The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam


This blog has been contributing pages and posts, generally a collection of published technical information and authored posts together with some original thoughts and theories on this topic originally named “Global Warming”, for many years.

For me, there are numerous reasons for strongly supporting the so-called “climate change deniers”, itself ironic because the alarmists have been shown to be far more into denial about absolute facts, than any of ‘us’.  This article contains much of the basis for my initial mind-shift and confidence in being correct in my beliefs. Could be categorized as incontrovertible.

To me it is an “elephant in the room” factor.

I have taken the liberty of copying the article complete, bold emphasis added, my comments in BLUE.

Posted: Sep 16, 2010 12:31 PM MST
Updated: Mar 12, 2012 5:07 PM MST
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global  warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities.
But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps   Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle coauthored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies.
Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the 1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon
dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement.
Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 (0.41 ?) hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of  hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle.
He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming.” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the antifossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

[A book that has been challenged for inaccuracies and not approved for schools]

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.”  The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to
rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article.
However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man.
The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.
As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly
magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models.  (NO PROOF AT ALL!) By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.
That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline.
Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is highjacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

[ I can imagine some who will argue – “But it is the “Climate changing” that is the issue!” Well even if the climate is changing, it has always changed and doubtlessly always will, the cause cannot be “global warming” because that has basically ceased, in danger of actual cooling in fact.  CO2 emissions are an unproven contributor to warming and certainly cannot cause climate changes by itself!]

Source:  http://whale.to/b/coleman81.html

Related articles:

The Climate Crisis Hoax   (  https://tgrule.com/2019/07/03/the-climate-crisis-hoax/  )

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html  )

 

Posted in AGW, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, New World Order, Science | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rise Of The Climate Crazies (by Tony Heller)


 

By Tony Heller
This video is a little bit different, in that it is focused on people rather than science. Climate alarmism has nothing to do with science.

Apologies for the bit of extremism in this post, but the content is meaningful.

I am getting fed-up with the mainstream media endless promotion of “climate change”,  and that it is proven and known to be true.

In fact, human contributions to CO2 emissions are insignificant as a global climate factor.

A closed and fixated mind of the catastrophic effect of CO2 does no justice to the thinker.

Posted in AGW, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Folly, Science, World Issues | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Social Engineering of Australia


TOTT News  Australia’s Front Line

For information, consideration and comment!

Learning what is going on behind the closed doors of our society.

Sorting realities from theories.

Enabling comparison of psychological issues for untreated gender issues, to those of  treated (or attempted) cases.

The Social Engineering of Australia

The rise of cultural marxism during the era of ‘counter-culture’ sought to apply critical theory to matters of family composition, gender, race and cultural identity within Western society, giving birth to various movements that seek to re-define objective reality.

In the following video, we explore various programs introduced by the cultural marxist lobby in schools across Australian society.

 

One Brisbane school has already been exposed teaching this program.

In the 20th century, select groups of individuals and institutions discovered the conscious mind could be broken down into constituent parts and humans could be persuaded to do just about anything, given the right type of stimulation and experiences.

 

Posted in AUSTRALIA, Education, Human Behaviour | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Unified Theory of Climate, Nikolov and Zeller


A telling theory that effectively supports the legitimate claim that climate science is certainly NOT “settled”.
Basing one’s beliefs on the climate alarmist versions of science is basically a waste of time, energy and money.
A serious impediment to a rational, humane civilization.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

unified-1 Figure 10

Unified Theory of Climate
Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using
Thermodynamic Principles:
Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
Emails: ntconsulting@comcast.netkzeller@colostate.edu

Extended version of the poster presented at the Open Science Conference of the World Climate Research Program, 24 October 2011, Denver CO, USA http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

Abstract

We present results from a new critical review of the atmospheric Greenhouse (GH) concept. Three main problems are identified with the current GH theory. It is demonstrated that thermodynamic principles  based on the Ideal Gas Law must be invoked to fully explain the Natural Greenhouse Effect, which essence is the boost of global surface temperature above that of an airless planet exposed to the same solar irradiance. We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a…

View original post 249 more words

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Science, World Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The World’s Shrinking Population


Quite an interesting article.

Posted in Planet Earth | Leave a comment

Basic Science for Climate Scientists – Tony Heller


Tony Heller goes into some depth on greenhouse gas physics.

 

Sam Grove shared a link.  On  Scientists Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Facebook group.

One of the bases on which my beliefs are built.

On what are the general public alarmist beliefs built? The words of a teenage political activist?

Posted in AGW, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Folly, Planet Earth | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Erasing America’s Hot Past!


There are many factors clearly disputing the climate alarmist claims of the degree of global warming, and its relationship to atmospheric CO2 levels.

This video proves that the warming itself is indeed questionable. Although this data is from the US, it is typical of other countries, referenced below.

Media reports of “hottest” days currently occurring, “record heat waves”etc., are not to be simply taken as true. They may have come from official sources, but are clearly potentially  incorrect and are deliberately intended to brainwash the public into accepting a serious global political control movement.

 

Reference:

History keeps getting colder — ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%

AGW – A Tale of Two Records – Misadventure with temperature records

Posted in AGW, climate change, Corruption | Tagged , | 2 Comments

MH17 – A More Accurate Investigative Report


Conspiracy theories exist in abundance. It is unbelievable to most of the general public, that they are often, if not usually, real conspiracies. Conspiracies to keep the truth from the public and to implant false information into the public arena. Usually, through the power of the corrupt press, the gullibility of the public and  “its ” faith in official stories and sources, the conspiracy becomes publicly accepted. The truth is subsequently labelled as “fake news”.

Here we have a very important report that strongly supports the MH17 ‘shoot-down’  being this type of “fake news”.

Courtesy of ‘Global Research’, by John Helmer

It is comprehensive, therefore lengthy. Time consuming if you watch all the videos. The choice of researching the truth involves such time and energy. The choice of believing this or the “official” story, is daunting, but it is there for you, if you want it!

The greatest importance lies with the the knowledge that the attempt to blame Russia is fraught with lack of, and distorted, “evidence”.  Great evil exists to carry out such misinformation and places much suspicion on the perpetrators.

The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Tragedy, Suppression and Tampering of the Evidence. New Documentary

– FBI Attempt to Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-up of Forged Telephone Tapes; Ukrainian Air Force Hid Radar Records; Crash Site Witness Testimony Misreported

[ Reference :  https://www.globalresearch.ca/mh17-evidence-tampering-revealed-malaysia-fbi-attempt-seize-black-boxes-dutch-cover-up-forged-telephone-tapes-ukrainian-air-force-hid-radar-records-crash-site-witness-testimony-misreport/5684692 ]

A new documentary from Yana Yerlashova and Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials;  suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes;  and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time.

The sources of the breakthrough are Malaysian — Prime Minister of Malaysia Mohamad Mahathir; Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the officer in charge of the MH17 investigation for the Prime Minister’s Department and Malaysia’s National Security Council following the crash on July 17, 2014; and a forensic analysis by Malaysia’s OG IT Forensic Services of Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) telephone tapes which Dutch prosecutors have announced as genuine.

The 298 casualties of MH17 included 192 Dutch; 44 Malaysians; 27 Australians; 15 Indonesians.  The nationality counts vary because the airline manifest does not identify dual nationals of Australia, the UK, and the US.

The new film throws the full weight of the Malaysian Government, one of the five members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), against the published findings and the recent indictment of Russian suspects reported by the Dutch officials in charge of the JIT; in addition to Malaysia and The Netherlands, the members of the JIT are Australia, Ukraine and Belgium. Malaysia’s exclusion from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium’s inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never been explained.

The film reveals the Malaysian Government’s evidence for judging the JIT’s witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a Malaysian or other national or international court.

For the first time also, the Malaysian Government reveals how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist  movements in the Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.

The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them.  The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government’s opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27.  

The 28-minute documentary by Max van der Werff and Yana Yerlashova has just been released. Yerlashova was the film director and co-producer with van der Werff and Ahmed Rifazal. Vitaly Biryukov directed the photography. Watch it in full here or below.

Mahathir reveals why the US, Dutch and Australian governments attempted to exclude Malaysia from membership of the JIT in the first months of the investigation. During that period, US, Dutch, Australian and NATO officials initiated a plan for 9,000 troops to enter eastern Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the crash scene, the aircraft and passenger remains, and in response to the alleged Russian role in the destruction of MH17 on July 17; for details of that scheme, read this.

Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29.

Malaysian resistance to the US attempts to blame Moscow for the aircraft shoot-down was made clear in the first hours after the incident to then-President Barack Obama by Malaysia’s Prime Minister at the time, Najib Razak. That story can be followed here and here.

In an unusual decision to speak in the new documentary, Najib’s successor Prime Minister Mahathir announced:

“They never allowed us to be involved from the very beginning.  This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept that kind of attitude. We are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone irrespective of who is involved. We have to know who actually fired the missile, and only then can we accept the report as the complete truth.”

On July 18, in the first Malaysian Government press conference after the shoot-down, Najib (right) announced agreements he had already reached by telephone with Obama and Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President. “ ‘Obama and I agreed that the investigation will not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.’ [Najib] said the Ukrainian president ‎has pledged that there would be a full, thorough and independent investigation and Malaysian officials would be invited to take part. ‘He also confirmed that his government will negotiate with rebels in the east of the country in order to establish a humanitarian corridor to the crash site,’ said Najib. He also said that no one should remove any debris or the black box from the scene. The Government of Malaysia is dispatching a special flight to Kiev, carrying a Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team, as well as a medical team. But we must – and we will – find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone can be left unturned.”

The new film reveals in an interview with Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the head of the Malaysian team, what happened next.  Sakri’s evidence, filmed in his office at Putrajaya, is the first to be reported by the press outside Malaysia in five years. A year ago, Sakri gave a partial account of his mission to a Malaysian newspaper.

“I talked to my prime minister [Najib],” Colonel Sakri says. “He directed me to go to the crash site immediately.” At the time Sakri was a senior security official at the Disaster Management Division of the Prime Minister’s Department. Sakri says that after arriving in Kiev, Poroshenko’s officials blocked the Malaysians. “We were not allowed to go there…so I took a small team to leave Kiev going to Donetsk secretly.” There Sakri toured the crash site, and met with officials of the Donetsk separatist administration headed by Alexander Borodai.

With eleven men, including two medical specialists, a signalman, and Malaysian Army commandos, Sakri had raced to the site ahead of an armed convoy of Australian, Dutch and Ukrainian government men. The latter were blocked by Donetsk separatist units. The Australian state press agency ABC reported   their military convoy, prodded from Kiev by the appearance of Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans, had been forced to abandon their mission. That was after Colonel Sakri had taken custody of the MH17 black boxes in a handover ceremony filmed at Borodai’s office in Donetsk on July 22.

US sources told the Wall Street Journal  at the time “the [Sakri] mission’s success delivered a political victory for Mr. Najib’s government… it also handed a gift to the rebels in the form of an accord, signed by the top Malaysian official present in Donetsk, calling the crash site ‘the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic.’…That recognition could antagonize Kiev and Washington, which have striven not to give any credibility to the rebels, whose main leaders are Russian citizens with few ties to the area. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a briefing Monday that the negotiation ‘in no way legitimizes’ separatists.”

The Australian state radio then reported the Ukrainian government as claiming the black box evidence showed “the reason for the destruction and crash of the plane was massive explosive decompression arising from multiple shrapnel perforations from a rocket explosion.” This was a fabrication – the evidence of the black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, first reported six weeks later in September by the Dutch Safety Board, showed nothing of the kind; read what their evidence revealed.

Foreign Minister Bishop,  in Kiev on July 24, claimed she was negotiating with the Ukrainians for the Australian team in the country to carry arms. “I don’t envisage that we will ever resort to [arms],” she told her state news agency, “but it is a contingency planning, and you would be reckless not to include it in this kind of agreement. But I stress our mission is unarmed because it is [a] humanitarian mission.”

By the time she spoke to her state radio, Bishop was concealing that the plan for armed intervention, including 3,000 Australian troops, had been called off.  She was also concealing that the black boxes were already in Colonel Sakri’s possession.

The document signed by Sakri for the handover of the black boxes is visible in the new documentary. Sakri signed himself and added the stamp of the National Security Council of Malaysia.

Col. Sakri says on film the Donetsk leaders expressed surprise at the delay of the Malaysians in arriving at the crash site to recover the black boxes. “Why are you so late”, [Borodai] said…I think [that was] very funny.” Source:  https://www.youtube.com/Min. 05:47.

Sakri goes on to say he was asked by the OSCE’s special monitoring mission for Ukraine to hand over the black boxes; he refused. He was then met by agents of the FBI (Min 6:56). “They approached me to show them the black box. I said no.” He also reports that in Kiev the Ukrainian Government tried “forcing me to leave the black boxes with them. We said no. We cannot. We cannot allow.”

 The handover ceremony in Donetsk, July 22, 2014: on far left, the two black boxes from MH17; in the centre, shaking hands, Alexander Borodai and Mohamad Sakri.

Permission for Colonel Sakri to speak to the press has been authorized by his superiors at the prime minister’s office  in Putrajaya, and his disclosures agreed with them in advance.

Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians; for details, read this.

Van der Werff and Yerlashova contracted with OG IT Forensic Services,  a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, to examine the telephone tapes.  The Kuala Lumpur firm has been endorsed by the Malaysian Bar.  The full 143-page technical report can be read here.

The findings reported by Akash Rosen and illustrated on camera are that the telephone recordings have been cut, edited and fabricated. The source of the tapes, according to the JIT press conference on June 19 by Dutch police officer Paulissen, head of the National Criminal Investigation Service of The Netherlands, was the Ukrainian SBU. Similar findings of tape fabrication and evidence tampering are reported on camera in the van der Werff film by a German analyst, Norman Ritter.


Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the June 19, 2019, press conference of JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU.   Minute 16:02 Right: Norman Ritter presented his analysis to interviewer Billy Sixt to show the telephone tape evidence has been forged in nine separate “manipulations”.  One of the four accused by the JIT last month, Sergei Dubinsky, testifies from Min. 17 of the documentary. He says his men recovered the black boxes from the crash site and delivered them to Borodai at 2300 hours on July 17; the destruction of the aircraft occurred at 1320. Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. “I dare them to publish the uncut conversations, and then you will get a real picture of what was discussed.” (Min. 17:59).

Van der Werff and Yerlashova filmed at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Several local witnesses were interviewed, including a man named Alexander from Torez town, and Valentina Kovalenko, a woman from the farming village of Red October. The man said the missile equipment alleged by the JIT to have been transported from across the Russian border on July 17 was in Torez at least one, possibly two days before the shoot-down on July 17; he did not confirm details the JIT has identified as a Buk system.

Kovalenko, first portrayed in a BBC documentary three years ago (starting at Min.26:50) as a “unique” eye-witness to the missile launch, clarifies more precisely than the BBC reported where the missile she saw had been fired from.


BBC documentary, “The Conspiracy Files. Who Shot Down MH17” — Min. 27:00. The BBC broadcast its claims over three episodes in April-May 2016. For a published summary, read this.

This was not the location identified in press statements by JIT. Van der Werff explains: “we specifically asked [Kovalenko] to point exactly in the direction the missile came from. I then asked twice if maybe it was from the direction of the JIT launch site. She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT ‘launch site’ is less than two kilometres from her house and garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony.”

According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, “at that moment the Ukrainian Army were there.”

Kovalenko also remembers that on the days preceding the July 17 missile firing she witnessed,  there had been Ukrainian military aircraft operating in the sky above her village. She says they used evasion techniques including flying in the shadow of civilian aircraft she also saw at the same time.

On July 17, three other villagers told van der Werff they had seen a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity and at the time of the MH17 crash.

Concluding the documentary, van der Werff and Yerlashova present an earlier interview filmed in Donetsk by independent Dutch journalist Stefan Beck, whom JIT officials had tried to warn off visiting the area. Beck interviewed Yevgeny Volkov, who was an air controller for the Ukrainian Air Force in July 2014. Volkov was asked to comment on Ukrainian Government statements, endorsed by the Dutch Safety Board report into the crash and in subsequent reports by the JIT, that there were no radar records of the airspace at the time of the shoot-down because Ukrainian military radars were not operational.

Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on “full alert” because “fighter jets were taking off from there;” Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site.  He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. “There [they] have it. In Ukraine they have it.”

Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present,  Mohammed Hanafiah Bin Al Zakaria,  one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General’s ministry,  refused to endorse for the Malaysian Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. “Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice for the victims,” Zakaria said.  “The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process.” [Question: do you support the conclusions?] “Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions.”

Posted in AUSTRALIA, Conspiracies, MIDDLE EAST, New World Order, Russia, Ukraine | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Climate Crisis Hoax


Author Larry Bell  ‘Forbes’

Balancing the propaganda with factual information.

Reference: https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html?

I’ve encountered some folks who appear offended by the title of my new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Why do you call it a “hoax”? they ask. Why not refer to the matter as a debate? The reason is quite simple: A debate describes a discussion in which participants competitively argue opposing points of view that are assumed to be based upon honest positions.

A hoax is a deceptive act intended to hoodwink people through deliberate misinformation, including factual omissions. My book is about the latter. (And by the way, it can be ordered through primary vendors, and is currently being featured on “new releases” tables at 200 major Barnes and Noble stores.)

The central lie is that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based on speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And the evidence? Much is revealed by politically corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel.

S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and University of Virginia professor emeritus commented about these sorry circumstances in the foreword of my book, stating in part:

“Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the ‘evidence’ was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed.”

Other fraud is evident through public exposure of e-mail files retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Scandalous exchanges among prominent researchers who have fomented global warming hysteria confirm long-standing and broadly suspected manipulations of climate data. The communications also reveal conspiracies to falsify and withhold information, to suppress contrary findings in scholarly publications, and to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made global warming. Many of these individuals have had major influence over summary report findings issued by the IPCC. Still other evidence comes from mouths of government officials, international climate summit organizers and leading science spokespeople recorded in candid public admissions.

Another lie claims that there is a consensus among climate scientists that a known man-made global warming crisis exists. Official statements to the contrary presented by more than 650 international climate-related experts who presented contrary official testimony recorded in a 2008 U.S. Senate minority report suggest otherwise. So do petitions signed by more than 30,000 scientists that have challenged IPCC’s 1995 procedures and report representations. Those circumstances prompted Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University to write in The Wall Street Journal: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report.”

This brings us to a third, and most dangerous, lie of all–a fallacy that compelling evidence exists linking “unprecedented” climate warming to fossil CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution arising from an atmospheric “greenhouse effect.” Alarmists project such horrors as melting Greenland and Antarctic ice that causes oceans to flood coastal areas, increasingly severe weather and hurricane trends, migration of mosquito-borne plagues northward from the tropics, destruction of coral reefs, and yeah, lest we forget, those stranded and starving polar bears and penguins.

And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must implement carbon cap-and-trade legislation; give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute, and empower them to preside over world governments; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free,” and “renewable” alternatives; and empower expanding government bureaucracies to protect us from free market excesses. These include the same agencies that declared CO2 a “pollutant” (something rain forests certainly dispute), and that listed polar bears as a threatened species (despite expanding populations), presumably to discourage public support for oil and gas drilling in ANWR.

Corrupt climate science, upon which such fallacies are based, presents incalculably vast economic and social consequences. It provides justification and cover for gross regulatory intrusion by the EPA, DoE and other government agencies into agriculture, energy, transportation and construction industries; escalates food, fuel and manufacturing costs through unwarranted mandates and subsidies for otherwise uncompetitive “renewable” fuels; provokes legislation and legal suits that paralyze vital fossil energy exploration and infrastructure development; drives drilling operations and other job-supporting businesses overseas; politicizes and subverts science, education and media reporting; and defrauds hardworking taxpayers who pay many billions of dollars for honest information.

Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham contributed a statement for my book that conveys deep concern about corruption of climate science in general, and within NASA in particular: He comments that “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication and integrity of science and technology professionals who made our missions possible…In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust.”

Clearly, most proponents of man-made global warming theory are very sincere, often well-informed, people. Here, honest debate based upon facts and logic should be openly welcomed, and nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. Some, holding strong viewpoints on both sides of the issues, may be inclined to challenge base motives and affiliations of those who disagree, and responsibility for full disclosure of any serious conflicts of interest should be expected. In this regard, being part of any science community that depends on funding from biased sponsors (including government agencies and industries), doesn’t make those individuals or their work corrupt. The vast majority of all science professionals are in that situation.

Yet isn’t it remarkable that Al Gore, who has recently become extremely wealthy, has never felt obliged to publicly disclose his large stakes in green market industries through his Generation Investment Management firm, or in Chicago Climate Exchange cap-and-trade legislation interests? Would you trust a financial advisor who committed the same ethical breach?

Who stands to gain from the politics of corrupt climate science? There are many culprits, and they are becoming ever more powerful. Principal among them are certain agenda-driven federal government regulatory agencies; alternative energy and environmental lobbies; a captive multibillion-dollar per year climate science industry; cap-and-trade marketers; large, associated special-interest hedge fund managers; and yes, the U.N. and other organizations seeking global resource and wealth redistribution.

While it might be overreaching to bundle certain dishonest players within various categories into a unified conspiracy theory, many of these organs of misinformation clearly do appear to be joined at a common colon. Either way, the end results are much the same.

Weekly columnist Larry Bell is a professor at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, which can be previewed and ordered at: www.climateofcorruption.com.

 

Posted in AGENDA 21, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Pseudo-science | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

On Vaccines, Big Pharma, FDA and CDC – ‘Robert Kennedy Jr Transcript’ from May 2019 speech in NY:


Courtesy ‘Katie Walker‘ from Facebook.  A real education!

Bold highlighting is mine, but it is somewhat difficult to refrain from emphasizing it all!

RFK Jr is truly one of the greatest heroes of our lifetime. This man has nothing to gain and everything to lose by being brave and speaking truth. 🌟🙌🏼🌟

This speech will BLOW YOU AWAY. It is absolutely a MUST read.

Fair warning though…..

It will shock you.

It will anger you.

It will fire you up.

It will make you question.

Hopefully, it will make YOU want to be brave.

Because it is time to RISE UP, friends.

READ IT ALL, if you dare.

ROBERT KENNEDY JR TRANSCRIPT from May 2019 speech in NY:

Thank you for coming on such a rainy day. The pharmacist walked by and I don’t blame him for being angry because this is the biggest threat to their business plan. The vaccine industry when I was a boy was $270 million dollars. I got three vaccines and was fully compliant. Today it is a $50 billion dollar industry and 20% of pharmaceutical revenues.
But that’s at the front end.

At the back end are all the chronic diseases that the FDA says they think are associated with vaccines. A hundred and fifty diseases are now listed on the product inserts. The reason they’re listed on the product inserts is because the FDA has made the determination that these injuries are more likely caused by a vaccine.

This is the chronic disease epidemic.
I have six kids. I had eleven brothers and sisters. I had over fifty cousins. I didn’t know a single person with a peanut allergy. Why do all my kids have food allergies? Because they were born after 1989.

If you were born prior to 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease, according to HHS (Health and Human Services) is 12.8%. If you are born after 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease is 54%. And the FDA has said to the vaccine companies, you need to take a look at these diseases.
And what are these diseases?

They’re the neuro-developmental diseases, ADD, ADHD, language delays, speech delays, tics, Tourette Syndrome, ASD, and autism. The auto-immune disorders, Guillan-Barre, multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. The anyphylactic diseases, food allergies, rhinitis, asthma, and eczema. All of these exploded in 1989.

Congress ordered the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to find out which year this disease epidemic started. And EPA did that study. They said it started in 1989. There are a lot of culprits. Many new things. We have cell-phones. We have PFOA (perfluorooctanic acid). We have ultra-sound. We have glyphosate. We have many other things. Our kids are swimming in a toxic soup.

We’re not saying all of those illnesses came from vaccines. But there is no intervention that is so exquisite and precisely timed as what happened when we went in 1989 and changed that vaccine schedule and raised the levels of aluminum and mercury, tripled and quintupled them. We went from the 3 vaccines that I had, to the 72 my kids had, and to the 75 that kids are going to get next year. And there are 273 new vaccines in the pipeline.

I went in and met with Adam Schiff. I’ve been a democrat all my life. What’s happening in the democratic party disturbs me greatly. But I was astonished when one of the leading democrats in our country, Adam Schiff, went to the internet titans, to Facebook, to Google, which has a $668 million dollar partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, the biggest vaccine maker in the world. They make drugs and mine your personal data so they can sell you more drugs. Schiff went to Pintrest, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, all of them, and told them they need to start censoring information and complaints about a pharmaceutical product.

I said to Adam Schiff, “You know these are greedy companies. You know they’re homicidal.” Any democrat will tell you that. The four companies that produce all 72 vaccines that are mandated for American children, every one of them is a convicted felon. Since 2009, those four companies collectively have paid $35 billion dollars in criminal penalties and damages and fines for defrauding regulators, for falsifying science, for bribing doctors, for lying to the public, and for killing lots and lots of people.

Vioxx, a drug made by Merck, they knew it would cause heart attacks. They sold it as a headache pill. They didn’t tell people, you won’t have a headache, but you might have a heart attack. Of course, if they had, not too many people would have bought it.

So, they decided to keep it a secret. They killed a hundred and twenty thousand people minimum, probably five hundred thousand people. So I said to Adam Schiff, “What kind of cognitive dissonance does it require, to believe that this company, which is lying and cheating and killing with every other pharmaceutical product it makes, has found Jesus when it comes to vaccines?” Everybody knows you can’t sue a vaccine company. That’s why we had this gold rush explosion of vaccines beginning in 1989.

They have no incentive to make their product safe, other than their moral scruples, of which we know they have none.

What most people don’t know is that vaccine companies have an even more important exemption.

They are exempt from safety testing their products. It is the only medical product. The reason is that it’s an artifact of the CDC’s legacy as the public health service, which was a quasi-military agency. The CDC took it over in the late 1970s. That’s why people at the CDC often have military rank, like the Surgeon General. The vaccine program was initiated as a national security defense against biological attack. Because of that they wanted to make sure we could get vaccines out to the public very quickly if Russia sent anthrax over here. They wanted to remove all the regulatory impediments that would prevent the quick deployment of that product.

So, they said, if we call it a medicine, all medicines have to be safety-tested under the law, double-blind placebo, and follow-up for five years. They said, we can’t do that. We’re going to call them something different. We’re going to call them “biologics.” And we’re going to make it so they don’t have to be tested at all.
And when the industry exploded in 1989, they took advantage of this loophole when they brought all of these new products to market. Not one of the 72 vaccines on the schedule mandated for our children, have been tested with a placebo.

That means that nobody can scientifically tell you what the risk profile of that product is. Nobody can tell you that product is going to save more lives than it will take. There is no scientific basis whatsoever. How can we as a society, a government, a democratic party, be mandating products for our children when we cannot tell what the risk is of that product?

Now, all of the vaccines on the schedule, and all medical products, are required to list whatever safety testing they do. Not one of these has ever used a placebo. But some of them do safety testing anyway, like the polio vaccine, for maybe 48 hours.

The hepatitis B vaccine that is given to every child in this country on the day it’s born, they observe for 5 days. That means if a child dies on day 6, it never happened. If a child has a seizure on day 6, it never happened. If the baby gets food allergies and is diagnosed three years later, or autism or an auto-immune disease, it never happened. That way they can say it’s safe.

The weird thing is that there was one vaccine, the MMR vaccine, that all of this hoopla is about, it’s the only vaccine that has no safety testing listed on the insert. And for many years, Del [Bigtree] and I have been saying, “that’s weird.” Do any exist? What happened? So we sued HHS. We said, “where is it?”
Three weeks ago they gave us the safety testing. There were 800 kids. Normally you have 20,000 kids or subjects in one of these. There were 800 kids in 8 different categories. For a drug they are going to give to billions of people. The testing lasted only 42 days.

But 50% of the kids who were involved in that study had gastro-intestinal illnesses, serious ones, some of them for the full 42 days. 50% had respiratory illnesses, some of them for 42 days. This is a product that is worse, according to its own record, than the illness it’s pretending to prevent.

Maybe there are people here who are anti-vaxx. I am not anti-vaxx. I just want safe vaccines. And I want robust science. And I want transparency in government. And I want independent regulators who are not owned by pharma.

At the FDA, which is supposed to protect us against these products, receives 75% of its budget from the industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) receives 50% of its budget from pharma. The CDC is a pharmaceutical company. It has about $5 billion dollars a year that it buys and sells vaccines. And individuals within HHS who worked on those vaccines at taxpayer expense, if they worked on them, they’re allowed to get royalty payments.

Every vial of Gardasil that’s sold, there are people within HHS, high-level individuals, who are collecting $150,000 a year in royalties. And HHS and NIH own part of that patent and are collecting money every year. These are not regulatory agencies. They are appendages of the industry.

They don’t want to hear about this. The reason they call you and me anti-vaxx is it’s a way of shutting us up. So they don’t have to debate these very serious issues about vaccine safety. So they don’t have to debate the science.

And they’ve bought off the press. They put $25 billion dollars a year into advertising. We’re the only nation in the world, other than New Zealand, that allows pharmaceutical advertising on television. And they’ve been able to buy the press in this country. They’re not only selling ads for their drugs, but they’re also dictating content.

Now they’re telling us they’re going to censor Facebook because they want to get rid of misinformation about vaccines. We’re just talking about science. We’re giving them peer-review. You’ll never hear peer-review from a vaccine proponent. What you’ll hear are appeals to authority. What does that mean? It means that vaccines are safe because CDC or WHO says they’re safe.

But do you know who the ultimate authority is? It’s the Institute of Medicine. That is why Congress named the Institute of Medicine to be the ultimate authority on vaccine safety. And do you know what the Institute of Medicine says? It says there are 150 diseases that they think are caused by vaccines, and the CDC has been directed to study them. They said that in 1994. CDC refused. They said it again in 1998. CDC refused. They said it again in 2011. They say it every year.

The Institute of Medicine says we have no idea whether these vaccines are causing this huge chronic disease epidemic. That is the ultimate authority. Not WHO. Not CDC. And the only way they can deal with these arguments is by shutting us up.

The vaccine misinformation is not coming from us, it’s coming from them. How many of you have heard the networks report that 80,000 people died of flu last year? You know what CDC’s data said? And CDC told the networks that number. I don’t blame them, but the press is supposed to check. My father told me, people in power lie. And you’re supposed to check on it. You know what CDC’s own data said? 2300 people died of flu, not 80,000.

How many of you have heard that the death rate for measles is 1 in 1,000? CDC told them that. CDC’s own data says that it’s 1 in 10,000 people and 1 in 500,000 Americans. That’s what CDC’s data says. But that’s not what you’ll hear from the networks.

Any of you who watched NBC the other night saw Lester Holt. All of the news shows have become advertisements and they’re all part of this orchestrated frenzy that we’re terrified of measles. And we’ve got to get this vaccine and we’ve got to pass this mandate. Lester Holt is sponsored by Merck, which makes the vaccine. Lester Holt showed a frightening picture on his show of a baby that was afflicted by these terrible measles bumps. It turns out it was fake. He had to fake it. He’s never apologized. NBC never apologized. That is misinformation.
And Lester Holt is sitting there saying we’ve got to shut down this misinformation about vaccines while he is the primary promoter of that information.

This industry has been able to disable all of the institutions of our democracy that stand between a greedy corporation and a vulnerable child. As Del pointed out, they are the biggest lobbyists on Capitol Hill. There are more lobbyists than Congressmen and Senators combined. They give double the amount of oil and gas. They give four times what defense and aerospace give.

They own Congress. That’s why Congress will not subpoena Bill Thompson, the chief scientist at CDC who says they’ve been lying to us for all these years. They’ve been destroying data. And they won’t call him in and question him.

They have been able to disable the regulatory agencies through capture. Those agencies are now sock-puppets for the industries they’re supposed to regulate. They’ve been able to neutralize the lawyers by making it illegal to sue a vaccine company. The lawyers and the courts are gone.

They’ve been able to neutralize the press, all press scrutiny. Now, they’re neutralizing the internet. They’re shutting us down so we cannot speak. So that nobody has to listen to the truth. So that nobody has to read the peer-reviewed science. So nobody has to listen to the questions.

The last thing standing between the corporation and that little baby is the mom and the dad. And this greedy industry cannot stand that mother who is going to stop her little baby from being vaccinated. From buying their product and then being hooked for the rest of their lives on Adderal, Epi-Pens, Ritalin, the anti-seizure medications, and the Prozac they get at the back end of this insane industry.

And what do the democrats say? Well, there is no such thing as vaccine injury. It’s all an illusion and these women are hysterical. And they’re so easily deluded. But these women know what happened to their child.

I would say it’s time for the Democratic party to start listening to women. And what happened to the central, fundamental plank of the democratic party? My body, my choice!

And why is our party advocating censorship?
And why is our party in bed with one of the dirtiest industries in the history of mankind?

We need to take our children back. We need to take our country back. We need to take our democracy back. Thank you.”

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/…/robert-f-kennedy-jr-s…/

Posted in Corruption, drugs & medication, HEALTH, vaccines | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment