Category Archives: Health and medicine

Bringing Bolshevik manners back

Just a few decades ago the Soviet regime ordered its physicians to send all those who disagree with communism into closed mental asylums. Communism is paradise, they reasoned. Anyone who doesn’t want to live in paradise simply must be a total clinical moron, if not a village idiot.

The world was shocked, and Soviet psychiatrists came under fire of heavy criticism wherever they would appear, ostracized all over the world.

Now, taking their cue from the Bolsheviks, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons have tried a bit of copycatting. They sent out an official suggestion to their members to either prescribe psychiatric medications or order treatment in closed psychiatric institutions for all those who disagree with the official news releases announcing that there exists a viral pandemic as well as those who don’t believe that they need to be vaccinated to be protected against it.

It was physician and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis who blew the whistle. Speaking to Gateway Pundit, an American website that the current establishment hates more than the sound of a dentist’s drill inside their mouths, Dr. Makis elaborated: “So this has come out recently out of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college sent out a letter or a memo to all the doctors in Ontario suggesting to them now, so far, they’re not mandating it, they’re just suggesting it, that any of their unvaccinated patients, that they should consider that they have a mental problem and that they should be put on psychiatric medication. So far, it’s just a suggestion.”

His opinion?

“But the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario should not be making these kinds of suggestions. This is extremely unethical and this is a very, very slippery slope. If they’re suggesting that people who wish to have bodily autonomy and don’t want an experimental vaccine, that there may be something mentally wrong with them, that is a very, very dangerous, slippery slope that we’re on.”

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia and other such unreliable sources spew venom on Gateway Pundit, calling it a far-right fake news website that is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories?

The Swiss have gone off the rock, too

Dr. Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections, has been locked up in a psychiatrist asylum for speaking out against government’s Covid regulations.

Armed with a doctorate in immunology and virology from the University of Zürich, Dr. Binder has been specialising in internal medicine and cardiology.

Still the Swiss government have deemed him insane for speaking out against Covid regulations.

Here’s more detail: since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, Dr. Binder has been an outspoken critic of Covid restrictions. After he gave his own analysis on his private website, Dr. Binder was in for a mother of all shocks: 60 armed police officers and 20 members of the Kantonspolizei (regional police) Aargau’s anti-terrorism unit forcibly removed the good old doctor from his home. The authorities’ thugs searched through the doctor’s online activity and could not find anything to use against him.

Still, they brought in an emergency room doctor. It was this doctor who would describe Dr. Binder as a person suffering from “corona insanity,” a novel complaint that has not yet been described in medical books.

Dr. Binder was locked away in a mental asylum for questioning the Covid narrative.

Yet, Dr. Binder refuses to be silenced. He is now a member of the Doctors for Covid Ethics and the German Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom, and Democracy.

Meanwhile, back in Ontario

Dr. Makis also spoke about the shocking series of deaths. He meant the 93 doctors’ tragic fates, assigning the fault to the vaccine rollout.

He wrote a letter to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), demanding serious analysis of the unbelievable increase in mortality among Canadian medical professionals, linking them all to the implementation of mandated vaccinations for medical personnel.

Writing on his Gettr account, Dr. Makis claimed that he had caught fact-checkers lying flagrantly about a Canadian doctor’s sudden death.

Three physicians at Canada’s Trillium Health Partners-Mississauga Hospital died unexpectedly within the same week.

A nurse who shared this information was very specific: the three doctors died after the hospital started mandating the fourth Covid shot for their employees.

“Three physicians at the Mississauga hospitals have died this week,” the unidentified nurse said. “1st memo Monday, 2nd Tuesday, 3rd Thursday. (The) cause of death wasn’t shared in the memos, but how many times have three doctors died in one week, days after the hospital started administering the fourth shot to staff?”

These three physicians were Dr. Lorne Segall (July 17), Dr. Stephen McKenzie (July 18), and Dr. Jakub Sawicki (July 21), all dates in 2022.

The hospital dismissed the social media speculation that their deaths were all related to the Covid-19 vaccination as “simply not true,” providing no facts to support their statement.

“It is with deep sadness that THP mourns the loss of three of our physicians who recently passed away. Dr. Jakub Sawicki, Dr. Stephen McKenzie and Dr. Lorne Segall were respected physicians who dedicated their lives to caring for their patients and community,” tweeted the hospital.

Another tweet followed: “The rumour circulating on social media is simply not true. Their passings were not related to the Covid-19 vaccine. We ask to please respect their families’ privacy during this difficult time.”

Remember the rule: never believe any rumours until and unless they are officially denied.

Respectful as becomes well-mannered physicians who know their bedside manners, Dr. Makis retorted that Dr. Lorne Segall had died suddenly of a pulmonary embolism and blood clots in the lungs.

Medical community are now in overwhelming agreement that these are not symptoms of cancer in any shape or form. These are symptoms of passing caused by the impact of the so-called anti-Covid vaccines.

And, Dr. Makis pointed out, he knew that the late Dr. Segall had been fully vaccinated when he died.

What is it all about?

Simple, in three words: divide and rule.

While the argument touches upon tragedy, it is important to remember that the idea behind it is to divide humanity along the lines of internecine arguments, keeping their attention away from the genocidal plans known as The Great Reset.

Advertisement

Halloween gets a kick in the pants

Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat, not too big and not too small, just the size of Montreal.

This song, or any variation of it, won’t be heard in the streets of Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania this Halloween. The politically correct school board cancelled the annual parade because “families that do not celebrate Halloween” might not feel included.

Here’s the logic: for reasons of their own, those families have excluded themselves, which means nobody else may have a bit of fun.

The other reason: safety concerns.

Given the lawlessness that governs America’s streets these days, this reason makes a bit more sense, except: it’s not so difficult to make sure nothing untoward happens when kids join the annual spree of unhealthy diets.

The Lower Merion School District includes six elementary schools.

Amy Buckman, director of school and community relations, confirmed the decision, Fox News Digital reported.

Why? Because there exist “concerns for the safety and security of students parading outside among a crowd of unscreened adults.”

Considering the kids who walk to and from school encounter similarly “unscreened” adults, this justification ranks with the best hogwashes of all time.

The bilge got even better: “Another (reason) is the lack of inclusivity of students whose families do not celebrate Halloween for religious or cultural reasons.”

Does it mean all those who do celebrate these events must forthwith stop observing Rosh Hashanah or Ramadan, to use just these two polar opposites?

Not to worry: schools will still be hosting “fun fall activities” in the classroom, Buckman told Fox News Digital.

What relief!

And what a comparison to the fact that this same district had been holding the parades for more than 50 years.

The district went so far in their incredible generosity that it allowed children to come to school in costumes if they wanted to. With a caveat: if they do dress up, children should “dress in a way that reflects something unique about them, their interests, culture or personality.”

And, besides, the costumes should also not include any weapons and should allow the child to move freely.

Thus the word from the school district.

Strangely, Fox didn’t quote any children. It did quote a second-grade kid’s parent who said that she disagrees with the approach: schools should be celebrating “all cultures, all religions and all views” with children.

“We are lucky to live in a diverse area, and we should embrace that and expose our kids to as much as possible,” she said.

Another parent of a former student called the move a hypocritical “virtue signal.”

Not to worry

Hershey chocolates poured a can of cold water on the issue: there may not be enough candy available for the Halloween crowds to collect and munch on, anyhow.

Hershey CEO Michele Buck blamed what is known as supply-chain issues and rising costs. Hershey has had to prioritise its regular products over seasonal treats.

The company uses the same production lines for its regular products and its Halloween specials, which made their decision easy to swallow: Halloween accounts for only around a tenth of Hershey’s annual sales.

The coronavirus pandemic saw an increase in demand for candy. Raw materials have got scarcer and more expensive at the same time. Buck couldn’t explain her next statement: these issues are related to the conflict in Ukraine. Not able to corroborate, she didn’t elaborate, either.

Here’s the strangest part and Hershey CEO’s weakest point: the U.S. has been experiencing food shortages long before the first bullet was shot in anger between Russia and Ukraine.

Ron Klain, President Joe Biden’s chief of staff, described last December the supply-chain crisis as “an overhyped narrative.”

At the beginning of 2022, alcohol, meat, potatoes, toilet paper, dairy products, and pet food were chief among the goods that started making themselves scarce.

The general price increase since Biden took office, with inflation rising from 1.4 per cent in December 2020 to 7 per cent in December 2021, can hardly be linked to the conflict in Ukraine.

The White House keeps calling the current inflation “transitory.” Throughout 2021, the rate has continued to rise, reaching a four-decade high of 9.1 per cent in June 2022.

Biden has begun using the phrase “Putin’s price hike,” to blame Russia’s President for his own policies’ shortcomings.

Hershey, owned by Swiss food giant Nestle, toes their parent’s line: “unprecedented” ingredient costs have forced it to increase their prices.

Here, the war is to blame, but not as much as the West’s reaction to it: restricted supplies and rising costs of Russian gas in Germany are affecting Hershey’s ability to source equipment and materials.

Meanwhile, Moscow has accused Germany and other European nations of sabotaging their own economies by sanctioning Russian energy imports.

And European Union states have agreed to voluntarily limit their gas consumption in preparation for a potential shutoff by Russia.

The only positive: children won’t be able to gorge themselves to unconsciousness on tons of candy. If they switch to fruits, so much the better for their health.

The only negative: fruit (and vegetable) suppliers are using all kinds of preservation chemicals to make look their goods clean and wholesome, not to mention using all kinds of artificial fertilisers that make their stuff grow faster, while making it very dangerous to swallow, also.

Now what?

Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat, not too big and not too small, just the size of Montreal.

Is this call of despair really lone?

Pierre Elliott Trudeau hated him. Justin Trudeau hates him.

Brian Peckford, PC, has been a thorn in the Trudeau family’s backside for decades. The last living co-author and co-signee of Canada’s Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has come along with it, Brian Peckford, PC, is also the last Canadian politician who takes both documents seriously.

Unlike today’s Prime Minister who flunked both universities he’d enrolled in and ended up serving as a high school substitute drama teacher, Peckford, the former Premier of Newfoundland, holds a Bachelor of Education degree. He also completed postgraduate work in English literature, education, psychology, and French literature. Until 1972, when he entered politics full-time, Peckford served as a high school teacher in rural Newfoundland.

Peckford’s blog is as fiery as fiery can get. The recently-turned-80-year-old, now resident of Qualicum Beach on British Columbia’s Vancouver Island, pulls no punches when he sees the decay that has been making Canada’s political life stink beyond acceptable levels that military-issue gas masks can cover.

His recent contribution about Conservative Party’s new leader, Pierre Poilievre, says it all.

Politics ruled by cynics

Peckford opens with an upper-cut: to today’s Canadian politicians, it’s all about power, and principle be damned.

He then goes straight to the chase, quoting a recent former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s interview on CTV and former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s views carried on Global TV.

Strangely enough, both of these propaganda pieces went on the air on Oct. 9: what a strange coincidence!

The Mulroney interview is telling more than that by his younger colleague, Kenney.

Herewith a verbatim quote from CTV: Mulroney said he had a private dinner with Poilievre — at Poilievre’s request — and found him to be “a very good listener,” and “a reasonable guy.”

But Mulroney also warned the new Conservative Party leader will likely have to “set aside” some of the “extraneous things” he campaigned on: threatening to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, supporting the trucker protests, and encouraging Canadians to “opt out” of inflation using cryptocurrency.

“Look, you can’t get elected with that kind of stuff,” Mulroney said. “Canadians are not there. Canadians are in the broad, general centre.

“I did say to him — which is pretty obvious — you cannot, in this country, get elected from the extreme left or the extreme right. It can’t happen. We have 155 years of history to prove it,” he added.

End of quote.

Cynically frank, basically telling ordinary Canadians they were perfect morons and would never understand the intricacies of the rarefied air up there on Parliament Hill (and above).

Meanwhile, Kenney advises Poilievre to steer away from “fringe issues” if he aims to lead not only the party but the country.

Kenney was happy to announce that “[Poilievre] is doing that.”

Kenney would elaborate that it’s all about bread-and-butter issues. The refrain doesn’t differ much from Mulroney’s sentiment: “I think he’s really in his wheelhouse, focusing on the cost of living, inflation.”

To make sure all sundry get what he means, Kenny added: “He understands that to become prime minister, he needs to speak to the aspirations of regular Canadians, not to fringe issues.”

Peckford calls this “no more than mush – weasel-mouthed Progressive principles done up with conservative spin.”

Real view is lost

Principles of smaller government, balanced budgets, individual rights and freedoms, a sovereign state, real capitalism, that’s what real Conservatives, those with a capital C, should embrace.

Current Conservative leaders, with the exception of Stephen Harper, are in the John Maynard Keynes class of economics that teaches the advantages of administrative states. They, quite obviously, haven’t figured out that Friedrich A. Hayek’s free state should be their guiding ray.

Harper would be Prime Minister for two terms, guiding the country to a relative prosperity. Andrew Sheer, his successor, and Erin O’Toole, Sheer’s successor, led their party to defeat in situations where the elections were theirs to lose.

Here’s Peckford bitterly truthful list of today’s Conservative Party leadership’s views: they are in favour of CBC, supply boards, government intrusion at all levels and the pursuit of a failed Canada.

Maxime Bernier favoured free trade in Canada when he ran for Conservative Party leadership. This objective would become one of the main reasons why he lost.

He founded the People’s Party of Canada. Their program is at least worth reading, but how much do you hear about them in the mainstream media?

The Conservative Party are in bed with their opponents on this issue: have you ever heard them raise their voice in disgust, demanding that Bernier be let in on pre-election leadership debates?

Where are we now? Peckford asks.

His summary is a list of tragedies and crimes:

  • A PM that blatantly violates the country laws as determined by an independent Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner—- and remains Prime Minister;
  • A PM who denigrates his citizens because they responsibly protest this system that denies them basic freedom of movement, associate, or assemble as guaranteed in the Constitution;
  • A Chief Justice who demeans the citizens of his country not before his court but without tested evidence – in the subjective court of public opinion;
  • A country whose public health system with countless tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent to realize one the longest wait times in the OECD nations and over 5 million of its citizens without a family physician;
  • A health system that spends second most and then ranks second last among its peers in positive health outcomes;
  • A country that frowns on delivering its own fossil fuels across the nation – but imports the product from America and overseas, authoritarian regimes;
  • A country that has mangled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without appropriate cost benefit analysis required by that Constitution;
  • A country that denies employment to doctors who question the covid vaccine;
  • A Country whose majority can close down Parliamentary Committees because they refuse to hear contrary view.

And Peckford continues:

  • We don’t rank in the top 10 in competitiveness;
  • We are 122nd in the world in the time it takes to get an electrical permit;
  • We are increasing on the world corruption index – more corrupt not less;
  • This country in 1981 had a Federal Debt of $107 billion = it is now over a trillion of dollars.

Words to remember

As Friedrich A. Hayek wrote: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”

Peckford also quotes U.S. President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

The first step to real change is to admit we need it, Peckford sums up where Canada is today.

And, he concludes, “Canadians seem unprepared to defend freedom – just to espouse it when times are good and no sacrifice is needed.”

The saddest part?

Brian Peckford, PC, is right.

Carbon dioxide: panic that shouldn’t be

What’s the deal with carbon dioxide, known as CO2 to many who know nothing else about chemistry (or physics or biology, for that matter)?

According to America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 per cent in less than 200 years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), NASA’s website on the topic continues, is an important heat-trapping gas, or greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and from natural processes like volcanic eruptions. Their report includes a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with natural, seasonal changes removed. Another graph published by NASA shows CO2 levels during Earth’s last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), NASA proclaims their own incredible illiteracy in the questions of history by saying that human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50 per cent – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150 per cent of its value in 1750. This is greater than what naturally happened at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, NASA’s panic drums continue.

In the first place: how they got such precise numbers for the era midway through the 18th century? So far, it has remained NASA’s sweet secret.

NASA has added an animated map to show how global carbon dioxide has changed over time. The map changes colours as the amount of CO2 rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 400 ppm currently.

These measurements, NASA proceed to tell us, are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth’s atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometres (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground.

Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

But is it?

So, as NASA confirm, currently, we have about 440 ppm of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.

What are they talking about?

According to a relatively independent publication, sciencing.com, parts per million or PPM is a dimensionless measure of the concentration of one substance mixed in with another. For example, the amount of lead in a sample of water, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s essentially like a percentage, which you could analogously refer to as “parts per hundred,” but PPM is better suited to substances in much smaller concentrations.

For plants to flourish, the number should be 2000 PPM.

Plants start dying at 150 PPM levels.

And yet, individuals like Bill Gates would like to invent and introduce technology that would cut CO2 even below the fatal number.

It sounds so perfectly incredible that even those scientists who used to fear for their careers by disobeying politically correct mandates, are now whispering their objections. Some suggest, even, that a hypothesis saying there has to be some ancient evil people-hating force that has come to control our planet may have some merit.

Thus sciencing.com, a California-based tool aimed especially at students, a website most dogmatically oriented teachers must hate with a passion. Instead of forcing young minds to repeat what they are taught by rote, it suggests that asking questions is a much more valuable learning tool.

Before we get to the indisputable fact that plants that supply us with oxygen die without carbon dioxide, and without regular supply of oxygen, people will die, a few words from other fields. The medical community, for example, use carbon dioxide tests because they help them determine whether the body is balancing electrolytes properly.

Medical questions

In contradiction of their own government’s orders and rhetoric, America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) said that carbon dioxide in the human body is formed intracellularly (another of those scientific words) as a by-product of metabolism and, not only that, we need it to survive.

Herewith a verbatim quote: “CO2 is transported in the bloodstream to the lungs where it is ultimately removed from the body through exhalation. CO2 plays various roles in the human body including regulation of blood pH, respiratory drive, and affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen (O2). Fluctuations in CO2 levels are highly regulated and can cause disturbances in the human body if normal levels are not maintained.”

Translated into language most normal human beings can understand: no CO2 equals no life. No life equals death.

How about them deniers?

There’s a world of difference between these two words: ecology and environmentalism.

The former is about science, the latter is about ideology.

So, the Scientific American is tip-toeing on rather thin ice when it admits (quite bashfully) that climate change sceptics may have a few valuable points for claiming that humans need not cut their carbon emissions.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) summed it thus: “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth. This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”

Lamar’s conclusion: scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical.

He’s way too generous: the climate-change panic-mongers have an agenda. One that doesn’t bode too well for humanity’s future.

Scientific American, in an attempt to achieve something that may look and sound like reasonable debate, asked several experts to talk about the science behind this question.

Even those with a stake in the environmentalist ideology admitted that, as they put it, there can be a kernel of truth in this argument. The kernel is called “CO2 fertilization effect.”

Grudgingly but still, they admit that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. And what are plants without photosynthesis? A rhetorical question.

If you isolate a leaf … and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase. A few scientists would qualify this statement by saying that the results produced in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems.

Such as?

Such as, for example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”

True? Yes, but it still does not justify the current CO2 witch-hunt.

And a final warning: all those who like their beer, should know that the current push to drive carbon dioxide out of existence is, in fact, killing a vital ingredient in the beer business, from putting frothy bubbles in brews to blocking oxidization that makes beer taste stale.

Cheers, or what?

Lies lead humans into abyss

Disinformation has taken over the flow of knowledge and it causes humans to stop trusting most, on occasion all, sources of news they encounter. Including those formed by their own elected representatives.

Watching recent developments, this seems to have been the real objective of those who are manipulating our world into the tragedy a.k.a. Great Reset.

In the world of science, American economist Martin Armstrong calls Great Reset “feudalistic socialism.” A very appropriate name for a combination of systems that had both failed and that promise little hope of success if resuscitated as a brand new combination.

Mind, there’s a world of difference between DIS and MISinformation: the former equals deliberate and wilful lie created to achieve its inventor’s goals, the latter equals sharing news based on lack of knowledge but without knowing it.

Tough choice

It’s tough to discern real news from disinformation: it takes effort, together with a bit of knowledge and experience so that you know where and how to look.

For the record: the so-called fact-checkers, especially those working for the huge social media networks, do not meet any standards. They base their rulings upon so-called accepted science, or accepted rulings, handed down to them by their higher-ups. They have never heard, for example, that the beauty of science can be defined thus: what was known and hailed as solid truth yesterday is questionable today and may be laughed out of the story tomorrow.

An example: the following piece of information landed in my inbox the other day, all the way from a friend in Switzerland.

Quote begins:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has defeated the Big Pharma in the U.S. Supreme Court: the so-called Covid vaccines aren’t actually vaccines at all. The damage caused by mRNA gene therapy is irreversible, the court ruled.

Considering that the Supreme Court is the highest legal avenue available in the United States, there exists no legal way to appeal the decision.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said, in his first reaction, that it had been international co-operation of a number of lawyers and scientists that made this success possible.

End of quote.

The news item goes on to discuss all kinds of impacts this ruling may and will have on what is going on Switzerland, what with her very special legal system. It also mentions the Nuremberg Code that set up binding rules on using any kind of medical treatments, with special emphasis concentrated on experimental procedures.

So, what’s the issue?

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) did intervene in the case of vaccination mandates, banning them, effectively.

A very quick search (and not through Google but, rather, using the DuckDuckGo search engine) established the reality: SCOTUS issues vaccine mandate decisions said one source, SCOTUS strikes down mandatory vaccination-testing policy, said another.

Most importantly, SCOTUS itself remained loudly mum on the issue mentioned in the would-be story. Searching the court’s database came back with the same result: if anything happened, SCOTUS isn’t aware of it.

The item that arrived in Canada from Switzerland came with a link to a site that calls itself Best News Here, but: their own source is called Rumor Mill News, and that should have been a dead giveaway.

So what’s the deal?

Your typical piece of disinformation by people out to discredit Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

His Children’s Health Defense website (with a special TV channel on top of it) must annoy them beyond acceptable levels. His huge (and perfectly documented) volume, The Real Anthony Fauci, reads like an open-and-shut indictment where the Judge can’t do better but sentence the American physician to forced labour in the far north tundra, digging natural gas and crude oil pipeline trenches with only a pickaxe and spade in the permafrost ground, with no parole.

Mainstream media attack Robert F. Kennedy Jr. left, right and centre, discussing all kinds of personal dirt, most of which they publish without proof. The New York Times leads the pack, as the Gray Lady seems to be obsessed with questions of recreational drug use somewhere deep in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s greener years.

The piece of disinformation mentioned above does respect some basic rules of this dirty game. It does include several proven (and provable) facts and factoids, such as statements by Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Chief Scientist and vice-president at Pfizer.

Dr. Yeadon had blown the whistle on Big Pharma on a number of occasions. Quoting him again can’t cause much harm, the perpetrators of this disinformation piece must have decided. Using his statements would make their lie more believable.

And so would several other similar gems of truth.

Should the item about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s victory at SCOTUS go viral and become a normally circulating piece of would-be news, its real perpetrators could jump up and say: a bloody lie, SCOTUS had nothing to say about mRNA and gene therapy based on its use, not now, not ever.

It’s called discreditisation.

The idea is to sow doubts in people’s minds, making sure that they don’t know whom to believe. Follow that with fearmongering campaigns such as those about unknown diseases, and humans turn into sheep.

Sheeple instead of people. That’s what the Great Reset is all about.

Western medicine: a killing machine

Here’s precisely what’s wrong with today’s medical profession: an Alberta Queen’s Bench Justice described its practitioners as physicians, who are legally “independent contractors” liable to their patients, and free to exercise their clinical judgment.

Justice Paul Belzil may have been following the law as it exists, but he seems to have forgotten that medical science is based on different sets of laws. Such as that its practitioners are not permitted to pick and choose cases they are or they are not going to treat based on such concerns as whether the patient is or is not vaccinated against this or that condition.

Here’s a most drastic example of a physician’s duties: after the Second World War, Jewish physicians who had barely survived Nazi concentration camps would treat their injured SS torturers without a murmur. On some occasions they restored them to health to be ready for the gallows, but treat them they did.

Doctors playing God

An Edmonton Journal story by Jonny Wakefield describes the situation in which doctors saw fit to remove a terminally ill Alberta woman from an organ transplant list because she wouldn’t agree to get vaccinated against the so-called Covid virus.

This is not (and should not be) a story about whether the scare is legitimate or not. This is not (and should not be) a story about whether the so-called Covid vaccines are safe, either. This is not (and should not be) a story, even, about the fact that these vaccines have been recognised as experimental and, thus, mandates imposing them have been illegal both in medical and judicial sense.

Justice Belzil obviously hasn’t read any of the Nurmberg Tribunals code.

Annette Lewis, 57, sought an injunction against Alberta Health Services (AHS) and six local doctors after they told her that she could not proceed with the transplant unless she receives her Covid jabs.

Lewis claimed the requirement violated her charter rights, while AHS said it has an obligation to donors, their families and other patients to make sure organs are used on patients with the highest chance of surviving, the Journal story describes the situation.

Justice Belzil countered by saying that applying the charter to the clinical judgments of physicians would create “two classes” of organ recipients and result in “medical chaos with patients seeking endless judicial review of clinical treatment decisions.”

This is where Justice Belzil said, according to the Journal story, that the case came down to whether physicians, who are legally “independent contractors” liable to their patients, are free to exercise their clinical judgment.

As ridiculous set of statements as ever pronounced from a Queen’s Bench. Or from any bench.

The notice of appeal against Justice Belzil’s pronouncements has concentrated on what Lewis’s lawyers described as his legal errors. Saying, as Justice Belzil did, that the vaccine requirement was a clinical decision, rather than an “imposition” by “state agents” carrying out an AHS policy, was wrong, they said.

Also, putting AHS above Canada’s Charter of Rights was, in and of itself, perfect nonsense. Nobody is above the country’s Constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms happens to be an integral part of it.

Justice Belzil also concluded in his ruling that Covid vaccines were safe and effective, a statement that he claimed was supported by “overwhelming evidence,” without quoting any, and a statement that Ms. Lewis challenges.

Considering that the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) has just admitted that the vaccines aren’t what their proponents have been suggesting them to be, lifting the mandates at the same time, Justice Belzil is skating on thin ice here.

According to the Edmonton Journal, Ms. Lewis is asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to declare the Covid vaccine requirement a “definitive violation of (her) fundamental freedom of conscience and rights to life, liberty, security of person, and to freedom from arbitrary discrimination.”

AHS and the six doctors named in Lewis’s injunction said, the Journal reports, that Covid vaccines are required for organ transplant patients because the immune suppressing drugs used to prevent their bodies from rejecting the new organ make them uniquely susceptible to dying from the illness. They support this statement with just one set one of numbers that says that one group of patients who caught the virus without a pre-transplant vaccine suffered a 40 per cent mortality rate.

Except: this is NOT a case for statisticians.

Labs vs. nature

This is a case about Canadian (and western, in general) medicine gone bonkers. For very base reasons, to boot.

Also called allopathic, Canadian (and western, in general) medicine’s practitioners describe this system of medicine as a method of treating disease with remedies (such as surgery or drugs) that produce different effects from those caused by the disease.

It takes a science-based approach, they claim with straight faces, to treating patients. It uses conventional modern medical treatments such as surgery, medication, and therapies.

Allopathic physicians have the title of MD or medical doctor, their own definition of themselves continues, and they have various responsibilities related to maintaining health, such as prevention and acute care. They can specialise in several different specialty areas and build a career in research or teaching.

And here comes the revealing part of the definition: Allopathic medicine is also called biomedicine, mainstream medicine, conventional medicine, and orthodox medicine.

Please note the word: orthodox. Webster-Merriam Dictionary’s briefest explanation: conforming to established doctrine, especially in religion.

Let’s go on: and what, pray, is doctrine? Again, Merriam-Webster Dictionary to the rescue: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief: dogma.

And, how about the word dogma? Merriam-Webster Dictionary again: something held as an established opinion, a definite authoritative tenet, a code of such tenets, pedagogical dogma, and (that’s what it’s all about) a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

Basically, allopathic medicine has become an industry, replacing nature and her treatments tested through millennia with artificial chemicals and putting its practitioners on God-like pedestals.

As courageous Scottish physician Dr. Malcom Kendrick put it in his famous book, Doctoring Data, progress, if any, in allopathic medicine is limited by Aldous Huxley’s famous definition to one funeral at a time.

And this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is what this argument between Ms. Lewis and the allopathic medicine establishment is all about.

Justice Belzil may have been a top student in his law school years. Still, one wonders what his thinking would be were he in Ms. Lewis’s shoes.

Nobody knows at the moment when Ms. Lewis’s appeal will be heard. Let us hope that she’ll be still around then, and that her body will still have enough strength to accept the life-saving organ transplant.

Should she not live to see the day of her legal victory, AHS and the six doctors involved could be safely described as bloody murderers, and Justice Belzil would be accessory in their crime.

Sinking in a swamp

Does Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believe his own lies?

Announcing (and enforcing) stringent vaccination and travel mandates that were supposed to help the country fight what some called a pandemic, Trudeau exhorted all to just follow the science.

Turns out there was no science to support his government’s draconian measures.

That’s what court documents that reflect testimony made under oath show.

There are several lawsuits looking into the matter. Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford with co-applicants filed one, People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Leader Maxime Bernier went to court, also. Businessmen Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard filed another one. And Quebec lawyer Nabil Belkacem, representing himself, filed the fourth lawsuit.

Here’s what they’ve found out thus far: the federal government bureaucrat who wrote the policy that prevented unvaccinated Canadians from flying or travelling by train didn’t get a single word of recommendation from health officials.

Jennifer Little, director general of COVID Recovery at Transport Canada, admitted as much, under cross-examination under oath in federal court as a government witness in support of the mandate.

Her own words (verbatim): “I don’t recall a direct recommendation.”

The question was whether she was aware of any recommendation by Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) or Health Canada to impose mandatory vaccination policy for travellers.

“Certainly, we worked very closely with them in preparing the policy, which was supported by the government. So in terms of a written recommendation, for example, no,” Little said in court. “But as part of the policy-making process and the decision-making supporting process, certainly … we were working very closely with our health colleagues.”

CYA (Cover Your Backside) is the nickname in bureaucratese for such statements.

The courts are judging challenges to federal vaccine mandate for travel, in place for nine months and on June 20. The unvaccinated can now travel by plane, train, and marine vessels. Still, the new rule maintains that international travellers on their way to Canada must still be vaccinated. Unvaccinated Canadians need to quarantine upon re-entering the country.

Little’s team of just under 20 members began working on the policy in late July after the government decided to impose a mandate, which it announced on Aug. 13.

Just like the Nazis

Little’s team have no scientific background. So, she said in court, she would accept without any further questions whatever data and information PHAC provided.

“It’s not my responsibility to question or analyse the data that the experts on public health in this country provide me,” Little said.

It was precisely this kind of approach that would send a number of German officials straight to the gallows, following the Nuremberg Tribunals that judged Nazi crimes committed in the Second World War.

Asked again if there had been a recommendation from PHAC or Health Canada, and whether she had any “e-mails, briefs, or reports” from these organisations that recommended mandatory vaccination in travel, Little replied (verbatim, again): “I do not recall a document from the Public Health Agency of Health Canada to Transport Canada recommending that Transport Canada take this approach.”

The government suspended the vaccine mandates on June 20 with the caveat they could bring them back at any time according to the situation.

They are now using this suspension in an attempt to have these lawsuits declared moot. They ran into a wall named The Hon. Brian Peckford who phrased his lawsuit as a defence against behaviour that contravenes Canada’s Constitution and the country’s Charter of Rights.

To recapitulate:

Mandatory vaccination was a part of the Liberal fall 2021 election campaign.

Having won a minority government, they imposed mandates on the public service and federally regulated sectors, as well as on travel by air, train, and some marine vessels.

Trudeau and his ministers have been maintaining they followed as guided by science and following the advice of public health experts.

“Every step of the way throughout this global pandemic, we had Canadians’ backs, and that meant ensuring that we followed science, that we did everything necessary to keep people safe and that we did everything necessary to make sure our economy would spring back as quickly as possible.”

Thus Trudeau in the House of Commons on June 15, just check your Hansard.

Now it turns out he was lying through his teeth.

Dr. Eleni Galanis, director general of the Centre for Integrated Risk Assessment (CIRA) within PHAC, has been close to Dr. Theresa Tam’s decision-making process. Dr. Galanis’s unit is supposed to be detecting, anticipating, and evaluating public health risks and to be supportive of decision-making for risk management.

Asked in cross-examination what was said about vaccine mandates during those meetings, Galanis replied (again, verbatim): “It usually is around what the decisions have been and … when things are planning to be changed.

“So Dr. Tam would inform us that the decision has been made to do this, or if she’s in preparation for meetings … where the lifting of these will be discussed and asks us for supporting information if required.”

Galanis was unaware of reasons why the vaccine mandates were lifted a few days before her cross-examination.

The lifting of the mandates was discussed with Dr. Tam’s advisory group, “but not recently,” suggesting the decision had been made much earlier than the June 14 announcement.

Who’s she anyway?

Judging by her official curriculum vitae, Dr. Galanis hasn’t seen a live patient any time during her career: according to University of British Columbia (UBC) listing, she’s been doing science and government work.

So, Galanis would behave like an exemplary government bureaucrat should: after all, who is she to question the unflagging Dr. Tam? That Tam never really provided the group any rationale for removing the vaccine mandates? Come to think of it, neither Tam, her advisory group, nor CIRA ever debated or discussed the merits of the travel mandate, anyhow.

“We talked generally about—I don’t remember specifically about the vaccine mandate but about the border measures generally and the plan to lift the measures or decrease intensity of the measures throughout the later part of the winter as driven by this early transition phase that we’re in,” Galanis testified.

Neither the issue of the mandate itself nor what the mandate was actually supposed to address (the risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in different modes of transportation) was anywhere close to the top of the agenda.

After hours of examination and cross-examination, a sad fact emerged: the PHAC brief to government never contained a single hint of recommendation to mandate vaccination as a requirement to travel by air.

As The Epoch Times reported, the particular Health Canada official who has the final say on authorizing COVID-19 vaccines in Canada wasn’t consulted on imposing the mandates.

Celia Lourenco is director general of the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate within Health Canada’s Health Products and Food Branch. That’s the office that has the final say on approving vaccines.

She was never advised, nor was she consulted on the issue of mandating the injections for travel or working in the public service and federally regulated sectors. Lourenco said in court.

Vaccines must provide at least a 50 per cent of proven rate of protection against infection to win authorisation.

Lourenco confirmed that the current two-dose mRNA vaccines lose most of their effectiveness with time, providing very little protection after 12 weeks. Thus, she confirmed the correctness of charts prepared by PHAC for the court. Such vaccines would not be authorised had they shown such figures during initial trials.

And yet, they were.

Hopping on the high horse of irresponsible propaganda, Lourenco said the vaccines remain in circulation because they provide protection against severe outcomes, although she could not provide a numerical threshold.

No reply to legitimate questions

Meanwhile, The Epoch Times asked Health Canada for the names of any individual, agency, or group within the department who had ever recommended that the government impose, keep in place, or remove the vaccine mandates.

An unidentified spokesperson pointed to the government departments behind the decision, sidestepping the question very neatly.

To sum up: Trudeau and his Cabinet were (and still are) focused on politics rather than public health.

Within a couple of days since announcing the mandates, Trudeau would call a snap election, hoping he would win majority and be able to push through more of his scandalous extraordinary measures.

He only managed to scrap up a minority government, that would have lost the first no-confidence vote it encountered, and that has been surviving barely thanks to the NDP socialists.

Meanwhile, five million common-sense Canadians who wouldn’t be jabbed no matter what have had troubles travelling and working, even.

Trudeau’s Canada deserves the description coined by American economist Martin Armstrong: feudalistic socialism. She permitted the former high school drama substitute teacher to run her. Fool me once, your fault, fool me twice, mine. But fool me thrice?

Both feudalism and socialism have proven themselves to be first-class criminal failures. Canadians seem not to have learnt from history. That’s why they’re bound to suffer.

Comrade Goebbels would be proud of this couple

When Nazi Public Enlightenment and Propaganda minister Dr. Josef Goebbels realised Germany had lost the war, he committed his last crime: together with his wife Magda, they killed their five daughters and one son, and then followed by committing suicide themselves.

Magda Goebbels’s elder son from a previous marriage, Harald Quandt, 23 years old at the time, was lucky: he was far away on that fateful May 1, 1945, a paratrooper (Fallschirmjäger) taken prisoner of war by Allied forces in Italy at war’s end.

The Fauci family resembles the Goebbelses to an enormous degree. No, Christine Grady and the infamous Anthony Fauci aren’t known for murdering their children.

Theirs is a crime much worse: they are both involved in mass murder, with Ms. Grady specialising in endangering children all over the world.

Christine Grady heads the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center. Like her husband’s, her words carry significant weight. When she co-authors a paper that explains in detail how to enroll children in Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” trials, she means business.

Her objective, as clearly stated in the paper, is to jab children and turn them into human-hybrid chimeras, using mRNA (messenger RNA) chemicals.

Published in the journal Pediatrics, the paper contains “recommendations for when and how to enroll minors in vaccine trials for the coronavirus disease 2019.”

“The costs that delay poses to children, their families, and society provide strong reasons to consider enrolling minors in vaccine trials for COVID-19 before safety and efficacy have been established in adults,” Ms. Grady wrote in the paper.

Titled Enrolling Minors in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials, the paper concentrates on ways how to legitimise the insertion of children into trials without a proven record of safety.

Whether Ms. Grady and her co-authors knew of the fact that Pfizer labelled every severe adverse reaction to its covid shot as unrelated to it, matters not. Ignorance simply is no excuse.

To quote from the paper, verbatim: “A different way to address this concern is to enroll minors after there are sufficient safety data in adults, but before there is evidence of efficacy.

“To pursue this strategy, enrollment of minors should begin with those who are most similar to the adults from whom safety data were collected.”

If this sounds like Nazi killer-physician Dr. Josef Mengele’s words, you’re on the right track.

Strange timing

The Enrolling Minors in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials paper appeared in Pediatrics about a year before health officials actually started recommending the jabs for children. This means, logically, that Ms. Grady was one of those pushing for this unspeakable crime to happen.

That the so-called covid vaccinations have been responsible for deaths in the millions worldwide is no longer in doubt, despite the individual concoctions makers’ legalistic shenanigans. And that their avid participation makes the Fauci family, Ms, Grady included, a family of mass murderers, is now beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Immediately following the Abstract, the paper Ms. Grady had co-authored continues with this subhead: Conflict of interest statement

It then continues, verbatim, as follows:

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Compare this statement to the fact that husband Fauci directly funded the bat coronavirus research that led to the release of the Fauci Flu with the fact that it was his wife who would supervise the “ethics” of his research.

If THAT isn’t a conflict of interest, then we may as well start believing in the tooth fairy.

As several publications have indicated, the Fauci – Grady duo can stand accused of triggering the entire pandemic hoax, and, again, it doesn’t matter if they did it of their volition or whether they were dancing to somebody else’s tune.

A Natural News story commenter put it thus: “In history, if there is anyone left to record it, Fauci will be known as a mass murderer on par, and perhaps surpassing, any known mass murderer.”

Another one wrote: “In the words of Mortal Kombat: ‘finish him.’ ”

And a third one went to this point: “No one elected that rat-faced dictator. His power over the world is disgusting.”

The documentation gathered so far by a number of international groups, led by some of the best legal minds, seems to indicate that Fauci did, in fact, orchestrate the entire health crisis from the very beginning, and that his wife played a critical role in that as well.

The Goebbelses were rank amateurs compared to this couple.

Feminist under attack for stating the obvious

It was bound to happen, and that it happened in Norway is symptomatic of the direction this world has been taking in recent decades: a Norwegian feminist faces prison for telling her Twitter audience that men can’t be women and that this holds true for the transgender variety, as well.

That, if Norway’s politically charged justice system prevails, can land her behind bars for three years. Making statements about such basic issues of biology equals hate crime.

Questioning “gender identity” has become a crime in Norway in 2021. Women’s organisations had warned that criminalising statements about biological facts like these would lead to persecuting women. To no avail.

The first tweet that annoyed the face of Norway’s militant transvestites who calls himself Christine Marie Jentoft read: “Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?”

FRI is an organisation of Norwegian transvestites who claim that anyone questioning their gender-assignation wishes is a bloody criminal. Mr. or Ms. (your pick) Jentoft happens to be its senior official.

Norwegian feminist Christina Ellingsen sent this message out in October 2021.

The second tweet angered Jentoft even more: “Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organisation which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?”

Ellingsen had enough courage to tell Jentoft to his face (and on national television): “You are a man. You cannot be a mother. To normalise the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

As a result, Amnesty International Norway told Ellingsen she was harassing that poor guy (or girl, your pick again) Jentoft by sharing with him the undisputable fact that he was male.

The Norwegian police report accusing Ellingsen was filed by Jentoft himself, which goes to show the sheer independence of the country’s cops.

Long before this scandal, in 2018, Jentoft had garnered public interest by inviting children to contact him for hugs.

Here it is, in its verbatim beauty: “Dear queer children of all ages! I know some of us have parents who don’t love us any more. But thanks to a [Facebook] video I have just seen, I just want to inform you that I am actually a certified mother. So if you ever need a real motherly hug, I will be happy to oblige!”

Matter of policy

Sexual paraphilias and fetishes should not be defined as part of mental health diagnoses. Neither in Norway, nor anywhere else. That has been the FRI’s goal since 1997. They prevailed at home in 2010, and within the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2018.

The 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases now describes sadomasochism, transvestic fetishism, and general fetishism as variants in sexual arousal.

For your enlightenment: A paraphilia is a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behaviour that is atypical and extreme. A paraphilia is considered a disorder when it causes distress or threatens to harm someone else. It used to be called sexual perversion and sexual deviation.

As the WDI (Women Declaration International) stated, “A woman is an adult human female. It is physically impossible to change sex. Gender identity refers to a person’s subjective convictions, and to persecute women for refusing to accept subjective convictions they do not agree to, is a human rights violation.”

Except, this is Norway

Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system has a government best described as top-down. As Ms. Ellingsen put it, “Women are not protected against hate speech in Norway, but men who claim to be both lesbian and a woman, are protected both on the grounds of gender identity and on the grounds of sexual orientation.”

Norway is the country that gave the world Anders Behring Breivik. This is the man who, in July of 2011, set up a bomb in Oslo and, later, attacked a youth summer camp. All told, he killed 77 people and injured many more.

Was he crazy?

Not to Breivik. In his own mind, it was the Norwegian authorities who were to blame. Breivik charged, with considerable justification, too, that Norway was not only going extremely easy on Palestinian terrorists, letting many of them into the country, it was also active in training future terrorists and arming them.

He had been approaching all kinds of government offices in protest, getting all kinds of brush offs along the way. And the brush offs were getting more and more curt. That’s when Breivik decided to do something about it all by himself. The summer camp that he attacked had gathered all kinds of teenagers keen on getting trained in all kinds of terrorist attacks on the innocent and unsuspecting Israeli civilians.

Never mind their individual or collective reasons, theoretically speaking, these teens were in a state of war, and war was what they got from Breivik.

Was he right? Was he wrong? You be the judge.

Norway has given the world many more controversial personalities. Such as the chair-whatever of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, it was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992.

Then-Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was that chair-whatever. Also a vice-president of the Socialist International, she made sure no dissenting voices were allowed into the hallowed rooms or heard in connection with the conference.

The Rio outcome would lead to the so-called Kyoto Conference with its infamous quotas on environmental damage, to be sold and otherwise bartered between those deemed more guilty than others.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Ms. Brundtland had also served as Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO; 1998-2003).

Here’s the curious part: both feminism and all those gender-based movements paint themselves as progressive, left-wing groups that have only better future for the entire humanity on their minds.

Having stolen the word “progressive” for their own agendas, they are now fighting for the noble title of “the most progressive of them all.”

It would be funny, if it wasn’t so tragic.

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain *

We’re innocent, the Devil made us do it! That’s the Spanish government’s way of admitting it has been poisoning its own employers (taxpayers, that is) by spraying them with toxic chemicals.

The only difference: the United Nations Organisation (UNO) plays the role of Devil Incarnate in this case. Meaning: humans are set to murder other humans using the most advanced technology that even Adolf Hitler’s Nazis would be envious of.

As reported by Lance D. Johnson of Natural News, using the so-called Covid pandemic as an excuse, the UNO told governments that releasing deadly chemicals on unsuspecting citizenry was perfectly acceptable.

The expression itself proves once again that the UNO has been trying to usurp the role of a single worldwide ruler: it “authorised” individual national governments to use the spraying of chemicals. Not only that, the entire operation dates back long before anybody started mentioning pandemics in general and a non-existing Covid virus in particular: a European Parliament member raised the question first in 2007, and this was not the first time people questioned the practice.

What’s happened since? A lot: the spraying has continued and it’s going on even today. When then-Iraq supreme leader Saddam Hussein had his Kurdish population sprayed from air, using a weapon of mass destruction, a killing chemical substance, detractors of those condemning it claimed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Hussein’s arsenal, while others, quite properly, condemned it as a war crime.

Crimes against humanity

Spraying chemicals, deadly or not, on unsuspecting populations violates the Nuremberg Code on multiple counts. Of course, we’re getting used to it by now: this human rights and medical ethics treaty seems to have become a useless piece of paper. All those who are supposed to uphold it keep ignoring it instead. Who will summon an international tribunal to judge them when most governments around the world are guilty of breaking it?

Here’s the official explanation: “state of emergency for the management of the health crisis situation caused by Covid-19.”

And here’s the real issue: governments and other official institutions have been perpetrating this lie so often they must be believing it themselves by now.

For those not conversant with the Spanish language, here’s what the Royal Decree 463/2020, of March 14, 2020 says: it enables the Minister of Health to take “a series of measures aimed at protecting the welfare, health and safety of citizens and the containment of the progression of the disease and strengthen the public health system.”

It also lets the Minister “dictate the orders, resolutions, provisions and interpretive instructions that, within their scope of action as a delegated authority, are necessary to guarantee the provision of all services, ordinary or extraordinary, in order to protect of people, goods and places, through the adoption of any of the measures provided for in article eleven of Organic Law 4/1981, of June 1, of the states of alarm, exception and site.”

That another order, named SND/351/2020, gave the Spanish Ministry of Health the supreme and unlimited power to activate the Spanish Armed Forces and Military Emergency Units to deploy biocide chemicals over the citizens can be taken as read.

Nothing new for the Spanish: their country has had a history of using what they call “aerial media” to modify the weather.

Many used to cry “conspiracy theory” when the issue had been raised years ago. We have only two issues here. By definition, a hypothesis differs from and a theory. The former must put all the known facts in their most logical sequence and none of the facts can contradict any other facts in the chain. The latter goes a step further: all those facts must be confirmed, confirming the whole as a result.

The other issue, true especially now: what some describe as conspiracy theories become facts within a period of anywhere between six weeks and six months.

In the case of Spain, she used to be used as a testing ground for chemtrails that include lead dioxide, silver iodide and diatomite. Here’s the official explanation (or, better still, a put-off): in 2015, the idea was to engineer the climate by increasing local temperatures and pushing moisture out of the sky to create conditions conducive for tourism.

Unbelievable? Read Europarliament member (MEP) Ramon Tremosa Balcells’s testimony before the European Parliament, May 19, 2015: workers from the State Meteorological Agency reported planes spreading the toxic chemicals across Spain.

All hands on deck

The universally acclaimed environmentalist, virologist, epidemiologist and Malthusian guru Bill Gates has been into a save-the-planet project that makes any mad scientist in the James Bond or Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde infamies pale in comparison: how about dimming the sun and thus change the climate?

You can’t turn the switch off on the sun: too hot when you get too close. But using chemicals sprayed from planes into the air (atmosphere, troposphere, stratosphere), any or all of them, can do the job.

Who cares that most scientists who know a thing or two about these matters have called the idea not only useless, but also dangerous and perfectly unethical?

Here’s the short list of their concerns:

  • such geo-engineering programs negatively impact weather patterns;
  • they are a major threat to agriculture;
  • they endanger all ecosystems;
  • they have a negative impact on the quality of air we breathe;
  • as a result, the endanger human health;
  • and, last but not least, they make food and water security a mockery of all mockeries.

So far as Bill Gates and his supporters go, who cares about the minor fact that such projects violate basic human rights? In this context, the concerned scientists ask, just who owns the skies? Who will be held accountable for experimenting on human populations without their consent?

An international group of scientists are warning all levels of regulators around the world about the consequences of global, sun dimming experiments. Alas, they are not as rich as Bill Gates. People like him enjoy showing their power and displaying their God-like complexes.

The Swedish Space Agency in 2021 has stopped the Bill Gates experiment in 2021.

Judging by the scientific please to stop this nonsense, many of the experts in the field have started questioning Bill Gates’s sanity. They sum up their observations by saying that he thinks he is in control over the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature, the solar energy cycles, agriculture, crop genetics, and what genes should be turned on or off in people’s bodies, among other things.

A couple of questions: is Bill Gates alone or is he acting in co-operation with others, equally megalomaniac criminals (that would make them co-conspirators)? And will humanity ever wake up and do the only reasonable thing by putting them to work with spades and shovels, without any perspective that they would be let loose on humanity ever again?

* The headline is stolen from the 1964 musical, My Fair Lady (book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner, music by Frederick Loewe, all of that based on G.B. Shaw’s 1913 play, Pygmalion, whose idea Shaw stole from ancient Greek mythology)

%d bloggers like this: