Category Archives: Media

Fighting for Truth in Climate Science Is Important

Article by H. Sterling Burnett.

Excerpt:

I don’t claim mine is the majority view on this point. Indeed, my life would be easier—and based on offers that have been made to me, my living standard higher—if I conceded the science and joined with those pushing draconian restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and profiting from various green energy boondoggles. All I have to do to receive higher pay, accolades, and to bring an end to the abuse and threats from those who think I’m “worse than the Nazis” (something said and written to me a number of times), is to play the game and join the consensus. All that’s holding me back is my stubborn, arguably foolish, belief that I should speak the truth on this and other matters of public import of which I am knowledgeable as I see fit, let the chips fall where they may.

Ring cites as an example of playing defense, at a great cost to society, the response of big oil companies to the various lawsuits filed in multiple political jurisdictions by cities, states, and various activist groups. Oil companies have largely conceded the science, saying in effect, “Our products have been beneficial, producing a lot of good, but are also changing the climate for the worse, so we agree we must phase them out in a timely fashion. Not now, but over time, and in the meantime, we’re investing in lower carbon solutions.”

That’s like a popular but abusive spouse saying, “Look, I’m a pretty good guy and contribute to society, but along the way, I beat my wife. But I’m doing it less now than in the past, and in the future I expect to stop doing it entirely.” That’s not a very compelling argument.

The fight for sound science, per se, but climate science, specifically, is a fight for truth and all the progress science can provide. It’s a moral fight. That is why I continue to fight for what I believe to be the truth about climate change, even in the face of ad hominem attacks in print, through email, and online, attempted and sometimes successful censorship, and the occasional threat of physical violence and death.

How the West Was Defeated

Article by Pepe Escobar.

Excerpt:

Emmanuel Todd, historian, demographer, anthropologist, sociologist and political analyst, is part of a dying breed: one of the very few remaining exponents of old school French intelligentzia – a heir to those like Braudel, Sartre, Deleuze and Foucault who dazzled successive young Cold War generations from the West down to the East.

The first nugget concerning his latest book, La Défaite de L’Occident (“The Defeat of the West”) is the minor miracle of actually being published last week in France, right within the NATO sphere: a hand grenade of a book, by an independent thinker, based on facts and verified data, blowing up the whole Russophobia edifice erected around the “aggression” by “Tsar” Putin.

At least some sectors of strictly oligarch-controlled corporate media in France simply could not ignore Todd this time around for several reasons. Most of all because he was the first Western intellectual, already in 1976, to have predicted the fall of the USSR in his book La Chute Finale, with his research based on Soviet infant mortality rates.

Another key reason was his 2002 book Apres L’Empire, a sort of preview of the Empire’s Decline and Fall published a few months before Shock & Awe in Iraq.

Now Todd, in what he has defined as his last book (“I closed the circle”) allows himself to go for broke and meticulously depict the defeat not only of the US but of the West as a whole – with his research focusing in and around the war in Ukraine.

Today’s Journalists Seek Power, Not Truth

Article by J.B. Shurk.

Excerpts:

How do you destroy a free press?  Fill it with people who hate free speech, look down upon the poor and powerless, and believe that only their opinions matter.  Then pay them to repeat and defend everything that the “ruling class” brands as an “official truth.”  It’s amazing how fast public dissent dries up when you bribe the “journalists” and censor anyone who notices.

[Question: Who does the “filling”, and where do those “people who hate free speech” come from? The second question is easier to answer: From the schools and universities. The first question: Companies with monopoly power (only a few big media companies “call the shots”) tend to overprice and underdeliver . . .]

A couple decades ago, any reporter worth his salt would have laughed in the face of some nansy-pansy critic accusing him of “hate speech.”  The most well-respected reporters would have either hung the libelous dross on their cubicle walls as meritorious decoration or tossed it in the bin, doused it with file drawer whiskey, and lit the calumny on fire.  Today’s JournoList poseurs, in contrast, act as both wimpy self-flagellators denouncing their own “privilege” before the priests of the DEI Inquisition toss them on the sacrificial pyre and Salem witch trial accusers all too willing to point the finger at anyone who dares to question the latest “politically correct” fads and “woke” fashions.  Today’s “reporters” have so betrayed the basic principles of their own profession that they believe it is their deranged civic duty to tell everyone else what they may or may not think and say.

New Medicare data makes it clear that the COVID vaccines have killed millions of people worldwide

Long and detailed article by Steve Kirsch.

Excerpts:

Executive summary

This article has four new charts from Medicare data that have never been revealed publicly.

Key takeaways:

  1. The COVID vax increased baseline risk of death in the elderly by over 10%. This is very consistent with what Denis Rancourt and others have found.
  2. Since April 2022, the unvaccinated fared better than the COVID vaccinated from a mortality perspective (this could be true earlier than April 2022, but I currently lack the data to show this): there were no COVID “humps” and the seasonal increase in mortality was lower than for the vaccinated.
  3. COVID hasn’t been killing anyone since April 2022 in any significant numbers. This means that there was absolutely no reason for anyone to get a booster shot after April 2022. Even if the vaccine were safe and worked perfectly, there is no data supporting such a need.
  4. The flu vaccines have a “Day 0” mortality rate that exceeds the “1 excess death per M doses” criteria for a safe vaccine. The flu vaccines are clearly unsafe and should be immediately pulled from the market. Flu vaccines also have no hospitalization benefit whatsoever as was pointed out in a JAMA paper published in April 2023. The flu shots simply kill people for no benefit. The data is in plain sight for all to see.
  5. The CDC never cites the Medicare data as proof of vaccine safety and efficacy for any vaccine because the data shows the opposite. All data is kept hidden from public view. So you’ll never see any of the graphs shown in this article from the CDC even though they have the data. They basically only publish data that fits the narrative.
  6. The mRNA COVID vaccines should be pulled from the market. They are literally doing the opposite of what was promised.
  7. The flu vaccine should be pulled as well. While the flu vaccine isn’t nearly as deadly as the COVID vaccine, it is an unsafe vaccine with no measurable clinical benefit.

If the vaccines were safe, the CDC would be inviting all the top “misinformation spreaders” to CDC headquarters to do as many queries as we would like on VSD, Medicare, and Medicaid. But there is no such open invitation. On the contrary, they immediately cut off database access to anyone who ever gets close to finding something that goes against the narrative like they did with Brian Hooker when he was researching the link between vaccines and autism.

Summary

Our government has all the data I presented here. They just don’t want to look at it. And for sure they won’t allow it to be released or published in any paper.

I don’t think there is any way for anyone to claim that this data is consistent with the hypothesis that the COVID vaccines are safe.

A 10% increase in all-cause mortality translates into around 350,000 excess deaths a year caused by the vaccines. In America today, after just two babies died from infant formula, we shut down the plant. But after a novel, “rushed to market at warp speed” vaccine kills over 750,000 Americans, our government ignores all the adverse safety data in their possession and urges people to inject it on a regular basis.

In any honest society, both the flu shots and the COVID shots would be immediately halted.

But we do not live in an honest society. There isn’t a single honest national government in the world as far as I can tell. None of them are putting a halt to the COVID shots.

Furthermore, none of the world’s governments believe in data transparency. Not a single one will release even the most basic time-series cohort analysis of their shots with weekly buckets which is the lowest level of transparency. Calls for data transparency fall on deaf ears. They are all corrupt.

There is one exception. There is one honest and courageous public health official on planet Earth: Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo. Ladapo took a courageous stand with respect to these deadly vaccines. He wrote, “These vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings.”

He’s absolutely right. Bravo! The mainstream media should be commending him for his stance. Instead they are vilifying him.

The data supports Ladapo’s position.

Finally, let’s be perfectly clear: nobody in the world is confident that the shots save lives. I still have a million dollar bet open to anyone who believes the shots saved lives (Saar Wilf is in for $500,000, but nobody will come in for the remaining amount).

If people are so confident the shots reduced mortality, why aren’t they accepting my bet? Even the drug companies aren’t standing behind their product! They are all fine risking your life but when it comes to risking their money? No way. They cannot explain this data so they will ignore it and try to make sure nobody reads this article.

If you think I’m wrong or Denis Rancourt got it wrong, you are welcome to challenge either or both of us in a recorded public forum so we can have a civil dialog about how this data should be interpreted. Simply respond to the pinned comment below.

And that’s why it is critical that you share this article so we can inform others of what the US government data says.

Debate in Parliament on WHO treaty amendments

A sorry sight

This took place on 18th December 2023. Just handful of conservative MPs, plus Andrew Bridgen, plus the Labour shadow minister for health (who only uttered her support for the amendments whatever).

Here‘s the full video, and here‘s the transcript.

The Labour spokesperson even uttered the infamous words “nobody is safe until everyone is safe”. When this was echoed by the Government spokesperson in his address, the audience laughed derisively – this is not recorded in the transcript.

The mainstream media took no note, as far as I know.

Science journalists never question science establishment views

Says ex-science journalist Matt Ridley

In a recent article on spiked-online.com, Ridley writes:

By contrast, there is almost nobody who has a vested interest in the origin of Covid being a lab leak. Even the media, which ought to see this as the story of the century, have mostly steered clear of it. That’s because unlike every other kind of journalist, science and health journalists for some reason generally see it as their duty to fawn over and echo but never challenge the establishment view. Where political, business, even arts reporters challenge and critique their subjects, science reporters almost never do. I should know: I used to be one and when I occasionally did question the establishment view, I was treated like a pariah.

A glimpse of the attitude of science journalists can be found in a now-deleted tweet from Apoorva Mandavilli, the science and global health reporter of the New York Times. In 2021, she wrote: ‘Someday we will stop talking about the lab-leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots.’

Why exactly was it racist to consider a lab leak, but not racist to write long articles – as the New York Times did – about the ‘wet markets’ of China with their allegedly unsavoury habit of selling live, exotic animals in unhygienic conditions? We all remember those articles with their graphic speculations about bat soup and pangolin stew – even though there were no bats or pangolins on sale in Wuhan. One op-ed claimed that ‘China’s domestic demand and customs for exotic and live food are a direct threat to the health, safety and welfare of the world’. But it seems that ‘racism’ only applies to speculation about middle-class scientists, not about working-class market traders, who are not the sort of people New York Times reporters break bread with.

I tested the reluctance of the establishment to discuss the lab leak first hand. I asked the biological secretary of the UK’s Royal Society if she would organise a debate about the origin of the virus. No, she said, we only debate scientific matters. Eh? I asked the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which I am a fellow. Too controversial, they said. I asked a government minister. Better left to the World Health Organisation, he replied. I asked another government minister. Surely it’s time to move on, he said. I asked a very senior scientist. Better we never find out, he said, lest it annoy the Chinese. At least he was honest.

[. . .]

Millions are dead around the world and the most likely cause is an accident during a risky experiment in a laboratory. Should we not be learning lessons from that? Should we not share information globally on what virology experiments are being done, on which viruses, and at what biosafety levels? Should we not bring pressure to bear on those countries that refuse to share such information or that authorise such risky experiments? None of this is happening.

The World Health Organisation’s website is awash with calls for conferences and treaties on pandemic prevention. Yet the one issue that almost never gets mentioned is laboratory leaks. Search its website for the words ‘laboratory leak’ or ‘lab leak’ and just one single item comes up: the comical episode in 2021 when the WHO endorsed the ludicrous Chinese claim that Covid was more likely to have started with imported frozen food than with a lab leak.