FDA Preparing for Bird Flu Pandemic that Could Kill One in Four Americans

By Luke Andrews Senior Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com

The FDA is gearing up for a bird flu pandemic in people that could kill one in four of those it infects, the agency’s top official has revealed.

Dr Robert Califf told a Senate Committee that officials were drawing up plans to roll out tests, antiviral drugs and vaccines in the event the virus jumps to humans.

But he emphasized the risk of it spreading to people was still low, with only one person infected so far – a farm worker in Texas in March.

‘This virus, like all viruses, is mutating,’ he told the policymakers. ‘We need to continue to prepare for the possibility that it might jump to humans.’

‘[The] real worry is that it will jump to the human lungs where, when that has happened in other parts of the world… the mortality rate has been 25 percent.’

Dr Robert Califf, FDA commissioner, pictured speaking to the Senate’s agriculture committee on Wednesday

[…]

Bird flu already appears to be spreading in cattle for the first time after jumping from birds.

As the virus spreads, particularly between two different species, it acquires more mutations which may allow it to infect people more easily.

Fragments of the virus have already been detected in products including one in five grocery store milks — as well as cottage cheese and sour cream.

But officials say these are still safe to consume because the virus inside them is inactivated during the pasteurization process.

Dr Califf, who was speaking to the Agriculture Committee, added: ‘We gotta have testing, gotta have anti-virals and we need to have a vaccine ready to go.

‘We have been busy getting prepared for if the virus does mutate in a way that allows it to jump into humans on a larger level.’

A tick indicates foods that have tested positive for bird flu, while a cross indicates those that have been tested for bird flu but were not found to contain the virus

Championing America’s position, Dr Califf added: ‘We’re in an enviable position compared to any time in the history of the world.

‘Viruses are relatively simple, so coming up with a matching vaccine is entirely possible in a short period of time.’

The US already has a stockpile of about 20million bird flu vaccines in its national stockpile, officials say, which are ‘well matched’ to the H5N1 virus.

It also has the capacity to quickly make 100million more if necessary, they add.

There are also supplies of antivirals such as oseltamivir — used to treat the latest US bird flu patient — available, although officials have not provided a number.

Similarly, there is work ongoing to develop a bird flu vaccine for poultry and tests showing human antivirals work just as well on sick cows.

Only two humans in the US have tested positive for bird flu ever, with both being in close contact with animals infected with the virus.

There have been no signs in either case of the individuals spreading the disease to others.

A total of 36 farms across nine states have so far detected the virus among their dairy herds.

It comes after CDC officials restated their warning that bird flu had ‘pandemic potential’ in a new report.

Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, they made the warning in a section about rolling out vaccines if the virus spills over to humans.

Also last week, a separate study by the US Department of Agriculture released genetic data showing the H5N1 strain tearing through dairy farms had acquired dozens of new mutations.

These changes could make the strain more likely to spread from cows to other animals, including people, and make the virus resistant to antivirals.

[…]

Via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13401215/fda-chief-robert-califf-bird-flu-pandemic-outbreak.html

CDC forced to release V-safe data, which includes over 780,000 reports of adverse reactions to Covid-19 shot

Carolyn Henler, JD

Reports of COVID-19 shot-related health problems, which were collected and kept hidden by the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for several years, have now been published and reveal serious immune and brain dysfunction symptoms, include heart inflammation and death. Information on about 780,000 reports of adverse events following COVID shots were gathered and stored in the CDC’s special V-safe monitoring system that enabled COVID shot recipients to report adverse events via a cell phone text message.¹

V-safe is a smart-phone based surveillance system that allows users to access web-based surveys monitoring COVID shot adverse events and report reaction symptoms via a text message to federal health officials.² In the weeks after getting a COVID shot, V-safe users receive daily text messages asking about their health status. The messages contain a link to V-safe that allows users to answer follow-up questions including a checkbox of 12 symptoms, as well as enter a description of adverse events in a text message of not more than 250 characters.

According to a Jan. 13, 2024 article in The Epoch Times, CDC officials have collected approximately 7.8 million text responses from COVID shot recipients through V-safe.³ Previously, the CDC denied the public access to the V-safe reports and instead reported studies alleging that the data collected showed the shot was safe. V-safe data released in 2022 from another lawsuit shows that between eight to ten million people, or 25 percent of responders reported reactions to COVID shots that were serious enough to require them to miss school, work or other normal activities or required medical attention or a hospital visit.^{4 5 6}

Court Order Compelled the Release of V-safe Data of Adverse Events

The recently released V-safe reports were ordered to be made public by a federal court in the Northern District of Texas following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Freedom Coalition of Doctors Choice. The non-profit, Freedom Coalition of Doctors Choice, which represents 91 medical and public health professionals, journalists and scientists brought the FOIA request in order to obtain and disseminate to the public data from the “free-text fields” in the CDC’s V-safe database.⁷

The data from the “free-text fields” reveal that after getting COVID-19 shots, recipients suffered from adverse events ranging from seizures, allergic reaction, heart inflammation, suicidal thoughts, miscarriages loss of consciousness, to tinnitus and bells palsy.⁸

In an Apr. 8, 2024 article published in The Epoch Times, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), commented on the disclosure of V-safe adverse event data that had been kept hidden from the public:

The fact that a lawsuit was needed to compel the production of the V-safe data “is yet another shameful chapter in the decades-long history of federal health officials trying to cover up vaccine risks by ignoring patterns of vaccine reaction symptoms in reports made to the government. When people report the same symptoms over and over again after getting a biological product—in this case ’shortness of breath‘ and ’heart palpitations,’ which are both symptoms of myocarditis, that has been causally linked to mRNA COVID shots—the public should be warned, not kept in the dark. It raises questions about what else government health officials are hiding.⁹

 The Freedom Coalition for Doctors Choice is now seeking to obtain the date for the V-safe entries to ascertain exactly when the government first became aware of the many adverse events following COVID shots, even as federal health officials continued to promote universal use of the controversial biologic, including mandated use as a condition of employment.¹⁰

[…]

Via https://thevaccinereaction.org/2024/05/cdc-kept-780000-covid-shot-adverse-event-reports-hidden/

2020 Elections: Fulton County Election Irregularities Confirmed

By Natalia Mittelstadt

Media fact-checks have asserted that the 2020 presidential election in Georgia didn’t have serious irregularities. But more evidence regarding Fulton County’s handling of ballots and signature verification appear to challenge those claims.

Numerous issues have been documented regarding the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, specifically in Fulton County. The media repeatedly “fact-checked” these irregularities, despite confirmation of the issues by election officials. This has resulted in former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who raised concerns about election irregularities often being labeled “election deniers” by Democrats and the media.

Georgia election officials have recently confirmed issues that occurred in Fulton County amid the November 2020 election, resulting in more oversight for the 2024 general election.

The Georgia State Election Board said on Tuesday that they found Fulton County had likely scanned more than 3,000 ballots twice during the 2020 presidential election recount, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

State officials said it is not clear whether the votes were actually counted twice in the recount, which was the official election result, or if they were just scanned twice.

The state board voted to require Fulton County to hire an independent monitor in a 2-1 vote on Tuesday, which ended one of the last probes into the results of the 2020 election.

Fulton County said it has implemented multiple changes since the 2020 election in order to make sure the vote counting is safe and legitimate going forward.

“Fulton County’s performance during the 2020 elections has been exhaustively scrutinized, but the results, confirmed by three different counts, have not changed. Nor has there been any evidence of fraud or malfeasance,” county spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt said. “Since the 2020 election, Fulton County has hired a new director, implemented numerous procedural updates and invested in a new elections headquarters. It has conducted six elections, and independent monitors have noted improvement.”

Board member Ed Lindsey said he voted for the reprimand instead of a more serious punishment because he was focused on making sure future elections were secure rather than focusing on previous elections. He also threatened to open an investigation into the county in July if they do not hire a monitor for the November election.

“There is clear evidence that in 2020 there were numerous violations of regulations and statutes, and the county has acknowledged that,” Lindsey said. “My purpose here is not to let it ride but to move this matter forward so we can have some assurances going into the 2024 election.”

Last November, The Associated Press fact-checked a court filing from June that mentioned there were 3,600 duplicate ballots in Fulton County in 2020, claiming it was “Missing context” because while there was “some double counting of ballots,” and asserting the “errors weren’t enough to alter the election results.”

In January 2021, PolitiFact also fact-checked claims about the 2020 election recount in Georgia, asserting that “The hand recount showed ballots were handled properly” and there weren’t issues with ballots being scanned multiple times.

Another issue in Fulton County from the 2020 presidential election was that no signature verification of absentee ballots took place.

In April, Mark Wingate, a Republican who served on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (BRE) through the 2020 election until last year, said that the county didn’t perform signature verification on absentee ballots, according to The Georgia Star News.

“I asked, ‘What did we do for signature verification?’ And the comment I got back frankly floored me, ‘We didn’t do any,’” he said, adding that the verification wasn’t conducted because the platform Fulton County was using for the electronic process didn’t work.

Wingate mentioned the election integrity failure during his testimony last month in the disbarment trial of Donald Trump’s former DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark.

The former BRE board member had previously sworn in an affidavit in July 2023 that “The Board was told that Fulton County did not perform any signature verification on any absentee-by-mail ballot in the 2020 election.”

During his testimony last month, Wingate said that he voted against certifying the 2020 election twice because of the irregularities, including there being more voters on the county’s active rolls than eligible voters.

Wingate also noted, “I and other board members had requested that we obtain the chain of custody documentation from the department and none of that was ever delivered.”

He said that the board also never received the requested surveillance footage of drop boxes from the county.

According to PolitiFact’s 2021 fact-check, “Georgia election workers verified signatures twice as they processed ballots,” which contradicts Wingate’s assertion that Fulton County didn’t verify absentee ballot signatures.

Other issues during the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County have also been documented.

The state’s handpicked election monitor for the county documented two dozen pages of mismanagement and irregularities during vote counting in Atlanta in November 2020, including double-scanning of ballots, insecure transport of ballots, and violations of voter privacy.

According to the official election results in Georgia, Biden beat Trump by 11,779 votes in the 2020 presidential election.

[…]

Via https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/fulton-county-2020-election-problems-challenge-media-fact-checks

15 Nations have publicly announced opposition to WHO’s pandemic preparedness agenda

By Dr Meryl Nass

Eleven nations have informed the UN General Assembly they’re not going along with the UN’s support for the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agenda last September. In alphabetical order:

1. Belarus
2. Bolivia
3. Cuba
4. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
5. Eritrea
6. Islamic Republic of Iran
7. Nicaragua
8. Russian Federation
9. Syrian Arab Republic
10. Venezuela
11. Zimbabwe

The Netherlands’ government has been instructed to delay the WHO votes or vote No by the lower house of Parliament.

Slovakia said it will not sign current drafts of both documents.

Croatia’s new majority party is against the WHO’s pandemic preparedness plan

Italy’s Senator Borghi said Italy will vote No on the treaty and furthermore that there are 10 more months in which to reject the IHR Amendments.

It is very unusual to have this level of disagreement made public even before the start of the World Health Assembly meeting. And with “hybrid negotiations” aka backroom horse-trading, leading right up to the meeting, nobody will have time to consider the treaties before they are due to be voted on. It has been a corrupt process from start to finish. It could only succeed with stealth (no one knowing what is really in the treaties) and bribes.

Now that the US has announced that 100 countries are being paid off to develop their pandemic preparedness agenda, will the bribes be enough to get these treaties across the finish line? Will the unbribed be miffed? How much will it cost the US taxpayer for the world’s nations to agree to dictatorial control of pandemics and health information going forward?

[…]

Via https://merylnass.substack.com/p/15-nations-have-made-their-position

US Defenseless Against Russian Hypersonic Missiles and Iranian Drones – Explosive DoD Testimony

By Ilya Tsukanov

The crisis in Ukraine and escalating tensions in the Middle East have demonstrated that the US’ $886 billion defense budget has not translated into real-world capabilities on the ground. Now, an explosive verbal exchange on Capitol Hill has revealed that North America’s skies are defenseless against not only Russian, but even Iranian missiles.

An otherwise boring and formulaic briefing by senior Pentagon officials to lawmakers from the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces went off the rails on Wednesday after subcommittee Chairman Angus King took the floor and forced Department of Defense officials to reveal that North America is helpless against adversaries it has spent years agitating around the world.

“The truth is we have no defense for hypersonic missiles – yes or no? Mr. Hill, any defense on the hypersonic missile? You’re the commander of an aircraft carrier in the Greenland Gap. If we have a hypersonic missile launched from Murmansk [traveling at] 6,000 miles an hour, what do you do?” King asked, querying Deputy Secretary of Defense for Space and Missile Defense John Hill.

“We have some systems to defend in the terminal stage but we need more, you’re correct, Senator King… that our hypersonic defenses are inadequate and we do need [more]. SM-6 is in the Navy’s terminal range [capability], the Patriot – I’ll let General Gainey speak to the specifics on that. Those are examples but no argument, we need to focus on hypersonic defenses,” Hill responded.

“So why are we talking about 2029 and even stretching that out? This is next year kind of stuff. I don’t get your budget,” King countered, referencing the lack of focus on anti-hypersonic capabilities in current US defense spending plans.

“What we faced in the budget this year – it was a difficult year, particularly with the Fiscal Responsibility Act caps that we had to work with. There were must-pay bills that we had to work with for the personnel, the salaries, the health care, inflation costs. When you get down to the point of where you get down to the discretionary types of things where you can really control your choices,” Hill said.

“But that’s your mission – your mission is missile defense,” King retorted.

“The budget decisions are made at a higher level and so you’re trading off between readiness or your future investments,” Hill said.

“Well let me put the question another way: let’s say what happened on April 14 [Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone attack on Israel, ed.] happened over the Arctic Ocean – 300 missiles, drones, UAVs came across the Arctic Ocean toward Canada and North America. Could we do what Israel and we and other countries did – could we knock down 99 percent of those missiles coming in?” King asked.

“No chairman,” Air Force General Gregory Guillot, commander of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), responded.

“That’s of concern,” King said. “What’s the gap – is the gap interceptors, is the gap sensors? How come they could do it over there and we can’t do it here?” he asked.

“Part of the reason, Mr. Chairman, is because they have the deployed forces. So at the current time we have the capability in the services but they’re not assigned to Northcom’s area of responsibility,” Guillot said. “Also, just the numbers of the assets that we have in the region right now would not be sufficient to meet the attack of that size that the Iranians [used].”

“And in fact our capability in the region is really aimed toward North Korea, isn’t that correct? […] It’s not designed to take on Russia or China. But that’s where the threat is. What’s the cost of one GBI?” King asked, referring to the US’ Ground-Based Interceptor anti-ballistic missile system.

“Sir, the GBI is approximately $80-$85 million,” Hill replied.

“One missile to intercept an incoming missile is $80 million,” an astonished King said. “Well in the Red Sea, the Houthis are sending $20,000 drones and we’re shooting them down with missiles that cost $4.3 million. The math doesn’t work on that, gentlemen. It just doesn’t work. What are we thinking?”

The senator went on to grill Pentagon officials for spending just one 1,000th of the defense budget on directed energy defenses, asking “what in the hell are you guys thinking?”

“Directed energy is the answer. It costs 25 cents a shot, and the budget’s gone down from $140 to $15 million a year. That’s a scandal. We can’t possibly defend ourselves with $80 million missiles. There’s not enough money in the whole world for that,” King emphasized.

“So I’ll look forward to some further response because right now, we don’t have much missile defense. Whether it’s to hypersonics, to drones, I’d like you guys to go back and really rethink what is your mission. If your mission is missile defense, we need to reorient what it is you do,” the senator summed up

[…]

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20240509/us-defenseless-against-russian-hypersonic-missiles-and-iranian-drones—explosive-dod-testimony-1118360351.html

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