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, andeastern 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.]
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.
This is from The Telegraph 14th Dec.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.
The following is a small excerpt from Chapter 11 of Stop Feeding Us Lies.
“Grass grows by taking CO2 out of the air. With the help of energy from sunshine and water from rainfall, grass converts atmospheric CO2 into molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Some of these carbohydrate molecules, called cellulose, are used to create new blades of grass and some, which are more simple sugars, are passed down the plant and into the roots. To keep the arithmetic simple let’s assume a blade of grass absorbs 100 molecules of CO2 and that 80 of them are used for growth and 20 of those carbon atoms go down to the roots, where they will stay if the ground is left undisturbed.
Constance the cow comes along and eats all of those 80 carbon atoms in the grass. The bacteria in her rumen get to work and convert plant cellulose into the fatty acids and proteins that Constance needs to grow. A by-product of this process is methane gas which is produced at a rate of approximately 5% of the food Constance eats. Therefore for every 100 molecules of CO2 absorbed by grass, cows return 4 or 5 of them to the air as methane. Simple arithmetic and basic biology show it is impossible for cows, or sheep, to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They simply recycle a few of them.”
Many years ago, we were warned about the dangers of ‘global warming’. The name for this impending doom was later altered to ‘climate change’. Presumably, this was done so that whatever happened to the climate, our self-indulgent way of life could be blamed. The media have now started to ramp up the fear by referring to this concept as the ‘climate crisis’ or ‘climate emergency’. Daily fearmongering across mainstream media has shown that people can be persuaded to believe implausible ideas if they have already been made to feel sufficiently scared.
Outrageous notions are now coming thick and fast. Recently, we had the Cabinet Minister, Kwazi Kwarteng, telling us we must go vegan to ‘save the planet’. In the Times Magazine of April 24th, there is an article which attempts to rank foods by their greenhouse gas emissions. The piece is inspired by “one of Britain’s top scientists”, who has written a book about food and climate. The top scientist is a Professor of Extragalactic Astronomy. She has become a vegan because of what she believes to be the greenhouse gas emissions produced by livestock.
The headlines in the article included ‘Butter is five times worse for the environment than vegetable spread’ and ‘Eating a large steak is equivalent to driving a fossil-fuelled car for 40 miles’. My first thought was that if I drove 40 miles I would still be hungry, but if I ate a large steak I would be satiated and well-nourished. Sadly, the extraordinary level of misinformation in this is article is no laughing matter.
There are two major problems the Professor has failed to understand. The first one is basic biology and the second is the purpose of food.
1.The rhetoric goes along these lines: cows belch methane; methane is a greenhouse gas; we need to get rid of cows. People who push this idea insist we must stop eating meat because farm livestock are responsible for ‘emissions’ which are so huge they are heating the planet to dangerous levels. The thing none of them seem to grasp is that it is impossible for cows and sheep to emit greenhouse gases; they can only recycle some of them.
Cows and sheep only eat plants. A lot of people think plants grow out of the ground, but this is not strictly true: they are rooted in the ground and get water and minerals from the ground but they grow out of the air. Every carbon atom in the structure of a plant was taken out of the air, as carbon dioxide, during photosynthesis. When animals eat and then digest those carbon atoms to create their own structure, the process produces methane gas, as a byproduct, at a rate of about 5% of the food eaten. After a few years in the atmosphere that methane is converted to CO2 and the ‘carbon cycle’ continues, as it has for tens of millions of years.
When we drive a car 40 miles, we burn carbon-rich fuel, which has been stored underground for millions of years. Therefore, cars emit greenhouse gases which add to the total in the atmosphere whereas cattle recycle some, which does not add to the total. This basic difference seems to be totally ignored in reports on this subject.
We are often told that cattle farming is ‘unsustainable’. This, of course, depends on how it is done. When the settlers and farmers from Europe arrived on the plains of mid-west America, they found the most fertile soil they had ever seen and in places it was between six and ten feet deep. That soil existed because 75 million bison and deer had roamed the land, for thousands of years, eating the grass that grew there and leaving their ‘manure’ upon it, before moving on. This process involves a symbiotic relationship between ruminant animals, grassland plants and trillions of bacteria and fungi in the soil. Universities and farmers around the world have proved that regular movement of herds of livestock to fresh grass, in a way which mimics nature, increases carbon storage in the ground and simultaneously improves soil fertility. Wild herds of ruminants have been doing this for 50 million years; a timescale which suggests to me that it is ‘sustainable’.
One hundred years ago those American farmers were growing wheat on as much of that land as they could because wheat prices were high. They did so much ploughing and planting of a single crop, they turned those deep, fertile soils into what became known as the ‘dust bowl’. The grass, which had covered the prairies for a million years, was turned over; the fungal network was destroyed; the land dried out; and when a period of drought came, the soil was turned to dust and blown by the wind, across the country, as huge, dark clouds. Thousands of farmers were made bankrupt and there was an enormous exodus of people from the mid-west to California, in search of work. The US Government bought millions of acres of land and replanted it with the original prairie grass. History shows us that it is mono-crop arable farming which is unsustainable.
2. In the Times Magazine article the Professor of Extragalactic Astronomy listed a wide variety of foods and quoted the supposed emissions of each. Throughout the article, however, there is no mention of the nutritional value of any food, which is, surely, an essential factor in our diet. Suggesting that we should eat vegetable spread instead of butter, for example, ignores the fact that butter is a natural product with considerable quantities of vitamins A, B12, D, E and K2 and omega-3 fatty acids. Vegetable spread is a highly processed, unnatural food substitute usually made from sunflower oil. This oil contains high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, which are known to increase inflammation. Chronic inflammation is linked to heart disease, arthritis, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and age-related macular degeneration.
Plant foods contain no vitamin B12. A deficiency of this essential nutrient can lead to brain atrophy in children, psychosis, hallucinations, weakness, unsteady gait, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, weight loss, symptoms of depression and megaloblastic anaemia. Sadly, many people, like the Professor, are willing to risk the health consequences of a vegan diet because, somehow, they have been persuaded that the climate of this planet is controlled by the digestive system of cows. A far bigger problem, which is not being tackled, is the enormous burden of obesity, diabetes and all the related metabolic disorders suffered by millions. This health catastrophe is intricately linked to a diet containing too much processed, fake-food and not enough nutrient-dense real food, like butter and meat.
It has recently been announced the Government intends to introduce a carbon tax on meat, cheese and gas boilers as part of its commitment to tackling climate change. This is the conjunction of two ideas, which are constantly repeated in the media and believed by a great many people, even though neither of them makes much sense. The first is the universally held belief that our climate is controlled by the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The second is the modern notion that the rearing and eating of meat is bad for us and the planet.
The climate of Earth is a complex and chaotic system influenced by many variables, which include changes in solar radiation, cloud cover, ocean currents, volcanic activity, planetary orbits and El Nino events. Changes in the climate occur slowly but continuously. For millions of years the planet has been either warming or cooling. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas with a concentration of 0.04% of the atmosphere. It has the ability to absorb a narrow band of energy and prevent that particular wavelength of heat from escaping to space. It can, therefore, be called a greenhouse gas. However, its effect on the climate is so small as to be insignificant when compared to water vapour and, more importantly, the sun. Boris Johnson’s belief that that he can turn down the thermostat of the entire planet by tweaking the level of CO2 is naïve and unproven. It also ignores the recent decline in solar activity which has created a Grand Solar Minimum; an event likely to decrease global temperatures.
An interesting website called Weather-Report.com collects daily data from 28 weather stations around the UK and they state, “For the last 22 years, the weather has been very stable; with no statistically significant change in temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed, sunshine, rainfall volume or duration.” World-wide observations also show that the climate crisis does not exist other than in the extrapolations of computer models.
NASA satellites have shown the increase in atmospheric CO2 over recent decades has made the Earth greener. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is vital plant food. A further increase in CO2 would boost the growth of vegetation, but if extreme measures are taken to reduce levels to below 0.02%, the zealots of ‘climate-change’ risk crop failures and famine because plants cannot grow below that concentration of carbon dioxide.
Despite all this evidence, Boris Johnson is going to push through legislation to ban petrol cars and gas boilers. As with lockdowns to contain a virus, he has not given the slightest thought to the consequences. He has no plan to replace all that energy with a viable alternative. Solar panels covered in snow and stationary windmills during a lull cannot provide enough energy to heat our homes during cold winters. Man-made climate change is not real; it is an agenda which makes certain people a lot of money.
The other hoax which has been dove-tailed into this deception is the ‘eat less meat to save the planet’ agenda. The argument states that because ruminant animals, like cows and sheep, belch methane into the air they are adding to global warming and we must reduce their numbers. Even if you still believe that trace gases containing carbon trap enough heat to alter the climate, this argument is still nonsense. The methane is a by-product of a ruminant’s digestive system and involves up to 5% of the carbon atoms in their food. Cows and sheep eat plants and all the carbon in those plants was originally extracted from the air during photosynthesis. Farm animals do not emit carbon-containing trace gases; they recycle some of them. Ruminant animals evolved about 50 million years ago and have been belching methane throughout the many hot periods and ice-ages that have occurred across that timescale.
There is a huge and co-ordinated anti-meat movement operating across the world. It began in the 1860s with the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which still has considerable influence over official dietary guidelines. The World Economic Forum has declared that by 2030, ‘you will eat less meat’, whether you like it or not. British newspapers have been paid considerable sums to write regular articles condemning the meat industry. An organisation called the EAT-Lancet Commission has devised a Planetary Diet, which has very strict limits on the consumption of any animal sourced foods. The idea of a prescribed diet for the whole planet is typical of authoritarian regimes who have no respect for the essential part that food plays in the world’s vast array of cultures, customs and environments. None of this is based on nutritional science; it is entirely driven by a group of people with a fervent desire to prevent everyone else from eating meat. The trick they are trying to perform is to reduce meat consumption to such a low level that livestock farming becomes unviable. Then there will be no alternative to a plant-based diet.
Meat is the most nutrient dense food we can eat. It contains all the essential amino acids we need and is referred to as complete protein. Meat contains a wide variety of vitamins and minerals. Many of these are in either the active form required by humans or in a more easily digested state than those in plants.
Long chain omega-3 fatty acids are often associated with fish and fish oils but red meat contains a significant amount of these vitally important fats too. They are usually referred to as DHA and EPA and plants do not contain any. They are essential for brain function and development; they help fight depression and anxiety; they reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and ADHD. DHA is a major component of the retina of the eye and is vital for vision.
Red meat is an excellent source of vitamin B12. It is essential for a multitude of functions related to both the circulatory and nervous systems. Plants possess neither of these structures and consequently contain no B12. A deficiency of this essential vitamin can lead to depression, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, hallucinations, seizures, anaemia, macular degeneration, failure to thrive, birth defects, brain atrophy (especially in children of vegan mothers) and severe cognitive decline.
It is typical of politicians to think they can alter the climate by making people pay more tax. I am genuinely frightened by how ill-informed our Government ministers are. A carbon tax on animal foods will not make one iota of difference to the climate but it will inevitably make nutritious food too expensive for the poorest people in society. These are the people who already suffer the worst levels of ill-health. Boris Johnson’s inability to consider the consequences of his virtue-signalling is about to make that situation even worse.
I urge you all, please, write to your MP and demand that a tax on animal foods never becomes law.
According to the latest Ispos MORI poll, confidence in the ability of the NHS to deal with people suffering from Covid-19 has declined. Their latest press release stated, “A clear majority of Britons are confident in the ability of the NHS to deal with those who are ill as a result of the virus, but this has fallen 12 points from November and now stands at the lowest level since the pandemic began. Meanwhile 35% are not confident the NHS can cope, up 11 points from November. Confidence is split along party lines, those favourable to the Conservatives are significantly more likely to be confident in the ability of the NHS to deal with the Coronavirus (72%) than those favourable to the Labour Party (56%).”
It seems inevitable that people will worry about the NHS becoming overwhelmed when we are told, every day, that this is happening. The only surprising thing about this poll is the degree to which people’s confidence in the health service is so partisan. People seem to believe their favourite political party can make the NHS work well, even though 99 per cent of MPs have no scientific background.
I believe there are more important questions to ask than the one used in this poll. For instance, ‘have the Government and Sage done everything they can to alleviate the danger of Covid infections?’, and ‘have the Government and Sage done a thorough analysis of the benefits compared to the harms of prolonged lockdowns?’ The answer to both these questions is a resounding no.
Covid-19 is a nasty, and sometimes, fatal disease for those who become infected. I believe it is sufficiently virulent that a nationwide effort to tackle it is entirely appropriate. However, to say I am disappointed by the response would be a huge understatement. In my opinion, what the Government and Sage have done, and more importantly have failed to do, amounts to gross negligence. These are some of their failings:
The UK suffers from very high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other components of metabolic syndrome. These diseases are caused by chronic, elevated blood sugar, which leads to insulin resistance. This enormous problem has been putting the NHS under pressure for decades. Doctors working independently, and contrary to official guidelines, have been able to reverse these conditions, without medication, by the adoption of a low carbohydrate diet. The authorities have made no attempt to change dietary guidelines despite relevant evidence from all over the world. This failure is vitally important because 95% of people who have died with Covid-19 had pre-existing conditions, which were mainly metabolic disorders. This hugely significant fact has been ignored.
Published research has shown that raised blood sugar increases your risk of dying with Covid. Here is a quote from the study, “The cumulative probability of mortality was significantly higher in patients with hyperglycaemia compared to patients with normoglycaemia, independently of pre-existing diabetes.”
Other work has shown that high levels of fructose, which is part of the table sugar molecule, inhibits the ability of immune cells to recognise viral and bacterial pathogens. If our defences cannot see a virus, they cannot fight it.
The effect of metabolic disorders on Covid mortality is also demonstrated by variations in the gut biome. Prevalence of certain bacteria predicted which patients would die from Covid with 96% accuracy. Those bacteria in question proliferate in people with poor diets and poor health.
If the health authorities had used the viral epidemic to advise everyone to avoid ultra-processed food, sugar and refined carbohydrates they could have avoided thousands of Covid deaths and simultaneously reduced the burden of metabolic diseases, from which millions of people suffer.
There is no good evidence that lockdowns work in the long run. However, there is clear evidence that prolonged lockdowns make the entire population more susceptible to severe symptoms when they catch a respiratory virus. Professor Sheldon Cohen has worked for decades on the relationship between prolonged stress and more severe viral infections. He regards chronic social isolation and fear as the most potent stressors for damaging the immune system. Inevitably, lockdowns increase social isolation and fear. Perhaps the new coronavirus variants are not more transmissible; they just seem to be so because now we are all more susceptible.
No harm-to-benefit analysis has been performed for lockdowns, which demonstrates staggering ineptitude and negligence. Other researchers, however, have done this work and state any benefit does not warrant the harm and lockdowns should be eased. People have died in their homes for fear of going to hospital; some have died of cancer because their treatment was curtailed; some have committed suicide because their businesses and lives have been ruined. Psychologists are extremely concerned about the life-altering mental damage caused to millions of young people.
The vast majority of people infected with Sars-CoV-2 do not need hospital treatment, and do not die, because their immune system defeats the virus. The robustness of our immunity is weakened by metabolic syndrome and stress, as mentioned above. However, simple steps can be used to enhance the function of our immune system.
Many people have Vitamin D deficiency in the winter. 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. Supplementation is cheap and readily available. There is no downside to having optimum levels of vital nutrients. People have died of Covid because of Vitamin D deficiency. During the summer we were allowed to exercise outdoors but not allowed to sit in the sunshine, even when alone. This prevented the accumulation of vitamin D stores. Other factors which boost immune systems and general health include a diet of real food, exercise, and good sleep. None of these have been mentioned.
Oxford University have announced they are starting a trial to test the efficacy of the drug Ivermectin. We do not need a trial because we already have robust evidence that Ivermectin is of considerable benefit to seriously ill Covid patients if administered early. Why are they delaying the use of this important, cheap drug?
I would like to see MORI conduct a new poll asking, ‘How confident are you that Sage are doing everything they can to reduce the impact of the virus?’ I wonder what the results would be if they only ask the people who have read the references quoted here.
The media is still full of horror stories about Covid19. The Government is still imposing local lockdowns and international quarantines in and from a constantly changing array of locations. The fear of this viral disease is rampant and constantly maintained by the mandatory wearing of face masks so that wherever we go we are reminded that our fellow humans may be dangerous. The graph below of Daily Deaths shows that for the last two months there have been almost no deaths related to the Coronavirus. So why do we suffer all this loss of liberty?
The story has changed. We used to hear about the number of people dying but now we only hear about the number of new cases. We are told that new cases mean the virus is spreading and, even if we have no symptoms, we could be giving it to someone who will die. As we can see in the Cases graph below numbers diminished steadily from April to mid June but have since risen slowly. The media want us to believe that the “second wave” is coming and we will have to lockdown all over again. However, there is another explanation.
During March and April, when the virus was peaking, people who were clearly ill and hospitalised were the only ones tested. When they all started getting better, the ‘Test and Trace’ idea became prevalent. This involves testing as many people as possible, especially those who may have had contact with someone else who has tested positive. When more people are tested more positive test results will be found. Does this mean the virus is spreading? The answer is not necessarily because of what the test is actually looking for. The PCR test involves taking a swab of the back of the throat and nostrils. The swab is then tested for genetic material from the virus. Remnants of viral RNA can remain in the body for weeks, or even months, and can be detected by this very sensitive test. Therefore, if you had the virus 5 weeks ago you can still test positive but you are neither infected nor infectious.
Most of these new cases are in people who are asymptomatic, but if you have no symptoms you have no illness. The definition of ‘illness’ is to be in poor health or sickness. All these cases are irrelevant if the people are not ill.
Michael Mina is an Epidemiologist, Immunologist & Physician at Harvard School of Public Health & Harvard Medical School. On August 21, 2020 he wrote this to explain the sensitivity of PCR tests for Covid19 and how they are able to give a positive result for people who are no longer infected nor infectious.
1/The molecular tools we use like PCR for #COVID19 tests detect the virus genome. Like detecting DNA in a piece of hair, detecting virus RNA tells little about whether the virus is still active…
2/When the virus is growing and someone is transmitting virus, it grows to billions of viruses. So it’s easy to detect when virus load is high using antigen tests (look for the virus proteins themselves) or PCR (look for the RNA) …
3/But after the virus is cleared by the immune system, all of those viruses leave little trails of RNA behind. The RNA gets stuck in vesicles on the cells and it can sit there, in the nose or mouth, for weeks or months at very low levels…
4/So what does this have to do with a super sensitive PCR test being too sensitive that it can potentially cause more harm than good…?
5/The PCR test can continue picking up that leftover RNA the whole time it is there – for weeks or months AFTER the viral infection has been essentially cleared. So ultimately, the majority of time spent in the PCR positive state is after infection, not transmissible
6/So this can be harmful if testing is very infrequent like it is in the US (most people get tested only once, if ever – but even if testing every few weeks)The idea of the super sensitive PCR test is to detect people when at low viral load at the beginning of infection
7/But if screening tests are only every few weeks, the chances you detect someone in the very short window of time between turning PCR positive and having 10x higher viral loads (the virus grows fast and exponentially inside the body) is very slim. This window is hours.
8/On the other hand, with a very sensitive test, people might stay positive for many weeks or even months because it continues to detect the leftover RNA from the past infection. But this can be bad – it leads to unnecessary quarantines of people already past their infection
9/ If doing low frequency screening of asymptomatic people with PCR, the majority of people found to be positive will be detected only after their infection. So in the US we are unnecessarily quarantining millions of people, assuming they are infected when they’re already recovered
10/And we are contact tracing all of these people and quarantining and testing their contacts looking only at the two days prior to their swab for the test – meanwhile they were likely infectious 1-5 weeks earlier! So wasting resources tracing the wrong people.
11/To sum, we are using extremely sensitive PCR tests for screening. They are expensive and limited so we do them very infrequently. What we gain is ability to find someone a few hours earlier – only IF by chance the swab is taken in the few hours where it makes a difference
12/What we lose is ability to more frequent tests and thus do not catch people when it matters. Further, we mistakenly end up quarantining millions of people for 10 days because we erroneously assume any PCR + test was collected at the beginning of an infection. When most are after.
13/So maybe the most sensitive PCR test is not only costly for screening, but maybe even more damaging than a cheaper more frequent lower sensitivity test. The apparent missed cases maybe aren’t false negatives. Maybe the (+) on the PCR are False (+) for actionable results
14/I think it’s time we take a hard look at the types of tests we are using, what they do and do not tell us about infection, and figure out how to use them accordingly, instead of just assuming that more sensitive is better. Maybe less sensitive is better for some things.
15/ To finish, high sensitivity PCR is great if you are a doctor and need to know what is wrong with your patient. Like a detective, you want all shreds of (RNA) evidence. But it’s not always better & sometimes a lower sensitivity test is more accurate at detecting active infection. We published on some of these issues as well as how the viral load data from the PCR could be better used clinically earlier this year: “To Interpret the SARS-CoV-2 year, consider the Cycle Threshold Value”
Thousands of people have lost their jobs; businesses have closed; depression, suicides and paranoia are on the rise; cancer patients go untreated; children are frightened, unschooled and masked; we are not allowed to have parties or go to watch sport; we are suspicious of our fellow humans; we have sacrificed so many freedoms for the sake of ….. what? We are doing this for a rise in test results that show that people who are not ill had a virus at some time. This is not okay. This is not science. This is an agenda and it is not for our benefit. We need to complain and fight back.
“New research shows that over-75s on statin drugs are less likely to die within a decade.” This story was covered by all the national newspapers in July 2020. The research in question was conducted by geriatricians at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. After looking at data from 300,000 Americans aged 75 or older, they concluded that “those taking statins were 25% less likely to die from any cause and the drugs lowered the risk of having a stroke or heart attack by a fifth.”
A full-page spread in the T2 section of The Times newspaper on July 14th 2020 praised the benefit of statins to the hilt. However, it did mention that statins have been given some bad publicity because of their side-effects but to discover the truth, “We asked leading experts for the latest insight.” The most frequently quoted ‘expert’ in the article is Dr Dermot Neely. He is a spokesman for a charity called Heart UK. It seems unlikely that Dr Neely is an independent voice on this subject because the purpose of Heart UK, according to their website, is to “prevent early disease and deaths from cholesterol and other blood fat (lipid) conditions in the UK.”
The home page of the website states that “Over half of UK adults have raised cholesterol which can lead to heart disease. Together we can make things better.” The website goes on to lay the blame firmly at the door of saturated fat in the diet and recommends the use of statin drugs for the avoidance of ‘death from cholesterol’.
There are several problems with all of this:
there is a dearth of investigative journalism throughout the media, which leads to the use of confirmation bias in the selection of ‘expert’ opinion. Reporters look for people who will support the story they want to write instead of seeking different opinions to strike a balance.
reliable evidence that cholesterol and/or saturated fat causes heart disease is not available.
a large number of other studies have shown that older people with high levels of cholesterol live longer and healthier lives than those with low levels.
In recent weeks, I have been asked many times if I have seen ‘Game Changers’ and what I thought about it. Apparently, this film is regarded as convincing by many people. I watched it so that I can give my honest appraisal.
Having spent several years researching the science of our dietary needs and our evolution, I can state categorically that it is impossible for a vegan diet to be superior to an omnivore diet or, indeed, an entirely carnivorous diet. I can make this statement because we are not herbivores. This is the only indisputable fact that anyone needs to remember when wondering if veganism is for them. If you are a member of the human race, veganism cannot be your optimum diet: it is lacking in too many essential nutrients.
My book is called Stop Feeding Us Lies for a very good reason. We are constantly bombarded with myths, misinformation, fake news and downright lies. You just have to watch a political debate to know that. ‘Game Changers’ is just another big lie. It is part of a large and well-coordinated attack on our traditional foods by vested interests. Those vested interests are food manufacturing companies that stand to make a fortune if they persuade enough people to stop eating the animal foods our ancestors have been eating for a million years and switch to fake foods made in their laboratories.
The producer of ‘Game Changers’ is just one of those vested interests. His name is James Cameron and he is the founder and CEO of Verdiant Foods, an organic pea protein company with the goal of becoming “the largest pea protein fractionation facility in North America.” Pea protein isolate is the main ingredient in all those fake meat products that have recently arrived on the shelves. ‘Game Changers’ is not science: it is an indirect advertisement for the producer’s business. If this film persuaded you to go vegan, I believe you have been duped by a clever advert.
The film claimed they had evidence that Gladiators in Ancient Rome ate a plant-based diet and this was supposed to convince us that veganism conferred physical strength on these people. The truth is that gladiators were slaves and ate what they were given. Also, they needed to be fat rather than strong because the more fat they had the more protection their vital organs had from cuts and blows.
There was one section in the film which I thought nobody could be fooled by, but perhaps I was wrong. I did not think anybody could be gullible enough to believe that a meal of vegetables, rather than meat, would make a man’s penis significantly larger (while he was asleep!) I suppose most men (and perhaps women) would like to believe something so unlikely might just be true.
We evolved into who we are because our ancestors ate meat for a million years. When I go to my local butcher’s shop and buy some meat; the butcher got it from a local farmer; the local farmer reared it on his fields using sunlight, rainwater and the fetiliser that came out of the cow. There is nowhere in this process for global corporations to make any money and that is why they are trying to persuade us it is wrong. It isn’t wrong; it is exactly what we should all be doing for the good of our health, the benefit of our local communities and the climate.
