humansarefree--2020-11-20--Portuguese Court Rules: PCR Tests Are Unreliable – It’s Unlawful to Quarantine People

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test .
The court stated , the test ’ s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present .
Citing Jaafar et al .
2020 , the court concludes that… “ if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used ( as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US ) , the probability that said person is infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 % .
” The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown .
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40 , which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3 % and the false positive rate as high as 97 % .
To better understand how testing is done , please read this article : Fauci States COVID Test Has Fatal Flaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people had been quarantined by the Regional Health Authority .
Of these , one had tested positive for COVID using a PCR test ; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure .
Consequently , the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard , which required that they go into isolation .
The court ’ s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority ’ s appeal reads as follows : “ Given how much scientific doubt exists — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests , given the lack of information concerning the tests ’ analytical parameters , and in the absence of a physician ’ s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk , there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus , or whether A , B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.
” It is also important to remember PCR was invented as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material .
Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool .
The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily .
These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well .
This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler , a Swiss biologist , emeritus professor , and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern .
So if we do a PCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is not a virus that is detected , but a small shattered part of the viral genome .
The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left .
Correct : Even if the infectious viruses are long dead , a corona test can come back positive , because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [ to be detected ] .
Earlier , the WHO ’ s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on countries to test as many patients as possible for coronavirus .
Finland ran out of testing capacity and began limiting coronavirus tests to the most vulnerable groups and healthcare personnel only .
Finland ’ s national health authority said that testing people with mild symptoms would be a waste of healthcare resources .
In a startling disclosure , Finland ’ s head of health security , Mika Salminen dismissed WHO advisory saying the WHO doesn ’ t understand pandemics and that their Coronavirus testing protocol is illogical and doesn ’ t work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s testing protocols are indeed based on the most reliable , accurate and well sourced technologies and research methodologies available worldwide , shouldn ’ t they have known about its negligible effectiveness and its impact in causing panic and chaos ?
Indeed the WHO knows it doesn ’ t work and moreover this is not the first time such criticisms have been voiced .
In the past in 2010 , the WHO was caught faking a pandemic and was forced to admit that its methodology of measuring the virality or the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was incorrect .

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that…
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%.
To better understand how testing is done, please read this article: Fauci States COVID Test Has Fatal Flaw
This case concerned the fact that four people had been quarantined by the Regional Health Authority.
Of these, one had tested positive for COVID using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure.
Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation.
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:
“Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”
It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.
The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well.
This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern.
So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left.
Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].
Earlier, the WHO’s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland’s national health authority. WHO had called on countries to test as many patients as possible for coronavirus.
Finland ran out of testing capacity and began limiting coronavirus tests to the most vulnerable groups and healthcare personnel only.
Finland’s national health authority said that testing people with mild symptoms would be a waste of healthcare resources.
In a startling disclosure, Finland’s head of health security, Mika Salminen dismissed WHO advisory saying the WHO doesn’t understand pandemics and that their Coronavirus testing protocol is illogical and doesn’t work.
Bulgarian Pathology Association: COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless
So, if the WHO’s testing protocols are indeed based on the most reliable, accurate and well sourced technologies and research methodologies available worldwide, shouldn’t they have known about its negligible effectiveness and its impact in causing panic and chaos?
Indeed the WHO knows it doesn’t work and moreover this is not the first time such criticisms have been voiced.
In the past in 2010, the WHO was caught faking a pandemic and was forced to admit that its methodology of measuring the virality or the spread of the disease, instead of its severity was incorrect.
Source: GreatGameIndia.com


humansarefree--2020-11-20--Attorney Lin Wood: Georgia Woman Witnesses Shredding Company Shredding Ballots and Recycling Company

Attorney Lin Wood: Georgia Woman Witnesses Shredding Company Shredding Ballots and Recycling Company Destroying Evidence at Elections Office in Cobb County

Attorney Lin Wood posted photos and video of alleged Shredding Company truck leaving elections office in Cobb County Georgia .
@ @ @ @ @ shredding company trucks picking up the “ trash ” from the Jim R. Miller Park @ @ @ @ @ .
One woman said she saw the employees shredding evidence .
The woman Susan Knox @ @ @ @ @ the trash from the elections office .
Susan says in the video she witnessed the @ @ @ @ @ the Cobb County election center .
According to her , she called the police , @ @ @ @ @ come : The woman even followed the shredding company truck after it left the elections @ @ @ @ @ were they shredding ?
Illegitimate ballots that couldn ’ t be added to the count @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t want to include to the count , or something else entirely ?
@ @ @ @ @ we can find out ?

Attorney Lin Wood:
“Look, I’d like to see in a perfect world, John Durham’s report come out and people go to jail. I’d like to see Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and a lot of people go to jail. I’d like to see what’s on Hunter Biden’s laptop. I’d like to see those people go to jail. I’d like to see what’s on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. I’d like to see a lot of people go to jail.
“And then when we get to the final phase of the election fraud I’d like to see people go to jail. The one thing I’ll say is there’ll be an intermingling. There will be people going to jail I believe who are involved in all of those or some of those same investigations.
“So there is potentially a great awakening. The truth has to come out. I believe it will. I do not think that you can hide the truth. I do say it and I believe it, every lie will be revealed.
“This country’s going to be shocked when the find the truth about who’s been occupying the Oval Office for some periods of years. They’re going to be shocked at the level of pedophilia. They are going to be shocked at what I believe is going to be a revelation in terms of people who are engaged in satanic worship.”
Watch the interview below (I’ve marked the video to start at the part about pedophilia, minute 41:43, but you can play it manually from the beginning if you want to listen to the entire interview):
Sources: YouTube.com; Thegatewaypundit.com; Rumble.com


humansarefree--2020-11-20--UN Announced Biometric Digital ID Wallet

Recently , the United Nations had some big announcements that went largely unnoticed , including the rollout of a biometric digital wallet and an announcement that one of its specialized agencies The International Civil Aviation Organization is one step closer to a internationally recognized digital travel credential .
As reported by Biometric Update , this particular UN biometric digital wallet is intended for UN employees and it can be used for data related to human resources , medical status , travel , payroll and pensions .
I hope you see where this is going , every aspect of our lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in many cases the blockchain , AI and 5G .
I can ’ t help but to raise the question , what kind of social controls could this possibly provide the technocrats if people decide not to obey certain restrictions or requirements ?
Example : If you didn ’ t get your latest shot , individuals may face travel restrictions .
Or , you may not be able go to work , or your payments may be frozen until you comply .
They may not have to mandate anything if they can ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @

Recently, the United Nations had some big announcements that went largely unnoticed, including the rollout of a biometric digital wallet and an announcement that one of its specialized agencies The International Civil Aviation Organization is one step closer to a internationally recognized digital travel credential.
As reported by Biometric Update, this particular UN biometric digital wallet is intended for UN employees and it can be used for data related to human resources, medical status, travel, payroll and pensions.
I hope you see where this is going, every aspect of our lives will be centralized digitally using biometrics and in many cases the blockchain, AI and 5G.
I can’t help but to raise the question, what kind of social controls could this possibly provide the technocrats if people decide not to obey certain restrictions or requirements?
Example: If you didn’t get your latest shot, individuals may face travel restrictions. Or, you may not be able go to work, or your payments may be frozen until you comply.
They may not have to mandate anything if they can ‘encourage’ you to obey.
Source: Spiro Skouras on YouTube.com


humansarefree--2020-11-20--Orange County, Sacramento and El Dorado County Sheriffs Will Not Enforce Gavin Newsom’s Curfew Order

California Governor Gavin Newsom ( D ) on Thursday issued a curfew for most California counties .
The curfew will affect 41 out of 58 counties in California currently in the most restrictive “ purple tier.
” Earlier this week Newsom said he was looking at studies from other countries about curfews including France and Saudi Arabia .
Yes , Saudi Arabia , where they behead women in public .
The 41 counties in the purple tiers will be under a curfew which will be in effect from 10 PM to 5 AM starting on Saturday , November 21 until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one problem for the Democrat tyrant currently occupying the governor ’ s seat in California .
Sheriff ’ s offices from Orange County , El Dorado County and Sacramento will not enforce Newsom ’ s curfew order .
Orange County , a conservative enclave in Southern California will not comply .
OC Sheriff Don Barnes released a statement Thursday evening and said his department has better things to do than respond to requests about face masks or social gatherings enforcement .
Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones released a statement on Thursday and said his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s orders : “ The Sacramento County Sheriff ’ s Office will not be determining — including entering any home or business — compliance with , or enforcing compliance of , any health or emergency orders related to curfews , staying at home , Thanksgiving or other social gatherings inside or outside the home , maximum occupancy , or mask mandates .
Further , we will not dispatch officers for these purposes — callers will be advised to call 3-1-1 and be routed to County Health .
Of course , if there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts to public or personal safety we will continue to respond appropriately .
I would like to wish everyone a happy and meaningful Thanksgiving Holiday.
” — Sheriff Scott Jones El Dorado County Sheriff said his department will not be enforcing the curfew order and will not prevent Thanksgiving activities .
“ The El Dorado County Sheriff ’ s Office will continue to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
” On Nov. 19 the California Department of Public Health issued a curfew order for the state of California .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is aware and will not be enforcing this curfew order .
El Dorado County sheriff ’ s deputies will not be determining compliance with , or enforcing the compliance of , any health order related to this curfew .
The Sheriff ’ s Office will not prevent Thanksgiving activities , maximum occupancies or mask wearing mandates at social gatherings within the county of El Dorado .
Calls received by the Sheriff ’ s Office regarding enforcement of any COVID-related orders will be referred to the El Dorado County Department of Public Health at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still address reports of criminal activity related to public safety and our El Dorado County citizens .
The El Dorado County Sheriff ’ s Office will continue to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America .
Gavin Newsom has lost the consent of the governed .
Newsom recently attended a dinner party at The French Laundry , a restaurant in Napa Valley that charges $ 800 per person for their tasting menu while he tells Californians they can ’ t gather with their families for Thanksgiving .
No one at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wearing masks which is why many Californians are simply ignoring Newsom ’ s new order .

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) on Thursday issued a curfew for most California counties.
The curfew will affect 41 out of 58 counties in California currently in the most restrictive “purple tier.”
Earlier this week Newsom said he was looking at studies from other countries about curfews.
The 41 counties in the purple tiers will be under a curfew which will be in effect from 10 PM to 5 AM starting on Saturday, November 21 until December 21st.
However there is just one problem for the Democrat tyrant currently occupying the governor’s seat in California.
Sheriff’s offices from Orange County, El Dorado County and Sacramento will not enforce Newsom’s curfew order.
Orange County, a conservative enclave in Southern California will not comply.
OC Sheriff Don Barnes released a statement Thursday evening and said his department has better things to do than respond to requests about face masks or social gatherings enforcement.
Statement from @OCSheriffBarnes on the limited Stay at Home Order issued by Governor Newsom. pic.twitter.com/qDnYS4fk6U — OC Sheriff, CA (@OCSheriff) November 20, 2020
Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones released a statement on Thursday and said his department will not be enforcing Newsom’s orders:
“The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office will not be determining — including entering any home or business — compliance with, or enforcing compliance of, any health or emergency orders related to curfews, staying at home, Thanksgiving or other social gatherings inside or outside the home, maximum occupancy, or mask mandates.
Further, we will not dispatch officers for these purposes — callers will be advised to call 3-1-1 and be routed to County Health. Of course, if there is potential criminal behavior or the potential for impacts to public or personal safety we will continue to respond appropriately.
I would like to wish everyone a happy and meaningful Thanksgiving Holiday.” — Sheriff Scott Jones
El Dorado County Sheriff said his department will not be enforcing the curfew order and will not prevent Thanksgiving activities.
“The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office will continue to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.”
On Nov. 19 the California Department of Public Health issued a curfew order for the state of California. The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office is aware and will not be enforcing this curfew order.
El Dorado County sheriff’s deputies will not be determining compliance with, or enforcing the compliance of, any health order related to this curfew.
The Sheriff’s Office will not prevent Thanksgiving activities, maximum occupancies or mask wearing mandates at social gatherings within the county of El Dorado.
Calls received by the Sheriff’s Office regarding enforcement of any COVID-related orders will be referred to the El Dorado County Department of Public Health at (530) 621-6100.
We will still address reports of criminal activity related to public safety and our El Dorado County citizens. The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office will continue to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Gavin Newsom has lost the consent of the governed.
Newsom recently attended a dinner party at The French Laundry, a restaurant in Napa Valley that charges $800 per person for their tasting menu while he tells Californians they can’t gather with their families for Thanksgiving.
No one at the dinner party was social distancing and nobody was wearing masks which is why many Californians are simply ignoring Newsom’s new order.
By Cristina Laila, Guest writer


humansarefree--2020-11-20--FBI Arrests Cincinnati Democrat Councilman for Accepting Bribes in Exchange for Votes

FBI agents on Thursday arrested Cincinnati Democrat City Councilman P.G .
Sittenfeld for accepting bribes in exchange for votes .
Thursday ’ s arrest of Sittenfeld marks the third arrest on the city council this year .
Charges unveiled against Sittenfeld in his 20-page indictment allege he schemed to funnel money from developers into a political action committee ( PAC ) that he secretly controlled , court records show .
The “ developers ” were really undercover FBI agents who handed a total of $ 40,000 in Sittenfeld checks on three different occasions , according to the indictment .
Sittenfeld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment , is running to be Cincinnati ’ s mayor and considered by some as the front runner with thousands of dollars raised for his campaign .
He is now the third Cincinnati City Councilmember to be arrested on corruption charges this year and the second in the past week alone .
Federal authorities recently revealed in court records they were investigating corruption and bribery related to votes and development projects and said more prosecution were coming .
U.S. Attorney David DeVillers said at a news conference last week that accepting campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law .

FBI agents on Thursday arrested Cincinnati Democrat City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld for accepting bribes in exchange for votes.
Thursday’s arrest of Sittenfeld marks the third arrest on the city council this year.
Fox19 reported:
Charges unveiled against Sittenfeld in his 20-page indictment allege he schemed to funnel money from developers into a political action committee (PAC) that he secretly controlled, court records show.
The “developers” were really undercover FBI agents who handed a total of $40,000 in Sittenfeld checks on three different occasions, according to the indictment.
The US Attorney and FBI are holding a press conference regarding the arrest of Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld for corruption allegations @FOX19 pic.twitter.com/Vu8vfgEeNx — Joanna Bouras (@JoannaBouras) November 19, 2020
Sittenfeld, who could not be immediately reached for comment, is running to be Cincinnati’s mayor and considered by some as the front runner with thousands of dollars raised for his campaign.
He is now the third Cincinnati City Councilmember to be arrested on corruption charges this year and the second in the past week alone.
Federal authorities recently revealed in court records they were investigating corruption and bribery related to votes and development projects and said more prosecution were coming.
U.S. Attorney David DeVillers said at a news conference last week that accepting campaign donations in exchange for favors also violates federal law.
Reference: Thegatewaypundit.com


humansarefree--2020-11-21--Fauci: Masks & Social Distancing Will Be Required Even AFTER a COVID-19 Vaccine That is Supposedly O

Fauci: Masks & Social Distancing Will Be Required Even AFTER a COVID-19 Vaccine That is Supposedly Over 90% Effective

It ’ s no wonder the vast majority of Americans don ’ t believe anything they ’ re told about the COVID-19 virus , outside of what they have personally experienced .
If you ’ ve had the virus , you know how it feels , how it behaves , how it acts .
It really is a lot like typical influenza for nine-out-of-10 people who get it .
In fact , many of those same people will tell you about ‘ the time I got the flu and it was much worse.
’ So yes , COVID-19 is real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but that ’ s about all most people are willing to admit to .
And that ’ s because the “ health experts ” and the garbage ‘ mainstream media ’ we ’ ve all been subjected to for the past eight months have been contradictory , hypocritical and outright wrong about what information they provide us .
And there is no one more guilty of that than Dr. Anthony Fauci , the career bureaucrat and functionary who has headed up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since Ronald Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ‘ informing ’ Americans and telling us what we ought to be doing to protect ourselves from the pandemic , he ’ s been all over the place .
In March , for instance , Fauci was adamant during a “ 60 Minutes ” interview when he told Americans there was no need for us to wear a mask to protect ourselves .
Not long afterward , masks were not only being recommended , use of masks was being made mandatory ( and those orders remain in effect today ) .
Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with one of the most dishonest ‘ journalists ’ on one of the most dishonest networks — CNN — when asked about the pending COVID-19 vaccines coming soon to a distribution center near you .
“ Once somebody has been immunized … Once the process is complete , does that mean they can take off their mask , don ’ t have to social distance , and go about their lives as before ?
” Here ’ s what he said : “ I would recommend that is not the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added area of protection .
Obviously , with 90 plus percent effective vaccine , you could feel much more confident , but I would recommend to people to not abandon all public health measures just because you ’ ve been vaccinated.
” “ Even though for the general population , it might be 90 to 95 % effective , you don ’ t necessarily know for you how effective it is .
So when I get vaccinated , which I hope to when it becomes my turn to get vaccinated , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health measures .
I could feel more relaxed and essentially not having the stringency we have right now , ” he added .
So — the mask-and-social distancing mandates , it turns out , are being politicized .
How else do you explain this nonsense ?
The fact is , in terms of how vaccines are supposed to work ( what we ’ re told , anyway , by Big Pharma ) is that they help create and maintain herd immunity .
Okay , if that ’ s true , then why in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put on masks and socially distance ?
It ’ s absurd ; either the vaccine does create that level of immunity… or it doesn ’ t .
And if not , then why are we even talking about introducing one ?
Don ’ t get us wrong .
The effort to even develop a new virus vaccine , as ineffective as Fauci now seems to say that it ’ ll be , was a milestone .
The president , for better or worse , came at vaccine development with an all-of-government approach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with federal tax dollars indeed developed a vaccine in record time .
But — apparently they don ’ t work because ‘ The Fouch ’ says we still have to distance and mask up .
Speaking of the hypocrisy and confusing messaging being given to Americans , Fauci said in April that he believed it would take a vaccine for the country to get back to “ normal.
” Was that a lie , too ?

It’s no wonder the vast majority of Americans don’t believe anything they’re told about the COVID-19 virus, outside of what they have personally experienced.
by JD Heyes
If you’ve had the virus, you know how it feels, how it behaves, how it acts. It really is a lot like typical influenza for nine-out-of-10 people who get it.
In fact, many of those same people will tell you about ‘the time I got the flu and it was much worse.’
So yes, COVID-19 is real — it’s always been real — but that’s about all most people are willing to admit to.
And that’s because the “health experts” and the garbage ‘mainstream media’ we’ve all been subjected to for the past eight months have been contradictory, hypocritical and outright wrong about what information they provide us.
And there is no one more guilty of that than Dr. Anthony Fauci, the career bureaucrat and functionary who has headed up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since Ronald Reagan’s first term.
In terms of ‘informing’ Americans and telling us what we ought to be doing to protect ourselves from the pandemic, he’s been all over the place.
In March, for instance, Fauci was adamant during a “60 Minutes” interview when he told Americans there was no need for us to wear a mask to protect ourselves.
Not long afterward, masks were not only being recommended, use of masks was being made mandatory (and those orders remain in effect today).
Fauci was being hypocritical again this week in an interview with one of the most dishonest ‘journalists’ on one of the most dishonest networks — CNN — when asked about the pending COVID-19 jjabs coming soon to a distribution center near you.
Host Jake Tapper asked Fauci,
“Once somebody has been immunized … Once the process is complete, does that mean they can take off their mask, don’t have to social distance, and go about their lives as before?”
Here’s what he said:
“I would recommend that is not the case. I would recommend you have an added area of protection. Obviously, with 90 plus percent effective jjab, you could feel much more confident, but I would recommend to people to not abandon all public health measures just because you’ve been vaccinated.”
Say what?
“Even though for the general population, it might be 90 to 95% effective, you don’t necessarily know for you how effective it is. So when I get vaccinated, which I hope to when it becomes my turn to get vaccinated, I’m not going to abandon completely public health measures. I could feel more relaxed and essentially not having the stringency we have right now,” he added.
So — the mask-and-social distancing mandates, it turns out, are being politicized.
How else do you explain this nonsense?
The fact is, in terms of how jjabs are supposed to work (what we’re told, anyway, by Big Pharma) is that they help create and maintain herd immunity.
Okay, if that’s true, then why in the world would we still need to put on masks and socially distance?
It’s absurd; either the jjab does create that level of immunity… or it doesn’t. And if not, then why are we even talking about introducing one?
Don’t get us wrong. The effort to even develop a new virus jjab, as ineffective as Fauci now seems to say that it’ll be, was a milestone.
The president, for better or worse, came at jjab development with an all-of-government approach, and it worked. Companies spurred on with federal tax dollars indeed developed a jjab in record time.
But — apparently they don’t work because ‘The Fouch’ says we still have to distance and mask up.
Speaking of the hypocrisy and confusing messaging being given to Americans, Fauci said in April that he believed it would take a jjab for the country to get back to “normal.”
Was that a lie, too?


humansarefree--2020-11-21--Carol McGiffin: ‘It Will Take Millions of People On the Streets to Send a Message to a Disinterested

Carol McGiffin: ‘It Will Take Millions of People On the Streets to Send a Message to a Disinterested Government’

Lockdown sceptic Carol McGiffin says lockdown restrictions have “ gone so far now ” that it will take “ millions of people out on the streets protesting ” to send a message to a “ disinterested ” government over coronavirus .
If this fake “ plandemic ” ( i.e planned pandemic ) has not awakened you to the fact that the governments actually want to harm and enslave you , then nothing ever will .
We ’ ve heard countless politicians calling again and again for a New World Order , and yet , somehow , there are still people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory ( i.e .
a term created by the CIA to discredit researchers challenging the official narrative ) .
More recently , they are speaking of a so-called Great Reset , and the very same people who talked about it publicly are now saying it is a conspiracy as well .
If there are people who still believe them , then I am sorry to say this , but some people are born to be sheep their entire lives , and nothing will ever wake them up — not because there isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WANT TO REMAIN ASLEEP .

Lockdown sceptic Carol McGiffin says lockdown restrictions have “gone so far now” that it will take “millions of people out on the streets protesting” to send a message to a “disinterested” government over coronavirus.
If this fake “plandemic” (i.e planned pandemic) has not awakened you to the fact that the governments actually want to harm and enslave you, then nothing ever will.
We’ve heard countless politicians calling again and again for a New World Order, and yet, somehow, there are still people who think that’s a conspiracy theory (i.e. a term created by the CIA to discredit researchers challenging the official narrative). More recently, they are speaking of a so-called Great Reset, and the very same people who talked about it publicly are now saying it is a conspiracy as well. If there are people who still believe them, then I am sorry to say this, but some people are born to be sheep their entire lives, and nothing will ever wake them up — not because there isn’t enough evidence, but because THEY WANT TO REMAIN ASLEEP.
Watch the interview below:
Reference: YouTube.com


humansarefree--2020-11-21--Edward Snowden & Computer Science Prof. Explain How Easily Voting Machines Can Be Hacked

You are probably familiar with Edward Snowden , the NSA whistleblower who blew the whistle and shared evidence showing that the U.S. Government not only illegally collects massive amounts of data via a variety of surveillance techniques on its own citizens , but also citizens of many other countries around the world .
On July 27th , 2019 , Snowden tweeted a video of J. Alex Halderman , a computer science and engineering professor at the University of Michigan who is an expert in the field of election security .
In the video he emphasizes how easy it is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential elections .
In a 2017 hearing , he states the following : “ I know America ’ s voting machines are vulnerable , because my colleagues and I have hacked them repeatedly .
As part of a decade of research , studying the technology that operates elections and learning how to make it stronger .
“ We ’ ve created a tax that can spread from machine to machine like a computer virus , and silently changed election outcomes .
We ’ ve studied touch screen and optical scam systems and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for attackers to sabotage machines and to steal votes.
” – Halderman In the video tweeted by Snowden , he states that “ these machines have got to go.
” Snowden has also shared in 2016 how easy it is to HACK into a US voting machine with a £24 memory card .
Now corroborate this with the claims coming from one of Trump ’ s lawyers Sidney Katherine Powell , who is an American attorney from North Carolina .
She claims that she knows for certain that voter fraud can be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election , and the scale is large enough to overturn the election results .
She claims they will have presentable evidence by the end of the week .
There are other supposed examples of fraud that have come to light being heavily denied .
The machines in question are made by a company called Dominion and right now , claims by President Trump and supposed evidence of fraud is running rampant from his campaign .
These claims have been heavily denied by Dominion and Smartmatic , and ‘ fact-checkers ’ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and labelling them as false conspiracies .
The fact that according to mainstream conjecture , election machines could have so easily been hacked in 2016 , but not in 2020 just doesn ’ t make sense , especially given the fact that the same type of machines were used in both elections .

You are probably familiar with Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who blew the whistle and shared evidence showing that the U.S. Government not only illegally collects massive amounts of data via a variety of surveillance techniques on its own citizens, but also citizens of many other countries around the world.
On July 27th, 2019, Snowden tweeted a video of J. Alex Halderman, a computer science and engineering professor at the University of Michigan who is an expert in the field of election security.
In the video he emphasizes how easy it is to hack the voting machines used today during the presidential elections.
In a 2017 hearing, he states the following:
“I know America’s voting machines are vulnerable, because my colleagues and I have hacked them repeatedly. As part of a decade of research, studying the technology that operates elections and learning how to make it stronger.
“We’ve created a tax that can spread from machine to machine like a computer virus, and silently changed election outcomes. We’ve studied touch screen and optical scam systems and in every single case we found ways for attackers to sabotage machines and to steal votes.” – Halderman
In the video tweeted by Snowden, he states that “these machines have got to go.” Snowden has also shared in 2016 how easy it is to HACK into a US voting machine with a £24 memory card.
Watch the voting machine used in US swing states get hacked to rig an election. @Jhalderm, @UMich, and @nytimes demonstrate why every voting district needs an auditable paper ballot. Voting machines are *known* to be insecure. https://t.co/juvU7K3Qdl pic.twitter.com/prsrOGK17z — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 27, 2019
Now corroborate this with the claims coming from one of Trump’s lawyers Sidney Katherine Powell, who is an American attorney from North Carolina.
She claims that she knows for certain that voter fraud can be found on voting machines around the country during the 2020 election, and the scale is large enough to overturn the election results.
She claims they will have presentable evidence by the end of the week. There are other supposed examples of fraud that have come to light being heavily denied.
The machines in question are made by a company called Dominion and right now, claims by President Trump and supposed evidence of fraud is running rampant from his campaign.
These claims have been heavily denied by Dominion and Smartmatic, and ‘fact-checkers’ are all over these claims heavily denying them and labelling them as false conspiracies.
The fact that according to mainstream conjecture, election machines could have so easily been hacked in 2016, but not in 2020 just doesn’t make sense, especially given the fact that the same type of machines were used in both elections.
Reference: Collective-Evolution.com (excerpt)


humansarefree--2020-11-22--COVID-1984 Fear Mongers Are Twisting Statistics to Create a Terrifying But FALSE Narrative

There are some shocking COVID-19 statistics coming out today from the UK , shocking because they actual numbers paint a scenario that is not just a little different from grim predictions , it is absolutely 180° degrees in the opposite direction .
In short , the people of England and the UK are waking up to the fact that their government has been lying to them about COVID-19 , using it as a means of controlling the population .
The exact same thing has been happening across the pond here in the United States as well .
“ This know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perilous times shall come.
” 2 Timothy 3:1 ( KJB ) I live in Saint Augustine , Florida , in St. Johns County , and as of today we have had a total of 7,881 COVID-19 cases with 90 fatalities , giving you right around a 1 % mortality rate .
But when you take away pre-existing conditions , that drops to just a handful of people .
That is less than the number of people who die from the flu each year .
So why are we being forced to wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pennsylvania , and seeing Jews arrested in New York City for gathering to celebrate their religious faith ?
I think you know the reason .
Remember way back when in the start of the plannedemic , how Dr. Birx told us that all people who died of whatever disease but also had COVID-19 would be classified as a COVID-19 death ?
So someone with COVID-19 who died of cancer or heart disease would be listed as dying of COVID-19 ?
That , my friends , is a total scam , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monte , a Ponzi scheme , take you pick , it ’ s a lie .
Yet , somehow , we just meekly accepted it , never pushed back , and allowed ourselves to be enslaved by a lie .
Now that lie has grown to be a giant , and has become the greatest weapon that the enemies of freedom have ever had to control us .
And it ’ s been amazingly successful , so much so that I think even our captors are surprised at how how much thier plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Public supermarket , I see all the workers in mask , I see nearly all the customers in masks , I am not , and when I look in their eyes I see stone , cold fear .
Take a look at how the same thing is happening in the UK .
What they DON ’ T tell you about Covid : Fewer beds taken up than last year , deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts , 95 % of fatalities had underlying causes FROM THE DAILY MAIL UK : With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was revealed this week that GCHQ has embedded a team in Downing Street to provide Boris Johnson with real-time updates to combat the ‘ emerging and changing threat ’ posed by Covid-19 .
The intelligence analysts will sift through vast amounts of data to ensure the Prime Minister has the most up-to-date information on the spread of the virus .
How accurate were the Government ’ s grim predictions ?
The short answer is : not very .
In a July report commissioned by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths if a second spike coincided with a peak of winter flu .
Yesterday , that figure stood at 54,286 – less than half that .
In fact , the second peak seems to have passed – over the past week there has been an average of 22,287 new infections a day , down from 24,430 the week before .
In mid-September , Sir Patrick made the terrifying claim that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October unless more draconian restrictions were introduced .
Yet we have never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its prophecies on deaths ?
Ditto .
Its warnings simply don ’ t bear any relation to reality .
During the ‘ Halloween horror show ’ press conference used by Sir Patrick and Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty to scare the Government into implementing a second lockdown , one of their slides suggested that daily Covid-19 deaths could reach 4,000 a day by December .
With ten days to go , we ’ re still at less than 15 per cent of that figure .
In fact , as the graph above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly below almost every modelled winter scenario .
The answer is ‘ no ’ – contrary to what the Government experts would have you think after they last month published a chart that gave the impression that hospitals were close to overflowing , when at least half didn ’ t have a single Covid-19 patient .
Currently , only 13 per cent of NHS beds are occupied by patients with Covid-19 .
On Monday this week , 16,271 hospitals beds across the UK were taken up with patients who had tested positive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise from the previous Monday , when there were 14,279 patients with Covid .
But to put this figure into perspective , the NHS in England had 101,255 general and acute beds available in March of this year plus 15,392 in Scotland and 10,563 in Wales .
How does it compare with last year ?
Remarkably , as the graph shows , the number of NHS England beds currently occupied is lower than last year ’ s average .
On November 5 , the most recent date available , there were actually 1,293 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ’ s November average .
Surely intensive care beds are full ?
Some hospitals are under pressure but that is not the picture everywhere as the chart above shows .
On Wednesday , 1,430 people with Covid-19 were occupying beds with mechanical ventilation .
So who is COVID-19 killing ?
To put it simply , the victims are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions .
Of the 37,470 Covid-19 deaths recorded by NHS England up to November 18 , 53.7 percent were of people aged over 80 .
In comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( only 0.7 per cent of the total ) in people under 40 .
And crucially , those who have died from Covid-19 are overwhelmingly likely to have suffered from a pre-existing condition .
Of those who have died from coronavirus , 35,806 people ( 95.6 per cent of the total ) had at least one pre-existing serious medical condition .
In fact , there have been just 42 deaths of people aged under 40 without a pre-existing condition .
Are more dying now than in the first wave ?
No .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the peak in April as the graph above shows .
On April 21 , for example , there were 1,224 Covid-19 deaths , and a daily average for the week of 838 .
Yesterday , 511 new deaths were reported .
Are more dying now than last year ?
Despite what the fear-mongers would have you think , deaths are not far above average for this time of year .
– Read more This is the most crucial bit of information that is being omitted , obfuscated or downplayed by government and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Birx admits that some countries count deaths from hearts attacks etc.
, while the U.S. counts those same deaths as coronavirus .
This “ liberal ” method , as she describes it , could perhaps be called “ misleading.
” The death records say “ coronavirus ” but most of these deaths are linked to pre-existing ailments , other diseases .
Ultimate Proof : Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order

by Geoffrey Grider
There are some shocking COVID-19 statistics coming out today from the UK, shocking because they actual numbers paint a scenario that is not just a little different from grim predictions, it is absolutely 180° degrees in the opposite direction.
In short, the people of England and the UK are waking up to the fact that their government has been lying to them about COVID-19, using it as a means of controlling the population.
The exact same thing has been happening across the pond here in the United States as well.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” 2 Timothy 3:1 (KJB)
I live in Saint Augustine, Florida, in St. Johns County, and as of today we have had a total of 7,881 COVID-19 cases with 90 fatalities, giving you right around a 1% mortality rate.
But when you take away pre-existing conditions, that drops to just a handful of people.
That is less than the number of people who die from the flu each year.
So why are we being forced to wear masks, having lockdowns in states like California and Pennsylvania, and seeing Jews arrested in New York City for gathering to celebrate their religious faith?
I think you know the reason.
Remember way back when in the start of the plannedemic, how Dr. Birx told us that all people who died of whatever disease but also had COVID-19 would be classified as a COVID-19 death?
So someone with COVID-19 who died of cancer or heart disease would be listed as dying of COVID-19?
That, my friends, is a total scam, it’s the old-fashioned shell game, three-card monte, a Ponzi scheme, take you pick, it’s a lie.
Yet, somehow, we just meekly accepted it, never pushed back, and allowed ourselves to be enslaved by a lie.
Now that lie has grown to be a giant, and has become the greatest weapon that the enemies of freedom have ever had to control us.
And it’s been amazingly successful, so much so that I think even our captors are surprised at how how much thier plan has succeeded.
When I walk through our Public supermarket, I see all the workers in mask, I see nearly all the customers in masks, I am not, and when I look in their eyes I see stone, cold fear.
Take a look at how the same thing is happening in the UK.
What they DON’T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes
FROM THE DAILY MAIL UK: With the nation’s health at stake, it was revealed this week that GCHQ has embedded a team in Downing Street to provide Boris Johnson with real-time updates to combat the ‘emerging and changing threat’ posed by Covid-19.
The intelligence analysts will sift through vast amounts of data to ensure the Prime Minister has the most up-to-date information on the spread of the virus.
How accurate were the Government’s grim predictions?
The short answer is: not very. In a July report commissioned by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, scientists estimated that there could be 119,000 deaths if a second spike coincided with a peak of winter flu.
Yesterday, that figure stood at 54,286 – less than half that.
In fact, the second peak seems to have passed – over the past week there has been an average of 22,287 new infections a day, down from 24,430 the week before.
In mid-September, Sir Patrick made the terrifying claim that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October unless more draconian restrictions were introduced. Yet we have never got near that figure.
What about its prophecies on deaths?
Ditto. Its warnings simply don’t bear any relation to reality.
During the ‘Halloween horror show’ press conference used by Sir Patrick and Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty to scare the Government into implementing a second lockdown, one of their slides suggested that daily Covid-19 deaths could reach 4,000 a day by December.
With ten days to go, we’re still at less than 15 per cent of that figure.
In fact, as the graph above shows, the current death rate is significantly below almost every modelled winter scenario.
Are hospitals close to full capacity?
The answer is ‘no’ – contrary to what the Government experts would have you think after they last month published a chart that gave the impression that hospitals were close to overflowing, when at least half didn’t have a single Covid-19 patient.
Currently, only 13 per cent of NHS beds are occupied by patients with Covid-19.
On Monday this week, 16,271 hospitals beds across the UK were taken up with patients who had tested positive for Covid-19.
This did show a steady rise from the previous Monday, when there were 14,279 patients with Covid. But to put this figure into perspective, the NHS in England had 101,255 general and acute beds available in March of this year plus 15,392 in Scotland and 10,563 in Wales.
How does it compare with last year?
Remarkably, as the graph shows, the number of NHS England beds currently occupied is lower than last year’s average.
On November 5, the most recent date available, there were actually 1,293 fewer patients in hospital beds than last year’s November average.
Surely intensive care beds are full? Some hospitals are under pressure but that is not the picture everywhere as the chart above shows. On Wednesday, 1,430 people with Covid-19 were occupying beds with mechanical ventilation.
So who is COVID-19 killing?
To put it simply, the victims are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Of the 37,470 Covid-19 deaths recorded by NHS England up to November 18, 53.7 percent were of people aged over 80.
In comparison, there have been just 275 deaths (only 0.7 per cent of the total) in people under 40. And crucially, those who have died from Covid-19 are overwhelmingly likely to have suffered from a pre-existing condition.
Of those who have died from coronavirus, 35,806 people (95.6 per cent of the total) had at least one pre-existing serious medical condition.
In fact, there have been just 42 deaths of people aged under 40 without a pre-existing condition.
Are more dying now than in the first wave?
No. The number of Covid-19 deaths is significantly lower than the peak in April as the graph above shows.
On April 21, for example, there were 1,224 Covid-19 deaths, and a daily average for the week of 838. Yesterday, 511 new deaths were reported.
Are more dying now than last year?
Despite what the fear-mongers would have you think, deaths are not far above average for this time of year. – Read more
Dr. Birx Admits Coronavirus Death Count “Liberal, Different”
This is the most crucial bit of information that is being omitted, obfuscated or downplayed by government and mainstream media reports about coronavirus deaths:
Dr. Birx admits that some countries count deaths from hearts attacks etc., while the U.S. counts those same deaths as coronavirus.
This “liberal” method, as she describes it, could perhaps be called “misleading.”
The death records say “coronavirus” but most of these deaths are linked to pre-existing ailments, other diseases.
Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order


humansarefree--2020-11-21--States Revealed to Be Illegally Promoting ‘Sex Textline’ for CHILDREN, with Federal Funding

( LifeSiteNews ) Today , The Family Foundation of Virginia — along with pro-family organizations across the nation — raised alarms about possible violations of federal law being committed by health departments in multiple states .
At issue are anonymous sex-text hotlines ( in Virginia , called “ BrdsNBz ” ) for teens being promoted by state health departments — in several cases through funding from Title V federal grants .
Title V federal grants are designated for abstinence education or “ education exclusively on sexual risk avoidance that teaches youth to voluntarily refrain from sexual activity.
” “ Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing abstinence education and therefore represents , at best , an obvious misuse of federal funds , or worse , a flat out violation of federal law , ” said Victoria Cobb , president of The Family Foundation of Virginia .
“ While we are disappointed to learn of this misuse , we are glad we can help raise awareness of these textlines targeting teens and circumventing parents in multiple states.
” In an open letter addressed to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Cobb and eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of this misuse .
For example , “ answer templates ” for the sex textline discuss examples of different kinds of sexual activity including “ penis-vagina intercourse ” and “ oral-genital contact ” and tell teens that “ Having sex has much responsibility.
” In a real-life text exchange ( see example in open letter ) , the textline service responded to a person asking what age was best to have sex with this advice : “ It ’ s not about age and all about when you feel ‘ ready.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BrdsNBz program after parents complained about receiving a postcard addressed to a child in their home to use what amounts to a sex-text hotline promoted by the state government .
The postcards , mailed to roughly 96,000 homes , invite children to anonymously text their questions about sex , relationships and gender identity to a stranger to get answers in 24 hours .
In Virginia , this is part of an initiative promoted by the Virginia Department of Health , which ultimately falls under Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s purview .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed the line with this gross invasion of our kids ’ and young teens ’ privacy while completely bypassing parents , ” said Cobb .
According to news reports , the BrdsNBz program or other similar teen textlines have been promoted in North Carolina , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Maryland , Florida , Texas , Indiana and New Mexico .
The programs in Pennsylvania , Indiana and New Mexico appear to have also used Title V funding for their efforts .

(LifeSiteNews) Today, The Family Foundation of Virginia — along with pro-family organizations across the nation — raised alarms about possible violations of federal law being committed by health departments in multiple states.
At issue are anonymous sex-text hotlines (in Virginia, called “BrdsNBz”) for teens being promoted by state health departments — in several cases through funding from Title V federal grants.
Title V federal grants are designated for abstinence education or “education exclusively on sexual risk avoidance that teaches youth to voluntarily refrain from sexual activity.”
“Virginia’s sex textline is clearly not providing abstinence education and therefore represents, at best, an obvious misuse of federal funds, or worse, a flat out violation of federal law,” said Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation of Virginia.
“While we are disappointed to learn of this misuse, we are glad we can help raise awareness of these textlines targeting teens and circumventing parents in multiple states.”
In an open letter addressed to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Cobb and eight other state leaders cited “clear evidence” of this misuse.
For example, “answer templates” for the sex textline discuss examples of different kinds of sexual activity including “penis-vagina intercourse” and “oral-genital contact” and tell teens that “Having sex has much responsibility.”
In a real-life text exchange (see example in open letter), the textline service responded to a person asking what age was best to have sex with this advice: “It’s not about age and all about when you feel ‘ready.’”
The Family Foundation became aware of the BrdsNBz program after parents complained about receiving a postcard addressed to a child in their home to use what amounts to a sex-text hotline promoted by the state government.
The postcards, mailed to roughly 96,000 homes, invite children to anonymously text their questions about sex, relationships and gender identity to a stranger to get answers in 24 hours.
In Virginia, this is part of an initiative promoted by the Virginia Department of Health, which ultimately falls under Gov. Ralph Northam’s purview.
“Once again Gov. Northam has crossed the line with this gross invasion of our kids’ and young teens’ privacy while completely bypassing parents,” said Cobb.
According to news reports, the BrdsNBz program or other similar teen textlines have been promoted in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Maryland, Florida, Texas, Indiana and New Mexico.
The programs in Pennsylvania, Indiana and New Mexico appear to have also used Title V funding for their efforts.
Signers on the open letter include:
Victoria Cobb, President-The Family Foundation of Virginia
Michael Geer, President & CEO-Pennsylvania Family Institute
Bob Vander Plaats, President-The Family Leader (Iowa)
John Helmberger, CEO-Minnesota Family Council
John Rustin, President & Executive Director-NC Family Policy Council
Jonathan M. Saenz, President-Texas Values
John Stemberger, President-Florida Family Policy Council
Ryan McCann, Executive Director-Indiana Family Institute
Vince Torres, President-Family Policy Alliance of New Mexico


humansarefree--2020-11-21--Rasmussen Poll: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

While the election hasn ’ t been certified , and the results are pending litigation , the media has effectively crowned Joe Biden the victor in the 2020 election , and voters have some strong opinions on the matter .
According to a Rasmussen poll conducted November 17-18 , nearly half of likely voters , 47 percent , believe the election was stolen from Trump .
If Joe Biden is ultimately certified as the winner , there will undoubtedly be a big fat asterisk on his presidency .
This should be very concerning for Joe Biden .
President George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark shadow over his presidency , with many Democrats to this day refusing to acknowledge his presidency as legitimate .
If Biden is confident in the legitimacy of the results as they stand now , he should be willing to let the process continue , and should publicly express his support for this .
But , Joe Biden ’ s problems are not simply because many Republicans believe the election was stolen .
( … ) Let me repeat , nearly a third of Democrats believe it is likely that the election was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a remarkable number .
Huge , in fact .
( … ) No matter what happens , Americans ’ faith in our elections has taken a huge hit this year .
It ’ s not uncommon for the losing party to feel things were unfair , but this is clearly the moment for big changes to happen to restore our faith in our elections to ensure that Americans can feel confident in our elections regardless of the results .

At the end of World War II in violation of the Atlantic Charter, between 12 and 19 million Germans were expelled from their long-established homes in East Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg, Silesia, Memel and the Baltic states, Danzig, Poland, Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland), Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Romania.
This mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from their homes was going on while the Nuremberg trials were prosecuting officials of the German Third Reich for mass deportations of Jews and Gypsies.
The allied expulsions of Germans exceeds in number the deportations by the Third Reich. Unlike the Israelis, the German government does not demand reparations for the dispossessed Germans. Instead of being compensated for their dispossession, the Germans pay compensation to the Jews, and the amount rises over time.
The number of Germans who died from the crimes inflicted on them during the expulsions rival the number of holocaust victims and is better documented. Estimates are that 25% of German expellees died in the process. That could be as many as 4,750,000.
While as many as nearly 5 million German expellees were dying from the starvation, exposure, and murder that characterized their deportation, the French chief prosecutor at Nuremberg sanctimoniously declared deportations by the Third Reich to be “one of the horrors of our century.”
11 Million Germans Were Murdered After WWII
During World War II the Americans expelled Japanese-Americans from their homes and businesses and kept them in concentration camps.
The Israelis have been deporting Palestinians from Palestine since 1947. Gaza today is the largest concentration camp in world history.
Stalin deported millions of Russians to the Gulags where they died from over-work, under-nurishment, and exposure.
But only Germans were punished for deportations.
The post-war mass deportations of Germans supports Hitler’s view that ethnic Germans needed to be gathered into one territory for their protection. Today ethnic Germans are being displaced in their own country by Third World peoples brought into Germany by Germany’s anti-German political leadership.
Indeed, all of Europe has anti-ethnic European leadership. The anti-European leaders of Europe are erasing Europe.
This is the last century of European peoples. By the end of this century, European people and European culture will not exist. A leaderless people cannot survive.
While reading chapter 6, keep in mind that you are not reading John Wear’s opinion. You are reading facts documented by many historians and published by Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, Basic Books, and Palgrave Macmillan.
You can read more in the book “GERMANY’S WAR: The Origins, Aftermath & Atrocities of World War II“
By Paul Craig Roberts, Guest writer


humansarefree--2020-11-21--False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism

For the past twenty years , the world has been in the midst of a so-called “ war on terror @ @ @ @ @ a false flag attack of spectacular proportions .
Now the stage is being set for @ @ @ @ @ usher in the next stage in that war on terror : the war on bioterrorism @ @ @ @ @ real bioterrorists ?
And can we rely on government agencies , their appointed health authorities @ @ @ @ @ to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack ?

For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions.
Now the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism.
But who are the real bioterrorists?
And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?
Source: The Corbett Report, Bitchute.com


humansarefree--2020-11-21--Sidney Powell: ‘7 Million Votes Stolen from Trump’

Sidney Powell joined Howie Carr on Friday for a lengthy interview on the 2020 election and where the Trump defense team stands today .
During the explosive interview Sidney claimed millions of dead people ( also known as Democrats ) may have voted this year and 7 million votes were likely stolen from President Trump .
If true , that would mean President Trump received over 80 million votes and nearly twenty million more than 2016 .
President Trump ’ s total currently stands at 73,750,000 votes .
** There are many smoking guns and we are going to need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million dead people voted ** A lot of the evidence of fraud is coming out next week .
We have more evidence coming in every day .
It only gets worse and worse .
** The fraud was very widespread , very deliberate and very well funded .
** Everybody and their pet rock is trying to stop me from exposing it .
** I think the fraud went much further than just President Trump .
I think they did it to John James and others .
** We have data out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to Bernie Sanders there .
** We have a number of smoking guns and we may have to get witness protection for them .
** We have a lot of evidence , it ’ s beyond impressive and absolutely terrifying .
** These are federal court lawsuits .
They ’ re paramount to any future life of our republic .
** We ’ ve got evidence of people being paid .
We got check studs from people being paid .
Also read : Actual Election Map , Based On Actual Results So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louie Gohmert : US Army Raided & Seized Server Company In Germany , Tied To The Dominion Election System Here is the full interview :

Sidney Powell joined Howie Carr on Friday for a lengthy interview on the 2020 election and where the Trump defense team stands today.
During the explosive interview Sidney claimed millions of dead people (also known as Democrats) may have voted this year and 7 million votes were likely stolen from President Trump.
If true, that would mean President Trump received over 80 million votes and nearly twenty million more than 2016. President Trump’s total currently stands at 73,750,000 votes.
More from Sidney Powell:
** There are many smoking guns and we are going to need federal protection for many people
** 3 million dead people voted
** A lot of the evidence of fraud is coming out next week. We have more evidence coming in every day. It only gets worse and worse.
** The fraud was very widespread, very deliberate and very well funded.
** Everybody and their pet rock is trying to stop me from exposing it.
** I think the fraud went much further than just President Trump. I think they did it to John James and others.
** We have data out of California in 2016 that Hillary Clinton did it to Bernie Sanders there.
** We have a number of smoking guns and we may have to get witness protection for them.
** We have a lot of evidence, it’s beyond impressive and absolutely terrifying.
** These are federal court lawsuits. They’re paramount to any future life of our republic.
** We’ve got evidence of people being paid. We got check studs from people being paid.
Also read: Actual Election Map, Based On Actual Results So Far, Shows Trump Is Winning
Rep. Louie Gohmert: US Army Raided & Seized Server Company In Germany, Tied To The Dominion Election System
Here is the full interview:
Source: Thegatewaypundit.com / Reference: YouTube.com


humansarefree--2020-11-22--Business Owners in Buffalo, NY Stand Up to Cuomo’s Covid Orders & Kick Out Sheriff and ‘Health Inspe

Business Owners in Buffalo, NY Stand Up to Cuomo’s Covid Orders & Kick Out Sheriff and ‘Health Inspector’: Get Out! Go Get a Warrant!

Business owners in Buffalo , New York fed up with Cuomo ’ s authoritarian Covid lockdown orders asserted their Constitutional rights and kicked out sheriffs and “ health inspectors ” on Friday night .
50 business owners gathered inside of a shuttered gym in Buffalo , New York Friday night when two sheriffs and a so-called ‘ health inspector ’ showed up to harass the group in response to an “ anonymous tip.
” The business owners shouted down and kicked out the health inspector and the told the sheriffs to come back with a warrant .
A gathering of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside an Orchard Park gym shut down by Covid-19 restrictions turned into a confrontation with Erie County authorities Friday night .
The owner of the gym , Athletes Unleashed on California Road , described the gathering as a protest of the state ’ s “ orange zone ” regulations that have closed gyms , salons and other businesses deemed nonessential .
No one was cited and no arrests were made , according to two people who attended , but video of the incident shows an Erie County health inspector accompanied by three sheriff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the gathering began .
“ You ’ re on private property .
You need to leave !
” one of the business owners shouted to the health inspector .
“ This is private party !
It ’ s private property !
Go get a warrant !
You ’ re not wanted here !
” The obese sheriff began lecturing one of the business owners on mask wearing to which the business owner replied , “ Don ’ t worry about my health !
My health isn ’ t your concern !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Get out !
Get out !
Get out !
– We will not comply !
We will not comply !
” The brave business owners followed the sheriffs and health inspectors into the parking lot and told them to get off their property , “ They ’ re Nazis !
” one yelled .
“ Take your Commie sh*t elsewhere !
” another one shouted .

Business owners in Buffalo, New York fed up with Cuomo’s authoritarian Covid lockdown orders asserted their Constitutional rights and kicked out sheriffs and “health inspectors” on Friday night.
50 business owners gathered inside of a shuttered gym in Buffalo, New York Friday night when two sheriffs and a so-called ‘health inspector’ showed up to harass the group in response to an “anonymous tip.”
The business owners shouted down and kicked out the health inspector and the told the sheriffs to come back with a warrant.
The Buffalo News reported:
A gathering of about 50 business owners and their supporters inside an Orchard Park gym shut down by Covid-19 restrictions turned into a confrontation with Erie County authorities Friday night.
The owner of the gym, Athletes Unleashed on California Road, described the gathering as a protest of the state’s “orange zone” regulations that have closed gyms, salons and other businesses deemed nonessential.
No one was cited and no arrests were made, according to two people who attended, but video of the incident shows an Erie County health inspector accompanied by three sheriff’s deputies arriving about 20 minutes after the gathering began.
“You’re on private property. You need to leave!” one of the business owners shouted to the health inspector.
“This is private party! It’s private property! Go get a warrant! You’re not wanted here!”
The obese sheriff began lecturing one of the business owners on mask wearing to which the business owner replied, “Don’t worry about my health! My health isn’t your concern!”
The business owners shouted down the trespassers, “Get out! Get out! Get out! – We will not comply! We will not comply!”
The brave business owners followed the sheriffs and health inspectors into the parking lot and told them to get off their property, “They’re Nazis!” one yelled. “Take your Commie sh*t elsewhere!” another one shouted.
WATCH:
Sources and references: Thegatewaypundit.com; YouTube.com; Buffalonews.com


humansarefree--2020-11-22--Dr. John Robson Investigates the LIE That 97% of Scientists Agree that Climate Change is Man-Made, U

Dr. John Robson Investigates the LIE That 97% of Scientists Agree that Climate Change is Man-Made, Urgent and Dangerous

There are so many empty slogans out there I wish we could tackle all of them at once .
But the “ 97 % of scientists agree ” is surely the elephant in the room .
Lots of people have tried to rebut it by dismissing the notion of consensus itself , or by praising the historical examples of renegade scientists who went against a prevailing consensus and turned out to be right .
But that unnecessarily concedes the major claim itself , which the evidence shows is simply not true .
I hope you enjoy the video , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The claim that 97 % of the world ’ s scientists agree is pretty much the ace of trumps in the whole climate debate .
After all , who ’ s going to argue against a consensus that strong , backed by so many experts .
But what exactly are they supposed to agree on ?
If you look behind the curtain , no one seems sure what the experts actually said .
Or who they are .
Or… anything .
At first glance it seems straightforward enough .
In 2013 President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of scientists agree : # climate change is real , manmade and dangerous.
” In 2014 , his Secretary of State John Kerry said 97 % of “ the world ’ s scientists tell us this is urgent.
” And that same year , CNN said “ 97 % of scientists agree that climate change is happening now , that it ’ s damaging the planet and that it ’ s manmade.
” That ’ s pretty much what most people think when they hear the 97 % slogan : Every scientist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
But there are millions of scientists in the world .
How many exactly were surveyed ?
When were they surveyed ?
Who did it ?
And what exactly did they agree on ?
Let ’ s find out .
I ’ m John Robson and this is a Climate Discussion Nexus Fact Check on the 97 percent consensus slogan .
To begin with , there are some ideas that pretty much all scientists accept .
For instance that birds are descended from dinosaurs , though that idea was once dismissed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climate , you don ’ t need a poll to tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas , meaning it likely has some overall warming effect .
That ’ s been known since the mid-1800s .
And if you did do a survey , you would find overwhelming scientific agreement on that point .
Also , there are lots of indications that the world is somewhat warmer now than it was in the mid-1800s , the end of a natural cooling period called the Little Ice Age .
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment of our planet , by releasing emissions into the air , changing the land surface , putting things in the water , and so forth .
These aren ’ t controversial ideas , and they ’ re accepted even by most climate skeptics .
What we don ’ t accept is that any of them prove that humans are the only cause of global warming , or that climate change is a dangerous threat .
If 97 % of scientists believed that , it would be troubling .
Though even so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find some plan whose benefits outweighed its costs .
In any event , that level of consensus that the problem was manmade and urgent would certainly be noteworthy .
But the thing is , they don ’ t agree on that .
A close look at what survey data we have , and there isn ’ t much , tells us , yes , there is a great deal of agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some degree , that the Earth has warmed in the last 160 years , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that survey data also tell us there ’ s far less agreement on everything else including whether we face a crisis .
So where did this 97 % claim come from and why is it so widely repeated ?
The 97 % claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who , in 2004 , claimed she ’ d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals , that 75 % of them endorsed the “ consensus view ” that “ Earth ’ s climate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that none directly disputed it .
By 2006 , in Al Gore ’ s An Inconvenient Truth , this finding had somehow morphed into “ a massive study of every scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal written on global warming for the last 10 years and they took a big sample of 10 % , 928 articles , and you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we ’ re causing global warming and that it ’ s a serious problem ?
Out of the 928 , zero.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a study that found 75 % endorsed the idea that humans have some effect on climate and turned it into proof that 100 % of scientists believe it ’ s a serious problem .
It does no such thing .
And nor do the handful of other surveys on the subject .
For instance five years later , in 2009 , a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent an online survey to over 10,000 Earth scientists asking two simple questions : Do you agree that global temperatures have generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor ?
[ Note : They asked some other questions too , but didn ’ t report the questions or results in the publication . ]
They didn ’ t single out greenhouse gases , they didn ’ t explain what the term “ significant ” meant and they didn ’ t refer to danger or crisis .
So what was the result ?
Of the 3,146 responses they received , 90 percent said yes to the first question , that global temperatures had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only 82 percent said yes to the second , that human activity was a significant contributing factor .
Interestingly , among meteorologists only 64 percent said yes to the second , meaning a third of the experts in the study of weather patterns who replied didn ’ t think humans play a significant role in global warming , let alone a dominant one .
What got the most media attention was that among the 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts , 75 said yes to the second question .
75 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OK , it didn ’ t get any media attention that they took 77 out of 3,146 responses .
But that ’ s the key statistical trick .
They found a 97 percent consensus among 2 percent of the survey respondents .
And even so it was only that there ’ d been some warming since the 1800s , which virtually nobody denies , and that humans are partly responsible .
These experts didn ’ t say it was dangerous or urgent , because they weren ’ t asked .
So far the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists ” are saying there ’ s a climate crisis is pure fiction .
But wait , you say .
There must be more .
Yes , there is .
But not much .
Another survey appeared in 2013 , by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors , in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change , and found that 97 % endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming .
This study generated headlines around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Obama ’ s tweet was referring .
But here again , appearances were deceiving .
Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus .
Of the remaining 34 % , the authors claimed that 33 % endorsed the consensus .
Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 % .
But this result is essentially meaningless , because they set the bar so low .
The survey authors didn ’ t ask if climate change was dangerous or “ manmade ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted that humans have some effect on the climate , which as already noted is uncontroversial .
It could mean as little as accepting the “ urban heat island ” effect .
So a far better question would be : How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming ?
And oddly , we do know .
Because buried in the authors ’ data was the answer : A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers !
That ’ s not 97 % , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s one in 200 .
And it gets worse .
In a follow-up study , climatologist David Legates read those 64 papers and found that a third of them didn ’ t even say what Cook and his team claimed .
Only 41 actually endorsed the view that global warming is mostly manmade .
And we still haven ’ t got to it being “ dangerous ” .
That part of the survey results was simply invented , by politicians and activists .
Other researchers have condemned the Cook study on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Tol showed that over three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsing even the weak consensus actually said nothing at all on the subject .
And evidence later emerged that the authors of the paper were drafting press releases about their findings before they even started doing the research , which indicates an alarming level not of warming or of consensus but of bias .
The reality is that neither this study , nor a handful of others like it , prove that 97 % of scientists believe climate change is mostly manmade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crisis .
The fact that people who claim to put such stock in “ settled science ” accept such obvious statistical hocus pocus is both astounding and disappointing .
So what do climate experts really think ?
The year before Obama sent out his tweet , the American Meteorological Society ( AMS ) surveyed its 7,000 members .
They got about 1,800 responses .
Of those , only 52 % said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade .
The remaining 48 % either think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or it didn ’ t happen , or they don ’ t know .
And while it ’ s possible that the three-quarters who didn ’ t answer split the same way as those who did , it ’ s also possible that committed alarmists are more likely to answer such surveys .
In any case , it ’ s a small sample , even of AMS members , let alone of the world ’ s scientists .
There was one more survey a few years later by the Netherlands Environment Agency that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950 .
Which falls far short of 97 % even if it outperforms the other studies .
A social psychologist named Jose Duarte , who specializes in survey design , published an analysis of that one , pointing out that they diluted the sample by including large numbers of psychologists , philosophers , political scientists , and other non-experts , making their results meaningless as a measure of what scientists think .
Just as you ’ ll find that the people who cite that 97 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly not trained statisticians .
So we ’ re no farther ahead than when we began .
Most experts agree on the basics , namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and probably causes some warming and that humans have some impact on climate probably including some warming .
But they actively debate the rest : How much warming will there be ?
Is it a problem ?
Should we try to stop it , or adapt , or wait and see ?
These are all important questions and we need good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that many of the world ’ s national science academies , representing hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe , have issued statements supporting the consensus about global warming and demanding government efforts to cut emissions .
The problem is , not a single one of those societies took a survey of their members before issuing their statements in the name of their members .
The statements were put out by a small number of activists using their committee positions to make it look as though their views are shared by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But if they are , why didn ’ t these authors survey their members before publishing the statements ?
There are a couple of other studies that claimed to prove a consensus .
But they run into the same problems .
All they show is wide agreement on the uncontroversial bits .
They offer no information about whether a majority of scientists think global warming is a crisis .
And then they ’ re spun wildly by non-scientists to tell us things they don ’ t begin to say , often about questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate .
The problem isn ’ t just that we don ’ t know what percentage of scientists agrees with this or that statement about global warming .
All this talk of a 97 % consensus amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate just when we need it most because the question looms so large in public policy .
As physicist Richard Feynmann once said , “ I would rather have questions that can ’ t be answered than answers that can ’ t be questioned.
” And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to take drastic action based on those answers .
Not long ago that survey expert I mentioned earlier , Jose Duarte , warned his fellow scientists about the negative consequences of claiming consensus .
He said : “ It is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments .
Humans are an ultrasocial species , and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majority… “ A scientist who contests the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming , or merely produces smaller estimates , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ‘ deniers ’ .
“ Self-described mainstream climate scientists refer the public to such lists , implicitly endorsing the smearing of their colleagues .
This is disturbing , and unheard of in other sciences.
” The unfortunate truth is that there is strong political pressure for climate experts not to question claims of impending doom .
Those who do so face steep personal and professional costs , including a barrage of abuse that can be highly unpleasant for people who mostly wanted to devote their lives to the quiet pursuit of knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means we should listen carefully to them when they feel compelled to speak out anyway .
Whether they represent 50 % , or 10 % , or 3 % of experts , what matters is the evidence they bring and the quality of their arguments .
And on that , I would hope we have 100 percent agreement .

There are so many empty slogans out there I wish we could tackle all of them at once. But the “97% of scientists agree” is surely the elephant in the room.
Lots of people have tried to rebut it by dismissing the notion of consensus itself, or by praising the historical examples of renegade scientists who went against a prevailing consensus and turned out to be right.
But that unnecessarily concedes the major claim itself, which the evidence shows is simply not true. I hope you enjoy the video, and that you’ll share it widely.
Transcript below:
Narrator
The claim that 97% of the world’s scientists agree is pretty much the ace of trumps in the whole climate debate.
After all, who’s going to argue against a consensus that strong, backed by so many experts. But what exactly are they supposed to agree on? If you look behind the curtain, no one seems sure what the experts actually said. Or who they are. Or… anything.
John
At first glance it seems straightforward enough. In 2013 President Barack Obama famously tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.”
In 2014, his Secretary of State John Kerry said 97% of “the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” And that same year, CNN said “97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it’s damaging the planet and that it’s manmade.”
Narrator
That’s pretty much what most people think when they hear the 97% slogan: Every scientist believes man-made climate change is an urgent crisis.
But there are millions of scientists in the world. How many exactly were surveyed? When were they surveyed? Who did it? And what exactly did they agree on?
John
Let’s find out. I’m John Robson and this is a Climate Discussion Nexus Fact Check on the 97 percent consensus slogan.
To begin with, there are some ideas that pretty much all scientists accept. For instance that birds are descended from dinosaurs, though that idea was once dismissed as highly eccentric.
And when it comes to climate, you don’t need a poll to tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it likely has some overall warming effect. That’s been known since the mid-1800s. And if you did do a survey, you would find overwhelming scientific agreement on that point.
Also, there are lots of indications that the world is somewhat warmer now than it was in the mid-1800s, the end of a natural cooling period called the Little Ice Age.
Finally, virtually nobody disputes that humans have changed the environment of our planet, by releasing emissions into the air, changing the land surface, putting things in the water, and so forth.
These aren’t controversial ideas, and they’re accepted even by most climate skeptics. What we don’t accept is that any of them prove that humans are the only cause of global warming, or that climate change is a dangerous threat.
If 97% of scientists believed that, it would be troubling. Though even so, we’d still have to find some plan whose benefits outweighed its costs.
In any event, that level of consensus that the problem was manmade and urgent would certainly be noteworthy. But the thing is, they don’t agree on that.
A close look at what survey data we have, and there isn’t much, tells us, yes, there is a great deal of agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some degree, that the Earth has warmed in the last 160 years, and that humans affect their surroundings.
But that survey data also tell us there’s far less agreement on everything else including whether we face a crisis.
So where did this 97% claim come from and why is it so widely repeated?
Narrator
The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities” and that none directly disputed it.
By 2006, in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, this finding had somehow morphed into “a massive study of every scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal written on global warming for the last 10 years and they took a big sample of 10%, 928 articles, and you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that it’s a serious problem? Out of the 928, zero.”
John
That was a fib. Gore took a study that found 75% endorsed the idea that humans have some effect on climate and turned it into proof that 100% of scientists believe it’s a serious problem. It does no such thing.
Narrator
And nor do the handful of other surveys on the subject. For instance five years later, in 2009, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent an online survey to over 10,000 Earth scientists asking two simple questions:
Do you agree that global temperatures have generally risen since the pre-1800s? and
Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor?
[Note: They asked some other questions too, but didn’t report the questions or results in the publication.]
John
They didn’t single out greenhouse gases, they didn’t explain what the term “significant” meant and they didn’t refer to danger or crisis. So what was the result?
Narrator
Of the 3,146 responses they received, 90 percent said yes to the first question, that global temperatures had risen since the Little Ice Age, and only 82 percent said yes to the second, that human activity was a significant contributing factor.
Interestingly, among meteorologists only 64 percent said yes to the second, meaning a third of the experts in the study of weather patterns who replied didn’t think humans play a significant role in global warming, let alone a dominant one.
What got the most media attention was that among the 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question. 75 out of 77 is 97%.
John
OK, it didn’t get any media attention that they took 77 out of 3,146 responses. But that’s the key statistical trick. They found a 97 percent consensus among 2 percent of the survey respondents.
And even so it was only that there’d been some warming since the 1800s, which virtually nobody denies, and that humans are partly responsible.
These experts didn’t say it was dangerous or urgent, because they weren’t asked.
So far the claim that 97% of “world scientists” are saying there’s a climate crisis is pure fiction. But wait, you say. There must be more. Yes, there is. But not much.
Narrator
Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed to have examined about 12,000 scientific papers related to climate change, and found that 97% endorsed the consensus view that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming.
This study generated headlines around the world, and it was the one to which Obama’s tweet was referring.
John
But here again, appearances were deceiving.
Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on the consensus. Of the remaining 34%, the authors claimed that 33% endorsed the consensus.
Divide 33 by 34 and you get 97%. But this result is essentially meaningless, because they set the bar so low.
The survey authors didn’t ask if climate change was dangerous or “manmade”.
They only asked if a given paper accepted that humans have some effect on the climate, which as already noted is uncontroversial. It could mean as little as accepting the “urban heat island” effect.
So a far better question would be: How many of the studies claimed that humans have caused most of the observed global warming? And oddly, we do know.
Because buried in the authors’ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! That’s not 97%, it’s one half of one percent. It’s one in 200.
And it gets worse. In a follow-up study, climatologist David Legates read those 64 papers and found that a third of them didn’t even say what Cook and his team claimed. Only 41 actually endorsed the view that global warming is mostly manmade. And we still haven’t got to it being “dangerous”. That part of the survey results was simply invented, by politicians and activists.
Other researchers have condemned the Cook study on other grounds too. For instance economist Richard Tol showed that over three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsing even the weak consensus actually said nothing at all on the subject.
And evidence later emerged that the authors of the paper were drafting press releases about their findings before they even started doing the research, which indicates an alarming level not of warming or of consensus but of bias.
The reality is that neither this study, nor a handful of others like it, prove that 97% of scientists believe climate change is mostly manmade, let alone that it’s a crisis.
The fact that people who claim to put such stock in “settled science” accept such obvious statistical hocus pocus is both astounding and disappointing.
Narrator
So what do climate experts really think? The year before Obama sent out his tweet, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members. They got about 1,800 responses.
Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade. The remaining 48% either think it happened but is mostly natural, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know.
And while it’s possible that the three-quarters who didn’t answer split the same way as those who did, it’s also possible that committed alarmists are more likely to answer such surveys.
In any case, it’s a small sample, even of AMS members, let alone of the world’s scientists.
John
There was one more survey a few years later by the Netherlands Environment Agency that claimed 66% of climate experts believed humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950. Which falls far short of 97% even if it outperforms the other studies.
A social psychologist named Jose Duarte, who specializes in survey design, published an analysis of that one, pointing out that they diluted the sample by including large numbers of psychologists, philosophers, political scientists, and other non-experts, making their results meaningless as a measure of what scientists think.
Just as you’ll find that the people who cite that 97% number are overwhelmingly not trained scientists, certainly not trained statisticians.
Narrator
So we’re no farther ahead than when we began. Most experts agree on the basics, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and probably causes some warming and that humans have some impact on climate probably including some warming.
But they actively debate the rest: How much warming will there be? Is it a problem? Should we try to stop it, or adapt, or wait and see?
These are all important questions and we need good answers.
John
And there’s the claim that many of the world’s national science academies, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe, have issued statements supporting the consensus about global warming and demanding government efforts to cut emissions.
The problem is, not a single one of those societies took a survey of their members before issuing their statements in the name of their members.
The statements were put out by a small number of activists using their committee positions to make it look as though their views are shared by all the world’s experts.
But if they are, why didn’t these authors survey their members before publishing the statements?
There are a couple of other studies that claimed to prove a consensus. But they run into the same problems. All they show is wide agreement on the uncontroversial bits.
They offer no information about whether a majority of scientists think global warming is a crisis.
And then they’re spun wildly by non-scientists to tell us things they don’t begin to say, often about questions they didn’t even attempt to investigate .
The problem isn’t just that we don’t know what percentage of scientists agrees with this or that statement about global warming.
It’s something much worse.
All this talk of a 97% consensus amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate just when we need it most because the question looms so large in public policy.
As physicist Richard Feynmann once said, “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” And that’s especially true when we’re asked to take drastic action based on those answers.
Not long ago that survey expert I mentioned earlier, Jose Duarte, warned his fellow scientists about the negative consequences of claiming consensus. He said:
“It is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments. Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majority…
“A scientist who contests the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming, or merely produces smaller estimates, will likely end up on a McCarthyite blacklist of ‘deniers’.
“Self-described mainstream climate scientists refer the public to such lists, implicitly endorsing the smearing of their colleagues. This is disturbing, and unheard of in other sciences.”
The unfortunate truth is that there is strong political pressure for climate experts not to question claims of impending doom.
Those who do so face steep personal and professional costs, including a barrage of abuse that can be highly unpleasant for people who mostly wanted to devote their lives to the quiet pursuit of knowledge not to noisy polemics.
And that means we should listen carefully to them when they feel compelled to speak out anyway.
Whether they represent 50%, or 10%, or 3% of experts, what matters is the evidence they bring and the quality of their arguments.
And on that, I would hope we have 100 percent agreement.
For the Climate Discussion Nexus, I’m John Robson.
Source: YouTube.com / Transcript reference here.