The ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ is a wonderful phenomenon for exposing just how stupid and worthless most of our politicians are.
When we ordinary people do something which has unintended results – the opposite of what we were intending – if we can swallow our pride, we can correct our errors. But politicians (and the bureaucrats who help develop and implement their impractical and often idiotic ideas) can never admit they have made a mistake. Moreover, rather than changing track when things go t*ts up, they usually double down on their stupidity.
Here are a few examples. I’m sure readers can think of many more:
Increasing/decreasing the number of GPs
If I remember correctly, Blair’s New Labour were worried about a decline in the number of GPs. So they gave GPs new contracts by which the GPs got about 40% increase in pay for doing much less work. So the average GP salary shot up from around £70,000 to well over £100,000 with some pocketing over £200,000. For a while, this seemed to solve the shortage of GPs problem.
But gradually GPs began to realise that they were paying an awful lot of tax at the higher rate. Moreover, their increased pension contributions meant many would go above the maximum untaxed limit. So, an awful lot of GPs in the middle of their careers decided to cut back their work to 4 or even 3 days a week to spend more time on their yachts or the golf course. As for those nearing retirement age, many took early retirement to avoid the horrendous tax implications of exceeding the lifetime pension allowance.
Result: Politicians’ policies to increase the number of GPs ends up reducing the number of GPs.
Saving/wrecking the environment
Our EU politicians had a great idea for saving the planet from the supposed devastation of global warming or climate change or climate crisis or climate emergency or climate breakdown or whatever it’s called this week. In order to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, they mandated that 5% of all petrol must come from supposedly renewable biofuels (E5 petrol) rising to 10% in September this year (E10 petrol).
There were only two small problems with this genius idea. Firstly, E5 and then E10 petrol give 10% to 15% fewer miles/km per litre. So, motorists have to use more petrol than before to drive the same distances. Secondly, this created a massive demand for crops to be expensively converted into biofuels resulting in possibly 5%+ of the world’s agricultural land being converted from food production to producing crops for biofuels. This increased food prices killing hundreds of thousands of the 700 million or so people who suffer from undernourishment and all the associated diseases. In addition, the need for biofuel crops led to massive deforestation, particularly in the Amazon and Indonesia, thus devastating the rain forests that are meant to save us from CO2-driven global overheating.
Result: Politicians’ brilliant plan to save lives and protect the planet ends up killing lots of people and wrecking the planet
Preventing/causing a deadly pandemic
The greatest American president who ever graced our planet, Nobel Prize-winning Saint Obama, found out that dangerous ‘gain of function’ research on viruses was being carried out at several US universities and research institutes. Realising the danger this research posed to mankind if one of these viruses were to be accidentally leaked from a lab, Saint Obama imposed a moratorium on all such research.
But it seems that the scientific community, in particular a certain Dr Frankenstein Fauci, considered Saint Obama’s block on this dangerous research to be just a minor inconvenience to be circumvented rather than complied to. So, millions of US taxpayers’ dollars appear to have been diverted through an indirect route (EcoHealth Alliance) to the labs at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology to continue the potentially dangerous research which Obama had banned. This meant that the research was moved from relatively safe US labs to filthy, unhygienic labs run by the Chinese military and staffed by incompetent, slovenly, corrupt spitting and hawking and nose-picking Chinese workers.
Result: Obama’s brilliant ban to prevent a dangerous pandemic ended up causing a dangerous pandemic that has already killed over 5 million innocents and will probably end up killing 20 to 30 million as more die both directly from (IMHO) Fauci’s Wuhan plague and indirectly from their lives being ruined or from not receiving medical treatment for other conditions.
What damage will ecolunatic Boris cause?
The three examples above may provide some mild amusement. But the real fun is just starting. The real fun will be when we begin to see the unintended consequences of our priapic PM’s recent conversion to crazed ecofascist climate catastrophist nonsense.
What can we expect?
thousands more deaths in the winter because many elderly cannot afford to heat their homes?
mass unemployment as what little is left of UK industry moves to countries where energy prices are a tenth of the level of the UK?
a massive increase in demand for new gas boilers just before the ban on new gas boilers comes into effect?
huge traffic jams as useless electric milk floats pretending to be cars run out of electricity?
and much more chaos that I haven’t the imagination to foresee
If only our penis-fixated PM, whose brain appears to be located south of his navel, had found a girlfriend with a degree in science rather than a girlfriend who did some crap like theatre studies, then we wouldn’t be committing economic and societal suicide to supposedly save the planet from something which is only happening in the deranged minds of Greta and the self-obsessed, virtue-signalling, woke, West-hating, freedom-loathing, psychologically-unbalanced Greta-worshipping cultists.
This blog may help fill in some gaps in understanding how the Chinese Wuhan plague originated.
Let me explain as briefly as I can.
I believe that Covid-19 was accidentally released by slovenly hygiene procedures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Furthermore, I believe that US Dr Anthony Fauci was funding coronavirus research at Wuhan by channelling money to the Wuhan lab through the EcoHealth Alliance, probably to avoid President Saint Obama’s moratorium on gain of function research on viruses in the US.
But there’s a huge gap in this scenario – the answer to the question: Why was Fauci so interested/obsessed with gain of function research on coronaviruses that he would deliberately construct such an opaque method of funding the Wuhan lab work? Was Fauci just interested in coronaviruses in the same way as you or I might be interested in football or collecting rare coins? That’s unlikely.
And so we come to the video below. It’s much longer than I would normally recommend, but the key parts are in the first 20 minutes. In the latter part of the video the speaker starts to push a number of conspiracy theories which may appear somewhat dubious. As we have found out with our epidemiologists over the last year or so, you always have to be careful with people who are experts in small, highly-technical areas. As soon as they’re let out of their box and get media attention, they tend to lose all sense of proportion as they only view the world through the narrow lens of their own speciality. They will then say almost anything to get attention as they are usually desperate to stay in the limelight for the first time in their narrow little lives.
But the first 15 to 20 minutes of this video do seem to provide the missing pieces of the Fauci/Wuhan virus story – a possible explanation as to why Fauci was so determined to fund the Wuhan lab research.
In the first couple of minutes of the video, the speaker (Dr. David E. Martin) explains his work. This is important background. The real bombshells from the video (if you believe Dr David E. Martin) come between 7.40 minutes to 9.20 minutes.
Here are the main conclusions I’ve drawn from the video:
Covid-19 is not a new (novel) virus. It has been in existence for over 20 years according to patents lodged by Fauci and the NIAID
You cannot patent any naturally-occurring substance. What Fauci and the NIAID were patenting were laboratory-engineered manipulations of coronaviruses
The original coronavirus research done over 20 years ago was aimed at finding vaccines for dogs
The researchers then realised that the malleability of coronaviruses made them possibly ideal for developing a vaccine against HIV. The coronavirus would apparently function as a vector to distribute the HIV vaccine
In Patent No: 7279327 dated 19 April 2002, Fauci’s NIAID tried to patent a manipulated version of a coronavirus specifically designed with a spike protein which made it highly infectious to humans. This could be a step on the way to the manufacture of the HIV vaccine
So, to cut a long story short, Fauci may have been trying to end his career on a spectacular high by manipulating coronaviruses to develop a vaccine against HIV. If he had succeeded, this would have been Nobel Prize-winning and Congressional Medal stuff. Or possibly he was just trying to develop a general vaccine against all coronaviruses.
Not only did he not succeed with either goal, but by working with a badly-managed, poorly-run, insufficiently-staffed Chinese lab to avoid Obama’s US moratorium on gain of function research, Fauci may have ended up creating and then leaking a laboratory-made virus which has already killed over five million people and will kill at least five million more.
Here’s the video. This video has been ignored by the mainstream media and lambasted by the usual supposed ‘factcheckers’ as crazy-conspiracy nonsense. You can decide for yourself whether you believe the content of the video’s first 15 or so minutes and whether my interpretation of how Covid-19 may have really happened is correct or not.
(You can leave comments by clicking on the headline to the blog)
Today – two stories about how we get fleeced when we think we’re giving to charities in Africa.
Story 1 – Ethiopian billionaires laughing at our gullibility
It makes you proud to be British, Last week the UK Government decided to chuck another £29m into supposedly tackling starvation in Ethiopia. Here’s part of our Government’s joyous announcement:
The Minister for Africa Vicky Ford has announced an additional £29m of humanitarian aid to people affected by the catastrophic conflict in northern Ethiopia. The announcement marks World Food Day today [16 October] and increases the UK’s commitment to the crisis to more than £75m – making the UK the second largest donor.
Of course, we don’t have that £75m. We don’t even have the latest lump of £29m. We’ll have to borrow it and pay interest on it for decades to come. So we won’t have so much money to spend on public services in Britain.
Let me just remind you of two not totally minor facts about Ethiopia:
Fact 1: The population of Ethiopia is shooting up:
When Saint Bob did his BandAid and LiveAid, there were about 40 million Ethiopians. Now there are close to 100 million. So it’s no wonder they don’t have enough to eat. By 2050, there will be about 200 million Ethiopians. So we’ll still be pouring ever more of our money into the bottomless pit of Ethiopian hunger. Although, of course, with all our political parties (enthusiastically encouraged by the woke mainstream media) keen to de-white the UK population as fast as possible, a few of Ethiopia’s teeming millions will no doubt be encouraged to move to a life of benefits and crime in the UK.
Ethiopia’s problem is not a lack of food, it’s a lack of birth control. But, of course, nobody dares say that as Ethiopians are black and are thus above any criticism. Anyone daring to mention ‘population control’ would immediately be branded as a bigot and a neocolonialist and a waaacccciiiissstttt!
Ethiopia already receives a massive $3.4bn a year in aid from the West. But according to the Global Financial Integrity project, Ethiopia’s rulers steal at least $2bn a year from their impoverished country. The billions stolen every year by Ethiopia’s rulers could have helped feed an awful lot of Ethiopians. In Ethiopia clearly black lives don’t matter to Ethiopia’s venal, greedy wealthy elites.
A small wealth tax on this bunch of (IMHO) shysters would be sufficient to feed many of the country’s starving millions. But that doesn’t happen. Instead we suckers in the West are forced by our virtue-signalling governments to hand over around $3.4bn a year, most of which ends up in the offshore bank accounts of Ethiopia’s utterly corrupt elites.
Story 2 – Just give £2 a month (and get put on the ‘suckers list’)
You’ve probably all seen the charity TV ads exhorting you to give just £2 a month or £3 a month or even a one-off gift of £5. You’ll be told that this very modest donation will supposedly save an African child from starvation or prevent a child going blind or provide water for a family or rescue a donkey or whatever. Some of these charity ads may be genuine in that the charity will content itself with your fiver or your few pounds a month. But far too often what the charities are really doing is harvesting people’s contact details. These people will then be put on a ‘suckers list’ which will be handed over to commercial, profit-making fundraising companies.
The fundraising companies will then contact all the people on the ‘suckers list’ to try to get them to set up a monthly direct debit to the charity in question for much more than the initial £2 or £3 a month. Typically the suckers will be called and the caller will say something like “You have shown interest in (name of charity) andwe wondered if you might be interested in showing further support.”
By the way, a sizeable chunk of your direct debit money (often all your first year’s to 18-months’ contributions) will go to the commercial fundraising company and not the charity.
As for supposedly helping Africans. For a start it’s believed that every year Africa’s kleptocrat rulers loot three times as much money from their countries as those countries receive in foreign aid and foreign investment. So, if we could just cut African corruption by say 50%, Africa’s elites could still become billionaires and the continent would be richer even if we stopped all foreign aid.
And anyway, given the explosive growth in Africa’s population, hundreds of millions of Africans will still be starving in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 60 etc etc years time:
Africa needs population control, not an endless tsunami of our money.
As Christmas is approaching, enjoy this happy Christmas video. I produced this six years ago. But it is just as relevant today as it was in 2015 and will be just as relevant in 2025 and 2035 and 2045 etc etc as it is now:
I’ve just watched the BBC Breakfast News. As expected, it started with a longish report about the murder of Tory MP Sir David Amess. Also, as expected, at no point did the BBC mention that the alleged murderer was a Somali. I wonder why not?
It really is time to scrap the TV licence and let the BBC become a subscription/advertising-funded organisation aimed at limp-wristed lefty, UK-hating, migrant-loving, Greta-worshipping, virtue-signalling, intellectually-challenged wokies. Then we’ll see if the BBC is the supposedly nationally-respected and supposedly well-loved institution its arrogant, West-hating, Third-world-loving, overpaid, over-pensioned executives claim it to be.
As for the Somali alleged murderer from Somalia, we’ll probably never be told the truth. But I suspect he is some sort of illegal migrant who was handed a fistful of British passports rather than being deported. Perhaps the lying scum migration lawyers who helped this (IMHO) piece of garbage stay in our country should be prosecuted for being accessories to murder? That might dampen their enthusiasm for scamming millions of taxpayers’ money in legal fees ensuring as many people who hate us as possible are able to stay in our country. After all, as far as I understand, not a single one of the over 20,000 Third-world multi-cultural enrichers, which have been ferried across the Channel this year by the (IMHO) UK-loathing Home Secretary Priti ‘Useless’ Patel, has been deported.
How Patel must be laughing at our stupidity as she floods our crowded island with every worthless multi-cultural enricher her ludicrously-misnamed Border Force can find.
And while we can expect plenty of crocodile tears from the elites, the truth is that to our UK-despising rulers British lives don’t matter.
Hopefully you’ve all heard the good news. Apparently our Queen is now a Greta-adoring convert to the great man-made climate crisis mass delusion. From the comfort of one of her many castles or palaces the Queen has reportedly opined that she is “irritated” that politicians talk about taking action to stop climate change but don’t actually take action.
So it seems that the whole Royal Family – the Queen, knuckle-head Charles, ever-so-woke William, emasculated Harry – are all now believers dutifully worshipping at the feet of the the world’s greatest climate expert and modern-day prophet Saint Greta Doomberg:
Heat or eat?
Oh, and Her Majesty will apparently be attending Boris and Princess Nut Nut’s big Glasgow 4-day blabathon to show her support for governments to further impoverish and further restrict the freedoms of us ignorant, unwashed commoners in our small semi-detached houses or flats by:
imposing carbon taxes on everything we use
forcing us to install useless, expensive heat pumps which will need electric fires as back-up
forcing us to buy useless electric cars whose batteries will go flat every time we get stuck in a traffic jam
cutting off our gas supplies to make us only use electricity
imposing smart meters on us so power can be cut to any home deemed by the elites to be wastefully using too much electricity
making flying too expensive for us malodorous masses
creating a new criminal offence – ‘damaging the climate’
giving every home a carbon budget to limit the products we buy and any travel we want to make
Emboldened by how easy it was to terrify us into accepting (ineffective and damaging) lockdowns to supposedly fight the Chinese Wuhan plague, our rulers are slavering over their new-found power to control every aspect of our lives.
I suspect none of these Orwellian, pleb-crushing policies will affect our virtue-signalling, intellectually-challenged royals nor the sanctimonious elites who impose these restrictions on our lives. Though it will be interesting to see how many more ordinary people die each winter because they can’t afford to both ‘heat and eat’.
Once again, I strongly recommend journalist Ross Clark’s satirical novel about life in net zero Britain – THE DENIAL:
You have to laugh or you’d cry
I’ve just noticed that the government’s plan to ban new gas boilers and force us to replace them with ludicrously expensive, almost useless heat pumps is now called the “boiler upgrade scheme”. No doubt when flying is banned for ordinary plebs and we commoners are all forced to take our holidays in dismal, rain-drenched, drug-infested Blackpool, that will be called the “holiday upgrade scheme”?
You have to laugh or you’d cry.
Climate experts lie – ordinary people die
And here’s the wonderful Tony Heller yet again exposing the data manipulation and blatant lies of our ever more power-hungry elites:
Since the publication of my latest book – THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – I have been trying to get interviewed by the mainstream media about the book.
Of course, there is no chance that media like the Greta-worshipping, woke, West-loathing BBC or C4 News would go anywhere near someone daring to question whether an increase in a trace gas from 3 parts per 10,000 of our atmosphere to 4 parts per 10,000 over 150 years really was about to drastically change our planet’s climate and wipe out most of mankind.
But I had imagined that someone like Julia Hartley-Brewer or Mike Graham from Talk Radio or Nigel Farage from GB News might dare question the scientifically-ignorant, cult-like climate catastrophist nonsense. When contacting these people, I particularly highlighted that the claim of “97% of scientists” supporting the man-made global warming theory was probably the greatest scientific fraud in human history. But I found that nobody wanted to go anywhere near the story.
Is Andrew Neil a climate catastrophist now?
One thing I have noticed is that those few journalists who dare report on supposed climate change will discuss things like the cost of getting to net zero or the effectiveness of heat pumps or the fact that China is the greatest emitter of CO2. But none will question whether net zero is actually necessary. The latest example I saw was an article in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago written by Andrew Neil:
While discussing the cost of net zero, Andrew Neil wrote: “All governments, of course, have a duty to tackle climate change, which is real and potentially dangerous on so many fronts“.
What we can’t know is whether Andrew Neil really believes that limiting trace gas CO2 emissions will somehow change the Earth’s climate or whether he was forced by Daily Mail editors to include such a sentence because the editors were terrified of the newspaper being accused by the Twitter lynch mob of being “deniers”. But I have noticed that most articles about climate and net zero nowadays include similar (IMHO ‘grovelling’) obeisance to crazed Saint Greta’s climate catastrophist cult.
There doesn’t appear to be anybody anywhere in the mainstream media with the scientific nous or the cojones to denounce the whole climate crisis hysteria for the obvious mass delusion that it is. So my chances of ever being interviewed by anyone in the mainstream media are definitely less than net zero.
More climate nonsense from the Scrotsman?
As we move ever closer to Boris and Carrie’s big climate, hot air, Glasgow gabfest, the media is full of stories designed to terrify us into quivering serfs ready to accept whatever new restrictions on our lifestyles to get to net zero that our increasingly demented rulers think up. Here’s a nice opinion piece from the Scrotsman:
And here’s the reality – the sea level rise as measured at Aberdeen:
Not much sign there of ‘sea level rise is getting faster and faster’ as the Scrotsman claims.
And here’s the sea level ‘rise’ from Stockholm which is in a similar part of the world to Aberdeen:
If you have ever taken a bath (probably something most climate activists and Scrotsman supposed ‘journalists’ are unfamiliar with) you would know that the water cannot be rising in one part of the bath while falling in another part. And if you wanted to write about sea levels, you should probably check out such concepts as Post Glacial Rebound (why sea levels around Scrotland appear to be rising) and Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (why sea levels at Stockholm appear to be falling)
Apparently the Scrotsman used to be a newspaper. Now, like most of our mainstream media, it’s just propagandist, Greta-worshipping garbage.
A good place to start today’s blog might be a New York Times article from 1911 which helpfully informed us that in the future wind power (wind plus a dynamo to transform the wind into electricity) and storage batteries would provide much of our energy needs – “the great social and economic trio of the future is the windmill, the dynamo and the storage battery from which will come warmth and energy”:
That was 121 years ago.
The New York Times also predicted that our schools’ curriculums would include teaching about how wind would provide our electricity. Well, at least the New York Times got that bit right.
Has Kwasi ‘Khazi’ Kwarteng got a clue?
This brings us to Kwasi ‘Khazi’ Kwarteng. In several recent interviews, including on Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, our Business Secretary, Mr Kwarteng, was asked about how Boris and Carrie’s greeny government planned to solve the current energy crisis which threatens to shut down large parts of British business and bankrupt many farmers and poorer households.
As you’ll know, the energy crisis is partly caused by shortages of and therefore massive price rises in natural gas as panicking countries fight over limited supplies. The UK has been particularly badly affected because there has been a lack of wind to power all our wonderful bird-chomping wind turbines and so wind has dropped from supplying (I think) about 20% of our electricity to somewhere around 2%.
There were two possible answers to the question Marr asked Kwasi – a right answer and a wrong answer.
The right answer would be that the Government has realised that the UK needed to become energy-independent and would therefore encourage more oil and gas fields in the North Sea, fracking for gas in the North of England (in addition creating thousands of jobs and thus ‘levelling up’) and burning local coal in power stations rather than cutting down trees in the U.S. and shipping bits of tree across the Atlantic to be burned in British power stations. That would be an intelligent answer. But, of course, that would go against Fat Bunter’s desperate craving to satisfy his latest baby-making machine by posing as the man who saved the world from supposed global warming or climate change or climate emergency or climate crisis or climate breakdown or whatever it’s called this week
The wrong answer was the one we got from Business Secretary Khazi Kwarteng (and all our other politicians) – “We need to double down on renewables” Khazi told us. His ‘reasoning’ was that more renewables would protect us from uncontrollable gyrations in the international price of fossil fuels. Of course, Marr ‘forgot’ to ask Crazy Khazi what would be the point of more wind turbines if the wind didn’t blow as it hadn’t done for the last month or so. As for solar energy, in my book “THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS” I quote the CEO of RWE (one of Germany’s largest power companies) who said that producing solar power in Germany is “as sensible as growing pineapples in Alaska”.
Khazi Kwarteng’s logic is the logic of the madhouse.
Mad, madder, maddest?
All that sort of connects to my next point. A couple of days ago, I was looking through the images I had downloaded to possibly use in my book. I noticed something I stupidly hadn’t seen when writing my book. Beside each other in my files were two newspaper articles from 1989. In the first one, the New York Times (at the time a real newspaper but now a Greta-adoring, Guardian-lookalike, climate-catastrophist propaganda rag) informed us in January 1989 that “U.S. data since 1895 fail to show warming trend”:
(left-click on images and then left click again to see more clearly)
But just alongside the New York Times article another article in my files from June 1989, told a completely different story: “U.N. predicts disaster if global warming not checked”:
I wonder why the U.N. was predicting disaster in 1989 when there had been no indication of warming since 1895?
More madness from the climate catastrophist crazies?
Predicting doom and disaster
Moreover, if you left-click on the above article and then left-click again, you’ll see that as with all these warnings, we were told in June 1989 that “governments have only a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control”. That’s pretty much exactly the same warning we’re getting now (32 years later) as Boris’s great big Cop26 climate hot air bletherathon in Glasgow approaches.
You’ll also see the usual predictions of melting ice caps, Maldives disappearing beneath the waves and coastal regions being destroyed by a 3-foot rise in sea levels. Strangely, none of these 32-year-old predictions, that should have happened by June 1999, has yet happened. Yet the climate catastrophists keep on repeating them again and again and again:
Hooray for Merck! Hooray for our pharma companies!
You’re probably aware that the US pharma company, Merck, has just cut short their clinical trials of a new antiviral wonder drug, Molnupiravir, to treat the Wuhan Chinese plague and has requested emergency approval from the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The reason that the trials were halted and approval sought was that Molnupiravir has proved so successful at treating Dr Frankenstein Fauci’s Chinese plague that Merck wanted to get the drug out and in use saving lives as fast as possible.
Although we are now in October, Merck already signed a deal with the US Government back in June for $1.2bn for 1,700,000 courses of Molnupiravir. So Merck had quite a lot of cash riding on Molnupiravir’s success. Analysts believe that Merck could earn over $7bn from Molnupiravir and that it could be one of the most lucrative drugs ever produced (apart from heroine and cocaine, of course).
Other pharma companies are believed to be well advanced in their research to develop similar treatments for the Xi Pingpong plague accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of Virology programme to develop biological weapons.
What about Ivermectin?
As always when there is good news, there will be cynics who question whether things are really what we are told. These cynics have highlighted the fact that Merck already produce an antiviral, Ivermectin, and have claimed that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for the WuFlu if given early on.
Cynics have also noted that Ivermectin is out of patent and only costs around $1 to $2 for a course of treatment whereas Molnupiravir is supposedly a new drug and is therefore protected by patent and costs about $700 for a course of treatment.
Here are (I believe) the chemical formulas for the two antivirals:
Molnupiravir C13H19N3O7
Ivermectin C47H72O14
I haven’t studied chemistry so I cannot comment on whether these two drugs are substantially different. But cynics might be tempted to claim that with Molnupiravir, Merck have merely fiddled around with Ivermectin to produce something that was rather similar but yet sufficiently different to justify Molnupiravir being classed as a new (and therefore patentable and much more profitable) medicine:
It’s just a horse dewormer!
A strange thing about Ivermectin is that there has been a massive media campaign to discredit Ivermectin as a possible treatment for the Chinese Covid-19 plague. The FDA informs us that “Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and “drench,” are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals”. And there have been well-publicised stories of some Americans taking veterinary Ivermectin and being seriously ill or even dying. What these shock, horror stories tend not to mention is that Ivermectin is an approved drug for humans: “Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea”. Moreover, when shrieking about the dangers of taking Ivermectin, the media tend to not mention that over 3.7 billion doses have been safely administered to humans over the last 40 or so years.
Don’t mention India
There is one possibly relevant story that tends to be overlooked by the media – what has happened in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.
In Uttar Predesh about 2,000 Rapid Response Teams were sent to over 10,000 households checking for Covid-19 infections and distributing home care kits containing: Paracetamol tablets [tylenol], Vitamin C, Multivitamin, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin 12 mg [quantity #10 tablets], Doxycycline 100 mg [quantity #10 tablets]. Other non-medication components included face masks, sanitizer, gloves and alcohol wipes, a digital thermometer, and a pulse oximeter.
Five weeks after the start of this programme, the number of Chinese plague cases in Utter Pradesh had dropped by over 97%. On August 25, 2021, the Indian media noticed the discrepancy between Uttar Pradesh’s massive success and other states, like Kerala’s, comparative failure. Although Uttar Pradesh was only 5% vaccinated compared to Kerala’s 25%, Uttar Pradesh had (only) 22 new COVID cases, while Kerala was overwhelmed with 31,445 in one day:
The reddish line shows the number of cases in Kerala state where about 25% of the population were vaccinated and the blue line shows the case numbers in Uttar Pradesh where just 5% of the population were vaccinated.
So it could be concluded that whatever was contained in those treatment kits must have been pretty effective.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but ………
I would never sink to the level of conspiracy theorists who might suggest that the pharma companies (especially Merck) have colluded with the FDA and the media to discredit the incredibly cheap, out-of-patent Ivermectin so that we could be sold the much more expensive, in-patent Molnupiravir plus other similar and similarly expensive new antiviral drugs which will soon be on the market.
To suggest this would be to suggest that many of the 5 million who have been slaughtered by the Wuhan plague have died unnecessarily as there was always a cheap and effective treatment (Ivermectin) available.
But some people might worry that things may not be quite what the mainstream media are telling us:
I watch about an hour of daytime TV a day when I’m in the gym. Most of the ads seem to be for cheap funerals and fraudulent life insurance or else use multi-millionaire actors or former BBC journalists (probably with huge inflation-protected pensions paid for by us) to lecture us on why we should give our money to people in the world’s worst (usually religion of peace) hell-holes like the Yemen, Afcrapistan or Sudan. But I’ve also seen quite a few ads for charities working mainly in religion-of-peace cess-pit countries to rescue donkeys from appalling mistreatment. So I decided to do a quick check on the main donkey-rescue charities.
The Donkey Sanctuary
The mission statement for The Donkey Sanctuary is: “Working towards a world where donkeys and mules live free from suffering, and their contribution to humanity is fully valued”
The charity has a pretty impressive income of around £43m a year. I don’t know how much it costs to look after a donkey for a year, but let’s pluck a figure of £2,000 out of the air. If you then knock say 20% off the Donkey Sanctuary’s £43m a year for administration and fundraising, that means the charity could potentially be caring for more than 17,000 donkeys a year.
The Donkey Sanctuary doesn’t tell us how much their big boss gets paid. The charity only gives the minimum information required by the Charity Commission by informing us that the highest-paid employee gets between £130,000 and £140,000 a year.
Brookes
The mission statement for Brooke is: “Brooke is an international charity that protects and improves the lives of horses, donkeys and mules which give people in the developing world the opportunity to work their way out of poverty”.
Its income is over £21m a year and the CEO remuneration is somewhere between £110,000 and £120,000.
Society for Protection of Animals Abroad (Spana)
Spana appears to work with all kinds of animals, not just donkeys and horses: “To prevent unnecessary suffering to animals and neglect of their bodily needs by all lawful means and, in particular, by: 1. Providing treatment in hospitals and otherwise for sick and injured animals 2. Encouraging and promoting education in the humane treatment of animals any relevant environmental issues 3. Assisting in the enforcement of such laws as may from time to time be applicable”.
But Spana does feature donkeys quite prominently in its logo:
An oddity with Spana is that its income is quite modest- about £10m a year. Yet the highest-paid executive gets remuneration of more than £150,000 a year and there are two employees on £110,000 to £120,000. Quite why Spana’s bigwigs seem to be remunerated so much more generously than those at the £43m-a-year Donkey Sanctuary and at the £21m-a-year Brooke might be a question which the generous people donating to the £10m-a-year Spana could ask?
Spot the difference?
In 2015 I noticed how my elderly mother with dementia was being constantly plagued by supposed ‘charities’ all desperate to guilt-bludgeon her into donating ever more of her modest pension to them. The problem was that, once she had donated to a couple of charities, her name and contact details went onto a ‘suckers list’ that those charities sold on to other charities without letting my mother know how her name and details were being exploited.
Seeing how my ever more confused mother was being harassed by charities, I did a little research and then wrote a book – THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL
One of the many issues I brought up in THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL was that there were loads of well-known supposed ‘charities’ all doing pretty much the same thing. The example I used in the book was poverty reduction:
(left-click on image and then left-click again to see more clearly)
But given that we have over 200,000 registered charities in the UK, you could pick almost any issue, any type of animal, any disease or any type of misfortune and you’d probably find several charities all doing pretty much the same thing and all claiming that they deserve our money.
Many of these 200,000+ registered charities may be quite small. But there are also an awful lot taking in millions of pounds a year each and almost all will have highly-paid executives with loads of subservient minions and nice offices. Moreover, the bosses at the larger international charities, such as those in the above image, probably also have generous expense accounts so they can tour the world in great comfort visiting their many international operations.
In THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL I give the example of how two prostate cancer charities – Prostate Cancer UK and Prostate Action – seem to have realised that it was ridiculous to have two charities for just this one disease. So they combined and massively reduced their administration and fundraising costs:
Maybe the donkey/animal charities mentioned above should also merge? This would allow them to get rid of a few well-remunerated bosses, some expensive offices and loads of other administrative and fundraising costs. Even the Guardian newspaper – normally an enthusiastic cheerleader for public-sector and charity non-jobs – has suggested that there should be “many more collaborations and full mergers between charities”.
But, of course, I doubt the bigwigs on over £100,000-a-year each would be particularly enthusiastic about merging with other charities, so that more donors’ money could actually be used for charitable purposes rather than just enriching the lucky few, if this would mean them losing their important, more than comfortable sinecures and their chances of a few gongs, a knighthood or even a lucrative seat in the Lords.
A few years ago I considered writing a book about the UK titled “PARADISE FOR PARASITES”. This was partly inspired by my research into Britain’s massive, bloated, self-serving, money-grabbing £80 billion-a-year charity industry.
Today’s blog may seem a bit esoteric. But it does yet again and again and again confirm two quite important issues:
Our media will invent whatever lies they can dream up to pretend that we’re facing a terrifying, humanity-destroying climate crisis
Our media know that many people (and all young people) are so ignorant, badly-educated and even brainwashed that they will believe the media’s climate-catastrophist lies, however blatant and logically improbable those lies actually are
Lying Sky News’s daily pack of lies?
Several days a week, I force myself to watch the first few minutes of Sky News’s Daily Climate Show at 18.30 every weekday evening before I turn it off in fury at the programme’s regular vomit of climate catastrophist lies. This is, of course, Sky News (UK) which adores the ghastly Greta ‘Chucky’ Doomberg and not Sky News (Australia) which (as I have shown many times on my blog) knows that crazy Greta’s climate catastrophist banshee howling is a load of scientifically-illiterate nonsense.
Sky News (UK) is apparently very proud of its Daily Climate Show as it constantly boasts that it is “the only daily climate show on UK television” or something like that.
The ‘hundred millionths of a degree’ hogwash
In the background of the Sky News Daily Climate Show studio is a large wall display showing things like where our energy is coming from that day (renewables vs fossil fuels vs nuclear), the supposed rise in the Earth’s temperature since 1880 (pre-industrial times), the time left till the Earth’s temperature hits 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere:
I’d like you to look at the second line of information – the supposed increase in the Earth’s average temperature in the 141 years since 1880. As you’ll see, this number runs to 9 decimal places. I’m no mathematical genius, but if I’ve got my decimal places right, this means Sky News (UK) is claiming they can measure the Earth’s temperature to hundred millionths of a degree.
Quadruple bollox?
This claim by Sky News that they can measure the Earth’s temperature change since 1880 to hundred millionths of a degree is complete and utter balderdash for at least four reasons:
Reason 1 – Such measurement is impossible
As far as I know (and I may be wrong) there is no instrument yet invented by mankind that can measure temperatures to a level of hundred millionths of a degree. In fact, I believe temperatures cannot even be measured to a millionth of a degree or a hundred thousandth of a degree or even a ten thousandth of a degree. So for Sky News (UK) to display the Earth’s supposed temperature rise since 1880 to hundred millionths of a degree is deliberately-misleading, lying drivel.
Reason 2 – We’ve no idea what the Earth’s temperature was in 1880
Here’s a map of the world showing where temperatures were being measured from 1881 to 1920:
(the shaded areas show where temperatures were being measured)
As you’ll see, there was extensive measurement in the U.S., parts of Europe and in Australia. There was little to no temperature measurement in South America, Africa and much of Asia and none at the North or South Poles.
Even by 1978, just after the first temperature-measuring satellites were launched, there was still limited coverage of temperature measurement.
So we actually have no idea what the Earth’s temperature was in 1880. All we have are computer models of what the temperature might have been based on loads of assumptions and extrapolating the data from the few places where temperatures were measured. As for the idea that we knew to the nearest hundred millionth of a degree what the 1880 pre-industrial temperature was – just complete garbage. In fact, to call this garbage would be an insult to garbage.
Reason 3 – You can’t trust the satellites
The whole issue of measuring the Earth’s temperature was supposed to be solved in the 1970s when the first of three generations of temperature-measuring satellites was launched. But there were a few problems. For example, each of the three generations of satellites gave slightly different results. Moreover, satellites were found to give less accurate measurements of temperatures than ground-based thermometers. If you’re interested you can Google the reasons why satellites are so inaccurate. These include things like orbital drag, problems with atmospheric water vapour and the fact that satellites don’t actually measure temperatures directly.
Here’s the result from one study comparing the accuracy of satellite versus ground-based temperature measurement:
As you’ll see, the level of uncertainty for satellites was about 0.035°C per decade compared to 0.007°C for ground-based thermometers. But you’ll also see that temperatures were only being measured to a hundredth of a degree with the level of uncertainty estimates to some thousandths of a degree. So we can reliably assume that Sky News pulled their 9-decimal-places figures (hundred millionths of a degree) from somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine.
Moreover, if you Google the astonishingly primitive methods still used for measuring water temperatures of the two thirds of the planet’s surface covered by water, you’d struggle to believe that temperatures can even be measured to a tenth of a degree. But that’s another story for another day.
Reason 4 – Can the Earth ever have an ‘average temperature’?
Land and water temperatures constantly change every minute of every day and night during every season at every location. So at what point can the supposed climatologists claim they have an accurate measurement of the Earth’s temperature? All they have is a calculated temperature based just as much on assumptions and complex computer modelling as on actual temperatures measures. And as with all computer models – GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out).
You can fool all the snowflakes all the time
The game that Sky News is playing is to have a background display which supposedly indicates that the Earth’s temperature is relentlessly increasing at a devastating rate. Of course, the Earth’s temperature is never stable:
there was probably warming in the 1920s and 1930s when the ‘experts’ warned us that the glaciers and polar ice would melt and rising sea levels would submerge coastal cities:
then there was probably some cooling in the 1960s and 1970s when the ‘experts’ warned us that a new Ice Age was imminent:
then there was probably some warming in the 1980s and 1990s when the Global Warming scam really took off:
that was followed by ‘the pause’ between 2002 and 2014:
But since the 1990s the change in temperatures has been so negligible that Sky News have had to conjure up a totally fictitious figure of temperatures to hundred millionths of a degree (9 decimal places) to supposedly prove warming is happening.
But who cares if Sky News are (IMHO) lying and lying and lying? Sky News have (IMHO) realised that they can get away with their lies because they know they can fool all the scientifically-ignorant, social inadequates looking for a cause to make themselves feel important and morally-superior to the rest of us and, of course, all the woke, millennial snowflakes all of the time.
And now for someone who tells the truth
Here’s the advertising van I’ll have driving round Manchester for 7 hours a day on Monday and Tuesday this week during the Tory party conference:
(left-click on image, then left-click again to see more clearly)
As we are deluged by a tsunami of media and politicians’ lies about the Earth’s climate in the weeks leading up to Boris’s big Glasgow hot-air, woke, greeny climate gabfest in November, at least one person – yours truly, David Craig – will be telling the truth: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS!!!!!!!!!
David Craig, on October 22nd, 2021
