Oracle Films has a new documentary out to help fill the gaping hole that is the legacy media. While every news outlet could afford to send a full camera crew to hospitals to show the pain of Covid patients, there’s a five mile exclusion zone around the home of anyone who claim to be victims of vaccine side effects. The media won’t talk to widows and family of loved ones; won’t tell the stories of people who died within days of their second shot. They won’t show montages of athletes collapsing on the field or children who lost a parent. Indeed the BBC’s big contribution was to dob in a Facebook group with 250,000 members who were reduced to talking about their injections with carrot emoji’s in a secret code. Facebook axed them, and the BBC bragged about it. Just another great moment in Public Broadcasting.
Dr Aseem Malhotra pointed out last week that in Norway, which has good official figures, about 1 in 1000 people are getting side effects that “put them in hospital” or are described as “life changing”. While 99.9% didn’t suffer like that, it still means tens of thousands of people across the West are suffering something awful and they are invisible. Based on Norwegian estimates there may be 20,000 people in Australia, 50,000 in the UK, and perhaps 200,000 in the US. Perhaps they just visited hospital for a few days, and they’ve since recovered, or maybe it’s an ongoing hell a few describe (see from 24 minutes on in the documentary). Whatever they are going through, it’s invisible. It’s like someone is very afraid to even let one story through. What if thousands of other victims recognize a pattern and stand up to be counted?
“The figures surely demand a full investigation…”
If Youtube decides it’s too dangerous to show this documentary below, go to Oracle Films. In the meantime, spread the word, not just about the invisible victims but about the culpable media.
Once upon a time Google had the best search engine in the world but solo unfunded skeptics had all the fun and were outscoring the UN, academia, and official government sites.
Melissa Fleming: (Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the UN) “We partnered with Google. For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do. But again, it’s a huge, huge challenge that I think all sectors of society need to be very active in.” (Full transcript here)
Naturally this bragging was at the World Economic Forum — the hippest conference-cum-holiday club that can be called a tax deduction for the uber-ultra-rich and their minion political puppets.
Where else could people say smug totalitarian lines with a straight face: “We Own The Science and we think the world should know it”.
If ever the Government got something wholly absurdly wrong, and thousands of free thinkers were mocking it and winning over the masses, we can rely on Google to protect the Government and crush the people.
…public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Though it would be better to call it the banker-technological elite. It hasn’t got anything to do with science.
As Daniel Greenfield described: Big Gov protects the Big Tech monster from market competition — and in return Big Tech protects Big Government from political competition. Democrats have outsourced political repression of their enemies to cabals of private companies.
And Big Bankers get protection from public criticism, political pressure, and market competition. What’s not to love?
Jacinda Ardern gave a speech to the UN last Friday which has suddenly gone viral in an Ebola kind of way. The new weapon in war she tells us, is misinformation. Since she is the single source of truth (she told us that in July) that means the disinformers are anyone who disagrees with Jacinda. See how easy this is? It’s just another Ministry of Truth plan to save the world from climate change and Covid.
Who needs Free Speech?
Following in the foot-stomps of dictators everywhere Jacinda Ardern lays out the threat of speeches from people more inspiring than her:
The face of war has changed. And with that, the weapons used.
Traditional combat, espionage and the threat of nuclear weapons are now accompanied by cyber-attacks, prolific disinformation and manipulation of whole communities and societies.
After all, a bullet takes a life. A bomb takes out a whole village. A lie online or from a podium does not. But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms? To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical.
And surely we can start with violent extremism and terrorist content online.
So that’s alright then, it’s only the violent extremists, right? But look who’s on her list, war-mongers and climate skeptics:
…how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?
And they are evil people for sure those climate skeptics… she can see into their minds:
The weapons may be different but the goals of those who perpetuate them are often the same. To cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves. To disband communities. To collapse the collective strength of countries who work together.
What do you do if people don’t believe Climate Change exists Jacinda — how about “persuade them”?
In a free society, our leaders were supposed to explain the benefits. If the science is overwhelming it ought to be easy, right?
Jacinda Ardern’s problem is that she can’t explain how Black is White, Up is Down, and Fertilizer is Pollution, so her only option is to demonize and silence the people who are more convincing than her. In the same speech where she’s wondering what to do with climate skeptics she also happens to talk about mass murderers.
…we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular [speaking] weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare.
She effectively says internet freedom is a weapon of war and we need more rules.
Like a Travel Agent on the Bus to One World Government Jacinda Ardern’s entire speech was devoted to buffing up The Collective over the Individual. It was not about New Zealand’s needs, it was her job application for the UN.
She mentions the collective six times. But if we look up Bureaucratic Collectivism, for example, we find a theory of class society used to describe the Soviet Union under Stalin. And she certainly wants a collective of bureaucracies. She raves about a new Global Health Instrument, run by the WHO which is also the best friend of the CCP. What could possibly go wrong? She gushes about the WTO as well, as if it were their job and not hers to secure New Zealand’s supply chains.
In RightThink all roads lead to the collective: Apparently the virus taught New Zealand “how interconnected they are” she claims. This is the nation that successfully kept out the virus by rather “un-collectively” shutting its borders, and against the wishes of the same WHO she so admires.
She’s a one-woman advertising campaign for unelectable global rulers
Perhaps she’s eyeing off a job in case she loses the New Zealand election next year, which looks likely given the polls. She certainly seems to be serving global bureaucrats more than the hapless New Zealand voters. Funnily enough, the Australian ABC sees her falling to 33% and wonders if “the PM’s international star power save her?” As if selling out New Zealanders to Geneva will win the election. Only the ABC could ask that.
But it’s all about The Group now:
The next pandemic will not be prevented by one country’s effortsbut by all of ours. Climate action will only ever be as successful as the least committed country, as they pull down the ambition of the collective.
Which automated processes are these I wonder, this is a very carefully crafted sentence? What is she covering up?
This week we launched an initiative alongside companies and non-profits to help improve research and understanding of how a person’s online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online. A challenge that we must as leaders address.
Can we get someone to clarify that the NZ government are not shadow-banning, search engine rigging, or using automated robot-commenters?
Lucky she is the single source of truth:
h/t John Connor II, David Maddison, Richard C (NZ)
Warn the bankers, our climate models are not something to invest in say the modelers
A group of top climate modelers have come together to warn bankers that climate models are wonderful but basically useless for predicting things that financial models need — like the trends in the hottest, wettest or windiest weather in any city on Earth. Often the expert models can’t even agree on the sign. Will it get bigger or smaller? It’s that bad.
The raw truth of just how unskilled these models are is laid bare in the graphs. The modeling team chose London, Mumbai, New York and Beijing and picked the nearest 100km x 100km “square” on the map. They ran about 37 models on 3 scenarios and achieved something that looks like a painting done with a jet engine.
The modelers can’t say if the hottest maximums in Beijing will get hotter. Even if the world warms 2 degrees (by random happenstance), Beijing’s hottest-days might actually get cooler. The rainiest days of the year could be more extreme unless they’re less extreme. And the windiest days will definitely be stronger, weaker, or about the same. Get it?
Lead author Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, told The Weekend Australian: “Climate models are very valuable tools for many applications but they are not something I want used to decide investment strategies for my superannuation.”
So climate models are not good enough for his superannuation but it’s fine to bet the national economy on? Should we transform our entire energy network, change our vehicles, our crops, and eat crickets for breakfast? Why not. More to the point, all around the world people are blaming individual floods and storms on “Climate Change” but modelers know that isn’t true, and they are staying very quiet. While people are selling homes, farmers are planting different orchards, and councils are thinking about sea-walls, the truth is that we don’t even know if heavy rain will increase or decrease in any one location. Wind farm owners (and the hostage public) are building wind farms in places that may not get windier. The list of potential economic damage is vast. Why do only the bankers matter? (Because they can afford lawyers..?)
And why is every two-bit attention seeking celebrity mayor or high school drop-out promoted on TV to say things that are patently scientific voodoo while our billion dollar national institutions sit mute?
“We show that GMT [Global Mean Temperature] provides little insight on how acute risks likely material to the financial sector (‘material extremes’) will change at a city-scale.”
Modeled change in temperature of the hottest day of the year in Beijing (the index TXx )
We get an idea of the uncertainty involved. Note the zero line runs through the middle. That’s a range of plus or minus 6 degrees Celsius for every scenario up to 3 degrees warmer.
And this below is the change in the amount of rainfall occurring on New York’s wettest day of the year ( R1X)
The wettest day might be 25mm less, or 35mm more, or about the same. And it’s even true in a world three degrees warmer. (Well, true in the models).
It’s true to say that one of the models will be right, we just don’t know which one.
Like there will always be one guy who is brilliant at tossing coins, but no one knows who he was til after the game.
And the models are skill-less with wind as well
This is 37 models, 3 scenarios and millions of lines of code. Imagine starting with this kind of scattergun uncertainty and then multiplying it by the unknowns in economic model forecasts for the next fifty years. We’d get the perfect cloud. Call it a fog.
Click to enlarge, not that it matters whether you look up close or far away…
Click to enlarge
It’s presented as an eclectic modeling issue of importance to financiers, but the raw truth is that it rather blows away the idea that the hottest, wettest or windiest days now or in the next fifty years can be blamed on “climate change”.
Are there two kinds of science?
Professor Pitman said attempts to use dynamical downscaling to get far higher resolution data was “excellent science but not science designed for the financial sector”.
The laws of science used to be universal, now we need a new science to help people make money. Excellent science must be good for propaganda campaigns, but people who want to make money need the other kind of science — the one that works.
We lost that somewhere.
No wonder the climate modelers are nervous about the financial risk
Admire the detail. Here are the trends in hottest and wettest days in four hand-picked cities with a combined population of about 70 million people. Remember these graphs every time you hear about the hottest ever day or the worst flood, or that a “rain bomb” was caused by climate change.
The paper drily notes no link, and no statistical significance (These eight graphs above are all “Figure 1”)
…Figure 1 demonstrates no strong link between GMT [Global Mean Temperature] and the amount of rainfall on the wettest day of the year (RX1). For London, the largest increases occur under the lowest emission scenario, and none of the regression lines are statistically significant (the highest R2 value is only 0.08). Results are very similar for the other cities. Note, for each city, increases in GMT can be associated with decreases in RX1 for many of the models, and the sign of the change does not become clear for any emission scenario until GMT exceeds 2 ◦C.
Gone is the guarantee that a higher Global Mean Temperature means a hotter, wetter and winder city.
Curiously one of the new risks to worry about is called a compound event. It involves odd combinations of weather which are not extreme just extremely-expensive:
However, material extremes could also include events that are not ‘extreme’ in a statistical sense, especially if they occur concurrently as compound events (Zscheischler et al 2018, Ranger et al 2021). One example is the possible shift in climate towards long periods of low wind and cloudy conditions—a material extreme to a renewable energy provider and a potential risk to a national economy via disrupted energy supply, a problem that has already occurred in Europe (Bloomfield 2021)
Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could have warned us about how climate change causes low wind and cloudy conditions before people built energy systems based on wind and solar power?
Wouldn’t it be good if modelers could predict the climate. Most of the hottest and wettest days have something to do with large oceanic cycles that we can’t predict more than a few months in advance.
Even the modelers say the models are for telling stories, not for making predictions:
They just don’t say it so simply:
Using climate models to inform scenarios, storylines (Shepherd 2019, Jack et al2020) and stress testing, or using climate models to modify the statistics represented in current-day catastrophe modelling can all help break the false assumption that the numerical precision in climate models equates to accuracy at a granular level. In many ways, this echoes guidance from Schinko et al (2017) to consider models as tools to explore a system as distinct from predicting a system, or Saravanan (2022) who explores the need to take climate models seriously, but not literally.
What’s the difference between serious and literal? Should we salute the modelers but not spend billions of dollars on their storylines?
The UK is pretty much one wayward submarine away from losing a third of its gas supply. Even if the pipe stays intact, it’s already a national security crisis. It’s a vulnerability that will affect the UK’s ability to bargain with confidence or battle right now.
German authorities are saying that the pipelines will be rendered unusable if salt-water has entered the pipes. Corrosion will make them unrepairable.
And lets not forget there are a lot of other underwater cables which nations with unreliable energy are now utterly dependent on. Here in Australia, an interconnector trip led to the Statewide blackout in South Australia, and the Bass Strait cable break (not even an act of war) left Tasmania on the verge of one for five months. In both cases they lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it would be so much worse if that happened today during a global energy crisis when there’s is already a bun fight for spare parts and spare fossil fuels.
The UK imports 11% of its power from Europe, half from France, and two years ago President Macron was threatening to block an interconnector in a battle over post-Brexit fisheries. In a unsettled world, countries which don’t have energy security don’t have any security at all…
The EU may unravel when push comes to shove and nations with energy don’t want to share.
As war on gas pipelines escalates, Britain faces national security crisis
In a letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Net Zero Watch director Dr Benny Peiser has warned that the sabotage of three Nord Stream gas pipelines in the last 24 hours has brutally revealed how Britain’s energy system and its entire economic and societal stability is exposed to grave external threats.
Dr Peiser writes:
There is now a serious and growing risk to Britain’s national security due to the extreme vulnerability of the gas pipeline from Norway which provides a third of UK gas supplies.
It is vital that you understand that a similar attack on the Norwegian gas pipeline would, on its own, completely cripple the UK economy. This extreme vulnerability must be fixed as a matter of national priority, and must take precedence over all other considerations.
The sites are 75 kilometers apart just outside official Danish territory.
Euronews –– Swedish national broadcaster SVT reported that national seismologists had registered “two clear explosions” around the area, first at 2:03 AM and then at 7:04 PM (CET) on Monday.
At this stage everyone is saying the leaks are sabotage, but no one is claiming to know anything for sure. The US government has said it is ‘ready to provide support’ to Europe.
So, below, this is quite an awkward flashback, to say the least. It’s from February when Joe Biden was trying to talk Russia out of invading Ukraine:
Biden: “If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Reporter:— “But how will you do that, exactly, since… The project is in Germany’s control?”
Biden: — “I promise you, we will be able to do that.” “
A moment of hope in Civilization. Some elections appear to produce a result the unelected EU powerbase is not happy with. The speech trending on Twitter today after the historic win by the ultra far right fascist extremist who is practically Mussolini’s granddaughter (so they want you think, in echo’s). As an insight into the new PM of Italy, and also into the “free media” that portrays her as a danger to democracy, listen to her words.
Giorgia Meloni’s speech at the World Congress of Families 2018
I believe the state should incentivize the natural family based on marriage…
every choice has consequences and you accept responsibility for them…
I reject a society where every desire becomes a right.
On parents being the ones who know whats best for their child but only when it comes time to turn off the life support:
Why is the winner always the one who wants to disconnect the plug? Why is the winner always death?
Why do we spend all our time fighting all types of discrimination but we pretend not to see the greatest ongoing persecution, the genocide of the world’s Christians. Why?
UPDATE: Youtube have censored this “dangerous” video, so below I have found the bitchute version. I will leave the Youtube censored version for all to see.
See for yourself how it violated Youtubes Progaganda Terms.
The last 2 minutes of the speech is multiplying across Twitter today:
Why is the enemy the family?
Why is the family so frightening?
There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity, and to simply be the perfect consumer slaves. And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, women, mother, No. I must be citizen x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer.
Through evolution we know the incentive for parents to look after offspring is woven right through our genes. No other individuals have a greater natural vested interest in the welfare of children. Scientifically then, it follows that civilizations based on families will be most likely to succeed. Yet to say the banal and obvious is a threat to the power of the Big-State.
Meloni is of course a hero of feminists a neo-fascist now:
The media cartel repeat the new message of hate. Has the pre-programmed, non-independent nature of “the Free Press” ever been more obvious? “God, homeland, Country” is not just an obvious slogan, but code for Mussolini.
Like a Mafia threat: the unelected bureaucrats try to intimidate the Italian voters before the election: “we have tools”.
Just in case anyone missed the casual mob threat issued a few days ago.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issues threat just before elections in Italy, warning that if conservative parties win, such as has been seen in Hungary and Poland, then the EU has “tools” for dealing with them. Currently, the EU is looking to cut €7.5 billion in funding for Hungary and is blocking EU Recovery Funds from both Hungary and Poland.
Science too has become a consumer slave
It seems a long way from a science debate. But science — the human industry, lives within the milieu of civilization. Instead of a search for truth, like the individual consumer slaves Giorgia Meloni refers to, science itself has become a consumer slave to the cartels of power. Only a few days ago we were talking about the $130 trillion dollar cartel of Big Bankers and Biggest Government, an unholy alliance accountable to almost no one. Theoretically those assets colluding to punish legal energy corporations are worth five times more than the entire GDP of the USA. Who runs the world? The EU and UN are unelected bureaucrats, clearly acting with impunity against voters. But the big financial institutions still depend on state protection of their monopolies. That’s why the antitrust laws being used by US State governments are so important. Elections matter (especially ones done with voter ID like in Italy).
Obviously the power of Big-Government, like the EU, or the UN grows if the power of nation-states and families shrink and it’s threatened by free speech and real science.
h/t Scott of the Pacific, OldOzzie, TdeF, David Maddison, Johnny Rotten
Blockbuster Review papers like this are very useful to pass on to your doctor or officials. And until all patients get some synopsis of this or equivalent, there is no informed consent.
Dr Aseem Malhotra
As Dr Aseem Malhotra says: “It’s perhaps the most important work of my career so far…”
The great thing is that he is speaking at medical conferences in the UK, and senior doctors are astonished. There is hope that things may yet improve after the worst medical experiment in history.
The figures that hit the hardest are that for the young, thousands of people need to be vaccinated to save one life, yet in the UK 1 in 120 people suffer from something defined as more than mild effects, and in Norway 1 in 1,000 end up in hospital or with “life changing” effects.
Dr Malhotra was the cardiac specialist I wrote about in November last year, who put forward the first very convincing case I had seen that not only were cardiac inflammatory risk factors doubled after vaccination (Gundry et al) which might double the risk of heart attacks, but that reports and images of cardiac damage and an increase in heart attacks in the UK were being actively suppressed for fear that the researchers would lose grant money if they published them.
Yet he had started off supporting the mRNA vaccines. In January 2021 he was one of the first to get the Pfizer vaccine in the UK, and was interviewed on Good Morning Britain to promote the vaccine. It was only after his father died unexpected from a heart attack in July 2021, with inexplicable levels of blockages, that he started to change his mind. Despite being a cardiac specialist, and he could not explain his fathers death. It didn’t fit the risk patterns he knew. It would take him months of investigation to “slowly and reluctantly” conclude the vaccines were “far from being safe and effective”. His father, by the way, was Dr Kailash Chand OBE, 73, and former deputy chair of the British Medical Association (BMA). He was very fit and healthy until his sudden death in the months following his second Pfizer dose.
This week Dr Malhotra has published a full review of the known risks and benefits, and the numbers are damning. Even in people in their 80s, as many as 230 people people need to be vaccinated to prevent one death — and that was with the Delta variant during 2021, when vaccines were more useful and before the Omicron variant arose to escape them. For people in their fifties, at least 2,600 of the cohort would have to vaccinated to save one life. For those in their twenties, at least 93,000 would need an injection to save one. In 2022 with Omicron, all these numbers would be much higher.
And this of course is not to count the risks, just the benefits.
Ambulances were called out 20% more than normal for cardiac arrests after the vaccination program started. Something bad was going on.
It is instructive to note that according to ambulance service data, in 2021 (the year of the vaccine roll-out), there were approximately an extra 20,000 (~20% increase) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest calls compared to 2019, and approximately 14,000 more than in 2020. Data obtained under Freedom of Information laws from one of the largest ambulance trusts in England suggest that there was no increase from November 2020 to March 2021, and thereafter the rise has been seen disproportionately in the young. This is a huge signal that surely needs investigating with some urgency.
There was a 25% increase in heart problems in 16 – 39 year olds — linked to the vaccine, not to Covid:
Similarly, a recent paper in Nature revealed a 25% increase in both acute coronary syndrome and cardiac arrest calls in the 16- to 39-year-old age groups significantly associated with administration with the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines but no association with COVID-19 infection.
Myocarditis may not be fatal very often, but it leaves some permanent heart damage and we don’t know what this will mean 40 or 50 years in the future. Reports of myocarditis ranged from 1 in 6000 in Israel to 1 in 2700 in a Hong Kong study in teenage boys. Clearly far more teenagers were harmed rather than saved:
Although vaccine-induced myocarditis is not often fatal in young adults, MRI scans reveal that, of the ones admitted to hospital, approximately 80% have some degree of myocardial damage. It is like suffering a small heart attack and sustaining some – likely permanent – heart muscle injury. It is uncertain how this will play out in the longer-term, including if, and to what degree, it will increase the risk of poor quality of life or potentially more serious heart rhythm disturbances in the future.
In the UK reports of side effects suggest as many as 1 in 120 people suffered an effect that was more than mild. This was 30 times higher than side effects reported for the MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) vaccine. In Norway, perhaps the most shocking of all, as many as 1 in 1,000 people suffered severe effects — things that were bad enough to put them in hospital, or things that were “life changing”.
In the United Kingdom, since the vaccine roll-out there have been almost 500 000 adverse event reports recorded (via the Yellow Card system) in association with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations involving over 150 000 individuals. In terms of the number of reports per person (i.e. having received at least one dose), the MHRA figures show around 1 in 120 suffering a likely adverse event that is beyond mild. [Yellowcard, UK Gov] However, the MHRA are unclear about the rate and furthermore do not separate out the serious adverse events. Nevertheless, this level of reporting is unprecedented in the modern medical era and equals the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card reporting system (for all medicines – not just vaccines) up to 2020.33 In comparison, for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, the number of reports per person vaccinated was around 1 in 4000, more than thirty times less frequent than the 1 in 120 Yellow Card reports for COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Norway does separate out the reported serious adverse reactions and has shown a rate of approximately 1 in 1000 after two doses of BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA product that result in hospitalisation or are life changing. [Norwegian Medicines Agency].
In the US 24,000 people are known to have died, and one third of those were within just 48 hours of vaccination.
As with the UK’s system, the level of reports – including serious ones – associated with COVID-19 vaccines is completely unprecedented. For example, over 24000 deaths have now been recorded in VAERS as of 02 March 2022; 29% of these occurred within 48 h of injection, and half within two weeks. The average reporting rate prior to 2020 was less than 300 deaths per annum.
But how many died four to 12 weeks later, or longer, and were not reported or not even considered to be associated with a vaccination risk? Estimates of under-reporting suggest in the UK that only 10% of adverse effects are officially logged, and in the US it may only be 1%.
Injecting a pathogenic spike…
Dr Malhotra notes that the spike is produced for at least four months, spreads widely through the body but was not an inert protein at all. It was the source of the damage to the vascular system and lungs that Covid caused.
For the COVID-19 vaccines, spike protein has been shown to be produced continuously (and in unpredictable amounts) for at least four months after vaccination and is distributed throughout the body after intramuscular injection. For the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, the spike protein was chosen, possibly because it enables cell entry. However, this protein is not inert, but rather it is the source of much of the pathology associated with severe COVID-19, including endothelial damage, clotting abnormalities and lung damage.
The bottom line is that during a seemingly deadly pandemic, we should have seen some benefit overall from mass vaccination yet we don’t:
It would be surprising – to say the least – if during an apparently deadly pandemic, an effective vaccine could not clearly and unequivocally be shown to reduce all-cause mortality.
All cause mortality is one of the hottest clues in the world of medical research world, because it captures effects we weren’t looking for. Dr Malhotra quotes the Neil and Fenton study on all cause mortality that I described last December. It’s the spooky and very well done study that suggested the unvaccinated are increasingly likely to die in the weeks after other people in their age group get the vaccine. It was a kind of lightning rod effect that was an artifact of calling people “unvaccinated” for two weeks after their vaccine dose. (Notably that two week period is when half of those deaths due to vaccination occurred in the US VAERS database.)
Strangely, the unvaccinated are increasing more likely to die in the week after the first dose peaks in their age group.
Dr Malhotra is also talking about the dark influence of Big Pharma and the desperate need to redesign the entire medical system (more on that another day).
Word is getting out. Inexcusably, unforgivably, slowly.
Norwegian Medicines Agency. (2022) Reported suspected adverse reactions to COVID19 vaccines as of 04.01.2022 [cited 2022 May]. PDF
UK Government: Coronavirus vaccine – Weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting [homepage on the Internet]. GOV.UK. [cited 2022 Jun 5]. Available from: UK Gov
The vainglorious shunning of gas production in Europe in quest for weather salvation will hurt the world’s poor the most. As Europe scrambles to replace the astonishing loss of 70% of their own fertilizer production they will be competing to import fertilizer from stretched markets around the world.
The price rises in gas, fertilizer and next year in food, will hurt the poorest of the poor far more than the theoretical temperature rise ever could. Thank the EU. Thank the Greens.
Europe’s fertilizer crunch is deepening with more than two-thirds of production capacity halted by soaring gas costs, threatening farmers and consumers far beyond the region’s borders.
As Europe becomes a net importer of fertilizer, the fallout from the supply crunch will spread. The region will start competing for scarce supplies with poorer nations, especially in Africa, where food insecurity is exacerbated by persistent droughts and conflict.
According to the CRU Group, a business intelligence firm specialising in commodities, fertiliser producers in the EU were losing an estimated US$2 000 (about R35 448) for every ton of ammonia they produced.
Where farmers in Western Europe were paying about US$250/t (R4 431/t) for ammonia in early 2021, the same fertiliser was currently selling for about US$1 250/t (R22 155/t), which was seriously affecting crop production.
No wonder fertilizer plants are closing.
Today, chemical fertilizers contribute to about half of the nitrogen put into global agriculture
Since the decade the first factories started producing ammonia the world’s population has grown from 2 to 8 billion.
Quick, save the world now! Create nice weather and peace on Earth with coercive bargaining, threats and deprivation.
The PETA-FemoNazi recipe to stop floods and hot weekends is to demand men give up meat or live without sex. There’s no more persuasion for civilization — according to PETA it’s their way or the highway, and most men must be too stupid to realize the PETA powers of climate prophesy are unquestionable. After all, there’s no chance that animal activists could be fooled by emotional soppy propaganda pushed by Global bankers, billionaires and UN industrial cartels, right? PETA can tell those moist adiabatic lapse rates from the missing tropospheric hot spots. If only men could too!
PETA strays so far out their lane they end up in orbit. They alternately blame bad weather on meat-eating, then on men, on toxic masculinity and then they blame the babies too. It’s breathtaking in grandiose, overbearing, imperious intolerance. Apparently omnivorous men don’t deserve to have babies. A ban on procreation for meat-eating-men would be… purposeful. They actually say that. Your value to the world is measured in tons of carbon. A bit like a farm animal really? Except PETA select for small and obedient.
Bottom line: It’s noble to treat your significant other as a cheap political toy, but remember, be nice to animals. That’s ethics the PETA way.
Men who eat meat should be banned from having sex, the animal rights group PETA has demanded, claiming that devouring sausages and schnitzel is a symptom of “toxic masculinity” which is killing the planet.
PETA’s German operation cited research from the scientific journal PLOS One, which showed that men caused 41 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than women largely because they consumed more meat.
PETA demanded a “sex ban for all meat-eating men” and called on women to “go on sex strike to save the world”.
It’s just class war and PETA are the elitist snobs:
“We all know them, the suburban fathers with beer bottles and barbecue tongs, sizzling 70c sausages on their €700 grill. The zucchini added by the visitor is eyed with suspicion and only reluctantly tolerated,” Daniel Cox, campaigns team leader for PETA Germany, said.
PETA have found the Toxic Masculinity climate-forcing-factor that even the IPCC has missed. Proof, I tell you!
“Now there is scientific proof that toxic masculinity also harms the climate. Therefore, a hefty meat tax of 41 per cent for men would be appropriate. A ban on sex orprocreationfor all meat-eating men would also be purposeful in this context.”
Blame the babies:
It said every child not born saved the equivalent of 58.6 tonnes of CO2 a year. “For all the still meat-grilling dads who still want children with a liveable future on a liveable planet, we recommend changing your lifestyle by joining our free Veganstart program,” PETA said.
If PETA has any effect on fertility, it won’t be the suburban men who don’t pass on their genes — it’ll be the intolerant man-hating vegans. Who would want to pair up with someone with such poor relationship skills?
PETA are supposedly the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, but if Zoos treated fauna with so little respect PETA would protest. Does evolution mean nothing? Do men have a right to think, to speak, and to pursue happiness?
It’s free speech for sheep but not for men, unless they’re a meat-eating Global Banker, then PETA is here to help them get rich.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Recent Comments