So you don't think ideas can be beamed directly into your mind?
And Masks do fuck all but probably harm you...
“If liars’ pants really did catch on fire, watching the news would be a lot more fun.”
A thank you would be nice :)
Can Regular People be Programmed to Kill?
Influencers are Dumb…and so are their followers. Watch these three over confident “influencers” get mind jacked.
WEF Transhumanist shill Yuval Harari who said “Jesus is fake news” and “free will is over!” says that he doesn’t use a smart phone because he doesn’t want to give big tech access to manipulating him, that he’s no match for their AI and algorithms. Interesting…
Alternative:
Look at China’s 15 minute city:
Zombie Smart Phone. This is your brain…this is your brain on smart phones:
Dr. Carol Rosin in 2001. She was the understudy of Dr. Wernher von Braun (Nazi Scientist who came to the USA under Operation Paperclip and is the Father of Rocketry and NASA.
Megyn Kelly’s IFR (infection fatality rate) was around zero IF she were not subjected to the “vaccine,” but because she is now genetically modified, and her immune system is severely compromised, her IFR is now far greater than zero. It is no wonder that she developed “COVID” shortly after her booster; in other words, instead of being protected from COVID, her VAIDS was expressed upon further contamination.
“This is what happens when you order a President through the mail.”
Opt Out
This was the key figure in a Nature Medicine paper published on Dec 14, 2021. It showed clearly that myocarditis after vaccination (in this case, Moderna dose 2) was higher! than myocarditis after sars-cov-2 infection for people <40.
But the story does not end there….
There were a few remaining issues. While the denominator for vaccines is known with precision, the true number of infections is unknown. Many people don’t seek testing or medical care. So the red bar above will be shorter if you use
“I can’t wait until the 5th wave when the people with four shots are blaming it on the people with three shots.”
The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
Basically masks do fuck all, except probably damage you. Wake up!
“We’ve been conditioned to think that only politicians can solve our problems. But at some point, we will wake up and recognize that it was the politicians who created our problems.”
Carbon Dioxide
On Carl Sagan and the book "Climate Miracle" by Ed Berry
"We have to offer up scary scenarios about global warming ... ...each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist
"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration Under Secretary of State
"A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the enhanced greenhouse effect." - Richard Benedick, deputy assistant secretary of state, USA
YouTube served up this short clip recently.
I’ve watched it several times.
Upgrade to paid
It’s part of a longer presentation that Sagan did in Feb. 1990.
Carl Sagan Keynote Speech at Emerging Issues Forum
Dr. Sagan's 2/9/1990 address before the 5th Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU, broadcast live on NC Public TV. Sagan spoke at the invitation of former Gov. Jim Hunt, co-creator of the Forum. The speech begins at 6:12.
Up to this point, I had considered Sagan one of the good guys.
Granted, I now accept that anybody can be duped, literally anybody, but is Sagan being a useful idiot here? My gut feel says, unlikely.
In 1990 there was no robust, incontrovertible, science to support a multi-trillion dollar spend to avert a probabilistic calamity. There still isn’t today.
But here he is, first finding a clever rationalization for why the government was right to spend all the wealth of the nation on something that didn’t happen, because well, it could have:
The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars trillion that's the big one with the T.
What could you buy for 10 trillion dollars the answer is you could buy everything in the United States except the land everything every building truck bus car boat plane pencil baby's diaper everything in the United States except the land that's what we've spent on the Cold War.
--
So now let me ask how certain was it that the Russians were going to invade?
--
Remote contingencies if there serious enough have to be prepared for, it's classic military thinking, you prepare for the worst case.
And now that he has given that framing his blessing, he easily conflates that with global warming:
Why doesn't that same argument apply to global warming?
The poor audience has no idea what is happening. Why would they, Sagan is a trusted figure, which is why he was trotted out to win public consent for targeting Empire’s new enemy. Her new windmill.
For those of us who have read Rancourt’s 2019 study, watching this will make perfect sense. We are watching Empire, in public, and in real time, change direction by creating a new boogie man.
Empire’s Religions - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
In summary, all the reviewed data shows that “global warming” suddenly became “a thing”, both in the general culture and in the science community, when the UNFCCC and Earth Summit said it was a thing. Both the UNFCCC and Earth Summit were organized immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union. – Rancourt
And they used, arguably the most trusted man in America, to pull off the swindle.
I will never be able to listen to Sagan the same way again.
Anyway, at the same time I accidentally came across this book put together by Ed Berry.
I had never heard of either before.
Ed Berry Climate Miracle There Is No Climate Crisis Nature Controls Climate Independently Published (2020)
10.9MB ∙ PDF file
About Dr. Ed Berry — Edberry.com
It’s a great book, I just wish these honest, dissident experts in the climate science community would make more of an effort on the production values of the final product. Even if you self-publish, you need to do a much better job on editing and design. The amateur look is a considerable devaluation of the message.
Anyway, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, what Berry has done is masterful.
He has focused on just one item of this intentionally complex story, Carbon Dioxide, the most important item of all, and using the IPCCs own numbers and logic, dismantles the who house of cards. He does it in a way that we ordinary folk can understand.
The reason I really like Berry is because he said this in the book:
The climate myth cripples America.
In South Africa in the 1960's, I saw children with their legs bound with ropes to make them grow up with crippled legs.
Today, in America, I see children with their minds bound with climate myths to make them grow up with crippled minds.
In a world where information abounds, people still believe in myths. Some myths do little damage. Other myths damage our economy, science, technology, national defense, and our minds. To make America great, there is no room for myths that do damage.
A survey, conducted from April 7 to 17, 2020, with an error margin of 3 percent, found 73 percent of Americans now believe our CO2 causes climate change. 54 percent are "extremely" certain it is happening. Only 10 percent of Americans said human-caused global warming was not happening.
Shame on you Sagan, for putting your considerable shoulder behind the crippling of the world’s young minds. Shame. Shame. Shame.
As I commented to one of my long-time readers:
The worst part of the climate story for me is the depressive suffocating pessimistic blanket it has thrown over the young. For me that is the most important reason to break the spell of this poisonous story.
This has been such an important subject for me that it was the first eBook that I put together. The single item that I chose to focus on as the thread that unravels the whole sweater was sea levels.
FREE eBook: The Climate™ - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness, knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself. He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career. He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it, because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion, profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne, that global warming would cause many meters of sea-level rise.
Here are some of my new learnings from Berry.
"Cause" scientists and "Effects" scientists.
There are two kinds of climate scientists: "cause" scientists and "effects" scientists.
All the scientists you reference are "effects" scientists. They focus on the effects of climate change. They tell you climate change causes bad stuff to happen. Then they scare you into believing humans caused the bad stuff.
Their science error is they assume, incorrectly, that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase. They have no idea their core assumption is wrong.
"Cause" scientists focus on the cause of climate change. They are the physicists. And they have proved human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2. (Section 2.4)
The idea that 97 percent of scientists support Globalist Gore is false, and even if it were true it would be irrelevant to science.
According to the scientific method, one proof that a theory is wrong outvotes all scientists who claim the theory is true. (Section 5.2)
There is no climate crisis. Nature controls climate.
I find this distinction helpful and a way to navigate through the “consensus” propaganda they use.
Seeing that we have mentioned Gore, it’s always good to be reminded of what this Nobel Prize winner was saying in 2007.
Berry lays out the IPCC case this way:
IPCC's three theories
The IPCC makes three fundamental claims or hypotheses. For simplicity, we use the word "theory" to include what scientists would call a "hypothesis."
Figure 2.1 shows IPCC's three connected theories:
IPCC's core theory: Natural CO2 stays constant at 280 ppm, or human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
IPCC's second theory: CO2 increase causes global warming.
IPCC's third theory: Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
IPCC's complete theory is human CO2 causes dangerous climate change. To support its complete theory all three theories must be true. If any one of its three theories is not true, then IPCC's complete theory is not true.
We show IPCC's core theory is false, which is sufficient to show IPCC's complete theory is false.
It’s a three-legged stool model!
I love three-legged stools, it has been the foundational model with which I have thought and written about childhood vaccination.
Necessity - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
So, straight out of the blocks, I like Berry, he’s a stool guy!
Next, I had no idea that the IPCC dealt with human CO2 differently. What an incredible sleight of hand.
Natural CO2 and Human CO2 is exactly the same. That’s basic chemistry!
Human CO2 does not stick in the atmosphere. It flows out of the atmosphere as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. (Section 4.1)
Human and natural CO2 will behave the same because their CO2 molecules are the same. If natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years, then the CO2 level would be over a million ppm. (Section 2.8)
Since that has not happened, no CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Griffin said it perfectly in his Introduction to Tragedy & Hope 101:
G. Edward Griffin
If you have ever watched an illusionist perform up-close magic, you know the power of misdirection and sleight-of-hand. Even in a room full of suspicious and attentive observers, the illusionist can fool them all. By exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind and employing his tools of the trade, he will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.
Imagine what an equally talented “network” of political illusionists can accomplish. Performing before an audience of mostly trusting and casual observers, exploiting known weaknesses in the human mind, and employing their tools of the trade, they, too, will deceive the crowd whether it wants to be deceived or not.
Berry helped me with the answer to a simple question. How much of the new CO2 going into the system is ours versus natural?
The 5% Problem
The IPCC has a problem because natural CO2 inflow is 20 times the human CO2 inflow. If IPCC used the Equivalence Principle, it would have to conclude the human CO2 inflow, of 5 percent, would only increase the level of atmospheric CO2 by 5 percent (before we account for how human CO2 adds carbon to the carbon cycle).
So, if every single thing that all humans do in a year, sends 1 particle of CO2 into the world, nature sends 20. So long before we start talking about whether it’s good or bad, this gives us a very simple to understand model of quantum.
Next, if we are putting in 5%, and we are also obsessively measuring the total, we should, by now, be able to see the correlation between what we put in, and the levels of increase. Berry helps with this point also:
Zero Correlation
There are hundreds of examples of time-series correlations that do not have any cause-effect relationship.
Statisticians detrend time-series data before doing a correlation. They have proved the correlation of annual human CO2 emissions with the annual changes in CO2 is zero. Zero correlation means human CO2, is not the cause of the increase in CO2. (Section 3.6)
Next, if we are obsessively measuring the total, and also obsessively measuring temperature, we should find that temperate increases AFTER CO2 increases, right?
Temperature increases occur BEFORE CO2 increases
But modern data show temperature increases occur before CO2, increases and temperature decreases occur before CO2 decreases. Temperature changes precede CO2 changes by 80 to 800 years.
So, this patsy of a gas, cannot be the lone gunman, agree?
At this point we should be able to pack up and send the jury home.
But we continue…
Let’s go back to the first IPCC core theory:
1. IPCC's core theory: Natural CO2 stays constant at 280 ppm, or human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Let’s think about this, if the core theory assumes that before we messed up the world, 280 ppm was a long term “stable” number, that means that the system works to “balance”. If so, that means that all the natural CO2 that comes in, also has to flow out. But for the IPCC models to work they need human CO2 to behave differently, to be more “sticky”. But it’s the same molecule. Chemistry is just Chemistry.
The Magic Demon
Therefore, according to the IPCC, natural CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere and its level remains perfectly in balance, as the physics model explains.
But the IPCC needs a magic demon in the atmosphere to capture human CO2 molecules and make them stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere.
That IPCC anti-science position is the basis of all climate alarmism.
Next, where does the IPCC say that all the natural CO2 is?
Their answer is that 90% of it is in the deep ocean (vs 2% in the surface ocean) and 1.4% is in the atmosphere.
But because of their Magic Demon chemistry their models assume that human CO2 spreads differently. That 61% of our emissions stay in the atmosphere. Because the public has been made deeply ignorant of this subject, they are able to fool us with this bullshit.
Blaming humans is fraudulent.
Rather the IPCC simply inserted into the atmosphere the human carbon it needed to support its core theory and then dumped the remainder in the deep ocean.
This is proof that the IPCC claims human CO2 caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The CO2 level in 2005 was 393 ppm. Subtract 280 ppm to get 113 ppm. This is the CO2 increase above 280 ppm in 2005. This is also 61 percent of the sum of all human CO2 emissions through 2005.
Notice IPCC's circular reasoning. It assumes IPCC's core theory is true. Then it inserts the amount of human CO2 into the atmosphere to satisfy IPCC's core theory. Then it concludes that IPCC's core theory is true. Beautiful circular reasoning.
--
IPCC's human carbon cycle is the basis of all government policies and laws that claim human CO2 causes dangerous climate change. This basis is a fraud.
So, where did the vast majority of the extra CO2 come from?
Where did most of the “extra” CO2 come from? Nature.
Berry showed that a few years ago, when the CO2 level was 413 ppm, natural CO2 was responsible for 380 ppm and the human effect was only 33 ppm, based on IPCC data.
And specifically, which part of nature?
It’s the Ocean!
In 2020, a preliminary paper by Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French uses carbon 14 data to conclude the dominant cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2, since 1750 is natural carbon from the ocean and that human CO2 is a minor cause.
The Skrable et al. paper supports Courtney's 2008 conclusion and Berry's 2020 conclusion that the ocean is the source of the carbon that has caused most of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
So, what’s a really simple way of saying all of this?
Extra CO2 in the atmosphere, sourced from the deep ocean, does not lead to rising temperatures.
You will notice that the sentence makes no mention of humans.
It’s all a fraud.
Once again, shame on you Sagan.
Chapter 8 of Berry’s book lay’s out a good summary of it all.
CHAPTER 8 —THE TRILLION DOLLAR FRAUD
IPCC's climate theory "is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." - Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society, emailed on October 8, 2010.
"Future generations will wonder in amazement how the 21st century world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree - on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections and implausible chains of inference -contemplated a roll-back of the industrial age." -Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology
America paid the IPCC and its supporting scientists a trillion dollars, and they did not get basic physics correct. The IPCC has no use for "cause" scientists because it assumes its core theory is true.
The "effects" scientists tout their "peer-reviewed" papers that assume IPCC's core theory is true before they claim to prove IPCC's core theory is true, in the most blatant example of mass circular reasoning in history.
Science is not UN's goal. The UN uses pseudoscience to achieve its political goals. Their goal is to control you and your country.
This book shows you how to prove the IPCC climate claims are a fraud.
You do not have to be a scientist to use this proof. This proof is not "an opinion" as the alarmists may claim. This proof can win in court.
Here are the steps to prove the IPCC is wrong that you learned in this book:
8.1 IPCC's core theory is the natural CO2 level stayed constant at 280 ppm before and after 1750.
1. Data show the CO2 level rose to 410 ppm by 2020, an increase of 130 ppm.
2. The IPCC assumes its core theory is true, which forces the conclusion that human CO2 caused all the increase above 280 ppm.
3. IPCC agrees that human CO2 emissions are less than 5 percent of natural CO2 emissions.
4. How can less that 5 percent of all CO2, emissions cause 32 percent of the CO2, in the atmosphere? Answer: It can't.
8.2 Multiple lines of evidence prove IPCC's core theory is wrong.
Ice core data prove natural CO2 caused the CO2 increase.
Direct CO2 data prove CO2 was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.
Leaf stomata data prove CO2 was much higher than 280 ppm before 1750.
Statistics prove human CO2 is not the primary cause of the increase in CO2.
IPCC's human carbon cycle is not consistent with its own natural carbon cycle. This is a basic physics error.
Inspection shows IPCC's human carbon cycle is based on IPCC's invalid assumption that its core theory is true. carbon cycle.
The true human carbon cycle shows human CO2 has added only 33 ppm to the CO2 level as of January 2020.
The IPCC 20-percent error bounds of this 33 ppm are 24 ppm and 48 ppm, with these bounds being improbable.
8.3 A simple physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC's data for its natural carbon cycle.
1. This model easily calculates the true human carbon cycle.
2. The true human carbon cycle shows human CO2 has added only 33 ppm to the CO2 level as of January 2020.
3. The IPCC 20-percent error bounds of this 33 ppm are 24 ppm and 48 ppm, with these bounds being improbable.
8.4 The true human carbon cycle shows:
1. If human CO2 emissions were to stop in 2020, the human-caused 33 ppm increase would decrease to 16 ppm in 20 years and to 10 ppm by 2100.
2. Natural CO2 caused about 100 ppm of the CO2, increase since 1750.
3. Human CO2 does not stick in the atmosphere for thousands of years as IPCC claims.
4. Human CO2 is not a threat to the planet.
5. Stopping all human CO2 emissions cannot reverse nature's 100 ppm or stop nature from increasing the level of CO2.
8.5 This proof that IPCC's core theory is false means:
1. All peer-reviewed scientific papers that assume, openly or secretly, that IPCC's core theory is true are invalid.
There is no basis for climate laws, climate regulations, climate treaties, climate brainwashing, and climate environmentalism.
There is no basis to continue funding the IPCC or any research based that assumes IPCC's core theory is true.
There is a basis for removing all textbooks and literature that claim IPCC's core theory is true.
There is a basis for finally telling people the truth about climate change.
And I’d like to also highlight Chapter 7, it’s a very good short history of the birth of this cancerous myth.
If it’s a fraud, then what’s its purpose?
This is from a wonderful comment left by Brian Murphy yesterday:
It seems we are confronted with an edifice made up of the descendants, disciples and detritus of narcissistic psychopaths with superiority delusions and God complexes, groomed to be Malthusian elites and assorted megalomaniacs, with some in-breeding, esoteric exotica and ritual abuse thrown in for good measure. Over a long game with single-minded focus, they’ve been able to plan for and eventually co-opt everything - the long march through the institutions without the communist overtones - simply because we are not like them. All we have in our defence is numbers, and enough of us have to see the threat this edifice is and always has been if we are to break the endless cycle of death and devastation, starting with Tragedy & Hope. Yes, it really is about waking up the normies.
“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over its ashes.”
CHAPTER 7 — THE CLIMATE MYTH ORIGIN
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, 1970.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic." –President Kennedy
7.1 How climate alarmism began.
From the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, to the Earth Summit in June 1992, climate alarmism was born and raised in politics.
Maurice Strong's lifetime goal was to transform the United Nations (UN) into a world government. From November 1970 until December 1972, Strong was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
In 1972, Strong founded and became the first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Strong argued that rich Western countries had benefited by exploiting the earth's natural resources and, therefore, the Western countries must fund the poorer countries so their economies could catch up with America. President Obama supported this UN idea.
Under Strong's leadership, the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference made the environment an international agenda.
Strong commissioned the report by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Their report promotes the Principles of the Stockholm Declaration which encourages people to safeguard natural resources and wildlife, share nonrenewable resources, and indoctrinate the public to believe in UNEP's environmental cult.
7.2 The UN protects and promotes climate theory.
In 1978, Professor Bert Bolin of Sweden and his tiny band of meteorologists proposed that human CO2, emissions cause the rise in atmospheric CO2, and more CO2 increases global temperature. Although he lacked scientific evidence, Bolin believed human CO2, emissions could be harmful.
The International Council for Science (ICSU) and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored the first World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1979. Bolin submitted a paper to the Conference. The WMO put Bolin's theory at the top of its agenda because a new disaster might help WMO get more funding.
Strong realized Bolin's idea that connected human CO2 emissions to potential harmful results would support his goal of transforming the UN into a world government.
In October 1985, the UNEP and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sponsored the First International Conference on Climate Change in Villach, Austria. Bolin presented his theory with an urgent call to action.
The conference concluded that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide could cause an historic rise in global temperature. This was a political conclusion, not a scientific conclusion. Bolin's idea was never tested with the scientific method.
To protect Bolin's theory from critique by the scientific community, Strong set up procedures that would block criticisms of Bolin's theory.
7.3 The Brundtland report, 1987
Strong was a member of the Brundtland Commission. The Brundtland report warned that human CO2 could increase global temperature enough to harm agriculture, increase sea levels, flood coastal cities, and disrupt national economies.
The report called for a major global effort to curb human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It promoted the idea of "sustainability" as a possible solution to human-caused environmental problems.
7.4 The IPCC is born, 1988
In 1988, UNEP and WMO formed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More accurately, it is the "IP-on-CC".
The IPCC Charter states:
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
There is nothing in IPCC's Charter about investigating the cause of climate change. The IPCC merely assumes our CO2 causes climate change.
The U.S. government under President G.H.W. Bush was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC.
Under Strong's control, the IPCC appointed Bolin to be its first chairman and John Houghton, Bolin's supporter, to lead "Working Group 1" that would produce IPCC's climate reports.
Strong made IPCC's goal to produce reports that show human emissions cause climate change. IPCC's goal is NOT to find the real cause of climate change. The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.
Bolin's climate theory survived only because Strong made it a key part of UNEP and IPCC, and then protected this new IPCC climate theory from scientific criticism. This protection was critical because it gave Strong enough time to turn Bolin's climate theory into a political certainty.
Strong's protection of IPCC's climate theory still exists today. Many professional societies and professional journals will not publish scientific papers that disagree with IPCC's first theory. Strong masterminded the perfect crime.
7.5 America promotes the IPCC, 1988
In 1988, James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before a Senate committee chaired by Senator Tim Wirth. Senator Al Gore was on the committee. Hansen predicted the world was headed for a global warming disaster.
The media produced headlines across America and cover stories in Newsweek and Time. Senator Al Gore carried the climate change agenda in America.
In 1990, IPCC's First Assessment Report made global headlines, thanks to UN marketing power. It claimed human CO2 caused global warming and warned that the world must reduce its CO2 emissions by 60 percent immediately to save the planet.
Of course, there are no data that support those IPCC claims.
However, the environmentalists quickly adopted IPCC's climate claims because these climate claims supported and amplified their environmental agenda.
7.6 Earth Summit, 1992
In June 1992, Maurice Strong was Secretary General of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. He chaired the "Earth Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro.
U.S. President G.H.W. Bush and 107 other world leaders attended the conference along with 20,000 climate activists and green lobby members. The UN and the US government paid all attendees' expenses.
Strong declared in his Summit speech,
"A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns. We may get to the point, where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"
Then Strong founded and chaired the Earth Council Alliance where he worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to create the Earth Charter which called for a
"... sustainable global society founded on the principles of respect for the Earth and life in all its diversity, economic and social justice, and a culture of peace and non-violence."
Strong declared,
"the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments."
Strong long supported global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. He said environmental mandates require the eventual dismantling of the power of the nation state:
"It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
"We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change."
In 1992, Al Gore claimed:
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
More accurately, the politics is settled but the science is not.
7.7 Strong becomes UN Under-Secretary General
In 1997, Strong became Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and served as a special advisor to UN head Kofi Annan. Strong used the UNFCCC to stage another mega-conference in Kyoto.
Strong was a leading architect of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that set binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries.
Strong inserted his long-term agenda into the Kyoto Protocol to commit 'developed' countries such as America to reduce CO2 emissions and pay developing nations like China and India.
In 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, with Barack Obama on the board, granted $1.1 million to establish Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which made Strong a CCX director.
Strong died on November 28, 2015. The organizations he created to achieve his political goals are his legacy.
His goal was to turn the United Nations into a world government. He realized the idea that human CO2, emissions increase global temperature, whether true or false, was a key to achieving his goal.
7.8 Environmentalism
Today's climate alarmism did not begin in the normal scientific process. It began in Strong's incubator that protected IPCC's climate theory from scientific critique. It flourished when environmental organizations adopted it into their programs.
After communism fell, environmentalism replaced communism. But it seems to have the same goal of world government as communism.
"Environmentalism" has a moral component. It alleges Man is destructive, unnatural, evil, and guilty of destroying the environment on this planet. Environmentalism is not a science. Its basic premise is nature is good and human is bad. IPCC reports assume the same moral view.
Environmentalism's moral assumption is embedded in Strong's remarks on behalf of the United Nations and in IPCC reports.
If you begin your climate study by assuming nature is good and human is bad, then you will conclude that natural CO2 is good and human CO2 is bad. If your environmental premise is that rising CO2 is bad, then you will assume that human CO2 caused it.
By contrast, physics is amoral. Physics tries to understand nature. Physics will get different answers to climate questions than environmentalism.
7.9 Political actions
Education from grade school through the highest levels must teach rigorous logic and critical thinking. Students must learn to doubt fashionable theories, and to distrust all "hop-on-the-bandwagon" dogma.
US President Trump tweeted on July 10, 2020:
"Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!"
To this day, The UN, all governments (Yes, even the US government), all scientific organizations, all schools, colleges, and universities, and all the major media continue to protect the IPCC climate theory from scientific criticism. If you are in a space they control, they will not allow you to ask any questions that suggests their cult belief is wrong.
Their globalist call "to address climate change" is a diversion from much more important problems. For example, a much greater concern for many countries is protection against an EMP attack.
In 2008, America's EMP Commission warned that America must ensure the safety of its power and information grid against an EMP attack. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a short burst of electromagnetic energy, natural or manmade.
The Obama—Biden administration did nothing to protect Americans for eight critical years.
In 2016, the U.S. Government Accountability Office ("GAO") reported that the federal government had not implemented its recommendations to prevent massive first order of its kind to establish a comprehensive policy damage by an EMP attack.
The EMP Commission warned Congress that an EMP attack would "shut down America's electric power grid." Within a year, 90 percent of Americans would be dead. In March 2019, US President Trump signed an executive order that instructed federal agencies to strengthen America's infrastructure against EMP attacks. It was the first order of its kind to establish a comprehensive policy to improve resilience to EMPs.
Climate change can take decades and it will not kill us.
An EMP attack can take seconds to knock a country into the stone age and kill 90% of the people within a year.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
It’s Now Safe to Say That Home Ownership is Evil
By Kathleen Marquardt|September 9th, 2023
by Kathleen Marquardt
September 9, 2023
Did you ever stop to realize that wanting to achieve the American Dream – a chicken in every pot and two cars in your garage – is “the problem”? Yep! You and your selfish dream are destroying this country. I kid you not.
The article “The problem with America’s high homeownership rate” by Felix Salmon [i] spells it out loud and clear. It begins by telling us that our decades-long love affair with homeownership is not only holding back the economy, but also “hobbling the Federal Reserve (as if their problem isn’t self-inflicted) and exacerbating a national housing crisis.” Nope, sorry. The housing crisis is greatly driven by the big non-governmental organizations (NOGs) gobbling up houses to turn into rentals, for now (a story for another time). And, as in Hawaii, taking people’s property via the insurance companies (other NGOs) denying coverage for the fire damages.
Further down it says there is “a deeply inefficient distribution of where people live”. As if people should not choose where they want to live, but maybe, be directed into 15-Minute Smart Cities? Oh, and also another reason to not own a home – “mortgages have become the primary means of American middle-class wealth creation”. What’s wrong with that? According to Salmon, “The principal amount outstanding on a mortgage slowly declines over time, even as the value of the home (generally) goes up. The result, if everything goes according to plan, is ever-greater home equity, and therefore wealth.”
Uh, isn’t this still America, where freedom, property rights, and free-market capitalism are guiding principles?
So what does Salmon see as wrong with us owning homes? First, “the 36% of households in the middle quintile who don’t own their home at all, and for whom home equity is therefore 0% of their net worth.” Good grief, some people don’t want to own a home and have the responsibility of keeping it up. Yes, there are those (not in the middle quintile {unless they live in the very expensive cities}) who can’t afford to buy a home.
His two bottom lines:
“The result is endemic Nimbyism – knee-jerk local opposition to any attempt to build more desperately needed housing pretty much anywhere.”
“All humans need shelter. But homeownership has created a class of winners (think of everyone smugly sitting on a mortgage fixed at #% regardless of what the Fed does) – who also have a financial incentive to deny new shelters to others.”
I suggest that it isn’t the homeowners who are denying new shelter to others; it is the NGOs such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and the rest who believe Klaus Schwab’s “You will own nothing and be happy” – is only for those 1% of the 1%ers.
Oh, in re the chicken in every pot, come on – the non 1 %ers are supposed to be eating bugs, not meat. And, as for the two cars in every garage, let’s face us, few in the middle quintile can afford one electric car (EV) let alone two. And they sure as heck can’t afford a charging station in their garage.
Let’s face it. The American dream is becoming a myth, but not because the middle class owns their own homes. It is because they are being taxed, regulated, and generally being driven out of their private property. It is past time to put a stop to this. The “shelter” those in power would like to see us in belongs on the gulag archipelago.
EVERYTHING Wrong with the new proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty:
James Corbett interviews Dr. Meryl Nass on her acclaimed new connect-the-dots article exposing how the WHO’s proposed treaty will increase man-made pandemics. Learn how cataclysmic lab escapes become increasingly inevitable in a science fiction futurescape where 94+ countries are “incentivized and encouraged” to perform gain-of-function experiments and to share their weaponized genomic sequences with member states through a vast new “biodefense” surveillance network.
Seven Proofs: Why Human CO2 does not control the CO2 level or the climate
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Here are seven proofs that human CO2 does not control the CO2 level. My published papers describe these proofs, but this summary may help people understand these proofs.
Tell me what you think of these seven proofs in your comments. You may download a PDF of this post here.
Fundamentals:
CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows through your bathtub.
Half-life is how long it takes for the level to decrease by half with no inflow.
IPCC’s core theory:
(a) Natural CO2 stayed constant at 280 ppm after 1750.
(b) Human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm, or 140 ppm today.
(c) This theory makes human CO2 33% of today’s CO2 level of 420 ppm.
(d) Human CO2 half-life is 1000 years.
Here are seven proofs (not opinions) that show IPCC’s core theory is false.
IPCC argues, “Nature absorbs human CO2. So, nature cannot also emit CO2. So, human CO2 increased CO2.” This circular argument assumes (a) is true to prove (a) is true.
Natural CO2 and human CO2 flow independently through the atmosphere. When at equilibrium, the percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere equals the percent of human CO2 in the CO2 inflow, which IPCC says is about 5%. So, human CO2 is about 5% (or 20 ppm), not 33% (or 140 ppm) as IPCC’s core theory claims.
IPCC data show the natural CO2 half-life is 2.4 years. Human CO2 half-life cannot be 1000 years because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so their half-lives are identical, or 2.4 years. To get 1000 years, IPCC needs a fictitious magic demon to trap human CO2 and let natural CO2 go free.
Human CO2 has added only 1% to the total carbon in the carbon cycle, which adds only 4 ppm to the CO2 level. So, there is no climate emergency.
(D14C + 1000) measures the carbon-14 in a sample of carbon-12. The natural level of (D14C + 1000) is 1000. Human CO2 has no carbon-14, so it lowers D14C. If human CO2 were 33% of CO2, it would lower (D14C + 1000) from 1000 to 666. But (D14C + 1000) is still 1000. This proves human CO2 is insignificant to the CO2 increase.
Human CO2 cannot have caused the CO2 increase before 1955 because the sum of all human CO2 emissions before 1955 is less than the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
The COVID-caused 20% decrease in human CO2 emissions did not slow the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 because natural CO2 causes the CO2 increase.
Conclusions
We used the scientific method to prove IPCC’s core theory of human CO2 is false. These proofs supersede all opinions, claims, and votes that this IPCC theory is true.
Natural CO2, not human CO2, causes the CO2 increase. Decreasing human CO2 emissions will not lower the CO2 level. Carbon capture is a waste of engineering talent and money.
Most humans follow groupthink rather than truth. So, the belief that human CO2 drives the CO2 increase may be the biggest public delusion and most costly fraud in history.
https://edberry.com/about-dr-ed-berry/longer-bio/
Lancet Paper Inadvertently Discloses Data on Vaccination Worsening Long-COVID Symptomatology
I have seen patients in my practice become progressively more ill with fatigue, weakness, hair loss, headaches, effort intolerance, sleep disturbance and in some cases cardiac and neurological symptoms with progressive mRNA injections every six months. Meanwhile the Biden Administration US HHS National Action Plan on Long COVID-19 has been running a billion dollar research plan with no consideration that the vaccine could be the cause of symptoms. The medical literature is loaded with papers on long-COVID ignoring the fact the same patient groups have all been taking COVID-19 vaccines. In essence, there is a global coverup of vaccine injury syndromes as “long-COVID.”
The Fallacy of “Live and Let Live”
By Pastor Butch Paugh
August 13, 2023
It is impossible for a righteous man to peaceably co-exist with evil.
Before we can begin to purge and destroy evil from society, we must first purge ourselves of evil deeds and even “thoughts” that are contrary to His Word as we are instructed to in scripture. (Romans 12:1-2, Philippians 2:5 & 4:8, Ephesians 4:22-24, II Corinthians 10:5, Hebrews 4:12 & II Timothy 1:7) The war between the “old” man (flesh) and the new man born of The Spirit is an ongoing battle. (Rom. 6:11-14 & Galatians 5:24-25) We are plainly and expressly warned in Heb. 10:26-31 and II Peter 2:19-22 about the deadly seriousness of returning back to the “world” (sin) after we have accepted Christ as our Savior! Only after we get the beam (sin) out of our own lives can we begin to help rid society of evil! (Matthew 7:1-5) In verse one, Christ does not tell us not to judge! Verses 15-20, in Matthew 7, clearly tell us “what” and “how” to judge between the righteous and the evil by their fruits (works)! As a matter of fact, Christ Himself tells us to judge with righteous judgment. (John 7:24)
Now that we have laid the foundation on the “Christian’s” need to purge her/himself and the duty to live righteously, we can move forward in our duty to demand, with authority in Christ, that our nation’s laws uphold God’s moral standards in all spheres of life! Brothers and sisters that are truly living in Christ and understand the statement made in the beginning of this article will accept this article in the spirit of righteous indignation in which it was written!
John Wesley once made this very serious and almost prophetic statement, “What one generation tolerates, the next will embrace.” How true and accurate Mr. Wesley was! It would take many pages to bring forth the solid evidence on all the ways we have compromised (tolerated) evils, large and small, to get where we are today in our once blessed nation! Romans 12:9 gave us clear instruction on how we have lost so much of the understanding of God’s Word that we don’t’ even know what evils we have tolerated and committed! In II Cor. 6:14-18 we are commanded to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers and that includes their institutions and governments! One huge reason the “church” in America has lost its authority and desire to confront and destroy evil is that we don’t dare bite the hand that feeds us!
We all have sold our birthright as Americans. Especially the “professed” believers in the church! Need I say more than “501c3” (idolatry)?! If you don’t have any idea of what I am saying, more is the pity! That’s one huge explanation of why our nation is being turned into hell. (Psalm 9:17)
The following quotes say it pretty well! “We the people” need God! We have damned our posterity to slavery and decadence! Galatians 4:16 may come into play here. I’m certain some will be offended by the truth contained in this writing. Truth does offend! Christ was crucified because He told the truth! Amos 8:11 and Ecc. 8:11 are now our judgment!
“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace is your sin.” Abraham Kuyper -1837-1920 (Prime minister, Netherlands)
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath future generations”. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“In the world it is called tolerance, but in hell it is called despair, the sin that believes in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die. Dorothy Sayers
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” G.K. Chesteton
“That what is passively accepted by a people in practices will tell more about what they embrace as good and true then all of their verbal declarations to the contrary. Aristotle
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury and a man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stewart
The famed 19th Century revivalist and major contributor to America’s “Second Great Awakening,” Charles Finney, said the following: “If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.” I believe Finney was absolutely correct.
Since I have probably already alienated many people with the blunt truth, let’s move on with even more brain numbing facts that your 501c3 church hireling will not tell you.
Let’s list a few “evils” the “people of God” have tolerated and allowed to promulgate and infest society. Thievery through ungodly taxation, covetness through accepting “men’s benefits”, destruction of our children’s minds and souls through and by a government run and controlled public “fool” system. And we “say” we love our children! We remained silent as one atheist was “chosen” by wicked men to take the last vestige of hope out of the public fool system in 1963! We “whined, cried and begged ‘our government’ gods” to stop the murder of babies! The same “gods” gave into the sexual deviants by “legalizing” gross sexual perversion in same sex marriage! Instead of rebuking the evil and spitting in the eye of the devil and his minions we, as usual, set on our “pews” and “silently” prayed and waited for the rapture!
I think it would benefit us immensely to read Revelation 3:15 and Matthew 10:32-42 again. Especially Mt. 10:34! Let us, the truly called ones, (Ekklesia) read, believe and obey Ps. 26:4-5 and 139:21-22. Evil will not relent or be turned away by tolerance or understanding!
Let’s get on the firing line NOW!!
© 2023 Butch Paugh – All Rights Reserved
Moving people to quarantine is good if you want to install things - but if you are stealing real estate it gets pretty obvious pretty quick. Better to scare them out so they pay their own expenses of going elsewhere. As much as possible, you want "free range" solutions.
Based on what I saw at HUD and during the pandemic, tactics depend on local jurisdictions (local laws, local resources) as well as the covert operations they choose to use locally at the same time. The success of the operations depend on several lines acting in concert: intelligence/surveillance, government in health area, banks and insurance companies, media, real estate developers and investors. This coordination already exists in the management of places, but it is hard for most people to see or fathom. The sweet spot is the amount of real estate that can be picked up and the capital gains this translated into for investors, public traded company etc and the political donations that flow to politicians from capital gains.
Tactics revolve around various options of getting fee title to land and real estate:
1. Force a sale: Do things that shut down private business and personal income and or lower the value of the real estate (including by radically increasing costs, like cost of remediation or requiring installation in new sewer systems or equipment etc) and/or permit the cancellation of insurance. A lot of helpful tactics can be applied through lenders, banks and insurance providers who are playing ball.
2. Condemnation to deal with "pathogens" [this is what WHO Pandemic Treaty aims to do among other enslavement things]
3. Eminent domain - prices will be much lower presumably after the "pathogens" are found
4. Emergency money to help - except all the money goes to "insiders" who are moving in or are playing local person helping the insiders move in and take over
5. Supporting media- very gaslighting - see video here for example https://home.solari.com/deep-state-tactics-101-part-iii-with-catherine-austin-fitts/
6. Poisoning - poisoning of individuals or failures of water systems will cause disability and death which are likely to force sales
In all cases you want to keep things as complex as possible under the guise of "helping" - you will have heavy surveillance of all parties and your covert operations and media in combination can take care of isolating or compromising individual parties who are slowing you down or stopping you. Covert operations will by and large be done by or through corporate contractors and mob (drug cartels)
Imagine this: You’re tasked with vaccinating the population, but there’s a large swath of people, no matter what you bribe them with or take away, who simply won’t go along with the program. This noncompliant demographic (the unvaccinated) represented somewhere between 19% and 30% of the U.S. population during COVID-19, depending on how you do the numbers, as reported by The Epoch Times.
So, what do you do about the noncompliant?
Well, researchers at Yale have recently made a scientific breakthrough. According to their paper titled, “Polymer nanoparticles deliver mRNA to the lung for mucosal vaccination,” they successfully developed a new airborne method of delivery for mRNA vaccines.
The researchers in this study developed an inhalable form of an mRNA vaccine for pulmonary diseases, including COVID-19. Using biodegradable nanoparticles, they successfully delivered mRNA to cells in the lungs of mice. The mice were reported to be successfully immunized after two nasal doses. Yale researchers concluded that this aerosol-based method is both “safe and effective,” representing a significant advancement in vaccine delivery methods. After showing the ability to deliver mRNA to lung cells in mice, human trials are planned next.
84% of all teen overdose deaths in 2021 were related to fentanyl
Fentanyl-related adolescent overdose deaths nearly tripled between 2019 and 2021, and a quarter of those deaths involved counterfeit drugs — pills like valium, Xanax or Percocet, often obtained from friends or bought through social media
Fentanyl is an incredibly potent synthetic opioid. It’s 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. Just 2 milligrams, equal to 10 to 15 grains of table salt, can be lethal
Having the right tools, such as fentanyl test strips and Narcan (naloxone) in your home or school medical kit can also save lives. Never buy fentanyl tests from friends or online. Always get them from your local health department or a trusted community organization, such as addiction recovery programs, as counterfeit tests are in circulation. Also make sure they’re legal to obtain in your state
Drug makers are now working on anti-opioid vaccines, one for heroin, one for oxycodone and one for fentanyl. The fentanyl vaccine is said to work by preventing the drug from entering the brain, thus eliminating the "high" users experience, as well as the risk of respiratory depression. The other vaccines work on the same premise
"And then when you combine it with the digital ID, the surveillance [and] the artificial intelligence that is now being developed, you realise they're building a prison planet, and we are the prisoners."
Award-winning journalist, Alex Newman, explains how unelected central bankers are attempting to use CBDCs, in conjunction with digital ID and artificial intelligence, to construct a literal prison planet.
"They want to completely eliminate cash and have everybody use CBDCs, so that everything can be tracked [and] everything can be controlled... These currencies can be programmable, so that if you've already exceeded your carbon footprint, you won't be allowed to buy another steak, or buy an airplane ticket, or put gasoline in your car, or maybe even heat your home."
The Desire to Be God
This should never be the role of science or medicine
Tell that to Larry Page, Google co-founder
What is the role of science?
If science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it?
In the 21st century, society has come to the point where they have allowed the scientific endeavor to operate under the premise that if a scientist can do something, he or she should be able to do that thing. I will say it outright. This is wrong and in some cases it is immoral.
As an example, let’s take the trans movement. This group of people believe that they have the right to change the biological reality of gender through the use of science and medicine. That scientists and physicians, working with the trans movement, have the right to remold society, to the point where gender is considered by many to be a fluid concept. This movement has found willing partners (and financial beneficiaries) in physicians, bio-tech, hospitals, big-tech and pharma who have profited tremendously from this movement by providing drugs, surgeries and services to the trans individual.
The concept of gender fluidity has been pushed on societies and nations across the world in a harmonized and coordinated fashion. This has morphed into the idea that it is a government’s duty to teach children, starting as soon as they are able to conceptualize gender, that gender is something that can be changed through the use of surgery, drugs, hormones, education, behavioral training and conditioning. That it is the “right” of every child to move from one gender to another, regardless of the longterm consequences to individual health, longevity, happiness and the family structure.
This concept of gender fluidity is tearing apart the very fabric of society without any evaluation of the scientific progress that has made it possible for this new concept to be pushed to the mainstream. Even worse, these globalized efforts are have been highjacked by transnational corporations, who are making billions off of pharmaceutical products to support what are largely scientific experiments being conducted on a massive scale on humanity across the world.
Sound familiar? Where have we seen this mentality and “medical (non)ethics” before?
This should not ever have been the role of science or medicine to enable this. It is evil, truly evil
A brief analysis of the hormone suppression drugs, hormones as well as multitude of other drugs being administered to gender “fluid” individuals is shocking. As we all know, these “medications” aren’t just being prescribed to adults, they are also being administered to children. Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine:Department of Medicine has published Practical Guidelines for Transgender Hormone Treatment, which is frankly shocking. The drugs listed in the guidelines have a myriad of side effects and adverse events. No one seems to care.
But this is just one example. Other examples include:The injections of baby blood products into a wealthy elite population, so that they can live longer is occurring across the world
Gain of function research to create new and different viruses continues throughout the world at a break-neck pace.
Bioweapons development programs continue, with almost no oversight.
The agricultural science of factory farming, which has created breeding grounds for new viruses and toxic bacterial strains, has become normalized.
Then there are the weather modification programs, which governments are utilizing with increasing frequencies.
There is even “talk” that head transplant research in humans continues to be conducted in China.
Science knows no bounds. Literally, it has no bounds. No moral or ethical guardrails.
Is a lack of morality in science an immorality? I believe resoundingly, the answer is yes.
There is no hippocratic oath for scientists or science. Yet, science has radically changed culture, society, nature, biology, even the world. Science and scientists act as if the practice and practitioners of “Science” were a Godlike entity, free of moral constraints. The ethics of “Science” (or Scientism) have all too often been twisted to seek to replace the role of God in society.
Science and scientists need a declaration of appropriate behavior and guidance.
A code of ethics. A tradition of do no harm. I fully understand that this oath has not stopped some physicians from doing harm, but at least it is something and it acts as a partial barrier between good and evil, that has stood the test of time.Just because something can be done, that does not mean that it should be done. Pandora opened a jar left in her care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world. In the absence of clear accepted boundaries between the possible and the ethical, once Pandora’s box has been opened, it becomes impossible to reverse the consequences.
Scientific endeavors designed to describe and illuminate the amazingly intricate complexity of the physical world, and to define and describe the truth therein, are essential to comprehending and interacting with that world in a responsible manner. Scientific endeavors seeking to enable modification of man and the natural world, to enable a transhuman fourth industrial revolution where man and machine become one, where man assumes control of his own evolution via synthetic means, these types of activities must have guardrails. Man is not God. Those who advocate for a second bite of the apple demonstrate a profound, narcissistic lack of wisdom and perspective. It only takes one Pandora to destroy paradise. As both Robert Oppenheimer and Robert Malone have learned, once the genie has left the bottle, the Jinn travels on the wind and can never be returned. The consequences cannot be predicted.