1500 Scientists Say ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’ – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

Many people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.

Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.

However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.

1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that 1500 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See this

2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at the United Nations Environment Division, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO₂. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.

A book I published recently also provides ample evidence and testimony from renowned scientists that there is no Climate emergency. The book titled ‘Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability’ is available here on amazon.COM

3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available here.

The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see this).

4. The reality is that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2. We can conclude that carbon emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to carbon emissions and methane from cows has no scientific basis.

Please note that I have no commercial interest in stating that climate change is not caused by CO₂. In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO₂ component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.

5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO₂. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO₂ is beneficial.

CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO₂ is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO₂ in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.

6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:

“deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” – Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.

Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change.  He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: “This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerous” and expressed shock “that the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda props”. The following is his testimony as detailed

“solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2… something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesis…  It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.

I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong…

The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated. In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong… Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it.… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm

Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank is Dr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts:  “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”. Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on and that:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data”.

Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, see Endnote [i]. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:

“The established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years ago…

the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year; between 1895 and 2015 on average there has been no change in the number of very wet days per month, and no change in the number of very dry days per month, and the 20 driest months were before 1988. Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat; the incidence of wildfires in North America between 1600 and 2000 has decreased substantially. Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!”

In a lecture titled The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:

“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the paleoclimate record shows unambiguously that Co2 is not a control knob… the narrative is absurd…  it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… There were more important leading people who were objecting to it, they were unfortunately older and by now most of them dead…

Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.”

“CO2…  it’s not a pollutant… it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis…  if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:

“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants.

I was one of the (Greenpeace) founders… by the mid-80s… we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fear… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace

Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: “More CO₂ benefits the Earth”.

7. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world

The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.

“The computer models are making systematic dramatic errors… they are all parametrised… fudged…  the models really don’t work” – Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science

Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii].  He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielke’s analysis as follows:

“The four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate ‘crisis scenario’ outcome).

In another fateful decision the 4 representative concentration pathways (RCPs) came from 4 different IAMs, which was a huge mistake.  These models are completely unrelated to each other, but the impression has been given that they are of a common set, only differing in their radiative forcing, this was a huge mistake. Furthermore, no-one has responsibility for determining whether these scenarios are plausible. The climate community decided which scenario to prioritise and they chose the two most implausible scenarios! There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that “no likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this report”. The likelihood is considered low they admit – This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.

These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at all… climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado,

8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.

The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO₂ emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would disable the current resource mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. This is being implemented before humanity has transitioned away from the flawed polluting trans-national industrial economy toward self-sufficient local/regional economies.

Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc., and many millions of people reliant on these systems worldwide could be faced with a lack of electricity, food, goods, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food.

It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel dependent system.

9. Central bankers are entirely funding / controlling the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’

The decision to drastically reduce CO₂, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, is no co-incidence. It should be noted that it is the world’s central bankers that are behind this decision and are entirely funding and controlling the advancement of the worldwide project of combatting man-made climate-change.

This project involves an attempt to de-carbonise the activities of the entire world population. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally, see Endnote  [iv]. In essence this means that the financialization of the entire world economy is based on meeting nonsensical aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. The TCFD includes key people from the world’s mega-banks and asset management companies, including JP Morgan Chase; BlackRock; Barclays Bank; HSBC; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, and more.

The fact that the world’s largest banks and asset management corporations, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS, have all linked to push a vague, mathematically nonsensical ‘green’ economy, is no coincidence. There is another agenda at play that has nothing to do with environmentalism. The green economy along with UN Agenda 2030 is an agenda of world control, and will also develop trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. When the world largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that has zero evidence, one can see there is another major agenda going on behind the scenes. This agenda tries to convince the common people of the world to make huge sacrifices under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.”. While all the time the corporations and banks make vast profits, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic control systems under the banner of combatting, and adapting to, so-called man-made climate change.

“The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be… “ – F. William Engdahl, strategic risk consultant and lecturer

Back in 2010, the head of Working Group 3 of the UN IPCC, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer,

“…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

To better perceive what is ‘behind the curtain’ of the Climate hoax and the UN/WEF agenda it also helps to examine what has happened in the decades beforehand. It is important to perceive the implications of the worldwide fractional-reserve debt-money banking scam and the subtle system of debt-slavery that has existed for decades.  If you look at the World Bank website you will see that virtually every nation on Earth is in vast debt. In debt to who you may ask? The answer is to privately owned mega-banks. For many decades the so-called banking and corporate elites have had full control of the source of money creation and its allocation, via the debt-money system, and have therefore, by default, been able to fund, and increasingly control and manipulate the entire world spectrum of industry, media, government, education, ideological supremacy and war to their own design, agenda and benefit. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker) is widely reported to have said:

 “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”

10. Central bankers hijacked the real environmental movement in 1992 creating the fake climate change agenda

Psychopaths can utilise any ideology and, change it from within to something that may eventually be entirely different to its original purpose.  Meanwhile, the original followers and advocates continue to pursue what they believe is the original ideology, but gradually become mere pawns in the agenda of a self-serving elite. Unfortunately, over the past decades, this is exactly what has happened in the environmental movement.

Whistleblower George Hunt served as an official host at a key environmental meeting in Denver, Colorado in 1987, and states that David Rockefeller; Baron Edmund De Rothschild; US Secretary of State Baker; Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts; EPA administrator William Ruccleshaus; UN Secretary General in Geneva MacNeill, along with World Bank and IMF officials were at this meeting. Hunt was surprised to see all these rich elite bankers at the meeting and questioned what they were doing there at an environmental congress.

In a video recording, Hunt later provided important evidence from the documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992. This conference was the well-known UN ’92 Earth Summit and was run by UNCED. According to Hunt, via the Earth summit, the UN was setting a net, an agenda, to place the power over the Earth and its peoples into their own hands. The world private banking cartel are the same ultra-rich banking families that had been instrumental in the setting up of the World Bank, the UN, and other international institutions, after WW2. Their political cohorts included Stalin (the leader of a brutal communist regime in the USSR that committed genocide of millions of people), UK Prime minister Churchill, and US President Roosevelt. Hunt refers to these banking families and their financial and international institutional networks as:

“The same world order that tricked third world countries to borrow funds and rack up enormous debts… and purposely creating war and debt to bring societies into their control. The world order crowd are not a nice group of people…”– George Hunt, Whistleblower speaking about the UN Earth summit of 1992

As a consequence of the UN Earth Summit, the honest, genuine environment movement that actually cared about real pollution to land, air and water, was politically hi-jacked by powerful political and financial interests with a different agenda.

Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts, had convened the first UNCED congress in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Then, 20 years later he was the convenor and secretary general of UNCED. Hunt also provided video evidence from the Fourth UNCED World Congress meeting in 1987 of an international investment banker, stating that:

“I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process that would take too long and require far too much funds to educate the cannon-fodder, unfortunately, which populates the Earth. We have to take almost an elitist program…”

Thus, the decrees leading to the 1992 UN Earth summit were dictated without debate or opportunity for dissent and would supersede national laws. The decrees were dictated into existence by the banker Edmund de Rothschild, who got these major decrees into the ’92 UN resolutions without debate or challenge. Hunt asserts that he was denied the opportunity to openly challenge Rothschild’s remarks by the meeting Chairman.

Is it any surprise that the Rothschild bank of Geneva is the nucleus of the World Conservation bank and the wealthy elite are integrated into the bank via the Rothschilds private offering of shares. The banks assumes control of world conservation and decides and controls how these resources are allocated or utilized.

11. Despite the deceptive and fake environmental facade, it has adopted, the vast institutional entity of the UN has fully endorsed environmentally destructive industrial globalisation for the past 70 years. The UN climate change, sustainable development and green economy policies over the past 30 years are little more than worldwide marketing tricks that have tragically brainwashed two generations of young people who do not understand what the UN actually is, and who is it is really designed to serve.

This current globalised system involves the promotion of beliefs and fake science that claim to be unchallengeable truths, but are, in fact, ideologies in which evidence is manipulated, twisted, and distorted to prove the ‘governing idea’, and thus promote its worldwide dissemination. They start with the conclusion they want and then wrench and manipulate what scant evidence they can to fit that conclusion. Man-made climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emission is a major example of this.

Institutions, including the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), are privately-motivated unelected unaccountable organisations controlled by the source of debt-money creation, i.e., the world private-banking cartel; and are just clever marketing tools and political mechanisms for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.

These powerful special interests have been promoting certain ‘ideologies’ for decades to advance their corporate and political aims. The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of globalist mega-corporate interests who couldn’t care less about the environment. The aim is to catapult humanity into the arms of UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF ‘reset’ plan, which are clever marketing plans entirely designed by the so-called elite mega-corporate interests of the WEF Davos group.

12. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay, former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Conclusion

In summary, CO₂ reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the world’s population. However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only.  The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.

The world’s central bankers are fully funding the worldwide climate change ‘project’. The truism ‘follow the money’ springs to mind – and by doing so, one quickly discovers who runs the corporate, political, and media world.

Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. For example, we now have millions of so-called climate change warriors blind to the fact that climate change is not actually caused by carbon emissions. This is all to scare people into accepting totalitarian authority and limitations to their freedom and personal wellbeing.

The unpalatable reality is that people’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, high inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.

We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. So, who are the architects of the current paradigm. The above book is designed to help in that regard. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our current communities and local/regional networks, or create a truly resilient thriving society in Ireland. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.

Notes

[i] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled Testing Climate Claims 2021 Update available at http://www.icsf.ie

[ii] The Irish Climate Science Forum website URL is http://www.icsf.ie

[iii] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled What does IPCC AR6 say on scenarios and extreme weather? available at www/icsf.ie

[iv] Source: https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0718/Green_Finance_Strategy.pdf

“It’s Time For The Scientific Community To Admit We Were Wrong About COVID & It Cost Lives”

Real “mea culpa”, ongoing and rapid revision of history, or further narrative management with regard ‘amnesty’ over what “the others” did to those who thought for themselves over the last few years…

In no less a liberal rag than Newsweek, Kevin Bass (MS MD/PHD Student, Medical School) has penned a quite surprising (and ‘brave’) op-ed saying that “it’s time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it cost lives…”

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19.

I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lock-downs, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and “they” responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

A students adjusts her face-mask at St. Joseph Catholic School in La Puente, California on November 16, 2020, where pre-kindergarten to Second Grade students in need of special services returned to the classroom today for in-person instruction. – The campus is the second Catholic school in Los Angeles County to receive a waiver approval to reopen as the coronavirus pandemic rages on. The US surpassed 11 million coronavirus cases Sunday, adding one million new cases in less than a week, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University.FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.

And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech “misinformation” and blaming it on “scientific illiteracy” and “ignorance,” the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government’s opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lock-down critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We were dismissed as “grifters” who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized by the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple:

It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in group-think—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.

The problem was not people’s ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of “anti-vaxxers” might be necessary and justified.  After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it’s hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.

The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.

People are still livid…

One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic’s appeal for passive forgetfulness and now this op-ed mea culpa coincides with the swiftly approaching end of the COVID emergency declarations, amid a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lock-downs and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both.  A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their COVID era strife.  

Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their COVID zealotry?  “We didn’t know! We were just following orders!”  It all sounds rather familiar.

Communist Historians Clear Name of Communist Scientists

J. Robert Oppenheimer // 1904-1967

DECEMBER 19, 2022

NY Times:Robert Oppenheimer Cleared of ‘Black Mark’ After 68 Years

The physicist and architect of the American atomic bomb was stripped of his security clearance in 1954 after what is now called a flawed investigation.

Well how about that?! After nearly seven decades, it turns out that communist psychopath scientist St. Robert Oppenheimer wasn’t a communist after all – thus sayeth the communist whorestorians and the communist Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. So, it must be true that he was actually a loyal American who bled red, white & blue, right? (rolling eyes). Suuuuure. Next they’ll be telling us that Karl Marx has been falsely accused of being a Marxist!

From the article:

“The Secretary of Energy on Friday nullified a 1954 decision to revoke the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a top government scientist who led the making of the atomic bomb in World War II but fell under suspicion of being a Soviet spy at the height of the McCarthy era.

In a statement, the Energy Secretary, Jennifer M. Granholm, said the decision of the Atomic Energy Commission, to bar Oppenheimer’s clearance was the result of a “flawed process” that violated its own regulations.

As time has passed, she added, “more evidence has come to light of the bias and unfairness of the process that Dr. Oppenheimer was subjected to while the evidence of his loyalty and love of country have only been further affirmed.”

Historians, who have long lobbied for the reversal of the clearance revocation, praised the vacating order as a milestone.”

The supposed clearing of the “black mark” on Oppenheimer’s sainted name means absolutely nothing so many years after the fact; but it does offer us a good “teachable moment” to review what a wretched human being that “the father of the atomic bomb” truly was.

The Fake News of the day transformed the mediocre TRAITOR into a genius saint. After he was stripped of his security clearance in 1954, he was then cast as a living martyr — a testament to the evils of “McCarthyism” and “antisemitism.”

J. Robert Oppenheimer was a “theoretical physicist” — one who practices “science” by conjecture and elaborate mathematical calculations, not actual experimentation. While teaching physics at Berkeley, Oppenheimer, over the objections of some concerned military men, was named the wartime head of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos Laboratory, in 1942. Though his technical role in creating the monstrous weapon –which Jewish mad scientists such as Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard hoped to drop on German civilians — was nil to minimal, it is Oppenheimer who, absurdly, gets the historical credit as “father of the FAKE atomic bomb.” (((They))) always manage to get the credit for everything, don’t they?

In his role as Project Director, Oppenheimer — who himself had more communist front affiliations than one could shake a hammer & sickle at — opened the door and “looked the other way” as a whole rats’ nest of subversive Jews and other Marxists penetrated Los Alamos and passed on the secrets to their Soviet contacts. As a result, Stalin would have a bomb of his own by 1949 — way sooner than was expected. Though others associated with the Los Alamos espionage ring would in due time be disgraced, arrested or even executed — Oppenheimer the enabler was too important of a chess piece to sacrifice.

One year after the end of World War II, the communist-infested administration of Harry Truman named Oppenheimer as chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission. Under the pretext of averting “nuclear proliferation”, Oppenheimer would use that position to lobby for international control of nuclear power (world government). During the “McCarthy Era”, those stances, together with his past associations with admitted Communist Party members — (including his brother, his wife, his landlord, and his ex-girlfriend!) — led to the revocation of Oppenheimer’s security clearance. Imagine that — telling an outspoken One-Worlder who absolutely reeked of redness that he may no longer have access the nation’s top secrets. Oh those horrible, horrible “McCarthyites!”

And thus was born the legend of poor Bobby Oppenheimer — the persecuted Jew who had a black mark wrongly attached to his good name.

The fiendish Jewish mad scientists dreamed of burning cities full of “German civilians”. They had to settle for Japanese (supposedly)

1. Katherine Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party. A prior husband, before Oppenheimer, was a Communist partisan who was killed during the Spanish Civil War. She was impregnated by Oppenheimer (her future husband) while married to her 2nd husband. She became an alcoholic in later years. // 2. Robert’s brother, Frank Oppenheimer, was also a member of the Communist Party. // 3. Jean Tatlock — a “bisexual” and Communist Party member — was romantically involved with Oppenheimer during the 1930s. Oppenheimer was introduced to her at a fundraiser for the Communist side of the Spanish Civil War. Ms. Tatlock died by suicide in 1944. // 4. Mary Ellen Washburn was Oppenheimer’s landlord at Berkeley. She too was a Communist Party member; and had introduced the mad scientist to Jean Tatlock.

On a personal level, Red Robert was truly a rotten human being and quite insane (aren’t all Jewish Marxists?) An event which occurred in 1924 tells us all we need to know about the true character and mental state of this sainted charlatan. Oppenheimer had been accepted to study as a physicist at the prestigious Christ’s College of the University of Cambridge. While there, he was placed under the tutelage of a brilliant experimental physicist named Patrick Blackett — a true genius who would go on to become famous for his work on cosmic rays and magnetism. Due to his own ineptitude in the laboratory (true science) — Oppenheimer became insanely jealous of Blackett’s skills as an experimental physicist. Oppenheimer’s “clumsiness” in the lab is a matter of admitted historical record. Frauds like Oppenheimer and Einstein may know how to crunch numbers, but they can neither discover nor invent — and they know it!

In 1926, while on vacation with two friends, the mad young man confessed to them that he had to return to Cambridge immediately. In a fit of jealous wrath, Oppenheimer had coated an apple in noxious chemicals and placed it on Blackett’s desk. Afterwards, probably fearful of being discovered, he wanted to make sure that Blackett was alright. Fortunately, Blackett had not eaten the poisoned fruit. When informed of his dirty deed, the University began to move ahead with plans to press charges against the would-be potential murderer. After the intervention of his wealthy and well-connected parents, Oppenheimer was instead placed on academic probation and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations.

On another occasion, the insecure and ever-jealous psychopath tried to strangle a fellow roommate (and future famous writer) named Francis Fergusson, after he had announced to Oppenheimer that he had just gotten engaged to be married. Fergusson easily fended off the 130 pound weakling, and remained sympathetic to his pathetic school mate. Yet he had always and would always regard Oppenheimer as mentally ill. (here) Indeed, Oppenheimer himself later told Fergusson that his troubles were caused and fueled by personal frustration with his experimental inabilities. (here)

Incompetence at experimental science, a crackpot, an envious weakling, an almost murderer, a violent genocidal psychopath, and a communist — what could possibly go wrong by placing dangerous state secrets into the hands of such a miserable Marxist miscreant? Let’s keep that black mark on his name by sharing this article.

J. Robert Oppenheimer // 1904-1967

How do climate doomsayers explain the current state of Arctic ice?

By Vijay Jayaraj

With ice coverage for July and August remaining above the ten-year average of 2010–20, the extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic has surprised experts who once predicted that such levels would be impossible.

This stands in stark contrast to the dominant climate narrative that predicts the dwindling of summer ice in the Arctic.  Some politicians had even claimed that parts of the Arctic would be ice-free by now.

With the seasonal Arctic melt technically over, it is fair to conclude that the extent of ice in the summer of 2022 has been greater than the ten-year average.  On most days in July and August, sea ice levels were above the ten-year average and significantly more than the previous few years.

The Japanese National Institute of Polar Research provides a useful visualization in the graph below.  This year’s Arctic sea ice — shown in red — is compared with the ten-year average and the levels of the previous few years, including that of 2012, when ice had reached its lowest of the period tracked.

Data of sea-ice extent in square kilometers in the Arctic Ocean from June 2002 to the present and decadal averages of 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2010’s are included.
Source: National Institute of Polar Research, https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent.

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the extent of Arctic sea ice was much greater than the last five years, as shown in the below graph.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Source: Danish Meteorological Institute, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php.

Summer temperatures in the Arctic remained at levels similar to the 44-year average of 1958–2002, with no marked increase in warming.  In the graph, temperature is shown in the Kelvin scale; the horizontal blue line is freezing, or zero degrees Celsius and 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel as a function of the day of year.
Source: Danish Meteorological Institute, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

Now, here’s the big question: why were internationally acclaimed climate scientists unable to predict this marked increase in the extent of summer sea ice?  Is it because their overall approach is biased toward supporting the theory that carbon dioxide is warming the planet to dangerous levels?  Or is it because their models are incapable of predicting future temperatures?

The answers must come from the doomsayers themselves.  They need to explain why Arctic summer temperatures have been not at all different from the 44-year average and why summer sea ice is above decadal averages.

Acknowledging that we have yet to understand the complex climate system will undermine the credibility of scientists and political institutions advancing destructive energy policies to address a fantasy of climate catastrophe.

Melting of Arctic ice has been used as a major data point in the justification of restrictive energy policies adopted by many countries.  It is ironic — and infuriating — that millions across the world are suffering from high energy prices and blackouts at the same time that Arctic sea ice has been at its greatest extent in five years!

Europe is facing rapidly rising electricity prices and a natural gas shortage.  Citizens in the U.S. are experiencing high energy prices as their access to cheap fossil fuels is restricted by government’s infatuation with solar and wind power.  China is scampering to reduce blackouts.  All this could have been avoided if political leaders had not promoted a false climate emergency.

It makes no sense to force people to live in darkness in the name of climate policy when the policy-makers themselves have so little understanding of the planet’s mechanisms of warming and cooling.  Acknowledge the infancy of climate science and liberate people from energy tyranny.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA.  He holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K. and resides in India.

Climate Change Alarmism Debunked AGAIN: Arctic Sea Ice Is Now 3% Below Its 30 Year Average

According to the latest report from the EU’s Earth observation programme, Arctic sea ice is just 3 per cent below its 30 year average.

Whoops, narrative fail!

The Daily Sceptic’s environmental editor Chris Morrison explains the data:

The red line on the graph on the left plots the 2021 record and it can be seen that it is an improvement on recent years. Deviations from the average in March and September shown on the right have both eased in recent years.

Of course in historical and geological terms these changes are insignificant, but they are likely to put a dampener on the generally hysterical tone about polar weather encountered in most climate change debate. This tone was set back in 2009 when former US vice president Al Gore reported there was a high chance that the North Pole would be summer ice free by 2013.

So far as climate catastrophism is concerned, the Arctic is the gift that keeps on giving. Discussing a crackpot scheme to ‘save the Arctic ice’ by sprinkling it with glass, the BBC Future Planet site noted in 2020 that the area was in a “self-destructive feedback loop”. Much of the ice was said to be “rapidly vanishing”.

Morrison goes on to document how Arctic sea ice has grown and abated for hundreds of years of historical records and well before man started emitting carbon dioxide to any significant degree.

As we highlighted last year, one of the authors of the United Nations IPCC report who focused on “extreme” consequences of man-made global warming lauded the fact that “people are starting to get scared” about climate change and that this would “affect the way they vote.”

However, doomsday climate change prophecies have been proven spectacularly wrong time and time again.

According to a much heralded 2004 report, man-made climate change would cause “millions” of deaths, major European cities being sunken, nuclear war and global environmental riots… all by 2020.

Remember guys, it's just 5 days until the UK is "plunged into a Siberian climate."

From the same trustworthy people who gave you mass starvation of humanity by the 80's, "ice free" Arctic summers by 2013 and Greta Thunberg.

You can trust them. pic.twitter.com/afGut28mXv

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 27, 2019

Related article: Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 16 Years Later — None Happened!

As we highlighted back in January 2020, Montana’s Glacier National Park was forced to remove all signs that read “glaciers will all be gone by 2020,” after the doomsday scenario didn’t happen.

So-called “climate experts” have got it wrong time and time again on absolutely everything, from Paul Ehrlich’s prediction of millions of deaths from famine by the 80’s, to Al Gore’s absurd claim that the Arctic would have “ice free” summers by 2013.

At the end of the 70’s, climate experts said that a new ice age was coming. It didn’t happen.

None of it ever happens, yet the same “experts” are still given platforms and vast funding to insist we reduce our living standards, while voices of dissent are silenced by government decree, Big Tech censorship and social media algorithms.

Reference: Summit.news

Doomsday Cukoo Clock Adds Anti-Vaxxers & Jan 6ers

FEBRUARY 07, 2022


Doomsday Clock
: 
At Doom’s Doorstep,
 It is 100 Seconds to Midnight

It’s that most frightening time of the year again when the trumpets of Mount Olympus summon the bewildered boobs of the overlapping tyrannical kingdoms of Normiedom & Libtardia  to obedient attention. Hush up and drop to your knees, boys and girls. The “Scientists of Oz,” whose sacred calling it is to keep and unveil the corny-as-can-be “Doomsday Clock” , have a dire warning for us all — so dire, in fact, that it ranks as the most serious harbinger of doom in the history of the catastrophic cuckoo clock:

From this year’s proclamation by the Keepers-of-the-Fake:

“In view of this mixed threat environment—with some positive developments counteracted by worrisome and accelerating negative trends—the members of the Science and Security Board find the world to be no safer than it was last year at this time and therefore decide to set the Doomsday Clock once again at 100 seconds to midnight. This decision does not, by any means, suggest that the international security situation has stabilized. On the contrary, the Clock remains the closest it has ever been to civilization-ending apocalypse.”

Be afraid, boys and girls. Be very afraid. No seriously, this time, it’s for real …. really. They’re not joking.

Back in the day when school children were terrorized with “Duck and Cover” drills, the “Doomsday Clock” was introduced (1947) by Globalist scientists who used it to sell the sheeple on the idea that all nations should one day hand over control of armaments to the U.N. as the only way to avoid “doomsday.” Though that radical proposal — originated by the communist Robert Oppenheimer and cryptically proposed by President Eisenhower during his “Atoms for Peace” speech (here) — never came to fruition, the fear of “the bomb” was in fact successfully used by the cunning Globalists to expand America’s bullying “leadership role in the world” , consolidate “the free world” ; build the framework for today’s European Union; expand NATO and implement various power-grabbing U.N. treaties.

With the end of the Cold War, the “Doomsday Clock” , though still “calculated” each year, faded into relative obscurity. But now, thanks to America’s “withdrawal from world leadership,” the minute-hand of the commie cuckoo-clock has been moved ahead by an additional 20 seconds from 2018’s advance of 30 seconds.

Among those engineering the commie calibration for this year’s cuckoo-clock were 13 Nobel Laureates.  The standard stooges chosen to solemnly present this year’s unveiling (in masks, of course) included, for the first time, a Black woman — a “scientist-of-color” you could say. According to the article, the hysterical Rachel Bronson (president and CEO of the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” which puts on this annual circus) had this to say:

“The clock has never reached midnight, and Rachel Bronson, Bulletin president and CEO, hopes it never will. “When the clock is at midnight, that means there’s been some sort of nuclear exchange or catastrophic climate change that’s wiped out humanity,” she said. “So we never really want to get there and we won’t know it when we do.”

Bitch, please.

Sadly, the libtarded simpletons who go ga-ga over this type of stuff are likely to buy such preposterous Globalist bullshit simply because politicized “scientists” are the ones selling it – as if “scientists” are infallible and incorruptible.

The felonious fright-fest recently added another new twist which alludes to the Holy Work of countless bloggers and You Tubers like yours truly here  — namely, “cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns.” You see, boys and girls, the one thing that the Globalists never saw coming was the potential networking power of the military project (ARPANET) — which became the Internet — and its ability to immediately counter and neutralize the Fake News of the Piranha Press. It is not the physical doom of humanity that concerns these demented devils, but rather, the doom which awaits them if enough normies ever figure out their ghoulish game. So, in a sense, the clock is ticking, but in a positive way from our perspective.

In closing, let us say that we here at The Anti-New York Times hold true men of science in very high regard. However, not all those claiming to be “scientists” are actually practicing real science. Their ignorance can be even more pronounced when they wander off into matters political and philosophical. Apart from the fact that many of these academic ass-clowns are just well-paid liars, there is also a whole category of “scientists” that fit the observation once made by James Watson – a co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix structure:

“One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.”

Tell it, Professor Watson, tell it!

On an unrelated but very interesting note, that’s the same James Watson that the usual suspects blacklisted, drove into poverty and forced to auction off his Nobel Prize for Science because he stated that DNA differences among races impact intelligence and achievement. Fortunately, Russian billionaire and friend-of-Putin, Alisher Usmanov paid $4.8 million for the Nobel medal — and then promptly returned it to Watson! (here)

Israel Is Now #1 In Covid Cases Per Capita, Proving All The Draconian Measures Are Utterly Worthless

Despite the fact that Israel has implemented some of the most draconian COVID-19 pandemic measures in the world, the country is now number one in the world in new cases, according to local reports.

Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa empty due to corona-virus fears

According to the Times of Israel, a leading health expert in the country said that 0.6 percent of the population was testing positive daily for the virus — most likely the latest variant, omicron, which is highly contagious but also very mild.

Prof. Eran Segal of The Weizmann Institute said at that rate, Israel currently leads the world in per capita infection rates, even though the population is required to get the latest version of vaccines available and despite heavy quarantine and lockdown regimes.

However, Segal tried to excuse the high infection rate:

But Segal noted it was likely that Israel was not truly the country with the highest infection rate. Rather, he attributed the figures to Israel being a leading country in the number of tests performed each day, relative to its population size.

Israel is followed in the highest daily cases worldwide ranking by Mongolia, Peru, Canada and Georgia.

The fact is, either you’re the number one country, per capita, in daily infections — or you’re not. And right now, Israel is No. 1, period, no matter how you look at the data.

But instead of realizing that this novel coronavirus is not the world-ender that the world has been propagandized to believe, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is quadrupling down on idiot policies that have not worked yet and are never going to work (because viruses virus — that’s what they do and nothing humans do will stop them from spreading).

The PM “announced Thursday that mandatory quarantine for schoolchildren who were exposed to coronavirus carriers would be scrapped entirely,” the Times of Israel reported. “According to the plan, starting next Thursday, children up to the age of 18 will no longer need to isolate after being exposed.

“Instead, all students — both vaccinated and unvaccinated — will need to conduct two antigen tests a week — on Sundays and Wednesdays — and present negative results when entering educational institutions,” the outlet continued. “Children who test positive for COVID-19 will still need to isolate until testing negative.”

Bennett said that the government will begin distributing “millions” of test kits so that testing can be done at home, an endeavor that is costing tens of millions of dollars to carry out.

Bennett’s order comes as 146,000 school-aged children were already in quarantine due to testing positive for the virus, while another 142,000 were forced into quarantine because they had been ‘exposed’ to the virus (which means nothing considering the virus is literally everywhere).

“Wherever we can make it easier for the public, we will. We are taking Omicron seriously, but also looking at the bigger picture,” Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said.

Education Minister Yifat Shasha-Biton called Bennett’s order “a brave decision,” while noting further that “it would have been easier to close the education system, but our duty is to save every boy and girl” from the damage of repeated quarantines — even while ordering them into repeated quarantines.

These lunatics literally have no self-awareness at all when it comes to their pandemic decisions.

But that’s not all. Regarding the overall state of the pandemic, Segal predicted that the current outbreak sweeping the country will end soon.

“We are very close to the height, or even at the height of the Omicron wave,” he told Channel 12 news.

What about the next variant? And the next? And the ones after that?

Why haven’t any of these measures ever been implemented for influenza, which sweeps the globe annually, showing up as a different strain?

Viruses… are going to virus. ‘The science’ has shown us this for centuries. Why civilized democracies can’t seem to understand this elementary scientific principle when it comes to COVID-19 is mind-boggling.

Source and reference: NaturalNews.com; TimesOfIsrael.com

People Don’t ‘Trust The Science’ Because Too Many Scientists Are Liars With Agendas

By Brandon Smith

There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to.

Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.

It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.

For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – that scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.

I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”

Not once.

This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.

Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.

Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general.

Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.

In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.

Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:

Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?

This is simple: Because too many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.

That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all.

Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.

The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.

Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…

GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train

The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?

Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?

Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.

Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.

There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.

Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.

If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to confirm GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.

I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as pesticides).

There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects.

If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.

The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.

Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science

I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis.

We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government.

The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – but this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.

The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.

In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.

There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.

Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.

The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?

I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.

What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.

These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci. Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.

And doesn’t that just illustrate how far science has fallen in the new millennium. Real scientists like Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, call Fauci a fraud, but they are ignored while Fauci is worshiped.

The Global Cooling, Global Warming And Now Climate Change Fraud

I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).

The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13^th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.

It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.

Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.

Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.

Our Ancestors Might Have Known The Secrets Of Levitation

Did the ancients know the secrets of levitation? Is it possible that our ancient ancestors knew the secrets of levitation? Technology that has since been lost in time and space?

Is it possible that great ancient civilizations like the ancient Egyptians, Olmec, Pre-Inca and Inca deciphered the secrets of levitation and other technologies that have been labeled by today’s society as impossible, mythological?

And if they did, is it possible that they used these ‘forgotten technologies’ to erect some of the most incredible ancient constructions on our planet?

There are dozens of amazing megalithic sites on our planet that defy our modern-day capabilities: Tiahuanaco, the Pyramids of the Giza plateau, Puma Punku, and Stonehenge among others.

Puma-Punku

All of these sites were built using incredible blocks of stone that weight up to hundreds of tons, blocks of stone that our modern-day technologies have a hard time dealing with.

So why did the ancient use such megalithic blocks of stone when they could have used smaller blocks and achieve a similar if not identical result?

Is it possible that ancient man possessed technologies that are lost today? Is it possible they had knowledge that surpasses our very own understanding?

According to some researchers, it is possible that ancient man mastered the ‘art of levitation’ which allowed them to defy known physics and move and manipulate massive objects with extreme ease.

Tiahuanaco: Defying Modern-Technology

13,000 feet above sea level stand the incredible ancient ruins of Tiahuanaco and its incredible ‘Sun Gate’. “La Puerta del Sol” or Sun Gate is an elaborately carved structure that is composed of stone blocks that weigh over ten tons. It is still a mystery how ancient managed to cut, transport and place these blocks of stone.

Temple Of Jupiter Baalbek

The Temple of Jupiter located in Baalbek, Lebanon is another masterpiece of ancient engineering where huge blocks of stone were put together to form one of the greatest ancient sites on Earth. The foundation of the Temple of Jupiter contains three of the most massive stones ever quarried by mankind. The three foundation blocks together weigh 3,000 tons.

If you ask yourself what type of vehicle would be used to transport them, the answer is NONE. Somehow, ancient man was able to quarry, transport and put them into place with such precision that not a single sheet of paper could fit in-between them.

At Baalbek, we have the ‘stone of the pregnant women’ which is one of the largest stones ever cut my mankind, with a weight of 1,200 tons.

Egyptian Pyramids: A Mystery To Mainstream Science

The Egyptian pyramids are one of the ‘mission impossible’ constructions that have caused amazement among everyone who has had the opportunity to visit them.

Even today, no one knows for a fact how ancient man was able to erect such marvelous structures. Mainstream science has proposed that it took a workforce of around 5000 men, working for twenty years to build them using ropes, ramps, and brute force.

Abul Hasan Ali Al-Masudi, known as the Herodotus of the Arabs wrote about how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids in the distant past.

Al-Mas’udi was an Arab historian and geographer and was one of the first to combine history and scientific geography in a large-scale work. Al-Masudi wrote about how ancient Egyptians transported the huge blocks of stone used to build the pyramids. According to him, a ‘magic papyrus’ was placed under each of the blocks of stone which allowed them to be transported.

After placing the magical papyrus beneath the blocks, the stone was struck with a ‘metal rod’ that made the blocks of stone levitate and move along the path paved with stones and fenced on either side by metal poles. This allowed the stones to move for around 50-meters after which the process had to be repeated in order to get the blocks of stone to where they needed to be.

Was Al-Masudi objective when he wrote about the pyramids? Or is it possible that just like many others, he was simply amazed by their magnificence, concluded that the ancient Egyptians must have used extraordinary means to construct the pyramids?

What if, levitation technology was present on Earth in the distant past and ancient civilizations like the Egyptians, Inca or Pre-Inca knew the secrets of levitation?

Reference: Ancient-Code.com

Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About Natural Immunity?

Daisy wrote an article recently on the “othering” of the unvaccinated. She went into detail regarding how individuals are blaming the unvaccinated for absolutely everything going wrong these days. I share her concern. There is a long, detailed history of the “othering” of a population leading to all sorts of horrors.

However, it is wrong at a more mundane level, as well. Public discourse surrounding the pandemic seems to focus solely on vaccination as a means of achieving herd immunity. Those who have recovered from the disease and have natural immunity, are being completely ignored.

But why?

Natural Immunity.

The most frustrating thing to me, the past year and a half, has been the constantly changing narrative and the dismissal of formerly well-understood scientific truths. Natural immunity is one of those concepts from freshman biology that many seem to completely disregard these days.

I think this is a natural effect of the “cult of expertise” we have in the United States. Seemingly, anyone with specific credentials is automatically deferred to, regardless of how competent they are… or more insidiously, where their financial interests lie.

If more of us were willing to think critically about the “science” in the news these days, we could be more confident in managing our health. A healthy, confident population willing to argue and drag its feet on accepting medical treatments with which they aren’t comfortable is hard to push around.

A population willing to do anything to just “get back to normal” is not.

‘This Ends The Debate’: Israeli Study Shows Natural Immunity 13x More Effective Than Vaccines At Stopping Delta.

We’re Not Going “Back To Normal.” 

As early as April of 2020, Daisy wrote that we were never getting “back to normal.” And I agree.

But we can move forward a little more well-informed.

I’ve gotten into some discussions with medical professionals about whether people who have recovered from the disease need to be vaccinated. These conversations would have been seen as utterly ridiculous three years ago. However, now, it seems, we all need to relearn freshman biology. So I’d like to review the concept of natural immunity to help organize my thoughts and maybe help others that feel like their heads are in a whirl.

I’ve got my old college biology textbook – Life: The Science of Biology, by Purves, Sadava, Orians, and Heller. I’ve got the sixth edition, published in 2001, so it’s about 20 years old. I also have a newer college biology textbook because I’m a big nerd. It’s Campbell Biology, by Reece, Urry, Cain, Wasserman, Minorsky, and Jackson, published in 2014. Both textbooks detail how our immune systems work, and both say pretty much the same thing.

We’re never going back to normal? Australian Public Health Chief Says COVID Contact Tracing Is Part Of ‘New World Order’

Our Bodies Have Two Major Ways Of Defending Against Disease.

Our innate defenses are things like our skin and mucus. We’re born with these, and they make it difficult for various pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and multicellular parasites to enter our bodies. Our bodies also have an immune system that recognizes and attacks any infectious agents that make it past our innate defenses.  

Our immune system is really sophisticated, and in healthy individuals, it works pretty well. Suppose some kind of pathogen makes it past the body’s innate defenses and begins infecting cells within the host. In that case, the host’s body will, in turn, start producing antibodies that will specifically attack the invading pathogen. The host body will continue producing antibodies until either the host dies or the invading cells die, and the patient’s body can return to normal.

The best part is, even after the active infection is over, the host’s body will retain the memory of the antibodies it produced during the infection. So if the formerly infected person reencounters the pathogen, the body will immediately have the antibodies to kill the pathogen. They rarely get sick again, and if they do, it’s generally very mild.

Even The Incredibly Pro-Vaccine Wall Street Journal Had An Article On This Recently.

Usually, the WSJ leaves their articles up on the Opinion Page for about a week. However, within twenty-four hours, WSJ buried this article on natural immunity. Jeff had a great article about alternative media just the other day. This definitely feeds into his narrative about how much good info is getting buried right now.

Anyway, the WSJ article discusses mucosal immunity vs. internal immunity. The author (a neurologist) states that while vaccines stimulate internal immunity, they do nothing to address mucosal immunity. The viruses don’t penetrate the host’s organs, which is why most vaccinated people don’t get really sick. But, the viruses still live and reproduce in mucus-lined mouths and nasal passages. That is why vaccinated people with no symptoms are still spreading Covid like crazy. However, those of us that have recovered have both mucosal and internal immunity.

In Case You Needed Further Proof Of The Efficacy Of Natural Immunity.

An Israeli study showed recently that vaccinated people were 13 times as likely to become infected and 27 times as likely to have symptomatic infections as people with natural immunity. 

Alex Berenson posted this information on Twitter on August 25, and the platform permanently banned him on August 28. However, medical professionals are starting to make noise about it, such as Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard epidemiologist. Hopefully, more people begin to listen.

The Benefits Of Natural Immunity Shouldn’t Be As Shocking As They Seem To Be.

After all, we’ve been observing this with other diseases for a long time. A case in point: when I was a kid, everyone still got chickenpox. We all got to miss school and stay home for about a week. I’m the oldest of eight kids, and I think the vaccine came out when my youngest siblings were kids. But I know the oldest four of us caught chickenpox.

One of my brothers caught it twice. The first time around, he caught it when I did. We were pretty sick for a few days and had a rash that covered our bodies for about a week. I never got chickenpox again. However, my brother picked it up a second time at school. He only had a very slight fever for one day and four or five blisters the second time around. That was it.  

None Of What I’ve Said Above Is Even Remotely Controversial.

In fact, if you look at the history of smallpox, records date back well over 2000 years that smallpox survivors nursed the sick. Even then, it was common knowledge that survivors wouldn’t get sick again.  

Now, is smallpox exactly the same as Covid? No, not exactly. The story of smallpox eradication is an amazing one. Since then, we seem to keep hoping we can destroy every disease with vaccines. But that’s not necessarily realistic. For starters, smallpox has no recorded animal hosts. This means, once you wipe it out in humans, it’s gone. Covid, regardless of whether it originated in animals or a laboratory, is known to live in many different animal species. It will never really go away. Humans may gain the upper hand at times. But, it will always be living and evolving within a variety of animal hosts.

Now Is Not The Time To Despair.

So, should we all throw up our hands in despair over the fact that there is a new disease, unlikely ever to be eradicated, in our midst? No. We’ve been living with the cold and flu viruses for millennia. They won’t be eradicated either because they mutate rapidly and have a variety of hosts.  

I’m not trying to be insensitive to the people that have suffered from Covid. And, as it now seems generally accepted that Covid originated in a laboratory, I’m also not trying to downplay the absolutely evil minds involved in making this disease what it is. But we’ve been living with diseases for millennia. We can learn to live with this one too.

Some People Feel Totally Comfortable With The New MRNA Vaccines.

Personally, I’m not comfortable with the mRNA. But, I won’t try to change anyone’s mind. I had Covid, and I’ve got natural immunity. I was extremely low-risk for complications from Covid. (In my late thirties, close to my ideal weight, and no outstanding vitamin deficiencies.) And sure enough, I only felt sick for about a day.

I never had any fever or respiratory symptoms. I was achy for about twenty-four hours and tired the day after. My sense of taste and smell disappeared, which was why I got tested. They have not returned, which is depressing because I love good food, but I can live without it. No child on this planet should miss one race or one get-together with friends because I can’t properly enjoy coffee anymore.

Others have had it way worse. You can read about Daisy’s experience with Covid HERE . She has also shared with her newsletter readers that she lost a close family member to Covid – a healthy man in his mid-40s who had no comorbidities. Bernie Carr, the founder of ApartmentPrepper.com, has had a lengthy battle that included hospitalization and long-term dependence on oxygen, and Greg Ellifritz, of ActiveResponseTraining.com, came pretty close to dying himself but is on the mend.

For anyone else who is vaccine-hesitant yet still concerned about the disease itself, there are many other treatment options. Again, humanity treated disease for a long time before vaccines entered the scene. Some of the first doctors to treat Covid patients formed Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance to develop and share low-cost treatment options. This article talks about managing the symptoms of Covid at home for those who are not sick enough to require hospitalization. 

This Is Not An Argument For Or Against Vaccines.

If no one were willing to try anything new, we’d never make any progress. But the trials need to be made by fully informed, consenting individuals. That isn’t what we have right now. What we have now is coercion.

I am trying to argue against fear and hysteria. I want to encourage anyone, like myself, who is even moderately scientifically literate, to revisit your old textbooks. Build your confidence to make your own decisions. There’s too much fearmongering out there surrounding this disease. We’re distracted by a disease that 99.5% of infected people under 55 will survive as our rights are taken away, and our international reputation for being even a little bit competent and reliable falls apart. 

Don’t allow yourself to get swallowed up by fear. The same things that mostly kept us healthy in the past will mostly keep us healthy now. Eat nutritious food, exercise regularly, and get sunshine.

Does this mean that if you are healthy, nothing terrible will ever happen to you? Of course not, just as obeying all the traffic rules won’t necessarily prevent some drunk from slamming into you. We can’t eliminate risk in our lives. All we can do is try to stack the odds in our favor.

How Will You Build Your Resilience And Mental Strength?

Resilience and mental strength are a huge part of prepping. Going back to the first principles, educating yourself will help you gain confidence in your decisions for yourself and your family. Confidence will help you stand firm against the rising tide of crazy we see in the world. Are you confident in your preparations? Have you been educating yourself along the way? Let’s talk about it in the comments section. 

Now is not the time to give in to fear. Now is the time to become strong.