Friday, September 30, 2022

Medical truth was criminalized by California today/ AP

Gavin Newsom perhaps thought burying the news on Friday afternoon would be best for his future career. But we won't forget.

California: Docs may be disciplined for spreading COVID lies

From the AP:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Doctors who spread coronavirus lies could be disciplined for unprofessional conduct in California under a law signed Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The bill, AB2098, introduced by Democratic Assembly Member Evan Low, declares that a physician or surgeon commits professional misconduct if they disseminate “misinformation or disinformation” about the nature and risks of COVID-19, its prevention and treatment and the development, safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

A doctor who commits such conduct could face discipline by the state medical board or osteopathic medical board and in severe cases, could potentially lose their license to practice in California.

It was the last remaining vaccine-related bill of note after the more controversial measures didn’t pass.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2018, more than 95,000 Californians have died, according to figures from the state Department of Public Health.

More than 80% of the population has been vaccinated with at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine but Low’s bill said the spread of disinformation about vaccines “has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.”

The bill’s language says that the Federation of State Medical Boards has warned that physicians who spread misinformation or disinformation “risk losing their medical license, and ... have a duty to provide their patients with accurate, science-based information.”

Nordstream 1-2's four explosions: CIA's WaPo makes the claim that Russia shot its own golden goose

And exploded its leverage over Europe. Can anyone take this seriously?

Just because both Joe Biden and State Department diplomat Victoria Nuland (who came to fame when, in 2014, she insisted to the US’ ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt that it would be the US’ choice of who ran Ukraine, not Europe’s choice [“Fuck the EU”] in a leaked phone call) — threatened to disable the Nordstream pipelines, well, that doesn’t mean the US government is guilty. There isn’t any evidence, is there?

“Nuland said on video, on January 27, 2022, “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, NordStream 2 will not move forward.” You can also watch her on Twitter.

Nuland’s husband is the equally loathesome Robert Kagan, cofounder of the 1998 Project for a New American Century. Her father, believe it or not, was a famous bioethicist and surgeon. The apple fell far from the tree.

What does today’s WaPo say?

Nord Stream spill could be biggest methane leak ever but not catastrophic

“so much methane spewing into the atmosphere… several hundred thousand tons from the pipelines” and the effect on climate is unclear.

“Paul Balcombe, a senior lecturer in chemical engineering and renewable energy at London’s Queen Mary University, called it a “really potent greenhouse gas” and said that “even a little leak has quite a climate impact.”

Swedish monitoring stations that measure local atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have reported spikes since the pipeline burst, with the methane concentration 20 to 25 percent higher than usual, “which is quite remarkable compared with our long-term data series,” Thomas Holst, a researcher at Lund University in Sweden, told The Washington Post in an email, while maintaining it was not enough to pose a health risk.

Despite the size of the leak, it isn’t likely to affect marine life in the way an oil leak might, said Jasmin Cooper, a research associate at the Sustainable Gas Institute. “The environmental impact will be toward global warming.”

Danish officials said Wednesday that they anticipate both pipelines being empty by Sunday, as more than half of the gas had already been released. Once the gas is gone, they said, scientists and security officials will have better access to the site, which has been limited because of safety concerns.

Really? We have robotic vehicles that travel along the ocean floor. I happen to have met one of the designers of such vehicles. We have small submarines. We have underwater cameras/drones. You mean to tell me no one has sent any of these devices down to look at the site? To collect what is left of the munitions? To plant evidence? Who believes this trash?

Arms experts say it is difficult to guess what kind of munition might have caused the damage. It is possible that a torpedo was used, but it is more likely that divers or an autonomous underwater vehicle put one or more demolition charges on each site. To identify the weapon or weapons used, more evidence — including additional sensor data, as well as physical evidence such as munition remnants — would be required.

With the consensus among European leaders that sabotage was involved, suspicion is increasingly falling on Russia, which has used energy supplies as leverage against Europe since the invasion of Ukraine.

Two senior officials with two European security services said Russia remains a main suspect because it has the technical means to carry out subsurface attacks on key infrastructure and has demonstrated its determination to destabilize energy markets in Europe.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, emphasized that these are preliminary, analytic conclusions with no evidence emerging so far to implicate Moscow.

Notice how the article does not say that the pipes were owned by Gazprom to ship Russian natural gas to Europe, which would earn Russia a considerable sum. Nor does the article say that it cost Russia probably billions to install the pipelines. Nor does it say that the ability to provide or withhold gas from Germany gave Russia incredible leverage over the country.

Now, you don’t suspect the US or UK or NATO (hard to separate them) wanted to end Germany’s dependence on Russia, and raise the price of energy (the US is the #2 energy producing country in the world, after China and right before Russia, believe it or not)? Loss of the pipelines for now will keep energy prices up, which is actually good for China, the US and Russia. Saudi Arabia is #4.

It is strange that energy prices have gone so crazy in Europe for months, while in the US, they have not even doubled, and have been coming down recently. What controls energy markets in Europe?

I also want to point out that whoever did this was apparently not at all concerned that the biggest methane spill in history of a greenhouse gas would worsen so-called climate change.

What did the NY Times have to say?

Re the climate impact:

As of Wednesday, more than half of the fuel that was in the pipelines had leaked out, according to Kristoffer Böttzauw, the head of the Danish Energy Agency. By Sunday, it could all be gone.

The toll from the leaks could amount to the equivalent of 32 percent of Denmark’s annual emissions, Mr. Böttzauw said, adding, “There is a significant climate impact because methane is many times more damaging to the climate than CO2.”

What did the Times say about whodunnit?

Speculation has pointed to Russia, whose state-controlled energy company, Gazprom, is the main owner of the pipelines. A spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Dmitri S. Peskov, dismissed allegations of Russian involvement as “stupid” and pointed a finger at the United States.

That is what I would have said, too. The allegation is simply stupid.

At least the Times provides some context and history.

Nord Stream 1, which began operating in 2011, was until recently the main conduit for bringing gas to Germany — enough to supply more than half of the country’s annual consumption and still pass some along to its neighbors. The pipeline is roughly 760 miles long, most of it underwater.

Construction was completed last year on the second line, Nord Stream 2, which was intended to double those flows, providing a big, modern line into northwest Europe. But it never became fully operational: The German government shelved the project in February, just as Russia began to invade Ukraine.

The German government was the cause of the energy deficit for Germany’s populace. How have the crooks who planned to ration energy stayed in office?

Even though European countries have cut back their consumption of natural gas in response to high prices and entreaties from their governments, the fuel remains of vital importance for heating homes and keeping businesses running.

… on the surface, it is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel going through the pipes.

On the other hand, the natural gas market is spooked, which helps Russia by raising the price of its gas. On Monday, prices for European gas futures had fallen by nearly half from their high in August. After news of the leaks, they rose nearly 20 percent to about 205 euros (or $191) per megawatt-hour, roughly five times the level of a year ago.

So, who exactly controls Europe’s energy markets?

The US dollar has dropped about 3% from its high right after the explosions. Knowing about the explosions ahead of time could have made a lot of money for currency speculators as well as those selling energy. Current oil price is about $80/barrel in the US, nothing special. Check out oil prices over the past 70 years, inflation-adjusted, here.

It may not be a coincidence that a conduit from Norway to Poland known as the Baltic Pipe was opened on Tuesday. It was conceived to ease Warsaw’s dependence on Russia and passes close to where the leaks are.

So North Sea energy was already planned to help ease the demand.

Finally, the Times concludes its article with the nonsensical innuendo that Russia is attacking Ukraine’s energy grid (and even the nuclear power plant the Russians themselves control) and the Nordstream attacks could be related. Duh?

Why am I paying for these newspaper subscriptions? So you and I can hear the propaganda from the horse’s mouth. So we can study the globalists’ words, learn to read between the lines, and teach others how the propaganda works.

Good night, my friends.

Wednesday, September 28, 2022

In case you missed it, I wrote a 4400 word article on the new omicron boosters. Then I gave a powerpoint-illustrated talk on the boosters and other current topics for CHD TV

I discussed multiple topics, including:

1.  markedly increased mortality rates seen in heavily vaccinated countries,

2.  the coordinated rollout of new untested boosters throughout the EU, Switzerland, UK, Canada and the US on virtually the same day, 

3.  negative vaccine efficacy,

4.  the poor vaccine efficacy that did not just start with omicron

5.  regulatory malfeasance at FDA and CDC

6.  CDC changing the definition of vaccine to align it with the mRNA gene therapy products

7.  the Novavax shots

8.  the higher adverse events after a prototype Pfizer omicron booster

9.  the fact we are at the lowest COVID death rate since the start of the pandemic  

10. the hidden pregnancy data, and other hidden "safety" data


Here is how you get the information:

Watch my 45 minute talk on CHD-TV

Download Meryl’s Slideshow

Meryl’s Substack article on the new boosters

The Defender: Rapid Rollout of New COVID Boosters With No Human Trials — ‘A Tale of Recklessness’ by Meryl Nass, MD

If you are a medical professional or scientist, please consider signing this international declaration


We, the medical doctors and scientists from all over the world, declare that there is an international medical crisis due to the diseases and deaths co-related to the administration of products known as “COVID-19 vaccines”.
We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so called “COVID-19 vaccines”. To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.
The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these “vaccines”, is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.
A large number of adverse side effects, including hospitalisations, permanent disabilities and deaths related to the so-called “COVID-19 vaccines”, have been reported officially.
The registered number has no precedent in world vaccination history.
Examining the reports on CDC’s VAERS, the UK’s Yellow Card System, the Australian Adverse Event Monitoring System, Europe’s EudraVigilance System and the WHO’s VigiAccess Database, to date there have been more than 11 million reports of adverse effects and more than 70,000 deaths co-related to the inoculation of the products known as “covid vaccines”.
We know that these numbers just about represent between 1% and 10% of all real events.
Therefore, we consider that we are facing a serious international medical crisis, which must be accepted and treated as critical by all states, health institutions and medical personnel worldwide.
Therefore, the following measures must be undertaken on an urgent basis:

  1. A worldwide ‘stop’ to the national inoculation campaigns with the products known as “COVID-19 vaccines”.
  2. Investigation of all sudden deaths of people who were healthy previous to the inoculation.
  3. Implementation of early detection programmes of cardiovascular events which could lead to sudden deaths with analysis such as D-dimer and Troponin, in all those that were inoculated with the products known as “COVID-19 vaccines”, as well as the early detection of serious tumours.
  4. Implementation of research and treatment programmes for victims of adverse effects after receiving the so called “COVID-19 vaccine”.
  5. Undertaking analyses of the composition of vials of Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Sinovac, Sputnik V and any other product known as “COVID-19 vaccines”,
    by independent research groups with no affiliation to pharmaceutical companies, nor any conflict of interest.
  6. Studies to be conducted on the interactions between the different components of the so called “COVID-19 vaccines” and their molecular, cellular and biological effects.
  7. Implemention of psychological help and compensation programmes for any person that has developed a disease or disability as a consequence of the so called “COVID-19 vaccines”.
  8. Implemention and promotion of psychological help and compensation programmes for the family members of any person who died as a result of having been inoculated with the product known as “Covid-19 vaccines”.

Consequently we declare that we find ourselves in an unprecedented international medical crisis in the history of medicine, due to the large number of diseases and deaths associated with the “vaccines against Covid-19”. Therefore, we demand that the regulatory agencies that oversee drug safety as well as the health institutions in all countries, together with the international institutions such as the WHO, PHO, EMA, FDA, UK-MHRA and NIH respond to this declaration and act in accordance with the eight measures demanded in this manifesto.

This Declaration is a joint initiative of several professionals who have been fighting for this cause. We call on all doctors, scientists and professionals to endorse this statement in order to put pressure on the entities involved and promote a more transparent health policy


3 Nordstream explosions yesterday

Thanks to ZeroHedge and a brain-dead narcissist for a (pre) confession

You’ve already seen the photos. In a 70 meters’ deep area of the Baltic Sea Scandinavian countries detected 3 underwater explosions and then the Nordsteam (Russia to Europe) pipelines started leaking. The dollar went up dramatically. You can today get 1.05 Euros for a dollar.

Note the date of Biden’s statement. Below is a tweet from a former Defense Minister of Poland and member of the European parliament.

LOL: Rochelle Walensky promised "facts, science and integrity." What a difference 20 months makes

No commentary needed.

As the New C.D.C. Chief, I’ll Tell You the Truth

... On Jan. 20, I will begin leading the C.D.C., which was founded in 1946 to meet precisely the kinds of challenges posed by this pandemic. I agreed to serve as C.D.C. director because I believe in the agency’s mission and commitment to knowledge, statistics and guidance. I will do so by leading with facts, science and integrityand being accountable for them, as the C.D.C. has done since its founding 75 years ago.

I acknowledge that our team of scientists will have to work very hard to restore public trust in the C.D.C., at home and abroad, because it has been undermined over the last year. In that time, numerous reports stated that White House officials interfered with official guidance issued by the C.D.C...

As C.D.C. director, I will be responsible for making sure that the public trusts the agency’s guidance and that its staff feels supported. On my first day, I will ask Anne Schuchat, the principal deputy director, with 32 years of experience at the C.D.C., to begin a comprehensive review to ensure that all existing guidance related to Covid-19 is evidence-based and free of politics... Restoring the public’s trust in the C.D.C. is crucial...

Pharmacy chains begs for prolonged emergency provisions (interns can vaccinate, doubled reimbursements per shot, no liability)

From Fierce Pharma, which has embedded code which made posting this a nightmare.  Think it is finally obliterated.
The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) wants the White House to keep the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act in place until October 2024. PREP provides liability protection to pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy interns, according to a letter sent last week by Steven C. Anderson, NACDS president and CEO.
NACDS also wants to see a plan “grounded in reality” by which uninsured individuals will be covered for vaccinations, tests and anti-COVID therapeutics, pointing out that funding for testing and therapeutics for the uninsured ended in late March and funding for vaccine administration in early April.

What’s the plan for when coverage for vaccines and COVID-19 tests shifts from the government to commercial insurance payers, NACDS wants to know.

“As we continue to roll out new bivalent COVID-19 booster shots to address COVID-19 variants and simultaneously prepare for what is predicted to be a particularly severe flu season, other challenges exist,” Anderson wrote. “We must prepare methodically for the formal conclusion of the federal public health emergency declaration and for a transition of COVID-19 vaccinations, testing and therapeutics to the commercial markets and coverage by Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers.”

The shift should be accompanied by a public awareness campaign so patients understand how best to get care for COVID-19 and other problems.

NACDS also calls for the passage of H.R. 7213, the Equitable Community Access to Pharmacist Services Act, which the organization claims will establish a clear pathway for paying for pharmacy services delivered at drugstores to Medicare beneficiaries. “Lack of this pathway today is generating real-world consequences—most notably, contributing to reduced access to lifesaving therapeutics,” the letter states.

The letter also calls on a better rollout of COVID-19 therapeutics by leveraging pharmacists. Because that has not been done, NACDS says, it limited “the accessibility and equity of these medications.”

NACDS states: “It would be deeply harmful to our nation’s public health to hastily unravel the flexibilities that enable pharmacies to provide key services patients have come to expect and need.”

Ninety percent of Americans live within five miles of a pharmacy; this is one of the reasons pharmacists have administered over 266 million doses of vaccine so far during the COVID-19 pandemic, NACDS notes in the letter.

“In fact, approximately 2 of every 3 COVID-19 vaccine doses are being provided at a pharmacy and more than 40% of individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 at a pharmacy are from racial and ethnic minority groups,” the letter says. “Further, more than 40% of children ages 5 to 11 who have been vaccinated for COVID-19 did so at a pharmacy.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians, which represents about 127,000 physicians and medical students nationwide, isn’t quite on the same page as NACDS, stating in a letter (PDF) that it sent to Biden on Sept. 13 that the “burden should not fall on primary care physicians to determine if their patients received the COVID-19 vaccine from a community vaccine provider.

"Further, primary care physicians should be notified if their patients are prescribed or administered monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19, so they can provide appropriate follow-up care. Increasing reliance on pharmacists and other providers outside of patients’ medical homes squanders the value of physician-patient relationships and leads to care fragmentation.”

Monday, September 26, 2022

The Australian Academy of Science provides climate truth with one hand, while demanding the truth be censored with the other hand

I like this article on planetary temperatures on the Australian Academy of Science website, which provides facts and seems even-handed:

globally averaged near-surface air temperature rose by around 0.8°C [1.4 degrees Farenheit] between 1850 and 2012 (Figure 2.1c). The rate of warming increased in the mid-1970s, and each of the most recent three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850. The last decade has been the warmest of these….

The temperature of the oceans has also risen. More than 90% of the total heat accumulated in the climate system between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the oceans. The greatest ocean warming has taken place close to the surface, with the upper 75 m of the ocean warming by an average of 0.11°C each decade between 1971 and 2010….

The average surface temperatures over the Australian continent and its surrounding oceans have increased by nearly 1°C since the beginning of the 20th century [1.8 degrees F in 120 years—Nass].

Does that seem like a dire emergency?

However, the Australian Academy of Science last month begged the tech giants to censor misinformation and disinformation, especially on climate change. Here is what the Australian Academy of Science wrote. Yet this was clearly not written by real scientists:

“Anti-scientific content abounds online, with climate science being an area of particular concern.

Despite a well-established evidence base for anthropogenic climate change, and the efforts of organisations including the AAS to provide accessible online resources to communicate this information (e.g. AAS, 2021), climate science denial content proliferates on social media globally…

Research into Twitter content found the phrase “fake news” in more than half of the top 500 most retweeted posts contained climate change denialism, or the belief that climate change is not anthropogenic (Al-Rawi, O’Keefe, Kane, & Bizimana, 2021). These included tweets that attributed the cause of Australia’s 2019/20 bushfires to arson rather than being associated with the changing climate.
Climate denialism is just one example of how misinformation results in societal harm.

Disinformation on health matters (such as false and misleading vaccination, sexual and reproductive health information), or ecological and environmental matters (such as material misrepresenting studies of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef) are a barrier to good policy and a healthy society. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were clear links between climate denialism and anti-vaccine movements (Hamilton, Hartter & Saito, 2015). The Code must therefore consider broader instances of misinformation and disinformation, including in issues-based advertising in all areas, especially climate change.”

Coincidentally, this was published one day before the Washington Post ran a long piece on how Australia’s Great Barrier Reef now has more live coral than it has had in decades. Oops.

It is of course sickening for any “science” body to try and censor scientific discussion.

But beyond that, we can clearly see that the new meme of ‘misinformation and disinformation,’ which I was accused of when my medical license was suddenly suspended in Janary, is to be used globally to suppress not only medical knowledge, but other types of knowledge. Welcome to the new global Dark Ages.

UPDATE Sept. 26:   Former head of Australia’s Climate Center disputes the CO2/carbon footprint/carbon credits hypothesis of climate change.

A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.

The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.

WEF twists the meaning of words to make austerity sound desirable. I start the conversation about climate change

The term Climate Change lacks meaning. It is always hotter or colder, wetter or drier than the last season. The term used to be Global Warming, but when the warming slowed down, the PTB segued smoothly and without explanation to Climate Change, and somehow managed to make everyone think it meant the same thing. As it became clear that temperatures were starting to go down, the PTB made another pivot to atmospheric carbon dioxide as ‘the Problem.’ But we don’t actually know whether high levels of CO2 are a problem. The elevated CO2 does help plants more easily trap carbon and grow larger. James Corbett has been on this scam for awhile. He is a wonderful teacher about what is really happening.

The heating of the planet from about 1960 to 2000 occurred reasonably fast, as if it was starting up from the low point on a sine wave, as 1960 was relatively cold. There is some confirmation of this in a Royal Society publication of 1966. It noted that there was a warming in the early part of the 20th century, followed by a distinct cold weather trend around 1960. I like this article on the Australian Academy of Science website, which says

globally averaged near-surface air temperature rose by around 0.8°C between 1850 and 2012 (Figure 2.1c). The rate of warming increased in the mid-1970s, and each of the most recent three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850. The last decade has been the warmest of these….

The temperature of the oceans has also risen. More than 90% of the total heat accumulated in the climate system between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the oceans. The greatest ocean warming has taken place close to the surface, with the upper 75 m of the ocean warming by an average of 0.11°C each decade between 1971 and 2010….

The average surface temperatures over the Australian continent and its surrounding oceans have increased by nearly 1°C since the beginning of the 20th century.

Does that seem like a dire emergency?

However, the Australian Academy of Science last month begged the tech giants to censor misinformation and disinformation on climate change. The same language used to silence doctors. The international language of suppression of anything but the single narrative.

Now we expect cooling due to decreased sun spot activity and other factors over the next ten years, so the focus has shifted to CO2 rather than planetary warming.

Creating a fake global threat of planetary annihilation from a natural cycle’s vicissitudes was bold and brazen. Meteorologists who did not drink and expel the Koolaid lost their jobs. USG weather statistics were corrupted, which it seems is very easy to accomplish nowadays. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Maurice Strong formed, took care of getting out a single cohesive message. I currently rely on the Australian Academy of Science for my facts, but how long will they last?

James Corbett took a peek behind the curtain to identify Maurice Strong as the main inventor of the Global Warming scam and most of the world’s environmental movement. Strong ran the UN’s first 1972 Conference on the Environment and its 1992 Rio Earth Summit. As James Corbett develops the history:

David Rockefeller was there with Strong in Colorado in 1987 for the "Fourth World Wilderness Congress," a meeting of world-historical importance that almost no one has even heard of. Attended by the likes of Rockefeller, Strong, James Baker and Edmund de Rothschild himself, the conference ultimately revolved around the question of financing for the burgeoning environmental movement that Strong had shaped from the ground up through his work at the United Nations Environment Program.

It was at that conference (recordings of which are available online, thanks to whistleblower George Hunt) that Rothschild called for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a "second Marshall Plan" that would be used for third world "debt relief" and that favourite globalist dog whistle "sustainable development."

Rothschild's dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio "Earth Summit." Although perhaps best known as the conference that birthed Agenda 21, much less well known is that it was the Earth Summit that allowed the World Conservation Bank to become a reality.

Do read all that James Corbett has to say on the matter. But I now want to shift to the WEF and its website, where its current plans are laid out.

“3. Raised awareness and ownership for nature and environment – In the last few years, there is an increased awareness and public concern on climate change and specially among youth. The UNDP’s “Peoples’ Climate Vote” reflects that over 64% of people believe climate change is a global emergency. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies found widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change: 80% of citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many public surveys.

* Note the intense concern with what people believe, rather than with what is actually taking place.—Nass

“What next? Sustainable cities enabled through smart communities

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives by enabling public-private partnerships to help curate this program. It is suggested to drive a three-way approach to shape this movement.

See the buzzwords (I have bolded them) that don’t mean much? What I think Klaus is saying, between the lines, is that they have snowed enough people, especially the youth, to now move forward with rationing, justifying it with “public-private partnerships” to make the rationing appear to be a charitable endeavor and not government-imposed reduction in living standard.

See below for what comes next. Increased costs, induced guilt, and a new definition of your ‘fair share’—Nass

The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives for sustainable cities…

Finally, it is significant that all stakeholders across the value chain come together and contribute towards achieving a net-zero future by leaving no one behind.

Who will be today’s Maurice Strong to push the “My Carbon” (we get to ‘own’ the austerity, it seems) initiatives and the sustainable cities? I don’t know what stakeholders across the value chain means, nor a net-zero future. But I do know that in this context, '“leaving no one behind” means corralling every last (powerless) human into a life of want.

The idea is to insert false beliefs into us and then use them to peacefully have us give away our possessions. And then, disarmed by poverty, we will give away, or have taken, the rest of our rights. If any still exist.

UPDATE: The Sept. 24 WSJ shows how the system works to enforce the single narrative. The head of the World Bank, David Malpass, appointed by Trump, apparently failed to reinforce the climate narrative during a Q and A.

The World Bank chief has been under criticism since Tuesday over his response to questions regarding whether burning of fossil fuels has led to rapid and dangerous global warming. At a New York climate event hosted by the New York Times he declined to directly answer, saying, “I am not a scientist.”

Since then, unspecified climate activists have called for his resignation. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said “Treasury will hold him accountable to this position.” Malpass has since corrected himself, stated that the World Bank is taking a forceful leadership position on climate change, and said he won’t resign.

I missed another important data "mistake" in the WSJ article

Funny how all the mistakes end up overstating the number of vaccinations

According to the Wall Street Journal, “After some 77% of adults got the primary series, however, roughly 52% got the first booster according to CDC.

However, CDC’s website says today: Only 67.8% of the US population completed the primary series. (The WHITE tab is what we are looking at. You can click on the green tabs for different information on the CDC website.)

79.5% are on CDC’s website to have received at least one dose. Which means that 11.7% of Americans (79.5% minus 67.8%) said “No thanks” after the first shot, or 14.7% of those who started the series. More than 1 in 7 decided to stop at one. (11.7 divided by 79.5 = 14.7).

Yesterday's WSJ: "Some Who Rushed to Covid-19 Vaccine Hold Off on Boosters

Health authorities hoped new shot targeting Omicron would lift sluggish booster rates, but some say they don’t need it"


SOME? What a farce.

The NY Times, updated yesterday, presents CDC’s numbers for Americans who have received at least one booster: 109.6. There are 333 million Americans.

Thus the needle remains at 32.9% of Americans who have received at least one booster.

That number (33%) has not risen in September despite the shiny new useless bivalent boosters that don’t even work in animals and cleverly avoided any testing in humans.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since the new boosters became available earlier this month at pharmacies, doctors’ offices and elsewhere, about 4.4 million people have received a new booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.” The article also claims that “After some 77% of adults got the primary series, however, roughly 52% got the first booster according to CDC.

But that isn’t right. 4.4 million divided by 333 million Americans is 1.3%.

At the September 1 ACIP meeting, which I live-blogged, CDC told the committee that 49% of those eligible (who have completed a primary series) had gotten a booster. Well, here it is September 23, and guess how many of those eligible have gotten a booster (as of September 21)? 48.7% according to CDC’s website. Yet 49% (Those claimed to have gotten a booster on Sept 1) plus 1.3% (those claimed to have gotten a COVID bivalent booster since Sept. 1) equals 50.3%.

Is 48.7% the same as 50.3% or “roughly 52%”? I don’t think so, even with the New Math.

So the WSJ or the CDC or both are putting out false data.

I don’t think anybody wants to offer themself up to test a vaccine that FDA and the manufacturer wouldn’t give to a guinea pig or rabbit.

And just as I was typing this, I got a Robocall from Walgreens telling me it was time to schedule my flu shot and new COVID booster. Good luck upping those numbers in this household.

WaPo editorial on the Lancet Commission Report makes it easy to see the limited hangout

“The ability of the public health system to identify cases, trace contacts, and isolate infected individuals can be overwhelmed in just a few weeks of uncontrolled community transmission,” the report says.

Right, so you stop doing contact tracing when you know if doesn’t work. Instead, contact tracing was started after it was known to have had no chance of success. Because it was another surveillance tool being prototyped.—Nass

“National responses were often improvisational, occasionally bordering on the absurd,” the commission states.

Right, and this ‘revelation’ should be called out loudly, but was buried.

Governments “showed themselves to be untrustworthy and ineffective,” and “rancor among the major powers” then “gravely weakened the capacity of international institutions” to respond, especially the World Health Organization, which comes in for sharp criticism for repeatedly erring “on the side of reserve rather than boldness.” The panel calls for strengthening the WHO and giving it stronger powers and more solid financing.

The WHO criticism for not being bolder (WHAT?!!) is meant to add juice to the tale of this report, so that it gets more eyeballs. Admitting governments lied is meant to engender trust in the reader.

Another lesson is that a failure to grasp the viral transmission route led to cascading — and costly — miscalculations. Early in the outbreak, the commission states, “health authorities concentrated almost exclusively on spray transmission,” the idea that the virus is disseminated when people exhale droplets that fall by gravity after a distance of one or two meters. This led to emphasis on six feet of social distancing, extensive cleaning of surfaces and hand-washing. In fact, the virus was spreading in respiratory aerosols, microscopic particles that stay suspended in the air, not unlike cigarette smoke. Failure to focus more on this airborne route at the outset had serious consequences: “The use of face coverings, ventilation, and air filtration as effective risk reduction measures were not adequately encouraged,” the report says. The incorrect assumptions enabled the virus to spread “almost unabated, for months.”

There was no failure to grasp that the virus spreads by the airborne route. There was suppression of this knowledge at a planetary level. Had it been acknowledged, the plan to allow big box stores to remain open would have failed. Shutting down Main Street, where small, older stores had potentially better ventilation, could not be allowed. Remember that vulture capitalism requires winners and losers, who were chosen beforehand. Makeshift face masks did no good at all and probably caused harm. Now everyone knows that cloth masks don’t work—but they think face coverings that look like surgical masks do. Except there is no difference between the two types of masks. Neither works for airborne spread.

Oddly, the commission report skims over the fact that China’s leadership hid from the public the virus’s human-to-human transmissibility in the first three weeks of January 2020 — a dire mistake that allowed it to spread.

Because to get to the one world government no serious finger pointing is allowed.

Jeffrey Sachs 'whistleblows' what everyone already knew

Throws Fauci, Daszak and Baric under the bus, a year after everyone already knew what they had done, 2 years after those of us paying attention knew it


Questions surrounding the origins of COVID-19 remain unanswered

Jeffrey D. Sachs & Neil L. Harrison
May 31, 2022   |   Boston Globe

Why did some components of the Intelligence Community lean toward a laboratory release as the source of the pandemic?

It’s not yet clear whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 was created in a laboratory or emerged from nature; there is still no decisive evidence for either alternative. To find out, we have recently called for an independent and transparent investigation into the possible role that US biotechnology played in the emergence of the virus.

Americans have heard a lot about the possibility that Chinese laboratories played a role in the emergence of the pandemic, but very little about the role US organizations might have played. When President Biden tasked the US Intelligence Community with determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it found that either “a laboratory-associated incident” or a “natural origin” was possible. The IC said that China should cooperate more to find the truth, but did not make clear, or perhaps did not fully realize, the role that US science might have played in the origin of the virus. More important, the IC didn’t present the details of its inquiry for independent scientific scrutiny. We don’t know whether the IC’s analysis was comprehensive or superficial.

The origins of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unknown, but may have had an assist from advanced US biotechnology. We do know this: The National Institutes of Health, which funded a lot of potentially hazardous and under-regulated laboratory manipulation of SARS-like viruses, has been less than transparent. And that’s stating matters politely. The NIH has done its part to throw scientists and the public off track regarding the US-based and funded research.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is so easily transmitted because it has an unusual sequence within its genetic code that makes the virus more infectious than other related viruses (including the original SARS virus from the 2003 outbreak). The key is the presence of a so-called Furin Cleavage Site that enhances the ability of the virus to enter and infect human cells.

From the early days of the pandemic, scientists have wondered how an FCS got into the SARS-CoV-2 genome, since it is the only virus among the group of SARS-like viruses that has an FCS. Other more distant relatives, such as the virus that causes the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, have an FCS, but these other viruses are quite distant from SARS-CoV-2 in terms of evolution.

Did the FCS evolve naturally, or was it put into the virus by a laboratory manipulation? This may seem an odd question. Wouldn’t that be a very dangerous thing to do? The answer is yes, it could definitely be dangerous, especially without proper safeguards. Yet remarkably, inserting an FCS was an aim of a US-China research team, using biotechnology developed by US scientists.

In a Project DEFUSE research proposal to the US government from the University of North Carolina, the EcoHealth Alliance, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the team wrote, “We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential Furin Cleavage Sites. . . . Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures.” Much of this work was to be carried out in a Wuhan laboratory with a low level of biosafety control.

In plain English, the researchers would look for FCS in viruses, and when they didn’t occur naturally, would insert them. Notably, the UNC-EHA-WIV team also mentioned “>180 bat SARSr-Cov strains sequenced in our prior work and not yet examined for spillover potential.” These sequences have not been made public.

Why would scientists propose such dangerous work? As one of the leaders of this research at UNC wrote in an editorial in 2018, “the study of zoonotic and human CoV [coronaviruses] outside of their natural host often times requires genetic manipulation and GOF to be useful.” GOF, meaning “gain-of-function,” is research in which the coronavirus is manipulated in the laboratory and then tested for its ability to infect cells and reproduce in tissue. It’s used in drug and vaccine development.

Now, here’s the thing: The DEFUSE proposal was rejected. But was the work undertaken anyway? We have no idea, but it is standard procedure to carry out preliminary work, or even a whole project, whether or not a particular grant is accepted. And in truth, the DEFUSE proposal is part of a much larger, and still hidden, research agenda overseen by the NIH. When the NIH was asked to release its 2020 Strategic Plan for COVID-19 Research, it did so — with all 290 pages fully blanked out.

The fact is that NIH has not told the American people, or the scientific community, what it knows about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In a conference call on Feb. 1, 2020, NIH leaders heard top virologists explain why the FCS in SARS-CoV-2 indicated the possibility of laboratory manipulation of the virus. Yet just a few days later, NIH encouraged a team of scientists to prepare a paper declaring a natural origin of the virus. Subsequently, NIH has resisted the release of critical documentation and dragged its feet until forced to make disclosures under Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, often providing only highly redacted materials.

The Biden administration and the scientific community need to do better. What work did NIH, DOD, and other US agencies fund that might have contributed to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2? When did agencies of the USG first learn of the virus? What evidence might there be in the United States in the form of laboratory notes, electronic communications, virus databases, and other troves of information, that can shed light on this matter? Why did some components of the Intelligence Community lean toward a laboratory release as the source of the pandemic?

There has been enough obfuscation and foot-dragging. Let’s open the books and get the facts from US organizations to see what light they can shed on the origin of this tragic global disaster.