People Power Pushes Back on the Political Royal Commission

Claire Deeks and Alia Bland, co-founders of VFF and RCR, hand the 30,000+ signature People’s Terms to Deputy Prime Minister and leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters and MP Tanya Unkovich. Photo Provided for Use – Copyright Free

New Zealand First receives the Voice of the People and Conveys it to Cabinet

The latest up-beat update from the so-called Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the covid response has been published by the commissioners, and its boss, Professor Tony Blakely is crowing about it in the media. In the face of a conservative lower limit of 4,000 unexplained excess deaths since the jab rollout (but easily exceeding 10,000, more likely), NZDSOS takes a jaundiced eye to its proceedings.

But it seems this same mainstream media may now be turning on one of its darlings. The New Zealand Herald published a fairly damning assessment of the Professor’s conflicts of interests. Perhaps it has been reading our posts, but more likely was tipped off that Blakely was the tip of the pandemic spear in two of the most ruthlessly treated victims of the Quixotic “virus elimination” drive, New Zealand and Victoria, Australia.

For this, he has laughed all the way to the bank with tax-payer assistance, but don’t doubt he will resign shortly, and this story will move quickly now, so apologies if it overtakes us here.

Remember, still in play is version 1.0 of the inquiry, with the highly restricted and functionally useless terms of reference (ToR) crafted by the Ardern regime to avoid the ubiquitous elephant in the (emergency) room. The commissioners too were picked to stick well away actually from examining the damage to our health, legal and political systems.

We have criticised their potentially criminal complicity and conflicts, in the face of much screaming – from ignored and dismissed data; by many injured rendered invisible by state institutions; and from the relatives of Kiwis suddenly dead and gone forever.

A Ray of Sun for the Royal Commission on a Chilly Day

Yesterday however, May 9th 2024, and for the 2nd time in as many months, deputy PM Winston Peters received concerned citizens at the parliament steps, this time to accept a Peoples’ Terms statement organised by Reality Check Radio to present to cabinet on expanding the ToR, containing over 33,000 signatures.

Note the contrast with the just over 11,000 submissions received to the Commission’s own Have Your Say website.

Again, Mr Peters affirmed his commitment to a full and independent inquiry, and was candid that early pandemic era politicians, himself included, ought not have accepted that the injection science was as settled as they were led to believe.

But that “aha!” moment’ came in the last parliamentary term and the New Zealand First (NZF) party does seem to be trying to come to terms with the enormity of the current situation. Would that the other parties self-examined similarly. There is a parade of open letters on our website  confirming our attempts to help them.

However, even now, in the face of tens of thousands of people demanding the jab harms are included in the expanded ToR promised by the new government, current RCI chair Blakely just cannot bring himself to foretell examination of jab harms in his piece above on the NZ Herald website. He does grudgingly concede however that  “For example, the ethical case for – say – vaccine mandates is stronger if vaccines also stop transmission.”​​​​​​​

But he’s wrong, and here perhaps he reveals his authoritarian and value-corrupted instincts. There was never the remotest moral case for mandates, even if they had worked as the contract said (fraudulently) that they would, “for the prevention of covid-19”. Crown Law take note – this fraud should be prosecuted, and demolishes any sway Pfizer has over the ToR.

In the light of  the AstraZeneca vaccine being withdrawn shortly after a UK court admission that it caused harms, it is unthinkable that the damage by both this DNA adenoviral vector vaccine and the mRNAs were to be ignored by NZ’s Royal Commission and that the mandates may not be investigated properly. NZDSOS does not accept that there is nothing to see here, as is implied in this reported statement from Chris James, Group Manager of Medsafe.

Party on, Royal Commission…

The RCI website itself is a masterpiece of impersonation, seeking to pretend the commission is ever so busy and industrious, and consulting widely with numerous stakeholders and interested parties. It promotes a festival atmosphere, of celebratory yet sober reflection – but trumpets how much worse things might have been but for the mRNA miracle.

A quick glance at many of the invited party guests shows cherry-picking in the extreme, in our view, including various organisations that have benefitted from the labour government’s economy-busting covid spend-up.

However, they lie that they have “gone to great lengths to reach people who might not otherwise have a voice” (what, like the dead and injured?) and ​​​​​​​there is no sign of community-engaged organisations which called out the harm from the start, like Plan B for Covid, Voices For Freedom, Health Forum NZ and ourselves.

Mind you, last year NZDSOS was politely invited to ‘submit’ to the RCI.

As if!

Our doctors are in trouble because they never submitted to outrageously unethical edicts from the supposed gatekeepers of medical science and ethics. Note that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, which magics the Medical Council into existence, requires the Council to uphold medical ethics. That worked well… about as well as the Health and Disability Commissioner defended the dismantling of every single item of the statutory Code it is required statutorily to promote.

Thanks but no thanks…

Anyway, we declined the RCI’s disingenuous invite to have our say for the obvious reasons. Not being aware of any successes for the average person of NZ’s pandemic strategy, we felt unqualified to cheer on for more of the same, only harder and earlier “next time”. Bird flu, anyone?

In its most recent quarterly activity update, for Oct-Dec 2023, the RCI does acknowledge at least that political winds are trying to shift, though the temperature of cabinet discussions remains a mystery to us. We do understand NZF is working hard to do the right thing, but we suspect against a whole-of-government reluctance to let in the harsh but healing light.

It states:  “This process will invite the public to tell their COVID-19 stories so they can inform the Inquiry’s work … Alongside this, the Inquiry will be facilitating the Government’s public consultation on the changes it has committed to making to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. The Inquiry will collect this information on the Government’s behalf and will then provide it to the Department of Internal Affairs in April 2024.” 

So, Internal Affairs will have heard by now the many voices that we know insisted on harms being examined by the tax-payer funded inquiry – voices which have been cruelly excluded from the RCI so far, since it began operating already proclaiming a mythical success of the vaccine campaign, and refusing to “lean back” and find faults.

In stark contrast, several citizen-initiated rolling roadshows are collecting hair-raising descriptions and numbers from the injured and bereaved. This adds to the long evident disconnect between the reality from jab ground zero, compared to the official screeching of “safe and effective, especially in pregnancy, get your booster!” by the so-called experts, sounding like the demented parrots they really are.

“At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed ten thousand men to guard the past.”
Maurice Maeterlinck

We believe sincerely that a watershed moment for the country is approaching, which will tell us all whether the future will brighten or head further towards a dark dystopian genocidal morass – the long-stated goal of an unelected and perverted elite.

If RCI 2.0 will hear from the jab damaged, the general public will face the devastating truth of the many harms, and have to question how and by whom their own decisions were made for them, and what their futures may hold.

Once over that particular line, other deceptions may crumble for them – climate nonsense, managed retreat and weather manipulation, pharmaceutical medicine, virology and vaccinations generally, fluoridation, attacks on sanity and the family by politicising biological gender and sexualising young children, assaults on food, farming, and our water.

Perhaps the most imminent of all, that the world must be run by unelected crackheads of the UN, WHO and WEF forming a One World government, so that the nuclear apocalypse we are being dragged inexorably to the brink of may be prevented (don’t worry – it will). We will be told that countries can’t be trusted to run themselves, so we must own nothing and be happy.

Crazy is as crazy says…

Remember though, these same people say that we must burn trees to reduce CO2, kill birds and cows to defend against a flu, eat insects, breathe less, genetically modify billions for a cold, let men believe they are women and teens can pee in a kitty litter tray, and that Christian values are hate speech.

All in all, the disclosure of jab harms through newly adequate ToR could get really ugly, so bird flu AKA disease X, which “ really will get our attention next time“, could provide the cover to avoid going anywhere near the injuries since the RCI would be parked indefinitely.

This has happened to the section of the UK governmental covid enquiry that was due to look at vaccine harms – though this was before any bird flu MSM fear porn ramped up. That’s our current guess: another power-grab lockdown to derail the truth from emerging.

Whether and however plandemic 2.0 runs, a solid NO from the Royal Commission to hearing from the covid-jab injured and bereaved would signal to a large sector of society that still trying to support this supposed representative democracy, in the face of a captured parliament’s legislative supremacy, will not save our asses.

Oh, one more thing. Blakely and Ardern promoted a non-adversarial Royal Commission. On the contrary, we think some of the key players should bring lawyers. They’re going to need them.

[…]

Via https://nzdsos.com/2024/05/10/people-power-pushes-back-on-the-political-royal-commission/

‘Hydrogen town’ plan cancelled after protests over forced switch from natural gas

 

 

By Paul Homewood

The Net Zero disaster lurches from one crisis to another:

The Energy Secretary has scrapped plans for a pilot “hydrogen town” after a wave of protests against earlier trials.

Claire Coutinho has shelved proposals to force thousands of homes and businesses to replace their natural gas supplies with hydrogen by 2030 to test the fuel’s viability.

Aberdeen, Scunthorpe, and two Welsh towns were among those being considered for wholesale conversion to hydrogen for heating.

It was meant to be a trial run to test the use of low-carbon hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas, which was being considered as part of the UK’s drive to reach net zero by 2050.

However, ministers have been forced into a rethink following a wave of protests in two smaller communities – Redcar in Yorkshire and Whitby, near Ellesmere Port – that had been earmarked as testbed “hydrogen villages”. Both proposed trials were ultimately abandoned.

Energy efficiency minister Lord Martin Callanan said on Thursday: “We have decided not to progress work on a hydrogen town pilot until after 2026 decisions on the role of hydrogen for heating.

“Heat pumps and heat networks will be the main route to cutting household emissions for the foreseeable future.”

The decision undermines the Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, which was launched by then-prime minister Boris Johnson in 2020, and its 2021 UK Hydrogen Strategy, published by then-energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng.

Those plans envisaged a neighbourhood-level hydrogen heating scheme by 2023, a village scale trial by 2025, with an entire town being converted to hydrogen by the late 2020s. None of this will now happen.

Several studies have criticised the plans, saying hydrogen will only have a small role to play in heating homes and other buildings in the future.

Last year, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) recommended the Government should not support the rollout of hydrogen heating.

It said the hydrogen would have to be made with natural gas – a process that generates emissions – and would cost more than heat pumps, the main alternative.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/09/hydrogen-town-cancelled-protests-forced-switch-natural-gas/

I love this comment from Colin Belshaw:

Very sensible decision.

And this statement is sheer bloody nonsense: “Hydrogen’s value lies in having a high energy density, so it can power anything from homes to heavy vehicles,” because . . . it actually goes like this:

To produce 1 tonne of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water requires 52.5MWh of electricity (including compression) and, the burning of 1 tonne of hydrogen will generate 15MWh. Therefore . . . ENERGY INVESTED is 3.5x GREATER than ENERGY RETURNED, which is . . . really bloody brilliant.

And for this to have any twisted credibility in our idiotic virtue-signalling world, the electrical supply for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen would obviously have to come from “green” wind and solar generating facilities.

But over the last 12 months, wind and solar combined generation provided 10.86GW, this from a wind and solar combined installed capacity of 45.7GW . . . which was 23.8% of installed capacity – the “load factor.”

So, if you want to deliver 1GW of electricity from wind and solar generating facilities, with a load factor of 23.8%, those facilities will have to have an installed capacity of 4.20GW – an “overbuild factor” of 4.20.

In summary:

To make hydrogen by electrolysis requires 3.5x the energy that will be gained from using that hydrogen, and to generate the electricity needed for that electrolysis, the installed capacity of wind and solar generating facilities will have to be 4.20x greater than the electricity actually needed.

You get the picture, I trust – to generate electrical energy through wind and solar, and using that energy to make hydrogen, would be an exercise in nothing less than . . . profligate stupidity.

[…]

Via https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/05/12/hydrogen-town-plan-cancelled-after-protests-over-forced-switch-from-natural-gas/

WHO Aims to Monitor and Control the Global Food Supply

By Rhoda Wilson

On Wednesday,  the first meeting of the WHO Alliance for Food Safety concluded. The meeting of WHO collaborating centres, UN organisations and donors was convened to support the implementation of the ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022–2030’.

Liberty Counsel Action summarised the initiative: “A new plan for global governance just launched an alliance to control what you eat. The alliance will have authority over what food is being produced, how it will be produced, managed, and inspected – and where the ‘food’ will be distributed.”

This new plan uses the One Health approach.  Last year, David Bell explained that One Health is designed to use fear to control us and justify our restriction, impoverishment and death. It is a cult based on fear of the world and the people who they say poisoned it. And it is baked into WHO’s proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and Pandemic Treaty.

The World Health Organisation is a specialised agency of the United Nations (“UN”).  The UN is supposed to become the One World Government.

Organised in collaboration with the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), on 6 to 8 May 2024 the WHO Nutrition and Food Safety Department hosted the first meeting of the WHO Alliance for Food Safety.

Bringing together WHO collaborating centres and other institutions, the meeting aimed to support the implementation of the ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022–2030’ (“Strategy”), which was adopted at the 75th Session of the World Health Assembly in May 2022.  It was planned that the implementation of the Strategy takes place over 8 years from 2022 to 2030, hence the years stated in its title.

WHO’s Strategy sets global food “safety” targets to be reached by 2030.  “Currently, there is no global mechanism in place to align efforts in this area and to provide innovation and support to countries in a coordinated way,” WHO states.  In an effort towards filling the perceived gap, WHO convened the WHO Alliance for Food Safety meeting to:

1. develop the terms of reference of the WHO Alliance for Food Safety, identifying its added value in the area of foodborne diseases surveillance; and,
2. develop a draft work plan for 2023 – 2030 to help countries meet the WHO target of foodborne disease surveillance by 2030.

In a statement in the preceding days, WHO said it was hoping that 64 WHO collaborating centres, UN organisations working in food safety and donors would attend the meeting.

Reading the ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022–2030: Executive Summary’, there appear to be two justifications for implementing global food safety.  One is the prevention of diseases that cause diarrhoea, and the other is the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”).

“Unsafe food containing harmful levels of bacteria, viruses, parasites, chemical or physical substances can cause acute or chronic illnesses – including more than 200 diseases ranging from diarrhoea to cancers, which in some cases, leads to permanent disability or death,” the executive summary states.

“Food safety remains a public health priority with a critical role in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” it adds.

This new strategy, according to the executive summary, will contribute to the achievement of the SDGs and will be reviewed in 2030 when the world will reflect on the progress made towards the SDGs.

There has been much focus in independent media in recent years on Agenda 2030 and many have become familiar with its nefarious aims.  But possibly fewer realise that the UN’s Agenda 21, from which Agenda 2030 springs, covers the entire 21^st century.  In other words, Agenda 2030 covers the decade up to the year 2030.  Agenda 2040 covers the decade that follows.  Followed by Agenda 2050 and so on until the final decade and the final Agenda 2090 ending in the year 2099.  We should not be surprised then when we see a reference to “the world will reflect on the progress made” in 2030.

A One Health Approach To Food Control

According to the executive summary: “The Strategy recognises that the safety of food is closely linked to the health of animals, plants and the environment within which it is produced.”   This is the One Health approach.

The executive summary continues: “The Strategy calls [WHO’s] Member States to consider the One Health approach when planning the implementation. This will allow national governments to detect, prevent and respond to existing and emerging diseases at the human-animal-environment interface and to rapidly respond and mitigate food-related public health issues resulted from these interactions.”

WHO’s Strategic Priorities

Starting on page 9, the executive summary describes the Strategy’s five “strategic priorities.”

“Member States should modify, redesign or strengthen their national food safety systems as appropriate based upon the strategic priority areas and strategic objectives identified in the strategy,” the document states.

The first of WHO’s priorities is “strengthening national food control systems.”  Although the word “control” is shown in the title, it is replaced with the friendlier-sounding word “safety” throughout the executive summary.  We can assume, as they have form, that this is so their plan appears benign.  However, an overview of ‘Strategic Priority 1’ (see below) clearly demonstrates the aim is control and not “safety.”

[…]

In addition to having legislation, policy, institutional frameworks and control functions in place, the executive summary says, WHO’s Member States need to consider and adopt four important principles for the system to be more effective.  The executive summary describes these principles as:

1. Forward-looking –  ‘Strategic Priority 2: Identifying and responding to food safety challenges resulting from global changes and transformations in food systems’. Food safety systems should be equipped to identify, evaluate and respond to existing and emerging issues. The food safety systems must be transformed from reactive to proactive systems, especially when addressing health risks emerging at human-animal-ecosystems-environment interface.
2. Evidence-based – ‘Strategic Priority 3: Increasing the use of food chain information, scientific evidence, and risk assessment in making risk management decisions’. The collection, utilisation and interpretation of data lay the foundation for building evidence-based food safety systems.
3. People-centred – ‘Strategic Priority 4: Strengthening stakeholder engagement and risk communication’. Successfully ensuring food safety from farm to fork requires a more inclusive approach with all stakeholders, including empowered consumers and food business operators (“FBOs”).
4. Cost-effective – ‘Strategic Priority 5: Promoting food safety as an essential component in domestic and international food trade’. With the globalisation of food trade, foodborne pathogens and diseases can travel across borders and cause significant health and economic impacts.

[…]

You can read the full text of the ‘WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety: 2022–2030’ HERE.  Annexe 2, starting on page 63, describes the “food safety targets for 2030, a proposed method to ignite countries’ commitments.”

There are three targets (see image below): a 40% reduction in the global average of foodborne diarrhoeal disease incidence (compared to 2010);  100% of countries self-report into the food safety indicator tool of the IHR (2005); and, that globally, the score of the capacity to detect food “safety” events is 3.5 – data to calculate the score is self-reported by countries and monitored through WHO’s Joint External Evaluation (“JEE”).

At this time, JEE is a voluntary, collaborative and multisectoral process to assess a country’s capacities to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health risks, whether they occur naturally or due to deliberate or accidental events. It is a comprehensive evaluation that assesses a country’s capacity across 19 IHR (2005) technical areas.

For how much longer will JEE be voluntary? Who is going to finance WHO’s “food safety strategy” in perpetuity? Not us if we #ExitTheWHO.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/05/12/who-aims-to-control-the-global-food-supply/

Mom Sues Hospital for Giving Her a Prescription During Pregnancy that Harmed Her Baby

Karen Kingston

Recent state supreme court ruling will open-up $100mm lawsuits against hospitals and OBGYNS who administered COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to pregnant moms whose newborn babies suffered birth defects or died.

May 10, 2024: On Wednesday, Brannon Howse interviewed me and Dr. James Thorpe regarding hospitals’ and OBGYNs’ liability for administering the COVID-19 mRNA injection to pregnant mothers. Prior to Dr. Thorpe joining the segment, I had just finished discussing the catastrophic injuries documented in Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ trial for babies and toddlers.

Pregnant Moms Had Over 80% Miscarriage Rate After Being Injected

Dr. Thorpe methodically walks through Pfizer’s own documented evidence of the unprecedented miscarriages, spontaneous abortions, and stillborn deaths caused by Pfizer’s mRNA injections in pregnant mothers.

You can watch the full interview here.

Dr. Thorpe made a national call to all personal injury attorneys to take on cases of mothers who received mRNA COVID-19 injections and lost their babies during pregnancy; or gave birth to babies who experienced serious birth defects or died shortly after birth. Dr. Thorpe pointed out that these lawsuits could result in settlements of $100 million or more.

Precedent Has Been Set: Hospitals Can Be Sued for Administering Harmful Prescriptions to Pregnant Moms

A recent state supreme court ruling will open-up $100mm lawsuits against hospitals and OBGYNS who administered COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to pregnant moms whose in utero or newborn babies suffered birth defects or died.

[…]

Via https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/mom-sues-hospital-for-giving-her

Egypt’s Fabulous 18th Dynasty

Amunhotep III

Episode 19 The Fabulous 18th Dynasty

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

The 18th dynasty was the high point of Egyptian civilization. It had a sizeable middle class, which was largely devoted to running the government.

Amunhotep II (1453-1419) – repeatedly invaded Nubia to seize Numbian gold. He was memorialized for bringing back seven Nubian warrior corpses and tacking them to the wall of his temple.

Thuthmosis IV (1419-1386 BC) – erected a stella between the sphinx’s paws describing his ascent to the throne. The 1000-year sphinx, which was covered in sand up to its neck, spoke to him a dream promising to make him king if he removed the sand. He ruled for 35 years, launching numerous foreign military campaigns and erecting the tallest obelisk still standing today (105 feet).

Amunhotep III (1386-1349) – ruled from two capitols: Thebes (modern day Luxor), a religious capitol used for religious ceremonies, and Memphis, the seat of the ruling bureaucracy. Egypt was the richest and most powerful under Amunhotep III because he was a skilled diplomat and traded Egyptian (ie Nubian gold for horses, copper, cedars and luxury foods, as well as developing the coal mines at Waddi Hammmamat.* Our knowledge of his reign comes from the 100-200 commemorative scarabs he sent out across Egypt, as well as to Syria, Palestine and Nubia. Three to four inches long, they featured a carved beetle (a good luck symbol) on top with the announcement in hieroglyphs on the bottom. Examples include the announcement of his wedding to Queen Tiye (the daughter of a prominent general), his successful hunts (eg the day he caught 56 wild bulls and the 102 lions he killed over ten years), the pleasure lake he built for Queen Tiye to sail her boat on, and his marriage to  marries a foreign princess.

---

*The modern day skyline of Luxor dates from the major public building program (temples and an extensive palace complex) of Amunhotep III. Homer called it the 100 gated Thebes.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/1492791/1492834

Farmers resist push for workers to wear protective gear against bird flu virus

WASHINGTON — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended this week that dairy and poultry farms with infected animals supply protective gear to workers in a bid to stave off human transmission of the H5N1 virus. The challenge now is making it happen.

The CDC has no legal authority to order those protective measures, and health officials in some of the nine states with reported outbreaks in cattle have had little luck getting farmers to take them up on offers of free personal protective equipment for their workers, even as the virus continues to spread. Six additional infected herds were reported yesterday — in Michigan, Idaho, and Colorado — bringing the total to 42.

Texas, the one state with a confirmed human case, in a worker exposed to infected cows, has sent protective gear to some farms — four, to be exact. The state’s health department began offering gloves, masks, goggles, and gowns to dairy farms at the beginning of April, shortly after the state’s first cases were identified. A handful of sites in the Texas panhandle — each with sick cows — accepted them. The state has reported 12 infected herds so far.

“We offered PPE to any interested dairy and only four took us up on the offer. The offer still stands,” Texas Department of State Health Services press officer Lara Anton told STAT in an email.

Similarly, in Idaho, the health department began offering protective gear to farms when federal officials confirmed the flu’s presence in one herd there early last month. They have had no takers. “We have not distributed any PPE thus far,” said AJ McWhorther, a spokesperson for the state health department.

In Michigan, which has now reported 10 herd infections, state officials have left PPE coordination to local governments, meaning there is no real picture of protective measures on the ground. “We are not tracking those PPE distributions from local health departments,” said a health department spokesperson.

[…]

Via https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/10/bird-flu-virus-dairy-farmers-resist-ppe-recommendation/

The World Bank’s Climate Plan

The politically touchy recommendation is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers in order to cut climate-harming pollution. | Guillaume Souvant/AFP via Getty Images

by Frederica di Sario via Politico

Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” Julian Lampietti, the World Bank’s manager for global engagement in the bank’s agriculture and food global practice, told POLITICO.

The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.

With the world needing to accelerate its emissions cuts to keep the Paris deal’s goals alive, the World Bank wants officials to pay more attention to the agriculture and food industries, which the bank says have long been neglected and underfunded.

According to the report, countries must funnel $260 billion each year into those sectors to get serious about erasing their emissions by 2050 — a common goal for developed economies. That’s 18 times more than countries currently invest.

Governments can partly plug the gap by reorienting subsidies for red meat and dairy products toward lower-carbon alternatives, the World Bank says. The switch is one of the most cost-effective ways for wealthy countries — estimated to generate roughly 20 percent of the world’s agri-food emissions — to reduce demand for highly polluting food, it argues.

The result, it adds, would essentially price climate impact into food costs.

“The full cost pricing of animal-sourced food to reflect its true planetary costs would make low-emission food options more competitive,” the report says, stressing that shifting to plant-based diets could save twice as much planet-warming gases as other methods.

Demand for meat and dairy products comprises almost 60 percent of agri-food emissions.

Lampietti warned against too much focus on “what you shouldn’t do,” encouraging more attention “on what you should do.” Food is an “intensely personal choice,” he added, saying he fears that what should be a data-based debate may be turned into a culture war battle.

“The big worry here is that people start using this as a political football,” he said.

[…]

Via https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2024/05/07/world-banks-climate-plan

Whistleblower Reveals Pfizer Provided Special Jab Batches to Specific Groups

Jessica Rose

There’s been another internal email leak from a Pfizer ‘whistleblower’ to top off the testimony from Pfizer reps to Senator Malcolm Roberts at a recent Senate hearing in Australia. I tend to be more persuaded by the latter, but confirmations are always valuable. Click on the photo below to hear the Pfizer reps admit to this, and interestingly, what they say is almost verbatim what is written in the ‘internal email’.

Pfizer undertook to import a batch of vaccines specifically for the employee vaccination program. Theroux and Hewitt – Pfizer reps. (Forgive me if the names are mis-spelled.)

Here’s a screenshot of the ‘Whistleblower’ email.

Source: https://slaynews.com/news/pfizer-whistleblower-leaks-email-separate-covid-shots-employees/.

The vaccine doses to be used for this program are separate and distinct from those committed by Pfizer to governments around the world and will not impact supply to national governments in any way. Pfizer ‘Whistleblower’

Well, that’s a relief. At least us employees in the ‘program’ won’t be diggin’ into the other government-mandated doses. Phew.

What exactly do they mean by separate and distinct? Separate, I can understand. Don’t want to take someone else’s precious shot – you know, favoritism is not allowed in government. But distinct? Huh? How are they distinct? Exactly? Exactly.

Let’s repeat this really clearly.

Separate shots for ’employees’. This necessarily means one of two things: that there were batches that were less harmful than others, or that there were known placebo batches (saline injections – and I mean, true saline injections that would be harmless).

If the former is true, that there is known variation between batches (whatever this means), then the batches were designed this way. If THIS is true, then we have intent on our hands. I still have trouble imagining that they would be capable of varying at will or by demand in a way that would ever be predictably variably harmful. I mean, it seems to me that the manufacturing practices themselves were simply ridiculous in their bug-duggery (think DNA:RNA hybrids/contamination), so if we accept this as reality, how can we accept that they tailored batches to be variably harmful? Perhaps only some of them had the SV40 built into their plasmids for modified mRNA production? I don’t know.

Craig Pardekooper has been devout about batches having variable harms, and I have been writing about this for years now to try to understand the mechanisms by which this might be possible. And of course, there is the excellent study published by Schmeling et al. that reinforces that different batches are more highly-associated with serious adverse events, but still. How?

Could it be the people who make the difference? Genetic variations in ACE-2 receptors? Again, I don’t know for sure.

In any case, I believe that these ‘reserved batches’ for the Aussie employees were likely saline injections. As in, true saline injections.

After years of many of us trying to crack this egg, please pass on the gravity of this potential reality to whomever is interested in listening.

If there is variable toxicity in these batches of COVID-19 shots, this would also provide an explanation for the variability in AE and SAE presentations. It is very likely however, that other factors are at play. I want to stress this. Variability in harms also comes down to differences in the actual people injected, and most importantly, not only what they were injected with, but how, and if, the contents of the syringe were ‘cloudy’ or ‘clumpy’ or ‘degraded’ or etc…

[…]

Via https://jessicar.substack.com/p/batches-for-thee-but-not-for-me

Green revolution destroying Germany’s economy as economic bloodbath continues

Dr Eddy Betterman

The more Germany tries to abolish carbon, the worse its economy is getting.

Companies in Germany are shutting down or fleeing elsewhere. Energy prices are through the roof, and are currently among the highest in the world. In short, all that “green” being shoved down the throats of Germans is killing them and their country.

One of the latest employers to leave Germany is automotive supplier IHI, which just announced the closure of its plant at Erfurter Kreuz, Thuringia. Around 300 people are losing their jobs because of this in a region that is already struggling immensely as it is.

In 12 to 15 months, the turbocharger manufacturer will no longer exist, a trend that is spreading to other companies as well.

This particular closure is a direct reflection of Germany’s green policies that are aimed at eliminating internal combustion engines, with turbochargers being outfit for those types of cars. It is all part of the massive shift towards “clean” electric.

“In recent months, several automotive suppliers have had to close their doors or file for insolvency,” one media outlet reported. “This development shows the volatile challenges facing the industry.”

(Related: Germany is fighting back against an EU mandate to ban all gas-fueled vehicles.)

Germany’s economic backbone eroding

Small to medium size enterprises, also known as SMEs, are a dying breed in Germany due to the green transition. And SMEs, by the way, have long served as the backbone of the Germany economy.

Pessimism among SMEs is rising while Germany’s business climate index has fallen to minus 1.4, we now know.

“The business climate index, an important barometer for the mood in small and medium-sized enterprises, fell to an alarming low of minus 1.4 points in February,” the media reported.

“This is the lowest level since the financial crisis 15 years ago. A survey of around 1250 companies conducted by Creditreform Wirtschaftsforschung shows that the majority of respondents forecast a gloomy future for the SME sector.”

The really sad part is that there is almost no chance of Germany recovering from all this. Going into year three of an escalating crisis, the German economy continues its downward trajectory with no apparent end in sight.

Germany’s ruling Socialist-Green coalition government refuses to take any responsibility for the crisis, instead blaming all sorts of other things such as the war in Ukraine, weak construction and industrial production, and “unclear economic policies.”

Then we have the recent shutdown of the last of Germany’s nuclear power plants. The German government lied to the people that these power plants were no longer needed, this not long after experts came to the conclusion that they are still desperately needed.

Coal power plants are also on the chopping block in Germany, which will leave just solar panels and wind turbines to power what was once the economic powerhouse of Europe.

“In 10 years or less, nine-tenths of the population will have left the country because the government destroyed the economy to ‘save the Earth,’” speculated one commenter about what will become of Germany unless it reverses course, and quickly.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/05/11/green-revolution-destroying-germany-economic-bloodbath/

Alfred Russel Wallace and the Anti-Vaccination Movement in Victorian England

Dr Peter McCullough

The COVID States Program demonstrated ~25% of Americans resisted COVID-19 vaccination. I am constantly being reminded by family, friends, and patients what a relief it was to know declining vaccination was the right medical decision. I wondered if there were any historical parallels.

The smallpox vaccine was variously deployed by doctors in the 19th century using lymphatic fluid from animals or from arm to arm of humans. It could hot have been sterilized from bacteria such as staphylococci, streptococci, tetanus, syphilis, or viruses such as hepatitis B. The dose of cowpox virions could not have been measured or controlled. So there were obvious safety concerns such as fatal iatrogenic infections and great debate over whether the procedure worked at all.

In 2010, Thomas Weber portrayed Alfred Russel Wallace in the context of the public sentiment rising against the smallpox immunization campaign in Britain:

“Alfred Russel Wallace, eminent naturalist and co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, was a major participant in the antivaccination campaigns in late 19th-century England. Wallace combined social reformism and quantitative arguments to undermine the claims of pro-vaccinationists and had a major impact on the debate. A brief account of Wallace’s background, his role in the campaign, and a summary of his quantitative arguments leads to the conclusion that it is unwarranted to portray Victorian antivaccination campaigners in general as irrational and anti-science. Public health policy can benefit from history, but the proper context of the evidence used should always be kept in mind.”

 

Video: Dr. McCullough US Senate: To Save Lives Pull the COVID-19 Vaccines Off the Market

I found this article interesting because:

1) Wallace was an eminent scientist,

2) he and his family were vaccinated,

3) his arguments were based on statistics as described in his work Vaccination Proved Useless and Dangerous published in 1889,

4) by the early 1900’s about 25% of the public was refusing smallpox vaccination,

5) Weber concludes it was wrong to portray Victorian antivaccination campaigners as “anti-science.”

 

Why is the 25% refusal rate the same for both the early unsafe smallpox vaccinations and COVID-19 genetic injections? Why has “anti-science” resurfaced as a term in the context of modern vaccine ideology? Weaponization of the term may give us a clue from vaccine-promoter Dr. Peter Hotez who had biodefense grants for COVID-19 vaccines in 2015-16.

A 2024 paper by Paul et al obviously calling out Hotez, indicates “anti-science” is a disparaging term used to discredit someone with an opposing view, essentially a device of propaganda. Hotez appears to be is using it on offense to defend against his vulnerabilities as a co-conspirator in the US-Chinese creation of SARS-CoV-2 and possibly against a scientific awakening to the risks of the routine childhood vaccine schedule.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/alfred-russel-wallace-antivaccination-movement-victorian-england/5856618