Finally, an intelligent explanation of why Argentines chose Milei as their champion.  G. Patrick Lynch cuts through the smoke and mirrors in his Law and Liberty article Misunderstanding Milei.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It took almost 80 years. That’s how long Argentina’s economy and society have been in free fall. In some ways, it’s a testament to our greatest fears about democracy and self-government that no political leader had the political incentives and simple nerve to buck the status quo. Eighty years of relentless, grinding inflation and spiraling deficits, followed by defaults, currency devaluations, and restarts before November 19. But finally, the people of Argentina have rejected a failed status quo. Javier Milei publicly won a near landslide by Argentinian standards, and when one considers the probability of Peronist cheating at approximately 100%, the margin was likely much higher. Whether or not the alternative Argentinians have chosen will “fix the situation” is for now beside the point.

They have exercised the one option they have—rejecting the incumbents
for the promise of something different. That’s all that democracy promises.

Javier MIlei, who today is being called “far right,” “radical,” and (by the very lazy) a “far-right libertarian,” is now the president-elect of one of the greatest failed states of our lifetimes. It’s hard to fully explain how badly governed Argentina has been by its long line of Peronist governments distinguished for their lavish spending, stunning corruption, autocratic tendencies, and economic nationalism. The economic statistics are mind-boggling. Defaults, regular annual inflation rates in excess of 100%, a resulting enormous welfare state, parasitic public sector unions, and largely complicit “centrist” politicians: all these are now the depressing landscape of the Argentine political economy.

However, if one did not live this reality but were to simply draw conclusions about the election and Milei from the international (particularly American) press, one might think Argentina had fallen into a state of collective delusion, choosing an insane, sideburn-covered Latin American version of Trump without any reason other than some vague references to inflation and debt payments. As the saying goes, the international press has buried the lede.

Milei is trying to address the disastrous situation in Argentina, but outlets such as Reuters described it as “shock therapy” in a not-so-subtle reference to Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine. Klein argues that nature or war can create disasters and give opportunities for “capitalism,” (anthropomorphized through Milton Friedman) to engage in exploitation by establishing extremist policies like private property rights and markets. In this case, however, it’s the legacy of the exact policies that Klein and her ilk support that has created the unmitigated disaster.

Money printing, a bloated welfare state, an emphasis on economic “independence”
and other prominent leftwing economic prescriptions have made this disaster,
but the irony is lost on the folks at Reuters.

Milei’s main, nay fundamental, policy proposals are all in the context of this backdrop. His firm commitment to abolishing Argentine central banking and cutting social spending is straight out of Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman, and it is completely appropriate given the circumstances. The only way that an “anarcho-capitalist” could be elected was in a situation of failed governance and welfare statism so dire that he could crack the door open slightly and introduce ideas unknown by the mainstream intelligentsia, let alone the average Argentine on the street.

The language used by the international media, the gigantic “blob” of interests in the World Bank and international aid community, and the mainstream economists who oppose him is designed to delegitimize Milei. They don’t want another success story like Chile in the region. Two nations that adopt “neoliberal” policies that work mean their jobs and narratives are at risk. They are and should be terrified.

The problem is their terms are like insults thrown around in a schoolyard. They are neither coherent nor consistent. Consider the three most prominent politicians to be given the “far right” treatment by the mainstream press, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, and now Milei. What do they have in common? Substantively the answer is very little. Bukele is engaged in a crackdown on gangs and crime that involves widespread violations of due process and civil rights, but has led to a plummeting of crime rates. Meloni is known as an anti-immigrant crusader, but she also supports the Ukraine war and like Bukele has sky-high approval ratings. Milei wants to abolish central banking, and while he’s pro-life, he’s also a bachelor who brags about his sex life and argues for open markets and trade with the United States of all places. Yet to a journalist in the legacy media, they are all part of what has become known as the “far right.” Not satisfied that describing politicians as “conservative” or “right” is enough to scare their readers, the network news, national newspapers, and news services have decided to add a qualifier to the term. 

The growth in the use of the term “far right” is yet another example
how intellectual honesty, philosophical consistency, and respect
for liberal discourse are completely absent from our public debates.

But when we see the media force these politicians into a two-dimensional straightjacket, it doesn’t just present a problem of categories. It’s also about the limits of elite background and education. As David Brooks’ recent New York Times column rightly noted, the national news media are very much alike in background and education. The educational institutions that produced these figures support consensus views and expert policy creation, which accord with their own preferences. Briefly, that means government solutions to government problems. Those solutions involve hiring policy people to “fix” things. But what about when the consensus is wrong? What if the theory doesn’t fit the reality? What happens when crime runs rampant in El Salvador despite the best intentions of Western policymakers? What happens when Argentina’s central bank drives inflation to unimaginable levels at immense social cost? Unconventional answers emerge and democracy gives it energy.

The press and policy elites cannot address who Milei is or what he’s proposing on the merits because it does not fit their world view. Hyperinflation is not caused by climate change, racism, or opposition to gender displacement. It is not a social construct or a random event, particularly when it happens continuously for almost 80 years and destroys a largely upper-middle-class society. It is the political and economic failure that results from political exploitation and central planning. The Argentine bureaucracy and the chattering classes have failed citizens for decades. We know the cause, and so does Milei. His opponents wanted to make things a little less bad, possibly for a few years until they once again made things much worse.

Peronism is the abusive relationship, the addiction, the concept
that no responsibility is necessary after years of irresponsibility.
Milei is the medicine, and he will not be an easy pill to swallow.

The possibility of Galt’s Gulch in Argentina is basically zero. He faces nearly intractable political challenges in achieving even a small percentage of his legislative agenda. And yet if he can achieve one goal he might allow Argentina to start down a different path. Dollarizing the economy might force the state into fiscal responsibility and end the monetary insanity that currently reigns. It will be painful, but perhaps not as painful as decades more of the numbing effect of more stimulus that ultimately debases the currency.

There are no easy solutions here, which is part of the reason the media
and its stale-minded intellectual influences have no solutions to offer.

They are left with nothing but vague language, scare tactics, and labeling. What took 80 years to destroy will take decades, perhaps centuries to recreate. Well before he won the first round of voting back in September, Milei was asked what his model for Argentina was. He replied, Ireland. Ireland of course famously cut taxes and regulation, freeing its economy and spurring rapid economic growth.

Argentina could do worse than Ireland, but anything
different than its current path will be an improvement.

 

From the Advanced Science Research Center, GC/CUNY Earth Has Too Much Nitrogen – and Too Little Nitrogen – at the Same Time.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds

Multi-institutional research team finds declining
nitrogen availability in a nitrogen-rich world.

Since the mid-20th century, research and discussion have focused on the negative effects of excess nitrogen on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. However, new evidence indicates that the world is now experiencing a dual trajectory in nitrogen availability. Following years of attention to surplus nitrogen in the environment, our evolving understanding has led to new concerns about nitrogen insufficiency in areas of the world that do not receive significant inputs of nitrogen from human activities. In a new review paper, “Evidence, Causes, and Consequences of Declining Nitrogen Availability in Terrestrial Ecosystems,” in the journal Science, a multi-institutional team of researchers describes the causes of declining nitrogen availability and how it affects ecosystem function.

Over the last century, humans have more than doubled the global supply of reactive nitrogen through industrial and agricultural activities. This nitrogen becomes concentrated in streams, inland lakes, and coastal bodies of water, sometimes resulting in eutrophication, low-oxygen dead zones, and harmful algal blooms. These negative impacts of excess nitrogen have led scientists to study nitrogen as a pollutant. However, rising carbon dioxide and other global changes have increased demand for nitrogen by plants and microbes, and the research team’s newly published paper demonstrates that nitrogen availability is declining in many regions of the world, with important consequences for plant growth.

[Note the Nitrogen Deposition graph in the top diagram. It peaked in the 1980s, yet in 2023 it is being used to force farmers off their land in the Netherlands,Canada, Ireland and other nations to come]

Nitrogen is an essential element for plants and the animals that eat them. Gardens, forests, and fisheries are all more productive when they are fertilized with nitrogen. If plant nitrogen becomes less available, trees grow more slowly and their leaves are less nutritious to insects, potentially reducing growth and reproduction, not only of insects, but also the birds and bats that feed on them.

“When nitrogen is less available, every living thing holds on to the element for longer, slowing the flow of nitrogen from one organism to another through the food chain. This is why we can say that the nitrogen cycle is seizing up,” said Andrew Elmore, senior author on the paper, and a professor of landscape ecology at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center.

On top of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, rising global temperatures also affect plant and microbial processes associated with nitrogen supply and demand. Warming often improves conditions for growth, which can result in longer growing seasons, leading plant nitrogen demand to exceed the supply available in soils. Disturbances, including wildfires, can also remove nitrogen from systems and reduce availability over time.

Our evolving understanding of the Earth system has led to new concerns about N insufficiency after years of attention to surplus N in the environment. An integrated suite of responses will be needed to simultaneously manage both of these problems. Given the potential implications of declining N availability for food webs, carbon sequestration, and other ecosystem functions and services, it is important that research, management, and policy actions be taken before the consequences of declining N availability become more severe. It can be difficult to create a shared understanding of the N cycle and the many effects of N on ecosystem health and human well-being. The combination of excess N and declining N availability, in which outcomes vary widely across landscapes, adds to this challenge. Developing dialogues among diverse stakeholders—scientists, ecosystem managers, and others—will be necessary for alleviating and adapting to declining N availability in an N-rich world.

 

A war against farmers has emerged, threatening to push them off the land they’ve farmed for generations. As small and mid-sized farms close their doors, governments and corporate entities can scoop up the land.  Those in control of the land control the food supply and, along with it, the people.

In Canada,  Trudeau’s Liberals have announced a goal of a 50 percent reduction in emissions from fertilizer, a major producer of nitrous oxide, over the next seven years.

“Fertilizer Canada slammed the government’s short-sighted approach, arguing that reducing nitrogen fertilizer use “will have considerable impact on Canadian farmers’ incomes and reduce overall Canadian exports and GDP.”

They may as well slam their heads against a barn door. When it comes to Canada’s re-invention as a socialist state, nothing will knock the communist ship off its course.

“A report compiled by Meyers Norris Penny suggests that regulated fertilizer reduction could cost Canadian farmers $48 billion by 2030 and reduce crop sizes.”

Justin Trudeau has waged war against his own country since the day he became PM in 2015. This man doesn’t like our country very much, and in particular, maintains an innate hatred toward working class Canadians. Perhaps it’s because he has never been one. Then again, it could be part of a larger plot unfolding within society.

It was destined to roll around eventually: an attack on Canadian farmers under that gloriously green, climate emergency banner. This recent Trudeau move involves limiting the usage of fertilizer — a substance, when delivered in its most smelly, natural form, reminds us of what the federal Liberals have long shoveled upon Alberta.

Cutting the bull and arriving at the meat, so to speak: the government intends to effectively reduce farmers’ use of fertilizer by 50 per cent — in scientific terms by limiting the use of the key ingredient nitrous oxide — as part of its bid to severely reduce carbon emissions and thereby fight accelerating climate change.

Farmers, instead, want any fertilizer reductions measured by how much food is produced compared to the amount of fertilizer used, something western growers are striving for already, as growing more for less saves them money in addition to curbing emissions.

Now, when there’s a global food emergency looming due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, such a practical step would seem eminently sensible. But no, Trudeau is demanding an absolute reduction in usage, which will naturally result in less food being produced.

Contributing to global starvation has now become
part of current Canadian public policy.

This latest stupidity was undoubtedly spawned when our prime minister — always looking to one-up any country competing in the green-morality sweepstakes — learned the Dutch government intended such a move.

In the Netherlands that immediately resulted in mass protests by furious farmers, who closed highways with tractors, brought cows to the capital, threatening to slaughter them on parliamentary steps, while blocking vital food distribution centres.

Is the Nitrogen Crisis Real?

“In 2021, the European Union’s Natura 2000 network released a map of areas in the Netherlands that are now protected against nitrogen emissions. Any Dutch farmer who operates their farm within 5 kilometers of a Natura 2000 protected area would now need to severely curtail their nitrogen output, which in turn would limit their production”

Dutch dairy farmer Nynke Koopmans with the Forum for Democracy believes the nitrogen problem is made up. “It’s one big lie,” she says. “The nitrogen has nothing to do with environmental. It’s just getting rid of farmers.” Another farmer said if new nitrogen rules go into effect, he’d have to reduce his herd of 58 milking cows down to six.

Nitrogen scientist Jaap C. Hanekamp was working for a government committee to study nitrogen, tasked with analyzing the government’s nitrogen model. He told Balmakov:8

“The whole policy is based on the deposition model about how to deal with nitrogen emissions on nature areas. And I looked at the validation studies and show that the model is actually crap. It doesn’t work. And doesn’t matter. They still continue using it, which is, in a sense, unsettling. I mean, really, can we do such a thing in terms of policy? Use a model which doesn’t work? It’s never about innovation, it’s always about getting rid of farmers.”

Nitrous Oxide and Climate

Paper  by C. A. de Lange, J. D. Ferguson, W. Happer, and W. A. van Wijngaarden.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in Wm−2, depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km.

For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O.

But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions
because of warming fears are not justified by these facts.
Restrictions would cause serious harm;
for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

Resource: Flawed Science Behind Nitrogen “Crisis” (Briggs and Hanekamp)

Footnote:  The “nitrogen war” in Netherlands, an anticipation of times to come

It all looks as the “nitrogen war” in the Netherlands is an anticipation of the conflict between environment awareness organizations and agriculture, industry over production systems and its consequences.

“I really understand their anger,” Marcel Crok, a Dutch science writer and co-founder of the Climate Intelligence Foundation, said in an interview. “The farmers are also angry because they say, ‘we are the only sector who get all the blame.’ What about industry? What about the traffic? Maybe we should just ban all the cars in the Netherlands because they also emit nitrogen.”

“This plan as announced in practice means that, in certain areas, farmers have to reduce their nitrogen emissions by 70%,” he continued. “That means they simply have to quit.”

The proposal to sharply cut nitrogen emissions is tied to a 2019 Dutch court decision forcing the nation’s government to take more aggressive measures to curb nitrogen emissions. The Netherlands, though, has heavily regulated agriculture emissions since the 1990s and farmers have largely complied with such rules, Crok said.

Netherlands emits a large quantity of nitrogen because of its massive agriculture industry which accounts for about 87% of the country’s 124 million kilograms of annual ammonia emissions, a US Department of Agriculture report showed. The nation exported US$26.8 billion worth of food products despite having a relatively tiny population compared to other major producers, according to World Bank data.

“It is not very rational to curb the Dutch agriculture if you realize that they have the highest production per acre in the world and therefore the environmental load per kilogram food is lower than elsewhere,” Simon Rozendaal, a Dutch journalist and chemists said. “So, in a sense Dutch agriculture is a benefit for climate as well as biodiversity.”

“This will definitely affect ordinary civilians and is part of a global agenda, so everyone around the world, especially Western countries, should be aware that this is something that is not just about the Dutch government. This is part of the ‘2030 agenda,’ this is part of the ‘great reset.’

”Similar protests could soon happen in the U.K. and parts of the European Union where natural gas and energy costs are near historic levels, according to Benny Peiser, the director of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. In the U.K., increased prices are expected to send 24% of households, or about 6.5 million households, into fuel poverty.

“The issue is that despite this growing energy crisis in Europe, some governments still prioritize the climate agenda which makes energy ever more expensive, or which forces farmers to close their farms because that is the top priority, still, for a number of governments,” Peiser argued. “This whole green agenda is causing huge burdens.”

“The Dutch are driven mad by these policies because it’s killing their businesses and the farmers are fighting back big time,” he said. “This is what’s going to happen all over Europe. I have no doubt that, come winter and millions of families can’t heat their homes or pay their bills anymore, that there will be unrest all over Europe.”

Joe Fried makes the case in his American Thinker article Pennsylvania’s 2020 Election Was Invalid — Says Who? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A while back I wrote these words: “The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified its 2020 election despite the undisputed fact that it had recorded 202,000 more ballots cast than voters.”

Recently, that statement was challenged by someone who made this comment: “Says who?” The comment is snarky but fair. My declaration warrants an in-depth explanation, so here it is.

The Analysis

Pennsylvania has a unique voter registration system, called SURE. Like every other voter registration system, the SURE system comprises all legally registered voters in the state. However, it also includes a subcategory of registered voters: the ones who actually voted in the last election (in this case, the 2020 election).

Because of that special subcategory (registered voters who actually voted), it is possible to compare the total ballots cast in the 2020 election to the total voters who participated in that election. The numbers must match because there has to be a one-to-one relationship between voters and ballots.

If parity does not exist, something is wrong.

Verity Vote (V.V.) is a Pennsylvania data analysis firm headed by Heather Honey. For the 2020 election, V.V. prepared a careful and detailed comparison of voters who participated in the election vs. ballots cast. Here are the V.V. findings:

When PA certified its election on November 24, 2020, there were about 202,000 more ballots cast than identifiable voters. In other words, there was a large voter deficit.

In late January 2021, when the 67 PA counties finally posted all voter information into the SURE registration system, there was still a voter deficit — about 121,000.

Let’s examine Verity Vote’s analysis in greater detail. Starting in October 2020, during the early voting period, V.V. purchased weekly updates to the SURE registration system. Those were purchased from the PA Department of State. VV kept buying the updates every week until February 2021, and each weekly update revealed the cumulative number of registered voters at that point in time.

When PA certified its election (November 24, 2020), Verity Vote could see that there were 202,000 fewer voters than ballots. How? It had the exact number of voters based on its analysis of the SURE weekly updates. V.V. also knew the total number of ballots that were cast, based on the reported votes, adjusted by overvotes, undervotes, and write-in votes. (Take my word for it: that is the correct procedure.)

After being challenged by Republican legislators in late December 2020, the PA Department of State issued a terse communication that acknowledged a discrepancy but dismissed its importance. The Department implied that it was a mere timing matter that would be resolved when all 67 counties finally posted voter information into the SURE system. However, this was not the case.

When the last PA counties finally posted information into the SURE registration system (at the end of January 2021), V.V. determined that there remained a voter deficit of 121,000. Using my audit experience, I extensively tested the V.V. analysis, and I found it to be logical and completely accurate.

A voter deficit existed, and the election should not have been certified.

The exact amount is not entirely clear because, magically, 30,000 more voters materialized (without explanation) six months after the election. Yes, the number of voters had grown by the time PA issued its “2020 General Election Report” on May 14, 2021. That is the reason I reported a deficit of just 90,000 in my book, Debunked. Although I suspected that the 30,000 increase in voters was a “plug” entry, I generously assumed that it was some sort of legitimate error correction made by PA.

Either way, however, the voter deficit exceeded Biden’s winning margin.

The Law

Now let’s examine this problem from a legal vantage point, because it appears that laws were broken in Pennsylvania.

PA Code Section 3154 (b) indicates that a precinct or voting district cannot certify its results unless the relevant county investigates any significant excess of votes over voters. When PA certified its election, however, there was a statewide voter deficit of 202,000. Therefore, there had to be several precincts with voter deficits. That simple mathematical truth tells us that Section 3154 (b) was violated.

In addition, there is administrative guidance that was issued by the PA Department of State on September 11, 2020 (version 1.0). That guidance requires counties to scan voter information into the SURE registration system on a daily basis. Here are the specific instructions with regard to the counties, which process the mail-in votes:

County boards of elections should record the receipt of absentee and mail ballots daily in the SURE system. To record a ballot as returned, the staff should scan the correspondence ID barcode on the outside of the envelope.

The necessity of this process is obvious. If a ballot is cast on Monday, but the envelope is not scanned into the registration system until Tuesday, what happens if it turns out the voter is not really registered? All identifying information is on the envelope — not the ballot. For that reason, the ballot that was cast cannot be retrieved.

Incredibly, secretary of state Kathy Boockvar did not seem to grasp this basic fact. Instead, she saw certification as a simple counting procedure:

It is however the vote counts certified by the counties, not the uploading of voter histories into the SURE system, that determines the ultimate certification of an election[.]

No, Madam Secretary: The ultimate certification is determined by the vote count of legally registered voters. If you are unable to identify those legally registered voters — even three months after the election — something is very wrong, and probably illegal.

Those are the facts, and here is some theory. Perhaps this is what happened in the crooked state of Pennsylvania. Trump was leading by nearly 700,000 votes right after the November 3 election, and there was probably panic in Harrisburg, PA. The folks down there had to certify their election in just three weeks, and, my God! What would happen if Trump still had more votes than Biden on the day of certification?

For that reason, I believe that the people in Harrisburg cast all caution to the wind. They decided to jam the system with every ballot and validate the voter registrations later. However, when they finally tried to match voters to registration records, they could not do it. Why? Perhaps many of the voters were phony. Maybe these ballots were some of the 275,000 harvested ballots reported by True the Vote in the movie 2000 Mules.

But there is nothing to worry about because the PA Department of State is staffed by Democrats, in a Democrat state, within a country run by Democrats. Therefore, the FBI won’t be busting in doors, and nobody will be charged with fraud or malfeasance. In fact, hardly anyone will ever hear of this fraud. But you heard it here.

Joe Fried is an Ohio-based CPA who has performed and reviewed hundreds of certified financial audits. He is the author of the book Debunked? and a new book called How Elections Are Stolen. It outlines 23 problems that must be fixed before the 2024 elections. More information can be found at https://joefriedcpa.substack.com (Joe’s free Substack account).

Two perceptive op eds by Dr. Judith Curry provides thinking pertinent to UK Sunak’s reconsideration of climate policies.  Her articles in December and January for Sky News Australia was The faux urgency of the climate crisis is giving us no time or space to build a secure energy future. and Rapid technological innovation – not harmful renewables policy – key to lighting our energy future.

Note: “faux” means “artificial” or “contrived”–IOW “fake” without any Trumpian overtones.  I referred to Sunak in the title because he is now the man in the barrel for raising energy issues.  But those elected officials who climb down even a little from ruinous Zero Carbon promises will find themselves in the same predicament.  So this messaging would serve many in these dire straits.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There is a growing realisation that emissions and temperature targets
are now detached from the issues of human well-being
and the development of our 21st century world.

For the past two centuries, fossil fuels have fueled humanity’s progress, improving standards of living and increasing the life span for billions of people. In the 21st century, a rapid transition away from fossil fuels has become an international imperative for climate change mitigation, under the auspices of the UN Paris Agreement. As a result, the 21st century energy transition is dominated by stringent targets to rapidly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. However, the recent COP27 meeting in Egypt highlighted that very few of the world’s countries are on track to meet their emissions reductions commitment.

The desire for cleaner, more abundant, more reliable and
less expensive sources of energy is universal.

However, the goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels is at odds with the urgency of providing grid electricity to developing countries. Rapid deployment of wind and solar power has invariably increased electricity costs and reduced reliability, particularly with increasing penetration into the grid. Allegations of human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, where global solar voltaic supplies are concentrated, are generating political conflicts that threaten the solar power industry. Global supply chains of materials needed to produce solar and wind energy plus battery storage are spawning new regional conflicts, logistical problems, supply shortages and rising costs. The large amount of land use required for wind and solar farms plus transmission lines is causing local land use conflicts in many regions.

Given the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change, does the alleged urgency of reducing carbon dioxide emissions somehow trump these other considerations? Well, the climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be. The COP27 has dropped the most extreme emissions scenario from consideration, which was the source of the most alarming predictions. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that produced 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach, the goal posts were moved to limit the warming target to 1.5 oC. These warming targets are referenced to a baseline at the end of the 19th century; the Earth’s climate has already warmed by 1.1 oC. In context of this relatively modest warming, climate ‘crisis’ rhetoric is now linked to extreme weather events.

Attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming can motivate a country to attempt to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that eliminating emissions would have a noticeable impact on weather and climate extremes in the 21st century. It is very difficult to untangle the roles of natural weather and climate variability and land use from the slow creep of global warming. Looking back into the past, including paleoclimatic data, there has been more extreme weather everywhere on the planet. Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale. In particular, Australia is responsible for slightly more than 1% of global carbon emissions. Hence, Australia’s emissions have a minimal impact on global warming as well as on Australia’s own climate.

There is growing realization that these emissions and temperature targets have become detached from the issues of human well-being and development. Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century. However once we relax the faux urgency for eliminating CO2 emissions and the stringent time tables, we have time and space to envision new energy systems that can meet the diverse, growing needs of the 21st century. This includes sufficient energy to help reduce our vulnerability to surprises from extreme weather and climate events.

Framework for a robust transition of our energy systems.

In transitioning to cleaner sources of power, we need to acknowledge that the world will need much more energy than it is currently consuming – not just in developing countries, but also in countries with advanced economies. Constructing, operating, and maintaining low-carbon energy systems will itself require substantial amounts of energy, with much of it currently derived from fossil fuels. Increasing adoption of electric vehicles and electric heat pumps will increase electricity demand. More electricity can help reduce our vulnerability to the weather and climate: air conditioners, water desalination plants, irrigation, vertical farming operations, water pumps, coastal defenses, and environmental monitoring systems. Further, abundant electricity is key to innovations in advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, robotics, photonics, quantum computing and others that are currently unforeseen or unimagined.

In the near term, laying the foundation for new energy systems is
substantially more important than trying to stamp out fossil fuel use.

This should focus on developing and testing new energy technologies. There will continue to be demand for fossil fuels over the coming decades. Countries that restrict fossil fuel production will not only hurt themselves economically. Paradoxically, restricting fossil fuel production in the near term will actually slow down the energy transition, which itself requires substantial amounts of energy to implement.

The best use of the next three decades is to continue to develop and test a range of options for energy production, storage, transmission and other technologies that support goals of reliable, low-cost energy while lessening environmental impacts and carbon emissions. A more prudent strategy is to use the next two to three decades as a learning period with new technologies, experimentation and intelligent trial and error.

Near-term targets for CO2 emissions, such as 75% renewable energy by 2035, drives the energy transition towards using existing technologies in ways that are counterproductive in the longer term. The perceived urgency of making such a colossal transformation can lead to poor decisions that not only harms the economy and overall human wellbeing, but also slows down progress on reducing carbon emissions.

Rapid technological innovation across all domains of the global energy sector continues to accelerate: long-distance transmission and smart microgrids, energy storage, residential heating, electric vehicles and remarkable progress in advanced nuclear designs. Different countries and locales will use different combinations of these innovations based upon their location, local resources, power needs, and sociopolitical preferences.

In Addition:  Energy Balance Includes Every Energy Source 

Richard O. Faulk explands on the above perspective writing at Forbes: Stop Demonizing Fossil Fuels

If we are going to discuss the climate change movement’s agenda, let’s admit that the underlying problem they seek to resolve is an energy imbalance—one which they attribute to humanity’s excessive reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to global warming. To many members of the movement, the imbalance can only be corrected by reducing our dependence on sources such as coal and oil, and replacing them with others (ie. natural gas, ethanol, solar, wind).

Although this sounds tempting to some, the proportion of each source’s contribution to the new “balance” is elusive—both scientifically and politically. Indeed, many environmentalists largely neglect other important energy sources—such as nuclear energy—even though nuclear power plants produce negligible greenhouse gases. In its haste to “save the Earth,” the climate change movement has failed to appreciate that, for the foreseeable future, every source of energy is essential. We cannot afford to demonize and exclude any resources. Instead, each competing source must be sustained by a balanced energy policy that fosters economic growth, environmental protection and human health.

Moreover, if we are seriously concerned about global environmental issues, this new balance cannot be struck without considering its impact on economic, environmental and health concerns in each nation. This requires open minds regarding how certain resources, such as fossil fuels, can be used in developing nations which cannot reasonably be expected to shift immediately to alternative sources.

The use of coal, for example, as an imported product in such countries should not be disfavored while society diversifies to accommodate cleaner-burning technologies and affordable alternative sources. Encouraging such exports creates markets in developed nations that offset pressures to reduce usage domestically. Without relatively inexpensive imported resources, developing nations cannot develop their economies—and insisting on unaffordable alternatives denies them the opportunities that developed nations have exploited for centuries. The inevitable result will be continued poverty, depressed nutrition, increased disease and premature deaths in developing nations—a scenario that any reasonable climate advocate should find unacceptable.

Nevertheless, many climate activists doggedly argue for policies that will suppress the availability and use of fossil fuels in developing nations—as though renewable and other cleaner-burning sources were already available to meet the needs of their disadvantaged citizens. The insensitivity of such policies is alarming—especially since renewable and alternative fuel sources are not yet widely available and effectively deployed even in wealthier nations, such as the United States. It is irrational and, indeed, cruel to insist that fossil fuel use should be minimized globally when such an approach deprives the world’s most impoverished nations of relatively inexpensive and widely available energy sources.

Fossil fuels offer developing nations a “bridge to the future”
that empowers economic development and, ultimately,
diversification of energy resources.

A “balanced” energy policy therefore must consider much more than the appropriate global blend of energy sources. It must also consider the types of energy that can best be utilized in particular nations according to their financial abilities, technical skills and particular needs. It is naive to insist that renewable or alternative sources replace fossil fuels if those advanced sources are unaffordable, unavailable or otherwise impractical in the locations where energy is needed. Such idealism does nothing to feed the hungry, heat and light their homes, workplaces and schools, or encourage economic and technical development.

 

 

Rupert Darwall writes at Real Clear Energy Rishi Sunak Speaks Sense on Net Zero.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Britain’s prime minister Rishi Sunak was denounced before he’d uttered a word on net zero ahead of his short remarks on Wednesday. Lord Deben, the recently departed chair of the statutory Climate Change Committee, took to the airwaves to accuse the government of stupidity. Lord Zac Goldsmith, son of the billionaire Sir James Goldsmith who resigned from the government earlier this summer, said the prime minister had no mandate to change any net zero commitments and should call an immediate election.

As it turned out, Sunak’s remarks did not substantively change very much. “I’m absolutely committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050,” the prime minister insisted. True, the prime minister pledged that the government wouldn’t force families to rip out their gas-fired boilers and replace them with expensive heat pumps. And he announced that the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars would be pushed back to 2035, which former prime minister Boris Johnson had brought forward to 2030 in one of his periodic fits of climate jingoism. What Sunak didn’t say was whether the rising quota of electric vehicle (EV) mandates squeezing out sales of conventional vehicles would remain in place.

This, though, would be to miss what the prime minister had done:
politically, everything has changed.

“No one in politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what that involves,” Sunak said of net zero. “That’s wrong – and it changes now.” He promised that his approach to net zero would be pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic.

Of course, net zero by 2050 is none of those things.
It is ideological, disproportionate, and unachievable.

So why the vehemence of the climate lobby’s attacks on Sunak? In their eyes, Sunak has committed the worst crime of all: he has broken the net zero omertà, which enforces a pact of silence on discussing the policy’s true costs. In public, net zero should only be spoken of as the growth opportunity of the century, something that’s good for the economy as well as the planet. That it might inflict cost and hardship must never be said.

Sunak has destroyed this silent agreement. He has made it possible for mainstream political discourse to mention possible downsides to net zero. In this respect, he’s been assisted by his opponent’s reaction. Labor could have closed the issue down by saying it would be counter-productive to bring forward the ban. Instead, Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer immediately pledged to reverse Sunak’s reversal of the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. With EV sale mandates still in place, there is very little before and after difference – except Sir Keir now owns the downsides of the net zero anti-car policy.

Commentary on EVs focuses on the user experience – the vehicles’ cost premium, for example, or problems such as range anxiety and the inconvenience of re-charging them compared to filling up with a tank of fuel. These issues make EVs either a luxury purchase for individuals or a tax-efficient purchase made by businesses on behalf of their employees. There’s been much less focus on the implications for the electrical grid of mass EV adoption. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills discusses in a recent paper, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream,” transitioning automotive energy derived from molecules to electrons has enormous implications for the grid and local distribution networks.

It’s not solely about the relative costs of electricity versus liquid hydrocarbons. (Electricity is much more expensive before taxes, a net zero fiscal hole Labor also needs to address.) According to Mills, transporting a unit of electrical energy using wires and transformers is about 20-fold more expensive than transporting the same quantity of energy as oil in pipelines and tankers. When you fill up your tank with gasoline, the same amount of energy per second is going into your car as being generated by four 5-megawatt wind turbines. The electrical grid and local distribution networks are simply not designed to accommodate the enormous increase in electrical power required for mass EV adoption – and the faster the EV charger, the more power it needs.

Upgrading Britain’s electrical network for EVs will cost
many tens of billions of pounds. Who pays?

That’s now a question for Sir Keir and Labor to answer. Will electrical utilities discriminate between electricity used to charge an EV and boil a kettle? Some 55% of British households don’t own a car. Does Labor expect the 55% of non-car owners to subsidize the cost of grid and local network upgrades for the benefit of the small proportion of the 45% of car owners who have EVs? Labor’s green socialism inverts traditional socialism. It envisions less well-off members of the community subsidizing better-off EV owners through their electricity bills.

The prime minister can have had few illusions about the consequences of breaking with the climate consensus to speak of costs and downsides. The climate lobby is well-funded and deeply networked throughout politics and the media. It required courage and conviction for Sunak to have taken this step.

Thanks to him, Britain’s climate policy debate will never be the same.

 

 

 

 

Gregory Wrightstone tells it like it is at CO2 Coalition Data Shows We’re NOT Seeing Record Heat.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Hotter Than the Fourth of July!

It was widely reported recently that July 4th, 2023 was the hottest day in Earth’s recorded history.

Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at London’s Grantham Institute stated: “It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago, which was the previous interglacial.” And, of course, it was reported that it was our fault due to our “sins of emission.”

This didn’t meet the smell test for the scientists at the CO2 Coalition. We know that previous warm periods were warmer than our modern temperatures. For example, during the Roman Warm Period there was citrus being grown in the north of England and barley was grown by Vikings on Greenland 1,000 years ago. Why aren’t they grown there now? It’s quite simple: Lower modern temperatures.

So, here at the CO2 Coalition, we did what scientists are trained to do:

We looked at the available data. Our Science and Research Associate Byron Soepyan reviewed temperature data from the US Historical Climatology Network and found that both the number of weather stations reporting temperature over 100 degrees F and the Maximum Average Temperature for July 4th were slightly declining since the record began in 1895 – not increasing – as Ceppi claimed.

The Great Texas Heat Wave

It is summer. It is hot in Texas. It is not unusual or unprecedented. Below is a chart of the percentage of days in Texas that were above 100 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. Despite a significant and steady rise in CO2 emissions, there has been a decline in the occurrence of very hot days.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA; and author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know.

Dr Pierre Kory – On Ivermectin – At Euro Parliament Summit 2023 is the video above.  Below is my transcript with my bolds from closed captions and exhibits from a similar, longer presentation at Rumble.

Thank you I appreciate the invitation. I want to speak about a topic; I don’t think any of the topics today are pleasant, but this one is particularly unpleasant to me. I’m going to talk about the global war on Ivermectin. There was a massive Global disinformation campaign whose only objective is to suppress the evidence of efficacy of this life-saving drug. My colleague Dr Brouqui just referred to the war on Hydroxychloroquine.

I’m going to take you through this almost like a case study showing what they do. Keep in mind it has nothing to do with Ivermectin, and everything to do with a decades-long war. They’ve been doing these things for decades on any generic off patent drug which threatens their profits.

This is a forest plot. On the left are medicines that have trials to show that they’re effective against Covid. We have 43 effective therapies. Likely you’ve not heard of any of them if you live in the United States. The only ones approved are the ones that are circled. They have something in common, which is they’re all absurdly expensive and present massive profits to pharmaceutical companies. Any medicine, no matter how many studies supporting it–if it costs a dollar or two, it will not find regulatory approval in any Advanced Health economy around the world. And as a result people die. They die frequently and in high numbers because there’s a barrier to getting access to these medicines, to having them recommended.   Currently Ivermectin it has the most studies of any therapy, 95 controlled trials, over 40 are randomized and showing a massive evidence of efficacy.

Now why would they attack Ivermectin? Ivermectin probably, and hydroxychloroquine there, I would consider them almost equal presented a massive threat. It would have halted the vaccine campaign. If they were following the rules, which is you can’t have an effective therapy. It would have skyrocketed the Public Enemy Number One, which is something called Vaccine Hesitancy. Because this was all about the vaccine, and so they had to go after these drugs. It also threatens the profits of all of the Therapeutics that they were rushing out and barely improving on manipulated actually fraudulent single Studies by these companies. So if you talk about remdessivir, paxlovid and monopirovir: Billion dollar contracts were written by our government before those studies ever were published. There were press releases issued and contracts signed, and billions of dollars went into the pharmaceutical companies hands. They could not have a competitor.

So how did they do this? Well it’s called disinformation, and I’m going to be speaking specifically to the tactics used by Industries when science emerges that’s inconvenient to their industry interests. Every industry follows this playbook when science emerges that’s threatens their interests. No industry is more skilled at this than the pharmaceutical industry.

In modern times with the consolidation of Media power, they control social media
and they’ve completely captured regulatory Health agencies.

Across Advanced Health economies, they can make you believe that things are true; they can make you believe that things are false. And it makes you complicit in their own device. It’s largely centered around the use of propaganda and censorship, yet their abilities to do both of those things are historically unparalleled. We now have a global media and communication system which allows them to do this propaganda and censorship worldwide.

The biggest and the foundation of this entire disinformation campaign, I’m sorry to tell you, occurred at the level of the studies that were done by big agencies. So the biggest and highest funded studies were the most corrupt. And it occurred at the level of the highest impact medical journals in the world as well. The world’s leading Health agencies, one of which is in the US.

Keep in mind they were they were scared of Ivermectin from the beginning. My colleague Dr Robert Malone and other researchers had already identified Ivermectin as effective against at least a dozen RNA viruses before covid began. They were worried about Ivermectin and its antiviral properties. So when the Nobel prize winning Discoverer Omura asked Merck his old partner: “ I think we should study Ivermectin for covid, what did Merck say? “No thank you.” in the middle of a global pandemic.

Merck went even farther and one night in February of 2021 when there was nothing to support these three statements; I will tell you their public relations team put this on their website.

Now to find that a big big pharmaceutical company would publish lies on their website is completely unsurprising to me. But the surprise in this was the launched media campaigns around the world where media trumpeted over and over started to echo a pharmaceutical company whose three statements are so obviously protecting their profits. And this became a PR campaign that went around the world: “ Merck says that Ivermectin doesn’t work.”

So you could see this started early before there was any evidence to show that it didn’t work. In fact at the time of my testimony two months prior to that statement, I already had 35 controlled trials, 17 of which were randomized controlled trials. There was already an immense amount of evidence showing its efficacy. As of two weeks ago we have 95 controlled trials with 134, 000 patients.

If you look at the forest plot to the side all of the green squares that were going all the way to the left are showing large magnitude estimates of efficacy from dozens and dozens of Trials. These are only the early treatment trials. IVM is the most proven medication in history, yet not one Advanced Health economy around the world recommends it. Almost all hospitals have removed it from their formularies, and if you try to get filled at a pharmacy, any Retail Pharmacy in any of those developed countries, the pharmacist will not do it. They’re scared to death.

The trials. So how come we have all of these big rigorous large high quality trials? There’s
actually only been six of them, so out of the 95 trials, the only ones you’ve seen on the front pages of your newspapers are what I call the Big Six. Out of that 95 there were six trials that were heavily funded and carried out by investigators; they’re called the largest and high quality trials. What did
they show?

Somehow they concluded, in contradiction to all of the other trials,
that Ivermectin wasn’t effective.

How did they do that? Because they know how to do it and have been doing it for a while. They can design trials to show you something works, they can design trials to show you something doesn’t work. They’ve pulled the same tricks over and over again. All you need to know about those six trials compared to the 95: With one exception those were the only trials where every almost every single investigator was drowning in Financial conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies.

Every other trial had no Financial conflicts of interest. So ask yourself: Why they reached conclusions that completely departed from the rest of the evidence base.

These are the big six and they appeared in the highest impact journals in the world: New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, The Lancet and the Annals of Internal Medicine. Every time they were published, they launched PR campaigns across the world. You saw radio and television stations and newspapers blaring latest high quality study shows that Ivermectin doesn’t work.

And then there’s lots of Trials showing that the Ivermectin Advocates of which I’m one, I will tell you every country in the world has experts on Ivermectin who have had to watch and witness this propaganda campaign.

This is one of the more egregious samples. This is my own country, funded by the National Institutes of Health which is our largest research funder. They just did a couple of Trials on Ivermectin in Active-6.

By the way the lead investigator Dr. Susanna Naggie owns stock in a competitor to Ivermectin and she also has conflicts of interest with Gilead which makes as well are Remdesivir and other products that compete with Ivermectin. Do you think that she’s an objective investigator? And do you think it’s an accident she was hired? It is not; she was hired on purpose to do this kind of stuff.

Look at this trial, originally designed to see the difference in symptoms at day 14 which would make sense for an acute viral illness. In the middle of the trial, mysteriously they decided to change the end point from day 14 to day 28. Why would they do that? So look at the results that they found at the posterior P efficacy column in the other table. Anything above 0.95 is a statistically significant result which would show that Ivermectin is superior. In the middle you can see this in the journal; it’s completely public knowledge, yet no one talks about it. Now you can see why they moved it from day 14 to day 28: It was to disappear the statistical significance favoring Ivermetin.

This paper was published in one of the top journals of the world with the conclusion that Ivermectin has no role in the treatment of covid. You know there’s no major differences at day 28, and by the way this are all mild patients. Very few went to the hospital, there was one death and that was in the Ivermectin group. They never got Ivermectin because they died beforehand.

I call it the big six because they were the big ones that were published in the highest impact journals, but it’s really seven. Let’s talk about this seventh one that was started a long time ago by the University of Oxford by the same investigator who did a 25,000 person trial on mobile. Which has been completed and we know the results which shows them when the period doesn’t work.

But it’s a little odd what happened to the Ivermectin trial. It has been 10 months since the trial completed with not one mention of the result. Does anyone find that anomalous or abnormal? When we had to hear results of remdesivir, paxlovid and molnupiravir by press release before the data was available. These people at Oxford are sitting on a positive trial and you know it they won’t publish. They also did other stuff.

Let’s look at the designs of these trials. This is so Brazen. If you want to show something’s effective, you’re going to make sure to get the study drug into that patient immediately and as early as possible to maximize benefit. So they did a median of two days in a 25, 000 person trial, which is a fantastic achievement. I would love to see that kind of science being practiced everywhere. Only problem was the drug wasn’t effective.

What do they do with Ivermectin? They allow up to 14 days to start the medicine. And we have evidence from some of the participants that they were totally well by the time they got their medicines. This is a fake trial not a real one. But I think they weren’t good enough at what they were doing, because they’re sitting on a positive result. There’s no other explanation why 10 months have gone by and we haven’t heard. They are laying low, sitting quiet because they’ve seen that a lot of us around the world have found all of the fraud and brazen manipulations in the other large trials.

They also did something else. Curiously in the middle of the trial they suddenly announced the halting of the trial and the trialist from Oxford literally claimed to the world that they ran out of ivermectin. Which is so absurd: No self-respecting trials would ever run out of a study drug in the middle. Funny thing is there’s one functioning journalist left in the world and that was at The Epoch Times, and they did they actually did some journalism. They called the pharmaceutical company that was supplying the Ivermectin to Oxford and asked: Hey did you guys run out of ivermectin?”  Their answer: “No we have plenty.” This is the kind of stuff they’re doing.

Beyond the Selective publication of negative trials by pharmaceutical companies’ conflicted researchers, in my book which is soon to be published I have numerous examples of researchers around the world with positive randomized controlled Trials of ivermectin they were uniformly and systematically rejected from publication, from any journal in the first or second tier of medical journals. There is an editorial Mafia that controls our top medical journals. Science has been completely corrupted. Beyond the rejections are those that actually manage to go through peer review and get published, but were suddenly retracted for reasons we’d never heard of in our careers.

Me and my group have published over 150 peer-reviewed articles, never had one retracted. First time in our lives was our Ivermectin paper.

And then we had to read editorial after editorial you know propelling these narratives that circulated in the media relentlessly: “Don’t believe Ivermectin science, the studies are all low quality, too small in different countries, the doses aren’t the same, it can’t be believed, wait for the real signs.” These are the narratives that they’ve used to try to destroy the evidence of efficacy.

This is an example. They picked one trial and they they supposedly found it to be fraudulent. It may or may not have been; there are some unreliable trials in any body of evidence. Researchers say about 20% of Trials will be fraudulent, not unique to Ivermectin. But the world’s leading researcher hired by the WHO in UK published a phenomenally positive meta-analysis which is a summary of 24 randomized control trials which showed statistically significant improvements in mortality, hospitalization time, to clinical recovery and time to viral clearance.

I hadn’t talked to him in a few months and I saw that he published that paper and I couldn’t believe how astoundingly positive that paper was. I could believe it by the fact that the media was silent. It was not carried and then I think the other side got real worried because Andy started behaving very differently. He self-retracted his own paper

And he started removing randomized control trials using invented categories this is from his exact paper it looks like a five-year-old who’s trying to disappear the evidence of efficacy. So he makes up these categories “potentially fraudulent” no definition of what kind of study that is. And then this other category which is “some concerns” So there’s a category of evidence which is when Dr Andrew Hill has some concerns, so he removes and disappears the evidence base to the point where it loses statistical significance. And now he’s claiming it doesn’t work. A bizarre turnaround for this researcher

I’m going to finish with the agencies. We know they control; you cannot work at a health agency without making Pharma happy. Your career is over, you’re off of committees, you don’t graduate from the agencies to get jobs in pharmaceutical unless you do their bidding. They are completely in lockstep. What happened with the Ivermectin story in the United States is that in the middle of August of 2021 Ivermectin prescriptions hit 90,000 a week. They were skyrocketing, everyone was figuring out it was working, everybody was prescribing. In a very short sequence you saw our CDC send out a memo to every State Department of Health which then went to every licensed physician in that state. And that memo said careful of ivermectin we’re seeing overdoses and people are getting injured. They made it out to be a dangerous drug when it’s one of the safest, if not the safest medication we have in history.

And after they said that it was dangerous, all the professional Societies in the United States, without any authority sent out memos to every doctor in the country calling for an immediate cessation of prescribing of ivermectin. What followed was the horse dewormer PR campaign was launched. You can tell a PR campaign in the narrative when it’s two weeks four different channels and that’s what you saw; late night talk show host, News hosts, newspapers, magazines, radio–”Horse dewormer, horse dewormer, horse dewormer. and

At the end of those two weeks no self-respecting doctor would ever prescribe
such a dangerous and ineffective drug and no patient would want to get it.

Do you think that PR campaign was invented in August of 2021, it was not. It was launched in 2021 because they saw they were losing this war against Ivermectin. And here we are at the end of three years and it’s been shut down in most of the advanced health economies around the world. One of the most effective drugs in history, that would have saved millions of lives. This was a humanitarian catastrophe and a crime against humanity yet no one will go to jail for it.