Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK Government Hires Men to Stand in Public with TV on Head for Pandemic Propaganda

Britain’s bizarre ‘Robocop-like’ walking propaganda digital billboards (Image Credit: Gomo Digital)
21st Century News Wire | January 12, 2021

In one of the most desperate and bizarre moves yet, a local government in the UK has begun recruiting men to walking the streets with TVs strapped over their heads, supposedly to help police during a highly unpopular lockdown.

Bradford Council in Yorkshire announced their new ‘iWalkers’ scheme, where local council staff and volunteers are deployed onto the streets with a 19 inch screen weighing 18 lbs, mounted on their shoulders.

According to reports, the program ran for two days before it began to go horribly wrong. The government scheme was so ridiculous, residents thought it might have been satire at first, or a prank, not believing that the local government had lost the plot to such a degree. When they realized the plan was actually a real government initiative, the public backlash was severe, and so embarrassed council officials panicked and removed their Facebook post detailing their ‘exciting new program.’

A number of outrageous comments, both in person and online, were hurled at the walking Robocop-like human propaganda digital billboards

These real-life Teletubies were supposed to be walking the city and town streets, wearing masks, while their TV’s would be pushing out government propaganda on COVID, designed by a government behavioural insights team and applied behavioural psychologists – to nudge residents into tighter lockdown compliance, and to keep the public abreast of minute-to-minute ever-changing “coronavirus rules and restrictions.”

According to reports, the cost of Bradford’s COVID Teletubies is being paid for through Government funding of “Covid-19 communications.”

Local government officials denied they had deleted their new initiative because of public embarrassment, and instead claimed that it was suddenly taken down because of public comments that supposedly “crossed the line into abuse of people who are working hard to help residents and workers in Bradford District stay safe and stop the spread of the virus.”

The incident comes at a bad time for local councils who have recently decreed that they will be squeezing the working class even more by raising their council taxes (aka poll tax) – all of this amid a steep economic depression instigated by the reactionary COVID lockdown policies of the UK government.

Government officials tried to justify the expensive theme park-style stunt by saying that, “There are still many key workers in the city who may wish to get some information on testing where testing sites are close by and it’s really important that we have people out on the streets who can provide this.”

The Orwellian saga continues…

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

US Prof Faces ‘Cancellation’ For Teaching Students to Question Propaganda Amid COVID-19

© CC BY 3.0 / The Open Center
By Mohamed Elmaazi . Sputnik . 12.01.2021

Hostility to dissenting perspectives has become increasingly recorded over the past few years, but particularly since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. One apparent victim of this shrinking space for differing views is a US professor who teaches a class on propaganda in New York City.

For years, Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, has been teaching a course on propaganda, during which he encourages students to question dominant ways of thinking being pushed by media and via the government. However, Professor Miller has recently found his post at NYU to be under threat, despite having a secured tenured position, after he was accused of discouraging students from wearing masks, a charge he vigorously denies.

In a detailed interview, Professor Miller explains to Sputnik the background of his case as well as what it represents in an age where freedom of speech and academic independence appear to be under increasing attack amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sputnik: Explain your role as a professor at NYU and the kinds of courses that you teach.

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: I’ve been teaching media studies at NYU since 1997, after 20 years at [University of Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1983] and then Johns Hopkins [until 1997]. At NYU I’ve mainly taught a course on propaganda, and a course on film, as well as “The Culture Industries”, which looks into the pressures faced by people trying to do good work in journalism, entertainment and the arts.

The courses are all quite popular with students, whose reviews are, for the most part, very positive. This fact is highly relevant to my predicament at NYU right now.

Sputnik: You’ve recently found yourself in a difficult situation after a student filed a complaint against you. Could you describe what led to this current situation?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: In late September, a student in my propaganda course was enraged by my encouraging the class to look into the scientific basis for the mask mandates—specifically, eight randomised, controlled studies, conducted among healthcare professional over the last 15 years or so, finding that masks and respirators are ineffective against transmission of respiratory viruses; and, on the other hand, the more recent studies finding otherwise. (I offered some suggestions as to how laypersons might assess such studies: by reading scientific reviews, and by noting the universities where the latter studies were conducted, to see if they have financial ties to Big Pharma and/or the Gates Foundation). I offered this as an example of how one must study propaganda—by looking into what a given propaganda drive blacks out or misreports, reviewing all the pertinent information, and deciding for oneself what’s true, or likely to be true.

The student who flipped out did not speak up in class, but, a few days later, took the Twitter, to demand that NYU fire me, over my “excessive amount of scepticism around health professionals”, and the “harm” that I was posing to the students’ health. (I’d made quite clear, in class, that I was not telling them not to wear masks—NYU has a strict rule, which I observe myself—but that this was an intellectual exercise, of the sort essential to the study of propaganda.) She also took screen shots of several posts on my website, News from Underground (markcrispinmiller.com), and presented them as all self-evidently false, asserting that they came from “conspiracy and far right websites”.

Sputnik: How has the university dealt with the complaint? What’s the current situation now in respect of your position at the university?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: The student (by her own account) first tried to get some satisfaction from the Office of Equal Opportunity, demanding that they take some action. They told her, rightly, that they had no grounds for doing so; so she went public—whereupon the university, or at least my corner of it, quickly took her side, in three ways.

First, my department chair immediately tweeted his thanks for her complaint, and added: “We as a department have made this a priority, and are discussing next steps”. This was news to me, since I’m a long-time member of that department, but I was not included in whatever meeting led the chair to take that step.

The next day, the dean of the Steinhardt School (in which I teach), and the doctor who advises NYU on its COVID regulations, emailed my other students—without putting me on copy—to indicate that I had given them dangerous information, and to direct them to (what the dean and doctor called) “authoritative” studies finding that masks are effective barriers to SARS-COV-2, and sternly reminding them that they must wear masks on campus (as if I’d told them not to). Again, I too had urged the class to read those further studies; but I didn’t tell them what to think. (I’d also pointed out, in class, that the CDC—the source of those links to the “authoritative” studies—had, until early April, publicly repeated the consensus of the prior studies that I had encouraged the class to read).

@nyuniversity: an MCC tenured professor spent an entire class period telling students that wearing masks doesn’t prevent the spread of COVID-19, and that hydroxychloroquine trials were made to fail so more people would be given the vaccine and have their DNA changed. thread 1/

— Julia Jackson (@julia_jacks) September 21, 2020

​Finally, my chair then pressured me to cancel my propaganda course for next semester, urging that it would be better for the department if, instead, I’d teach two sections of my film course, because, he said, my film courses have high enrollments. The problem with that rationale is that my film and propaganda courses are the same size, with both of them ordinarily full up, and students wait-listed for both. Because of that, and since I’ve long taught the propaganda course at least twice a year (and think that it’s especially relevant right now), I didn’t want to do that; but I was told I had no choice, which, technically, was true.

This experience prompted me to put up a petition, in defence of academic freedom and free speech, simply urging NYU to respect my academic freedom; although I posted the petition not just on my own behalf, but in the name of all professors, journalists, scientists, doctors, activists and whistle-blowers who’ve been gagged, or punished for their dissidence on topics of all kinds, for decades, and especially this year. The petition quickly garnered many signatures from people all over the world (to date, it has been signed by over 27,000 people), including many eminent figures, including Seymour Hersh, James K. Galbraith, Sharyl Attkisson, Rashid Khalidi (Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Oliver Stone, and Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng; and it also drew a public statement of support from Ralph Nader.

Then the drive against me escalated.

Calling the petition “an attack on the department”, a large group of my colleagues sent a letter to the dean, demanding “an expedited review” of my “conduct”, on the grounds not only of my heresy on masks (claiming that I had discouraged their use, and “intimidated” students who wore them), but, primarily, because of my history of abusiveness and lunacy in the classroom (and beyond). They charged me with “explicit hate speech”, “attacks on students and others in our community”, “advocating for an unsafe learning environment”, “aggressions and microaggressions”, and other crimes. Although the letter is completely false on every point it makes, the dean—prompted by NYU’s lawyers—went right ahead and ordered that “review”, which is, as of today, ongoing (although it was supposed to end with last semester).

I sent my colleagues a point-by-point rebuttal, asking for a retraction and apology. They ignored that request, and my follow-up email; so I decided that I had no choice but to sue them for libel, as their letter makes quite clear that their intention is to nullify my academic freedom, presumably so as to get me fired (just as that student had demanded). There’s a GoFundMe page soliciting donations, to help me pay for this legal effort.

Sputnik: Have your other students been at all supportive of you?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: Yes. In response to my colleagues’ letter, and the dean’s review, many students, current and former, as well as visitors to my classes over the years, have sent strong statements of support to the dean’s office, pointedly rebutting my colleagues’ preposterous charges. Over 50 such statements have so far come in, attesting to my tolerance, open-mindedness and—above all—effectiveness as a professor, and the importance of my propaganda classes in particular. That outpouring is the only upside to this dismal situation.

Sputnik: To what extent is your situation unique and to what extent does it represent a broader culture of censorship or intimidation within academic institutions?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: As the petition makes clear, my plight is only one of countless others throughout academia—and not just there. Academic freedom and free speech have actually been under slow assault for decades, as many urgent subjects have long since been declared taboo as mere “conspiracy theory”, so that any professors or journalists (or, for that matter, entertainers) who dare look into them risk their careers. Since that mode of censorship began in 1967, another, more explicit kind emerged with the ferocious appropriation of “social justice” as a means of “cancelling” dissident expression on a range of other urgent subjects, so that anyone who questions certain pieties is charged with “hate speech”. And this year has seen a third line of attack, as the COVID crisis has entailed much of the sort of outright “war-is-peace”/”2+2=5” propaganda that Orwell satirised in Nineteen Eighty-Four, with bald lies on every aspect of the crisis pumped out by “authoritative” health officials, and the media, always in the name of “science”.

And so the truth on many subjects, and those trying to express it, or even study it, are under fierce assault on one or more of those three grounds; and I see myself as under fire on all three bases. My colleagues charge that I make “non-evidence-based” assertions in my classes (a striking accusation, in a letter whose every claim is based, demonstrably, on no evidence whatsoever); assert that I engage in “explicit hate speech” (which I’ve never done, in class or anywhere else); and cast me as a risk to public health, for urging students to look into the scientific basis for the mask mandates, then make up their own minds.

This assault, I think, makes my case an important flashpoint in the larger struggle—now a global struggle—for academic freedom and free speech, at a time when both are under existential threat. I therefore hope that people will continue to support me, as well as others in my situation, in any way they can.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

2021: THE BRIGHT SIDE

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 8, 2021

The story they missed in DC; Covid injuries and deaths have begun; New Strain, New Pain; Doctor exposes testing and asymptomatic transmission; A glimmer of hope

January 11, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Clean Energy Hydro Plant In Canada Dubbed A “Boondoggle” After Economists Predict $8 Billion In Losses

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 11, 2021

British Columbia is currently in the process of trying to erect a massive hydro dam called the “Site C Clean Energy Project” on the Peace River. The point of erecting the dam was to implement the province’s “green and clean” energy policy and try to create alternative clean energy while lowering carbon emissions.

But the economic price, and lackluster progress of the project had one op-ed in the Financial Post calling the project a “hydro power boondoggle” that “shows real cost of ‘clean’ energy”.

The project has been under construction since 2015, the op-ed notes, and more than $6 billion has already been sunk into it. Despite this, there have been numerous problems identified with the project:

Under foot, according to Premier John Horgan, “there is instability on one of the banks of the river.”  Early last year B.C. Hydro identified “structural weaknesses” in the project, which has been under construction since 2015. Site C is also said to suffer from “weak foundations.”  Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer recently reported that new information on the precariousness of the project, structurally and financially…

The op-ed asks whether or not it is time for the province to simply cut their losses and abandon the job, which would likely need at least another $6 billion to complete.

A review of the project by three Canadian economists say “yes” and have concluded that “the whole project is uneconomic as an energy source and fails its major green and clean promise, which is to reduce carbon emissions.”

Photo: Financial Post

The breakdown of the numbers by the economists show how inefficient the project truly is:

The worst numbers in the study: the total present value of the electricity produced from Site C is estimated at $2.76 billion against an estimated total cost of $10.7 billion, implying a loss of $8 billion. That’s bad. However, if the project were cancelled now, the loss would be cut in half to maybe $4.5 billion. The economists conclude that “policy makers should stop throwing money at a project that is likely to end up under water.”

The economists found that the only way the hydro plant could be worth it, monetarily, would be in conjunction with a “massive national overhaul of the Canadian electricity system”:

“In summary, we find that Site C can offer value, but only if the provinces aim for near complete electricity system de-carbonization and only if new transmission between provinces can be built to enable greater inter-provincial electricity trade. Decisions about the future of Site C should be made in this light; if it is not possible to commit to fully decarbonizing electricity generation, and if prospects for inter-provincial transmission are low, Site C offers little value in comparison to its costs. In contrast, if B.C. and Alberta are committed to achieving a zero-carbon electricity system, and building new inter-provincial transmission lines is feasible, then Site C can offer value in excess of its costs.”

In light of there being a very small chance of that happening, it seems like the obvious decision to simply shut the project down and save several billion dollars.

And of course, it comes as no surprise to us that such a project is horribly cost inefficient. Because if it wasn’t, the free market would have put hydro electric plants to work a long time ago. In other words, the free market shut this project down before it ever even started. 

But instead, we get another real life example of how virtue signaling and petty worries over carbon emissions – which are all trending the in the “right” direction globally anyway – lead to frivolous spending, funded by the taxpayer.

We hope B.C. remembers this if Elon Musk ever comes calling, looking for property to build his next solar roof tile factory…

You can read further analysis of the project and the full op-ed here.

January 11, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

24 Dead and 137 Infected at NY Nursing Home After Experimental COVID Injections

Nursing Home had Zero Coronavirus Deaths Before “Vaccination”

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | January 10, 2021

Things seem to be working backwards at The Commons on St. Anthony nursing home in Auburn, New York. Vaccinating people is supposed to reduce or end coronavirus deaths. Right? But, at The Commons, such deaths are reported to have occurred only after residents began receiving coronavirus vaccinations.

James T. Mulder wrote Saturday at syracuse.com that until December 29 there had been no coronavirus deaths at The Commons. December 29, when deaths of residents with coronavirus began occurring at The Commons, is also, Mulder’s article discloses, seven days days after the nursing home began giving coronavirus vaccinations to residents, with 80 percent of residents so far having been vaccinated.

Over a period of less than two weeks since December 29, Mulder relates that 24 coronavirus-infected residents at the 300-bed nursing home have died.

Is the timing just a strange coincidence?

Read Mulder’s article here.

This is the penultimate paragraph of Mulder’s article, where vaccinations at The Commons is mentioned:

The nursing home began vaccinating residents Dec. 22. So far 193 residents, or 80%, and 113 employees, or less than half the staff, have been vaccinated. The nursing home plans to do more vaccinations Jan. 12.

January 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies) .

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr | Children’s Health Defense | April 16, 2020

On March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson said to the viewing audience, “And, again, if you are concerned about coronavirus, and you haven’t gotten a flu shot…you should get a flu shot.”

Setting safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination aside, is Anderson’s claim that the flu shot will help people fight COVID-19 remotely true? The short answer is no.

In fact, the results of many peer-reviewed, published studies prove that Anderson’s recommendation may have been the worst advice he could have given the public.

In searching the literature, the only study we have been able to find assessing flu shots and coronavirus is a 2020 US Pentagon study that found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…” Here are the findings:

2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36% 

Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.

Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections from the flu shot:

2018 CDC Study: Flu shots increase risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in children

This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among children <18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.

2011 Australian Study: Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73%

A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections. Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73%.

2012 Hong Kong Study: Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections

A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of non-influenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83).

2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children

Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.

2014 Study: Influenza-vaccinated children were 1.6 times more likely than unvaccinated children to have a non-influenza “Influenza-like-illness” (ILI)

Even more published science

The well-respected Cochrane Collaboration’s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has “no effect” on hospitalization, and that there is “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.” The Cochrane Researchers concluded that the scientific evidence “seem[s] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.” 

In their meta-analysis, the Cochrane researchers accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their universal influenza vaccination recommendation. Nevertheless, CNN and other mainstream media outlets continually broadcast CDC pronouncements as gospel and, ironically, ridicules those of us who actually read the science as “purveyors of ‘vaccine misinformation”.

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.

January 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Interview About the International Lawsuits: “This Is Like World War III, Probably Worse”

TruthComestoLight | December 21, 2020

As a service to protect and share the truth, this video is mirrored here from FranceSoir YouTube channel.

All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video.

Find and support their work here:
https://www.franceso…

January 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

How the White House COVID Task Force Sank the Trump Presidency

By Jordan Schachtel | The American Institute for Economic Research | January 8, 2021

President Trump took in the early days of 2020 from a position of incredible strength.  At the beginning of the year, no serious analyst would have told you that he was in major jeopardy of losing the 2020 election. The American economy was booming, we had solid employment numbers, no major international crises, and the president was setting up a bold agenda for his second term to further “drain the swamp” and bolster his domestic policy priorities. Election fraud was always a potential factor to be monitored, but there was no massive, unprecedented mail-in voting scheme to worry about.

But news reports coming out of Wuhan, China indicated that a potentially threatening situation was afoot. On January 29, President Trump acted with haste in authorizing the creation of a White House Coronavirus Task Force. A month later, the small task force expanded to include Vice President Mike Pence as its chairman. In what will be looked back on as a catastrophic delegation mistake, the VP decided to appoint Dr. Deborah Birx as the response coordinator for the task force. Prior to the COVID crisis, Birx was best known for her work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine, which does not exist. She had never been anywhere near having access to the levers of power in America.

The COVID task force would soon grow to 27 members, but several of the individuals appointed to the task force are cabinet level officials, and could not devote their entire portfolio to the coronavirus. That led to an opening that allowed for Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr Deborah Birx, CDC Director Robert Redfield, Surgeon General Jerome Adams, and a few others to monopolize the policy shop set up by the task force for the coronavirus crisis.

With much of the world succumbing to total fear, panic, and hysteria, and a wave of new lockdowns hitting Europe and elsewhere, President Trump remained incredibly level-headed. In discussing COVID-19, the president reminded his colleagues that the “cure could not be worse than the disease.” There was a chance that America would join Sweden and a handful of other nations balking at the trend to hit the self-destruct button.

Fauci and Birx had other plans, and they eventually found a diabolical method to ratchet up the pressure to such an incredible extent that the president would finally agree to their demands.

In mid March, with the “European wave” in full swing, the two government bureaucrats presented junk epidemiological models to the president that seemed more like a hostage-like situation than policy advice. Birx and Fauci vouched for the supposed science of a mere model devised by a handful of academics in England, which claimed that millions of Ameicans would die if President Trump did not lock down the nation immediately. The coronavirus was presented as a ticking time bomb that would wipe out a significant percentage of the nation if the president did not act right away. Under enormous pressure to “do something” to react to the crisis, the president made the fatal mistake of agreeing to what was advertised as a very temporary two week lockdown policy initiative. At the flip of a switch, the president authorized the federal response plan, and state governors were now instituting what was marketed as a 15 day reset in order to retain hospital capacity for the supposedly deadly wave that was coming to America. We were told that after the two weeks, things could then return to normal and that the 30 million small businesses across America would be able to open back up relatively unscathed.

15 Days to Slow The Spread then became 30 Days To Slow The Spread. The so-called crisis kept growing to the point that the task force members were soon not even addressing the end point to their draconian policy demands. The president, who already had severe doubts about the policies pushed by Fauci, Birx, Redfield, and crew, eventually acceded so much territory to the public health bureaucrats that it seemed at times he had handed over the keys to his presidency to the task force.

The Fauci-Birx policy goal posts continued to shift dramatically over the course of the Spring. The goals were no longer about retaining hospital capacity, but permanently transforming the nation into a COVID safety regime, despite the data rolling in showing a disease that was not nearly as threatening as once perceived. The U.S. economy was no longer booming. Instead, it was in a self-inflicted freefall. Tens of millions of Americans were in crisis, and right in the middle of what was now a heated election cycle. The health bureaucrats’ coronavirus policies were tearing apart the fabric of the nation, and the presidency was now very much up for grabs. The president could no longer point to his economic record, his peacetime regime, or his steady hand, because all of these talking points were being compromised by bad coronavirus policies.

All of a sudden, the president was now on defense, having completely lost the narrative to the panic mongers in government and media. The 2020 campaign was very much within the margins of a contested election.

President Trump, having privately evolved to “Team Reason” on COVID policy, and having witnessed the reality that the coronavirus was not living up to its destructive hype once promised by Fauci and Birx, wanted to take action to correct the record.

He tried to reset the narrative and bring back a reasonable, rational policy, but it was too late. America had already decided to buy the pseudoscience that Fauci and Birx, among others, were selling to them.  It was no longer politically suitable to simply dismiss his prior capitulation to the public health bureaucrats on his task force. Fauci had become a worshipped celebrity figure with solid approval ratings, and sadly, much of the nation was now propagandized into supporting the disastrous lockdowns that were destroying the nation.

Many on the “Team Reason” side of the debate celebrated the appointment of Dr. Scott Atlas, — at the personal request of President Trump — as a desperately needed breath of fresh air for a task force that was peddling failed ideas and junk science. But Atlas, to no fault of his own, failed to make an impact on the task force. That’s because the fix was in from the beginning. The team assembled by VP Pence, which at this point was unapologetically, publicly recommending an extreme COVID policy agenda of economic and societal destruction, went to work immediately to distance themselves from Atlas, and waged a full fledged information warfare campaign against him.

Sources in the Trump Administration, who had first-hand access to Coronavirus Task Force meetings and conversations, made it clear to me that the health bureaucrats made it their mission to destroy and delegitimize Scott Atlas, who quietly resigned from his role in late November. Sources familiar with Atlas’s thought process told me that he was incredibly frustrated by the government bureaucrats’ devotion to their select non pharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and other forms of societal and economic devastation. Atlas also remained frustrated by what could be described as a lack of overall intellect on the task force.

Emails surfaced showing that White House Task Force members such as Birx, Fauci, Redfield, and others were enraged that Dr Atlas came to the table with a different set of ideas, and they rightly perceived him as a threat to their monopoly on their pro-lockdown COVID messaging campaigns. Birx, for her part, routinely sent out emails through private channels to media reporters and her colleagues seeking to undermine the ideas presented by Atlas, while simultaneously refusing to defend her ideas or debate his solutions in person.

By the time President Trump decided to rebuke the task force in calling for an expedited return to normalcy, the political damage had already been done. The president’s campaign messaging was stuck in a strange place between attempting to have their COVID cake and eat it too, in recognizing that polling shifted in the direction of the restrictionist camp.

By agreeing to Fauci and Birx’s initial COVID ransom situation demands, the president set in motion a wave of momentum against him that he could never get back.

We are now just days away from President Trump being replaced by Joe Biden, and the White House COVID Task Force, led by career bureaucrats and incompetent politicians, continues its broken mission. For reasons that remain unclear, Fauci, Birx, and the gang remain on the COVID Task Force, and to this day, the White House is still delivering corona panic to states across the nation. The Task Force will live on, and to the not-so-hidden delight of its members, President Trump is president no more.

January 8, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Focus on Fauci

New Earth Pulse | January 5, 2021

Clarion Call Outlining the Crimes Against Humanity with host Sacha Stone and guests Dr Judy Mikovits, David Martin, Robert F. Kennedy and Rocco Gallati.

January 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Omaha World-Herald Gets Facts Wrong Blaming Mild Nebraska Drought on Climate Change

By H. Sterling Burnett | ClimateRealism | January 6, 2021

A story in the Omaha World-Herald, titled “Drought, wildfires are Nebraska’s top weather stories of 2020,” asserts climate change caused unusual drought in Nebraska last year. In reality, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data show Nebraska is benefiting from a long-term increase in precipitation, even if occasional drought still exists. Global warming may not completely end drought in Nebraska, but drought is becoming less frequent and less severe as the Earth modestly warms.

The World-Herald article states, “At the start of 2020, not an acre of Nebraska was in drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Now, more than 99% of Nebraska is in drought, with half in severe to extreme drought. The state hasn’t seen a drought this extensive since the flash drought of 2012 lingered into 2013, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, based at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.”

“Through November, Nebraska was in the midst of its 15th driest year out of 126,” the World-Herald article added.

As the World-Herald admits, Nebraska had not experienced substantial drought during the previous seven years, and 2020 was not even in the top 10 percent of historic droughts. That is hardly the sign of unusual drought, let alone drought caused by climate change.

Indeed, NOAA precipitation data (see the two NOAA charts, below) show Nebraska is enjoying both a long-term increase in precipitation and a medium-term increase in precipitation. If all trends show more precipitation and less drought, how can one blame the few remaining droughts that occur on climate change?

Also, NOAA data (see the NOAA chart below) show no increase in hot summer temperatures. Indeed, hot summer days were much more prevalent throughout the first half of the 20th century than has been the case in recent years and decades. This also contradicts any assertion of more Nebraska drought.

The World-Herald cites a single source, Nebraska state climatologist Martha Shulksi, for the claim that climate change is causing more weather extremes, including drought. But even Shulksi noted, “weather extremes are normal in Nebraska because the state sits at the crossroads of continental climate patterns.” And, of course, 2020 wasn’t even that extreme – it was a fairly typical dry year.

Had the World-Herald examined Nebraska’s drought history for context, it would have found that research published by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) states, “It is important to remember that droughts, including multiple-year droughts, are a normal part of Nebraska’s climate.”

The data graphically displayed in Figure 1 in IANR’s paper, “Multiple-Year Droughts In Nebraska,” show no increasing trend in the frequency or intensity of droughts in Nebraska over the past century, nor does it display an increased tendency for Nebraska to swing from weather extremes, wet to dry, year to year.

Data in the paper do show, by contrast, that since 1220 A.D., Nebraska has experienced 11 droughts of more than 10 years in length, but only one since 1900, and that one, ending in 1931, was 90 years of global warming ago. Indeed, Nebraska’s lengthiest droughts occurred before 1700, in the midst of the Little Ice Age, with six droughts surpassing 18 years in length during a 400-year period of cooler temperatures. Nebraska’s lengthiest droughts spanned 38 years (1275 to 1313) and 26 years (1539 to 1564), while the Earth was cooling in the Little Ice Age. Nebraska’s last drought of greater than 10 years in length ended in 1895, which was near the end of the Little Ice Age.

Data from NOAA and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), discussed in Climate at a Glance: Drought, also demonstrate drought has not become more frequent or severe in recent decades in either the United States or across the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

Indeed, the IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally. Also, NOAA reports that the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions. In 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.

The Omaha World-Herald may be looking to sell newspapers, but it should act responsibly and not attempt to do so by publishing false and sensationalist claims about extreme drought conditions – assertedly caused by human-caused climate change – that simply do not exist.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Cold Autumn Kills Thousands of Birds – Media Blame Global Warming

By James Taylor | ClimateRealism | January 6, 2021

Google News and the corporate media are promoting claims that global warming caused the deaths of thousands of birds after a cold early autumn induced the birds to migrate south before they were ready. As common sense would suggest, the assertion that global warming causes colder early-autumn temperatures is false, contrary to climate activists’ own predictions, and ridiculous.

In early autumn, people in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona reported nearly 10,000 birds – an unusually high number – to the wildlife mortality database. Scientists discovered that most were migratory birds that had died of starvation. The birds typically migrate south later in the year, but early cold weather in the Upper Midwest, Canada, and Alaska induced the birds to migrate prior to their normal migration, and prior to building up sufficient weight and strength for the migration.

“It’s really hard to attribute direct causation, but given the close correlation of the weather event with the death of these birds, we think that either the weather event forced these birds to migrate prior to being ready, or maybe impacted their access to food sources during their migration,” Jonathan Sleeman, director of the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, told the UK Guardian.

Climate activists and their media allies were quick to blame global warming for the cold early autumn that led to the bird deaths.

“The unseasonably cold weather that northern states experienced early this year also worsened the die-off, causing earlier-than-usual bird migrations,” reported NBC television station KPNX in Phoenix.

“Two experts from Arizona State University see the report as another tragedy in the multiple climate change issues the state is facing,” KPNX added.

According to the UK Guardian, the bird deaths were “made worse by unseasonably cold weather probably linked to the climate crisis, scientists have said.”

Google News is promoting the Guardian article among its top search results today under “climate change.”

Climate activists have in the past attempted to blame very cold winters on global warming, but they had not previously blamed cold autumns on global warming. Indeed, climate activists have previously claimed exactly the opposite. For example, in November 2019 Yale Climate Communications published an article titled, “How is climate change affecting autumn? As temperatures warm, the fall season has been delayed.” As another example, Climate Communications published an article titled, “Autumn Falling Back.” The theme of these and many other articles is that global warming is delaying, not accelerating, the onset of cold autumn weather.

No, Google News, global warming does not cause the early onset of cold autumn temperatures, even if the cold temperatures cause politically convenient bird deaths.

James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Is Forever Mass-Vaxxing the New Abnormal?

By Stephen Lendman | January 6, 2021

You’ve been diabolically lied to and deceived by a tyranny-supporting troika comprised of Western regimes, Big Pharma and their media press agents.

Covid is seasonal flu/influenza by another name, worlds apart from how it’s portrayed.

It shows up annually during cold weather months — unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass hysteria, a daily media promoted blitzkrieg of mass deception.

Endless promoting of what’s harmful to human health will surely continue in the new year — selling snake oil vaccines that contain an alphabet soup menu of dangerous toxins, some revealed, others hidden.

Annual flu shots do more harm and good and should be avoided to protect health and well-being.

Vaccines are far worse because of a menu of highly toxic ingredients.

Experimental covid ones may be most dangerous of all.

All vaccines are hazardous to human health. Instead of shielding from diseases as falsely claimed, they risk outbreaks of what they’re supposed protect against.

They also create customers for more drugs, the greater the number taken, the higher the risk of other illnesses, the more sickness industry profits.

Misnaming it Western healthcare is part of diabolical mass deception.

Wellness isn’t profitable. Big Pharma and large hospital chains need widespread illnesses to prosper.

Vaccines for covid enable Pharma to cash in big on a bonanza of profits — at the expense of human health and well-being.

I’ve covered all of the above before and will again because it’s important to combat mass deception by ruling regimes that are supposed to be serving and protecting public health, wellness, and safety but go the other way for their own self-interest.

They’re public enemies, not allies. Knowledge is self-protection, what’s essential to have and act accordingly to keep from being irreparably harmed by mass-vaxxing that doesn’t protect.

Outbreaks of seasonal flu/influenza — disguised as covid this year — showed up in mutated strains as it does every year.

It’s why annual flu shots in the US are for one or more strains that are different from previous years.

What’s true for flu shots (vaccines by another name) applies to mass-vaxxing for covid.

Emergency authorization use granted Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca entries in the covid vaccine sweepstakes will likely be granted for vaccines in development for new seasonal flu/covid strains called covid in the weeks and months ahead.

It’s another version of annually promoted flu shots except that they’re a one-time single shot routine each year for believers.

Multiple strains of seasonal flu showed up this year, more emerging, what happens most all years.

Mass-vaxxing for covid requires multiple shots — two initially, then more with newly developed vaccines for new strains as they emerge that may be bioengineered bioweapons that will harm, not protect human health.

The process is designed to be endless — forever mass-vaxxing for unwitting guinea pigs.

The more shots given, the more profitable to Pharma’s bottom line — the more harm to people taken in by the scam it’s vital to avoid to stay well instead of risking potentially serious illnesses from vaccine toxins.

New covid strains in Britain, South Africa, India, and more surely on the way are part of the diabolical scheme — promoting endless mass-vaxxing henceforth with hazardous to human health toxins.

In late December, Pandemic News.com reported that Pharma is developing new vaccines for newly “concoct(ed)” covid strains to be mass-marketed by stepped up fear-mongering.

The scheme may continue ad infinitum unless through knowledge from reliable sources most people reject it.

The WHO is part of the scam. Days earlier, it warned that covid is “not necessarily the big one,” adding: We must learn to live with covid — without explaining it’s seasonal flu that shows up annually like clockwork, unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass-hysteria.

According to epidemiologist/chair of the WHO’s strategic and technical advisory group for infectious hazards Dr. David Heymann:

“It appears that (covid) is to become endemic (and) will continue to mutate as it reproduces in human cells.”

“Fortunately, we have tools (that) permit us to learn to live with Covid-19.”

WHO emergencies program director Dr. Mike Ryan said it’s likely that covid will become an “endemic virus” that can be treated by mass-vaxxing each time new strains emerge.

WHO chief scientist Dr Soumya Swaminathan said social distancing may not “be able to be stopped in the future” because of continued emergence of new viral strains.

Lockdowns when ordered, quarantines, face masks and social distancing as a permanent way of like is what dystopian social control is all about — sacrificing freedom to a totalitarian higher power.

It appears that made-in-the USA covid, economic collapse, and medical tyranny are intended to be longterm, not 2020 events to end in the new year.

If things turn out this way that’s likely, it’s a new abnormal to be feared and rebelled against, not accepted.

Was 2020 a test run to learn whether most Americans, others in the West and elsewhere will accept dystopian harshness or resist?

The latter is sparse. Stepping it up is crucial.

The alternative is the worst of Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s brave new world — ruler/serf societies in the West and elsewhere controlled by police state harshness.

We have a choice. Resist or capitulate to tyranny that won’t end in our lifetime.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »