Category Archives: Science

Pro-vaxxer tacitly admits: They cannot find an error in Norman Fenton’s paper

Which shows a strong correlation between vaccination rate and excess deaths

Steve Krisch’s newsletter.

Also, related to this, Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH writes:

Almost everyday in the news is another reported case of sudden, unexpected cardiac death. The vaccination status is carefully concealed in the report and any mention of past SARS-CoV-2 immunization appears to be scrubbed from the internet. Families maintain an airtight silence on a simple medical query—did they take a COVID-19 vaccine? Yes or No? Prior to COVID-19 vaccination, the usual causes of death were almost always known antemortem, and were roughly 40% cardiovascular, 40% cancer, and 20% other causes. Chaves and colleagues have shown these proportions have been dramatically shifted to sudden cardiac death.

Net Zero Will Lead to the End of Modern Civilisation, Says Top Scientist

Article in The Daily Sceptic.

Excerpt:

In Manheimer’s view, the partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners, “truly is an unholy alliance”. The climate industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everyone. “We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act,” he added.

Perhaps one of the best voices to cast doubt on an approaching climate crisis, suggests the author, is Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the world’s leading authorities on geological fluid motions:

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

What Does the Science Say?

On climate change. And why it is so corrupted.

Jordan Peterson talks with Dr. Richard Lindzen.

This interview with Michael Crichton is also interesting. (There’s no date to it but from what he says I guess it was done in 2007. He died in November 2008.) Crichton makes the point that from all his research on the matter, looking into scientific papers etc., he can surmise that CO2 is likely causing some warming, but not catastrophically so. Nevertheless, we should be reducing our CO2 output. However, he emphasises: This is happening anyway and will continue happening as technology progresses. Trying to crowbar and accelerate this process with government force is unlikely to improve things and likely to cause huge amounts of harm elsewhere.

Shocking Lab Investigation of Covid Vaccines

The real science is catching up with corrupt scientists, evil officials and naïve clergy

Dr. Mercola writes:

December 12, 2022, The Highwire posted a fascinating and shocking lab investigation of the COVID shots. Del Bigtree begins by reviewing some of the many alleged findings by organizations looking at the shots using various technologies.

Continue reading here.

Also, watch the 1 hour video at the top of the linked page. It is posted on Bitchute here as well.

At the 11:50 minute mark, the interviewed medical scientist, Dr. Ryan Cole, states: “Real science should always involve humility and the willingness to say: ‘It’s not about my ego, it’s about the issue and we’re trying to get to the best scientific truth we can with the methods we have now.'”

Contrast that with the infamous statement by the hugely (worldwide) influential and powerful US (now ex-)chief medical advisor to the president Dr. Anthony Fauci who said in an interview, when asked about people critical of his Covid policies: “I represent science”. In other words: “La science, c’est moi.”

Fauci was one of the many scientists on government payrolls around the world who kept repeating the “safe and effective” mantra about the still only experimental injections against Covid. Dr. Ryan Cole was never one of them.

I know who I trust more.

Contrast that also with the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, on 21st December 2021, said, without knowing the science:

“It’s not about me and my rights to choose, it’s about how I love my neighbour. Vaccination reduces my chances — doesn’t eliminate — but it reduces my chances of getting ill and reducing my chances of getting ill, reduces my chances of infecting others,” Welby told ITV news on Tuesday evening.

“It’s very simple, so I would say yes, to love one another as Jesus said, get vaccinated, get boosted,” he added.

Welby needs to repent.

For vaccine-hesitant people, it was never about “my right to choose”, at least not primarily. It was primarily about trust. How can one trust scientists in the pay of government, when same scientists propagate a policy that gives governments what they have craved down the ages: More power for themselves. They might be right in this case, but, because there are massive conflicts of interests involved, the circumstances demanded more proof than was available or provided.

The same vaccine-hesitant people observed how real debate and discussion about the safety and efficacy of the Covid injections was massively suppressed by the media. This behaviour raised suspicions. That is something the Archbishop has not addressed.

Ever since the beginning of Christianity, Christian clergy were the most important people standing between governments and their access to total, tyrannical worldly power in the style of Ancient Egypt or Rome. For they understood the dangers of worldly power. They understood the ungodly path any worldly power is in danger of treading. Worldly power is one of the three things Satan attempted to tempt Christ with in the desert. However, most of the clergy don’t even seem to know that any more. Worse: Even if they did, it seems most of them wouldn’t care anymore.

It’s one reason among many why Christianity is ripe for a complete reconstruction. Even more so now that, as the blogger Eugyppius writes, the “pre-pandemic world is gone forever“:

Mass containment has permanently transformed our societies and our cultures. It has cemented the cooperative relationship between the regime and the press, and it has changed the content and the tenor of our media. Drama and panic have always sold newspapers, but our new era is characterised by an unending self-reinforcing cyclone of hyperventilation journalism, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. For the foreseeable future, I think, we will careen from one crisis to the next.

The pandemic has also changed politics. We have all learned that our alleged liberal rights and freedoms are quaint fictions, which will evaporate in the face of any false emergency. This is one reason that the unceasing hysteria of the press is so ominous, for it represents a continual attempt to restore those extraordinary conditions in which the managers wield absolute power. Under the pretense of emergency, everything is permitted. The government can seal you inside your home, forbid you from seeing friends, and outlaw all protest. It can banish all criticism from the media, and with a bit more hyperventilation, it can probably even force-medicate you. In the pre-2020 world, of course, our governments could do all of these things as well. What is different now, is merely that many more people know that they can, and approve nevertheless.

P.S.: If you have read the above links, or have watched the video, and you have received one or more injection against Covid, you may be starting to worry. If so, please go to the bottom of the page of the Mercola text linked here and above and read the section titled “What to Do if You Got the Jab”. Of course, not being a medical expert myself, I cannot recommend any of the advice there personally. As stated before, it’s all a matter of trust.

Pope Benedict vs the calculating elites

O'Neill defends the late Pontiff

In this interesting obituary of (ex-)Pope Benedict XVI, Brendan O’Neill, a self-proclaimed atheist, castigates “preening macho rationalists of the New Atheist set”, who, as humanists, were, according to O’Neill, more anti-enlightenment than the Pope himself:

There was also a profound irony in this Benedict-bashing spectacle. Because this man they loved to hate, ‘Pope Ratzinger’, as they demeaned him, was a far keener defender of reason than they were. He was a more rigorous student of Enlightenment, too. And he did more than they ever will to challenge the real menace to truth in the 21st century – not religion but the ‘dictatorship of relativism’, as Benedict called it. There was more humanism in Benedict’s brave, often lonely battle against today’s tyranny of nothingness than there is in the New Atheists’ snotty rage against religion.

The obituarist gets to the point:

In short, absent any notion of universal truth, devoid of social standards we might define ourselves by (or against), we’re left with just the individual, playing around in his own prison of identity.

[…]

Indeed, Benedict held that Christianity was a ‘religion according to reason’. He argued, rightly, that the Enlightenment sprung from the traditions and tensions within Christianity itself – ‘the Enlightenment is of Christian origin’, he said. One of his most striking utterances was to say that the Enlightenment had ‘given back reason its own voice’. That is, it took ideas of reason from Christianity and expressed those ideas in the voice of reason alone. 

O’Neill hints at the fundamental problem the enlightenment has, without discussing it:

Benedict’s beef was not with reason, then, as his ill-read critics would have us believe, but with what he referred to as ‘purely functional rationality’. Or scientism, as others call it: the modern creed of evidence-based politics that judges everything by experiment rather than morality.

Here’s the fundamental problem: Without morality, rationality will become ‘scientism’, the consequences of which we were able to observe since WWI in the liberal use of weapons of mass destruction, genocides and lately the Covid tyranny, environmental tyranny and other attempts at building a Tower of Babel 2.0.

O’Neill is right to defend the late Pope against the “New Atheist” set, but he does not touch the question that begs: How do we arrive at morality, without God? Rationality alone doesn’t seem to suffice.