CS – Stop Feeding Us Lies

Vaccine Reality

18/09/202418/09/2024 by CS

As we move into autumn and then to winter, we will be encouraged to have a variety of vaccinations ‘to protect us from infection, reduce pressure on the health service and protect those around us’. This mantra has been repeated so often it is very widely accepted without question. However, I am going to question it because it is not true. A vaccine cannot protect us from infection; the only thing protecting us from infection is our immune system. Details are essential in all areas of medicine. The best thing a vaccine can do is to educate our immune system to recognise a particular pathogen and create antibodies to attack it, if and when it appears in the body.

How much a vaccine may help us depends on how well our individual immune systems are functioning. This is clearly true from the number of elderly people who die from a flu infection each winter despite having had a ‘flu jab’. According to the British Medical Journal there were almost 15,000 excess deaths in the UK during the winter of 2022-23 caused by influenza. These people were susceptible to the disease because they were elderly with poor immune systems. We deteriorate in old age because a variety of our bodily processes become damaged and less efficient, including our immune system. A vaccine does not, and cannot, protect us from infection because if we had no functioning immune system a vaccine would be completely useless.

I am not entirely against the concept of vaccination, but I am concerned by the excessive hype they receive, the ever-expanding number of vaccines made available, the inclusion of toxic adjuvants and the lack of safety studies on both the adjuvants and the vaccines. It is a far better idea to concentrate on improving our immune systems, which can be achieved in the same way we improve all our metabolic processes. Improved nutrition and reduced stress are the important things to look at. The claims made for the elimination of diseases by vaccines are severely exaggerated as shown by this diagram. (Credit to LearnTheRisk.org)

Deaths from infectious diseases were considerably higher in the 1890s and early 1900s. They had declined considerably long before vaccines were introduced, and some diseases declined without having a vaccine. These sharp declines happened when cities introduced proper sanitation and clean water supplies; the poorest people in society earned a little more money and could afford better food; and people became better educated about health. The decline had nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with sanitation, education and nutrition. (Reference below.)

When humans are metabolically healthy, well fed and live in clean conditions our immune systems are able to function as they should and protect us from disease. We have an innate immune system we are born with, and an acquired immune system, which remembers previous infections. It is a wonderfully complex and whole-body system which has evolved over millions of years. The diagrams below show the various structures and cell types involved in our immune systems. Do you really believe that a commercial product injected in your arm will save you from disease, while this system cannot?

The Pharmaceutical Industry makes an enormous amount of money every year. A lot of people are prescribed and take their drugs every day. The most perfect product from a drug company point of view is one that everybody needs to take whether they are ill or not. The invention and promotion of vaccines has turned every person on the planet into a potential customer for a small group of companies. The proliferation of vaccines has steadily increased along with the profits of vaccine manufacturers. I read recently that drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research. Some of that money is spent on doctors and political lobbying, which has successfully convinced the vast majority of people that we all need regular vaccines and boosters to save us from severe disease. If you do an internet search about vaccines you will find pages of ‘expert’ endorsements and you will struggle to find the information I showed at the beginning about diseases declining before the use of ‘jabs’.

If you agree with my premise that the most important defence against infection is a healthy and robust immune system, you may still think the antibodies generated by a vaccine are a bonus which will help to protect to you. This argument makes sense as long as the injection does not cause something else which is harmful. I will give just two examples of harm caused by heavily promoted vaccines.

1. Everyone will remember the extreme response to the respiratory infection known as Covid-19. A great many people were threatened with losing their jobs if they did not have the rapidly produced ‘vaccine’. It was so rapidly produced that it was given ‘emergency use authorisation’ meaning that it could be given without going through the usual multi-year trials. They called it a ‘vaccine’ but it was not a vaccine; it was an experimental gene therapy involving viral genetic code (mRNA). I am not going to cover all the problems with it here but, for those interested, I have references at the end of this piece. I will simply show you a graphic of the VAERS report (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and remind you we were constantly told it was ‘safe and effective’ and anyone questioning the narrative was a labelled a ‘covidiot’.

2. In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a paper about the correlation he had discovered between the MMR vaccine and the incidence of autism in children. He did not say the vaccine caused autism; he said there was a correlation which needed to be investigated further, which is an entirely appropriate thing to say because of the small sample size in his study. When this gained publicity he was vilified, hounded and struck off the medical register. He was ‘proven’ wrong, but by whom? People employed by the Pharmaceutical Industry were the ones who ‘proved’ him wrong. But is he wrong? He has recently produced a film called ‘Protocol 7’, which highlights the cover-ups involved in vaccine research and marketing. The chart below shows the increase in recommended childhood vaccines in America.

This next chart shows the prevalence of autism in America. The correlation shown here does not prove that children’s vaccines cause autism. For proof we need a mechanism by which one thing causes the other.

Have you ever asked for a full list of the ingredients in the injection going into your arm or your child’s arm? Apart from the attenuated virus, the majority of childhood vaccines also contain an aluminium compound, which is there to stimulate the immune system into action and promote the production of antibodies. However, aluminium is well-known to be toxic, especially to brain tissue and especially to young developing brains. Multiple injections containing aluminium compounds which can travel to the brain provide an entirely plausible mechanism for vaccine-induced autism. If you want to know more about this, there is a link to a well-referenced explanatory article below.

Two final points:

1. It is well-known that the immunity granted by a previous infection is superior to that obtained from a vaccine. It is better, therefore, for healthy younger people to catch a virus and recover from it than to be vaccinated against it.

2. Respiratory viruses enter the body through the mucosal membrane, which is the wet skin on the inside of your mouth, nose, throat and lungs. This membrane has its own immune cells which are an important first line of defence. A vaccine for a respiratory virus injected into your arm bypasses the most important immune cells for resisting such a virus.

References

Dietary components of a healthy immune system

This website has over 3,500 published scientific papers on people harmed by the ‘safe and effective’ Covid jab. Published Science Database – React19

International scientists have found autism’s cause. What will Americans do? (substack.com)

Did diseases decline because of vaccines? Not according to history… – Learn the Risk

Vaccine Roulette: Quality Control, Contamination, and Negligence. (substack.com)

Protocol7 – Home

Immune Diet

18/09/2024 by CS

Our immune system evolved over millions of years and it is a complex, integrated whole-body system. Like everything else in our body, its ability to function at peak performance depends on how healthy and well-nourished we are. There are specific nutrients which are vital to our immunity and our susceptibility to disease can be increased if we are deficient in those nutrients. They include Vitamins A, C, and D and the minerals magnesium, zinc and selenium among others.

Many people have Vitamin D deficiency in the winter, which is when seasonal viruses like the common cold, influenza and Covid are more prevalent. This study, among many others, shows that those with the lowest level were far more likely to die of Covid19 than those with optimum levels. This study shows that vitamin D is important for the prevention of both flu and Covid. Supplementation is cheap and readily available and is a wise precaution during the winter. There is no downside to having optimum levels of vital nutrients. People have died of Covid because of Vitamin D deficiency. (During the summer of 2020 when official advice was rampant, we were allowed to exercise outdoors but we were not allowed to sit in the sunshine, even when alone. This prevented the accumulation of vitamin D stores. Why would they do that?)

Vitamin A: This study shows the importance of adequate levels of vitamin A for correct lung function and therefore the resistance of respiratory viruses. Vitamin A Deficiency and the Lung. This highlights the many benefits of Vitamin A

Both of these vitamins are fat soluble and likely to be low in people on a low-fat diet. They can also be low in people on a vegetarian or vegan diet because the best sources are in animal-based foods:

Vitamin A

Beef and lamb’s liver, salmon, tuna, mackerel, butter, cheese, eggs

Vitamin D

Salmon, tuna, herring, sardines, eggs, lard and bacon fat.

Of course, the best source of vitamin D is from sunlight on our skin (without sunscreen). However, during a British winter, it is not possible to get enough sunshine to create adequate amounts of this essential substance and we have to get it from our diet. It is worth remembering that it is a cholesterol molecule that is converted to vitamin D in the skin. Eating a lot of plant sterols (or taking statins) will reduce levels of cholesterol and potentially lower our immunity.

Vitamin C has an important part to play in our immune system. It improves the ability of immune and epithelial cells to function properly. Vitamin C and Immune Function

Diabetes During Covid and winter flu many of the fatalities were among people with diabetes. This study shows why that may not be a coincidence. Glycolytic control: A mechanism to regulate influenza viral infection

This is a quote from the Abstract of the study: “As new influenza virus strains emerge, finding new mechanisms to control infection is imperative. In this study, we found that we could control influenza infection of mammalian cells by altering the level of glucose given to cells. Higher glucose concentrations induced a dose-specific increase in influenza infection.”

A low-carbohydrate diet, as recommended on this site, has many more benefits than just weight loss and reversal of type 2 diabetes.

Minerals Some trace minerals have a profound effect on the integrity of our immune systems. Three of the most important ones are thought to be Zinc, Iodine and Selenium. They only occur in decent amounts in whole, unprocessed foods. Processing greatly reduces the mineral content.

Zinc is quite well-known for fighting the common cold. It is found in meat, shellfish, lentils and beans, nuts, dairy and eggs.

Iodine is essential for thyroid function and the thyroid is important for immunity. There are few good sources of iodine but the best include cod, tuna, shrimp, eggs, dairy, iodised salt and seaweed!

Selenium is an antioxidant that we require in trace amounts. Too little causes problems but so does too much. It is better to eat healthy foods than take supplements that may provide too much. The best sources of selenium are Brazil nuts, pork, beef, chicken, cottage cheese, eggs, mushrooms and spinach.

Good metabolic health, weight, blood sugar and an excellent immune system all come from eating the diet we evolved to eat: a low-carbohydrate diet of mainly animal-sourced protein and fat. What we eat can definitely improve our chances of fighting off the worst effects of any infection. Why do the NHS, Government and Chief Medical Officer never tell us this?

Safety culture

27/08/202427/08/2024 by CS

Many organisations will tell us that they regard ‘children’s safety as paramount’. This sounds appropriate but we need to ask ‘from which harm are you trying to protect them’? The answer is not as straightforward as many of them think. The following is an excerpt from Stop Feeding Us Lies in the chapter entitled Playtime Makes Us Better People

“Professor Tanya Byron is a clinical psychologist and author of several books on children’s mental health. She believes that children are being “raised in captivity” because of the “insane” levels of risk aversion. Back in 2009 she said, “Very rarely are children seen on the streets, playing outside, taking themselves to school because we live in such a risk averse and paranoid culture around child safety.” She wrote a report for the Government on children’s use of websites and video games. In it, she warned that far too many children were kept indoors because of parental fears about safety, but were then allowed free access to the internet where they were exposed to cyber-bullying and sexual predators.

In his book, No Fear: Growing up in a risk averse society, Tim Hill argues that childhood is “being undermined by the growth of risk aversion and its intrusion into every aspect of children’s lives. This restricts children’s play, limits their freedom of movement, corrodes their relationships with adults and constrains their exploration of physical, social and virtual worlds”.

He discusses the Government’s contribution to this awful mess and cites The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 as a major step towards more risk aversion (and therefore worse outcomes for children). The idea was to make sure that people who worked with children, or vulnerable adults, had no previous record of inappropriate behaviour. This sounds like a good idea, but as Tim Hill points out: ‘The Act places around nine million adults technically under suspicion of abuse: a third of the adult working population.’ The Act, for the first time, extends mandatory vetting to include over two million volunteers and workers involved in sport and leisure activities, and over 200,000 school governors.

Governments of every type are very keen on producing new laws, but they all seem to be incapable of grasping the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act was supposed to keep children safe from people who want to do them harm. What it has actually done is to assume that millions of adults, who volunteer to help with a huge range of children’s activities, are potentially unsuitable or even dangerous, unless they can prove otherwise by paying about £60 for a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS, formerly known as CRB.) It has created an atmosphere of fear and mistrust between children and adults. As a result, large numbers of volunteers are giving up because of the insinuation, the cost and the danger that an innocent remark, or the slightest physical contact with a child, will result in an accusation of abuse, which will destroy not only their reputations but also their careers and perhaps even their lives. This law has greatly increased the aversion to risk in children’s lives, which is one of the main destroyers of free play. Tim Hill concludes: “Underpinning and connecting all these harmful tendencies is an assumption of children’s vulnerability (or in the case of antisocial behaviour, their villainy) combined with failure to prioritise ways of fostering their resilience and sense of responsibility.”

We have already looked at the evidence which illustrates that instinctive play is the best way to foster children’s resilience and responsibility, but as a society we seem to be doing our utmost to prevent the proper development of young people. Our paranoia about safety, and fear of risk, has become so widespread and intense that it has spawned a culture of blame and litigious victimhood. While I agree that people who have been damaged by someone else’s negligence should be able to seek compensation, I am horrified by the attitude that every accident must be someone’s fault. If you put the words ‘accident claim school’ into an internet search engine, you get pages of law firms specialising in accident compensation. My dictionary defines ‘accident’ as ‘an event that happens by chance without apparent or deliberate cause’. How can you sue someone for an accident? According to reports in the press, on average, education authorities in England settle two compensation claims of £7,500 each, every school day of the year.

A typical example of this occurred in 2013 and involved a six year old girl who fell over in the school playground after being bumped by another child who was playing tag. The girl cut her head on a wooden planter, which had passed health and safety checks, and her mother sued for compensation via her solicitor. The City Council decided to settle out of court and the girl received £1,100. However, the council had to pay the mother’s legal costs of £13,000 as well as their own legal costs of £20,000. They decided to settle because they could not afford the legal costs if they had lost the case. The girl got £1,100 but the solicitors, between them, got £33,000. You and I paid out that money for a typical childhood accident. The judge involved in the case described it as “a complete waste of tax payers’ money”.

Compensation claims for childhood accidents cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money. As you can see from the example above, sometimes the lawyers get 30 times as much money as the girl who had the accident. Worse still, this culture of blame actively encourages the attitude that every mishap in life is someone else’s fault and thereby diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. I regard personal responsibility as the corner-stone of a successful society. This compensation culture denies children the opportunity to learn from their own mistakes. Lastly, and by far the worst, is the damage this attitude is doing to children’s play. Schools, education authorities and voluntary organisations are now terrified of being sued and their response is to cut back on every situation where children might fall over and graze their knees.

All of these health and safety initiatives begin with the best of intentions but they all snowball out of control. They so often make us neither healthy nor safe. The aversion to risk and the fear of litigation are making children far more sedentary and, indisputably, that makes them less healthy. Jaak Panksepp, Stuart Brown and other researchers have shown that children who are denied the opportunity for normal, instinctive, physically active play, grow up far more likely to be anti-social, violent and aggressive.”

How to save the NHS

30/08/202426/07/2024 by CS

This is an open letter to all politicians, especially Health Secretaries.

The NHS is a much-loved institution and politicians from every party always support it. There is a constant debate about how much extra money the health service needs and political parties vie with each other to appear to be the most generous towards the cost of our healthcare services. The questions about the NHS seem to be endless. How much extra money should we spend? How many doctors and nurses do we need? How many hospitals should we have? How should services be organised? These questions are debated repeatedly and changes are implemented over and over again. But, however they organise it, the budget for the health service goes up every year; it never goes down. It seems clear to me that nobody is asking the right question. All these questions are important but ultimately futile unless you can answer the most important question of them all, which is, “Why are so many people ill?”

The NHS costs over £350 million every day, but it is under severe pressure and the people of the United Kingdom are not healthy. Everybody is aware of the obesity crisis and that over-weight people are much more likely to develop diabetes, heart disease and cancer. These metabolic diseases are a huge problem for health professionals and patients.

Why are so many people ill? Why is the NHS struggling? Who is to blame? The culprit, in an extraordinary twist of irony, turns out to be the NHS itself. While the people working for it do a fantastic job, the NHS has become an enormous institution and it suffers from ‘institutionalised thinking’. The people at the top never stand back, take a good look at it and ask, “Are there any assumptions that we have made, and stick to, that might be completely wrong?” If they would only do so, they would realise their own dietary advice is completely wrong. So wrong that it has caused the obesity crisis and all the metabolic disorders associated with excess weight.

The National Dietary Guidelines were introduced in the UK in 1983 and they have never been overhauled since. They were copied from the American Dietary Guidelines, which were written by a Senate Committee rather than a panel of nutritional experts. They recommend a high carbohydrate and low fat diet, which directly causes weight gain through increased insulin secretion. (Explained here) The popular idea of ‘counting calories to lose weight’ does not work in the long term. (Explained here)

The guidelines vilified dietary fat, and especially saturated fat, without any evidence of harm. If you find it hard to believe that official advice could be so wrong you should look at the work of Dr David Unwin (among others). He is a GP who treats his overweight and diabetic patients not with drugs but with a low carbohydrate and high fat diet; the opposite diet to NHS recommendations. He has successfully reversed type 2 diabetes in over 100 of his patients. (The NHS says T2 Diabetes is irreversible, which is true if you treat it with drugs and the wrong diet.) At the same time he has reduced his surgery’s drug prescribing costs by £65,000 per year. (Details here) Imagine how much could be saved nationally if every GP was doing this. Imagine how much happier, healthier and productive the population would be if millions of people lost weight and reversed their metabolic diseases.

The way to ‘save the NHS’ is to prioritise what the NHS ought to be doing, which is help people to be healthy rather than treat them once they are ill.

To improve the nation’s health and make the NHS more efficient, the Health Secretary should:

Completely rewrite the Eatwell Guide and promote a truly healthy diet with no ultra-processed food. Promote the benefits of low carbohydrate intake and plentiful animal protein and fat. To achieve this you would have to do something Government should be doing anyway – support our British farmers so they can feed us with local nutritious food.
Remove the recommendation to use polyunsaturated ‘vegetable oils’ in place of natural animal fats. They don’t come from vegetables; they are extracted from seeds and contain inflammatory and toxic molecules. (More details here)
People who chose to work in the Health Service do so because they care about the health and well-being of others. They do not need lectures on how to respect others from ‘Diversity, Inclusivity and Equality’ officers, who are on three times their salary and have never had to deal directly with frightened, diseased and dying people. Scrap all of these unnecessary jobs.
Everyone should be encouraged to understand that their health, happiness and longevity is in their own hands and depends on their lifestyle. A healthy diet of fresh food is the most important factor, followed by regular exercise, sleep and an absence of chronic stress. Recent governments are guilty of causing damaging levels of unnecessary stress and must never do so again. (Explained here)
Health authorities should tell the truth about vaccines. These injections are promoted as if they protect the recipient from infection, but they do not. Our immune system is the only thing which protects us from infection; a vaccine can only educate the immune system to recognise a pathogen. How well our immune system does its job depends on our metabolic health health, our dietary intake of essential nutrients and our age. (Explained here and also here)

A healthy diet and lifestyle is a very simple thing, which is available to everyone with the correct information. To implement these changes a Health Secretary will have to make an important decision, because the only people who will object to these suggestions are the processed food manufacturers, whose products make us ill, and the Pharmaceutical companies who benefit financially from that illness. The decision is ‘do I want to improve the health of the British people, or do I want to maintain the profits of large corporations’?

There is no Climate Crisis.

01/03/202401/03/2024 by CS

We are told that increasing concentrations of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will lead to ever increasing global temperatures. The United Nations’ Secretary General warns that we have reached the stage of ‘global boiling’ and we are at a ‘tipping point’ where temperatures will accelerate causing floods, droughts, famines and pestilence. None of this is true because the ability of CO2 molecules to slow down the escape of heat to space becomes saturated at modest concentrations. The chart below looks complicated but the description below it explains it well.

This next chart shows the same phenomenon as above but in a less complicated visual format. This is important to understand because increasing CO2 levels are very beneficial for plants. It is totally wrong to refer to caron dioxide as a ‘pollutant’. It is the molecule of life; without it there can be no life on this planet.

But we are constantly shown graphs of rising temperatures aligned with rising CO2 levels. And we are told the global average temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees since the late 1800s. It is very difficult to know what the global average was over 100 years ago because there were very few accurate weather stations anywhere in the world other than North America and Europe. Previous global temperatures are an estimate at best and it makes more sense to look at the changes in those locations which have extensive thermometer records.

If there is a crisis of higher and higher temperatures, it makes sense to examine the maximum temperatures over a long period of time, rather than the average of all temperatures. The chart below shows the maximum summer temperatures across the US Corn Belt, which covers the mid-western states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, eastern Nebraska, and eastern Kansas. The highest temperatures occurred during the 1930s. There is clearly no relationship between maximum temperatures and CO2 concentrations and there is no new extreme of maximum temperatures.

We are told that climate change is causing an increase in dangerous fires, but the evidence says the exact opposite. Total area of land burned by wild fires in the USA has decreased considerably since the 1930s.

The climate change alarmists have been predicting a wide range of disastrous consequences for many decades. These predictions of doom have a 100 per cent record – every single one of them has failed to materialise. To keep people believing in the ‘Climate Crisis’ the authorities have resorted to some very dirty tricks. The graphic below shows the USA temperature record from 1880 to 1999 as published by NASA in 1999 (grey graph) and the exact same thing as published by NASA in 2019 (green graph) Except it is not the same; the hottest temperatures of the past have been ‘adjusted’ downwards and recent temperatures have been ‘adjusted’ upwards in the 2019 version. NASA and the rest of the climate change cult need to Stop Feeding Us Lies.

[This graphic is courtesy of Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com, where you can find many more examples of changing the past to fit the climate agenda.]

Cows and climate

14/02/202404/01/2024 by CS

Henry Mencken was an American journalist, satirist and cultural critic, who lived from 1880 to 1956. He may have been from a different era, but I find some of his observations are still entirely relevant: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

The imaginary hobgoblin I wish to discuss here is the instruction to ‘eat less meat to save the planet’. There is a strong, well-financed, global anti-meat agenda which is constantly pushing us towards a 30% reduction in meat-eating. Some European Governments are intending to force farmers to cull large numbers of their herd in the name of the ‘Climate Emergency’. Call me old-fashioned, but I have always believed the food we choose to eat should be based on nutrition, rather than the weather. (Blaming the digestive system of cows for extreme weather sounds to me more like medieval witchcraft than science.)

‘Eat less meat’ seems so unscientific; it is advice for everybody whether you eat meat every day or once a week. It feels much more like an often-repeated nudge to slowly alter our behaviour. The ‘save the planet’ part of this slogan is surely designed to be make us feel guilty. Who would want to be the person who brought about a climate catastrophe because of their over-indulgence in animal protein?

The idea behind this is simple: cows and sheep burp methane; methane is a greenhouse gas; eating less meat will result in fewer cows and, therefore, less methane; if we eat less meat we will save the world from over-heating. This is the story being pushed upon us, but it is nonsense. Ruminant animals have been burping methane for about 50 million years without any effect on all the ice-ages and warm periods throughout that vast timescale. It is impossible for cows and sheep to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They simply recycle a few of them in the Carbon Cycle. The plants they eat grew by taking carbon dioxide out of the air in the first place via photosynthesis. The methane produced by their digestive bacteria is oxidised to carbon dioxide within 10 years, ready to be absorbed by plants again. (More details here)

We are told that the methane cows burp is a very potent greenhouse gas and we must reduce it. Whenever I hear this I remind them the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is 0.00018%, which is less than 2 parts per million. When I ask them ‘at what lower concentration of methane can you guarantee colder weather’, they have no idea. (George Monbiot of the Guardian blocked me on social media for asking him that very question). Nobody ever tells us to eat less rice to save the planet, despite rice paddies producing considerable levels of methane.

Whenever we are told what to do by self-appointed experts, I always wonder who is going to benefit from the actions we are advised to take. If we all reduce our meat intake by 30% it will make absolutely no difference to the climate, but it will make a big difference. Small family farms throughout the country will be forced into bankruptcy if they lose 30% of their turnover. Then the land will be bought cheaply by large corporations, who will probably obtain taxpayer-funded subsidies to put wind farms and solar panels in the fields. Our nutritious meat will be replaced by lab-grown, ultra-processed, synthetic meat, produced by a small group of global companies. These are the people pushing the anti-meat agenda because they foresee huge profits for themselves. People like Patrick Brown, the head of Impossible Foods, which makes plant-based meat substitutes like the Impossible Burger. He has said, “I want to put the animal agriculture industry out of business. It’s that simple. The goal is not because I have any ill will toward the people who work in that industry, but because it is the most destructive industry on Earth. In their place, my company’s scientists and food technicians will create plant-based substitutes for every animal product used today in every region of the world.” Do you like the idea of a megalomaniac having total control of the world’s food supply? One man who does like that idea is Bill Gates, who is heavily invested in lab-grown fake food. He is also a huge investor in land. He has already bought huge areas of American farmland, taking it out of production.

Of course, the attack on meat, and the farmers who produce it, is not coming from just one man. It is part of the UN’s Agenda 2030. This agenda talks about cosy ideas of sustainability and biodiversity, but those words are a cover up for a global power grab, and control over our lives, by an unelected few. The farmers of Europe are protesting and blockading roads because the dictats of European bureaucracy are so stringent they are going to drive the farmers out of business. This, it appears, is precisely the purpose. If we do not support our local farmers and resist this tyranny we will all be eating insects and ultra-processed fake food form a factory before we know it.

Meat is the most nutrient-dense food we can eat and we need our local farmers to keep producing it. (More details here)

Is it worth the risk?

26/07/202415/12/2021 by CS

This is Dr Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA vaccine. He has some advice for parents and grandparents who are being asked to have their children ‘jabbed’ against Covid.

Coercion is immoral

01/04/202314/12/2021 by CS

Over the last few days the mainstream media has produced a huge and co-ordinated assault on the ‘unvaccinated’. These are just two of the headlines from 14th of December.

This comes at the same time as the Government is pushing hard to ‘Get your Booster’. The letters pages of many newspapers contain multiple examples of people suggesting that ‘the selfish, unvaccinated should be excluded from all public places and from treatment on the NHS’.

This divisive, coercive, unscientific and unethical attack on an individual’s right to choose what is injected into their body has reached extraordinary proportions. Do people really believe that the vaccines they have had are rendered useless by contact with someone has not had the same injection? Do they believe that every unvaccinated person is a vector of disease? Surely, if the unvaccinated have caught a deadly disease they are not going to be sitting next to you in a restaurant; they will be at home in bed. Why do they think the double or triple dose of vaccines they have had will not protect them from the virus? This argument makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, the latest research on the Omicron variant shows that it is the vaccinated who are spreading the disease.

The Centre for Disease Control in America has announced that 80% of Omicron cases are in the vaccinated.

We are being lied to over and over again. There is an agenda at play. I do not know what it is, but this is not how you improve the health of a nation. They are trying to blame a section of society who have not complied with their every whim. They are trying to turn people against each other. Their only response to Covid has always been vaccines but it is the vaccinated who are catching this new variant. They are not being honest; they need to Stop Feeding Us Lies.

Covid Conundrums

01/04/202320/10/2021 by CS

Have you ever wondered why some people do not want to be ‘jabbed’? Or do you need to explain to others why you do not want to be ‘jabbed’? We live in strange times when people who have chosen to be ‘protected’ from Covid19, by having two ‘jabs’, are worried about meeting people who have not been ‘vaccinated’. If the vaccines work, what do they have to fear? If the ‘so-called’ vaccines do not work, why should anybody have them? We seem to have reached the extraordinary situation where the ineffectiveness of these vaccines is blamed upon the people who have not had them. I do not claim to cover all the angles but in this post I list many of the points which I believe should be open for discussion. The mainstream media, however, never allows any of these topics to be raised.

[All the references in this post can be found on the Covid-References page]

1.Falsification of numbers. The daily reporting of deaths was used to scare everybody into believing SARS-Cov-2 was an extremely deadly virus. But the totals were for people who had died ‘within 28 days of a positive Covid test’. This has never been done previously for any other disease. It includes all the people who died of cancer, heart disease, road accidents and suicide as long as they had a recent positive test. Nobody knows how many have died specifically of Covid because this is a deliberate falsification.

2. The Government listened to the advice of Prof Ferguson, who predicted a death toll of half a million people. A cursory glance at the history of Ferguson’s previous clairvoyance shows a constant, reliable record of enormous over-exaggeration. He has never come close to being correct. [Ref 1] The Government used a totally unreliable source to guess at the possible severity of the disease and caused panic by giving it credence.

3. The media fearmongering was enhanced by the daily reporting of ‘case’ numbers, which were determined by the PCR test. However, the PCR test was not designed as a diagnostic tool. The polymerase chain reaction is a method of replicating a segment of genetic material and when the process is repeated sufficiently often there is enough material for it to be detected. Detecting a fragment of viral DNA via this method cannot possibly tell you if it came from a living, active virus or the remnants of a dead virus, which has been destroyed by the individual’s immune system. To suggest that all PCR positive results are from infectious people is false. [Ref 2]

4. During the first wave, the median age of death was 82, which is slightly older than the national, UK, median age of death at 81 years of age. [Ref 3] Figures issued by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) showed that 95% of the people who died with Covid had pre-existing disease. [Ref 4] It was clear from the beginning that this virus was only dangerous to the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Not one person in the Government or Sage has recommended steps to improve metabolic health and our immune systems. They have totally ignored all the evidence that deficiencies in vitamin D, zinc and selenium are closely linked to a weakened immune system. [Ref 5] The correct diet, or appropriate supplementation, cannot carry a downside and, for most people, will help. This has never been mentioned by the people employed to advise on our health.

5. Lockdown. The quarantine of infected, ill people has been shown to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The quarantine (lockdown) of millions of healthy people has never been used before and has no medical history to recommend it. The Government enforced this experiment on the nation without any attempt to perform a risk-to-benefit analysis. If Boris Johnson worked for a private corporation and had introduced such draconian, expensive and experimental measures without any attempt to calculate the unforeseen consequences, he would have been sacked for dereliction of his duty. The idea that lockdowns worked and should have been implemented earlier has gained widespread acceptance, without any evidence for their benefit. Data from each of the States in America shows no significant difference between the states which locked down and those that did not. [Ref 6]

6. A considerable surge in early deaths occurred in care homes. This was caused by the incompetent, and Government led, removal of large numbers of hospitalised, unwell people back to care homes which were not equipped to deal with them. Many of these unfortunate people had Do Not Resuscitate notices applied to them without their consent. [Ref 7] There is some evidence that many of these were ‘finished off’ with the excessive use of Midazolam injections, stocks of which were ordered by Matt Hancock. [Ref 8]

7. The Strategic Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) is a committee whose members change depending upon the nature of the current emergency. The Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, and The Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance, chose the people they believed are best suited to help the Government to make appropriate decisions. The group they assembled contained no expert immunologists but it did contain several mathematical modellers and behavioural scientists. As a consequence, the country has been subjected to a grotesque series of psychological stresses and fears. [Ref 9] Professor Sheldon Cohen of the Carnegie Mellon University is an expert in the effect of stress on immunity. He has shown that prolonged isolation and fear are hugely detrimental to our ability to resist respiratory viruses. [Ref 10] It is as if lockdowns were designed to make us all less able to fight off viruses with our natural immunity. If Sage did not know this, they are negligent and if they did know but still proceeded with lockdown, they are corrupt.

8. The Sage group also contains an extraordinary number of conflicts of interest tied to the Pharmaceutical Industry and especially to vaccine manufacturers. They have constantly promoted vaccines and ignored all other possibilities. It is well known that natural immunity after infection provides better and longer lasting protection from reinfection than that provided by vaccines. But Sage and the Government have continually insisted that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of whether they have naturally produced antibodies or not. This makes no medical sense but makes huge financial profits for vaccine producers. [Ref 11]

9. For several months in the spring of 2020 Sage told us there was no reliable evidence to support the wearing of masks to reduce transmission. However, masks were made mandatory in July 2020 precisely when the prevalence of this seasonal virus had reached its lowest level of the year. Boris Johnson tells us he is following the science but clearly nobody is. The logical reason for implementing a mask mandate in summer is to maintain the fear already created by lockdowns. [Ref 12]

10. I referred to ‘so-called’ vaccines earlier because these ’jabs’ are not strictly vaccines. They are a type of medical device, which creates a protein in the body and this protein elicits an immune response. A typical vaccine consists of a dead or harmless virus which directly produces an immune response to the entire virus. A typical vaccine is also expected to prevent an individual from contracting the disease and from transmitting it. The Covid jabs allow you to catch Covid and transmit it. Their only claim to benefit consists of a promise that a Covid infection will be less severe than if you had not had the jab. How can they quantify that? How do they know how one individual would have reacted to Covid with or without the jab? This is not a deadly disease; the chance of survival is exceptionally good. [Ref 13]

11 These ‘vaccines’ are pushed hard on to absolutely everybody but they have not finished their trials yet, and do not do so until 2023. They have received ‘Emergency Authorisation’ which is not full approval. To obtain Emergency Authorisation, a medicine must be the only viable option during a clear and obvious emergency. The only health emergency in the UK is metabolic syndrome, which consists of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. [Ref 14] Sixty-four per cent of the population are overweight and we know, from 4 above, that metabolic disorders greatly increase an individual’s risk of serious Covid complications. Metabolic diseases are the reason the NHS is constantly under pressure. Throughout their tenure, neither Whitty nor Vallance have done a single thing to improve the nation’s metabolic health.

Emergency Authorisation cannot be granted if there is an alternative therapy. Sage, the Government, and the media have ignored all other treatments and disparaged any that have been mentioned. Ivermectin is a safe and cheap drug which has been taken by millions of people for years. There is considerable evidence from around the world that it is effective against Covid19. [Ref 15]

12. We have already seen that Covid poses no danger to healthy young people, but the age group at which people are ‘invited’ to have a ‘jab’ continues to fall. When it reached schoolchildren, the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) decided to recommend against ‘jabbing’ such young people because the benefit did not outweigh the risk. Chris Whitty and the other home nation CMOs decided to ignore expert advice and proceed. (We have already seen that Whitty has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to the promotion of vaccines.) Before having any medical procedure, an individual is supposed to give informed consent. It is also contrary to the Nuremburg Code to use coercion to persuade someone to have a medical procedure. The Government’s entire campaign of persuasion towards young people has involved coercion, with constant reference to ‘getting your freedoms back’ and without any mention of the undeniable risks involved with this ‘vaccine’. The Government’s actions are unethical and immoral.

13. Covid jabs have a terrible safety record. [Ref 16] All previous vaccines have been withdrawn when they displayed harm to recipients of lesser degree than these do. The latest VAERS report shows extraordinary levels of damage, but it receives no publicity in the mainstream media. These results would normally cause a vaccine to be banned from use. Why don’t they? Government data on ‘variants of concern’ from August 2021 shows that you are more likely to die from Covid if are double vaccinated than unvaccinated. See [Ref 17]

14. Since the emergence of Sars-1 and MERS many years ago, the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to produce an effective coronavirus vaccine. All attempts have failed during the animal trials because of a reaction known as ADE (Antibody-dependent enhancement). [Ref 18] The vaccines initially created antibodies but when the animals were challenged by a wild virus, the disease was made worse by the over-reaction of the immune system. (This may be what is happening with Ref 17.) What many sceptical people find truly sinister is the desire to ‘jab’ every single person in the world with a ‘vaccine’ that has not been through any animal trials and was rushed into use via Emergency Authorisation. The unvaccinated are, in fact, performing the vital role of a control group, which is something the authorities do not want. Why would that be?

15. The ‘vaccine passport’. Scotland has already introduced a mandatory vaccine passport, creating a medical apartheid that most of us thought could never happen in the UK. England will no doubt follow soon. This will bar all unvaccinated people from their inalienable rights and all normal gatherings for theatre, sport and social events. If Covid19 was a deadly disease and the vaccine prevented infection and transmission, it might make sense. But it is clear that Covid is not particularly dangerous for the vast majority of healthy people and the vaccine neither protects from infection nor transmission. So vaccinated people can gather and possibly infect each other but unvaccinated people will not be allowed to gather even if they have recently tested negative. Does this sound like they are following the science? Or does it sound like Covid is being used as an excuse to introduce a system of digital control over our lives, where we all have to ‘show our papers’?

Do you think any of the points I have raised are, at least, worthy of a civilise debate on television? If so, why do you think that debate never happens?