The Infuriating Climate Alarm
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | August 8, 2023
In the UK, we all know that this summer has been rubbish. We had a few weeks of glorious sunshine in June and since then it’s been bloody miserable. It’s been cold, wet and the dog has got trench-foot. Which isn’t great because he stinks at the best of times—bless him.
Yet, according to the UN Secretary General and blithering buffoon, António Guterres, we’ve entered the “era of global boiling.” Though not in the UK—or anywhere else for that matter
Just as we were during the pseudopandemic, we are once again invited to reject the evidence of our own senses and “trust” whatever we are told by the “experts,” although Guterres is not a meteorologist. Mind you, Bill Gates isn’t an epidemiologist and everyone “trusted” his “expert” opinion during the pseudopandemic, so who cares?
I know! I know! Weather isn’t climate change. While climate constantly changes, the process can only be understood through the accumulation of evidence revealing a highly complex system that is subject to radiative forcing.
It is safe to say that no one who seriously questions “climate change” alarm, denies that climate changes. What they question are the claims made by organisations like the UK Met Office:
The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up.
There isn’t one, published scientific paper, anywhere on Earth, that empirically proves that increased atmospheric CO2 precedes and causes global warming. The evidence is far from “clear.”
Climate change alarmists offer all kinds of convoluted arguments, usually by applying highly questionable statistical models, in their attempt to prove causality. Yet this very basic, empirical scientific proof is notable only for its absence.
But let’s not let scientific facts get in the way of a good story. The planet is boiling I tells ye!
If CO2 is the problem then the solution seems pretty simple, not to mention quite pleasant: plant as many trees as we can, wherever we can, and don’t cut them down to burn in biomass power plants that emit more CO2 than brown-coal fired power stations. But that is not a “solution” that anyone in power is interested in.
If CO2 is the problem then the solution seems pretty simple, not to mention quite pleasant: plant as many trees as we can, wherever we can, and don’t cut them down to burn in biomass power plants that emit more CO2 than brown-coal fired power stations. But that is not a “solution” that anyone in power is interested in.
No, the proposed solution to supposed planetary vaporisation is Sustainable Development debt slavery. Which all raises a few questions about, for example, UK Met Office gibberish. It’s almost as if there’s some sort of agenda at play. Which, of course, there is.
But we’re not going rehash arguments about the climate change woo-woo Science™. There’s no point anyway. Climate change alarm is a death cult, not an exercise in intellectual honesty.
Instead, let’s look at just a few examples of obvious climate alarm tripe. As we do, we’ll also ponder why, if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is so sound, so-called “climate scientists” and the mainstream media—legacy media—feel the need to perpetually lie about its alleged effects.
In 2009, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which provides much of the HadCRUT data underpinning the IPCC’s climate change models, was caught fiddling the climate data in order to “prove” AGW theory.
Scientific fraud was evident and key “climate scientists” involved were subsequently unable to provide any data to support their misleading conclusions. Something that was later proven in court. Yet still the legacy media (LM), in this instance represented by the appalling propagandists at the Guardian, manage to deny the blatant scam.
This is all irrelevant because, irrespective of the fake science, all scientists agree that the planet is being cooked like a hard boiled egg. Except the Nobel laureate physicists who don’t. Oh, and all the other scientists who don’t either.
They are not “real” scientists and therefore must be cancelled and definitely barred from explaining to the IMF that the IPCC’s modelled predictions are drivel. Global financial institutions are set to profit from “da climate Science™” and are not interested in having their plans undermined by pesky, Nobel prize winning scientists.
Gutteres’ boiling planet yarn is based upon the recent LM alarm about the Cerberus and Charon heatwaves that supposedly plagued central and southern Europe. The LM used scary colours on their maps to make sure everyone soiled themselves. As if naming the summer after mythical devil-dogs and boatmen for the dead wasn’t enough.
Reuters said ambulances had been put on standby to rescue people from the sunshine; Sky warned that the fingerprints of climate change were forcing people to “shelter from the heat;” CNN reported that the heat was at “unbearable levels” and the constantly petrified Guardian, alleging that “human-caused climate crisis is supercharging extreme weather around the world,” added:
The European Space Agency (ESA) said the next week could bring the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.
While the Guardian mentioned the ESA, they neglected to report its subsequent data clarification. The ESA made it clear that they were providing satellite readings of “land surface temperatures” not the “air temperatures” that are commonly given in weather reports.
On a hot day, land surface temperatures tend to be considerably higher than air temperatures. The degree of difference varies, depending on numerous factors such as the heat absorption and radiation properties of the surface material and so on. As pointed out by the pro-climate alarm website SkepticalScience :
[. . .] on a sunny day in a heatwave, many land surfaces become hotter than the air – that’s how tarmac can melt in a sunny spot.
Contradicting themselves, and ignoring the ESA clarification completely, SkepticalScience then said that the reported air temperature high of 48.8°C on July 17th “did happen.” However, as pointed out by the genuinely sceptical What’s-Up-With-That (WUWT), this claim presents us with a major conundrum.
The LM consistently reported “air temperatures” that were the same as the ESA’s reported “land surface temperature.” The air temperature should have been notably lower, but wasn’t reported to be so.
Quite simply, that just can not be true. It is all very odd, because the actual recorded air temperatures were lower than those reported by the LM, such as the Guardian and the BBC.
This is not to say that it wasn’t very hot in southern and some parts of central Europe and the US. But the ridiculous, exaggerated LM claims that July was the hottest month in 125,000 years were unmitigated claptrap. As Kit Knightly, writing for the OffGuardian, rightly observed, there is simply no way to know this.
The University of Alabama and Hunstsville (UAH) Global Temperature Record is also a key data set for the IPCC. The UAH measures temperature anomalies and, using this measure—which is not the same as a consistent average—confirmed that July 2023 was the hottest July and the hottest single month since 1979, when satellite records began. Given, for example, that an “air temperature” anomaly of 50°C was recorded in Paris in August 1930—before satellite records began—the “hottest ever” claims don’t remotely stack up, even from an anomaly perspective, and certainly don’t constitute any evidence of the “ravages” of CO2 driven climate change.
Reports from European holiday makers that they had to avoid the midday sun, as they mingled with the crowds enjoying the lovely weather, is hardly a sign of the end-times. Noel Coward wrote the song “Mad Dogs and Englishmen,” advising people to avoid sweltering midday temperatures, in 1931. It went down well because it was funny and something people could relate to. Probably because the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century.
SkepticalScience is among the climate alarm pushers who assert that the heatwave was obviously caused by climate change. As noted by James Corbett and James Even Pilato, that notion is speculative to say the least.
Both NASA and the ESA reported that the Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano eruption in January 2022 increased the amount of stratospheric water vapour by a minimum of 10%, possibly up to 30%. So vast was this expulsion of H2O that it is likely to increase average global temperatures for several years to come.
If you are looking for LM reports on the staggering global climate impact of this event, don’t bother. There aren’t any.
Instead, the BBC, for example, published an article on July 14th 2023 which spoke about the amazing expulsion of lava and ash and the spectacular associated volcanic lightening. They even linked to the NASA report which said the additional volume of atmospheric water vapour was enough to “fill the equivalent of 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.” But the BBC propagandists couldn’t bring themselves to report the rest of the quoted NASA statement, which read:
The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.
Just eleven days later—July 25th—BBC amnesiacs told the world that the European and US heatwaves would have been “near impossible” without climate change. Despite previously citing the NASA and ESA findings which clearly show this claim is totally groundless.
The BBC offered a ludicrous report from World Weather Attribution (WWA)—deceptively calling it a “study”—to supposedly “confirm” that “climate change” had increased the heatwaves by 2.5°C. Based upon nothing but LM reports and speculative computer models, the WWA report was scientifically illiterate dross that presented absolutely no evidence at all to support any of its wacky conclusions.
The Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption and the ESA spawned media “confusion,” over the difference between surface and air temperatures, was entirely ignored by the BBC as it pumped out its climate change propaganda. Rounding off its disinformation, the BBC wrote:
[. . .] increased temperatures from burning fossil fuels was the main driver in the more intense heatwaves.
A conclusion, it is worth reiterating, for which there is no evidence. The BBC’s role is to make you imagine that the evidence exists.
SkepticalScience, which isn’t sceptical enough to explore atmospheric science or check what its scientific sources really said, didn’t deem it necessary to mention any of this either. But it did ram home that anyone who questions climate alarm is a “climate denier”:
People who create and/or circulate such myths are denying plain reality. That reality is that it got extremely hot across southern Europe for a prolonged period in July 2023. Such prolonged heat is a serious health-hazard, never mind the appalling wildfires.
Aah, the wildfires!
Presumably ignited by the 40+°C heat. Or so the LM would have us believe.
Reporting the “end of the world,” the BBC were certain that the “heatwave spreading across Europe is fuelling wildfires in Portugal.” Someone should tell the Portuguese the end of the world is nigh, because comments from people in Portugal during the “catastrophic heatwave” don’t give rise to any cause for alarm.
This is all reminiscent of the climate alarm that spewed out of the LM during the Canadian wildfires in June that sent a pall of smoke across the US eastern seaboard. The New York Times said this provide us with a “grim climate lesson;” CBS said that the fires were started by lightening caused by dry hot weather as “climate change continues to warm the planet” and the always unreliable BBC wrote “climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.”
But the prize for most outstanding baloney must go to the Guardian for its unhinged piece, “Canada’s Wildfires are Part of a New Climate Reality.” Claiming that the fires were the “harbinger of our climate future” and that climate change could “double the acreage burned by wildfires each year,” the Guardian exposed itself when it revealed that its headline “new climate reality” was “sourced” from a tweet by US politician Bernie Sanders. Probably after he read a New York Times or other LM article that told him what to think.
None of these wildly inaccurate LM affirmations were remotely plausible. In a fully referenced article, weather forecaster Chris Martz, outlined the many reasons why there is no foundation for the claims that the Canadian boreal forest wildfires were, in any sense, attributable to CO2 caused “climate change:”
Headlines and armchair experts articulated with boastful confidence that the primary cause of the Canadian fires [. . .] was climate change. Despite the fact these claims are neither supported by the greater body of peer-reviewed work nor the observational record.
The actual reasons for the Canadian wildfires were the encroachment of human settlements into woodland areas—increasing the human ignition risk, decades of poor forestry management and inclement weather conditions that produced the lightening strikes which appeared to simultaneously ignite some of the fires.
Prior to the heat driven thunderstorms, Canada had been experiencing average or below average temperatures for the time of year. As Martz accurately observed:
This justifies the case that the fire weather conditions were a transient response to ongoing weather conditions which primed the environment, not a long-term pattern that could be altered by the climatic base state.
Martz reported the Canadian government’s forest burn area records from 1959 to date. Contrary to all the claims spewed out by LM disinformation agents, the records clearly show that total burn areas and fires peaked in the late 1980s. They have steadily decreased ever since. There is, once again, no correlation with increased CO2 levels nor any evidence linking the boreal wildfires to “climate change.”
Like most people who question climate alarm, Martz is concerned about the environment and recognises that the obsession with CO2 reduction does nothing to address the real environmental problems. He wrote:
Sitting on our hands and blaming climate change for every abnormal environmental event is a waste of time when our efforts would be better spent on addressing how to manage risk and mitigate vulnerabilities.
Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 programme yesterday morning, some numpty—sorry, I didn’t catch her name—claimed that the seas were boiling. Because climate change … Duh! I’m sure she is a learned numpty, but seemingly clueless nonetheless.
This followed on from the usual BBC climate bunk highlighting that Florida seawater surface temperatures had achieved 37.8°C. This, we were authoritatively informed, was all caused by climate change. The Guardian piled in to ramp up the terror. That being said, Guardian columnists also think we should end farming to save the planet, so perhaps taking the Guardian’s word for anything isn’t the wisest course.
Both the BBC and the Guardian had simply parroted a story fed to them by the newswires. There was no more “journalism” than that. They investigated nothing, didn’t verify anything and just published whatever they were told to publish.
The high water temperature reading was taken from just one censor buoy in Manatee Bay, near Key Largo. Writing for WUWT, Jim Steele pointed out that the temperature reading of the same buoy had dropped to 29°C within a day. Other measurement buoys in the surrounding waters were consistently reporting much lower water temperatures. This was due to the fact that the Manatee Bay buoy floats in a sheltered, coastal “solar pond,” largely protected from cold water flows.
If CO2 propelled climate change caused the buoy reading to climb to 37.8°C, then it must have caused it to cool down again the next day. Equally, “climate change” must also be responsible for the much cooler waters surrounding Manatee Bay. This is, of course, an absurd contention. As Steele highlighted:
Clearly those water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.
Clearly! So why couldn’t the LM figure that out? Are they all irretrievably stupid or is there something else going on?
As we noted earlier, weather is not climate change. Except when it’s really hot.
While it was scorching in Europe and the US, the LM regaled us with an slew of climate change fairy tales. However, as soon as the weather in the same European and US regions returned to at or below average temperatures they fell stony silent. According to LM propagandists like the Guardian, “climate change” always reverts back to weather when it is chuffin’ freezing.
Wherever we look, those who are pushing the idea that climate change threatens some sort of cataclysm just can’t stop misleading, manipulating, deceiving and propagandising. The question is why. If we accept that climate change is a concern, why do they feel the need to constantly lie about its alleged impacts?
It is never ending. Frankly, it has become infuriating. Maybe that’s the point.
Every nonsensical climate alarm story we have discussed deploys applied behavioural psychology to convince you to believe evident insanity. You are supposed to unquestioningly accept that the planet is “literally” on fire. Or, as the the UN Secretary General insists for no apparent reason, that the era of “global boiling” is upon us.
We are very close to climate lockdowns to “save the planet.” None of this has anything to do with climate change.
The only thing that is “literally” true is that the net-zero, sustainable development solution is “literal” population control. The mind-bending propaganda can only succeed if you ignore the view from your own window, which invariably reveals that it is actually pissing down.
When the farcical climate lockdowns arrive, may I suggest you dress for the weather, grab a bottle of water, and go out and enjoy yourself. What are they going to do? Lock us up in our own homes again?
I’ll see you out there.
CDC, Pharma Giants Angle for Annual COVID Shots Despite ‘Unclear’ Science
By Monica Dutcher | The Defender | August 7, 2023
The U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wants to know more about plans by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines.
During a July interview with Spectrum News, CDC Director Mandy Cohen said she “anticipate[s] that COVID will become similar to flu shots, where … you get your annual flu shot and you get your annual COVID shot.”
As part of the House investigation into federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates and policies, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) last week sent a letter to Cohen, stating:
“It is unclear if the science supports such a recommendation. If this anticipated CDC recommendation occurs, it will mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccines and the way in which they are utilized.”
Wenstrup requested all documents and communications about any annual — “or any other time-based iteration” — recommendation for COVID-19 booster shots, including correspondence between or among the CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (also under the subcommittee’s investigation), the White House, the CDC Foundation, CDC contractors and any other CDC stakeholders.
Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax are slated in September to release new single-strain COVID-19 shots targeting the Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5. These vaccines are not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but manufacturers are following the June 15 recommendations of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).
The committee of 21 independent advisers in June voted unanimously that any new vaccine should protect against just one strain of the virus — a departure from the available bivalent vaccines — and should target one of the three Omicron subvariants currently circulating, including XBB.1.5.
The XBB.1.5 variant spread globally in the first quarter of 2023, reaching dominance in North America, and other parts of the world by April, according to the FDA’s briefing document for the June meeting.
‘We really don’t know what the COVID season is’
FDA advisers in January raised concerns about shifting to a yearly schedule for COVID-19 vaccines. Unlike the flu, which thrives in the winter months, COVID-19’s spread has proved erratic, consistently mutating into new variants.
Dr. Mark Sawyer, professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, told CNBC that describing COVID-19 as seasonal “could be problematic” because “we really don’t know what the COVID season is.”
Dr. Peter McCullough, author of “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” told The Defender :
“COVID-19 respiratory illness is now like a mild head cold. There is no seasonal pattern. The COVID-19 vaccines have failed to stop transmission or protect against hospitalization and death.
“The products on the market have theoretical efficacy of less than six months. Annual COVID-19 shots have no clinical indication, medical necessity, are not durable for 12 months and have never been tested for use on a yearly schedule.
“On Dec. 7, 2022 in a U.S. Senate panel on vaccines, I called for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market because they are not safe for human use. There has been no objection to that testimony from public health officials.”
NBC News reported that Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged during an FDA advisory committee meeting in January that “simplifying the COVID-19 vaccine schedule to be exactly like the flu may not be possible.”
Pfizer hopes otherwise. The drug company’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Mikael Dolsten, thinks an annual COVID-19 vaccine would improve vaccine sentiment, telling CNBC the public grew dissatisfied with mandates during the earlier stages of the pandemic.
He said:
“Unfortunately some people see vaccines as part of that [the mandates].
“I think of it like the introduction of seat belts for cars. People didn’t want to wear them at first, but over time they realized how much seat belts protect them. Now everyone uses them today. That’s kind of how the vaccine story needs to be reimagined.”
An annual schedule, Dolsten added, may help people view COVID-19 shots as another “very natural part” of protecting their health.
CDC director ‘very worried about parents not vaccinating kids’
In addition to the ambiguity surrounding COVID-19 vaccine scheduling, there is no consensus among medical experts on which patients would be recommended for an annual jab.
Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of VRBPAC, took issue with not only the annual model but also with administering COVID-19 vaccines to low-risk groups.
Offit told CNN:
“If the goal of the vaccine is the stated goal, which is protection against severe disease, do you really need a yearly vaccine for otherwise healthy people less than 75? I mean, is this the flu model? Because I would argue it shouldn’t be.”
Health advocacy groups and doctors argue against authorizing mRNA shots in young children and babies. As of July 28 — when data were last updated in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — there were 6,591 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in children under age 6.
Cohen said she is “very worried about parents not vaccinating kids,” telling Spectrum News, “There’s plenty of other things that are hard as parents that we can’t do. This is one we can do to protect our kids.”
McCullough described Cohen as “fully entrenched in the bio-pharmaceutical complex” and “on the wrong side of every pandemic public health intervention.”
Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, said Cohen’s career has been punctuated by “heartbreaking fear-mongering, pseudo-science, and propaganda,” adding that “she passed with flying colors all three tests of compliance: closures, masking, and vaccine mandates.”
Reduced trust in vaccines and the CDC concerns Cohen, who plans to rehabilitate that trust by focusing on “transparency, execution and building relationships with the public, health leaders and politicians.”
A survey by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published in the journal Health Affairs found that roughly a quarter of Americans have little to no trust in the CDC for health information, including 10% who do not trust the agency at all.
The CDC currently recommends the primary series of mRNA shots, or the first two doses of the updated vaccine be given weeks apart, followed months later by a booster shot. The FDA updated its guidance for these shots in August 2022 to contain a bivalent formulation targeting the original viral strain plus the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.
Pfizer is working on a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine, expected to be available after 2024. Moderna is also working on a “next-gen flu-COVID combo” vaccine. Other vaccine makers are following suit.
Monica Dutcher is a Maryland-based senior reporter for The Defender.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Everything you need to know about Covid’s “Eris” Variant
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 7, 2023
The big news the last couple of days is that “Covid” is back… again. This time it’s the “Eris” variant, named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord, it supposedly is causing a spike in cases for the first time in… who cares how long.
The bulk of reporting on it is detailing how it’s supposedly related to Omicron or Arcturus or all the other names they flash in the headlines.
That, or the symptoms.
They are a runny nose and a sore throat and…well, you know. The only noteworthy thing to mention here is that the “loss of taste of smell” – so long sold as Covid’s calling card – is no longer considered a common symptom.
Yahoo even reported – without a shred of irony – that the alleged up-tick in “cases” was due to people spending more time indoors:
Bad weather encouraging people to spend more time indoors and waning immunity have been blamed for the rise
… a peculiar position to take, considering lockdown is meant to have helped, last time.
Anyway, without further ado, here is everything you really need to know about the Eris variant:
It’s bullshit.
Just like all the others.
Nothing else really needs to be said, does it?
Sure the media are setting up softballs for us to hammer over the fence, talking about the “symptoms” and “infection” rate again as if the past three years haven’t rendered all those words meaningless. But we are – or should be – well past that point of arguing against the mainstream.
We know everything we need to know about the symptoms – they are “generally mild” and “flu-like”, because Covid is nothing but re-branded endemic respiratory diseases. We know the death statistics are made up and the tests don’t work except to manufacture cases.
We know all this, even this repeating of it is unnecessary, to be honest.
The only aspect of Eris worth discussing is why it’s in the papers, and even that answer is briefer than usual.
Eris exists because the “Cerberus” heatwave is over, and July was unseasonably cold and damp in the UK. Because Autumn will be setting in soon enough and there are no more major sporting events for Just Stop Oil to disrupt for a while.
In short, Eris is what happens when people refuse to panic about climate change.
In fact, we can probably expect headlines linking Eris to the climate in the next few days.
The trouble with that is, just like climate change, people can only be scared by words for so long. The media repeated “global warming” so much the words lost their meaning, and filled the papers with so many apocalyptic predictions that never came to pass that people got numbed to it, they filter it out now even if they don’t realise they do.
The same will happen with covid; the more they bring it back for a jump scare, the less people will jump.
That’s probably why they’re laying the groundwork “the next pandemic” of “disease X”.
Massive Water and Cloud Boost From Tonga Eruption Could Explain Recent Unusual Weather Patterns
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 4, 2023
The accurate satellite record confirms that last month was an unusual weather period with higher than normal temperature recordings on both land and at sea. It was the warmest July since 1979, it tied with March 2015 for the second warmest departure from the norm and it was the warmest month for tropical land. Of course, the climate alarmists had a field day, with ‘global boiling’ now making an official UN appearance. Inexplicably missing from all the hysteria, however, was any mention that NASA scientists have recently confirmed that the Tonga volcanic eruption in January last year boosted water content in the stratosphere by a massive, and weather-changing, 10%.
Scientists have been shocked by the dramatic increase in water vapour spread around the globe by the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcano. Water vapour is the most powerful of all the greenhouses gases since, unlike the others, it traps heat across a wide part of the infra-red spectrum. It accounts for about 4% of all atmospheric gases, compared to 0.04% for carbon dioxide, but its effect is relatively short-lived since it re-enters the natural hydrological cycle. Nevertheless, Tonga water vapour and its associated clouds could last in the atmosphere for a few years, and scientists suggest both temperature increases and disturbed weather patterns will continue.
A group of NASA scientists have published a paper noting Tonga’s “high impact” consequences. Unlike most volcanic eruptions, Tonga released few aerosols such as dust and ash into the atmosphere which cause temporary falls in temperature. In 1815, Mount Tambora exploded on the island of Sumbawa causing widespread cooling and a subsequent “year without a summer”. In Tonga’s case, specific geological conditions threw vast amounts of super-heated water up to 50 kilometres into the air. Such is the “unprecedented” amounts of water involved, the NASA scientists believe it could remain in the atmosphere for serval years. The scientists say they will continue to monitor volcanic gases from this eruption, along with future ones, “to better quantify their varying roles in climate”.
Not that it is likely that the spoon-fed activists in the mainstream media will be much interested. Any warming will be gratefully seized upon to promote the so-called climate emergency, and the collectivist Net Zero political solution. The scientific jury is still deliberating on the effects of the Tonga eruption, but recent unusual weather changes occurring at a time when water vapour has been given such a massive boost, must rank as a possible cause. As the Daily Sceptic has often noted, the tragedy for any commentator too afraid to challenge the prevailing narrative about the climate is that whole areas of debate around physics, chemistry and geology are off limits for fear that alternative explanations will cast doubt on the carefully constructed political narrative.
Cliff Mass is the Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington. He has long been critical of catastrophising about individual weather events. According to Mass, the golden rule of weather extremes is: “The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability, and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming.”
Earlier work from a group of European scientists had drawn attention to the scale of the Tonga discharge. They concluded that the unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation caused by Hunga “ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era, with a range of potential long-lasting repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate”. They also observed that Hunga was likely to have been the most explosive event of the modern observational era, while comparisons were made to the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in 1883.
The latest work from NASA analysed satellite data showing the volume of water injected into the atmosphere between 12 and 53 kms. “We’ve never seen anything like it,” commented lead author Luis Millan. “We had to carefully inspect all the measurements in the plume to make sure they were trustworthy,” he added. Volcanoes rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years since NASA has been taking measurements, only two others produced appreciable amounts, but these were said to be “mere blips” compared with Tonga.
It seems that the smart alarmist money is backing the Tonga warming effect, with some shorting of the once promising El Nino boost becoming apparent. Signals from the latter stable are not wholly sanguine. Sea surface temperature departures from the norm, known as anomalies, are mixed, notes the U.S. weather service NOAA. “Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system reflected a weak El Nino” it adds. Odds can change – it is after all the weather. Forecasters are said to favour continued growth of the El Nino oscillation through the fall, peaking this winter with an 81% chance of “moderate-to-strong” intensity. In forecaster-speak, this translates as we haven’t a clue.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
A Round-Up of the BBC’s Climate Howlers of the Past 12 Months
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 6, 2023
The annual Paul Homewood review of the BBC’s climate howlers is always an enjoyable read, even for those keen students who follow his investigative work during the year. But with the consensus starting to crumble for the insane Net Zero collectivist project, this latest instalment of Tall Climate Tales from the BBC seems to have attracted a wider audience. Talk TV and the Daily Express have both given extensive coverage to the latest set of BBC bloopers.
How we laughed when Julia Hartley-Brewer read from the list on her TalkTV morning show. Such as the report from the Norfolk village of Happisburgh where “extreme weather linked to climate change” has eroded the soft sand cliff rock. No mention of the finding of the British Geological Society that it is likely the Norfolk cliffs have been “eroding at the present rate for about the last 5,000 years”.
Or the report that the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active on record. Nothing of the sort, of course, with Homewood observing that since 1851 there have been 32 years with a higher count of hurricanes. There was also an evidence-free claim in September 2022 on the BBC Verify that hurricanes were getting more powerful. The U.S. weather service NOAA states in its latest review that “there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity”.
Your own correspondent’s personal favourite made the list with news that bee-eaters had turned up in Norfolk to the delight of local twitchers. But the BBC was worried, reporting that rare ‘rainbow birds’ trying to breed in the UK was a worrying sign of how our climate is changing. It was an “unmissable sign”, no less, that the climate emergency had reached our shores. As any half-knowledgeable bird watcher could have told the BBC, bee-eaters have frequently visited England in the past. One archive alone lists 80 sightings between 1793 and 1957. Then there’s a story about trees in British cities that a study said were at risk of drought due to climate change. There is no evidence that the areas were getting drier, nor is there any evidence they will. “Once again, the BBC is uncritically presenting a controversial study as factual,” commented Homewood.
It is the common practice of the BBC to reproduce the most extreme climate claims without challenge, without providing supporting data, and without reporting on the views of scientists who disagree, writes Homewood. In fact, the practice continues almost daily. In March, the BBC said that Antarctica ocean currents were heading for collapse – “a new report warns”. The article proceeded to go into full Day After Tomorrow mode with “previous research” suggesting a slowdown in the North Atlantic current causing Europe to become colder.
Modern climate science/activism is awash with clickbait predictions looking for a suitable home in useful idiot mainstream media. As recent research from the Clintel Foundation revealed, about 42% of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate impact statements are based on a computer model that assumes temperatures will climb by 5°C in less than 80 years. Even the IPCC itself admits this is of “low likelihood”. About half the published climate papers are thought to use this 5°C input, leading to a festival of misinformation for gainfully employed journalists content to append “scientists say” to fanciful copy. The latest giant of modern science to rain on this parade is last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics Dr John Clauser, who calls the climate emergency narrative a “dangerous corruption” of science that threatens the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”, he observes.
The state broadcaster has followed this path of eco-extremism for over 20 years, providing covering fire for politicians to promote a Net Zero project. As audiences continue to decline, the BBC increasingly operates as a club of eco-fanatics intent on signally their virtue to fellow members of the cult. It fails to cover the scientific process at almost every level, discounting the views of any scientists that don’t adhere to the party political line. As with Covid, there seems to be an irrational belief in the output of computer models. Such belief leads to a preposterous acceptance that ‘attribution‘ models can link individual weather events to supposed human involvement.
As we have noted, large areas of science are now closed for debate for fear that any competing views will cast doubt on the unproven but ‘settled’ hypothesis that humans cause all or most climate change. Natural variation in the climate is largely ignored, while stories of once fanatical interest suddenly disappear from the carefully constructed catastrophe playlist. These include polar bears – more than you can shake a stick at these days – the recovery in Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and spectacular coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef.
In Homewood’s view, the BBC’s coverage of climate change and related policy issues such as energy “has long been of serious and widespread concern”. In his latest review, Homewood notes that all of the BBC’s factual errors could easily have been avoided with a bit of basic research. And he asks, who is editing all this “fake reporting”? Where are the highly paid executives who let all this continue? “It is apparent that nothing has changed in the last 12 months,” he says.
One more for the road – another personal favourite of mine. It was dry in February this year, despite an average amount of rainfall over the winter. Banging the drum for drought, the BBC produced a picture of an empty reservoir labelled “water levels in rivers, reservoirs and groundwater levels were abnormally low in February”. Alas, the picture showed trees in full leaf, which wasn’t surprising since it was taken in September 2021, a time when reservoirs can be seasonably low. “There’s nothing like a fake image to fool the public,” comments Homewood.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Paul Homewood has produced a summary of his latest report about the BBC’s climate howlers for the Express.
Is the Era of ‘Global Boiling’ Really Upon Us? The Climate Fear-Mongers are Becoming a Laughing Stock
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 2, 2023
Increasing numbers of commentators are starting to call peak Net Zero and this process is being helped by the crumbling of the decades-long suffocating stranglehold exerted on ‘settled’ climate science by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The latest body-blow to its credibility has come from last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, Dr John Clauser. He has warned the Nobel Foundation not to model a proposed new body to police ‘misinformation’ on the IPCC, adding: “In my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.” It would seem unhelpful that at a time when Clauser voiced his criticism, the UN’s Secretary General headed for a public stage and upgraded global warming to “global boiling”.
Of course, by ramping up the fear to ‘boiling’ point, the unhinged Antonio Guterres has fallen into the ‘worse than Hitler’ trap. Where can you go after you call someone a Nazi, or tell a world audience that the Earth is bubbling beneath its feet?
Details have recently been made public about the short speech Clauser gave to young scientists in South Korea. He implored them to follow the scientific method based on good observations and experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory, he told them. Referring to climate science, he noted the current world was “literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation”.
Referring often to climate science, he told his audience that if they are doing good science they must beware since it may take them on paths that lead them into “political incorrect” areas. “If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them… I can confidently say that there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme events,” he said.
Easier said than done of course since most scientists are funded in one form or another by governments. In the area of climate, politicians require scientific backing for their collectivist plans to re-order society around Net Zero. Huge amounts of public money are flowing into untested, unproductive new technologies, few of which would be viable in a free capital market. Green subsidy hunters are making serious fortunes with little risk involved. The climate narrative is absurd, says MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen, but trillions of dollars says it is not absurd.
There are a number of fault lines that run through the IPCC science narrative. It maintains that all changes in the climate since 1900 are caused by humans burning fossil fuel. This is plainly odd since it asks us to ignore almost all natural variation, having accepted that natural causes were responsible for climate change in the past. It also suggests that the current period in the Earth’s history is the hottest for 125,000 years, ignoring copious evidence that temperatures were much higher in the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 9,700 – 5,700 years ago. The IPCC would have us believe that higher levels of carbon dioxide cause the temperature to inevitably rise, despite observational evidence throughout the paleo record that contradicts that simple hypothesis. After 50 years of trying, not a single credible paper has yet been published providing conclusive proof for the anthropogenic global warming boiling hypothesis.
Earlier this year, a group of scientists operating through the Clintel Foundation examined the latest work of the IPCC. The authors were damning about its most recent report, finding it emphasised worst-case scenarios, rewrote climate history and had a huge bias against good news. Its standout revelation was that 42% of the IPCC’s claims were based on climate models fed with the implausible assumption that global temperatures would rise by around 5°C in less than 80 years. Deep in the main body of its work, even the IPCC admits this is of “low likelihood”. Even worse, Clintel noted, was that about half the extreme climate model forecasts found across the entire body of scientific literature are based on this 5°C boost. It is a fair bet that almost 100% of the clickbait scare stories that dominate mainstream media are taken from these sources.
The former IPCC author and economics professor Roger Pielke Jr. thinks that the continuing reliance on these implausible assumptions by the IPCC is “one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the 21st Century”.
The tide could well be turning as the voices of previously cancelled giants of science are heard. In the UK, there is increasing media interest in the retrospective uplifts to temperature datasets enabling previous inconvenient pauses to be removed, and ‘records’ to be declared at regular intervals. Not before time, the Met Office’s habit of declaring heat highs amidst the jet exhaust at British airports is becoming something of a national joke.
One of those science giants, atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen, recently told a U.S. government body that climate science “is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence”. In his view, the IPCC only issues “government-dictated findings”, noting that the important, and much quoted, “Summary for Policymakers” must be approved for publication by all governments. He further noted that, “misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry-picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called global warming caused by fossil fuel and CO2”.
Dr Clauser signed off his inspiring talk to young scientists in South Korea by telling them to observe nature directly so they could determine real truth. “Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation,” he said.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Failed Climate Predictions
We should all be dead by now
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | August 5, 2023
In 2013 The Guardian wrote an article saying that the Arctic would be ice-free in two years. Does anybody remember the ice-free Arctic in 2015?
Professor Peter Wadhams was heralding a methane catastrophe. I guess after such a terrible prediction, Wadhams retired? Of course not, he is still a professor at Cambridge University and he’s still writing books and recording videos in which he tries to terrify everyone about the impending ice free Arctic (in another two years of course).
In 2018, Jeff McMahon wrote an article in Forbes claiming that “We have five years to save ourselves from climate change, Harvard Scientist Says”.
The Harvard scientist was a chap called James G. Anderson. He said “the chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero”. Don’t tell Anderson but it’s 2023 and there is plenty of ice left in the Arctic.
When the article was written, Anderson prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made by political candidates and executives of fossil fuel companies who continue to pursue activities that are exacerbating climate change. “I don’t understand how these people sit down to dinner with their kids because they’re not stupid people”, he said.
I don’t understand how end-of-the-world doomsters such as Anderson sleep at night. Climate anxiety is a major mental illness in the young, all because of failed predictions such as his. I know lecturers at my local university who have to give climate counselling before and after each lecture, just in case something they talk about triggers an anxiety attack in their students – bonkers.
Furthermore, young adults are deciding not to have children because of climate change and instead gluing themselves to runways, begging their governments to impoverish them further. The only global catastrophe there will be is when there aren’t enough humans being born.
I guess Anderson must have retired now, after so many failed predictions. Once again, of course not, he is still a professor at Harvard. And the Forbes reporter, Jeff McMahon, is still at Forbes, still telling us the world is going to end.
These people expect us to take them seriously and listen to their dire warnings. ‘But but this time I am 100% definitely right, my models were not adjusted correctly last time, you need to listen to me now’. It seems that if you are part of the climate death cult, you can make as many false predictions as you like and you still keep your job. Just as long as you keep making scary predictions to control the masses.
Number of Vaccine Doses During Neonatal Period and Infancy and Mortality in Children at 1 and 5 Years
Ecological Analysis Suggests Worldwide Mass Vaccination for Childhood Illnesses Could be Backfiring
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | August 3, 2023
When ACIP panel added the experimental mRNA vaccines for infants age 6 months and older, it triggered concerns that ACIP may not have ever had adequate intent for risk mitigation or re-evaluation of the ever expanding vaccine schedule. Many have had reservations for a long time and have felt drowned out by the medical orthodoxy of “more vaccines are better.” Now an analysis by Miller, et al, suggests the entire program of hyper vaccination may be backfiring.
The two main independent variables in this analysis restricted to developed countries at two time points 2019 and 2021 (check for internal validity) were the number of vaccines given in the 28 day neonatal period (none, hepatitis B, Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for tuberculosis) and then the overall number of shots given before age 1 year. The outcome variable was all cause mortality at age 1 and 5 years.
As you can see this does not look good for vaccines. In every analysis the children who went “natural” with no shots did the best and there was a trend for the fewest number of injections to be associated with the lowest mortality. I was born in 1962, so I received zero shots in the neonatal period and a total of 6 doses for four diseases (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio) before the age of 1 years. As you can see the optimal number of infant doses in the vaccine schedule is <14. The current US ACIP schedule is ~23 doses by year one—a proxy for national intent for hyper vaccination.
This paper has all the limitations of an ecological analysis where individual child record information is not available. The exact configuration of specific vaccines and causes of death are not specified. Thus we can only conclude from this study that “less is more” and countries should consider a risk stratified approach. The two main neonatal vaccines, hepatitis B and BCG should be reconsidered altogether according to individual risk of hepatitis B and tuberculosis, respectively.
Biden Regime Pressured Facebook To Suppress The Daily Wire, Boost Legacy Outlets Like The NYT
New internal documents reaveal
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 3, 2023
In a significant blow to the principle of free speech, recently disclosed documents reveal that President Joe Biden’s administration exerted considerable pressure on tech giant Facebook to constrain the reach of The Daily Wire and The New York Post, and promote content from established news outlets, within months of occupying the White House in January 2021. This revelation, coupled with the administration’s alleged intentions to alter the Facebook algorithm, has raised substantial concerns about government-sanctioned censorship.
These documents shed light on the Biden administration’s campaign to promote its Covid vaccine strategy, sidelining dissenting viewpoints.
The dialogues memorialized in the disclosed documents underline the charged interactions between then-White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty and Facebook representatives. The focus of these discussions was curbing The Daily Wire’s considerable influence on Facebook while simultaneously elevating legacy news outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
For context, The Daily Wire’s popularity on Facebook had outstripped that of both NYT and WSJ, drawing significantly more audience engagement, and casting a more amplified conservative alternative.
The meeting notes underline the Biden administration’s apprehensions about “misinformation” leading to vaccine hesitancy, sparking a quest to mold public sentiment using Facebook’s vast reach.
White House representative Flaherty’s frustration with Facebook’s inability to readily produce data to support the administration’s agenda becomes evident in the correspondence.
Highlighting the confrontational tone of these correspondences, Representative Jim Jordan, chairing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, reinforced the troubling indication of the administration’s attempts to stifle free speech via social media control.
Do The COVID Vaccines Affect Your Ability to Think?
Examining some of the common neurological injuries caused by vaccination
A Midwestern Doctor | The Forgotten Side of Medicine | July 20, 2023
When the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, due to their design I expected them to have safety issues, and I expected over the long term, a variety of chronic issues would be linked to them. This was because there were a variety of reasons to suspect they would cause autoimmune disorders, fertility issues and cancers—but for some reason (as shown by the Pfizer EMA leaks), the vaccines had been exempted from being appropriately tested for any of these issues prior to being given to humans.
Since all new drugs are required to receive that testing, I interpreted it to be a tacit admission it was known major issues would emerge in these areas, and that a decision was made that it was better to just not officially test any of them so there would be no data to show Pfizer knew the problems would develop. Sadly, since the time the vaccines entered the market, those three issues (especially autoimmunity) have become some of the most common severe events associated with the vaccines.
At the start of the vaccine rollout, there were four red flags to me:
• The early advertising campaigns for the vaccines mentioned that you would feel awful when you got the vaccine, but that was fine and a sign the vaccine was working. Even with vaccines that had a very high rate of adverse events (e.g., the HPV vaccine), I had never seen this mentioned. This signified it was likely the adverse event rate with the spike protein vaccines would be much higher than normal.
• Many of my colleagues who got the vaccine (since they were healthcare workers they were able to get it first) posted on social media about just how awful they felt after getting the vaccine. This was also something I had never seen with a previous vaccine. After some digging, I noticed those with the worse vaccine reactions typically had already had COVID and their reaction was to the second shot rather than the first, signifying that some type of increased sensitization was occurring from repeated exposures to the spike protein. Likewise, the published clinical trial about Pfizer’s vaccine also showed adverse reactions were dramatically higher with the second rather than first shot.
• Once it became available to the general public, I immediately had patients start showing up with vaccine reactions, many of whom stated they received their flu shot each year and never had experienced something similar with a previous vaccination. One of the most concerning things were the pre-exacerbation of autoimmune diseases (e.g., spots in their body they previously would occasionally have arthritis and felt like they were on fire). After I started looking into this I realized people were seeing between a 15-25% rate of new autoimmune disorders or exacerbations of existing autoimmune disorders developing after the vaccine (later shown in an Israeli survey), a massive increase I had never seen any previous vaccine cause.
• About a month after the vaccines were available to the public, I started having friends and patients share that they’d known someone who had unexpectedly died suddenly after receiving the vaccine (typically from a heart attack, stroke, or a sudden aggressive case of COVID-19).
This was extremely concerning to me, because reactions to a toxin typically distribute on a bell curve, with the severe ones being much rarer than the moderate ones. This meant that if that many severe reactions were occurring, what I could already see was only the tip of the iceberg and far, far more less obvious reactions were going to be happening, to the point it was likely many people I knew would end up experiencing complications from the vaccine.
I tried to warn my colleagues about the dangers of this vaccine, but even when I pointed out Pfizer’s own trial admitted the vaccine was more likely to harm than help you, no one would listen to me. Not being sure what else to do, but not be willing to do nothing, I decided to start documenting all the severe reactions I came across so I could have some type of “proof” to show my colleagues.
This was something that was extremely important at the time since no one was willing to take on the personal risk of publishing something went against the narrative (that vaccines were killing people) in the peer reviewed literature. Shortly after Steve Kirsch kindly helped launch my Substack, I decided to post the log I’d put together, and since there was a critical need for that information, the post went viral and created much of the initial reader base that made my substack possible.
It was immensely time consuming to do the project (especially the verification of the story that was reported to me), so I ended the project after a year. During that time, I came across 45 cases of either a death (these comprised the majority of the 45 cases), something I expected to be fatal later on (e.g., a metastatic cancer) or a permanent and total disability. Additionally, in line with the previously described bell curve, I also came across many more serious but not quite as severe injuries.
I’ve had a long term interest in studying pharmaceutical injuries because many of my friends and relatives have had bad reactions to pharmaceuticals. In most of these cases, ample data existed to show that reaction could happen (often to the degree it strongly argued against the pharmaceutical remaining on the market) and yet almost no one in the medical field was aware of those dangers, hence leading to my injured friends never being warned before they took the pharmaceutical or even while the injury was occurring.
My bell curve theory originally came about from examining all of their cases. I thus was interested to know if the distribution of adverse events from the spike protein vaccines would match what I had observed with previous dangerous pharmaceuticals and if what I saw personally did or did not match what everyone was reporting online.
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me were the multiple cases of a friend’s parent in a nursing home receiving the vaccine, immediately undergoing a rapid cognitive decline which was “diagnosed” as Alzheimer’s disease and then dying not long after. At the time, I assumed these were most likely due to undiagnosed ischemic strokes as that was the most plausible mechanism to describe what I’d heard, but I was not certain as I could never examine any of these individuals for signs a stroke had indeed happened.
These cases were very concerning to me, as they signified (per the bell curve) that there was going to be a much larger portion of people who would develop less severe (but nonetheless impactful) cognitive decline following vaccination.
Note: one of the most common types of injuries from pharmaceuticals are neurological injuries which both impair cognitive function and create psychiatric symptoms. This places patients in a difficult situation of being gaslighted by the medical system. This is because their doctors assume the psychiatric symptoms the patients are experiencing are the cause of their illness rather than a symptom of it, leading to the patient being told the illness is all in their head and continually referred for psychiatric help. One of the best examples with this occurred as a result of the abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., rapid anxiety provoking palpitations) caused by the vaccine damaging the heart which were consistently diagnosed as being a result of anxiety, even when a subsequent workup I requested showed heart damage was present.
As I began seeing more and more signs of cognitive impairment following vaccination, I realized that what I observed mirrored what I had previously seen with chronic inflammatory conditions such as mold toxicity, HPV vaccine injuries, and lyme disease. Some of the examples included:
• Many people reported having a “COVID” brain where it was just harder for them to think and remember things. I sometimes saw this after more severe cases of COVID, more frequently after vaccination, and repeatedly in patients who per their timeline clearly developed it from the vaccine but believed it had come from COVID.
• These issues tended to be more likely to affect older adults, but younger ones were more likely to notice (and complain) about them. In the case of older adults, I typically learned about them from someone else who had observed the cognitive decline rather than directly from the individual.
• I saw cases of vaccine injured individuals who had trouble remembering or recalling the word they knew expressed what they were trying to communicate (this is also a common mold toxicity symptom).
• I had friends and patients who told me their brain just didn’t work the same since they’d received the vaccine. As an example, a few colleagues told me they started losing the ability to remember basic things they needed to practice medicine (e.g., medication dosages for prescriptions). They shared that they were very worried they would need to take an early retirement and that they thought it came from the vaccine but there was no one they could talk to about it (which understandably created a lot of doubt and anxiety).
• I saw cases of coworkers demonstrating noticeable (and permanent) cognitive impairment after I’d assumed they’d received the vaccine. Their impairment was never mentioned or addressed (rather the physician kept on working, did not perform as well, and in some cases retired).
• I met significantly injured vaccine injured patients who told me one of the primary symptoms was a loss of cognitive functioning they had taken for granted throughout their life. In many cases following treatment of their vaccine injury, their cognition also improved.
• Colleagues who treated vaccine injured patients told me cognitive impairment was one of the common symptoms they saw and was particularly noteworthy because they had never seen anything like that happen to young adults.
• One of my friends (a very smart immunologist) developed complications from the first two vaccines and based on their symptoms was able to describe exactly which parts of their immune systems were becoming dysregulated. Against my advice, they took a booster and reported they suffered a significant cognitive impairment never experienced before in their lifetime. I feel this case was important to share as it illustrates how an exacerbation of a vaccine injury can also cause an exacerbation of cognitive symptoms.
Note: I also saw significant cognitive impairment occur in individuals who were acutely ill with COVID-19. This was not as unusual since delirium is a well known complication in patients hospitalized with a systemic illness (e.g., sepsis), but it seemed to happen more frequently than ususual.
At the same time I was observing these effects, many rumors were also swirling around online that the vaccines would cause severe cognitive impairment and that we would witness a zombie apocalypse from the vaccine injuries.
This apocalypse of course never happened, but many observed a suspicion cognitive impairment was occurring. For example to quote Igor Chudov’s recent article:
I own a small business and deal with many people and other small businesses. Most provided reliable service, would remember appointments, followed up on issues, and so on. I noticed that lately, some people have become less capable cognitively. They forget essential appointments, cannot concentrate, make crazy-stupid mistakes, and so on.
In my own case, the most evident change I noticed was a worsening of drivers around me and had a few near misses from impaired driving.
The challenge with these situations is that it’s very hard to tell if something is actually happening or your perception is simply a product of confirmation bias. For this reason, while I was comfortable asserting my belief the COVID-19 vaccines were causing the severe injuries on either end of the bell curve, I avoided doing so for many of the less impactful injuries in the middle where it was much more ambiguous if what I was observing was “real” or simply my own biased perception of the events around me. Because of this, amongst other things, I never mentioned the changes in driving I observed.
Note: after I posted the original article many of the readers stated they too had observed a significant worsening in the behavior of drivers around them. I was then pointed to this dataset, which suggests this issue was happening, but is difficult to properly assess because COVID-19 can also cause cognitive impairment and less people were driving in 2020.
Typically, when we have situations like this, large bodies of data or scientific studies are needed to tease out if a correlation is in fact occurring. Unfortunately, since there are political repercussions for dissenting from the dominant narrative, data which threatens tends not to be published. This creates the challenging situation where those who are looking for answers on a topic which challenges a vested interest have to look quite carefully for clues on the subject (e.g., by dissecting papers to see exactly what the data is actually showing).
Igor periodically finds those, and after I saw the most recent one he unearthed, I requested to write the original guest post. To quote his discovery from the Netherlands:
Primary care data for January to March 2023 showed that adults visited their GP more frequently for a number of symptoms compared to the same period in 2019. Memory and concentration problems were significantly more common than last year and in the period before COVID-19. Where these symptoms are concerned, the difference compared to 2019 is growing steadily in each quarter.
In the first quarter of 2023, there was a 24% increase in GP [general practioner] visits related to memory and concentration problems among adults (age 25 years and older) compared to the same period in 2020. This is evidenced by the latest quarterly research update from the GOR Network. The increase in memory and concentration problems of adults seems to be a longer-term effect of the coronavirus measures as well as SARS-CoV-2 infections.
More specifically they found:
• No increase was observed in adults under 25 years old.
• A 31% increase was observed in those 24-44 years old.
• A 40% increase was observed in those 45-74 years old.
• A 18% increase was observed in those over 75 years old.
Note: previous rounds of this survey, in addition to the cognitive issues described above, worsening mental health (e.g, anxiety, depression or suicidal thoughts), sleep problems, tiredness, and cardiovascular issues (e.g., shortness of breath, dizziness or heart palpitation) were also observed to have significantly increased since 2019.
Typically, patients, less than 75 years old are unlikely to visit their doctors for cognitive issues. Taken in context with this data, it means there is a stronger case that the (massive) increases in those under 75 were caused by something that happened after 2019. Additionally, since there were already a large number of visits for cognitive impairment in the elderly, the lower percentage increase is slightly misleading in quantifying the extent to which everyone was affected. For example to quote the previous report:
Primary care data showed that adults visited their GP somewhat more frequently for sleep problems in October–December 2022 than in the same period in 2019. This was particularly striking in the oldest age group (75 years and older).
All of this data put health officials in a bit of an awkward situation since publishing data demonstrating large scale cognitive impairment directly undermines the narrative they previously had committed themselves to. Nonetheless, the authors of the report were significantly more candid than many other before them:
The source of this increase in memory and concentration problems is unclear. A possible explanation could be that COVID-19 measures caused accelerated cognitive decline among people who were starting to have problems with memory and concentration (66 years on average).
COVID-19 was of course cited as a potential cause (which, as discussed above can sometimes cause long term cognitive impairment):
A supplementary explanation could be that some of these people have long-term symptoms after COVID-19. Various studies have shown that memory and concentration problems are common in post-COVID symptoms. Other infectious diseases, such as flu, can also cause these symptoms. However, recent studies have shown that long-term memory and concentration problems are much more common after COVID-19 than after flu. In addition, these symptoms are more common in older age groups. The figures provided by GPs are consistent with this expectation.
Fortunately, the authors acknowledged that long COVID could not be the primary explanation for what was occurring, and instead alluded to the elephant in the room—the vaccines.
Note: on VAERS, in the 23 years VAERS has operated, 2352 of the 3071 (76.6%) reports of memory impairment following vaccination came from the COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, Ed Dowd has identified numerous government datasets demonstrating that widespread impairment and disability has occurred since the vaccine rollout.
My specific interest in studying spike protein vaccine toxicity arose because I suspected I would see many similarities to other pharmaceutical injuries I had observed previously and treatments that had developed for those injuries could be used to treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries. On Substack, I’ve tried to focus on explaining the areas that I believe are the most important to understanding this, zeta-potential, the cell danger response (CDR) and the treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. Note: Each of these is interrelated with and often causes the others.
Zeta Potential: Zeta potential (explained in detail here) governs if fluid in the body clumps together (e.g., forming a clot) or remains dispersed and capable of freely flowing. Additionally, it also influences if proteins will stay in their correct formation or misfold and clump together. Many different issues (discussed here) emerge when fluid circulation (be it blood, lymph, interstitial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid) becomes impaired. Since the spike protein is uniquely suited for impairing zeta potential, we have found restoring zeta potential (discussed here) often is immensely helpful during COVID-19 infections and for treating COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Many of those approaches were initially developed from working with other vaccine injuries and cognitive decline in the elderly.
Cell Danger Response (CDR): When cells are exposed to a threat, their mitochondria shift from producing energy for the cell to a protective mode where the cell’s metabolism and internal growth shuts down, the mitochondria release reactive oxygen species to kill potential invaders, the cell warns other cells to enter the CDR and the cell seals off and disconnects itself from the body. The CDR (explained further here) is an essential process for cellular survival, but frequently in chronic illness, cells become stuck in it rather than allowing the healing response to complete.
Understanding the CDR is extremely important when working with complex illnesses because it explains why triggers from long ago can cause an inexplicable illness, and why many treatments that seem appropriate (specifically those that treat a symptom of the CDR rather than the cause of it) either don’t help or worsen the patient’s conditions. Many of the most challenging patients seen by integrative practitioners are those trapped within the CDR, but unfortunately, there is still very little knowledge of this phenomena.
My interest was drawn back to the CDR after I realized that one of the most effective treatments for long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries was one that directly treated the CDR. Since many of the therapies that have been developed to revive nonfunctional tissue was developed by the regenerative medical field, I wrote an article describing how these approaches are applied to restore localized regions of dysfunctional tissue (which is sometimes needed to treat vaccine injuries) and another on the regenerative treatments that treat systemic CDRs (and are more frequently needed for vaccine injuries).
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): AD is one of the most devastating and costly conditions in existence (e.g., for the year of 2020 it was estimated to have cost America 305 billion dollars) and as a result, billions of dollars are spent each year in researching a cure for it. This research (which began in 1906) has gone nowhere and presently the FDA is working with the drug industry to push forward ineffective, quite dangerous but highly profitable treatments for AD.
However, effective treatments do exist for AD and my colleagues have developed a few different methods that have successfully treated the condition. Additionally, one neurologist, Dale Bresden developed a method for reversing AD that he proved worked in mulitiple publications (included a recent 2022 clinical trial).
All of these successful approaches utilize the following principles:
• Restore both the blood flow to the brain and the lymphatic drainage from it (which removes amyloid plaques). This often requires restoring the physiologic zeta potential and having a healthy sleep cycle.
• Treating the CDR (which causes chronic inflammation) and reactivating brain cells that became trapped in an unresolved CDR (which amongst other things requires reclaiming a healthy sleep cycle).
Note: Bresden’s approach also emphasizes the importance of addressing chronically elevated blood sugar or insulin levels.
One of the most important things to recognize about AD is that it is a slowly worsening disease which often progresses over decades. In the early stages of AD, minor cognitive changes occur, which (when possible to autopsy) correlate with tissue changes within the brain. In rare instances, individuals can instead have a rapidly progressing form of Alzheimer’s which strikes with a younger age and is often linked to the toxin exposure.
In the case of spike proteins illnesses, I have seen both the early signs of AD cognitive decline occurring in much younger patients, and exist in cases of AD rapidly progressing following COVID vaccination. Additionally, I have also seen cases of rapid cognitive decline in the elderly following the administration of other vaccinations—however they were far less frequent than those seen with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Anytime you attempt to perceive the world around you, you are always biased by the pre-existing filters you have which prevent you from seeing much of the world around you (discussed further here). To some extent, these filters are a necessary evil as without them, the world would be overwhelmingly complicated. However, if you cannot be open to the possibility a biased filter this is clouding your perception of reality, you become blind to a great deal of important things around you. Misleading filters for example, explain why many of those committed to the narrative cannot see the overwhelming evidence of COVID-19 vaccine injuries around them.
One of the most commonly used filters is “social proof,” which essentially says people will typically not act on something, believe it, or even see it unless their peers (the herd) already are. This creates a problem, because frequently when you need to know something, the herd does not yet believe it, forcing you to either make a decision no one else supports (which can be quite terrifying) or to wait until there is safety in doing it because the herd has now moved in that direction (which is often too late).
As I’ve gotten to know those who challenged the COVID-19 narrative, I’ve noticed they all had a tendency they’d learned through life experience to not follow the crowd and be willing to act on their initial impression of what preliminary data suggested before the rest of the crowd caught on. For example, Ed Dowd was a highly successful stock trader (e.g., he made Blackrock a lot of money) and his method boiled down to spotting early trends before anyone else and acting on them while they were still profitable to investors.
Like many, from the start of the vaccination campaign, based on the preliminary data points that were available, I suspected it was going to cause long-term cognitive issues. Now that the data which supports that trend is beginning to appear, and concerningly the issue appears to be gradually worsening, something commonly observed over time with factors that give rise to dementia. This is an important issue and I want to extend my thanks to Igor Chudov for drawing attention to this very important dataset.
Pfizer Ad Spreads Misinformation
BY DAVID ZWEIG | SILENT LUNCH | AUGUST 1, 2023
A Pfizer ad on Twitter claims that 3 out of 4 US adults are at “high risk” for severe Covid-19.
This ad is highly misleading or, arguably, outright false.
Problem 1: What is “high” risk?
We don’t know because Pfizer doesn’t define it.
The graphic in the ad cites a study as the source of its claim “3 out of 4 US adults are at high risk for severe Covid-19.” Except the study never uses the term “high risk.” Rather, the study is on people at “increased risk.”
“Increased risk,” of course is quite different from “high risk.” Obviously, high risk is worse than merely increased risk. I need not explain why Pfizer would choose language in its ad that exaggerates the risk of Covid.
Problem 2: The cited study itself doesn’t even define “increased risk.” Does that mean a 0.1% increase, a 1% increase, 20% increase, 1000% increase? On this point, the study includes the following caveat: “the effect size of each risk factor was not taken into account in our analysis, so this report does not address degree of risk. Effect estimates of severe COVID-19 risk factors are widely variable and ultimately unreliable.”
Digging a little deeper, the study links to a CDC webpage that gives a list of conditions for people who are “more likely to get very sick with COVID-19” and uses “higher risk,” “increased risk,” “greater risk” and “high risk” in its text, seemingly interchangeably. The page gives a long list of medical conditions—from cancer to diabetes to depression. Still, we don’t know what “more likely” or “increased risk” actually means. This webpage, in turn, links to another CDC webpage that describes “Underlying Medical Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19.”
We’ve gone from the scary “high” risk (not defined), to “increased” risk (also not defined), to “higher risk.” How is “higher risk” defined? Here is what the page says:
Higher risk is defined as an underlying medical condition or risk factor that has a published meta-analysis or systematic review or underwent the CDC systematic review process. The meta-analysis or systematic review demonstrates a conclusive increase in risk for at least one severe COVID-19 outcome.
So we are now three layers deep and we still don’t have a quantifiable definition for what, exactly, “high,” “increased,” or “higher” even means, nor a clear differentiation of what the first study acknowledges is a wide variability in estimates of risk factors. I’m sure there is a quantifiable threshold defined somewhere, but I stopped digging because this isn’t even the main problem.
Problem 3 (the main problem): The data from the cited study in the Pfizer ad saying 3 out of 4 US adults are at high (aka increased) risk of severe Covid are from 2015-2018. But this ad is being run in July 2023—after nearly the entire population has either already been infected, vaccinated, or both, each circumstance, we have been told, decreases one’s risk of severe Covid. In other words, Pfizer’s own ad suggests that prior infection and vaccination have not reduced the number of people at high risk of severe Covid. Does Pfizer want us to believe that its product—the vaccine—did not lower the rate of people at high risk of severe Covid?
The fact is, 3 out of 4 US adults are not at “high” risk of severe Covid. This statement is based on data from before accounting for the protective effect of infection and vaccination. Moreover, “high risk” is not defined and appears to simply be a made up description.
We’ve heard a lot about “misinformation” in the past few years. Generally, the government and media have pointed the finger at so-called “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists.” A critical spotlight from the government has rarely seemed to shine on claims made by Pfizer. Advertisements like this misinform and unnecessarily scare people, perhaps pushing some of them into taking additional doses of the vaccine, or therapeutics like Paxlovid (also made by Pfizer), that have potential harms, and for many people, especially now, without clear benefit.
Featured Video
Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved Nuclear Deterrence Against Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How the occupied mentality syndrome works
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 3
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | June 27, 2016
Read part 2: “The occupied mentality Syndrome“
Previously I argued whether Saudi Arabia’s repeated involvements in U.S. interventions and wars stem from free national will or in response to a specific condition. For starters, in Saudi Arabia there is no national will. In Saudi Arabia, the national will is the will of the Al Saud clan. Still, when a major Arab state allies itself with a superpower that committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in almost every Arab country, then something is wrong. This fact alone should compel us to examine the U.S.-Saudi relation for one exceptional reason. As a result of the U.S.-Saudi wars, hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia have lost their lives. Millions became displaced in their own homelands. And millions more rendered refugees.
Attributing the Saudi policies to the bonds of “partnership” with the U.S. is frivolous. There are no bonds between these two thugs except those of business, military deals, secret plots, and wars. Proving this point, bonds such as these have no space for the American and Saudi peoples to share significant cultural or societal exchanges. If partnership is not the reason for the Saudi contribution to the U.S. strategy of empire and imperialism, then another reason must exist.
This leads to three possibilities. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Hezbollah hits Israeli warship off Lebanon’s coast, sets it aflame
- Iran slams US strikes on B1 bridge, Mahshahr petrochemical plants as ‘blatant acts of state terrorism’
- In letter to UN chief, Araghchi warns of dire consequences of US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities
- Why the CIA conspiracy to invade Iran with Kurdish militias failed
- Why Are Upbeat US Claims About Mission to Rescue Pilot ‘Highly Questionable’?
- Aircraft destroyed during US ‘rescue’ of downed F-15 pilot cost more than $100 million each
- Washington University removes professor who condemned US-Israeli war on Iran
- Russia Warns of Retaliation as UK Authorizes Seizure of Vessels
- Serbia thwarts plot to bomb Russia-Hungary gas pipeline – Vucic
- Al Mayadeen voices solidarity with Dr. Marandi amid death threats
- If Americans Knew
- In Iran, Israel-US take aim at “reason, research, and freedom of thought” – Daily Update
- US loses planes over Iran, Israel downgrades Lebanon war goals – Daily Update
- Israel Is Blocking Palestinians from Easter at Church Where Jesus Resurrected
- Plot to assassinate Palestinian activist follows harassment campaign promoted by Zionist groups and elected officials
- Prominent New York synagogue hosts presentation on why U.S. Jews should support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza
- Tapper vs. Piker: Is the CNN Anchor Auditioning for David Ellison?
- Shouldn’t Democrats Be Able to Condemn Genocide?
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 