Acommonplace justification for the lockdowns and other Covid-19 restrictions imposed over the past 15 months is this: SARS-CoV-2 poses a threat to humanity that differs categorically from any of the many threats that we routinely encounter. Confronting a categorically unique monster is said to excuse government officials from the obligation of taking the time required to weigh carefully the likely costs of alternative responses against these responses’ likely benefits.
Act resolutely! Act boldly! Act quickly! We’re told that the sudden and surprising arrival of a serious new threat to humanity denies to us the luxury of taking measured steps the costs and benefits of which have been carefully considered and debated.
I know from having now fought long in the Covid-policy trenches that many people find this argument for lockdowns to be compelling. Yet even apart from the many empirical problems that plague the case for lockdowns, this argument does not withstand logical scrutiny.
Potential Perils All Around
Even if we grant, contrary to fact, that Covid-19 poses to humankind a threat that’s categorically unique, it does not follow that lockdowns are justified or even excusable. The reason is that months-long global lockdowns are themselves, and in fact, categorically unique events fraught with serious perils.
It is true that in March 2020 we had little knowledge of the extent to which humanity would be ravaged by Covid. But we also had little knowledge of the extent to which humanity would be ravaged by lockdowns imposed to fight Covid. Because there was never any reason to doubt that lockdowns would have severe economic and non-economic costs – and because lockdowns arrived on the scene just as suddenly and just as surprisingly, and with just as much novelty, as did the coronavirus – the same ‘logic’ that appears to justify an embrace of the case for lockdowns also justifies an embrace of the case against lockdowns.
In short, humanity in early 2020 was confronted with two novel dangers. Yet only one of these dangers – that lurking in the novel coronavirus – was recognized as such. It and only it was taken to be an excuse for potential overreaction. It and only it was taken to justify acting-now-and-asking-questions-only-later. The other of these dangers – that lurking in the novel lockdowns – was largely ignored or severely discounted.
One of the hallmarks of sound science is appropriate classification of phenomena. Another is logical coherence of analyses. It’s sensible that novel dangers that are reasonably believed to pose severe risks to human well-being justify us, in our encounters with such dangers, to err on the side of caution. But this sensible advice applies to all such novel dangers. And so if we encounter such a danger X at 9:00am and then encounter a second such danger Y at 9:15am, we would behave quite irrationally if we ignore or discount danger Y simply because we encountered danger Y after we encountered danger X.
Two Surprising and Sudden Dangers
In early 2020 humanity first encountered the dangerous coronavirus. Almost immediately thereafter we encountered the dangerous lockdowns. The fact that the lockdowns were proposed as a ‘solution’ to the coronavirus does nothing to protect them from the need of scrutiny. History, after all, is saturated with solutions that turn out to be worse than the problems they were meant to solve.
Yet the dangers of novel lockdowns were ignored or hand-waved away by all but a puny puddle of people. “We’re up against an unknown and monstrous enemy in this coronavirus,” screamed the vast ocean of people who screamed for novel lockdowns. “Until the risk of Covid is brought way, way down, we can’t afford the luxury of listening to those who warn of the dangers of lockdowns!”
As a matter of logic, however, an identical panic-stricken reaction to lockdowns would have been equally appropriate – or, as the case might be, equally inappropriate. “We’re up against an unknown and monstrous enemy in these lockdowns,” many people could have screamed. “Until the risk of lockdowns is known to be very, very low, we can’t afford the luxury of listening to those who warn of the dangers of Covid!”
In reality, each danger, and each proposal for reducing the danger, should be considered with appropriate rationality and never in a panic. (That tamping down panic is often difficult in practice doesn’t make this advice any less warranted.) No one doubts that the greater, the more novel, and the more immediate the danger, the greater is the justification for acting to avert the danger with vigor and speed. But if one of the speedily proposed means for averting the danger is itself novel and plausibly poses dangers as great as – even if not as immediate as – those posed by the danger itself, this proposed means ought to be resisted until and unless a careful calculation provides sound reason to believe that use of this means is likely to generate benefits greater than costs.
Yet there was no such careful calculation for the lockdowns imposed in haste to combat Covid-19. Lockdowns were simply assumed not only to be effective at significantly slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but also to impose only costs that are acceptable. Regrettably, given the novelty of the lockdowns, and the enormous magnitude of their likely downsides, this bizarrely sanguine attitude toward lockdowns was – and remains – wholly unjustified. And the unjustness of this reaction is further highlighted by the fact that, in a free society, the burden of proof is on those who would restrict freedom and not on those who resist such restrictions.
While I believe that the evidence is now decisive that lockdowns were a huge mistake, my point here is not, strictly speaking, anti-lockdown. My point here, instead, is pro-science and good sense: Whatever the novelty and dangers of Covid-19, the novelty and dangers of Covid-19 lockdowns are at least arguably of the same magnitude. The dismissal of the unknown possible horrors of lockdowns in order to focus attention exclusively on the unknown possible horrors of SARS-CoV-2 is as unjustified by science as it is unpardonable as policy.
Two former British Army paratroopers accused of murdering an Official IRA commander have been acquitted, after prosecutors failed to provide further evidence against them and the trial collapsed.
Joe McCann, 24, was unarmed when he was shot dead by paratroopers as he tried to evade arrest by a plainclothes police officer in Belfast in 1972.
The accused, identified only as Soldiers A and C, have admitted firing at McCann, but claim they acted within the law. The veterans, now in their 70s, made statements to the Royal Military Police in 1972 and were interviewed by the Historical Enquiries Team – a police legacy branch – in 2010.
At Belfast Crown Court on Tuesday, presiding judge Justice John O’Hara ruled that the statements – which formed key evidence for the prosecution – were inadmissible at the trial. Prosecutors accepted the judge’s findings that the statements were not given under caution and the soldiers did not have access to legal representation.
The court heard that McCann was allegedly behind the deaths of 15 British soldiers in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. His family have said they will ask the attorney general to open an inquest into his death.
Outside the court their lawyer, Niall Murphy said: “This ruling does not mean that Joe McCann was not murdered by the British Army.”
Four other cases involving the prosecution of former British soldiers in Northern Ireland are currently at the pre-trial stage.
Description: This week we hear from Carroll Quigley and G. Edward Griffin about a secret society created by Rhodes to spread the British Empire around the world…which is still at work, attempting to set up a world government administered by bankers.
Documentation
Documentation – Dynamic Duo radio program
Time Reference:
01:41
Description:
Click here to find the link to the current program of the Dynamic Duo. If you see 1003081 or 1003082, you can download it and listen to James Corbett on Kevin Barrett’s radio program.
Join GCN Live to get access to the Dynamic Duo podcast archive, where you can download the archived copy of James Corbett’s appearance on the program (Friday, October 3, 2008).
An excellent source of geopolitical news and information. Enter the jcorbett coupon code when you purchase a yearly subscription and you will help fund The Corbett Report.
Quigley’s best known and most-debated work. The quotations cited in this 2008 piece were from this inaccurate reproduction of the book (square bracket interjections, ellipses and all), but the quotations in the 2021 video are from the book as published.
If you’ve recently read a newspaper, popular magazine, science journal or watched a major television news outlet, you have probably seen news item after news item regarding the Climate Crisis or the Climate Emergency. Story after story, covering medicine, weather, ecology, biology, psychology, emigration, international conflict and pet care, all converge on the single story-line that there is an ongoing, ever-present terrifyingly dangerous Climate Crisis, affecting every aspect of human existence.
Where is all this coming from? One of the major sources is Covering Climate Now, which characterizes itself this way:
CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.
Co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and WNYC in 2019, CCNow’s 460-plus partners include some of the biggest names in news, and some of the smallest, because this story needs everyone. In addition to three of the world’s biggest news agencies — Reuters, Bloomberg, and Agence France Presse — each of which provides content to thousands of other newsrooms, our partners include CBS News, NBC and MSNBC News, Noticias Telemundo, PBS NewsHour, Univision, Al Jazeera; most of the biggest public radio stations in the US; many flagship newspapers and TV networks in the Americas, Europe, and Asia; and dozens of leading magazines and journals, including Nature, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, Teen Vogue, and Mother Jones.
You may have thought the news was produced by independent news organizations and journalists. That is simply no longer the case when it comes to climate news. The most powerful news agencies and news outlets are shaping and coordinating coverage of every news beat to include “the climate emergency” in every story – whether or not there is any factual basis to do so. It is not even any longer true the journals of science – Scientific American and The Lancet are both members.
Notably, The New York Times and the Washington Post reportedly declined membership on the basis that the effort “seemed like activism”. Both of these newpapers rightfully didn’t wish to appear to be engaged in activist journalism but both have their own Climate Crisis editorial narratives. Don’t be fooled though, both papers write climate activism – they are just not guided in doing so by CCNow.
Just how slanted, just how bizarrely biased, is the coverage promoted by CCNow? Here is their “Best Practices” list:
1. Say yes to the science. There are not two sides to a fact. For too long, especially in the US, the media juxtaposed climate science—a matter of overwhelming global consensus—with climate skepticism and denialism—seldom more than thinly-veiled protections of the fossil fuel industry. The resulting implication that these positions are equal, or that the jury is somehow still out, is in large part responsible for the public disengagement and political paralysis that have met the climate crisis so far. As journalists, we must write about climate change with the same clarity of the scientists who have been sounding the alarms for decades. Platforming those scientists’ detractors in an effort to “balance” our stories not only misleads the public, it is inaccurate. Where climate denialism cannot be avoided—when it comes from the highest levels of government, for example—responsible journalistic framing makes clear that it is counterfactual, if not rooted in bad faith.
2. The climate crisis is a story for every beat. At its core, the climate story is a science story. But whether you cover business, health, housing, education, food, national security, entertainment, or something else, there is always a strong climate angle to be found. And climate need not be a story’s central focus to merit mention. Also, journalists should be sure to emphasize the human-side of the climate story. For political reporters, for example, Biden’s climate agenda obviously deserves coverage. But audiences will likely be more engaged by stories that start with how the climate emergency is seen and felt by ordinary people — and then discuss how government policy can make a difference. In the words of renowned climate author Bill McKibben, climate change is “an exciting story filled with drama and conflict. It’s what journalism was made for.”
3. Emphasize the experiences—and activism—of the poor, communities of color, and indigenous people. Environmental justice is key to the climate story. The poor, people of color, and indigenous people have long suffered first and worst from heat waves, floods, and other climate impacts. Yet their voices and stories are too often omitted from news coverage. Good climate reporting not only highlights these people’s trevails, it also recognizes that they are frequently leading innovators at the forefront of the climate fight. Coverage that focuses overwhelmingly on wealthy communities and features only white voices is simply missing the story.
4. Ditch the Beltway “he-said, she-said.” There are of course plenty of urgent climate stories to be told from halls of government. But when we treat the climate story first and foremost as a political dogfight, we give the narrative over to the same intractable partisanship that so degrades the rest of our political coverage. (One side wants to act. The other doesn’t. Looks like nothing can be done.) By foregrounding partisanship in our climate coverage, we also risk losing huge swaths of audiences that likely feel they get more than enough political news as it is. And, for those readers, viewers, and listeners whose political views are ensconced in one camp or the other, we forego opportunities to challenge assumptions.
5. Avoid “doom and gloom.” We can and must understand the epochal consequences of climate change. If our coverage is always negative, however, it “leaves the public with an overall sense of powerlessness,” in the words of former NPR reporter Elizabeth Arnold. “It just reaches this point where people feel hopeless and overwhelmed,” Arnold told Journalist’s Resource in 2018. “And when we feel that way, psychologists say, we tend to just avoid and deny, and tune out.” Indeed, for every wildfire or galling instance of denial by the powerful, there are untold multitudes of innovators and activists who are pioneering solutions. By elevating those stories, we show that climate change is not a problem too big to understand—or to tackle.
6. Go easy on the jargon. This is a tried and true tenet of journalism generally, but it especially applies here. The climate story is chock full of insider-y verbiage—parts per million of carbon dioxide, micrograms of particulate matter, and fractions of degrees Centigrade. The meanings and implications of these terms might be familiar to those who’ve been on the beat for decades, but they may be quite unfamiliar to some who are reading or watching our coverage. Always assume that your target audience is not scientists or fellow climate journalists and ask yourself: How can I help someone new to the problem understand it easily and accurately? Where possible, avoid clustering technical terms. And when attempting to quantify climate change, try to employ simple analogies. For example, when explaining how global warming contributed to the record wildfires in Australia, John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist, likened it to baseball players on steroids: a great slugger will hit plenty of home runs in any case, but a great slugger who takes steroids will hit more of them.
7. Beware of “greenwashing.” Companies around the world are waking up to public demands for eco-conscious business practices. Pledges to “go green,” however, often amount to little more than marketing campaigns that obscure unmitigated carbon footprints. So shun the stenography and cast a skeptical eye on grand promises of net-zero or carbon-negative emissions, especially from big-name companies that have historically been a big part of the problem.
8. Extreme weather stories are climate stories. The news is awash in hurricanes, floods, unseasonable snow dumps, record heatwaves, and drought. They are not all due to climate change, but the increased frequency and intensity of such extreme weather certainly is. Yet much news coverage makes little to no mention of the climate connection, leaving audiences without context and unaware that humanity is already experiencing climate disruption. (Worse still, some coverage greets this bad news with cheer. An alarmingly unseasonable heat snap, for example, is “a much welcome break from the cold.”) The climate connection need not dominate coverage, nor distract from the vital information audiences need in the face of emergency weather conditions—but mentioning it is a must.
9. Jettison the outdated belief that climate coverage repels audiences and loses money. Climate stories have a bad reputation as low-traffic ratings killers. This might have been true in the past, but demographic shifts and growing public awareness have brought increased demands for smart, creative climate coverage—especially from young audiences, for whom the climate emergency is often top-of-mind. Indeed, there’s good evidence that strong climate coverage can actually boost a news outlet’s bottom line.
10. For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists. We understand as well as anyone that opinion pages occasionally need to push the envelope with unpopular takes. But there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science—and if one accepts the science, one also accepts the imperative for rapid, forceful action. Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.
Note: Some of the bolded intros to each section are in newspeak, in which the words used don’t necessarily mean what they say. The “Say yes to the science”, for instance, really means “only speak of science that dictates a climate crisis – never mention contrary facts or opinions”. Worse than that, CCNow recommends that if contrary science must be presented, then it should be framed as “inaccurate” and “counterfactual, if not rooted in bad faith.” It is forbidden by CCNow to report facts or opinions not in alignment with the Climate Emergency meme. This is reinforced in item 10: “For God’s sake, do not platform climate denialists.” Insisting that “there is no longer any good faith argument against climate science—and if one accepts the science, one also accepts the imperative for rapid, forceful action. Op-eds that detract from the scientific consensus, or ridicule climate activism, don’t belong in a serious news outlet.”
This whole CCNow effort is the very definition of the antithesis to journalism. Journalism is meant to inform the public of the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of issues facing the populace. CCNow wants to propagandize the public.
Propagandize? Yes, precisely the correct word.
prop·a·gan·dize /ˌpräpəˈɡanˌdīz/
verb derogatory
promote or publicize a particular cause, organization, or view, especially in a biased or misleading way. Similar: advocate
attempt to influence (someone) with propaganda.
“people who have to be emotionalized and propagandized by logical arguments”
Whenever there are demands to present only one side of any issue, and to actively denigrate opposing views and those who hold those views, one is dealing with propaganda. The rules and methods of effective propaganda have been honed over the decades:
BQ
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts in order to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language in order to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations, the media, and individuals also produce propaganda. [ source ]
Are these people just a bunch of liars? No, I suspect that many of them are “True Believers” having grown up and been (mis)educated during the Global Warming/Climate Change era since the late 1980s. They want to believe and they want everyone else to believe too. They seem willing to do and say anything to make others believe. Unfortunately, they seem short on critical thinking skills, stubbornly remaining ignorant of any opposing facts, and suffer from varying degrees of Jor-El syndrome. They’ve been trained in a type of non-journalism, in which they are all imaging themselves to be the new “Woodward and Bernstein” — exposing the evils of society and – in this case – Saving Krypton The Planet.
This article is an introduction to the story-lines being pushed by CCNow and their partners. I will be analyzing many of these stories over the next few weeks, but I start with this one simple example (out of many) from the CCNow page intended to assure their partners that there really is a Climate Emergency: “Who Says It’s a Climate Emergency?”
In early 2021, two-thirds of the world’s people think climate change is a “global emergency,” according to a new poll, the largest ever on climate.
Shocking news – two-thirds – two out of every three – “of the world’s people” (all 7.7 billion of them) “think climate change is a ‘global emergency’”. Really? Let’s see what this is really about. Let’s find out: what have they really counted?
The Guardian (a founding member of CCNow) published this:
Biggest ever survey finds two-thirds of people think climate change is a global emergency”
This headline and subsequent story are based on a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) survey. Here’s what they really did (please, don’t laugh, this is serious!):
“The Peoples’ Climate Vote was conducted from 7 October to 4 December 2020 by distributing poll questions through adverts in popular mobile gaming apps to 50 countries. When a person played a popular mobile game – such as Words with Friends, Angry Birds, Dragon City or Subway Surfers – the poll would replace the traditional in-game advert. This innovative approach led to a huge, unique, and random sample of 1.22 million people of all genders, ages, and educational backgrounds. It also meant that the Peoples’ Climate Vote reached people who are sometimes hard to reach in traditional polling, such as those below the age of 18.”
“Voters were first asked two questions about whether they believe climate change is a global emergency and, if so, what kind of action they think the world should take (see Box 1). Then they were asked a series of questions about the different kinds of climate policies – across the six key policy areas of the Mission 1.5 game – that they would like their government to enact. The data were collated and processed by analysts at the University of Oxford, who used official statistics to weight the data to create representative estimates of public opinion. With such a large sample size, and rich socio-demographic information, the margin of error of the results is on average +/- 2%.” [ source – full report pdf ]
Stop laughing, please.
Having collected 1.22 million responses from kids playing silly, online video games on their phones, every one of whom gave their serious and well-considered and true answers and never ever lied about themselves having a college degree or their age, the United Nations Development Programme, after “analysts at the University of Oxford . . . used official statistics to weight the data”, concluded confidently that:
“The Peoples’ Climate Vote found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of people in 50 countries believe that climate change is a global emergency”
Not one of CCNow’s partners have mentioned the absurdity of the finding and seem perfectly happy to pass it on as a Scientific Fact. The survey results are being used by CCNow and their 460 news partners to show just how real the Climate Emergency really is – after all, a lot of videogame playing kids say so.
Watch this space for further examples of what other propaganda is being churned out, and echoed again and again and again, in the world press.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
This propaganda effort is playing on and amplifying – in a feedback loop similar to the one that occurred with Covid-19 — the Mass Hysteria surrounding the weather.
I could spend the rest of the year exposing both the subtle and the egregious lies being foisted off on the public through this pernicious effort.
I don’t hold out much hope of making a difference by doing so.
I do hope that I can offer little bits of Propaganda Fighting Tidbits to your personal arsenals.
Via executive orders, regulatory edicts and partisan Green New Deal legislation, President Biden intends to slash US carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below their 2005 peak by 2030, and eliminate them (and fossil fuel use) by 2050. But as AOC’s former chief of staff noted, the GND is not just about transforming America’s energy system; it’s about changing the entire economy.
This radical transformation is driven by three fundamental Articles of Faith, none of them based on reality.
1) The crisis of manmade climate cataclysms necessitates this GND. Team Biden believes natural forces no longer play a role; rising temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended two centuries ago are due solely to fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions, as are all extreme weather events over recent decades; and the 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall (from Wilma in 2005 to Harvey in 2017) is irrelevant – as is the significant decline in violent (F3-F5) US tornadoes 1986-2020 compared to 1950-1985, and that for the first time in history not one violent twister hit the United States in 2018.
1) American foreign policy must construct a values-based world order that can tackle humanity’s common problems in an organized, collegial manner. Team Biden believes such problems cannot be solved by national governments acting alone, so world leaders have no choice but to work together. Wall Street Journal global view columnist Walter Russell Means calls this the Biden Doctrine.
However, China, India and many other countries don’t view climate change as an existential threat – much less a problem that justifies sacrificing their energy needs, economic growth, national security and geopolitical aspirations. They may give lip service to the alleged “climate crisis,” “decarbonization” and “green energy.” But they know their futures are inextricably tied to the abundant, reliable, affordable energy that only oil, natural gas and coal (plus hydroelectric and nuclear) can provide. They are not going to “work together” with leaders who expect them to undermine their most vital goals.
The Biden Doctrine’s second inherent failing is that GND policies will inevitably hollow out America’s industrial and military might, destroy jobs, and reduce US leverage in future negotiations. China already controls the raw material supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, battery modules for electric vehicles and backup power systems, and countless other technologies. Even our advanced military equipment relies on metals and minerals that are mined and/or processed by Chinese companies. GND policies would only worsen the situation.
3) Replacing the 80% of US energy that now comes from fossil fuels can be accomplished quickly, easily, affordably and ecologically – with clean, green, renewable, sustainable, carbon-free wind and solar technologies that will create millions of good jobs, and save our planet from climate devastation.
The foundation for this presumed global transformation is the Biden Administration’s Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change program – better known by its acronym: MAGIC.
(This is not an official name. In fact, there is no such program, and no evidence that Team Biden has a clue about what would be required to transform America from fossil to green energy. MAGIC simply provides the most accurate description of how they expect to achieve this transformation.)
The raw material requirements for a GND economy are astronomical, mind-numbing. To cite just one example of hundreds, Team Biden wants to install 30,000 megawatts of wind turbines off America’s Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. Assuming 10,000 MW per coastline, total Atlantic coast wind capacity would barely meet three-fourths of peak summertime electricity demand for New York City – assuming full output 24/7/365. The entire 30,000 MW wouldn’t meet New York State’s current peak electricity needs.
However, at 3.6 tons per megawatt, just this Phase 1 offshore wind scheme would require 108,000 tons of copper. At 0.8% metal in an average ore globally, that would involve mining, crushing and processing some 13,000,000 tons of ore, after removing millions of tons of rock to get to the ore bodies!
14-MW Vesta, GE or Siemens-Gamesa turbines stand 815-850 feet above 30-100 foot deep ocean waters (160 feet higher than the Washington Monument). Each blade is 350 feet long. Every turbine weighs in at 2,000-3,000 tons of metals, plastics and composites, plus massive concrete-and-rebar bases. Phase 1 alone will involve tens of millions of tons of materials, billions of tons of ores and overburden.
Add in materials for subsea electrical cables, onshore transmission lines, onshore wind turbines and solar panels, backup battery systems, electric vehicles, electric heating systems and other GND technologies – to run the entire USA – and we’re looking at tens of billions of tons of metals and minerals, trillions of tons of ores, and mines, processing plants and factories all over the world.
Team Biden claims “renewable” energy is “carbon-free.” It gets away with this deception by looking only at electricity generation after turbines and panels are installed – and ignoring how the raw materials are extracted and processed and how the technologies are manufactured … far from the United States … using fossil fuels every step of the way … under minimal to nonexistent laws for air and water pollution control, habitat and wildlife protection, mined land reclamation, child and slave labor, and workplace safety.
Unencumbered by Paris climate treaty restrictions, emerging economies will gladly sell us “green, renewable” technologies that send electricity costs soaring to several times today’s prices and drive factories and industries out of business, unable to compete with China and India.
The past winter’s Texas blackout will become commonplace. Wind electricity generation plummeted 93% – but natural gas generation rocketed 450% to make up the difference, even though pipelines could not supply enough fuel, because legislators and regulators had decreed that pipeline compressors run off the compromised grid, instead of on gas from the pipelines. Under the GND, though, there won’t be any gas generation backup – just freezing jobless in the dark.
Climate czar and private jetsetter John Kerry says unemployed oil and factory workers will get “good jobs” making solar panels. In reality, those jobs will be overseas. Americans workers will only assemble, install, maintain, repair, remove, recycle and landfill imported green tech. American families and businesses will be forced to rip out trillions of dollars of perfectly good gas furnaces, ovens, stoves, water heaters, vehicles and industrial systems – and spend more trillions replacing them with expensive new GND-approved equipment, backup batteries and upgraded electrical systems to handle the extra loads.
And this entire, vastly expanded all-electric world will be expected to function with unreliable, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (All this in a USA where opinion surveys have found the average citizen is willing to pay a minuscule $2-50 per year to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels and (supposedly) keep global average temperatures from rising any higher.)
President Biden’s inability to comprehend these realities may be due to his diminished mental capacity. But it could also be the result of rarely having to exercise his mind – in a political arena where woke, hard-green, climate-obsessed, cancel-culture ideologues permit no discussion, questions or dissent; where advisors, cabinet members, regulators and legislators are of the same mindset, or too timid to speak up; and where schools, news and social media, Big Tech, government agencies, corporate chiefs and even book publishers likewise silence, ignore, punish and banish anyone who offers differing views.
We can only hope enough citizens pound enough sense into our ruling classes to eliminate their belief in MAGIC, climate monsters and other countries crazy enough to follow Mr. Biden into economic suicide.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.
Picture this: Contrary to medical claims, the genetic injection called “COVID vaccination” forces cells of the body to produce not one, but hundreds of DIFFERENT proteins. Some of these proteins launch severe and fatal allergic reactions. Other foreign proteins stimulate the body to produce a powerful and continuing immune response that goes on too long; the person becomes severely ill or dies. Still other proteins, which are inherently needed by the body, are now viewed as evil intruders which must be neutralized…
I’ve written articles criticizing the COVID vaccine, from a number of perspectives. “Criticizing” is too mild a word. [1]
In this article, I want to examine a narrow claim about the COVID RNA vaccine: It instructs cells of the body to manufacture ONE AND ONLY ONE specific protein. [2] [3]
In fact, this is touted as THE major action of the genetic vaccine. Supposedly, that protein is similar to a protein in the purported SARS-CoV-2, and it “prepares and rehearses the body for the real thing.”
However, what guarantee do we have that the cells of the body are manufacturing only the one desired protein during the rehearsal?
How do we know the cells are always making the same protein?
Where is the proof? Where is the large confirmatory study that has examined thousands and thousands of human cells, from thousands of people who have been vaccinated?
I haven’t been able to find such a study.
If it exists, where are the large follow-up studies, carried out by different teams of researchers—verifying or rejecting the original research?
Well, in the analogous area of GMO plants, which are injected with genetic material, long-time researcher and author, Jeffrey Smith, writes about—guess what?—the runaway production of unintended proteins: [4]
“For example, long after Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had been consumed by hundreds of millions of people, a team led by Dr. Antoniou found more than 200 significant changes in its proteins and metabolites, compared to non-GMO corn of the same variety. Two of the compounds that increased are aptly named putrescine and cadaverine, because they produce the horrific smell of rotting dead bodies. More worrisome; they are also linked to higher risks of allergies and cancer. Another Monsanto GM corn has a new allergen and their cooked soy has up to seven times the level of a known soy allergen, compared to cooked non-GMO soy.”
There is more. Injected genetic material—as in the COVID vaccine—can cause ripple effects. Jeffrey Smith writes: “…back in 1999, a study showed widespread changes in the DNA due to gene insertion; but many GMO companies conveniently ignored the findings and continue to do so.”
“In that study, scientists studying cystic fibrosis inserted a gene into human cells. Using a microarray, they discovered that the insertion ‘significantly affect[ed] up to 5% of the total genes in the array.’ This means that the presence of a single foreign gene might change the expression of hundreds, possibly thousands of genes. In the case of the human cell being studied, the scientists were at a loss to determine the impact. ‘In the absence of more biological information,’ they wrote, ‘we cannot discern which directions [genetic changes] are better or worse, since any of these may have positive or negative effects’.”
Getting the picture?
The simplistic portrait of the genetic insertion called “COVID vaccine” is ready-made propaganda for a gullible audience.
And as HUGE numbers of serious adverse effects and deaths pile up from the vaccine, the medical establishment has twisted explanations on board:
“If a person experiences ‘severe discomfort’ after vaccination, this is a good sign; the vaccine is working.”
“If a person becomes seriously ill, he was attacked by SARS-CoV-2, or a ‘co-morbidity,’ not the vaccine.”
“If a person dies, that, too, was the virus, or an underlying genetic disorder.”
I refuse to accept—among other lies—that the COVID vaccine forces cells of the body to produce exactly and only the same single protein every time, in every case—unless I see convincing proof.
And I’m NOT talking about a study that takes test samples from a small number of patients. I’m talking about thousands of samples from thousands of patients—which is called SCIENCE, in case anyone has forgotten.
“So, Dr. Mengele, are you sure the COVID vaccine inserts RNA into the correct place in the human cell every time? Are you sure the cells produce only the intended protein?”
“Of course. We’ve shown that in the lab.”
“I’m not talking about the lab, Dr. Mengele. I’m talking about thousands of samples taken from humans after they’ve been vaccinated.”
“Oh no, that would be a very laborious process. We don’t have time for that.”
“In other words, the people of Earth are all vulnerable guinea pigs in your vast vaccine campaign.”
“Of course. I thought this was well understood. We have a captive audience, we have new technology, so we run an experiment. This is what life IS.”
In February, 2021, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. and a number of his colleagues warned the European Medicines Agency about the potential danger of blood clots and cerebral vein thrombosis in millions of people receiving experimental gene-based injections. Since then, two of the four injections have been suspended or recalled in Europe and the United States for just that reason. In this episode of Perspectives, Professor Bhakdi explains the science behind the problem, why it is not just limited to the products already suspended, and why in the long term we may be creating dangerously overactive immune systems in billions of unwitting subjects.
The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.
This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.
This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.
Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.
Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.
These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike. For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments.
Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.
As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation’s health and security and a menace to freedom.
This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.
“We the people” have become the police state’s guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.
While these particular incidents have been dismissed as “accidents,” you don’t have to dig very deep or go very far back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.
Many of the government’s incursions into our freedoms over the years have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial.
Unfortunately, the incidents we know about are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.
Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?
In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territories as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.
And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.
So, no, I don’t think the government’s ethics have changed much over the years. It’s just taken its nefarious programs undercover.
The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.
It’s the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.
When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.
This is not a government that values us.
To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.
To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we’ve outgrown our usefulness.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.
Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”
Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”
Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.
You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (“Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz”) is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official “New Normal” ideology … the “Covid Deniers,” the “conspiracy theorists,” the “anti-vaxxers,” the dreaded “Querdenkers” (i.e., people who “think outside the box”), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We’re now official enemies of the state, no different than any other “terrorists” … or, OK, technically, a little different.
As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), “the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists.” Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-vaxxers” have “targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism,” and have “attacked police officers” and “defied civil authorities.”
Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the “Storming of the Capitol,” “Covid-denying” insurrectionists “scaled the steps of Parliament” (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called “Storming of the Reichstag” was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this “Steps-of-the-Reichstag” protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I’m just a “conspiracy theorist.”
But, see, there I go, again “being anti-democratic” and “delegitimizing the state,” not to mention “relativizing the Holocaust” (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the “Infection Protection Act,” which bears no comparison whatsoever to the “Enabling Act of 1933.”
This isn’t just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The “New Normal” War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it’s just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland Security “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” (and the “liberal” corporate-media propaganda machine), “democracy” remains under imminent threat from these “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other such “grievances fueled by false narratives” including “anger over Covid-19 restrictions.”
These Covid-denying “violent extremists” have apparently joined forces with the “white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving “Putin-Nazis” that terrorized “democracy” for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn’t actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians’ desks is pretty much exactly the same as “terrorism.”
Or whatever. It’s not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary “Russian assets,” “white-supremacist militias,” “Covid-denying extremists,” “anti-vax terrrorists,” and “apocalyptic plagues.” When you’re rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the shit out of people.
As Hermann Goering famously explained regarding how to lead a country to war (and the principle holds true for any big transition, like the one we are experiencing currently):
“[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Go back and read those quotes from the German Interior Ministry and the DHS again slowly. The message they are sending is unmistakeably clear. It might not seem all that new, but it is. Yes, they have been telling us “we are being attacked” and denouncing critics, protesters, and dissidents for twenty years (i.e., since the War on Terror was launched in 2001, and for the last four years in their War on Populism), but this is a whole new level of it … a fusion of official narratives and their respective official enemies into a singular, aggregate official narrative in which dissent will no longer be permitted.
Instead, it will be criminalized, or it will be pathologized.
Seriously, go back and read those quotes again. Global capitalist governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that “objection to their authority” will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives. Such dissent will be deemed “dangerous” and above all “false.” It will not be engaged with or rationally debated. It will be erased from public view. There will be an inviolable, official “reality.” Any deviation from official “reality” or defiance of the “civil authorities” will be labelled “extremism,” and dealt with accordingly.
This is the essence of totalitarianism, the establishment of an inviolable official ideology and the criminalization of dissent. And that is what is happening, right now. A new official ideology is being established. Not a state ideology. A global ideology. The “New Normal” is that official ideology. Technically, it is an official post-ideology, an official “reality,” an axiomatic “fact,” which only “criminals” and “psychopaths” would deny or challenge.
I’ll be digging deeper into “New Normal” ideology and “pathologized totalitarianism” in my future columns, and … sorry, they probably won’t be very funny. For now I’ll leave you with two more quotes. The emphasis is mine, as ever.
“These extremists have not yet been held accountable, so they continue to escalate violence against the body public … We must now summon the political will to demand that domestic terrorists face consequences for their words and actions. Our democracy and our lives depend on it … They’ve been building alliances with white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and [others] on the far right …”
“The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States. Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counter-offensive.”
We’ll be hearing a lot more rhetoric like this as this new, more totalitarian structure of global capitalism gradually develops. Probably a good idea to listen carefully, and assume they mean exactly what they say.
In 1956 German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal GmbH, licensed a new experimental drug designed to treat colds, flu, nausea and morning sickness. Known as Distaval in the UK, Distillers Biochemicals Ltd declared the drug could ‘be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child’ – a basic pre-requisite for licensing a drug.
While forty-nine countries licensed the drug under multiple different names, the then head of the FDA Dr. Frances Kelsey, a physician-pharmacologist with a profound interest in fetal development, refused authorization for use in the US market due to her concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the drug’s safety.
The drug was also known as Thalidomide.
Sixty-five years on and the stringent safety measures brought in to avoid another scandal on the scale of Thalidomide have been swept aside in order to fast track the approval of experimental mRNA vaccines. This is in spite of concerns voiced by (among others) Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr Michael Yeadon who petitioned the European Medical Agency (EMA) with a Administrative/Regulatory Stay Of Action in regard to the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b – not just in regard to concerns about pregnant women, the foetus and infertility – but also in regard to the effect of the mRNA vaccines on those with prior immunity, for whom immunization could lead to a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to their lungs and other organs of their body.
No previous research into treating illness or disease with messenger RNA or mRNA vaccines has been successful and this is the first time mRNA vaccines have been used on humans.
The concerns of Yeadon, Wodarg and others appear to be borne out by data from the King’s College Zoe app that records adverse events from the mRNA vaccines. Taken from a pool of 700,000, data reveals that 12.2% of those vaccinated with the Pfizer jab experienced adverse events or side effects, a number which tripled to 35.7% for those with prior immunity. Adverse events from the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab were already high at 31.9% but increased to 52.7% for people with immunity.
Ellie Barnes, professor of hepatology and immunology at Oxford University and a member of the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium referred to the discovery – that when you’ve had a COVID-19 infection your T-cells become activated and become memory T cells – as ‘emerging’ as though this was something revelatory. Yet the dangers of over-immunization had been flagged up multiple times and well before vaccine rollout.
It gets worse.
In spite of additional research from New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital and the University of Maryland which indicated that those who had previously developed Covid-19 were effectively already immune and wouldn’t need a second dose (arguably they didn’t need the first dose if they already had immunity), Eleanor Riley, professor of infectious diseases at Edinburgh University said that ‘Incorporating this into a mass vaccination program, may be logistically complex’, adding ‘it may be safer overall to ensure everyone gets two doses’.
May be safer? Many in the study group had already had an adverse event from the first dose, so how could it be ‘safer’ when second doses have been shown to increase the adversity of an event.
And how is it logistically complex to notify those who have already experienced an adverse event? The medical data of the 700,000 patients has already been logged into the Zoe App system, otherwise the Zoe App wouldn’t be able to differentiate between those with or without prior immunity. Therefore, those with prior immunity from having had Covid-19 – or those for whom an adverse event would perhaps indicate prior immunity – can be notified that there is no need for a second dose.
Moreover, why on earth aren’t people tested for prior immunity before taking any vaccination considering the concerns associated with over-immunization?
Alarming data is also emerging from the Yellow Card Scheme.
Set up following the Thalidomide scandal, it allows both doctors and patients to record adverse medical events from drugs and vaccines circulating in the UK market. Up to and including 29 April 2021, the MHRA via Yellow Card Reporting received 149,082 suspected reactions from the COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (from Dec 9 onwards) and 573,650 suspected reactions from the COVID-19 Oxford University/AstraZeneca (from Jan 4 onwards).
As of 29/4/21, the death toll from both vaccines stands at 1045. With 685 of those deaths from the AstraZeneca vaccine since Jan 4, that equates to 5.9 deaths per day for AstraZeneca alone. Deaths from COVID-19 on Monday 26th April stood at 6. And the data doesn’t cover all those vaccinated. Only 3-5 cards per 1,000 of doses (0.3-0.6%) administered have been filed (10% reported side effects during trials) which may indicate that many people are unaware of the existence of the Yellow Card Scheme and that therefore adverse events are being underreported.
The current mRNA vaccine take-up suggests many believe the vaccines will prevent transmission and that the 90-95% vaccine efficacy reported by the BBC equates to a high chance of prevention. These figures are taken from the FDA’s report on the efficacy of the mRNA Pfizer vaccine, which itself refers to the potential of reduction of the viral load – i.e. symptomatic COVID-19 – not transmission. It does not mean that 95% of people vaccinated are protected from contracting the virus, something The Lancet refers to as ‘a misconception’.
Even the 90-95% claim of reduction in viral load is questioned by a BMJ report (and others), which estimates the mRNA vaccine’s efficacy in the reduction of COVID-19 symptoms to be more within the 19-29% range – less than the 35% efficacy of dexamethasone used by the NHS.
This appears to be backed up by further reporting from Shahriar Zehtabchi, MD who explains why ‘suspected but unconfirmed’ COVID-19 cases cannot clarify which study patients had the disease in any group.
It would be hard to see therefore how vaccine efficacy could be determined if those taking the vaccine had not been tested for prior immunity or if those on trials were only ‘suspected’ of having had the disease, without having had a test to confirm it. The mRNA vaccines are also predominantly for those with high risk of complications from COVID-19 which – judging by ONS statistics – is a minority.
According to ONS figures, the number of those under sixty-five with no serious underlying health issues who died ‘due’ to Covid-19 in 2020 was 1,549. For the healthy 30-year-old age group (i.e. those with no serious underlying health issues), taking the experimental mRNA vaccine would be the statistical equivalent of 164,125 people jumping off a cliff because a hungry bear was approaching. The bear only wants one meal and he’s going to get the slowest runner. If you are fit, you have little to no chance of the bear getting you. Jumping off the cliff however can lead to injury or death. It is a leap into the unknown. As are the mRNA vaccines.
Yet there are still those who believe they need a vaccination in order to travel. Not so. Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, France, Austria and Israel are the first to announce they will accept proof of antibodies and/or a negative COVID-19 test in order to visit. Furthermore, the vaccinated will also need to show proof of a COVID-19 negative test, presumably because there are still doubts from these countries and others as to the efficacy levels of the vaccines in regard to transmission. Not even British Airways demands proof of vaccination. The airline was quick off the blocks to offer a subsidized £33 online Covid-test for those planning to travel. After the financial losses of lockdown, most airlines and countries will no doubt follow suit. Demand is what fuels the market.
Not that any of the above will slow down the UK Government’s manic roll out of the vaccine drive to the next 40-49-year-old target range of guinea-pigs. Do the majority of these 40-49-year-olds need the mRNA vaccine? Not according to WHO and ONS data. For a healthy 40-49 year old, the chances of dying from COVID-19 is 1 in 46,242. Will this next target range group be put off by the fact so many doctors and healthcare workers are refusing to take the vaccine? They should be.
It took five years after the initial licensing of Thalidomide before anyone realised Thalidomide crossed the placental barrier and caused serious birth defects, a discovery hampered by the fact the drug had been marketed under multiple different names across 49 countries. It took a further five years to mount a legal challenge. Nobody was found guilty. Not until the mid-seventies following a fierce moral crusade by the late, great investigative journalist and editor Harold Evans (who referred to investigative journalism as ‘attacking the devil’) did the families of those children who died or who were born with limb, eye and heart problems receive commensurate compensation. Fifty years later, Chemie Grünenthal GmbH apologised. Evans believed the Thalidomide scandal was a lesson in how a government can betray its duty. They’re still doing it.
Chief Executive of the MHRA Dr. June Raine was ‘delighted’ to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine for use on the citizens of the UK. ‘No stone is left unturned when it comes to our assessments’ she said. That there had been ‘a robust and thorough assessment of all the available data’ and that her staff had ‘worked tirelessly to ensure we continue to make safe vaccines available to people across the UK’.
I doubt Dr. Frances Kelsey would see it that way. Or Harold Evans.
Researchers about the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor know that President Franklin Roosevelt provoked a Japanese attack to justify America’s entry into World War II. Most Americans were against joining the war, but the attack on Pearl Harbor provided the excuse needed to declare war. The best book on this topic is “Day of Deceit” by former World War II Navy officer Robert Stinnett. The topics he covers are controversial because most people refuse to accept that Roosevelt and top military leaders in Washington DC failed to inform the commanders in Hawaii that a Japanese fleet was coming to attack, and restricted operations to ensure its success.
“Disposition of the U.S. Pacific Fleet on 7 December 1941”; US Congress via US Navy; (note that dozens of ships were at sea yet none north of Hawaii); http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/n…
A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to “respect Mexico’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies” — specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.
“Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree,” Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. “His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock.”
“Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States,” Wise added. “Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops.”
The groups’ letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference—published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)—is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).
“We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico’s decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming,” Schafer said in a statement. “It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits.”
Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that “we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics.”
“We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto—and their CropLife trade association—which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn,” Bejarano said.
The letter highlights Guardianreporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG—which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018—worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico’s plans.
According to journalist Carey Gillam’s mid-February report:
The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico’s position. One email makes a reference to staff within López Obrador’s administration as “vocal anti-biotechnology activists,” and another email states that Mexico’s health agency (Cofepris) is “becoming a big time problem.”
Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is “pushing” for the U.S. to “fold this issue” into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns “regarding compliance” with USMCA.
Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email “how we could use USMCA to work through these issues.”
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 