Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.
The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.
However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”
DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”
The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.
That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.
Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.
Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025
Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.
CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.
Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”
Holland added:
“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.
“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”
CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.
Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:
“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.
“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”
National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”
Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :
“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.
“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”
Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X
Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.
The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.
Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.
The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.
Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”
Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.
However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.
Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”
He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
Will Meta’s policy changes stick?
Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”
Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.
Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”
If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.
“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”
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.
Iran Accuses US of Violating UN Charter Over Nuclear Facilities Strike Discussions
Sputnik – 07.01.2025
TEHRAN – US threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are a gross violation of international norms, the UN Security Council must hold the US accountable internationally, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei said.
Three days earlier, US media reported, citing three informed sources, that incumbent US President Joe Biden had discussed with his team, in particular with White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, plans to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Biden ultimately made no final decision on the issue. The discussion was not prompted by new intelligence, but was aimed at working out possible scenarios, the publication’s sources noted.
“This issue has been raised repeatedly. From the point of view of international law, threats to use force by any country are a gross violation of international law and the UN Charter. This issue is doubly a violation of international agreements,” Baghaei said.
This US threat is a threat against the country’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure, he stressed.
“The UN Security Council should intervene and hold the United States internationally accountable for these statements,” Baghaei added.
On January 4, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the Iranian authorities were ready to immediately enter into constructive negotiations with Western countries on their nuclear program if they lead to a new agreement. According to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi, a new round of consultations between Iran and Europe on the nuclear deal will take place on January 13.
FBI Is Still Hiding Details of Russiagate, Newly Released Document Shows
By Aaron Maté | RealClearInvestigations | January 6, 2025
As Donald Trump re-enters the White House on a pledge to end national security state overreach, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is still hiding critical details on the Russia conspiracy investigation that engulfed his first term.
In response to a Freedom of Information request filed by RealClearInvestigations in August 2022, the FBI on Dec. 31, more than two years later, released a heavily redacted copy of the document that opened an explosive and unprecedented counterintelligence probe of the sitting president as an agent of the Russian government.
The Electronic Communication, dated May 16, 2017, claimed to have an “articulable factual basis” to suspect that Trump “wittingly or unwittingly” was illegally acting on behalf of Russia, and accordingly posing “threats to the national security of the United States.” The FBI’s “goal,” it added, was “to determine if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation.” It additionally sought to uncover whether Trump and unnamed “others” obstructed “any associated FBI investigation” – a reference to Crossfire Hurricane, the initial FBI inquiry into the Trump campaign’s suspected cooperation with an alleged Russian interference plot in the 2016 election.
While Crossfire Hurricane, which was formally opened on July 31, 2016, had by that point focused on members of Trump’s orbit, the May 2017 probe was specifically targeted at the president himself during his fourth month in office. The investigation of Trump was undertaken at the behest of then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, one week after Trump had fired his former boss and mentor, James B. Comey.
According to the declassified document, McCabe’s decision was approved by FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap, who had also signed off on the opening of Crossfire Hurricane; and Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel. Baker was a longtime friend of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and a key figure in the dissemination of Clinton-funded disinformation to the FBI that falsely tied Trump to Russia. In his FBI role, Baker personally circulated the conspiracy theory, manufactured by “researchers” working with the Clinton campaign, that the Trump campaign and Russia were communicating via a secret server. After leaving the FBI, Baker served as deputy general counsel at Twitter, where he backed the company’s censorship of reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, based on yet another conspiracy theory that the laptop files were Russian disinformation.
FBI via RealClearInestigations
While the declassified document records the FBI’s theory that then-President Trump might be involved in illegal – and potentially treasonous – behavior, the “articulable factual basis” for this suspicion is redacted. Only a few paragraphs of the six-page document have not been withheld.
Along with Crossfire Hurricane, the May 2017 counterintelligence probe was folded into the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller, who was appointed just one day after the FBI began portraying Trump internally as a possible Russian agent or conspirator. Mueller’s final report “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Asked about his reasoning for opening the probe and related matters, McCabe, who now works as an on-air commentator at CNN, did not respond to RCI’s emailed questions by the time of publication.
Details about the FBI’s motivation can be gleaned, however, from other public disclosures.
According to a January 2019 account in the New York Times, which first revealed the FBI’s decision to investigate Trump, the Steele dossier – a collection of conspiracy theories funded by Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton – was among the “factors” that “fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns.”
Just two days before McCabe opened the May 2017 probe, the FBI, via Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, renewed contact with dossier author Christopher Steele despite having terminated him as a source back in November 2016. As RCI’s Paul Sperry has previously reported, this sudden outreach to Steele right before the opening of a new Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation indicated that the FBI was seeking to re-engage the Clinton-funded British operative to help it build a case against the president for espionage and obstruction of justice. At the time, the FBI was still relying on Steele’s fabrications for its surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The following month, the FBI filed the last of its four FISA court warrants based on Steele’s material. The Justice Department has since invalidated two of those warrants on the grounds that they were based on “material misstatements.”
The FBI re-enlisted Steele despite possessing information that thoroughly discredited him. Five months before it newly sought Steele’s help to investigate the sitting president, the FBI interviewed Igor Danchenko, whom Steele had used as his dossier’s key “sub-source.” In that January 2017 meeting, Danchenko told FBI agents that corroboration for the dossier’s claims was “zero”; that he had “no idea” where claims sourced to him came from; and that the Russia-Trump rumors he passed along to Steele came from alcohol-fueled “word of mouth and hearsay.” The FBI had also been unable to corroborate any of Steele’s incendiary claims.
A previously disclosed document also shows that former CIA Director John Brennan – who insistently advanced the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory – informed then-president Barack Obama in July 2016 that the Clinton campaign was planning to tie Trump to Russia in order to distract attention from the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. By that point, the Clinton campaign was already paying for the fabricated reports produced by Steele, who made contact with the FBI as early as July 5.
Although the newly declassified document attempts to suggest that the FBI had actionable intelligence to suspect Trump of being a Russian agent, McCabe’s subsequent comments indicate that there was no such evidence on offer. Instead, McCabe has said his counterintelligence probe of Trump was primarily motivated by the president’s firing of Comey. In a February 2019 interview with CBS News, McCabe explained his thinking as follows: “[T]he idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counter intelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would a president of the United States do that?’ So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia.”
McCabe therefore had no evidence that Trump had a “connection” to Russia, and in fact could only “wonder” if there was one. Yet because Trump had fired Comey, whose FBI was already investigating Trump’s campaign for Russia ties and relying on the Clinton-funded Steele dossier in the process, McCabe decided that he had grounds to order an espionage investigation of the commander in chief.
With the official predicate for that May 2017 investigation still redacted by the FBI, McCabe’s public statements offer the only insider window into why it was opened. In all of the investigations related to alleged Russian interference to date, the Justice Department has pointedly avoided the question.
Despite inheriting McCabe’s probe – and debunking claims of a Trump-Russia conspiracy related to the 2016 election – Special Counsel Mueller made no mention of the Trump as Russian agent theory in his final report of March 2019. Without informing the public, the FBI closed down the Trump counterintelligence investigation the following month. The case’s closing Electronic Communication, which has previously been declassified in redacted form, states that the McCabe probe “was transferred to FBI personnel assisting” the Mueller team, and entailed the use of “a variety of investigative techniques.”
An inquiry led by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz of the FBI’s conduct during Crossfire Hurricane also ignored McCabe’s decision to investigate Trump as an agent of Russia. And in a footnote in his final report of May 2023, John Durham – the Special Counsel appointed to launch a sweeping review of the Russia investigation – claimed that McCabe’s May 2017 probe was outside of his purview.
By contrast, when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane, Durham’s report concluded that the FBI did not have a legitimate basis to launch that investigation, repeatedly ignored exculpatory evidence, and buried warnings that Clinton’s campaign was trying to frame Trump as a Russian conspirator.
While the original Trump-Russia investigation has been discredited, the public remains in the dark about why the FBI launched a follow-up counterintelligence probe that targeted Trump while he was newly in the White House – and what ends it took to pursue it.
With Trump set to be inaugurated this month after vowing to clean up the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, the FBI will have a fresh opportunity to break its longstanding secrecy on the decision to investigate the sitting, and newly returning, president as an agent of Russia.
Europe isn’t the real threat to Ukraine peace but UK
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | January 7, 2025
The Biden Administration has not given up on Ukraine war. A meeting of the Ramstein Format Meeting is scheduled to take place in Germany on Thursday, chaired by the outgoing US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, to address Ukraine’s defence needs, which the Ukrainian President Zelensky will also address.
Meanwhile, Kiev typically launched an attack in the Kursk region on the eve of the Ramstein Format event as the “curtain-raiser”. The operation, although played up in the British press, is spearheaded by just 2 tanks and fifteen armoured carriers and will no doubt be crushed by the Russian drones and its highly lethal Ka high-performance combat helicopters with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power.
Typically, Zelensky won’t give up on any occasion for grandstanding in front of the Western audience. He hopes to display on Thursday that there is still some spunk left in the Ukrainian armed forces. Tragically, he is sacrificing a few dozen Ukrainian soldiers in this melodrama which may distract some attention from the front-line as Russian forces have entered Chasiv Yar and reached the suburbs of Pokrovsk in an operation to surround that city.
With the fall of Chasiv Yar and Pokorovsk, the Battle of Donbass is nearing home stretch. It sets the stage for a massive Russian push to the Dnieper River if the Kremlin is left with no other option but to end the war on its terms. (See a recent article on the future map of Ukraine by the top Moscow strategic analyst Dmitry Trenin titled What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory.)
Indeed, the hopes of Donald Trump bringing the war to an end in the first day of his presidency on January 20 have withered away. The Ramstein meeting is a defiant act by Zelensky and his European associates, as Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon.
On December 18, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO chief Mark Rutte and huddled with several European leaders to discuss war strategy. His European interlocutors are also seeking to develop their own plans if Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the war, pulls the plug on the Kiev regime or forces it to make concessions.
The key topic of the Brussels meeting was security guarantees, Zelensky’s office said. Zelensky highlighted his “detailed one-on-one discussion” with French President Emmanuel Macron that focused on priorities to further strengthen Ukraine’s position “regarding the presence of forces in Ukraine that could contribute to stabilising the path to peace.”
Prior to the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that the priority was to secure the “sovereignty of Ukraine and that it will not be forced to submit to a dictated peace.” But, he cautioned, any discussion of boots on the ground would be premature.
Rutte himself counselled that Kiev’s allies should focus on ramping up arms supplies to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength. Rutte estimated that Ukraine needs 19 additional air-defence systems to protect the country’s energy infrastructure.
Interestingly, Rutte announced that the proposed new NATO command in the German city of Wiesbaden is now “up and running” which will henceforth coordinate Western military aid for Ukraine as well as provide training for Ukraine’s military. Trump is unlikely to preserve the Ramstein Format.
Simply put, Europe, including the U.K., lack the capacity to replace the US military assistance to Ukraine. For the EU to replace the US, it would need to double its military aid to Ukraine. But the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, makes this an impossible objective. (See an analysis, here, by Samantha de Bendern at the Chatham House.)
Germany, Europe’s largest military donor to Ukraine, has plunged into political chaos with the collapse of the Scholz-led coalition. Macron, a staunch defender of Ukraine, has lost control over France’s domestic politics since the June parliamentary elections, where he lost his majority. Elsewhere in Europe, political parties on the far right and far left, with pro-Russian sympathies, are rising.
Europeans are running around like headless chickens. The surprise visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Florida to meet Trump and watch a movie with him at this critical juncture of the Ukraine war shows that the smart lady has no confidence in the likes of Macron.
Meloni has a warm equation with Trump’s close aide Elon Musk and is seeking to strengthen business ties with the US. “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy,” Trump told the Mar-a-Lago crowd and added expansively, “She’s really taken Europe by storm.”
Italy, an important NATO power that overlooks the Mediterranean is a vociferous supporter of trans-atlanticism, and pursues a nuanced policy on the Ukraine war that may be of use to Trump to build bridges with Europe. Meloni is positioning herself.
Italy resolutely condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s subsequent involvement in Eastern Ukraine and joined the EU sanctions against Russia. It demonstrated its military support for Ukraine with significant military aid packages within the framework of an agreement on security cooperation (under a previous government headed by Prime Minister Mario Draghi).
That said, Rome has often sought to balance EU responses with its national interests towards Russia. Thus, Meloni’s foreign minister reaffirmed recently, even as Biden authorised Ukraine to deploy long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, “Our position on Ukraine’s use of (Italian) weapons has not changed. They can only be used within Ukrainian territory.”
In the final analysis, it is the course of the war that will decide the terms of peace in Ukraine. Europe’s swing toward right-wing governments — Austria is the latest example — may help Russia. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the spy agencies of Britain and US work in tandem to manipulate the governments in power in White Hall — Labour and Conservative alike — the Trump administration has a serious problem on its hands.
Of course, Trump is well aware of the UK’s pivotal role in hatching the “Russia collusion” plot, which hobbled his presidency. Downsizing Britain’s role can be a game changer for peace in Ukraine.
But the MI6’s capacity to influence the Kiev regime is not to be underestimated. Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson played a seminal role in torpedoing the Russia-Ukraine deal negotiated at the peace talks hosted by Turkey in March-April 2022 just weeks into the conflict. Even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin, which in itself is highly problematic as things stand, London is sure to undermine it one way or another at the first available opportunity, given its Russophobic obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.
Possibly, Trump is savouring Elon Musk’s relentless assault on the British government. “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government,” Musk wrote on X. But British politicians have the skin of rhino. Sir Keir Starmer is giving as good as he gets. Trump’s challenge lies in mothballing the special relationship with the UK.
FDA responds to study on DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccine
Maryanne Demasi, reports | January 6, 2025
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded to a peer-reviewed study conducted within its own laboratory, which uncovered excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The study revealed that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory limits by 6 to 470 times, validating earlier studies from independent researchers that the FDA had previously disregarded.
Published by students in the Journal of High School Science, the study has garnered significant attention since the story broke, with its altimetric score rivalling those of major studies in leading medical journals.
FDA’s Response
Despite the study being conducted at the FDA’s White Oak campus in Maryland, the agency has sought to distance itself from the findings.
A spokesperson stated that the study “does not belong to the FDA” and is therefore not theirs to disclose.
“The FDA does not comment on individual studies,” the spokesperson added, declining to acknowledge the new scientific findings.
The agency also refused to address the involvement of three of its own scientists—Dr Shuliang Liu, Dr Tony Wang, and Dr Prabhuanand Selvaraj—who supervised the students conducting the study.
When questioned about potential regulatory actions, such as issuing a public alert, recalling affected vaccine batches, or notifying other agencies, the FDA stood firm in its defence of mRNA vaccine safety.
“Based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process by the agency’s scientific experts, the FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines that the agency has approved and authorised,” stated the FDA spokesperson.
“The agency’s benefit-risk assessments and ongoing safety surveillance demonstrate that the benefits of their use clearly outweigh their risks. Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified.”
This statement effectively shuts down any immediate plans for further investigation.
Calls for Accountability
The FDA’s response has provoked sharp criticism from scientists. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan, who first identified excessive DNA contamination in Pfizer vials in early 2023, called the agency’s stance evasive and deeply concerning.
“It’s the same script on auto-repeat at every regulatory agency,” McKernan said.
“They always say, ‘billions of doses given, benefits outweigh the risks, we’ve seen no evidence of harm.’ But billions of cigarettes were smoked too, and that didn’t make them safe.”
McKernan also questioned the FDA’s attempts to distance itself from the study.
“If the FDA supplied the materials for the study and provided technical advice through staff supervision, then how can they not be responsible for the data?” McKernan asked. “Do they only deny their connection when the data becomes inconvenient?”
Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, shared McKernan’s concerns.
“The FDA’s response is extremely disappointing,” he said.
“It completely circumvents whether or not the level of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines exceeds regulatory limits (as the study performed in their lab would indicate), and what they intend to do about it.”
“Just claiming there’s no safety issue and pointing to the billions of doses administered, without offering any evidence of safety, is far from satisfactory,” added Prof Petrovsky.
Regulatory Silence
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has previously dismissed similar findings from independent researchers as “misinformation,” was contacted for comment but did not provide a response before publication.
Russell Broadbent, Victorian Member for Monash, expressed his disbelief at the regulatory inaction.
“I cannot fathom why the TGA isn’t making this their number one priority, given their charter is to regulate therapeutics to help ensure Australians stay healthy and safe,” he said.
In light of the FDA laboratory findings, Broadbent urged regulators to “immediately pause the rollout of the vaccines, and investigate the claims.”
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
These revelations carry immense implications. mRNA vaccines are hailed as the dawn of a new era in vaccinology, with the world increasingly relying on this platform technology to supersede traditional vaccine methods.
Failure to address the safety of this technology will torpedo public trust in both the vaccines and the regulatory systems meant to ensure their safety.
“The public deserves clear answers, not regulatory hand-waving,” McKernan said.
As calls for accountability grow louder, the FDA faces mounting pressure to engage with the scientific evidence—particularly that which originates from its own laboratory.
NB: a comprehensive critique of the student study from FDA’s lab has been published by Kevin McKernan.
American Airlines crew members harassed for wearing watermelon pins
Janta Ka Reporter | January 5, 2025
Viral video shows a Jewish American Airlines passenger tearing into a flight attendant and calling her “antisemitic” for wearing a watermelon pin, which has become a symbol for Palestinian solidarity.
Video from inside the Miami-bound plane and uploaded to social media shows the man in a heated argument with the flight attendant as he tore into her for wearing the pin and not letting him leave the plane.
“You support terrorism, you’re antisemitic,” the passenger yells. “Why are you preventing me from leaving the plane, is it because I’m Jewish? You’re antisemitic.” […]
The flight attendant and a colleague tell the man he can’t film them, according to US aviation regulations, and they also accuse him of putting his hands on them. […]
American Airlines said it was investigating the incident, which unfolded last week. The company did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
American Airlines forbids its staff from wearing unauthorized pins that are not part of the official uniform.
UPDATE:
MEMO | January 7, 2025
Top Trump Official Claims Iran Is the Problem in the Middle East, Vows Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Protesters
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 6, 2025
The incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said the Trump administration would target Iran in the Middle East and crack down on pro-Palestian protesters in the US to support Israel.
In an interview with Mark Levin, Waltz explained the “philosophy” of the incoming administration for the Middle East. “The problems in the Middle East by and large originate from Tehran, not from Tel Aviv. We’re going to stand by and support our greatest ally in the Middle East,” he said. “We’re aligned from a national security, intelligence and values standpoint.”
Waltz described this policy as instituting a “complete philosophical, wholesale national security shift.”
“We’re going to align with our ally Israel, we’re going to realign the common interests of the Gulf Arab states with Israel in opposing Iran’s aggression, we’re going to reinstate maximum pressure, we’re going to stop them from selling their illegal oil that has been funding terrorism,” he said. Adding that the US military is “getting worn out shooting missile after missile from this ragtag bunch of Houthis. We’re going to get that under control.”
President Joe Biden has provided Israel with $22 billion in military aid since the October 7 attack. On Friday, Axios reported that Biden was planning to approve a final $8 billion arms sale to Israel. The current White House has also protected Tel Aviv at the UN Security Council and fought a war against the Houthis in Yemen to defend Israel.
Additionally, the Biden administration increased the Trump-era sanctions on Iran and refused to return to the Obama-era nuclear agreement. The White House deployed its most advanced air defense systems to Israel to protect it from a potential Iranian missile attack.
Still, Republicans in Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have attacked Biden for not providing Israel with enough support. The current administration has pushed Tel Aviv to allow most aid into Gaza.
However, Tel Aviv has largely defied Washington’s requests to allow more aid into Gaza. In December aid shipments sunk to 71 trucks per day, far below the number, 500, aid agencies say is needed to prevent deaths of deprivation in Gaza. Gazan children have begun to freeze to death at night as their families shelter in tents.
CNN reports that the incoming administration will be more amenable to Israel’s policies of further restricting aid shipments to Gaza and will further cut deliveries once Trump returns to office.
Waltz went on to say the Trump administration would crack down on pro-Palestinian protesters. The US government will “look at mosques, individuals, universities, professors – you name it – that post a threat to the United States and are radicalizing individuals to harm the United States.” He continued referring to pro-Palestinian campus protesters, people “here on a student visa, with the privilege to study in our universities – you don’t get to protest and radicalize. You’re going to go back home real fast.”
Some of Trump’s America First supporters may view doubling down on US support for Israel as a violation of that policy. Waltz said he believes Trump will be convinced to follow through on the policy points he explained to Levin.
Deals, such as expanding the Abraham Accords, is “what gets President Trump so excited and that’s what makes all of these historic disagreements that have perpetuated for decades, if not centuries, smaller and smaller,” he explained.
On Monday, Trump made remarks to radio host Hugh Hewitt that would suggest Waltz is correct. “Well, I’m the best friend that Israel ever had. You look at what happened with all of the things that I’ve gotten, including Jerusalem being the capital, the embassy getting built,” he stated, adding the provision of military aid to Israel would be “uninterrupted” during his administration.
Desperate Biden ignores precedent by arming the DPP
By Hamzah Rifaat | Al Mayadeen | January 5, 2025
US President Joe Biden is slated to make way for President-elect Donald Trump in January 2025. However, his departure is marked by abysmally low ratings domestically, which is partly due to his administration’s mishandling of “Israel’s” genocide in Palestine. Now, the disgraced President is seen desperately trying to reverse his domestic downslide by coming up with foreign policy stunts. The latest controversial stunt involves the greenlighting of military aid worth $571 million to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) separatists in Taiwan. This has once again undermined the ‘One-China principle’ that the United States adheres to, as well as the precedents set in the previous joint communiques between the two countries.
This is nothing but desperation on the part of outgoing Joe Biden who has sought to address domestic disapproval by taking measures that undermine US-China ties. This is also evidence of a myopic and narrow-minded approach, which hints at self-destruction.
With his majority lost in the US Congress, Biden is adopting foreign policy blunders amid capitulation, which should have ideally resulted in a more pragmatic and visionary approach to global affairs.
That has not been the case.
Futile attempt to deflect domestic criticism
There should be little doubt that the Biden administration’s latest authorization of military aid to the DPP is nothing but an attempt to salvage lost domestic popularity. It comes after the Democrats were comprehensively defeated by the Republicans under Donald Trump in the 2025 US elections. Surveys conducted by America’s own business intelligence company, Morning Consult, clearly indicate that the Biden administration’s net approval rating has plummeted in 45 states compared to 18 during the start of his tenure. This can be attributed to his messy withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, his mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis, and rising inflation.
Ideally, in such circumstances, embattled leaders adopt more prudent policy-making and measured rhetoric to salvage lost pride and reverse the tide of declining approval ratings. However, Joe Biden sought to greenlight $571 million worth of military aid to Taiwanese separatists who are adamant that violating China’s inevitable national reunification is the right course of action. The DPP government also has a history of threatening the sovereignty of China through nefarious activities and militarization.
As a result, Bien has adopted a self-destructive strategy as it ignores both precedent and principle vis a vis US-China relations. Also, supporting separatism both politically and militarily constitutes a violation of the UN Charter which otherwise mandates all member states to respect the sovereignty of other states and refrain from actions that constitute brazen interference. Hence, the move to militarize Taiwan is unfathomable on the part of the Biden administration as arming Taiwan violates the ‘One China Principle’ as an integral part of American foreign policy, as well as precedents enshrined in the 1979 Joint Communique between the two sides.
For someone who often presents himself as a figure with a more globalized and integrated vision than his rival, Donald Trump, Joe Biden has clearly adopted a hypocritical approach in his final days in office. His push to present himself as an alternative to the more firebrand, populist, Donald Trump and his Republican Party stands exposed as he is not pushing for increased engagement with China but is supporting separatism and ignoring historical precedents instead. Recall that the decision to greenlight more military aid has been a recurring trend under his administration given his previous approval of $2 billion of arms sales to Taiwan in October 2024 which included, for the very first time, the delivery of an advanced surface-to-air missile defense system.
Will the Biden trend be reversed?
It is therefore important for the incoming President of the United States, Donald Trump, to adopt a more principled approach on the Taiwan issue vis a vis China as this can otherwise contribute to tensions between the two sides. Failure to do so would lead to a tit-for-tat reaction as no UN member state endorses interference or brazen arming of separatists on their territory, which poses a direct threat to their state sovereignty.
China’s response to Biden’s reckless adventurism has also been a sensible one as it is in line with precedents set out in the joint communiques and the UN Charter. As stated by China’s Taiwan Office, such nefarious designs and actions by the United States ‘contradict’ its leaders’ serious commitments to not supporting Taiwanese independence. Beijing also cautioned and warned the United States to tread with utmost caution and cease arming Taiwan. Clearly, the Biden administration has failed to acknowledge this incontrovertible reality, which now puts the incoming Trump administration into the spotlight over whether the US-China relationship can move forward on amicable terms.
Regardless, Biden’s decision to arm Taiwan has shown that crass desperation in the face of declining domestic approval ratings is now guiding the United States policy toward China. The death of late Jimmy Carter who was a great friend of Beijing and worked tirelessly toward improving relations should have ideally been a wake-up call for the American leadership. The key was to build on a legacy that brought China out of isolation in the 1970s rather than seek to isolate it further by propping up the Taiwan issue.
To date, Biden has failed to understand this, and Trump is set to continue from where his predecessor left off.
China should act proactively and thwart such nefarious designs in order for it to ensure that its sovereignty remains intact.
US ‘Quietly’ Sent Heavy Weapons To Ukraine Well Before Invasion Started, Blinken Reveals
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 5, 2025
The United States is currently dealing with conflicts in multiple hot spots from Eastern Europe to Gaza to dealing with a collapsed Syrian state and continued standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.
But the Biden administration regrets nothing – so says Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a major end of term interview given to the NY Times and published this weekend. Among the more interesting pieces of new information from the interview is Blinken’s direct admission that Washington was covertly shipping heavy weapons to Ukraine even months before the Russian invasion of February 2022.
“We made sure that well before [Russia’s ‘special military operation’] happened, starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine,” he said in the interview published Saturday. “Things like Stingers, Javelins.”
The Kremlin at the time cited such covert transfers, which were perhaps an ‘open secret’, as justification for the invasion based on ‘demilitarizing’ Ukraine and keeping NATO military infrastructure out. Moscow had issued many warnings over its ‘red lines’ in the weeks and months leading up to the war.
Below is the full section from the NY Times interview transcript where Blinken boasts of the pre-invasion transfers:
QUESTION: You made two early strategic decisions on Ukraine. The first – because of that fear of direct conflict – was to restrict Ukraine’s use of American weapons within Russia. The second was to support Ukraine’s military offensive without a parallel diplomatic track to try and end the conflict. How do you look back on those decisions now?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So first, if you look at the trajectory of the conflict, because we saw it coming, we were able to make sure that not only were we prepared, and allies and partners were prepared, but that Ukraine was prepared. We made sure that well before the Russian aggression happened, starting in September – the Russian aggression happened in February. Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defended themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use that were instrumental in preventing Russia from taking Kyiv, from rolling over the country, erasing it from the map, and indeed pushing the Russians back.
Blinken claims elsewhere in the interview that the Biden White House kept diplomacy going the whole time, and tried to engage Moscow, but explains that this basically involved keeping the Western allies and backers of Kiev unified and on the same track.
Interestingly when asked about whether its time to end the war, Biden’s top diplomat basically dodged the question…
QUESTION: Do you think it’s time to end the war, though?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: These are decisions for Ukrainians to make. They have to decide where their future is and how they want to get there. Where the line is drawn on the map, at this point, I don’t think is fundamentally going to change very much. The real question is: Can we make sure that Ukraine is a position to move forward strongly?
QUESTION: You mean use – that the areas that Russia controls you feel —
SECRETARY BLINKEN: In —
QUESTION: — will have to be ceded?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Ceded is not the question. The question is – the line as a practical matter in the foreseeable future is unlikely to move very much. Ukraine’s claim on that territory will always be there. And the question is: Will they find ways – with the support of others – to regain territory that’s been lost?
Blinken in the above essentially gives his view that no… it is not time to end the war, despite the majority of the war-weary publics in Europe and the US thinking the opposite. There’s some evidence that much or most of the common Ukrainian populace wants it to end as fast as possible as well.
Ultimately, with the world now on the brink of WW3, it’s clear this White House regrets nothing, which even the title of the interview piece strongly suggests: Antony Blinken Insists He and Biden Made the Right Calls. But we think history will not look kindly.
New York On The March To Climate Utopia
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | January 2, 2025
In a post a couple of weeks ago on December 21, I observed that the country of Germany appeared to have won the race among all countries and states to be the first to hit the “Green Energy Wall.” Its pursuit of the “renewable” wind and solar electricity fantasy has put it in a spot where regular wind/sun droughts cause huge electricity price spikes, and major industries have become uncompetitive. It has no solution to its dead end, and can go no farther.
If Germany has “hit the wall,” what is the appropriate analogy for New York? New York passed its Climate Act with great fanfare in 2019. The Act orders that we are to have a “net zero” energy system by 2050, with interim deadlines along the way. The first serious deadline arrives in 2030, where the official mandate is 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” (aka “70 x 30”). That deadline is now just five years away. Within the past year, all the efforts to move toward the 70 x 30 goal are falling apart, as anybody who had given the subject any critical thought knew that they inevitably would. But nobody in authority has yet been willing to acknowledge that this has turned into a farce.
Here’s my analogy: New York is like the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote, who has run off the cliff and is now suspended in mid-air, apparently not knowing what will happen next.
We know what’s next: shortly, he will crash to earth.
Consider a few data points:
Off-shore wind procurement
The Scoping Plan developed under the Climate Act calls for some 9000 MW of offshore wind by 2035. People with elementary-school-level arithmetic skills knew that this amount of intermittent generation would not be nearly enough to replace the amounts of dispatchable generation set to close; but maybe this would at least be a serious start. By early 2023, it was reported that some 4300 MW out of the 9000 MW were in “active development,” with wholesale prices having been agreed to with developers in the range of $100/MWh.
But then reality started to hit. In this post on October 15, 2023 I reported that “essentially all” of the developers of the 4300 MW of off-shore wind in “active development” had backed out and demanded price increases in the range of 30 – 50% to proceed. New York rejected that maneuver, but ultimately had no option other than to re-bid the contracts and get bids in the range that the developers were demanding.
On February 29, 2024, the State announced that it had accepted re-bids for two of the projects in question, for a total of only about 1700 MW and at a price of over $150 per MWh. (This level of price would require retail electricity prices in the range of at least $0.40 per kWh and would be completely uneconomic if it were to become the norm for New York electricity production.).
Meanwhile, the remainder of the offshore wind procurement appears to be in complete disarray. On April 19, E&E News reported that New York had canceled efforts on three of its big offshore wind development areas, Attentive Energy, Community Offshore Wind, and Excelsior Wind. These three, had they proceeded, would have totaled about 4000 MW out of the 9000 MW 2035 goal. Excerpt:
New York canceled power contracts for three offshore wind projects Friday, citing a turbine maker’s plans to scrap its biggest machines. The news is a heavy blow to the U.S. offshore wind industry and a major setback for the climate ambitions of New York — and President Joe Biden. The three projects would have delivered 4 gigawatts of offshore wind to the state, amounting to almost half of New York’s 2035 goal.
At this point nobody has any idea how to get large amounts of offshore wind developed around New York at a price anybody is willing to pay. And of course, nobody has a solution to the intermittency problem either.
Green hydrogen
The New York regulators have recognized that a de-carbonized and predominantly wind/solar electricity generation system will require something called the “dispatchable emissions-free resource,” or DEFR, to make it work. The best idea that anybody has for the DEFR is so-called “green” hydrogen, that is, hydrogen produced by some non-emitting system, like wind, solar, or hydro.
Currently, only negligible amounts of green hydrogen are produced in the world, and none in New York. But somehow, New York got the idea that it could make this work. Two green hydrogen facilities have been granted state subsidies and are supposedly under way. One is being developed by a company called Plug Power, and is at an industrial park called STAMP west of Rochester; and the other is being developed by Air Products at Massena, on the St. Lawrence River. Both of these facitilities are almost comically small relative to the amounts of hydrogen that would be needed to fully back up New York’s electricity generation in a world of mostly wind and solar generation. But at least they would be something.
On October 18, the Batavian reported that the Plug Power hydrogen facility was “on pause.” Excerpt:
Chris Suozzi, VP for business and workforce development at the Genesee County Economic Development Center, reportedly told a Washington, D.C.-based commercial real estate firm that Plug Power’s STAMP project is on hold. . . . “They’re not ready to go,” Suozzi reportedly said. “They’re on pause. We don’t know what’s going to happen with them at this point.”
The pausing or cancellation of a green hydrogen project should surprise no one. The past year has seen major cancellations of much larger such projects by big players like Australia’s Fortescue and Origin. The fact is that the cost of producing green hydrogen is a large multiple of the cost of getting natural gas out of the ground for the same energy content, besides which natural gas is a much superior fuel in every way (higher energy density, easier to handle, less corrosive, less subject to leaks, far less dangerous and explosive, etc.). Meanwhile, the developer of the STAMP green hydrogen project, Plug Power, reported as its results for the third quarter of 2024 a loss of $211 million on revenues of $174 million. They are hoping for a loan from the federal Department of Energy to keep themselves going. I wonder what Chris Wright is going to think about that.
The Air Products facility in Massena plans to use hydro power from a dam on the St. Lawrence to produce its hydrogen. Excuse me? The hydro power is already dispatchable. How can it possibly make any sense to use dispatchable electricity to produce hydrogen whose purpose is to make dispatchable electricity? At least about 40% of the energy is going to get lost on the round trip from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. It simply has to be that there is a better use for the St. Lawrence River hydro power than turning it into hydrogen and then using the hydrogen. But nothing here makes any sense.
Clean Path Transmission Line
Another key facility to make renewable energy work for New York was supposed to be the Clean Path transmission line. This is a proposed 175-mile high-capacity (4 GW) transmission line to bring to New York City and the downstate region power generated at various new “renewable” (wind and solar) facilities being developed in the northern and western parts of the state. The stated cost of this major project was to be $11 billion.
On November 27, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority informed the Public Service Commission that the Clean Path project had been canceled. Here is a copy of the NYSERDA letter. Here is a piece from Utility Dive on December 3 about the cancellation.
I don’t find any discussion about the reasons for the cancellation, but it has to be that the developers figured out the the economics did not work. Here’s the problem: because wind and solar generators only work about 20-40% of the time, this enormously expensive transmission line would not be operated at anywhere near its capacity. Likely, it would only average about one-third of capacity. That means, compared to a line that operates at or near 100% of capacity, its charges for transmission would be about triple.
The cancellation of this line has only occurred within the past month, and I haven’t seen anything about plans for a re-bid or an alternative strategy. So far, nobody is saying “this can’t possibly work.” But no matter how you approach the problem, the cost of transmitting intermittent wind and solar power from far upstate to New York City is going to be around triple the cost of transmitting power from a natural gas plant that runs nearly all the time.
So here we are, suspended up in the air, and nobody seems to realize that we will shortly crash to earth. Everybody involved is trying to milk the last dollars out of the taxpayers before the crash hits.
The 2050 Net Zero Climate Scam
By William Levin | American Thinker | December 29, 2024
Twenty fifty is the official date for net zero emissions. According to the experts, it is the last chance to stop a catastrophic rise in temperature. The leading source for climate change science, the U.N. IPCC, says so. Corporations run commercials helpfully informing the public that net zero is a top priority. Few can outdo Delta Air Lines, which promises compliance using “a fully sustainable long-haul aircraft [that] has yet to be invented.”
The urgency is palpable and the science compelling. Humanity itself is at risk without net zero CO2 and non-CO2 emissions.
Politically, 2050 is the ideal climate date because it is close enough to justify immediate action, and just far enough as to be unprovable for climate disaster.
For a science so settled and a date so specific, there must exist a wealth of data scientifically supporting the hypothesis that 25 years from now marks a deadline and turning point for the Earth’s future.
An A.I. query provides the answer:
The target year 2050 for achieving carbon neutrality is primarily driven by scientific consensus and international agreements aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Paris Agreement outline that reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is crucial to avoiding catastrophic climate impacts.
A.I. is correct that the IPCC and the signatories of the Paris Agreement are the parties responsible for promoting 2050 net zero. But who exactly are these organizations, and do they deserve our trust?
The IPCC is a political body consisting of 195 member-governments, charged with providing assessments in support of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. In theory, the IPCC mandate is to collect the best available climate science. The IPCC expressly commits that its “reports should be neutral with respect to policy.” And by its own admission, “the IPCC does not conduct its own research.” Its role is to summarize the objective science.
The signatories to the Paris Agreement are likewise 195 nations convened under the auspices of the U.N. But unlike the IPCC, the Paris Agreement signatories make no pretense to being a scientific body, and indeed, no one is confused on this point. The signatories are a political body and the Paris Agreement a purely political document.
With an overlapping membership, it should come as no surprise that the two organizations coordinate their efforts. In the process, the IPCC has become the loudest and most strident advocate for existential change in human activity. In the latest IPCC report, deepening red gradient shadings convey that the Earth is a looming inferno.
According to the IPCC, the danger of imminent collapse due to rising CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, particularly methane, requires immediate action. Humanity must downsize and restructure the global economy, including, in their modest terminology, “governments, private sector, and civil society.” Everyone is responsible, and everyone must contribute.
Not only must GDP be lowered, but the world must immediately and drastically curtail fossil fuels; limit global agriculture output based on emissions, not feeding the world; spend and redistribute upwards of $125 trillion; rely on expensive, unreliable, discredited solar and wind for global power needs; and virtually ignore nuclear power, all the while “prioritizing equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes.” To make the math work, governments and the private sector must implement on a global scale yet-to-exist carbon capture technologies, of unknown cost and consequence.
There is no imputation here that climate science is not real. It is the political choices of the IPCC at issue, specifically the 2023 Sixth Assessment’s Summary for Policymakers, as opposed to the physical scientists reporting as Working Group 1. As summarized by scientist Roger Pielke, “it is not within the IPCC’s mandate to call for action or to implore urgency.”
The IPCC task is to vet and summarize thousands of complex models and scientific papers produced annually. In each instance, a climate model incorporates assumptions not easily aggregated. The IPCC solution groups the models into five arbitrary scenarios based on forecasted warming in 2100. At no point does the IPCC ever declare one set of scenarios more likely than another. Indeed, as aggregators, they have no scientific basis for making any such assertion. In these scenarios, 2050 does not exist as a scientifically significant year. It is simply a point on the curve connecting the current temperature to the 2100 end point.
To get to 2050, and urgency, the IPCC needs to import the political findings of the Paris Agreement.
In 2015, the Paris Agreement signatories reviewed the then most current IPCC report, the 5th Assessment. These 195 government actors arbitrarily concluded that “well below 2 degrees Celsius” of warming was the maximum threshold the Earth could survive. Nothing in the IPCC 5th Assessment supports the “well below 2 degree warming” as a scientific consensus. No IPCC evidence identifies a scientific threshold for global warming beyond which the Earth tips into collapse. Especially relevant, the signatories to the Paris Agreement in no manner highlighted 2050 as a year of special climate meaning, nor would it matter, scientifically speaking, if they had. Following the 5th Assessment, the Paris Agreement target date is merely a “long-term temperature goal,” with one reference to “the second half” of the century.
The Paris Agreement signatories went farther, deciding by imperial fiat that the temperature goal needed a guardrail, the now infamous, endlessly repeated 1.5-degree-warming “limit.” In popular parlance, many, many people will swear that 1.5 degrees of warming is a scientifically valid statement of the limit to global warming, beyond which climate catastrophe ensues.
As important to note, all IPCC warming targets, including the Paris Agreement, start from the pre-industrial period 1850–1900. According to the IPCC, 1.1 degrees of warming has already occurred, meaning the Paris Agreement target at present is a mere 0.4 degrees over 75 years to the IPCC 2100 model date. This equates to an imperceptible 0.005 degrees of annual warming — hardly the stuff of headlines and catastrophic collapse. And nothing compared to the 10 degrees of warming observed in the Earth’s last interglacial warm period in Siberia some 115,000 to 130,000 years ago.
It needs to be said as loudly as possible. The 1.5-degree climate tipping limit has no basis in any finding of the IPCC. It is the arbitrary finding of 195 political actors, in defense of the non-scientific “well below 2 degree” catastrophe, magically transported by the IPCC from 2100 to 2050.
How does the IPCC move the climate clock back 50 years, in violation of its 2100 science? By intentional sleight of hand, the IPCC provides a science answer to a policy question. How much CO2 can be emitted before the 1.5-degree target is breached? The sole source of the 1.5 degrees is the Paris Agreement.
Pro-IPCC climate scientists confirm that the global warming limit, whether it be 1.5 degrees from the Paris Agreement or some other number, is based solely on “value judgments and choice,” not “climate science.” (See page 7 chart.) The IPCC would have readers believe the exact opposite: that the global warming limit is scientifically determined, and those who disagree are “science deniers.” It is a deception of massive consequence.
Twenty fifty, as it turns out, is a long con between 195 governments and the IPCC.
As part of his Day One actions, President Trump needs to, once again, remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and disavow the overtly political IPCC Sixth Assessment Summary for Policymakers. The IPCC global prescription is not scientific, and it most certainly is not benign.
Featured Video
Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
- Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction
- Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza
- Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
- Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report
- Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?
- Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it
- If Americans Knew
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- 1 in 5 amputees in Gaza is a child, UN warns amid prosthetic care crisis
- 6,000 Gazans lack prosthetic and/or rehabilitation care – Daily Update
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 