Writes James Lyons-Weiler:
Finally, after peer review, the Cleveland clinic study that report that “The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19” has been properly published.
“Risk of COVID-19… increased with time since most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.’
Continue here.
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH says he has found strong indicators of “eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen”, changing his tune on the possibility of the Covid virus having been engineered. On 31st January 2020 he still thought parts of the genome “(potentially) look engineered”. Then, on 4th February 2020, “shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
For more than a year thereafter, anyone suggesting an artificial, lab-engineered source of the virus was vilified mercilessly in the press. Then suddenly and strangely, it became an allowed opinion. Despite however the enormity of this suggestion, the media are strangely silent about it.
McCollough comments:
What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.
Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.
I have blogged about that documentary film here.
Very interesting video (17 min). Vaccine uptake was some 4 % (!), but they had very few Covid deaths. They were also, in a separate health program, taking Ivermectin at the time …
The BBC is incentivising children to break the commandment tohonour father and mother.
Writes Eric Meder in his newsletter of today:
The worst type of manipulation is one that targets children. And that is the kind of manipulation that Big Tech companies and the Government are doing. Recently, the BBC released an article called “Earth Day: How to talk to your parents about climate change”
[See here, remove gap: www.bbc. co.uk/news/science-environment-65339214?ck_subscriber_id=1916028067]
The start of the article says “You want to go vegan to help the planet, but you’re not paying for the shopping. You think trains are better than planes, but your dad books the summer holiday. Young people are some of the world’s most powerful climate leaders and want rapid action to tackle the problem.”
This is very manipulative writing. It’s using phrases like “you want” to put the reader in a position that they might not even be in. Then, they reinforce it by trying to be relatable.
It’s easy to read something like this when you are young and identify with it. Because they are writing it in a specific way. A self-righteous way. They are telling the children that it’s their DUTY to educate their parents.
This makes the children think that they have a responsibility. And they reinforce that responsibility with social pressure.
In the article they talk about three different points, How to talk about going meat-free, How to talk about flying less, and How to talk about being waste free.
Throughout the article they ask young kids/adults for advice on how they can talk to (or manipulate) their parents into following these agendas.
So, let’s take a look at these three different points and the advice that BBC is giving out to children in talking to their parents.
In the first point, How to talk about going meat-free, they talk about Ilse, who at 13 years old did research about climate change and read that cutting out red meat was a good start.
Because of this information she decided to go vegetarian. Her parents admitted that at first it was a burden, but they adapted and started cooking only vegetarian meals even though they all miss the flavor of meat.
Then in the second point, How to talk about flying less, a 21 year old named Phoebe convinced her family to go somewhere by train instead of flying abroad. Phoebe’s advice to children is ”Say something like, ‘I’m really scared about my future, these are the reason I want to do something’,”
That’s not great advice, in fact it sounds like borderline fear tactics or emotional blackmail.
Finally, in the third point, How to talk about being waste-free, in this section a 20 year old named Becky convinced her family to be waste free. She said that you need to be well-informed to show your family you have done your research.
And after that, she says you should do things like “explain why it will make their lives easier or cheaper,” and “Make connections with things they care about.”.
I was shocked when I read this article. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate children.
They even mentioned a UK based campaign called ‘Teach the Parent’ in the article.
It’s shameless to go after the youth for spreading an agenda, especially this deceptively. Members of the youth have a key role, and that is to learn, not teach.
And as adults, you have an important role as well. And that role is to teach. And part of teaching is understanding.
You have to understand that the youth of today is being manipulated.
So, when you hear them preaching, and you hear them feeling self-righteous, remember it is because of manipulation. And instead of getting angry at them, we need to retaliate with calm education.
If we get angry at the younger generation for being this way, it will only add fuel to their fire.
If you have kids, I recommend that you keep a close eye on what they consume content wise. And make sure that you teach them critical thinking skills. Because if they don’t think for themselves, someone else will think for them.
I hope you enjoyed this article. Please share our blog with your friends and family. Thank you! Eric Meder
Jordan Peterson, while interviewing British theologian, academic and author Dr. Nigel Biggar (under the title “Separating Good from Evil in the British Empire“), gives a brief lecture on the five metaphysical presumptions of science. He says (link prompted):
They are metaphysical presumptions which you have to accept before you can operate as a scientist.
You have to believe there is a logos or logic in the objective world. Youi have to believe there is an objective world. You have to believe that that logic is apprehensible. You have to believe that apprehending that logic is a moral good. Because otherwise why would you bother? And then you have to believe that truth in relation to that apprehension is the most important orienting principle.
Those are all metaphysical presumptions. I actually think they are metaphysical presumptions that are derived from Christianity itself, which is why science emerged in Europe and not elsewhere.
Article by Fraser Myers
The BBC not only inflates the dangers of social-media falsehoods, it has also applied the disinformation label to stories that are actually true. So if you cause a fuss about anti-car traffic restrictions coming to your local area, if you protest against eco-plans for a ‘15-minute city’, you could find yourself branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’ on the BBC – even though these illiberal traffic schemes really are happening across the UK. All too often, the charge of ‘disinformation’ is used as another way of demonising those with dissent opinions.
Meanwhile, the BBC has been known to spread untruths of its own. Take its coverage of the trans issue. The BBC website regularly describes predatory men, including rapists, paedophiles and murderers, as ‘women’ – purely because they ‘identify’ as such. It has produced news reports and whole documentaries about ‘men’ getting pregnant. When licence-fee payers are told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes in this way, we shouldn’t be surprised that the BBC is losing trust.
Climate change is another major blindspot for the Beeb. Despite their apparent concern about climate misinformation, BBC journalists and presenters frequently make alarmist and false claims about the environment. A recent Panorama documentary, fronted by the BBC’s climate editor, said in its opening sequence that extreme weather events are killing more people. The truth is the precise opposite: the death toll from weather events has actually fallen considerably in recent decades. But this does not fit the established, fear-driven narrative.
[Links to various other websites in the original text.]
They don’t want their churches supporting “Extinction Rebellion” or similar groups. Only 17 percent supported that policy, 50 percent were against. The rest either said they don’t care (18 percent) or didn’t know (12 percent) or declined to answer (3 percent).
56 percent said the churches should concentrate more on their spiritual and pastoral tasks.
51 percent supported the fact that the churches appealed to everyone to get vaccinated against covid.
However, only 43 percent (a relative majority) thought closing churches during lockdown was a good idea (30 percent disagreed)
15 percent say they are definitely going to leave the church, a further 21 percent say they are considering leaving.
The relevant article is here.
Justo González in his book “The Story of Christianity” (Volume 2, p. 309), writes about the different “flavours” of fascism in the first half of the 20th century. There were many differences, but what united them was this:
“The glorification of war, dread of the free exchange of ideas, a totalitarian nationalism, and opposition to all forms of egalitarianism”
Today, we have the glorification of war (against Serbia, then Irak, then Syria, then Ukraine – and a denial that there is any glorification involved), dread of the free exchange of ideas (“cancel culture” – and a denial of its existence), a totalitarian globalisation, and a new form of racism (“whiteness is bad”), which is part of a “hierarchy of (alleged) victimhood”.
Video here.
From the description:
UK excess deaths https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…
Week 16 (W/E 21 April) + 22.1% 2,540 Week 17 (W/E 28 April) + 12.9% 1,569 Week 18 (W/E 5 May) + 5.4% 598 Professor Fenton. Substack, https://wherearethenumbers.substack.c… And YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/@NormanFenton…
Canada excess deaths https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/7…
The actual number of observed deaths is ‘at least’ the black dotted line. Whenever the black line is above the blue line it is probable that there were excess deaths Whenever the black line is above the red dotted line it is almost certain there are excess deaths. So, it is likely there have been excess deaths every month since mid-March with especially large peaks in April-May and December. Any number bigger than the red dotted line, then we expect something new is likely causing this especially high number of deaths.
Australia excess deaths https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/hea…
January 2023 There were 14,547 deaths in January, 12.4% more than the baseline average (but 10.5% less than January 2022) COVID-19 caused 213 deaths in February, down from 731 in January Jan to December 2022 In 2022, there were 190,394 deaths, which is 25,235 (15.3%) more than the historical average