Just look at the rates of booster administered. This must be causing some heartburn among the public health administrative set.
Concentrating on the pediatric population (kids)…
In babies and kids up to four years old, only 0.6% are fully vaccinated. About 5% have completed the primary series and 9% to 11% have had at least one dose.
The 5-11 year olds also are no longer getting vaccinated. Less than 5% have had a booster and only 33% have completed the 2-shot series.
It is believed that not being able to do extracurricular activities without vaccination, caused the 12-17 year olds to get vaccinated. But the good news is that only 8% have been boosted.
Frankly, these numbers are extraordinary. Parents are no longer vaccinating with this experimental vaccines.
The vast majority of adults have not had a booster!
I think we all deserve a big thanks for spreading the message. This is a world-wide group effort to fight big pharma and big government(s) controlling the narrative and we are winning!
The Five Eyes Alliance must be gritting their teeth!
Last Friday, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, classified aspartame, a non-nutritive sweetener widely used in diet sodas, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Other substances that share the designation include gasoline, diesel fuel, engine exhaust, chloroform, DDT, and lead. But despite aspartame’s inclusion among that ominous cadre of chemicals, you can continue drinking diet sodas almost entirely worry-free. Here’s why.
IARC is terrible at science communication
IARC’s cancer classifications may be one of the greatest failures of science communication in the world. The agency reports “hazard” (that is, whether a substance could be dangerous) rather than “risk” (that is, the magnitude of any potential danger). By declaring aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic,” people around the world interpret that message as, “Diet sodas are causing cancer.” As always, context is everything, and IARC’s designations mostly leave that out.
Numerous studies over the years have probed whether aspartame is linked to a higher risk of cancer. The resulting data is essentially a wash. Some studies found a small increased risk, while others found no correlation. Trials in rodents do show that consuming inordinately large amounts of aspartame can cause cancer, but this is true for many chemicals eaten in extreme excess. That’s why the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) reasonably warns people against consuming more than 40 milligrams of aspartame per day per kilogram of body weight. For a 200-pound person, that’s equivalent to drinking 18 cans of diet soda.
“And even this ‘acceptable daily intake’ has a large built-in safety factor,” Sir David Spiegelhalter, an emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge, told the Science Media Center. In other words, the 40 mg/kg/day guideline is a conservative estimate; you could probably consume much more and be just fine. In fact, the JECFA considered the same evidence on aspartame and cancer that IARC did and concluded that the evidence for a link is not convincing, an opinion shared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Obesity risk vs. cancer risk
The IARC’s classification of aspartame as a possible carcinogen undoubtedly will cause a PR headache for food companies utilizing the compound, and perhaps prompt them to reformulate their products to avoid the risk of opportunistic lawsuits. The move unfortunately also may lead drinkers of diet sodas to choose sugar-laden options instead. Physician Walter Willett of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told NPR that would be the “worst possible decision.” The health consequences of consuming large amounts of added sugar — including diabetes and obesity — dwarf the remote cancer risk from aspartame.
The simple truth is that every decision in your life affects your risk of cancer, from how much you sleep, to what you eat for breakfast, to whether you ride your bike or drive to work. How we balance that equation is up to each of us. Some decisions, like smoking and using tanning beds, increase the risk of cancer dramatically. Others, like eating right and exercising, clearly lower it. Many more, like using aloe vera, eating pickled vegetables, and drinking diet sodas, have such a small effect — if any — that it’s not really worth worrying about.
Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images
Getting back at the junk science. In-N-Out Requiring Employees to Show Medical Note to Wear Masks. Who can forget the COVID days when the loons told you that you bascially needed an exemption from Congress to not wear a mask? Or about 50,000 medical doctors approved by Tony the Fauch to not wear a mask? OK I’m stretching it.
Well In-N-Out Burger has loon employees who still think that they’re gonna die if they don’t wear a mask at work. Crazy I know. So In-N-Out wants those workers to have a doctors excuse saying why they have to mask up.
“It stipulates that no employee may wear a mask unless they provide a medical note that exempts them from the requirement. If they provide the medical note, they must wear a company-provided N-95 mask unless they can produce another note exempting them from that requirement too,” it added
Discovering the disinformation playbook An excerpt from ‘The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic’, by Dr. Pierre Kory
Having fought in the “War on Ivermectin” now for almost two and half years, I know most of the military plays. But when I first set foot on the battlefield, I was blissfully unaware of the rules of engagement. Hell, I didn’t even know I was fighting in a war.
One thing was crystal clear to me: Something illicit was happening around ivermectin, and Big Pharma’s fingerprints were all over the crime scene. But in the beginning, I truly believed that the pandemic would be over in a matter of months—just as soon as our review paper was published. The world would know that there was an incredibly effective agent to prevent and treat Covid-19; deaths would stop, and life would resume.
It physically pains me to write that last sentence.
I credit my combat training to two people, both of whom appeared in my life around the same time. The first was a man who writes under the pen name Justus Hope, MD, author of Ivermectin for the World. I had come across his book as well as multiple articles published in a California newspaper called The Desert Review in my research, so I knew who he was when he reached out. We had several in-depth conversations during which he explained his long-standing interest in Big Pharma’s war on repurposed drugs. That interest was triggered by a close friend with brain cancer which led him to the discovery that there were multiple effective repurposed drugs to treat cancer that had long been suppressed by Big Pharma. Early in the pandemic, he published a book called Surviving Cancer, Covid-19, and Disease: The Repurposed Drug Revolution. I was beginning to understand that this was an old, old war.
My second mind-altering mentor during this period was a complete stranger named Bill Grant, PhD, a physicist and the founder and president of the Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center in San Francisco. Bill is also one of the world’s foremost experts on the science behind vitamin D, with more than 300 peer-reviewed papers to his name. Out of the blue, Bill reached out to me in March of 2021 with a simple, two-line email:
Dear Dr. Kory, What they are doing to ivermectin they have been doing to Vitamin D for decades. Bill
The note was followed by a link to an article by a group of scientists detailing precisely how disinformation is used to sway public opinion. Intrigued, I clicked the link.
The article described various disinformation tactics by equating them to American football plays. By the time I got to the end of that article, a switch inside me had flipped. I instantly knew that it was the key to understanding a world that I no longer recognized.
The article went on to detail five primary disinformation “plays” or tactics used by companies or industries when science emerges that is inconvenient to their interests: the fake, the fix, the blitz, the diversion, and the screen. As I read, I could think of dozens of examples for every single one of those maneuvers that had occurred around ivermectin since my senate testimony had gone viral.
The mother of all Macy’s 4th of July fireworks celebrations was going off in my brain; one realization exploding after another, each one brighter and more astonishing than the last.
Holy crap. The FLCCC was in the middle of a disinformation war with the pharmaceutical industry.
From that day on, that conceptual framework was the only thing that could make sense of what had happened and what was yet to happen in my attempts to highlight one of the safest and most effective treatments in any disease in history.
Although each play was widely represented in the events surrounding the Covid response, “the fake” was by far the most prominent—and the most damaging. In regard to repurposed drugs specifically, it involves conducting trials “designed to fail,” selectively publishing negative results while censoring positive results, and planting negative ghost-written editorials in legitimate journals. The article emphasized that these tactics can gravely undermine public health and safety.
You don’t say.
“The fake” formed the foundation of a campaign that would result in one of the most significant humanitarian catastrophes in history, causing millions of deaths around the world.
To be clear, ivermectin wasn’t the first casualty of World War Covid. The same tactics had been used against hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 2020 and had they not, HCQ would have been deployed at the onset of the pandemic and saved even more lives. The closest and best description of that war I’ve discovered was featured in Robert F. Kennedy’s The Real Anthony Fauci (Skyhorse Publishing, 2021), a brilliant, expertly researched, and undeniably incriminating takedown of “America’s Doctor.”
“HHS’s early studies supported hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against coronavirus since 2005, and by March 2020, doctors from New York to Asia were using it against Covid with extraordinary effect,” Kennedy wrote. By autumn, more than 200 studies supported treatment with hydroxychloroquine. “From the outset, hydroxychloroquine and other therapeutics posed an existential threat to Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates’ $48 billion Covid vaccine project, and particularly to their vanity drug remdesivir, in which Gates has a large stake. Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot qualify for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady.”
In other words, if HCQ or ivermectin had been recognized as a viable treatment, the massive cash cow that was the global Covid-19 vaccine campaign would have been slaughtered on the spot.
Keep in mind that HCQ and ivermectin not only threatened the vaccine campaign, but also the massive and exploding competitive market for other pricey Big Pharma products like Veklury (commonly known by its generic name, remdesivir), Paxlovid, molnupiravir, and monoclonal antibodies. Never in history had two generic, repurposed medicines threatened a marketplace of such a colossal size.
The answer to that pesky little conundrum?
Disinformation.
Over and over, each devious play has been strategically deployed to further the interests of the establishment to the unbridled disservice of mankind.
You can find ‘The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic’ at a bookstore near you.
Someone (who needs to remain anonymous) was able to obtain the death certificates from Minnesota for all deaths that occurred from 2015 to the present, which presented the opportunity to see if the CDC is being entirely honest about the US death data. Unsurprisingly, the CDC is not.
As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.
Background
When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).
Causes of death refer to the medical conditions that ultimately played some role in the demise of the decedent. To qualify as a CoD, a condition only needs to contribute to the medical decline of the decedent in some way, but doesn’t have to be directly responsible for whatever ultimately killed the person. If someone had high blood pressure, and subsequently suffered a heart attack that led to cardiac arrest which killed them, all three conditions qualify as CoD. On the other hand, this unfortunate fellow’s ingrown toenail is not a cause of death, because it in no way contributed to their demise.
This is from the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc, for this article):
The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s.
That’s the CDC’s job.
ICD 10 Coding System for CoD’s
There is a fancy coding system that is used to classify the many thousands of medical conditions that can play a role in death known as the International Classification of Diseases. Every few years, it is updated/revised to keep up with new medical (or bureaucratic) developments as new conditions are discovered, and old conditions are reorganized or reclassified.
The current iteration of the ICD used for the deaths we’re looking at is the ICD 10 (the 10th version). It is basically a hierarchical classification system:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:
These are categories themselves – a code can go as 7 characters long:
(There are other ICD 10 codes for various specific complications or side effects of vaccines, but the point remains that an ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects exists.)
CDC – Centers for Data Concealment
The CDC receives the death certificates from the various states and applies ICD 10 codes. This is primarily done with a secret algorithm, with a tiny percentage of cases adjudicated by CDC staff when the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code to the text description written on the actual death certificate (such as confounding spelling or a text description that does not make much sense). I confirmed this with a biostatistician who works for a DoH in a US state (I’m leaving out which one because I want to preserve my persona grata status). The individual who obtained the MN death certificates likewise confirmed with state officials that the ICD codes in their data were assigned by the CDC.
What a death certificate identifying a covid vaccine as a CoD *should* look like
There are three death certificates in the MN tranche that contain either T88.1 or Y59.0. One is for a flu vaccine reaction, and – surprisingly – the other two are for a covid vaccine.
Note – when used below:
UCoD (Underlying Cause of Death) refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.”
MCoD (Multiple Causes of Death) refers to “the immediate cause of death and all other intermediate and contributory conditions listed on the death certificate.” (everything else)
The first death certificate contains a covid vaccine ICD (below), and it looks like the CDC was trapped and could not avoid putting it on without fundamentally rewriting the death certificate, because the vaccine complication is unambiguously listed as the UCoD (this death certificate is saying the person was killed by a heart attack caused by the covid vaccine within minutes of injection):
The second death certificate the CDC deigned to assign a vaccine ICD (and not only one but *BOTH* vaccine ICD codes(!!)) feels like perhaps a rogue CDC employee was working that day and snuck it in:
In any event, as we can clearly see, both T88.1 and Y59.0 are indeed appropriate for when a covid vaccine is listed as a CoD. Thus the CDC cannot claim that there was no official ICD 10 code that could be used to designate covid vaccines (or any other excuse).
The FRAUD:
With that introduction, below are 7 death certificates from Minnesota that identify a covid vaccine as a cause of death where the CDC omitted the corresponding ICD 10 code identifying a vaccine side effect when the CDC assigned ICD codes to the death certificates.
The first fraudulently filled out death certificate offers a crucial detail highlighting not only the fraud but the naked double standards for assigning CoD’s.
This death certificate identifies both a covid vaccine and covid itself as contributory CoD’s (in the last row highlighted in yellow, vaccine underlined in green, covid in blue):
“covid vaccine second dose 10 hrs prior to death”
“history of covid infection in May 2020” (about 7-8 months prior to death)
Any remotely objective person would presume that if a condition that occurred 7 months prior without any clear link to the actual death still nevertheless meets the standard for being identified as a CoD, then surely a condition or event that occurred a mere TEN HOURS before death identified by the doctor filling out the death certificate merits inclusion as a CoD.
Yet, the CDC assigned U70.1 – “COVID-19, virus identified” – for covid, but neglected to assign T88.1 or Y59.0 for the covid vaccine.
A second point to highlight is that we see that anything mentioned as a CoD, even in the context of “history of” that had (presumably) been long resolved, is a legitimate CoD insofar as assigning an ICD 10 code and epidemiological data are concerned.
This decedent suffered a cardiac arrest that ultimately led to her death *ONE DAY* after being vaccinated.
(For the record, I am not bothered by the “though it’s not clear as to any mechanism for how the vaccine could have led to the cardiac arrest” line. This death occurred February 24, 2021 – well before there was any sort of public awareness about the multiple plausible mechanisms by which the vaccine could cause heart damage. So to me, whoever filled out the death certificate was a gutsy fellow willing to identify a covid vaccine on a death certificate that had his name on it.)
Fraudulent Death Certificate #3
This death certificate doesn’t merely identify a covid vaccine, it explains that the decedent “felt sick after the vaccine” and died 4 days later from a heart attack.Yet, no T88.1 or Y59.0.
This death certificate provides that the decedent received her second dose of Pfizer 18 days prior to her death.
Here we have a 65-year-old male who was killed by a heart attack 12 days after getting vaccinated.
This case is especially noteworthy. Someone involved with this death informed me that the family had to pressure the coroner to put the recent covid booster on the death certificate. A family member also filed a VAERS report themselves, after the patient’s doctors declined to do so.
Furthermore, the CDC applied W34 as the UCoD. What is W34 for?
‘accidental discharge and malfunction from other and unspecified firearms and guns.’
There is no mention of any firearms mishaps on the death certificate.
One would have to wonder how such an errant code came to be, especially on a death certificate that contains other ICD 10 shenanigans. It is unlikely that ‘Y590’ or ‘T881’ would be ‘misspelled’ or algorithmically mixed up with ‘W34.’
Perhaps if there were no other instances of fraudulent omittance of vaccine ICD codes on other death certificates, and the CDC wasn’t in the habit of routinely assigning U07.1 for a covid infection that resolved a year ago, the failure to include T88.1 or Y59.0 here could be excused.
At minimum, this death certificate should contain T88.0 – ‘Infection following immunization’ – to document the breakthrough infection (which is a subject for a separate article as this seems to be fairly widespread).
Additional Observations
The following table shows the date of death and age for all 9 death certificates shown above that identified a covid vaccine as a CoD:
It is striking that 7/9 died before May 2021. This is odd – if anything, the deaths should skew later, not earlier. Vaccine adverse events were denied – with maximum prejudice and then some – for many months before the medical mainstream has finally (begrudgingly) started to acknowledge that the covid vaccines can trigger potentially lethal pathologies (in exceedingly rare instances to be sure).
The clustering of death certificates mentioning a covid vaccine at the beginning of the rollout suggests that ‘administrative’ interference likely played a role in discouraging coroners from mentioning a covid vaccine on death certificates.
Another noteworthy tidbit here is the age of the decedents: every single one is a senior citizen, and the average age of the decedents is 80. This is important to highlight because whereas young people “dying suddenly” stands out, there has been much less attention or acknowledgement of the covid vaccine’s devastating toll upon the old and frail, where deaths – even those that occur in close proximity to vaccination – are readily attributed to prior health conditions.
Finally, the actions of the CDC call into question whether the CDC is altogether qualified or trustworthy enough to be the steward of the nation’s epidemiological data. The CDC manages many of the datasets that underpin whole fields of study. If the CDC is willing to fraudulently alter data (or even if the CDC is just too incompetent to avoid corrupting data), all data under the aegis of the CDC is potentially suspect, especially if it relates to a controversial political or social issue. The implications of this are disturbing, to say the least.
Serious adverse events from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are not “rare”
Despite repeatedly claiming that serious harms of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are RARE, an investigation found no drug regulator could quantify the rate. Experts say it’s “hypocritical.”
Drug regulators and public health agencies have saturated the airways with claims that serious harms following covid vaccination are “rare.”
But there has been very little scrutiny of that claim by the media, and I could not find an instance where international agencies actually quantified what they meant by the term “rare” or provided a scientific source.
The best evidence so far, has been a study published in one of vaccinology’s most prestigious journals, where independent researchers reanalysed the original trial data for the mRNA vaccines.
The authors, Fraiman et al, found that serious adverse events (SAEs) – i.e. adverse events that require hospitalisation – were elevated in the vaccine arm by an alarming rate – 1 additional SAE for every 556 people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.
According to a scale used by drug regulators, SAEs occurring at a rate of 1 in 556 is categorised as “uncommon,” but far more common than what the public has been told.
Therefore, I asked eight drug regulators and public health agencies to answer a simple question: what is the official calculated rate of SAEs believed to be caused by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and what is the evidence?
Not a single agency could cite the SAE rate of Pfizer’s vaccine. Most directed me to pharmacovigilance data, which they all emphasised does not establish causation.
The Australian TGA, for example, referred me to the spontaneous reporting system but warned, “it is not possible to meaningfully use these data to calculate the true incidence of adverse events due to the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems.”
Both the German regulator (PEI) and European CDC referred me to the European Medicines Agency which, according to its own report, saw no increase at all in SAEs. “SAEs occurred at a low frequency in both vaccinated and the placebo group at 0.6%.”
The UK regulator MHRA went so far as to state it “does not make estimations of a serious adverse event (SAE) rate, or a rate for adverse reactions considered to be causally related for any medicinal product.”
The US FDA, on the other hand, did conceded that SAEs after mRNA vaccination have “indeed been higher than that of influenza vaccines,” but suggested it was justified because “the severity and impact of covid-19 on public health have been significantly higher than those of seasonal influenza.”
Despite analysing at the same dataset as Fraiman, the FDA said it “disagrees with the conclusions” of the Fraiman analysis. The agency did not give specifics on the areas of disagreement, nor did it provide its own rate of SAEs.
Expert response
In response to the criticism, Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor and lead author on the reanalysis said, “To be honest, I’m not that surprised that agencies have not determined the rate of SAEs. Once these agencies approve a drug there’s no incentive for them to monitor harms.”
Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor, New Orleans, Louisiana
Fraiman said it’s hypocritical for health agencies to tell people that serious harms of the covid vaccines are rare, when they have not even determined the SAE rate themselves.
“It’s very dangerous not to be honest with the public,” said Fraiman, who recently called for the mRNA vaccines to be suspended.
“These noble lies may get people vaccinated in the short term but you’re creating decades or generations of distrust when it’s revealed that they have been misleading the public,” added Fraiman.
Dick Bijl, a physician and epidemiologist based in the Netherlands, agreed. “It goes to show how corrupted these agencies are. There is no transparency, especially since regulators are largely funded by the drug industry.”
Dick Bijl, physician and past President of the International Society of Drug Bulletins
Bijl said it’s vital to know the rate of SAEs for the vaccines. “You must be able to do a harm:benefit analysis, to allow people to give fully informed consent, especially in young people at low risk of serious covid or those who have natural immunity.”
Bijl said the mainstream media has allowed these agencies to make false claims about the safety of vaccines without interrogating the facts.
“The rise of alternative media is strongly related to the lies being told by the legacy media, which just repeats government narratives and industry marketing. In the Netherlands, there is a lot of discussion about the distrust in public messaging,” said Bijl.
The United States is now investigating how to inject chemicals into the atmosphere in order to block out the sun.
The idea is to use a “stratospheric aerosol injection” to essentially mimic the effects of the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, where the sun is blocked out for a prolonged period of time. The goal here is, however, to somehow reduce greenhouse gases.
What could possibly go wrong?
The research, which was done by the Office of Science and Technology Policy on a congressional mandate, created a plan for “solar and other rapid climate interventions.”
Besides injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, it also looked into “marine cloud brightening,” which makes clouds less reflective, as a way to allow more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface.
Mexico in January banned these types of experiments.
A company called “Make Sunsets” had begun experiments on solar geoengineering in Baja California, in December 2022. It launched weather balloons that were releasing sulfur particles into the stratosphere.
It was a small experiment that used less than 10 grams of sulfur dioxide. But Mexico wasn’t having any of that. The country banned future programs on solar geoengineering. An official statement from its Ministry of Environment and National Resources notes that since 2010, under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, there is a moratorium against the use of geoengineering.
It states: “Solar geoengineering practices seek to counteract the effects of climate change, through the emission of gases into the atmosphere such as sulfur dioxide, aluminum sulfate, among others. This process induces the sun’s rays to be reflected back into space, thus avoiding the increase in temperature in a specific geographical area.”
Yet it adds something important. Apparently, the harm of programs like this is known.
According to the Mexican government, “there are enough studies that show that there would be negative and unequal impacts associated with the release of these aerosols, which cause meteorological imbalances such as winds and torrential rains, as well as droughts in tropical areas; in addition to generating impacts on the thinning of the planet’s ozone layer.”
Interest in the concept started after a volcanic eruption in 1991 in the Philippines. Mount Pinatubo blasted 20 million metric tons of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. This sparked interest among climate change enthusiasts because the natural disaster caused a cooling in global temperatures that lasted for two years.
But risks or not, and regardless of studies already showing the harm such programs would have, there are people set on moving forward.
Billionaire Bill Gates made headlines in 2019 when he was funding a new program to replicate the effects of a massive volcanic eruption.
Interestingly, the program he was backing falls under the “stratospheric aerosol injection” concept that the White House is now saying it’ll look into. According to CNBC, under the Gates program, “Thousands of planes would fly at high altitudes, spraying millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the surface.”
Of course, programs such as this predate that. In 2018, the journal Environmental Research Letters had a study from a pair of researchers at Harvard and Yale that proposed the idea of “stratospheric aerosol injection.” It notes a body of research on the concept, mainly from 10 to 20 years ago, but also notes there was a proposal as well from the National Academies of Science in 1992.
LiveScience noted in 2018 that a program to “Spray Cheap Chemicals in the Air to Slow Climate Change” would be surprisingly cheap. It would cost about $3.5 billion over the course of about 15 years. Once it’s ready to go, it would cost another $2.25 billion each year.
It notes that if the solar dimming chemicals were sprayed in the stratosphere, the effect would last for a year to 18 months.
Recreating ‘The Worst Year to Be Alive’?
So why did the Mexican government ban it, if research groups in the United States seem to still be interested?
Well, it goes back to the idea of a volcanic eruption.
Remember, the technology is meant to mimic the solar dimming effect of a massive volcanic eruption. If they did that using chemicals, it would last at least a year, and current proposals would drag this out for around 15 years. So what does that look like in practice?
Again, what could possibly go wrong?
Well, we can look back to the year 536 A.D., popularly known as “the worst year to be alive.”
What was so bad about it? Well, there was darkness for 18 months. And what was the cause of it? It was unknown for most of history, but climate change scientists have since discovered it was caused by a volcanic eruption.
As Science reported in 2018, the Climate Change Institute of The University of Maine discovered that a massive volcano in Iceland erupted in 536 A.D. and spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere. It was followed by two other massive eruptions in 540 and 547 A.D.
Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that during the time, “the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed.”
Science reported that temperatures dropped by about 1 degree Celsius. Remember, the Mount Pinatubo eruption that inspired the current research dropped temperatures by around 0.1 degree Celsius.
Regardless, back to 536, Science cites medieval historian Michael McCormick, who noted that “Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record ‘a failure of bread from the years 536–539.’”
It also was cited as a likely cause of a deadly plague that killed around 50 million people. The Sun reported in 2019 that the eruption in 536 also led to “famine and a collapse of the global economy” while “Some experts even believe the eruptions are linked to a major plague pandemic. The Justinian Plague started in 541 A.D. and killed around as many as 50 million in just 12 months as it spread across the Mediterranean.”
A new document from the White House revealed the Biden administration is researching methods of how to engineer Earth's atmosphere to limit the sun's rays and stave off climate change. (NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory via Getty Images)
So what’s next? Make a pair of sunglasses for the sun? White House report signals openness to manipulating sunlight to prevent climate change. Solar Radiation Modification. So the WH is looking into Junk Science again? This from FOX.
A research document published on the White House website reveals the Biden administration is open to studying how to block sunlight to save the Earth from climate change.
The congressionally mandated report released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Friday shows that the team has been researching “geoengineering” methods to keep the sun rays from accelerating global warming.
As the University of Oxford notes in its entry on the subject, “geoengineering” is “the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.”
The White House revealed it is studying ways to alter the Earth’s atmosphere to block the sun’s rays and slow climate change. (David L. Ryan/Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Transgender advocates have a right to their views, but they don't have a right to brainwash our kids with them.
Getty Images
If a so called scientist says Transgender is the norm, they’re practicing junk science. Sadly the folks making the loudest noise are white progressives who’s education barely goes past the eight grade.
There is a male and a female. Not male who thinks they’re female and vice versa. Also the numbers are small. How small? A staggering 99%-plus of the population does not have the physical traits that cause someone to become transgender. People with gender dysphoria — a condition that causes extreme distress — deserve empathy and respect. But only a miniscule 0.6% of the adult population has it, says the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, an LGBTQ think tank.
So why would you teach this to normal children? More children claim to be transgender, but isn’t that because you have adults who have their attention ( Teachers ) 6-8 hours a day? And adults who tell the children to keep this hid from their parents.
Normal, no. It is a rare condition. Most gender dysphoria manifests in early childhood, according to a 2020 study at Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles, so guidance counselors and teachers should be trained to offer families help. But there’s no reason to incorporate it into the curriculum, inviting children to choose their pronouns and confusing the 99% who don’t have the condition.
Can normalcy win this? The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled last year that an Ohio public university could not force a professor to address transgender students using their chosen pronouns contrary to the professor’s Christian beliefs. This month, Shawnee State University agreed to pay the professor $400,000 to settle his suit.
Looking. Top Canadian politician apologizes to unvaccinated, “we were wrong…” she makes unprecedented promise.
Danielle Smith, the current premier of Alberta in Canada, has done something remarkable. She took the bold and unprecedented step of apologizing to unvaccinated Canadians who’ve faced unfair treatment from the government throughout the “pandemic.”
But Ms. Smith actually went beyond just issuing an apology, Danielle actually made a promise: anyone who was terminated from their job due to their refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine will be reinstated.
Wow. That’s not the type of humility you hear from politicians everyday, is it? Comedian and conservative podcaster Jimmy Dore was actually blown away by this apology and covered it at length.
This apology and promise form Ms. Smith sends a powerful message to globalist elites: you were all wrong, and everybody knows it. Thanks to her humility, Danielle Smith has set a new standard in political leadership. Her acknowledgement of the horrors faced by the unvaccinated and her willingness to take responsibility for the government’s disgusting actions during the pandemic show she has the potential to be a good leader.
However, the proof is in the pudding. The next time something like this happens — and you know it will — Danielle better be on the side of the people, not the government.
