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.

people don’t 'trust the science' because too many scientists are liars with agendas

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 13th 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 plateauPuma Punku, and Stonehenge among others.

012bpuma2bpunku.jpg
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

Tiahuanaco2bbolivia2bgate.jpg

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

Baalbek2bgranite2bmegaliths.png

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

Giza Pyramids Orion's Belt

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.

why isn’t anyone talking about natural immunity?

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.

The Federal Reserve and Climate Change?

Picture

AUGUST 31, 2021

NY Times: How Should the Fed Deal With Climate Change?

A study suggested the Federal Reserve could help fight climate change by excelling at its primary job: maintaining a strong economy.

There is so much “fail” — based on so many flawed assumptions –to unpack in this propaganda piece pooped out by Slimes “Senior Economics Correspondent,” Neil Irwin. The ignorance and contorted anti-logic on display here are astonishing, really — all the more so when we consider the “prestige” attached to whatever appears in the pages of “the paper of record.”

Hazmat suits and hip waders on, boys and girls. Let’s clean up some of this juvenile journalist’s fallacious fecal matter.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Irwin’s illogical idiocies will scramble the brains of unsuspecting readers. He badly needs a course in Greco-Roman logic.

Irwin: The climate crisis is at high risk of becoming an economic crisis. 
Analysis: Notice how the lie of the “Climate Con” is always casually stated as an established foundational truth upon which other theories (and endless “studies”) can to be built upon. In sales, this is known as “assumptive selling” — or, in logic, Existential Fallacy.

Irwin: That is an increasingly widespread view ….
Analysis: “Widespread view” — Arguing to Popular Fallacy.

Irwin: … among leading economic thinkers …
Analysis: “leading thinkers” — Arguing to Authority Fallacy.

Irwin: — that a range of economic and financial problems could result from a warming planet and humanity’s efforts to deal with it.
Analysis: Half wrong // half right. It is ONLY the proposed “solutions” to the non-existent “crisis” that will cause economic problems.

Irwin: What should the United States’ economist-in-chief do about it? 
Analysis: Putting aside the fact that man-made “Climate Change”  is a HOAX — How would the Federal Reserve System possibly fight such a phenomenon?

Irwin: That question has taken new urgency as President Biden weighs whether to reappoint Jerome Powell to another term leading the Federal Reserve or choose someone else. 
Analysis: We’re not sure if the Trump-appointed Anglo, Jerome Powell is a closet “White Hat” or not, but we have noticed that “the usual suspects” aren’t too crazy about him — like they were for his nearly half-century long string of predecessors — Janet YellenBen BernankeAlan GreenslimePaul Volcker(here) and Arthur Burns

Irwin: Climate activists and others on the left have argued that Mr. Powell should be replaced by someone with stronger credentials as a climate hawk. Demonstrators backing this cause were planning to protest at an annual Fed symposium.
Analysis: Communist scum protesting Powell and demanding he not get another term? Yep… He’s gotta be a “White Hat” — or at least not a total villain.

Irwin: Among other things, they want the Fed to use its regulatory powers to throttle the flow of bank lending to carbon-producing industries. 
Analysis: Wow! The “climate activists” (who work for the Cabal) want to fight “Climate Change”  — by using the banking system to deny financing to “polluters.” Now that is some scary Communist shit right there.

Irwin: At the same time, some Republicans are assailing the Fed for mere research efforts involving climate.
Analysis: So, in addition to counterfeiting, loan sharking and market rigging — the Fed’s new role is “researching climate?”

Picture
Powell’s true loyalties remain a mystery — but his appointment by Trump broke a long string of Jewish Chairmen running the Fed, and his refusal to to go along with green lending standards is also a hopeful sign.
Picture
Communist street scum with professional banners call for the removal of Powell for his lack of “leadership” on “Climate Change.”
Picture
Paul “Father of the Fed” Warburg
Picture
Picture

Irwin: It is clear there would be a huge outcry on the right if a new Fed chair were to take an activist stance in trying to limit the availability of capital in energy-extraction businesses.
Analysis: The old Republican’t Party of the Bush Clan, Paul Ryan, John McStain, Mitt Romney et al, would have let it pass. But Irwin’s right. The new Trump Party would never permit such a policy.

Irwin: So far, Mr. Powell and other leaders at the central bank have taken a middle ground. They’ve committed to studying the ways global warming will affect the economy, but not trying to manage how loans are allocated
Analysis: It appears that Powell is telling the Warmist Mafia what it wants to hear, but will not give them what they actually want. Good enough.

Irwin: Arguably, one of the more important things the Fed can do to help fight climate change is to excel at its primary job: maintaining a stable, strong economy.
Analysis: What??? I’m confused. How would a “stable and strong economy” prevent “Climate Change ? Wouldn’t more economic activity generate more of the dreaded plant food known as CO2?

Irwin: Consider some surprising public opinion data.  Since 1989, Gallup has polled Americans about whether climate change worried them personally.
Analysis: To digress a bit — the push-pull art of “public opinion polling” involves the deliberate surround-sound saturation of the normie mind with false propaganda about this or that subject — followed by periodic measurements (polls) of the effectiveness of all that repeated lying.

Irwin: The peak was in April 2000, when the share of people worried about the climate was … (very high). That was also one of the best months for the U.S. economy, with unemployment a mere 3.8 percent. …. Climate worry in the survey hit a low in 2010 and 2011, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis … Using a broader range of evidence from both the United States and Europe, two political scientists at the University of Connecticut, Lyle Scruggs and Salil Benegal, found that a decline in climate concern in that period was driven by worse economic conditions, which increased worry about more immediate issues.
Analysis: So, the distinguished (and surely well-funded) “political scientists” needed a “study” to figure out that when times are hard, suddenly fearful or unemployed people have more pressing concerns to worry about than bullshit “Climate Change ?”  — Brilliant! Who’d have ever thunk it?!

Irwin: It raises a dispiriting possibility: As the planet gets hotter, it could make it harder to keep the economy on an even keel. But the worse the economy performs, the more toxic and dysfunctional climate politics may become.
Analysis: In short, the demented freak is worried that the economic damage caused by “Climate Change”will make it harder to further damage the economy with the needed “solutions” to “Climate Change .” But if the historically, notoriously and deliberately destructive Federal Reserve can “do its job” and give us a strong economy (ha ha ha ha ha) — then we can ruin the good times by selling the public on the painful and expensive policies desired by “climate activists.”

***
We’ve said it before and shall say it again and again and again — one couldn’t write better satire than what the “elite” journalists and academics of “The West” regularly put out as news and  “science.”

Picture
Will the Fed go green? Not under Powell’s watch, it seems.
Picture
Skruggs
Picture
Benegal

Academic ass-clowns: the Connecticut comedy duo of Skruggs & Benegal made the shocking discovery that jobs matter more to people than “Climate Change.” 

Picture
“So you guys are telling me that the only way to destroy the economy is to save it first?”

An Open Letter To The Covidian Cult…

Dear Covidian,

You know who you are.

You are the one who hangs on every word of the oh-so-authoritative CDC.

You adore that money-grubbing, vaccine-peddling midget St. Anthony Falsie — perhaps even pleasuring yourself to the sound of his raspy voice.

You lecture all of us to “follow the science” when you yourself have actually never examined any real science regarding this matter.

You trust the multi-millionaire talking-heads on your TV set while reflexively denigrating critical independent thinkers as “conspiracy theorists.”

You dismiss us as “paranoid” for claiming it’s a hoax — as you nervously piss your pink panties over every breathless news report of a new “surge” in cases.

You obediently and gladly wear those silly useless masks and “social distance” – even when you are not required to.

You have a virtue-signalling “Thank You Health Care Heroes” sign on your front lawn. Evidently, dutifully showing up for work and euthanizing elderly flu victims in between “Tik Tok” dance videos is now considered “heroism.”

You cast dirty looks at us nostril cheaters as you bathe in hand sanitizer.

You abusively isolated your elderly parents or grandparents simply because you were ordered to.

You allowed the “powers that be” to steal your Christmas, Thanksgiving, graduations, weddings, birthday parties, funerals and other family events.

You alienated family members who dared to think for themselves.

You screwed up your own children – stunting their scholastic growth, ruining their sports seasons, and turning them into pussified germophobes during their formative years.

And now, after 18 months of this geo-political con-job designed to control society and transform political & economic systems worldwide; and even after you obediently took your “magic jab” in the arm – you are again pissing and moaning about “The Delta Variant” and aggressively virtue-shaming us rational folks for not submitting to a  “Fauci Ouchie.”

“Anti-vaxxers” are putting society at risk! They pose a health risk to the public. They must be compelled!”

No, not exactly, my dear normie. With no due respect, the mob morality of your commie cult really disgusts those of us who dare to think – and those of us who still hold to quaint outdated ideals such as liberty and “conspiratorial” notions such as mistrusting powerful people and institutions. You know, this attitude we have that we once proudly called Americanism. Have you forgotten Ben Franklin’s timeless proverb?

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Picture
Dr. Anthony Fauci — a dishonest publicity-seeking bureaucrat connected to the Bill Gates / WHO crime syndicate — poses as an “infectious disease expert.”
Picture
Following corrupted “scientists” on the government payroll doesn’t make one “educated.” 
Picture
A useless and, in some cases, even dangerous vaccine for a non-existent “novel” coronavirus.

If you want to know who the true public menace is, have a look in the mirror, normie. It is YOU! Your mental laziness, moral cowardice and irrational obedience to the New York Times and the TV screen is – more so than any government mandate or armed Federal agent could ever be — the true foundation upon which the horrible and unnecessary tyranny of the past couple of years was built upon.

It is because of YOU that so many businesses and lives have been ruined.

It is because of YOU that so many suddenly defenseless seniors have had to endure soul-crushing loneliness in the killer nursing homes and hospitals — waiting for the medical ghouls to purposely stop their hearts as part of the cost-saving “Living Will” / DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) scam that you’ve all been tricked into.

It is because of YOU that we are now experiencing the inevitable price-inflation caused by the historic levels of debt-based money printing mandated by the Covid scam.

It is because of YOU that future generations will be stuck paying the enormous bill, plus interest.

It is because of YOU that suicide rates, particularly among young people, have risen.

It is because of YOU that so many people have gained weight sitting at home while the gyms were closed. Oh you’re so “health conscious,” aren’t ya?

I know. I know. “It was all necessary to save lives.” And, “Rights are subject to restrictions when they threaten others.” Right? Newsflash, normie! You’ve been played for a paranoid fool. Let’s “follow the science” – the real science, shall we?

Not a single government agency in the world has been able to provide – through Freedom of Information requests – any confirming data proving that the “novel” (new) coronavirus of 2019 was ever scientifically isolated and identified. If they cannot, that suggests that it’s actually just the same old cold & flu of years past. In fact, as part of a court case in Canada against a Covid “non-complier” in the province of Alberta, the state was not able to produce such records (later claiming that the defendant did not file his subpoena properly).

* The PCR “test” which is used to “diagnose” the imaginary illness was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool. The inventor of the process – 1994 Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis – said so himself!
Mullis: “With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. If you amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do – then there are very few molecules that you don’t have at least one of them in your body. So that can be a misuse of it, to claim that it is meaningful.”

Dr. Mullis ought to know. PCR is his baby! By the way, the distinguished Dr. Mullis (who conveniently died just before the Covid scam started) despised St. Anthony Falsie and referred to him as a liar for the way he was already misapplying the PCR to diagnose other fake diseases.

* Even with the fake test results, hospitals and nursing homes have been authorized to diagnose “cases” by “symptoms” and “presumption.” This means that anyone with the sniffles or a fever can be tagged as “Covid.” …. Cha ching!!!

* There is no evidence to show that masks can prevent the spread of viruses. The micro “bugs” are generally not airborne, and can easily penetrate through the fibers of your bacteria-infested, oxygen-limiting mask as a mosquito would through a chain-link fence.

* According to the CDC, the average age of a so-called “Covid victim” is almost 80. According to the same CDC, the average life expectancy in the United States is —- also about 80! So, what’s the frickin’ fuss all about?!

* Again, according to the CDC, 94% of those who died had at least one other life-threatening condition, and 70% had TWO other life-threatening conditions (in addition to their old age).

* According to CDC statistics, a person in his or her 50s, without any other pre-existing life-threatening conditions, is about as likely to choke to death during a meal than of dying from “Covid.” (which isn’t even real). So then, why are you not pureeing all of your food?

* Hospitals and nursing homes were paid $10,000 for each diagnosis of “Covid” and an additional $39,000 for each patient then placed on a dangerous ventilator. Sheer greed (by design of the master planners) drove our “health care heroes” to list deaths by pneumonia, flu, COPD, asthma attacks, strokes, diabetes, heart attacks etc as “Covid.” Murder victims were even tagged as “Covid!” And a few brave doctors have come forward and admitted that administrators are “pressuring” them to list “Covid” on death certificates.

* Several countries (Sweden & Belarus in Europe, for example) mostly ignored the “pandemic” and never shut down nor masked-up (although Sweden, after months of intense international pressure, did finally ask people to voluntarily “social distance.”) And yet, life went on as normal in those countries. Were you even aware of that?

Picture
Kary Mullis receives Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing PCR — which was NOT intended for diagnosis.
Picture
President Lukashenko of Belarus referred to Covid-19 as an “international psychosis.” His country remained open and healthy.
Picture
The self-promoting “Healthcare Heroes” got paid big bucks for sedating seniors to death and tagging everyone with a cold or flu as “Covid” on the death certificates.

While the rest of us were FORCED to lock down, mask up and “socially distance”…..

Picture
Swedish beach in Summer of 2020
Picture
Belarus political rallies, Summer of 2020

Dismiss this as “conspiracy theory” if you like; but know this: Anyone who is not a “Conspiracy Analysts” in this day and age of universal deceit (especially in high places) is a fucking idiot!

Now if you insist upon still wearing that stupid mask, social distancing, and getting jabbed and re-jabbed until all the fake-ass “variants” run out of Greek letters, then feel free to do so as the rest of us (as well as future generations) exercise our own right to laugh at you. Just stop vilifying us as uninformed and uneducated enemies of society when, in reality, YOU ARE!

Scientists: Geological Evidence Shows The Sphinx Could Be 800,000 Years Old

One of the most mysterious and enigmatic monuments on the surface of the planet is without a doubt the Great Sphinx at the Giza plateau in Egypt. It is an ancient construction that has baffled researchers ever since its discovery and until today, no one has been able to accurately date the Sphinx, since there are no written records or mentions in the past about it.

Now, two Ukrainian researchers have proposed a new provocative theory where the two scientists propose that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is around 800,000 years old. A revolutionary theory that is backed up by science.

The study was presented at the International Conference of Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy held in Sofia titled: GEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF DATING THE GREAT EGYPTIAN SPHINX CONSTRUCTION.

The authors of this paper are scientists Manichev Vjacheslav I. (Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) and Alexander G. Parkhomenko (Institute of Geography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine).

The starting point of these two experts is the paradigm shift initiated by West and Schoch, a ‘debate’ intended to overcome the orthodox view of Egyptology referring to the possible remote origins of the Egyptian civilization and, on the other, physical evidence of water erosion present at the monuments of the Giza Plateau.

According to Manichev and Parkhomenko:

“The problem of dating the Great Egyptian Sphinx construction is still valid, despite of the long-term history of its research. Geological approach in connection to other scientific-natural methods permits to answer the question about the relative age of the Sphinx. The conducted visual investigation of the Sphinx allowed the conclusion about the important role of water from large water bodies which partially flooded the monument with formation of wave-cut hollows on its vertical walls.”

“The morphology of these formations has an analogy with similar such hollows formed by the sea in the coastal zones. Genetic resemblance of the compared erosion forms and the geological structure and petrographic composition of sedimentary rock complexes lead to a conclusion that the decisive factor of destruction of the historic monument is the wave energy rather than sand abrasion in Eolian process.

“Voluminous geological literature confirms the fact of existence of long-living fresh-water lakes in various periods of the Quaternary from the Lower Pleistocene to the Holocene. These lakes were distributed in the territories adjacent to the Nile. The absolute mark of the upper large erosion hollow of the Sphinx corresponds to the level of water surface which took place in the Early Pleistocene. The Great Egyptian Sphinx had already stood on the Giza Plateau by that geological (historical) time.”

A strong argument was made by Ukrainian scientists in regards of the Sphinx, arguments based upon geological studies which support Schoch’s view regarding the Sphinx and its age.

Manichev and Parkhomenko focus on the deteriorated aspect of the body of the Sphinx, leaving aside the erosive features where the Sphinx is located, which had been studied previously by Schoch. Ukrainian scholars focused on the undulating terrain of the Sphinx which displays the mysterious pattern.

Mainstream scientists offer explanations for this sharp feature and state that it is based on the abrasive effect of the wind and sand, the undulations were formed because the harder layers of rock are better at withstanding the erosions while the softer layers would have been more affected, forming voids.

However, as noted Manichev and Parkhomenko, this argument does not explain why the front of the head of the Sphinx lacks such features.

In regards to the argument made by Schoch about the heavy rain period which occurred around 13,000 BC, the Ukrainian scientists recognized Schoch hypothesis partially suggesting that the erosive features of the Sphinx go further back than 13.000 BC.

Manichev and Parkhomenko argue is that the mountainous and coastal areas of the Caucasus and Crimea, which they know well, have a type of wind erosion that differs morphologically to the erosive features noted on the Sphinx.

Essentially, they argue that such wind erosion has a very soft effect, regardless of the geological composition of the rocks.the western wall of the sphinx enclosure, showing erosion consistently along its length

The western wall of the Sphinx enclosure, showing erosion consistently along its length. Courtesy and copyright of Colin Reader.

“In our geological field expeditions in different mountains and littoral zones of the Crimea and Caucasus we could often observe the forms of Eolian weathering which morphology differs considerably from the weathering taking place on the GES. Most natural forms of weathering are of smoothed character, independent of lithological composition of the rocks.”

They continue further and explain:

“Our personal experience in scientific investigation of geology of the sea coasts gives reasons to draw an analogy with the GES and to suggest another mechanism of its destruction. Specialists-geologists, who work in the field of sea-coast geomorphology, know such forms of relief as wave-cut hollows (Morskaya Geomorfologiya, 1980). They can be one- and multi-storey. They are arranged horizontally to the sea water surface, if the coast makes a vertical wall (cliff).

“Especially deep wave-cut hollows are formed in precipitous cliffs built by the strata of carbonaceous rocks. Such forms of the coast relief are well-known and studied in detail on the Black-Sea coast of the Caucasus and Crimea (Popov, 1953; Zenkovich, 1960). General model of formation of the wave-cut hollows in the rocks of the Caucasian flysch is given by Popov (1953, 162; Fig. 3). In dynamics of the process of wave-cut hollows formation one can notice such a characteristic feature that the wave energy is directed to the rock stratum at the level of water surface. Besides, both saline and fresh water can dissolve the rocks.”

Manichev and Parkhomenko propose a new natural mechanism that may explain the undulations and mysterious features of the Sphinx. This mechanism is the impact of waves on the rocks of the coast.

Basically, this could produce, in a period of thousands of years the formation of one or more layers of ripples, a fact that is clearly visible, for example, on the shores of the Black Sea. This process, which acts horizontally (that is, when the waves hit the rock up to the surface), will produce a wear or dissolution of the rock.

The fact is that the observation of these cavities in the Great Sphinx made the Ukranian scientists think that this great monument could have been affected by above said process in the context of immersion in large bodies of water, not the regular flooding of the Nile.

Manichev and Parkhomenko suggest that the geological composition of the body of the Sphinx is a sequence of layers composed of limestone with small interlayers of clays.

Manichev and Parkhomenko explain that these rocks possess different degree of resistance to the water effect and say that if the hollows formation were due to sand abrasion only, the hollows had to correspond to the strata of a certain lithological composition.

They suggest that the Great Sphinx hollows are formed in fact within several strata, or occupy some part of the stratum of homogeneous composition.the back of the great sphinx of egypt

the back of the great sphinx of egypt

Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau.

According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to Manichev and Parkhomenko, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800000 years.

What we have here is evidence which contradicts the conventional theory of deterioration caused by Sand and Water, a theory already criticized by West and Schoch, who recalled that during many centuries, the body of the Sphinx was buried by the sands of the desert, so Wind and Sand erosion would not have done any damage to the enigmatic Sphinx.

However, where Schoch clearly saw the action of streams of water caused by continuous rains, Ukrainian geologists see the effect of erosion caused by the direct contact of the waters of the lakes formed in the Pleistocene on the body Sphinx. This means that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the oldest monuments on the surface of the Earth, pushing back drastically the origin of mankind and civilization.

Some might say that the theory proposed by Manichev and Parkhomenko is very extreme because it places the Great Sphinx in an era where there were no humans, according to currently accepted evolutionary patterns.

Furthermore, as it has been demonstrated, the two megalithic temples, located adjacent to the Great Sphinx were built by the same stone which means that the new dating of the Sphinx drags these monuments with the Sphinx back 800,000 years.

In other words, this means that ancient civilizations inhabited our planet much longer than mainstream scientists are willing to accept.

Source: Ancient-Code.com / Reference: Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova). 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, 308-311.

Keeping Scientist Stephen Hawking Alive (Again)

Picture
Caption: Charles Seife describes the cultural and the broad scientific context of Stephen Hawking’s work, and its reception. The theoretical physicist is pictured here in 2010.

When the latest version of the propped-up “Weekend-at-Bernie’s” stiff known as St. Stephen Hawking “died” more than three years ago, Sugar the Crazed Conspiracy Cat (still alive at that time) and I — believing we’d heard the last of the vegetative Atheist and his handler’s magical talking machine — high-fived / high-pawed each other in righteous celebration. But much like St. Albert Einstein, (((they))) simply won’t let the legend of the all-knowing “Big Bang” bullshit-artist die, hence the post-mortem-published “final papers” of Hawking, continued articles and recent books about him. Hawking’s hogwash and status as all-knowing oracle is too valuable to (((them))).

Arrogant Englishman Hawking was a Cambridge University “theoretical physicist” and best-selling manufacturer of books (15 titles) whose “brilliant” mind, according to the Slimes: “roamed the cosmos from a wheelchair, pondering the nature of gravity and the origin of the universe.” His handlers sure did get paid big-time for ghost-writing and pay-to-attend lecturing for this physical dummy who, in spite of his alleged mathematical prowess, was, during his cognitive years, also a mental dummy — a “savant.”

“The Editorial Board” of The Anti-New York Times had always believed that the real Hawking died at least 40 years ago and was then replaced by a dummy version who supposedly spoke through a computer. As a graduate student in 1963, he was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS) a rapidly degenerative neuromuscular disease often referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease — after the famous baseball player. Hawking was given only a few years to live at the time. Yet a half-century and many millions of dollars in book royalties later, at a moment in time when the Hawking impostor “conspiracy theory”  was actually beginning to get a bit of “mainstream media” attention (here), he finally “died” in 2018? Wethinks the illusion-makers thought it was time to kill off the character after a highly successful run — and then focus on sustaining his post-mortem legend for his deluded fanboys.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

THE WORLD GONE MAD!
Queens, Presidents, Popes and others have all paid homage to a vegetative idiot who had neither discovered nor invented anything.

Putting aside the indications of a body-double fraud — given the hype over his demise, one would think that Hawking invented something revolutionary, or least made an astonishing discovery answering the riddles of the Universe. Actually, the obsessively outspoken Atheist Hawking’s only “accomplishment” was in concocting math equations (in lieu of actual experimentation and observation) to “prove” the “Big Bang” and “Black Holes.” This line, from a previous Slimes article, inadvertently reveals the problem with the type of “theoretical science” practiced by St. Hawking and his idiotic ilk:
 
In a long and daunting calculation, Dr. Hawking discovered to his befuddlement that black holes — those mythological avatars of cosmic doom — were not really black at all. In fact, he found, they would eventually fizzle, leaking radiation and particles, and finally explode and disappear over the eons.” (bold emphasis added)
 
Nikola Tesla — the greatest scientific genius of the 20th Century — warned us about crackpots such as St. Albert Einstein, St. Stephen Hawking et al and their exclusive use of “long and daunting” mathematical calculations (and today, computer models) to “prove” imaginary theories shaped from pre-existing, prior assumption bias:

Picture
Picture
Picture
Tell it, Nicky — tell it! 

Hawking’s hyped up 1988 “masterpiece:” A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, sold more than 10 million copies and inspired a documentary film by Errol Morris. Cha Ching! Cha Ching Cha Ching! It is interesting to note that there are quite a few secular cosmologists who refute Big Bangism and Black Hole-ism, yet their books, like those of “climate change deniers ,” don’t get the puff-up treatment. Big Bang and Black Hole “deniers,” — no matter how impressive their credentials — are also denied access to the major science publications as well as the pop-science media.

Even more annoying than his Fake Science and his sarcastic, juvenile, God-mocking Atheism, the most tiresome aspect  of Hawking Inc.’s operation was his (his handlers’) frequent “words of wisdom” on this or that issue of the day — empty slogans and platitudes which the Fake News would duly seize upon and hype as the decrees of the Almighty himself. Here is but a tiny sampling of the “brilliance” which “the smartest man in the world” bestowed upon the goofy groupies who hung on Hawking’s every computer-simulated utterance.

  • “A build up of greenhouse gases in Venus’s atmosphere burned off its oceans and turned it into the scorching hot planet seen today, with winds of up to 180mph (300km/h). Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse warming. 
  • The next time you meet a climate change denier, tell them to take a trip to Venus. I will pay the fare.”
  • “The world of science needs Africa’s brilliant talents, and I look forward to meeting prospective young Einsteins from Africa in the near future. As well as an African Einstein, we want to see the African Gates, Brins and Pages of the future.”
  • “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. …I’m an Atheist. … In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind.”
  • “Trump is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

Hawking was no “scientist.” He, his handlers, and his Fake News promoters were con men— and Globo-Commies to boot! Good riddance to Hawking Inc. — or so we had previously thought.

Picture
Picture
Weekend at Bernie’s” (1989): Two young insurance corporation employees discover their boss, Bernie, dead at his beach house. Upon learning that Bernie had ordered their deaths to cover up his embezzlement (but with instructions to not kill them if he is around) they attempt to convince people that Bernie is still alive.
Picture
Was the speechless Hawking actually brain-damaged, but kept “smart” for money making and propaganda purposes?
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Hawking Inc.
 — Puffed-up best-selling books and endless “speaking” tours — The “smartest man in the world” was just a front for a money-grubbing, multi-million dollar marketing machine.
*

The Protocols of he Learned Elders of Zion: From Protocol 4: Item 3: 
“It is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the Goyim the very principle of God-head and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs.

Latest Data: Mortality Rate From Delta Variant About EIGHT TIMES Higher In ‘Fully Vaccinated’ Individuals

The latest claim is that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “Delta” variant is “spreading like wildfire,” and the most affected by it are those who were already injected with “vaccines.”mortality rate from delta variant about eight times higher in 'fully vaccinated' individuals

Source: BBC.com

According to the latest data, people who took a Wuhan Flu shot or two are up to eight times more likely to test “positive” or have to be hospitalized.

A preliminary statistical analysis found that hospitalization rates and absolute mortality due to the Delta variant are substantially higher among the “vaccinated” compared to the unvaccinated.

The figures show that among patients who test positive for the Delta variant, the mortality rate for those who are “fully vaccinated,” meaning they received both doses of an mRNA injection, is nearly eight times higher.

This corresponds to similar research from Public Health England which determined that vaccinated people are 600 percent more likely to die from Delta than unvaccinated people.

In England, it is now clearly seen in the data that those who have been injected are responsible for the spread of Delta. And the more people that get vaccinated, the more Delta is spreading.

“The delta variant infection rate of people who received at least [one] dose of vaccine is lower than that of fully vaccinated people while higher than that of unvaccinated people,” reports Gnews.

[Question: if England has been under harsh lockdown for almost a year and a half, and it has one of the highest rates of vaccination in the world, then why do they also have one of the highest number of infected in the world? Surely everyone can see that either: 1. Lockdowns and vaccines don’t work, or 2. Lockdowns and vaccines actually made things much worse. Either way, the people can surely see by now that they are being lied to, and that they are being oppressed.]

Science: Get Vaccinated And You’re More Likely To Die

At best, getting injected will lead to the same outcome as not getting injected. At worst – and this is what the data suggests – you are more likely to die if you get stabbed for the Chinese Virus.

So why even do it at all? Many people would probably say that they just want to “do their part,” but what part is that? The dying part?

Because the only people who seem to be getting violently ill after exposure to Delta or any other alleged variant are people who obeyed the government and got injected.

“It makes you wonder why the politicians are still pushing everyone to get vaccinated, considering the chance of death is not too different anyway,” is how Gnews puts it.

“Also, it’s worth mentioning that compared with hospitalization rate and infection rate, mortality rate is considered more accurate because for infection data, a person may choose not to get tested and there might be false positive or false negative for test results. And for hospitalization data, a person may choose not to go to the hospital and just stay at home. However, it is impossible to choose not to die for anybody, that’s why mortality data are usually more accurate.”

As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clearer that getting injected is just plain stupid. The shots admittedly do not prevent infection, nor do they prevent the spread, so what good are they?

The only claim the medical establishment is making with regard to the injections is that they might lower a person’s risk of becoming seriously ill and requiring hospitalization after testing positive. The latest data, however, shows that even this is false.

“[T]his analysis at least suggested that UK government might have cherry-picked the results that fits the ‘take the vaccine’ narrative and chose not to report the whole picture in the article mentioned on their news report,” Gnews concludes.

“And this analysis also shows that the mortality rate (usually the most accurate metric compared with hospitalization and infection) for vaccinated people who have contracted delta variant CCP virus is very troubling, and might need further related investigation such as potential ADE effect.”

You can read the full report from Gnews along with all associated data at this link.

Book Burning In The XXI’st Century: Facebook Has Removed 16 Million Pieces Of Content & Added ‘Warnings’ On 167 Million

The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.

book burning in the xxi'st century facebook has removed 16 million pieces of content & added ‘warnings’ on 167 million

YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations.

Not long ago I wrote an article about Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine who has been having trouble with twitter.

I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID.

His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.

Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,

“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”

This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so.

Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility.

It makes no sense.

This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…”

I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK.

“Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.” – Clarke

This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency — a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)

An important point to get across is also the fact that these independent “fact checkers” are working with Facebook, who in turn is working with the government.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic.

These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways… They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication.

That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?

Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science.

Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.

How Fact Checking Works

The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1

When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.

But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation.

This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.

Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network — a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida.

Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook.

Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.

For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback.

Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict.

Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3

Also read: George Soros And Bill Gates Exposed As The Force Behind Facebook’s New ‘Fake News’ Detector

Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.

A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.”

They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”

The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict.

In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.

“Follow The Science”

The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation.

This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.

This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan:

“Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.

He says:

“Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”

The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4

He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring … they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.”

This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.

The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.”

In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5

But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics.

He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”

Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.”

In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation.

Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.

Scientific “Truth”

Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.”

Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.”

He explains:

“The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”

Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation).

Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be … I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”

Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives.

Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website:

“The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7

Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach.

Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”

This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.”

Kulldorff says:

“To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favors vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says.

“If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”

There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling.

He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”

MUST WATCH – SHOW THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY WHO WANT THE ‘VACCINE’ – PLEASE SHARE

🤔🤔