UAH Shows NH Land and SH Sea Warming in April

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean.  But as an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021 and February 2022. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020).

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~55 ppm, a 15% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.


The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. 

Update August 3, 2021

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT




See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

April Update NH Land and SH Ocean Warmer


With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you will hear a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino was fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions.  Last month NH land and SH ocean showed warmer temps.

UAH has updated their tlt (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for April 2022.  Previously I have done posts on their reading of ocean air temps as a prelude to updated records from HadSST3 (which is now discontinued). So I have separately posted on SSTs using HadSST4 2021 Ends with Cooler Ocean Temps  This month also has a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years. Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes.  For example last month showed that air temps over NH and Tropics Land rose, while NH and Tropics Ocean temps were unchanged.   Meanwhile SH ocean temps rose sharply, while SH Land cooled somewhat.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.  In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values change with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus the cooling oceans now portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6 which are now posted for April.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean temps since January 2015.

Note 2020 was warmed mainly by a spike in February in all regions, and secondarily by an October spike in NH alone. In 2021, SH and the Tropics both pulled the Global anomaly down to a new low in April. Then SH and Tropics upward spikes, along with NH warming brought Global temps to a peak in October.  That warmth was gone as November 2021 ocean temps plummeted everywhere. A upward bump 01/2022 was reversed in 02/2022 before temps rose again in 03/2022.  Last month ocean temps in NH and Tropics  were little changed, but an upward bump in SH pulled up the Global anomaly. 

Land Air Temperatures Tracking Downward in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for April is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  Land temps are dominated by NH with a 2021 spike in January,  then dropping before rising in the summer to peak in October 2021. As with the ocean air temps, all that was erased in November with a sharp cooling everywhere. Land temps dropped sharply for four months, even more than did the Oceans.  In March all land regions warmed pulling up the global anomaly. April saw SH land cooling slightly, while NH and the Tropics combined to further increase Global Land air temps.


The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.07, for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   A small upward bump in 2021 has been reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, but with little indication for another El Nino. 

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST3, but are now showing the same pattern.  It seems obvious that despite the three El Ninos, their warming has not persisted, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.


Mid May Arctic Ice Persistent

An early-spring sunset over the icy Chukchi Sea near Barrow (Utqiaġvik), Alaska, documented during the OASIS field project (Ocean_Atmosphere_Sea Ice_Snowpack) on March 22, 2009. Image credit: UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.

Previous posts showed 2022 Arctic Ice broke the 15M km2 ceiling in February, staying above that level the first week of March, then followed by typical melting in March and April.  Now in May,  Arctic sea ice is not retreating as fast as usual.  The chart below shows by day 134 (May 14), the overall ice extent in cyan  was 353k km2 above the 16 year average in black.

Note the much higher ice extents in 2022 compared to 2021 (+543k) or 2007 (+619k).  The green lines show that the above normal ice this year is despite low extents in Bering and Okhotsk (B&O) seas.  The averages in dark green (excluding B&O) are below 2022 in light green (excluding B&O) by 477k km2.  IOW everywhere in the Arctic except Okhotsk ice extents are almost 1/2 Wadham above average, nearly matching day 134 Arctic including Bering and Okhotsk.  Remember also that B&O are outside the Arctic circle, have no Polar bears, and are among the first to melt out every spring.

The table below shows ice extents in the seas comprising the Arctic, comparing 2022 day 134 with the same day average over the last 16 years and with 2007.

Region 2022134 Day 134 Average 2022-Ave. 2007134 2022-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13084542 12731703 352839 12465425 619117
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1042530 1048465 -5934 1057649 -15119
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 958909 927455 31454 952925 5984
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1081479 5659 1080156 6981
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 881321 16524 850822 47022
 (5) Kara_Sea 894992 886185 8807 876053 18939
 (6) Barents_Sea 612751 417074 195677 351553 261198
 (7) Greenland_Sea 674248 623405 50843 560102 114147
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1206195 1080371 125824 1029612 176583
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854685 840361 14324 830604 24081
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1213151 1190185 22966 1161738 51413
 (11) Central_Arctic 3248013 3224787 23226 3234305 13708
 (12) Bering_Sea 257260 319952 -62692 309846 -52586
 (13) Baltic_Sea 9044 8179 865 6368 2675
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 125465 200107 -74641 159942 -34476

The table shows that 2022 ice extent is above average by 353k km2, or 2.8%, and exceeding 2007 by 619k km2 at this date. The two deficits to average are Bering and Okhotsk, more than offset by surpluses elsewhere,  especially in Barents and Baffin Bay.

Polar Bear on Ice in Baffin Bay Between Baffin Island and Greenland


When Institutions Turn Against Individuals

These days, marxist theory is camouflaged as “Critical Theory”, AKA Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, etc. But the thrust remains the same:  every social identity and relationship is redefined as a power struggle between oppressor and oppressed.  Thus everything is politicized and civil society is reduced to a jungle where might makes right.  Those who seize cultural control of social and economic institutions imperil each individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Last month Peter Robinson conducted an Uncommon Knowledge interview with Jordan Peterson on the topic The Importance of Being Ethical.  The video link is below, followed by my transcription with light editing to produce from the captions a text for reading.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds. (PR is Peter Robinson, JP is Jordan Peterson)

PR:  If you’re the prime minister of Canada the man is a villain, but if you’re a conservative particularly a young conservative it’s very likely you think of him as a hero. Jordan Peterson on Uncommon Knowledge.

In 2016 the Trudeau government enacted legislation making it illegal to discriminate on the ground of “gender expression”. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto objected. In particular he flatly refused to use politically correct gender pronouns, said so in videos and went viral in 2017. He began a series of podcasts called the psychological significance of biblical stories that has been viewed by millions. In 2018 he published a book 12 rules for life an antidote to chaos that became an international bestseller. Last year he published another bestseller beyond order: 12 more rules for life, and then he resigned from the University of Toronto to devote himself to lectures and podcasts. Jordan Peterson welcome. The audience should know by the way that we’re filming today as part of the classical liberalism seminar at Stanford.

PR:  All right, question one: The February protest by Canadian truckers. They’re protesting covid restrictions; some of them block border crossings; some of them snarl the capital city of ottawa.
Here’s your quotation made in a message you taped for the protesters. “ I’d like to commend all of you for your diligence and work on accomplishing what you have under trying conditions, and also for keeping your heads in a way that’s been a model for the entire world.”

Now the clip of PM Trudeau speaking in parliament: “It has to stop. The people of Ottawa don’t deserve to be harassed in their own neighborhoods. They don’t deserve to be confronted with the inherent violence of a swastika flying on a street corner, or a confederate flag, or the insults and jeers just because they’re wearing a mask. That’s not who Canada, who Canadians are.”

So here’s the first question: How can discourse in a great democracy have become so polarized that Jordan Peterson and the Prime Minister look at exactly the same set of events and come to opposite conclusions about them.?

JP: Well he’s lying, and I’m not. So that’s a big part of the issue. I don’t believe that he ever says a word that’s true. From what I’ve been able to observe, it’s all stage acting. He’s crafted a persona. He has a particular instrumental goal in mind, and everything is subordinated to serve that.

What’s the motivation? It’s the same motivation that’s generally typical of people who are narcissistic, which is to be accredited with moral virtue in the absence of the work necessary to actually attain it.

Apart from playing a role, from you know the swastika thing is really just untrue about Canadians.  Really, we’re going to be worried about Nazis in Canada? First of all that just isn’t a thing in Canada; There isn’t a Nazi tradition, and i don’t know anyone in Canada who’s ever met anyone who’s met someone who was Canadian and who was a Nazi. So that’s just a non-starter

When that sort of thing gets dragged into the conversation right off the bat you know, “Canadians shouldn’t be subjected to the inherent violence of a swastika, ” first of all it’s not even obvious what that swastika was doing there. There’s reasonable evidence to suggest that the person who was waving it was either a plant, or someone who was making the comment about what was characteristic of the government. Now no one knows because the story around that event is messy, and it’s not like there were credible journalists who were going in there to investigate thoroughly. But to use that, and the confederate flag issue is exactly the same thing.

The story in Canada is that our Prime Minister implemented the emergencies act and so the question was why. So I went on twitter when this was trending and read at least 5000 twitter comments to try to get a sense of people who were supporting Trudeau in applying the emergencies act. I wanted to understand what do they believe is happening. As far as I can tell, and maybe I’m wrong, the story was that something like make america great again conservative republicans, the you know pretty far right., were attempting to destabilize Canadian democracy.

And so my question was, well what makes you think they care first of all about Canada and its democracy? And second, why in the world would they possibly do that? You need a motive for a crime like that. At the same time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is subsidized by the liberals to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars a year, the CBC was insisting that most of the money that the truckers raised was foreign financed. If it wasn’t the bloody Russians, then it was the American Conservatives. And so that all turned out to be a complete lie.

And so the line was, it’s republican right-wingers trying to destabilize Canadian democracy, except no one has an answer for what’s in it for them.

And then three days later, the emergency act was lifted. i thought, okay now what are they going to make of that? What could possibly be the rationale for that? And the rationale was that it just showed how effective he was. We had this coup ready to go that was financed by Americans apparently, and our prime minister acted so forthrightly that we only needed to be under the strictures of the emergency act for three days.

I don’t even know what sort of world exists in which those things are happening, and then why do Canadians buy this to the degree they do.

And I think they’re faced with a hard choice. Because in my country for 150 years you could trust the basic institutions. You could trust the government, it didn’t matter what political party was running it; you could trust the political parties right from the socialists over to the conservatives. The socialists were mostly union types and they were trying to give the working class a voice and honestly so. You could trust the the media, even the CBC was a reliable source of news. You know, none of that’s true now. And so Canadians are asked to make a hard choice in the truckers convoy situation. Either all your institutions are almost irretrievably corrupt, or the truckers were financed by like right-wing republican-americans. Well both of those are preposterous, so you might as well take the one that’s least disruptive to your entire sense of security. And I think that’s what Canadians mostly did.

PR:  Coming back to Canadian universities Jordan Peterson was quoted in the National Post this past march: “I had envisioned teaching and researching at the University of Toronto full-time until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office.” Instead you retired. Why?

JP:  Well it was impossible to go back. For a long time I couldn’t think clearly about what I should do on the professional front because I was ill. Later when I started to recover and looked at the situation, first of all there was just no going back because I’m too well known and too provocative I suppose. I’ve never really thought of myself as that, but it seems to have turned out that way. I couldn’t just return to the classroom.

And then there were other problems too. There’s no bloody way I’m writing a diversity, inclusivity and equity statement for a grant.

I can’t imagine the circumstances under which i would do that. And that’s become absolutely crucial now in Canada. Also increasingly in the US to get any sort of research grant you you have to write a diversity statement, and it has to be the right kind of statement. I read that the national sciences and engineering research councils frequently asked questions about how to prepare a diversity statement. And you couldn’t write a more reprehensible document from the ideological perspective if you set out with the intent purpose of writing a despicable document.

So there’s no way I could get funding for my research and then what bloody chance would my students have of being hired in an academic environment today? You know perfectly well those who sat on faculty hiring committees your basic decision right off the bat is: Okay who do we eliminate because you have way too many candidates? And so you’re searching for reasons to get rid of people. I’m don’t say this as a criticism, it’s just a reality. If there’s any whiff of scandal of any sort, well we have 10 other people we could look. Why would we bother with the trouble? So I just couldn’t see my students having any future.

Then I also thought: Well I can go lecture wherever I want, to whoever i want with virtually any size audience, with no restrictions whatsoever. Why go back to teaching a small class at university? I did like doing that, but all I could see were disadvantages. Plus it was impossible. Exactly what am I supposed to do when I meet a graduate student or a young professor hired on diversity grounds manifest instant skepticism? What a slap in the face!

The diversity ideology is no friend to peace and tolerance; it is absolutely and completely the enemy of competence and justice.

PR:  What happened? How did wokeness take over universities? University faculty poll after poll of party affiliation in this country, I’m sure it’s the same in Canada, shows the university faculty been to the left for a long time. But this wokeness is something new. What’s the transmission mechanism; what happened and how did it happen in a small number of years?

JP:  That’s a tough question. I’ve tried to put my finger on the essential elements of what you might describe as political correctness or wokeness and done that in a variety of ways. For example this is one student of mine undertook a quite promising line of research. The first thing we wanted to find out was: Is there really such a thing as political correctness or wokeness? Because it’s vague, can you identify it? And by that I mean psychometrically. Because for 40 years one of the things that psychologists have been wrestling with is construct validation. That’s the technical problem: How do you know when you put a concept forward whether it bears any relationship to some underlying reality? For example, is there such a thing as emotional intelligence? Is there such a thing as self-esteem? Or political correctness?

The proper answer is we don’t know, but there are ways of finding out. You need to find out if the construct assesses something that’s unique and does that in a manner separate from other similar constructs in a in a revealing and important way. There’s a whole theory of of methodology that should inform your efforts to answer such questions. So for example if you’re a clinician you might want to differentiate between depression and anxiety. Keeping the concepts separate is important so they have functional utility, but also accounting for the overlap because they’re both negative emotions. It’s part of epistemological mapping

So we asked a large number of people a very large number of political questions trying to oversample questions that had been put forward in the media and in the public sphere as indicative of politically correct beliefs. Then we did the appropriate statistical analysis to see if the questions hung together. They hang together if question a is politically correct, let’s say you answer it positively. And question b is politically correct and you answer it positively. If there’s a large correlation between those two questions then you think well they’re assessing something underlying that’s holding them together.

In this way we identified a set of beliefs that were observable or easily identifiable as politically correct. So yes, it exists.

The next question is: Where does it come from? We haven’t done empirical analysis of that, but I think if you’re reasonably familiar with the history of ideas you can see two streams, two broad streams of thought.

One is a postmodern stream that basically emerged out of literary criticism.

It’s predicated on what is actually a fundamental and a valid critique; which is that it’s very, very difficult to lay out a description of the world without that description being informed by some value structure. That’s at the core of what’s useful about the postmodern critique. I actually happen to believe that you look at the world through a structure of value.  Well then, what is the structure of value and also what do you mean by a structure value?

And that’s where the post-modernists went wrong,
and where I think our whole society went wrong.

Because the radical left types who were simultaneously postmodern turned to marxism to answer that question. They said, well we organize our perceptions as a consequence of the will to power. And I think that is an appalling doctrine. It’s technically incorrect for all sorts of reasons that we could get into. Partly the issue is: if power is my ability to compel you to do things against your own interest or in your own desire, maybe I can organize my social interactions on the basis of that willingness to express power. That’s a very unstable means of social organization.

So the notion is that it’s power that structures our relations,
but where’s your evidence for that?

There’s no evidence for that, it’s wrong; but that’s what we assumed and that’s what universities  teach by and large. It makes no sense to me that this thing that has raged through these great magnificent institutions, these universities that our grandparents and great grandparents sacrificed to give money to, these magnificent citadels of learning.  It makes no sense to me to suppose that english departments suddenly took over well unless they’re on to something. As I said before, I don’t think you can look at the world except through a structure of value. So why has literary criticism become so relevant and so powerful?

I believe that we see the world through a narrative framework. If that’s true, you need a mechanism to prioritize your attention because attention is a finite resource and it’s costly. So you have to prioritize it and there’s no difference between prioritizing your attention and imposing a value structure those are the same thing. The mechanisms that we use to prioritize our attention are stories, which means that the people who criticize our stories actually have way more power than you think. Because they’re actually criticizing the mechanism through which we look at the world.

So the post-modernist would say, you even look at the scientific world
through a value-laden lens. I think they’re right, yes you do,
but they’re wrong that the lens is one of power.

Now with a word like power, you can expand the borders of the word to encompass virtually any phenomena you want. And so that’s why I define power as my willingness to use compulsion on you or other people. Because power can be authority, power can be competence, but I don’t mean any of that. I mean power in the sense you don’t get to do what you want, you do what I tell you to do. This is power as coercion exactly. And I do think the marxist types view the willingness to use coercion as the driving force of human history. That’s really saying something, because that means it’s the fundamental motivation.

That’s a very caustic criticism, and it’s easy to put people back on their heels
about that,  as we are seeing with capitalists.

I’ve been stunned to see the CEOs of major corporations just roll over in front of these DEI activists. I wonder, what the hell’s wrong with you people? You’re not even making use of your privilege and you are not very powerful if you’re the CEO of a major corporation and you can’t even withstand some interns who have DEI ideology, which is not doing you a lot of good. So why would you produce a fifth column within your organization that’s completely opposed to the entire manner in which you do business and to the capitalist enterprise as such?

One answer would be, well we don’t think much about ideas. Well maybe you should. Or maybe you are cynical about it and say, well it’s just a gloss to keep the capitalist enterprise going while appearing to to meet the new demands of the new ethical reality. Which I think is also a bad argument.

But more importantly it’s that people are guilty and the the radicals who accuse us all historically and as individuals of being motivated
by nothing but the desire for power
strike a chord especially in people who are conscientious.

Because if you’re a conscientious person and someone comes to you, or a little mob of 30 people says, you can be a little more careful in what you say and do on the racist front and the sexist front etc. You’re likely to think, well I’m not perfect. I probably could be a little more careful. And no doubt people have been oppressed in the past and it’s also true that in some sense I’m the undeserving beneficiary of historical atrocity and so maybe I should look to myself.

That’s weaponization of guilt and it’s very effective and it’s not surprising. But it’s not helpful because there’s a resentment that drives this, a corrosive resentment that’s able to weaponize guilt and it’s very difficult for people to withstand it.

PR:  Earlier you talked about values and how we see the world through values so here’s a question.  If there’s no objective standard of reason outside and above ourselves, if everything is just matter how we think, how can we do science? What do you think of this from C.S. Lewis:  If I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, meaning all that exists is only what we can perceive through our senses, then not only can I not fit in religion, I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry in the long run on the meaningless flux of the atoms, how the thoughts of minds have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees?

JP:  Well that’s a complicated problem. First of all I don’t think science is possible outside of an encompassing judeo-christian ethic. For example, I don’t think you can be a scientist without believing as an axiom of faith that truth will set you free. In fact we don’t know the conditions under which science is possible and we tend to overestimate its epistemological potency. I mean you can stretch it back to the Greeks if you’re inclined, but in a formal sense it’s only been around for about five centuries, and it’s only thrived for a very short period of time. And it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that there were particular preconditions that made its rise and ascendancy possible. It is an historical phenomenon, yes it happened at a specific moment in time and for particular reasons.

One of the bunch of conditions is for example, there’s an intense insistence in the Christian tradition that the mind of god in some sense is knowable, and yes including the structure of the cosmos. And you have to believe that’s the case before you’re going to embark on a scientific endeavor. You have to believe that there’s some relationship between logos or logic. But logos is a much broader concept than logic, that’s for sure. You have to believe that there’s some relationship between that and the structure of the cosmos.

You have to believe that the pursuit of truth is in itself an ethical good,
because why would you bother otherwise.

You have to believe that there is such a thing as an ethical good and those are not scientific questions. Which is why i think the arguments of people like Hitchens and Dawkins are weak. People like that have a metaphysic which they don’t know and they assume that metaphysic is self-evidence. Well sorry guys, it’s actually not self-evident. And they assume that it can be derived from the observations of empirical reality and the answer to that is no. There’s going to be axioms of your perceptual system that aren’t derivable from the contents of your perceptual system.

And you might think, well that’s not very scientific and i would say you can take it up with Roger Penrose about say the role of consciousness and and the structure of consciousness. And it’s by no means obvious that the materialist reductionists have the correct theory about the nature of consciousness. And not surprisingly we don’t understand the relationship between consciousness and being at all.

You know these are hard hard questions. One hard question for consciousness researchers is: Why is there consciousness? Why aren’t we just unconscious mechanisms acting deterministically?  I don’t think that is the hardest question.

The really hard question is: What’s the relationship between consciousness and being itself?

Because I can’t understand what it means for something to be in the absence of some awareness of that being. There’s an awareness component implicit in the in the idea of being itself. Consciousness is integrally tied up with being in some mysterious manner and so I also don’t believe that the the most sophisticated scientists are by necessity reductionist materialists. It’s occam’s razor clear if you can reduce and account deterministically no problem. But don’t be thinking that accounts for everything because I don’t think there’s any evidence that it does.

PR:  From science to to politics to quotations. Jordan Peterson this is a tweet of just last month: Does anything other than the axiomatic acceptance of the divine value of the individual make slavery a self-evident rule, right? That’s a good one.  I’m going to put you in an august company.  Here’s G.K. Chesterton:  The declaration of independence bases all rights on the fact that god created all men equal.  There is no basis for democracy except in  the divine origin of man so these are very similar thoughts.

JP: I’ve been talking to my audience about what is the right to free speech and and how that might be conceptualized. Because you can think about it as a right among other rights, so it’s just one on a list of rights. And you can also think of rights as being granted to you in some sense by the social contract.

That is a different theory than the notion that rights originate in some underlying religious insistence of the divine value of the individual.

There’s a bunch of problems with the rights among other rights argument i don’t think free speech is a right among other rights. Speech has to be free because if it’s not free it’s not thought. So imagine if everything’s not going all right, you have problems, and you have to think about hard things. If you have a problem the thinking is going to be troublesome because you’re going to think things that upset yourself and upset other people. It’s part of the necessity, part of what will necessarily happen if you’re thinking.

PR:  You said something that just stopped me so completely cold that I missed some of what followed. To repeat: There is no difference between speech and thought; if you have free thought you must have free speech. That’s the argument.

JP: Yes. Well I’ll unpack that first and then return to the other. First of all, mostly you think in words now. People also think in images but I’m not going to go into that, we’ll just leave that aside. But mostly we think in words and so we use a mechanism that’s sociologically constructed– the world of speech to organize our own psyches. We do that with speech and basically when you think there’s two components to it that are internal. In a sense when you think you have a problem, you ask yourself a question and then answers appear in the theater of your imagination. They are generally verbal so that’d be like the revelatory element of thought. And that’s very much prayer in some fundamental sense.

It’s very mysterious the fact that you can pose yourself a question and then you can generate answers. So why did you have the question if you can generate the answers, if the answers are just there. Where do the answers come from? Well you can give a materialist account to some very limited degree, but phenomenologically it’s still the case that you pose a question to yourself in speech and you receive an answer in speech. Now it can also be an image but forget about that for this discussion.

The next question is what do you do once you receive the answer? The answer is, well, if you can think then you use internal speech to dissect the answer. This is what you do, for example, you encourage your students to do if they’re writing an essay. You know they lay out a proposition and then you hope they can take the proposition apart. Essentially in this way they’re transforming themselves into avatars, speaking avatars of two different viewpoints. So you have the speaker for the proposition and then you have the critic. Maybe you lay out the dialogue between them and that constitutes the body of the essay.

You have to be bloody sophisticated to manage that because it means that you have to divide yourself in some sense into two avatars that are oppositional. And then you have to allow yourself to be the battle space between them that. People have to be trained to do that. It’s what universities are supposed to do.

But it’s really hard; so instead of that, people generally talk to other people.
And that’s how they they organize themselves, by talking to other people.

So the additional reason you have the right to free speech, isn’t that you can just say whatever you want to gain a hedonistic advantage, which is one way of thinking about it. You have a right to say whatever you want like you have a right to do what you want, you know subject to certain limitations. It’s like it’s a hedonstic freedom. No, that’s not why you have a right free speech.

You have a right to free speech because the entirety of society depends
on this ability to adapt to the changing horizon of the future
on the free thought of the individuals who compose it.

It’s like a free market in some sense, a free market argument in relationship to thought. We have to compute this transforming horizon, and we do that well by consciously engaging with possibilities. Doing that is mediated through speech. So societies that are going to function over any reasonable amount of time have to leave their citizens alone to grapple stupidly with complexity. So that out of that stupid, fraught grappling that’s offensive and difficult and upsetting, we can grope towards the truth collectively. This before taking the steps to implement those truths, before they’ve been tested.  So that’s the free speech argument.

The divinity argument is while you are that locus of consciousness,
that’s what you are most fundamentally.

The reason that’s associated with divinity is a very very complicated question and part of the reason I outlined this in my biblical series on genesis. This divinity of the individuals rooted in the narrative conception is part and parcel of the judeo-christian tradition. You have god at the beginning of time in whose image men and women are made acting as the agent that transforms the chaos of potential into the habitable reality that is good. And he uses the word the divine word logos to do that, which implies that the word that’s truthful is the word that extracts habitable order out of chaos.

What characterizes human beings is that capability.

To those who don’t believe that, I say try acting another way, try basing your personal relationships on any other conception and see what happens. You know people are so desperate to be treated in that manner that it’s their primary motivation. You want other people to treat you as if you have something to say that you’re worth attending to. You have the opportunity to express yourself, no matter how badly you do it. And if they’re willing to grant you their attention and time to help you straighten that out, there isn’t anything you want more than that. If you try to structure your social relationships on any other basis then that respect for their intrinsic value, it’s going to fail.

PR:  We’ve talked about faculty and students. A couple of statistics: According to Gallup the proportion of Americans who claim no religious affiliation, among Americans–over 76 years old is just seven percent. 93 percent of the oldsters claim a religious affiliation. The youngest group that Gallup tested is Americans between 26 and 41–almost a third claim no religious affiliation.

Item two and I’m reasonably certain this is the same in Canada at least in eastern Canada, but certainly in the United States, poll after poll shows that young people are far more open to socialism, or to farther not just left of center but farther left political aims. They’re the ones who most fervently support this. By the way This is an inversion from the Reagan years in the 80s when the kids were more conservative than the older. That’s not the case now, add in my personal observation that during covid, during the lockdowns, personally almost more shocking than any other aspect was the supineness, the passivity of the kids. This despite it was established very very early that if you’re young you’re at no serious risk of this virus. You’ll get sick, perhaps it’ll be a flu, but you’re more likely to die in a car accident up to the age of 20 something than you are to die of covid. That was established right away and yet universities shut down and they made kids go on zoom to take exams or take their classes. I could detect no pushback. No kid was trying to diss the man; in general they were saying, Yes Master.

It’s like they were Igors to Dr Frankenstein. This is all really bad news.

After listening to you talk with such a sophistication for a while now, here’s the crude point, the crude suspicion I take away:

If you don’t have some notion of the transcendent; if you don’t have some notion of the divine, then you’ll believe any damn thing.

JP:  I think that’s right and that’s what the kids are doing. Dostoevsky commented on that: if there’s no god everything is permitted you know. And he did a lovely job of analyzing that in Crime and Punishment and the Brothers Karamazov. I do think it’s true that if you believe nothing, you’ll fall for anything.  People like to ask me if i believe in god, and i always think well, who are you to be asking that question? First of all you have some notion of what you mean by believe that you think is just accurate because you know what believe means. And so you have a prior theory about belief and now you’re asking me if my belief in god fits into your a prior theory.

How about we start by questioning your a priori theory of belief?

Because I don’t even know what you mean by believe, and neither do you especially when we’re asking a question that profound. You know, do you believe in god involves three mysteries there, and all three of those are subject to question. 

I think people act out what they believe. So when people ask me if I believe in god, generally I say that I act or try to act as if god exists. And they’re not very happy about that because they want me to abide by the rules, the implicit rules of their question. Which is, do you believe in the religious view as a pseudo-scientific description of the structure of reality? I don’t know how to answer that question because it’s so badly formulated i can’t get a handle on it.

Do you believe that there’s something divine? Well let’s try to define divine here, we can do that for for a moment. Most of us have some sense that literary stories differ in their depth. I don’t think that’s an unwarranted proposition: some stories are shallow and some stories are deep; some stories are ephemeral and some move you deeply, whatever that means. It’s a metaphor but we understand what it means. Imagine there are layers of literary depth and one way of conceptualizing the layers is that the deeper an idea is the more other ideas depend upon it.  So you have ideas that are fundamental because if you shake that idea, you shake all the ideas that depend on them.

And then I would say the realm of the divine is the realm of the most fundamental ideas.

That must be so because the alternative is to say well all ideas are equal in value. Okay well, try acting then and you can’t, because you can’t act unless you prioritize your beliefs. And if you prioritize them you arrange them into a hierarchy, and in that arrangement you accept the notion of depth. And so when we use language of the divine we’re talking about the deepest ideas.

And so I believe the notion that each individual is characterized by a consciousness that transforms the horizon of the future into the present.

That’s a divine idea–it’s so deep and our functional cultures are necessarily predicated on that idea. It’s not just a western idea since you can not have a functional culture that in some sense doesn’t instantiate that idea. Because you interfere with the mechanism of adaptation itself, by not allowing it free expression.

Suppose you are like my prime minister and you say, “Well I really admire the Chinese Communist Party, because when it comes to environmental issues they get things done.” So many things are wrong with that statement, it’s hard to know where to begin. It is the posture of an inexcusably narcissistic idiot. But we can start with the idea that, if you know what you’re doing and you have power, maybe you can be more efficient in your exercise of in your control over movement towards that goal. Fair enough but what about when you don’t know what you’re doing. Where then do you turn because it means your ideology failed you and you have no mechanism for operating when you don’t know what you’re doing.

The regime is based on believing we always know what we’re doing
because we’re totalitarian and we have a complete theory of everything.
And don’t say anything to the contrary or else.

In free societies, when we don’t know what we’re doing, we let people talk. And out of that babble, out of that noise, (American culture is particularly remarkable in this regard) you have this immense diversity of opinions. Most of them are completely useless and some are absolutely redemptive. As a Canadian observing your culture we see you guys veer off in weird directions fairly frequently and things look pretty unstable. And then there’s some glimmer of hope somewhere that bursts forward in in a whole new mode of adaptation and away you go again. And that just happens over and over and over as a consequence of real diversity.

It’s definitely a consequence of freedom of association and freedom of speech
because it enables all that expression of possibilities.

PR: Sure that’s optimistic and I always like to end a show on an up note. But first let me put a pin in the optimism balloon. You mentioned Trudeau and Trudeau’s admiration for the Chinese communist Party. Ray Dalio billionaire on china points out empires rise when they’re productive, financially sound, earning more than they spend and increasing assets faster than their liabilities. Objectively compare China in the US on these measures and the fundamentals clearly favor China” Jordan Peterson writing about communism in your introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of the Gulag Archipelago:

“No political experiment has been tried so widely with so many disparate people in so many different countries and failed so absolutely and catastrophically.”

The question is: How much proof do we need and why do we still avert our eyes from the truth?  Why why do we still feel tempted. Dostoyevsky in the legend of the grand inquisitor has the grand inquisitor speaking to Christ and he says to Christ: You’re all wrong.  Receiving their bread from us the people will clearly see that we take the bread from them to give it back to them. And they will be only too glad to have it so long as we will deliver them from their greatest anxiety and torture: that of having to decide freely for themselves. Never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom.”

What do you think:  Canada had a good run, the United States had a good run but sustaining free societies across the decades and across the generations is just too hard for human nature to bear.

JP: No you should not agree with that for two reasons. The first is that man does not live by bread alone so that’s the first rejoinder. And the second is regarding difficulty: the only thing more difficult than contending forthrightly with existence is failing to do so. I’m not suggesting for a moment that this isn’t difficult. What the western religious tradition has done, what religious traditions in general do to some degree, is to try to provide people with support from what’s divine in their incalculably difficult efforts to deal with the unknown. If you orient yourself ethically in the most fundamental sense, then in some sense you have the force of god on your side and then maybe you can prevail despite the difficulty.

I try to ask these questions seriously you know and I would also say that I’ve been driven to my religious beliefs such as it is by necessity not by desire. What do you want to have on your side when you’re contending with the unknowable future and it’s vagaries? How about truth? How about beauty? How about Justice? You want allies, those powerful allies that the university is supposed to be teaching young people

You need some allies for the pursuit of truth when the scientists are having their say. On the economic front, how about the free trade between autonomous individuals, the free trade of goods of value between autonomous individuals. That’s not such a bad thing to have on your side these eternal verities. They share something good in common as all good things. For all intents and purposes that’s god. You might say well i don’t believe in that. How is possible you don’t believe there’s any such thing as good, and don’t believe there’s any such thing as ultimate good. I’m not trying to make some ontological claim about an old man living in the sky, although i think that’s a lot more sophisticated concept than people generally realize.

My point is you do have a belief system whether you know it or not, a system of ethics whether you know it or not. There’s either something at the bottom that unifies it or it’s not unified. In which case means you’re aimless and hopeless and depressed and anxious and confused because those are the only other options. And maybe you don’t know what that unifying belief is, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. It just means you don’t know what it is.

I can give you a couple of examples very very briefly. I already mentioned the story in genesis that associates god with the force process that generates habitable order out of chaos and attributes that nature in some sense to human beings. The next part in the story of adam and eve, god is what people walk with unself-consciously in the garden. So adam doesn’t because he’s now ashamed and he doesn’t walk with god anymore. So what is god? Well that’s what you walk with when you’re unself-conscious, so that’s an interesting idea. And then you have the god that manifests himself in the story of noah. That’s the intuition that hard times are coming and that you better get your house in order. If you have any sense, the nature of the intuition is a spirit that animates you. Well obviously because there you are acting and you’re acting out a pattern. it’s a spirit that animates you.  And then there’s the story of the tower of babel, what’s god there? Well god is that which you replace at your peril because everything will come tumbling down. That’s the tower of babel. It’s like  definitely if we put the wrong thing at the top, like Stalin for example then look out. We’ve done that a bunch of times in the 20th century.

I think you know Milton conceptualized Lucifer as something like the spirit of unbridled intellectual arrogance. Something like Lucifer is the light bringer and he is engaged in a conflict with god attempting to replace the divine and that’s pretty explicit in the story. That’s a poetic intuition of the of the battle between the secular intelligencia and the religious structure that’s milton’s pro-droma. He sees happening the intellect has become so arrogant that it will attempt to replace the divine and rule over hell. Well that’s the soviet union man; that’s Mao’s China— we know we’ve got our theory, it’s total, we’ve solved the problem and nothing’s going to change

Fair enough if you want to rule over hell and you think these societies are successful. Pretty odd definition of success as far as I’m concerned. If you want to be successful like china, you know that’s why it’s true that man does not live by bread alone. You know that a wealthy slave, that’s no life.

PR: I’m going to stumble along toward o setting up my last question. I’m thinking back to the 1970s.
Canada is part of this, but i know the American story better, and in the 1970s everything goes wrong.  Economic stagnation, loss of morale in this country because we lose in Vietnam. Watergate scandal.  We’re on the defensive as the soviets advance in Africa, Latin America. And then in the 1980’s,  we go  from 1979 with the national humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis and this Soviet  invasion of Afghanistan, and then 1989 one decade, just 10 years later, the Berlin wall comes down.

So the question here is: the loss of freedom of speech, the corruption of the universities, the rise of
china which is in all kinds of ways a more formidable opponent than the soviet union was. In all kinds of ways one could argue that we’re in a worse position now than we were in the 70s. Are you speaking to those few who have eyes to see and ears to hear? Do you believe that we are capable  to prompt another kind of restoration? Or is Jordan Peterson the fascinating eloquent compelling  champion of a lost cause?

JP: When I spent a lot of time at the various universities, I was associated with studying motivation for atrocity. Because i was very curious about that as a psychologist; not as a sociologist or an economist or a political scientist. If you’re an Auschwitz guard, what’s motivating you as an individual? I wanted to understand it well enough so I could understand how I could do that. Some say, well that sort of behavior is so far beyond the pale that it’s completely incomprehensible. It’s just a manifestation of say, intense psychopathy, and a normal person can’t even imagine it.

I think the evidence doesn’t really suggest that. Because it is not obvious that all the people involved in the Nazi movement for example were criminally pathological, that they were incomprehensible deviations from the norm. It’d be lovely to think that and it would make the world a lot simpler. But the evidence mostly suggests that you can get ordinary people to do that sort of thing, and maybe even to enjoy it. So that’s pretty bloody terrifying and so i tried to understand, and think i did to some degree. Without getting deep into it here, we can say a fair bit of it is a consequence of envy. It’s the spirit of Cain if you had to sum it up in a phrase.

But that isn’t the issue; rather the issue is how do you stop it from happening again? Because that’s what we’re supposed to be concentrating on. In the aftermath of the second world war, we said, “Never Forget.” That should mean something like, How about we don’t do this again? So my question was: how do we best go about ensuring we don’t walk down that road again? My conclusion was that it was fundamentally an issue of individual psychology, most fundamentally more than economics, more than sociology.

For all of that, the cure is individual people have to act
as ethically as they are powerful or else.

And so I’ve been trying to convince people to do that. I suppose not to convince them precisely, but to put forward an argument about why that’s necessary and why it’s on them. You have to understand this problem because if you don’t get it right, it isn’t gonna work. How you start is with what you have under control in your own life. Where else are you going to start but to look to yourself. Put your house in order, not to be worried about some other person walking the satanic path. That’s what activists do all the time. They’re protesting it’s you, it’s the corporations, like it’s someone else.  No, it’s you and I think also fundamental to the judeo-christian doctrine is that it’s you. it’s on you.

Redemption’s an individual matter and so my hope is that if enough people take themselves with enough seriousness, then we won’t end up in hell.

Because we certainly could, it’s a high probability. But I also don’t think that you can be motivated enough to put your house in order to the degree that’s necessary merely by being attracted, let’s say to the potential utopia that might emerge as a consequence of that. So that’d be a vision of heaven, let’s say you need also to also be terrified of hell. Just because you haven’t been there doesn’t mean there’s no such thing. You have to be pretty bloody naive to think there’s no such thing, how much evidence do you need?  It comes about at least in partial consequence of the sins of men.

PR: What about incoming freshman next year at University of Toronto or Stanford University, 18 year old kids coming into all this, we’ve been through three years of covid. I won’t rehearse it all in one sentence.   What would you say to them as they begin university at the age of 18 or 19?  What’s the restorative, redemptive sentence?  What should they do?

JP: What should they do is: Don’t be thinking your ambition is corrupt. Because that’s part of the message now: we human beings are a cancer on the planet. We’re headed for an environmental apocalypse. The entire historical structure is nothing but atrocity. etc etc. Anyone with any ethical
aim whatsoever is just going to pull back; you don’t want to manifest any ambition, support the patriarchal structure, exploit the environment. You’re supposed to crush yourself down, you shouldn’t even have any children.

There’s no excuse for that there’s zero excuse for that I saw a professor at an event something like this who came out and trumpeted this bloody environmentally friendly house he built. Fair enough, it was a pretty interesting house. But not everybody had the four million dollars that that it took him to build it. I’m not criticizing his money, good for him he built a house, okay. But then to trumpet that as a moral virtue well you’re pushing it there. Then he came out to all the kids and he said my wife and i decided that we’re only going to have one child. I think that’s one of the most ethical things we could have possibly done and I would strongly encourage you to do the same.

I thought, you son of a . . . , you get up in front of these young people, a lot of these kids children of first generation immigrants from china, and he showed all these images of these terrible factories in China, these endless rows of sterile mechanism that were subordinating all the chinese people to this terrible capitalist machine. And I thought you don’t understand half the audience is looking at those factories and thinking that’s a hell of a lot better than struggling through the mud under Mao buddy.

I don’t know where he thought he was but to come out in front of all those kids and basically tell them that the whole human enterprise is so goddamn corrupt that the best thing they could possibly do is limit their multiplication, and to think of himself as a scholar and an educator. I did say something, by the way it was rather uncomfortable and he stomped off the stage. But that’s no message for young people: that’s no there’s no excuse for that.

You think we’re going to destroy the planet, so we have to do this:
we have to demoralize the youth to be ethical

I’m passionate about this because you have no idea how many people that’s killing. I see people everywhere all over the world they’re so demoralized especially young people especially young people with a conscience, because they’ve been told since they were little that there’s nothing to them but corruption and power. How the hell do you expect them to react? You know they will say. OK, I shouldn’t do anything.

So I go around and say to people: Look there’s not only more to you than you know there’s more to you than you can imagine. You have an ethical responsibility to act in that light. You might claim not to believe that, but i would say your whole culture is predicated on that belief. Insofar as you are an active member of that culture and a believer in its structure, then you believe it. You might not be very good at  believing it, you might be full of conflict and doubt, and you might not be able to articulate it. But it’s still right at the bedrock of your culture: this notion of what the divine sovereign individual is. Your culture is predicated on that idea the logos is inherent in each person.

I’ve never seen a credible argument made to show that it’s anything other than that. You can say, well rights are attributed to you by the state. Sorry that’s a weak argument, because the state’s dependent on your actions. In effect you are believing that the state is the entity, and that individuals are just subordinate in some fundamental sense to the state. No, the state is dependent on the individual to exactly the same degree. So we’re the active agent of the state in some sense we are the seeing eye of the state, the speaking mouth of the state, because the state’s dead without the individuals that compose it.


Jordan Peterson’s Critical Analysis of Marxist Theory, synopsis at Why Marxism Always Fails

Five part series of posts on themes from Peterson’s Maps of Meaning, beginning with Cosmic Dichotomy: Peterson’s Pearls (1)



Covid19 So Far: Facts and Falsehoods

Dr. Ted Noel explains the present situation clearly in his American Thinker post What Do We Know About COVID So Far? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some headers and added images.

With all the thousands of studies bombarding the medical community, it’s helpful to set our microscope aside and look at the bigger picture. It’s virtually certain that the virus was engineered in Wuhan with financial and technical assistance directed by that highly competent bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci. But that doesn’t tell us what we should expect as the virus moves through society. For that, we must look at the science. And I don’t mean “I am science” Fauci. I mean real scientific data, something with which Fauci has little acquaintance.

Falsehoods Exposed

Perhaps we should start with that great scientist, Oprah Winfrey, who recently opined that ending the mask mandate on airliners was “premature.” As John Adams noted at the Boston Massacre Trial, “Facts are stubborn things.” They aren’t “my truth” or “your truth.” Facts don’t care who you are or what you think. When we state facts, we are presenting a verbal picture of reality. And the fact is that public mask-wearing has never been demonstrated to have any public health benefit. The only time that mask-wearing does any good is when health care workers in high exposure environments wear properly fitted, donned, and disposed of N-95 or better respirators.

Anything else is virtue signaling that denies the fact that public masking (a) doesn’t work and (b) has serious downsides.

The next great scientist is Bill Gates, who recently opined that we are in for another COVID wave that is likely to be more transmissible (true) and more deadly (false). Every variant of COVID has followed Muller’s Ratchet, becoming more contagious and less deadly. Even Delta was a bit less virulent than Alpha, but Omicron showed that more mutations encourage virus survival by infecting more people without killing them. This is the natural course of viruses, but anyone with a vested interest in vaccine profits or lockdown power simply cannot allow this fact to be known.

And that brings us to Saint Fauci.  The Supreme Lord of NIAID popped up recently announcing that we might need more lockdowns to prevent the spread of some new variant.

The experience of the last two years should have proved to everyone that lockdowns are bad. They kill people with other medical problems due to foregone care. As then-Governor Cuomo of New York learned, sixty percent of NYC cases were directly caused by lockdowns. When people are stuck in recirculated air with infected victims, they get sick, as the Kirkland, Washington, nursing home tragedy proved. But tyrants can’t learn, and Cuomo multiplied New York’s headstone count by sending COVID patients to assisted-living facilities to kill others. All that could have been avoided if our public “health” authorities had taken a few minutes to read the epidemiology literature.

We knew that lockdowns were bad long before COVID was invented.

The occupant of the White House and the Chief Cackler are our next scientists. They both live in a protective bubble and are multiply vaccinated and boosted. They periodically opine that we may all need another “booster.” But Kamala’s re-infections prove that the booster will not work. In fact, we now know that Canada, Israel, Gibraltar, and others have increased infection rates in vaccinated individuals. This appears to be true in the US as well, but the CDC is reluctant to release the data.

This vaccine failure is due in part to direct immune suppression by the shot.

The military has made it clear to Senator Johnson’s committee that not only does it not prevent infection, but it also triples the rate of breast cancer, with even higher multiples for other cancers. Yet that great scientist, SecDef Lord Austin, mandated that all military personnel get the Fauci Ouchy. He is oblivious to the fact that many highly trained (translation: expensive) warfighters such as Special Forces and pilots have been rendered unable to serve due to the mental and physical effects of the spike protein presented by the shots.

Another reason for vaccine failure is that the virus has mutated to forms that have spike proteins markedly different from the alpha variant in the vaccine. In short, they’re different diseases, just like flu is actually a host of different diseases. The vaccine and boosters don’t have any meaningful benefit against the current ailment.

I could list a host of other “scientific” authorities who are making false claims, but all that would do is bore you. In particular, we should regard anything from the CDC or Big Pharma with great suspicion, since it is contradicted by most evidence. I’ll simply leave you with a set of bullet points, all supported by large volumes of scientific data.

Facts From Our Covid Experience

♦  COVID-19 is a mild disease with almost zero mortality for people under age 55.

♦  Serious co-existing disease is the best predictor of mortality in all age groups.

♦  Public masking has zero effect on transmission of airborne diseases, including COVID.

♦  The “vaccines” do not protect you from getting COVID or transmitting COVID. They do not lessen the severity of COVID when you get it. That is a result of the newer variants being less severe to start with. The vaccines and boosters are directed at a disease that doesn’t exist anymore.

♦  The “vaccines” reduce your immunity, making you more likely to catch symptomatic disease. This also makes it much easier for numerous cancers to grow.

♦  Natural immunity from disease recovery is far better than any supposed benefit of shots. If you got the vaccine and then got sick, your immunity afterward is less than if you didn’t get the shot at all.
Remdesivir (Fauci gets $$ when it’s used) does not improve survival and probably causes other problems.

♦  Molnuvirapir, the new oral agent, isn’t as effective as Ivermectin, which the CDC steadfastly refuses to support. If you do get sick, get immediate treatment with Ivermectin. If your illness is from a different virus, it will probably help against that as well.

♦  Locales that opened up early generally have disease and death rates better than others.

♦  The safest place is outdoors, where the sun destroys viruses and they are dispersed into infinity.

I’m sure I left something out, but I’ll leave you with a couple of key items. First, don’t get the shot. It has no benefits and a host of bad effects I don’t have space to talk about. Second, take vitamin D3 and zinc. They have been shown to reduce viral infections a lot. Third, get a stock of Ivermectin. If you do get sick, start it immediately on your way to your urgent care. And don’t stop taking it even if they say to. They can lose their licenses if they agree with you taking it.

Government-based authorities are lying to us.
I know that’s strong, but it’s the truth.

The version of COVID that’s around now is a minor illness that is largely preventable and easily treated. That is a far better choice than getting a potentially deadly shot that a bunch of power brokers love. There will be many more variants, but the final variant is communism.

Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His DoctorTed podcasts are available on many podcast channels.

IVM and HCQ protocols provide the missing pillar in places where they are made accessible. 

DOJ Office of Environmental Justice: What’s Wrong?

I can think of five major things wrong with this initiative  But first the announcement news from various sources:

AG Garland:  “Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, we are issuing a comprehensive environmental justice enforcement strategy,” Garland said. “I am pleased to announce that we are launching the Justice Department’s first-ever Office of Environmental Justice to oversee and help guide the Justice Department’s wide-ranging environmental justice efforts. Like all parts of government, it will get its own acronym: OEJ.”

On Thursday, Garland said the department will prioritize cases that create the greatest impact on communities “most overburdened by environmental harm.”

“Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change,” Garland said.

According to The Hill, the Office of Environmental Justice will work with “communities that have been the victims of environmental crimes and requires all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country to designate an environmental justice coordinator to find ‘areas of concern’ in their communities.”

Since taking office, President Biden has launched the “Justice40” initiative, which aims to provide 40% of the benefits of government climate and clean energy investments to “historically disadvantaged communities.”  

What’s wrong with this?  Let’s count five ways.

Distracts from More Pressing Priorities

How about stopping the flood of illegal immigration through the wide-open border controlled by drug cartels?
What about reducing the worst rates of crime in US cities since the 1990s?
Shouldn’t DOJ focus on ending the cruel and unusual punishment of people expressing their free speech rights on January 6, 2020?

Just three examples of widespread injustices ignored or exacerbated by this DOJ.  We could add treating parents of school children as “domestic terrorists”.  Also firing workers and discharging soldiers for their vaccine status.  And so on, and so on.

Actually Enforcing Existing Laws Solves the Stated Problem 

Garland:  “Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change”

Garland’s remarks represent contemptible propaganda. As if smog and air pollution are wafting through cities, only affecting citizens with darker skin pigmentation. And, as if the communities referenced by Garland aren’t interspersed with other groups, at all, living exclusively in homogeneous neighborhoods. Such total nonsense and rubbish.

Every state already has an environmental state protection agency and access to the EPA. Anyone who finds or thinks they have discovered an environmental problem, can call these agencies, and the agencies will send some one to investigate. Currently the EPA investigates & gives evidence to the U.S. Attorneys Office in their District. It is examined & determined if there is enough evidence for a case to be brought against the individuals involved.

If what he says about “anywhere” is true, how about just enforcing the existing laws, with the existing agencies and offices, and without the expansion, expense, and bloat that he proposes? Such enforcement would, by its nature, address these problems in minority communities in proportion to their spatial distribution and criticality.

I have absolutely no idea what this new agency will do, except using more taxpayer money to fund it. What I suspect is that they’ll give more money to low income areas, for what exactly, will never be explained.

Covers for an Agenda to Cancel Climatist Dissenters

A naïve person might think is that this would “merely” be some kind of ecological jihad against “dirty” things like power lines, gas lines, and other things that prop up the modern world and keep America’s economy humming. But of course this is thinking too small,  underestimating the awfulness Garland and minions have in store for us.

So instead we have another paean to Gaia with the old “Climate Change” nonsense, thus bringing the DOJ into obviously redistributionist grounds, and turf that you’d expect would be the purview of the EPA. Because what we really needed in Current Year with political prisoners from Jan 6th still rotting away is yet another batch of heretics to harass and disappear.

There is no coherent definition of “environmental justice”. That is deliberate. It provides a means by which the government can act against any citizen for any reason it wants. It is the establishment of yet another department of the American Stasi, just like biden’s ministry of “truth”.

WOTUS (Waters of the US) EPA rule is still murky after all these years. And what, pray tell, is the definition of “environmental crime” and “environmental justice”, what is the legal and judicial rationale for establishing such an agency and why is such a redundant agency an imperative now when no such need has ever been identified and implemented before?

Be warned, ESG (environmental, social and governance) standards for corporations are being developed as we speak. They are being worked on internationally and created out of thin air. The DOJ and our government will beat us all – organizations and individuals – into submission with this.

Turns a Blind Eye to Real Environmental Degradation by Wind and Solar Farms

I am assuming the penalty for killing a tree will be harsher then the penalties for robbery and assault by Dem AGs. So will hunting and fishing be listed as crimes against the environment. Things just keep getting more and more weird. I hope the silent majority is paying attention and votes like their life depends on it this November.

Even if wind power curbs CO2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles

To put this in perspective, powering the entire nation with wind and solar would require over 42 million acres — 18 times the size of Yellowstone National Park! This is at least 10 times the land footprint of our current energy system. The environmental destruction this effort would cause cannot be overstated.

But wait, there’s more! Both wind and solar generation also require massive amounts of elements like lithium, cobalt, and neodymium that are difficult and environmentally hazardous to mine. The tales of rare earth mines leaving behind lakes of toxic sludge in China and children as young as four mining cobalt in the Congo are chilling.

Unfortunately, most wind turbines and solar panels are expected to last only 20 to 30 years, and recycling them is still prohibitively expensive. A recent study estimates a whopping 8 million tons of solar panels will be sent to landfills by 2030, ballooning to 80 million tons by 2050. If renewable energy use grows at the projected scale, solar panels alone will represent 10% of global electronic waste — potentially leaching toxic chemicals all the while.

Another Excuse to Expand Governmental Social Control and Bureaucracy

This new office is nothing but wasting more money of the taxpayer. It appears Biden is creating more government jobs for his democrat friends.

But the real danger of an “environmental justice” office is, as with anything having to do with the enforcement of environmental laws, the government’s tendency to wildly overregulate with no means for private citizens or companies to correct the overreach.  It won’t be long before we’re writing about some OEJ idiocy that demonstrates why fanatics and ideologues should never be put in any position where they can exercise power.

With an Office for Environmental Justice, we are one step closer to a chinese-style social credit system. This is worse the the Ministry Of Truth down the street at Homeland Security because they can sue. 

May 8 Arctic Ice A-OK

My previous Arctic ice report was limited by technical difficulties, now resolved as shown by the animation above.  So this update comes a week into May, with the animation covering the last three weeks from mid April.   The dramatic melting in the Pacific basins of Bering and Okhotsk (left) sets them apart from the rest of Arctic sea ice. As noted before, those two basins are outside the Arctic circle, have no polar bears and are the first places to become open water in the Spring. Elsewhere sea ice persisted, actually growing in Barents and Greenland seas.

[The staff at National Ice Center were extremely helpful, as usual.  Their work is distinctive, valuable and deserving of your appreciation.  See Support MASIE Arctic Ice Dataset]

The melting effect on NH total ice extents during this period is presented in the graph below.

The graph above shows ice extent mid-April through May 7 comparing 2022 MASIE reports with the 16-year average, other recent years and with SII.  2022 ice extents have tracked the average, going surplus for the last 10 days. .Both 2021 and 2007 are well below average, on day 127 lower than 2022 by 318k km2 and 443k km2 respectively. The two green lines at the bottom show average and 2022 extents when Bering and Okhotsk ice are excluded.  On this basis 2022 Arctic ice was nearly 400k km2 in surplus on May 7, and prior to yesterday, the horizontal line shows little loss of ice extent elsewhere than in the Pacific.

Region 2022127 Day 127 Average 2022-Ave. 2007127 2022-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13272388 13096082  176306  12954671 317717 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1053640 1059642  -6001  1056022 -2382 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 959821 949409  10412  955497 4324 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1085912  1225  1081248 5889 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 892770  5075  870216 27628 
 (5) Kara_Sea 928813 897443  31370  883059 45754 
 (6) Barents_Sea 642899 476820  166079  430155 212745 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 732835 616488  116347  639861 92974 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1185073 1140285  44787  1076913 108159 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854685 845807  8879  845091 9594 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1216867 1212411  4456  1192270 24597 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3248013 3223344  24669  3241053 6960 
 (12) Bering_Sea 275935 401584 -125649  398914 -122980 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 14465 13264  1201  10416 4050 
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 172221 278245  -106023  269684 -97463 

The only deficits to average are in Bering and Okhotsk, more than offset by surpluses everywhere else, especially in Barents and Greenland seas, along with Kara and Baffin Bay.  At this point, overall NH sea ice is 88% of last March maximum (15.1M kim2).  All regions are well above 90% of their maxes, except for Barents (81%), Baffin Bay (66%), Bering (33%) and Okhotsk (20%).


April 1st Footnote:

It has been a long hard winter, requiring overtime efforts by Norwegian icebreakers like this one:

In addition, cold Spring temperatures led to unusual sightings of Northern creatures:

Not only Polar bears are flourishing!


Reduced Risk of SARS CV2 Infection: IVM vs. VAX

A year ago it was already evident that Ivermectin provided superior protection against SARS CV2 infection compared to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Bruce Sanders sent me the following analysis in pdf.

Improving Covid 19 Outcomes:  A Comparison of Prophylactic Measures

•  Ivermectin (IVM) for humans is safe and improves the health of those that contract SARS CoV 2

•  Absolute Risk Reduction for Ivermectin when used as a prophylactic measure varies from 0.7% to 66%.

•  Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA (mRNA) injections, which are also prophylactic measures, have a 0.7% and 1.1% absolute risk reduction respectively.

•  Relative Risk Reduction for Ivermectin when used as a prophylactic measure varies from 38% to 100%.

•  Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections, which are also prophylactic measures, have a 95% and 94% relative risk reduction respectively.

IVM Studies

•  The basis for this work is taken from the ivermectin meta analysis database. 1 Eight of those studies that passed the exclusion assessment  are included.

•  The risk reduction across the studies is shown here:

Distribution of IVM Prophylactic Study Outcomes

Absolute Risk Reduction

Relative Risk Reduction

Distribution of Prophylactic Study Outcomes for
IVM and Pfizer & Moderna mRNA Phase III Results 

Absolute Risk Reduction

Relative Risk Reduction

Discussion –Absolute & Relative Risk Reduction

•  Absolute Risk Reduction illustrates the absolute magnitude of disease risk between the treatment and control groups.

•  This is the actual difference treatment provides

•  Relative Risk Reduction is the reduced risk from treatment relative to the risk in untreated individuals.

•  This is a relative difference treatment provides, and says nothing of the magnitude.

•  Both are important to understand in the context of making high quality decisions for treatment.

•  Consider a case where a person exceeds the road speed limit by 40%.

•  A relative 40% excess appears to be significant.
•  If the posted speed limit is 20 mph, the absolute excess is only 8 mph

•  The extremely low absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer & Moderna mRNA injections does not warrant prohibition of other prophylactic options or a necessity to mandate these injections.

IVM Improves all Outcomes and is Safe for Humans
  • “Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance.”1
  • “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”11
  • 2010: “Doses as high as 800 micrograms per kilogram were tolerated”12
  • 2013: “it (Ivermectin) could be repurposed relatively quickly given that the ivermectin is very safe and already given in mass drug administrations (MDA) to humans around the world”13
  • 2015: “We conclude that IVM can be safely given (at 200 µg/kg)”14
  • 2018: “Ivermectin at both doses (600 μg/kg and 300 g/kg per day) assessed was well tolerated”15
IVM is Part of Covid-19 Treatment Guides

*** Always consult your physician before taking any medication ***



2.Bernigaudet al., Annals of Dermatology and Venereology, doi:10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231 Ivermectin benefit: from scabies to COVID-19, an example of serendipity.

3.Alamet al., European Journal ofMedicaland Health Sciences, doi:10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.6.599 Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka –An Observational Study.

4.Seetet al., International Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.035 Positive impact of oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis: an open-label randomized trial.

5.Behera et al., PLoSONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study.

6.Shoumanet al., Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, doi:10.7860/JCDR/2020/46795.0000 Use of Ivermectin as a Potential Chemoprophylaxis for COVID-19 in Egypt: A Randomised Clinical Trial.

7.Morgenstern et al., Cureus, doi:10.7759/cureus.17455 Ivermectin as a SARS-CoV-2 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Method in Healthcare Workers: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.

8.Behera et al., Cureus13:8, doi:10.7759/cureus.16897 Prophylactic Role of Ivermectin in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers.

9.Chahlaet al., American Journal of Therapeutics, doi:10.1097/MJT.0000000000001433 A randomized trial -intensive treatment based in ivermectin and iota-carrageenan as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare agents.

10.Brown . Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials. Medicina(Kaunas). 2021 Feb 26;57(3):199.

11.Bryant et al Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines, Am. J. Ther.: July/August 2021 -Volume 28 -Issue 4 -p e434-e460

12.Rea et al. Ivermectin and River Blindness: Science and philanthropy put an end to blindly following the next generation. American Scientist 98 (4), 294–303. 6

13.Syllaet al(Bill & Melinda) Gates Grand Challenges Explorations award: Endectocides for Controlling Transmission of Mosquito-borne Diseases. MalariaworldJ. 2013 Mar;4(5):

14.OuédraogoAL et alEfficacy and safety of the mosquitocidaldrug ivermectin to prevent malaria transmission after treatment: a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Feb 1;60(3):357-65. Epub2014 Nov 19. Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 1;63(5):715.

  1. Smit MR et alSafety and mosquitocidalefficacy of high-dose ivermectin when co-administered with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in Kenyan adults with uncomplicated malaria (IVERMAL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jun;18(6):615-626. Epub2018 Mar 27.

Elliott, M.H. et al Characteristics and Reporting of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Absolute Risk Reduction in Controlled Clinical Trials, 2001–2019. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 181.

Thomas, E.T. & Heneghan, C. Outcome Reporting Bias.

Footnote: Clarification on the Math

Absolute Infection Risk Reduction answers the question:  What is the difference between the infection rates of the test group and the control group? It is simply subtracting the test group rate from the control group rate.

Relative Infection Risk Reduction answers the question:  What percentage of control group infections would be prevented if that group had the same infection rate as the test group?  Multiplying the control group population by the test group rate gives a lower number of infections than actually occurred.  The relative reduction is the difference as a percentage of the total reported infections in the control group.

So, in the case of the Pfizer vax trial, the test group numbered 21,720 with 8 infections compared to the control group of 21,728 with 162 infections. So the absolute risk reduction was 0.746% less 0.039% equaling 0.7%.  The relative risk reduction was (162 – 8) divided by 162 equaling 95%.  The relative reduction was impressively large, but it was a reduction upon a very, very small infection rate.

Source of Pfizer data:  SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention






Ivermectin Coming to New Hampshire

The freedom loving granite state is moving to allow citizens’ choice of covid treatments, including unfettered access to proven anti-covid medicine, Ivermectin.  Below in italics with my bolds are excerpts from Ivermectin Bill Headed for Gov. Sununu’s Desk by Steve MacDonald writing at granitegrok.  Later on, the concurrent attack on Ivermectin just published in NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine).

HB1022 would allow the dispensing of Ivermectin by use of a standing order. If you wanted it, you could get it without a prescription after a brief discussion with the pharmacist.

Ivermectin is a COVID killer and by that, I mean policy as much as pathogen.

Nothing is perfect but Ivermectin is better than anything the “experts” have proposed, cheaper, and no trillion-dollar bailouts or backroom deals are needed for it “to work.”

That’s why they hate it.

We’ve got great coverage on NH’s HB1022 back story. We’ve published testimony, interviewed a prime sponsorand added plenty of commentary. You might even stumble over a few digs about Horse Paste, which go deeper after Democrats on social media announced this week that Misoprostol (horse ulcer medicine) could be used to induce abortion medically.

HB1022 passed the NH Senate along party lines, 14-10, with Democrats objecting to the “my body, my choice argument.” Given the timing, it doesn’t play as well as it might any other week of the year. But then, the only body involved when taking Ivermectin is yours unless you are pregnant, and Ivermectin is a lot safer than the “Dems want it to be mandatory” mRNA vaccines.

Pierre Kory explains NEJM Hit Job on Ivermectin

Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World’s Top Medical Journal. Big Pharma Reigns

The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.

Part XI- Big Pharma’s “Diversion” – The TOGETHER Trial Published in the New England Journal of Medicine

Big Pharma (Pfizer and BMGF from what it looks to me) dropped another nuclear bomb on ivermectin 3 weeks ago with their successful publication of the fraudulent Brazilian TOGETHER trial. They did it in one of the world’s top read and rated medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a journal born in the year 1812, but captured by Pharma for who knows how long now. This is an open secret as per former Editor Marcia Angell in the book Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” -Dr. Marcia Angell.

First off, the saddest part of this fraud is that the TOGETHER trial’s published conclusion brazenly contradicted the data within the manuscript as it actually showed an 81% “Bayesian” probability of the superiority of ivermectin. But media and science reporters no longer critically analyze the data or questions the abstract’s conclusion, instead they all trumpet headlines in unison that “ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID.”

The study investigators have not only carried out a series of severely biased and duplicitous actions with deliberately withheld data such that fraud at this level, in my mind, is definite. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it is instead just a severely biased trial by severely biased and financially conflicted researchers whose careers are dependent on contracts from massively powerful agencies and corporations whose interests are decidedly anti-ivermectin – see this description of the trial by the impressively expert group:

Possibly the largest financial conflict of interest of any trial to date. Disclosed conflicts of interest include: Pfizer, Merck, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian Government, Medicines Development for Global Health, Novaquest, Regeneron, Astrazeneca, Daichi Sankyo, Commonwealth Science and Research Organization, and Card Research. Many conflicts of interest appear unreported. For example, Unitaid is sponsor. [ (B)].

If that were not enough, there is  the insanely incompetent peer review and publication by the NEJM. No way should this manuscript ever have been published in any purportedly credible medical journal without extensive revision and mandated reporting of critical absent data, given the litany of inconsistent, missing, and manipulated data alongside numerous unexplained design protocol changes aimed at trying to ensuring the lowest dose possible was used. The fact the NEJM reviewers allowed the manuscript to not include a standard limitations section calling attention to the “possibility” of the failure of blinding given massive evidence for this is one of the more brazen frauds I have seen in a medical journal.

Footnote: Why Pharma Can’t Allow Ivermectin Use Against Covid

Biologist Bret Weinstein:   If Ivermectin proven effective against COVID, it moots vaccine push

[I]f Ivermectin is what those of us who have looked at the evidence think it is … then the debate about the vaccines would be over by definition, because the vaccines that we have so far were granted emergency use authorization,” Weinstein said, noting that the coronavirus vaccines are not formally “approved” treatments by the FDA and instead administered under the rarely-delineated category of EUA.

According to the FDA’s own definition, an EUA is “is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.”

“Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives,” the agency said.

That last clause, Weinstein told host Tucker Carlson, is key to why it is important that Ivermectin and other established pharmaceuticals are thoroughly investigated as alternative treatments.

“So if Ivermectin is safe and effective … then there shouldn’t be vaccines that we’re administering. They should be in testing and we should be finding out whether they are or are not safe,” said Weinstein, alluding to several serious cases of vaccine side effects.

Weinstein suggested that if the anti-malarial was proven effective, it would moot the Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine.

“That emergency use authorization has as a condition that there be no safe and effective treatments available,” he said, noting that Ivermectin is old enough and established enough that it is “out of [its] patent” – meaning it can be produced generically – and has been proven safe and effective for other medical conditions.


See also An outright propaganda war against Ivermectin in two latest trials By Professor Colleen Aldous*  at Biz News, South Africa.

I have clinical colleagues across the globe who are able to demonstrate more issues with the analysis of the TOGETHER trial, which is being touted as the definitive paper on Ivermectin efficacy, than I can, but here is my list:

More than half of the participants from the placebo arm of the trial did not complete the trial, whereas only 50 from the Ivermectin arm did not finish. This causes the trial to no longer be a randomised control trial. But the data can be used as observational and, as I showed above, we observe that Ivermectin has a strong signal for efficacy against death. An outcome that is meaningful to most people.

Ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, which is the protocol for its use as an antiparasitic. It has been known that for antiviral activity, Ivermectin should be given with a fatty meal to aid systemic absorption.

The dose given was below the dose that many across the globe have used successfully; it was given at too low a dose, too late for many, and stopped too early.

Giving Ivermectin as a monotherapy, when it is known it is a zinc ionophore and thus is more effective given with zinc, is poor design.

However, even with all these problems, Ivermectin still comes through as effective, particularly against mortality.





Ukraine is a Fiasco Owned by Obama, Biden and EU

Two very perceptive reports remind why we should not fall for the Biden regime’s attempt to use Ukraine to distract from their horrific governance.  First is an interview with Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss Army officer who served in a variety of international posts, including a stint with NATO.  H/T Gateway Pundit. Excerpts in italics with my bolds. The full interview is at the Postil Magazine, introduced in these words:

In this penetrating interview, Jacques Baud delves into geopolitics to help us better understand what is actually taking place in the Ukraine, in that it is ultimately the larger struggle for global dominance, led by the United States, NATO and the political leaders of the West and against Russia.

As always, Colonel Baud brings to bear his well-informed analysis, which is unique for its depth and gravity. We are sure that you will find this conservation informative, insightful and crucial in connecting the dots.

In 2014, during the Maidan revolution in Kiev, I was in NATO in Brussels. I noticed that people didn’t assess the situation as it was, but as they wished it would be. This is exactly what Sun Tzu describes as the first step towards failure. In fact, it appeared clear to me that nobody in NATO had the slightest interest in Ukraine. . . .we tend to portray the enemy as we wished him to be, rather than as he actually is. This is the ultimate recipe for failure. This explains why, after five years spent within NATO, I am more concerned about Western strategic and military capabilities than before.

The current war has its roots in the events of the Maidan in 2014. Simply put, the United States and the United Kingdom facilitated a coup that removed the democratically elected President and replaced him with someone the U.S. and the U.K believed they could control. It was in the aftermath of this coup that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence One impetus for this move was the vote of the Ukrainian policy abolishing the law that permitted Russian to be used as the second official language in those regions that were Russian speaking.

Once the Donbas “republics” declared their independence, the Ukrainian Government declared them terrorists and dispatched its army to take control of the region. Despite having numerical and materiel superiority, Ukraine utterly failed to dominate Donetsk and Luhansk. Baud offers this insight:

After 2014, Ukrainian armed forces’ command & control was extremely poor and was the cause of their inability to handle the rebellion in Donbass. Suicide, alcohol incidents, and murder surged, pushing young soldiers to defect. Even the British government noted that young male individuals preferred to emigrate rather than to join the armed forces. As a result, Ukraine started to recruit volunteers to enforce Kiev’s authority in the Russian speaking part of the country. These volunteers ere (and still are) recruited among European far-right extremists. According to Reuters, their number amounts to 102,000. They have become a sizeable and influential political force in the country.

The Western narrative of a Russian intervention in Ukraine got traction, although it was never substantiated. Since 2014, I haven’t met any intelligence professional who could confirm any Russian military presence in the Donbass. In fact, Crimea became the main “evidence” of Russian “intervention.” Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1990, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. Yet, western countries sanctioned Russia for that…

Think about this for a minute–if the Ukrainian Army could not defeat the militias in the republics of Luhansk and Donetsk over the last 8 years, how in the world is that Army going to defeat the Russian Army? It is delusional.

The Military Situation in the Ukraine—An Update by  Jacques Baud

Three Points Deserve to be Highlighted by Way of Conclusion

1. Western Intelligence, Ignored by Policymakers

Military documents found in Ukrainian headquarters in the south of the country confirm that the Ukraine was preparing to attack the Donbass; and that the firing observed by OSCE observers as early as February 16 heralded an imminent outbreak in days or weeks.

Here, some introspection is necessary for the West—either its intelligence services did not see what was happening and they are thus very bad, or the political decision-makers chose not to listen to them. We know that Russian intelligence services have far superior analytical capabilities than their Western counterparts. We also know that the American and German intelligence services had very well understood the situation, since the end of 2021, and knew that the Ukraine was preparing to attack the Donbass.

This allows us to deduce that the American and European political leaders deliberately pushed the Ukraine into a conflict that they knew was lost in advance—for the sole purpose of dealing a political blow to Russia.

The reason Zelensky did not deploy his forces to the Russian border, and repeatedly stated that his large neighbor would not attack him, was presumably because he thought he was relying on Western deterrence. This is what he told CNN on March 20th—he was clearly told that the Ukraine would not be part of NATO, but that publicly they would say the opposite. The Ukraine was thus instrumentalized to affect Russia. The objective was the closure of the North Stream 2 gas pipeline, announced on February 8th, by Joe Biden, during the visit of Olaf Scholz; and which was followed by a barrage of sanctions.

2. Broken Diplomacy

Clearly, since the end of 2021, no effort has been made by the West to reactivate the Minsk agreements, as evidenced by the reports of visits and telephone conversations, notably between Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin. However, France, as guarantor of the Minsk Agreements, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has not respected its commitments, which has led to the situation that the Ukraine is experiencing today. There is even a feeling that the West has sought to add fuel to the fire since 2014.

Thus, Vladimir Putin’s placing of nuclear forces on alert on February 27 was presented by our media and politicians as an irrational act or blackmail. What is forgotten is that it followed the thinly veiled threat made by Jean-Yves Le Drian, three days earlier, that NATO could use nuclear weapons. It is very likely that Putin did not take this “threat” seriously, but wanted to push Western countries—and France in particular—to abandon the use of excessive language.

3. The Vulnerability of Europeans to Manipulation is Increasing

Today, the perception propagated by our media is that the Russian offensive has broken down; that Vladimir Putin is crazy, irrational and therefore ready to do anything to break the deadlock in which he supposedly finds himself. In this totally emotional context, the question asked by Republican Senator Marco Rubio during Victoria Nuland’s hearing before Congress was strange, to say the least: “If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside the Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?” Naturally, she answered that there is no doubt. Yet there is absolutely no indication that the Russians are using such weapons. Besides, the Russians finished destroying their stockpiles in 2017, while the Americans have not yet destroyed theirs.

Perhaps this means nothing. But in the current atmosphere, all the conditions are now met for an incident to happen that would push the West to become more involved, in some form, in the Ukrainian conflict (a “false-flag” incident).


Time Mag: Down With Free Speech!

Jonathan Turley writes at his blog Time Columnist Denounces Free Speech as a White Man’s “Obsession”.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H/T Tyler Durden

It has become depressingly common to read unrelenting attacks on free speech in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The anti-free speech movement has been embraced by Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, as well as academics who now claim “China was right” on censorship. However, a Time magazine column by national correspondent Charlotte Alter was still shocking in how mainstream anti-free speech views have become. Alter denounces free speech as basically a white man’s “obsession.”

What is most striking about the column is Alter’s apparent confusion over why anyone like Musk would even care about the free speech of others. She suggests that Musk is actually immoral for spending money to restore free speech rather than on social welfare or justice issues.  She suggests that supporting free speech is some disgusting extravagance like buying Fabergé eggs.

In arguing in favor of censorship, Alter engages in a heavy use of historical revisionism, claiming that

“‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.”

It is also lost on me.

Alter is confusing free speech values with the rationale for the First Amendment. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.

The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies.

This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.

Key free speech figures practiced what they preached in challenging friends and foes alike. After playing a critical role with our independence, Thomas Paine did nothing but irritate the Framers with his words, including John Adams, who called him a “crapulous mass.”

Yet, free speech was a defining value for the framers (despite Adams’ later attacks on the right). It was viewed as the very growth plate of democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated in a letter on July 9, 1722: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”

The same anti-free speech voices were heard back then as citizens were told to fear free speech. It was viewed as a Siren’s call for tyranny. Franklin stated:

“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.”

Yet, Alter assures readers that this is just due to a lack of knowledge by Musk and a misunderstanding of why censorship is a natural and good thing:

“Tech titans often have a different understanding of speech than the rest of the world because most trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and a lack of a humanities education might make them less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech.”

It appears that Alter’s humanities education in college allows her to see “nuances” that escape the rest of us, including some of us who are not “trained as engineers.”

Just for the record, Alter has a degree in English Language and Literature/Letters (Harvard). Musk has his undergraduate degrees not in engineering but a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics (both from the University of Pennsylvania). None of these degrees bestow any basis for claiming superior knowledge of constitutional law or human rights.

Indeed, no degree offers such determinative authority.

Some of the most anti-free speech figures in our history have law degrees. A degree guarantees neither wisdom nor understanding. Many of the Framers were not legally trained but they had an innate sense and commitment to free speech.

James Madison warned us to be more on guard against such nuanced arguments: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

As Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other media outlets align themselves with the anti-free speech movement, it is more important than ever for citizens to fight for this essential right.

There is nothing nuanced in either this movement or its implications for this country.