods and educational opportunities. We may be having an epidemic of false positive PCR tests. Using too high a cycle threshold, as some labs have routinely done, gives a meaningless result. And from your lab report, you cannot tell what cycle threshold was used.
It is possible that doing the test itself could be fatal. A few military members reportedly had infections with flesh-eating bacteria after getting swabbed, and some of the swabs were found to be contaminated. At least one patient got meningitis when a nasal swab was inserted too far.
Hospitals are indeed overstressed. According to a talk radio host, patients are dying in the halls and waiting room of a local hospital because of short staffing. Will 1,000 troops help? Mayo alone just fired 700 unvaccinated workers. An Ohio physician reported that the troops were causing chaos. They didn’t even know where supplies were kept, and after a 12-hour shift might be dispatched to another state before they had time to learn the local system. Under CMS waivers covering the declared emergency, minimally qualified personnel may be used. And now the most experienced and dedicated workers, the very ones most likely to exercise independent judgment and stand up for patients, are being culled.
Will more vaccines and boosters help? Biden asserts that it’s a “patriotic duty” to get jabbed, and more jabs are the only way to end the disaster. No matter how much respect you have for his mental abilities, he is likely quoting the American Medical Association. The jabs do not appear to be effective against the new variants, and might even be creating them. There is talk of a fourth shot—but apparently no stopping point for adverse effects such as myocarditis in children.
The U.S. has one of the worst records in the world for controlling COVID-19. Moreover, the most reliable source of statistics, insurance actuaries, shows that deaths in the prime working age group are up 40 percent, and disability claims are also up. A 10 percent increase would be the equivalent of a 200-year flood. The claims are not citing COVID-19 as a cause of death. They could be collateral damage from government policy, including poor medical care for virtually everything, or they could be from vaccination.
States are pushing back against the mandates, which are being imposed by executive order through unaccountable administrative agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court should be considering whether the administrative state has the constitutional or statutory authority to impose a medical dictatorship that overrides the states’ authority and citizens’ basic rights. Some Justices, however, seem to be taking the-end-justifies-the-means approach—and that based on egregiously erroneous information. For example, Justice Breyer asserted that there were 750 million cases (in a population of about 330 million) and Justice Sotomayor asserted that there were 100,000 hospitalized children (instead of fewer than 4,000, mostly not for COVID-19). The harms from the mandated vaccines were simply ignored.
Even if the “experts” Biden is relying upon, under the titular leadership of Anthony Fauci, were right this time, the precedent could grant unlimited power to a medical dictatorship to force disastrous policy on all Americans.
Instead of endlessly repeating failed policy, how about firing the generals who are in charge of the losing war?
Pfizer-backed CDC Foundation partnered with Facebook to fund social media tactics to increase “vaccine uptake”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 19, 2022
The Pfizer-sponsored CDC Foundation has teamed up with Big Tech and Big Pharma giants Facebook and Merck, among others, in order to promote Covid vaccines.
The pressure group calls itself the Alliance for Advancing Health Online and some details about its purpose and organization are revealed in an email sent to the White House and obtained and shared by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN).
Other than the CDC Foundation, Facebook’s partners are the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, Sabin Vaccine Institute, the Bay Area Global Health Alliance, and the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
During the fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the CDC Foundation reportedly received $79.6 million from companies Pfizer, Biogen, Merck, and others. Pfizer continues to be listed as a current donor.
ICAN noted that it emerges from the email – sent by Facebook’s US Public Policy head Payton Iheme – that the purpose of the initiative is to use social media and platforms “to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines.”
ICAN is a network whose mission is to promote putting authority over health choices in the hands of people whom these decisions affect, and parse out true medical information from that tainted by financial interest and advertising, which, they say, leads to “medical coercion” rather than tangible understanding of issues.
Now the group is suggesting there is conflict in the CDC Foundation forming an alliance to drive home the message of the need to get vaccinated as a matter of public health concern – when those selling the vaccines are members of that alliance. This is particularly pertinent as Facebook has been censoring some criticism of Pfizer vaccines.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the US public health agency, but it is a handy technicality in this and similar instances that the CDC Foundation has been set up as a private nonprofit incorporated in Georgia, established by Congress through the Public Health Service Act.
Facebook and Merck are throwing in $40 million each to start off the operation, and the money will go towards research into “advancing public understanding of how social media and behavioral sciences can be leveraged to improve the health of communities around the world.”
The first grants will be given to researchers and organizations who are exploring ways of using social media and digital platforms to build confidence in and drive uptake of vaccines, the email said.
Facebook’s representative also wrote that the corporation and its partners in the alliance are looking to expand their work.
New data on vaccine efficacy from scotland and more evidence on bayesian datacrime…
… and more bad news for “the experts”
el gato malo – bad cattitude – january 19, 2022
it’s becoming a bit like beating a dead horse to keep highlighting more and more data that shows the failure of the vaccines to act as promised, but this one highlights something else i was discussing recently and provides a tangible example of the math and definitional manipulation that’s going on.
so let’s take a quick spin:
(all data from HERE)
first, cases:
as is becoming endlessly apparent and replicable, “unvaxxed” is outperforming every other category.
vaccines are not stopping spread, they are most likely (subject to the limitations of non randomized society scale data) accelerating it.
this becomes readily apparent when we calculate risk ratios. (incidence of group divided by incidence in unvaxxed control, so any number >1 = more risk)
risk in the double vaxxed is well over twice as high as in the unvaxxed. boosters seem to help, but still cannot get you back to baseline and i want to emphasize the word “seem” here because i think this data is misleading and is vastly overstating booster efficacy and likely making double vaxxed look worse than it is. (more in a minute)
we can also look at hospitalization:
what’s most interesting here is that it seems like there was some vaccine efficacy against hospitalization but that it inverted as 2022 began.
we can see the risk ratio on 2 doses rise sharply from 0.76 (24% VE) to 1.39 (-39% VE). this is an 82% jump in risk ratio and it was durable into the following week. i have emphasized this in red.
boosters seem effective (but there’s that word again) but even this seeming efficacy is rapidly dropping and risk ratio is up from 0.15 in week 3 dec to 0.38 in week 2 jan, a 150% change.
i see 2 likely explanations here and they are not mutually exclusive:
- this is omicron, the OAS/vaccine (Original Antigenic Sin) evading variant showing up and taking over. as it does, vaccine efficacy drops like a rock because you are antigenically imprinted for the wrong spike proteins. what had been a help becomes actual harm because a bad response is worse for you than making one up on the fly and omicron is the optimized output of selection by leaky vaccine for vaccine evasion and superspread. we’re now into OAS territory, just as certain gatos told you we would be…
- this is bad math and bad definitions being used to hide properties of these vaccines and shift risk. defining as “3 doses” only those 2 weeks after their 3rd jab is bayesian datacrime, especially when the jab itself is known to cause ~2 weeks of immunosuppression and higher risk. the jab itself generates a high risk cohort but then attributes that risk to the cohort before it. it’s like blaming getting hit by a car crossing the street on having stayed on the sidewalk, and the effects can be gigantic. you can hide ANYTHING in that. it’s bad definitions leading to bad math and it’s been widespread practice since pfizer ginned it up to slant their trials.
you can get a full walk through on this issue and the various forms in which is can manifest here:
the examples linked about lay it out clearly: you can make a zero efficacy vaxx look like it works and this works even better if it causes a rise in risk in the 2 week period you lump into the prior group.
thus, boosters make “full vaxxed” look bad. fully vaxxed made unvaxxed look bad. so much of what has been claimed to be vaccine efficacy is just a mathematic rig job from poorly chosen definitions and there is simply no way that that was an accident.
pfizer does not make mistakes like that or like vaxxing the whole control group right when vaxx fade started to get bad. they make choices and those choices have been aided and abetted by regulators and public health agencies.
they all signed off on and adopted these misleading definitions and have been providing information and making policy based upon them.
i’m willing to believe that the CDC was too inept to spot this. it’s sad, but it’s plausible.
but the NIH should have seen it and the FDA not only should have spotted it instantly but should have disallowed a trial using such a shady tactic. it’s pure manipulation.
they both let it go because they were both involved. NIH licensed the IP for the vaccine payload to moderna. former FDA head gottlieb stepped down mid-term to join the pfizer board of directors.
this is what full blown regulatory capture looks like… Full article
The Covid narrative is falling apart, piece by piece
The momentum feels to me like it is accelerating…
By Steve Kirsch | January 19, 2022
Some narrative pieces have been falling apart were recently brought to my attention.
Here are the four new truths:
- The vaccines make you more likely to get COVID: It was supposed to make things better, but we’re basically mandating you get a shot that makes you more likely to get infected. That is totally insane, but that’s what we are doing. Check out the graphs here. No age confounding this time: UK Government Data proves the Covid-19 Vaccines DOUBLE your chances of catching Covid-19.
- The vaccines aren’t safe: I’m now hearing a lot from prominent formerly pro-vax docs that they are turning on the vaccine. This is great news. Nobody is going public yet, but they are all pissed and realize they have been misled. It will not be pretty. This is of course great news.
- Cloth masks don’t work: The CDC finally admits that cloth masks that they said worked before and that everyone wore (including Rochelle Walensky) don’t actually work. The other mask types don’t work either, but it will take them longer to figure out the obvious. P100 respirators do work but only a small percentage of people know that. I can’t wait to see Rochelle Walensky wear a P100 respirator; after all, she should be modelling best practices.
- Kids shouldn’t have boosters shots: Top WHO scientist finally admits that kids shouldn’t get boosted!!!! Yet the US colleges and universities aren’t going to back off. Someone is very wrong here and for once it isn’t the WHO.
Here are some older truths that should have been realized by now, but are still going on:
- Remdesivir is killing patients, not saving them: RDV is standard operating procedure in the US, but everyone I talk to says it doesn’t work and is much more likely to kill patients than save them. Doctors are forced to give it by hospital policy.
- Social distancing doesn’t work: The MIT study came out in April, 2021 that showed social distancing makes no difference. 6 feet or 60 feet made no difference. People still haven’t figured this out.
Do face masks make you more attractive?
By James Townsend | January 18, 2022
Cardiff University published a news story on their website about a new scientific study suggesting “protective face masks make wearers look more attractive”. It was framed around experts finding a “surprising new reason to mask up”.
At the time of writing this, the study had been covered in media in six different countries, spanning print, online, broadcast, & radio — the whole spectrum of earned media. Sky News framed their coverage most positively and put forward that people previously reluctant to wear one “may change their minds” thanks to this academic discovery.
The headlines all scream in unison: face masks make you look more attractive – ‘The Science’ says so. A resounding success for the Cardiff Uni team!
Knowing that many who wear masks do so under duress, and then accounting for the significant proportion of the population who hate the very concept of them, I immediately smelt a rat. Besides which, even if you agree with their usage from a public health point-of-view, it is surely a stretch of anyone’s imagination to claim that most people find a germ-ridden mouth blanket more attractive than being exposed to a naked face? Nonetheless, that’s what the scientists were claiming.
In this weird, post-Covid world where fiction is often pushed as fact, I decided to do what any journalist worth their salt would do, and explore the veracity of such claims.
Various articles only quoted Dr Lewis directly from the press release, and it was obvious they hadn’t spoken to him. As a journalist, this immediately set alarm bells ringing for me. If they didn’t speak to the lead scientist, did they even read the study? If they didn’t read the study, how can they be sure what they are reporting is correct? What if they missed some crucial context?
Call me old fashioned but I then did what the journalists should have done, and I read the actual study.
Before even clicking onto the study, I already knew from the initial press release that only 43 participants had taken part. Had the group of 43 included women from all walks of life and parts of society, perhaps the small number would have stood up to scrutiny more robustly. So, it was genuinely bemusing to then read that every single participant was a psychology student from the same course being run by the report authors. On top of that, they were 93% white and all aged 18 to 24. No diversity in a small sample to start with, is bad news.
Beautiful Cardiff is the capital city of Mark Drakeford’s Labour-run Wales – a country which has seen and, in many cases, embraced some of the most draconian reactions to this pandemic we have seen; including wearing masks with pride, introducing scientifically illiterate vaccine passports, and even banning people from buying books from supermarkets during the 2020 lockdowns. With this in mind, it’s not beyond the realms of sensible possibility to think that psychology students logging onto their laptops – who, by the way, received “course credits as compensation” for their participation – already knew what the ‘right’ answer was before rating their first masked and unmasked face.
This feeling was confirmed pretty swiftly when I stumbled across what I would describe as the key nugget of information:
It’s little wonder they hid this line at the end of the paper, given it confirms the vast majority of the participants were essentially pro-maskers talking favourably about men in masks.
It is an indictment of the sad state of journalism today that the enthusiastic coverage of this woeful study has not excavated this nugget. One of the reasons I left the newsroom, was the slow transition from journalist to churnalist – churning out other organisations’ press releases rather than discovering your own stories. So, in many respects, I haven’t been surprised to witness what I have since March 2020.
Of course, declining journalistic standards are nothing new and have been apparent for some years. The pandemic has merely shone a light on how dangerously out of control it is, and what a devastating impact it can have on the relationship of trust that should exist between citizens and the people who are employed to disseminate news and information to serve the public interest.
The uncomfortable truth is that agenda-driven scientists sometimes try to prove a pre-determined outcome. Misinformation based on flawed data create headlines around the world. And another ugly truth? Masks don’t make you more attractive.
Fauci reports back to Davos that the US has a Covid “disinformation” problem
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 18, 2022
The annual “globalization ball” in Davos is upon us once again and this year the virtual event has brought together figures such as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical adviser, among others.
Xi opened the World Economic Forum (WEF) gathering with his address, while Fauci spoke later to focus on what he sees as “entirely destructive” Covid misinformation raging in the US.
A comprehensive public health endeavor is made impossible by this kind of misinformation, Fauci said. He should feel right at home at the Davos summit given his previous remarks about the need for radical changes in rebuilding the infrastructure of human existence – something reports see as close to the thinking of WEF’s own Klaus Schwab and his controversial musings found in the “Great Reset” initiative presented last year.
Fauci made those comments in 2020, in a paper he co-authored, titled, “Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19,” calling for changes in human behavior and “other radical changes” in order to live “in greater harmony with nature,” which he appears to believe would stand in the way of future pandemics such as the never-ending one we are experiencing now.
He at the time proposed focusing on “a transformation” that will change human behavior by reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places, among other things.
But just as Fauci now once again insists that a dangerous online misinformation campaign is hampering efforts to combat the pandemic, more and more scientists and health officials are reversing course on policies, like lockdowns, vaccination, masking, and coronavirus origin. Until recently, skepticism of those would have been immediately branded as misinformation or worse still, a conspiracy theory.
Featured Video
Israel and the Palestinians — It’s about Mind Over Matter
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker
- Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward
- Israeli forces raid Syria’s Dara’a, Quneitra countryside, set up checkpoints
- If Americans Knew
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- In Gaza, 17,000 infections linked to rodents and external parasites – Daily Update
- Lobby group taking journalists on propaganda tours of Israel
- The Shattered Figure of Jesus Is Not an Exception. It’s a Pattern
- Israel’s idea of ceasefire includes killing 21 in one day – Daily Update
- Christians in Israel and Palestine, past and present
- Israel eager to restart Iran war, Gaza genocide – Daily Update
- Meet the Top “Content” Producers Linked to Canary Mission
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 