Not safe at all!
WHO, EU announce partnership creating ‘global system’ of digital vaccine passports
The World Health Organization and the European Union announced their collaboration on global digital vaccine passports at a joint press conference in Geneva on June 5.
“In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” the WHO press release states.
Anthony Hopkins Priorities
“I know that I have less to live than I have lived.
I feel like a child who was given a box of chocolates. He enjoys eating it, and when he sees that there is not much left, he starts to eat them with a special taste.
I have no time for endless lectures on public laws – nothing will change. And there is no desire to argue with fools who do not act according to their age. And there’s no time to battle the gray. I don’t attend meetings where egos are inflated and I can’t stand manipulators.
I am disturbed by envious people who try to vilify the most capable to grab their positions, talents and achievements.
I have too little time to discuss headlines – my soul is in a hurry.
Too few candies left in the box.
I’m interested in human people. People who laugh at their mistakes are those who are successful, who understand their calling and don’t hide from responsibility. Who defends human dignity and wants to be on the side of truth, justice, righteousness. This is what living is for.
I want to surround myself with people who know how to touch the hearts of others. Who, through the blows of fate, was able to rise and maintain the softness of the soul.
Yes, I hustle, I hustle to live with the intensity that only maturity can give. I’ll eat all the candy I have left – they’ll taste better than the ones I already ate.
My goal is to reach the end in harmony with myself, my loved ones and my conscience.
I thought I had two lives, but it turned out to be only one, and it needs to be lived with dignity.”
Brilliant Anthony Hopkins
and free interpretation of Mario de Andrade’s poem
Splenda Harms Your DNA
A new study on sucralose—a popular sugar-free sweetener that was put through 110 safety studies before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it in 1998—finds the popular ingredient has toxicities that regulatory agencies must consider.
New health and safety findings revealed in the study show sucralose, sometimes sold under the brand name Splenda, is “genotoxic,” meaning it breaks up DNA. That’s on top of other condemning evidence revealed in the study published May 29 in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Years of independent research into sucralose have dismantled many of the original claims made in its food additive permit.
How sucralose can damage DNA is a metabolic process. When the sweetener is digested, it forms a metabolite called sucralose-6-acetate. But the product itself has also been found to contain trace amounts of this chemical compound. Taken together, the results of this study and previous research implicate sucralose in a range of detrimental health issues.
“This is not acceptable. We can’t have genotoxic compounds in our food supply,” Susan Schiffman, corresponding author of the study, told The Epoch Times. “I think if it was presented to the FDA today, they would not approve it. The original claims made to the FDA just aren’t true. I don’t know how they missed it.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/researchers-discover-toxic-sweetener-damages-dna_5307637.html
Why We Should Reject WHO’s Power Grab
Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence; 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%
The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine
Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation
The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input
Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/07/covid-death-coverup.aspx
The Founder of Greenpeace On CO2
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: “There is no definitive scientific proof… that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the last 300 years.”
“But there is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth, and that without its presence in the global atmosphere… this would be a dead planet.”
Full talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c
Organising and Organisations
As I lay in bed prior to starting my exercises I looked at the situation in the US (and the rest of the world) and realised the key element in any group endeavour that is missing on the side of the good guys is organisation.
Those who seek destruction have taken over the institutions of society, education, politics, judiciary, law enforcement, banking, commerce etc. and the good guys have no way to take back control of those institutions or comparable organisations to replace them.
I have previously remarked that reading all that is going on gives me the feeling that those who sat ringside watching the destruction of the Roman Empire must have had in the next to last days of Rome.
I take heart from the many good people doing things to help others but there needs to bar far more of it and on a much larger scale and that requires organisation. LOTS of organisation and I do not see that happening at present.
And if the good guys who want to maintain and improve this civilization can’t or won’t organise for its continued existence as effectively as the bad guys are organising its destruction then we best get busy organising a replacement civilization as a matter of urgency.
A quote popped up in Facebook this morning that I posted 7 years ago:
The price of freedom: constant alertness; constant willingness to fight back.
If you want more specifics on the origins of the rapid decline in this civilization, read this: https://www.tomgrimshaw.com/tomsblog/?p=44351
Kill The People To Save The Planet From An Imaginary Threat
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBhH_EWV94
Consensus in science
In 1914, there was a consensus among geologists that the earth under our feet was permanently fixed, and that it was absurd to think it could be otherwise. But in 1915, Alfred Wegener fought an enormous battle to convince them of the relevance of plate tectonics.
In 1904, there was a consensus among physicists that Newtonian mechanics was, at last, the final word in explaining the workings of the world. All that was left to do was to mop up the details. But in 1905, Einstein and a few others soon convinced them that this view was false.
In 1544, there was a consensus among mathematicians that it was impossible to calculate the square root of negative one, and that to even consider the operation was absurd. But in 1545, Cardano proved that, if you wanted to solve polynomial equations, then complex numbers were a necessity.
In 1972, there was a consensus among psychiatrists that homosexuality was a psychological, treatable, sickness. But in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association held court and voted for a new consensus to say that it was not.
In 1979, there was a consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years. But in 1980, Alvarez, father and son, introduced evidence of a cataclysmic cometary impact 65 million years before.
In 1858, there was a consensus among biologists that the animal species that surround us were put there as God designed them. But in 1859, the book On the Origin of Species appeared.
In 1928, there was a consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant. But in 1929, Hubble observed his red shift among the stars.
In 1834, there was a consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours. But in 1835, Bassi and later Pasteur, introduced doctors to the germ theory.
All these are, obviously, but a small fraction of the historical examples of consensus in science, though I have tried to pick the events that were the most jarring and radical upsets. Here are two modern cases.
In 2008, there is a consensus among climatologists that mankind has and will cause irrevocable and dangerous changes to the Earth’s temperature.
In 2008, there is a consensus among physicists that most of nature’s physical dimensions are hidden away and can only be discovered mathematically, by the mechanisms of string theory.
In addition to the historical list, there are, just as obviously, equally many examples of consensus that turned out to be true. And, to be sure, even when the consensus view was false, it was often rational to believe it.
So I use these specimens only to show two things: (1) from the existence of a consensus, it does not follow that the claims of the consensus are true. (2) The chance that the consensus view turns out to be false is much larger than you would have thought.
These are not news, but they are facts that are often forgotten.
You Can Borrow My Belief In You
