RFK Jr: “In 1989… all these autoimmune diseases suddenly appeared.” “The CDC thought it may be the vaccine schedule… so they looked at one vaccine, which is the hepatitis B vaccine. They looked at kids who had gotten it in the first 30 days, and then they looked at… kids who got it later or didn’t get it at all, and they compared these two groups.” “Among the kids who got it in the first 30 days, there was… a relative risk of 11.35 [for a subsequent autism diagnosis]. If you have a relative risk of two, causation is presumed… The link between smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and getting lung cancer is a relative risk of 10. This was 11.35.” “So they knew what it was, and then they had an emergency meeting that they called… and they had all of the big panjandrums from the vaccine industry, from the pharmaceutical industry… from NIH, CDC, FDA, the WHO, the European Medicines Agency, and they all got together for two days to talk about this study.” “Somebody made a transcript of it, and that transcript was given to me… The second day they spent talking about how to hide it from the American public, and I published these things… I took a lot of heat at that point.”
RFK Jr: "In 1989… all these autoimmune diseases suddenly appeared."
"The CDC thought it may be the vaccine schedule… so they looked at one vaccine, which is the hepatitis B vaccine. They looked at kids who had gotten it in the first 30 days, and then they looked at… kids… pic.twitter.com/bzRM0od96z
“Vaccine safety research is banned and our government will not release its own data. Each time the unvaccinated are studied, they have a fraction of the chronic illnesses we now consider normal. The data in in @MidwesternDoc‘s article is profoundly disturbing. How Much Damage Have Vaccines Done to Society? The data that shows the less appreciated forgotten consequences of vaccination. https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-much-damage-have-vaccines-done
It also may be downloaded, printed, and distributed freely so long as it is not sold, offered as a bonus, or combined with other informational materials without prior approval of the publisher. Anything may be quoted provided it is not out of context.
Contrary to what you have probably read, heard or been taught, the addition of human-produced CO2 to the atmosphere by burning natural gas, oil and coal does not increase the global CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Nor will sequestration of CO2 reduce CO2 concentration in atmosphere. The CO2 concentration in air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed. Henry’s Law controls the concentration of all trace gases in air. When humans add CO2 to air, it is a disturbance to a natural equilibrium ratio. When humans remove CO2 from air, it is a disturbance to the natural equilibrium ratio and that CO2 will be replaced into air by emissions from the environment, dominantly from ocean surface.
According to a study published by consultants McKinsey & Company and supported by the UN IPCC, world banks, WEF, WHO, EPA, U.S. Democrats and the governments of more than 100 nations including the current U.S. administration, $9.2 trillion would be needed annually between now and 2050 to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero CO2 emissions and thereby avoid their acclaimed existential catastrophe. I and many others have been working for the last several years toward repeal of the U.S. EPA’s Final Endangerment Finding (EF) issued during the Obama administration. This EF claims without validated evidence that CO2 is an endangerment to the public. Scientific evidence and theory invalidates this EF.
CO2 concentration in air is not controlled by human CO2 emissions, nor are global temperatures controlled by CO2 concentration. Disturbances to natural equilibrium are restored in proportion to the amount and the time frame of the disturbance. We demonstrated this in a data science experiment using NOAA Scripps-measured CO2 data following the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippine Island (Bromley & Tamarkin, 2022), https://pinatubostudy.com/pinatuboreport.html
Henry’s Law applies to all gases and all liquids, not only CO2 and seawater. There is a specific, known Henry’s Law constant (aka a partition ratio or coefficient) for each gas and liquid combination. These constants are typically looked up in online tables, in reference books, and they can be measured in the laboratory. There are very many references, for example: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/4399/2015/acp-15-4399-2015.pdf
Henry’s Law is the fundamental science underlying the multibillion dollar per year scientific instruments industry of gas chromatography mass spectrometry, aka GC or GC/MS. This is the preferred method for separating chemical mixtures into individual chemicals so they can be identified, and quantified. Today, it is the preferred method for process and quality control of most chemical mixtures, for example gasoline, wine, flavors, fragrances, and medicines, etc.
Henry’s Law is an observational result based on thousands of experiments. The initial experiments were done by Dr. William Henry in 1803 and published by the Royal Society of London. As famous physicist Richard Feynman said, if a theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong; the theory of human-produced CO2 from burning natural gas, petroleum and coal is wrong, dangerously and nefariously wrong. Henry’s Law is neither theory nor hypothesis, it is a Law based on countless experiments and confirmed by multiple theories.
Henry’s Law defines an equilibrium that is established naturally between a trace gas (like CO2) dissolved in a liquid phase (such as seawater or water in lung or plant tissue) and the same trace gas above the liquid surface. Henry’s Law applies to all trace gases (such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone) within the mixed gas phase (such as air) above the liquid surface.
Henry’s Law mathematically defines a ratio of the amount (or partial pressure or concentration) of a trace gas dissolved in a liquid surface versus the amount of the same gas within the mixed gas matrix above the surface of the liquid. For example, the ratio of the molecules of non-ionized CO2 gas in seawater surface versus the molecules of CO2 gas in the air above that sea water surface. At a given temperature, the ratio is a constant for any specified trace gas and liquid combination, the Henry’s Law constant.
All gases in air are continuously colliding with the surface of the ocean and being absorbed. Simultaneously, all gases dissolved in ocean surface are being emitted (or evaporated) into air above the liquid. The ratio of absorption versus emission is the Henry’s Law constant for that gas and liquid combination. The ratio is Henry’s Law constant. The ratio changes with temperature because the solubility of all gases in all liquids increases as temperature of the liquid decreases.
The trend in global CO2 concentration in air has been slowly increasing because recently the average surface area of earth above about 25 degrees C has been slowly increasing. But solar radiation reaching and warming the surface of the earth changes due to various cloud, planetary, solar and cosmic factors. Ultimately, the amount of solar radiation reaching earth’s surface controls the temperature of earth’s surface. CO2 concentration does not control surface temperatures; surface temperatures control CO2 concentration.
There are some exceptional situations to Henry’s Law, which are important in certain cases.
Henry’s Law does not apply to concentrated gases or gases under high pressure. For example, nitrogen in air at ~78% is not easily quantified by Henry’s Law, but trace gases CO2, CO, N2O, O3, CH4, etc are easily quantifiable in local conditions.
A corollary to that, gases at very low temperature or at very high temperature are also not easily quantified by Henry’s Law.
In practice, the most important exception is that Henry’s Law only applies to the unreacted, non-ionized gas in the liquid phase. Henry’s Law does not apply to any of the reaction products of the gas with the liquid. For example, when CO2 gas is absorbed into sea water about 99% of it readily ionizes/breaks apart into carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion. The Henry’s Law ratio only applies to ratio of unreacted ~1% of CO2 gas in the liquid and the CO2 gas above the liquid. The percentage varies with the local temperature of the surface area.
Although not an exception, but rather the frequently misunderstood rule, the rate of change of the Henry’s Law constant is determined by the surface area interface between the gas and the liquid at a given temperature. Net flux (absorption minus emission) of the gas is a function of the surface area, surface thickness and gradient across that thickness, at a given surface temperature, and the diffusion constant. Fick’s 1st Law provides the formula for net flux. Units are, for example, moles of CO2 emitted per square mile per hour. The diffusion constant is Graham’s Law: diffusion rate of all gases into all liquid is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of the gas. Agitation of the surface by winds, waves, currents etc increases the surface area at a given temperature, slightly increases the temperature of the surface, and reduces the additional activation energy required by a gas molecule like CO2 or water vapor to evaporate and escape from the surface. The rate of change (or slope) of net flux with respect to time is a function of the rate of change of surface area at a given temperature with respect to time.
pH and salinity also change the partition ratio. In the natural environment, ocean pH and salinity in general have relatively low variability on average. But, local changes can be significant, for example ocean pH can become more alkaline as plankton blooms, and ocean at an estuary or river mouth can become highly mineralized and saline due to runoff after rain. These conditions alter the ratio of CO2 absorption versus CO2 emission at ocean surface, but when these localized conditions return to normal then the CO2 Henry’s Law constant is restored for the local surface temperature.
“One of the bittersweet things about growing old is realizing how mistaken you were when you were young. As a young political leftist, I saw the left as the voice of the common man. Nothing could be further from the truth.” ~ Thomas Sowell
This POS terrorist was set up and funded by some Israeli’s and including Jews, the UN, the US government, Western European governments, the EU, and probably most if not all of the governments in Muslim countries. According to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) member list, there are 57 Muslim countries in the world, among which 49 countries have a Muslim-majority population. But, there is only one Israel which shelters and protects Jewish people. Reform of Islam must come to terms within its culture and practice of accepting, even loving, others as they claim and their holy books claim to be the “religion of peace.”
https://youtu.be/RPvQZgafvzA?si=HsQqUY0hc-_Dlofn This begins with a humorous skit by John Cleese but becomes technical. This is by Welsh comedian Paul Burgess, a fellow you may also remember from the Monty Python series.
Then the articles at the following website by Dr. Lars Schernikau confirm the above information and my previous post on hydrogen.
Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy economist, entrepreneur, commodity trader, and author.
Educated at New York University in the US, INSEAD in France, and TU Berlin in Germany, he has worked with commodities for 2 decades in Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America.
Previously, he worked for the Boston Consulting Group in the US and Germany. Lars is also a shareholder in the Berlin based, German publicly listed commodity trading firm, HMS Bergbau AG (www.hms-ag.com)
After watching and reading these links, you may wonder why the Saudis would invest in hydrogen. The answer is money of course. As you have seen in the above links, H2 gas sells for high prices. The Saudis have basically unlimited fuel and very low cost. Their result would be very high profits for them to sell to unwitting and misinformed virtue signally end-users foolish enough to buy. Hydrogen will sell for a while at least at very high prices, as seen the above links, much higher than the natural gas CH4 which Saudis have in abundance. The Saudis can convert their natural gas (CH4) to H2 gas instead of flaring/burning it off it, or they can use the natural gas to power a turbine electric generation to produce electricity and then use that electricity to produce H2 gas by electrolysis of seawater. In the first case, they could build a plant that would also produce ethylene (C2H4) as a byproduct of the H2 gas production…if they are very careful. Ethylene is a highly valuable feedstock for petrochemical plants to make thousands of products from plastics.
As you can surmise from the links above and my comments, in summary, from a public investment point of view and from an environmental point of view, hydrogen energy systems regardless of color is stupid and foolish. As an investment for the Saudis to build a plant to produce hydrogen, this could be highly profitable for them for a while…so long as people and their politicians believe in the carbon pollution fallacy or until the next Hindenburg-like disaster. Presumably the Saudis will build their plant so that it can be conveniently converted to a different output product (e.g. ethylene, or ethylene oxide) since eventually the end user will figure out that they are wasting large amounts of money and significantly reducing safety with no benefit to the end users of the hydrogen.
Statistically unheard of. When will the mainstream media finally address this? This can’t be ignored. (h/t @EthicalSkeptic and Dr. Simon Goddek @goddeketal )
19 sigma in statistics is an extremely rare event, as it implies that the event has a probability of occurrence of only about 0.000000000000233 or 0.000000233%. In practical terms, this means that if a process is 19 sigma, it should essentially be perfect, with no errors or anomalies.
A 19 sigma spike in cardiac problems would be an extraordinarily unusual increase in heart-related issues. Given the rarity of a 19 sigma event, this would mean that the increase in cardiac problems is practically impossible under normal circumstances, suggesting that there may be some extraordinary or unprecedented factors at play. However, it’s important to note that in real-world scenarios, it’s unlikely for any process to be 19 sigma, let alone a complex and multifactorial issue like cardiac problems.
The CDC’s WONDER (Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research) website provides provisional death counts for COVID-19. These data are presented in a tabular format, with various columns providing different pieces of information such as the week of death, age group of the deceased, sex, and race.
When interpreting these data, you might want to consider the following:
Trends over time: Look at how the number of deaths changes over the weeks. This can give you an idea of how the COVID-19 situation is evolving.
Demographic differences: Compare the number of deaths across different age groups, sexes, and races. This can help identify which groups are being affected the most.
Provisional vs. final data: Remember that this is provisional data, meaning it’s subject to change as more information becomes available. Final data may provide a more complete and accurate picture.
Contextual factors: Consider other factors that might be influencing the data, such as changes in testing rates, public health interventions, or social behaviors.
To interpret the data effectively, you might want to use data analysis or statistical software to perform more detailed analyses. This could involve calculating percent changes, creating visualizations, or applying statistical tests.
In Norway, there has been an explosion in use of heart medicine in young (15-44) after Covid injections began, reports Jarle Aarstad in Norway. @jarleaarstad or jarle.substack.com (link to article below.)
Explosive increase in the use of heart medicine among young, 15-44 yrs., in Norway after covid vaccine rollout.
In the following shocking and enlightening interview on thehighwire.com, Dr. Naomi Wolf, a feminist and journalist, reveals details from Pfizer’s own research documents including primary sources not opinions, especially on reproduction problems, the so-called soon to be infamous “Pfizer Papers”. This is 49 minutes and very worthwhile your time.
About 1 hour. Speech on Global Governance and the Future of the United States and how this would be applied to the rest of the world.
The Attack on United States Sovereignty was planned multiple decades ago.
The New World Order of One Government is no conspiracy theory.
1. Global Governance
2. Global Security
3. Global Neighborhood
4. Education
5. Wildlands Project
6. Biodiversity Treaty
7. Sustainable Development
8. World Bank & IMF Loan Strategies
Speaker is Henry Lamb, Grenada Forum, 1996.
Henry Lamb
The late Henry Lamb was the founding Executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization, founded in 1988, chairman of Sovereignty International, and publisher of eco-logic. He also serves on various boards and committees of other organizations that promote environmental stewardship, private property rights, and Constitutional values.
Very few people realize there is a massive effort to create global governance–a euphemism for world government–that would dramatically affect every man, woman and child on earth. As one of the leading experts on this issue, Henry Lamb offers a unique insight on the rise of global governance, and its potentially serious consequences to mankind. ~ Dr. Michael S. Coffman, President Environmental Perspectives, Inc.
Without question, Henry Lamb is the foremost expert in the nation on the subject of the U.N.’s drive for global governance and its blueprint called Agenda 21. In the mid-1990s, his articles first taught me of the dangers we faced. Most of what Henry warned about then is now taking place. ~Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center
Few people understand the mechanics and implications of global governance as intimately as Henry Lamb. He has attended dozens of United Nations meetings and studied hundreds of U.N. documents. His writings offer vital information that every American should know. ~ Phyllis Schlafly, President Eagle Forum
Mentioned by the late Mr. Lamb was Sovereignty International. Sovereignty International Incorporated (SII) is a “not-for-profit, educational 501(c)(3), non-membership organization” that promotes the belief that best government is empowered only by the consent of those who are governed. It emphasizes free and open elections of officials who are exclusively responsible for enacting public policy, and it considers this principle essential to individual freedom, inalienable private property rights, free markets, and national sovereignty.
SII’s mission includes focusing on threats to national sovereignty in public policies, international treaties and agreements, and in educational and cultural trends, according to its website. It was founded by Henry Lamb in 1996 and is known for its climate change denial stance, claiming that “the earth may be in a cooling cycle, not warming”.
The organization’s board of directors includes individuals such as Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer; Henry Lamb, Chairman; Floy Lilley, J.D., Vice Chairman; Tom McDonnell, Director; and Bert Smith, Director. The Advisory Council consists of selected individuals and organizations with expertise in every facet of U.N. activity, including Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center; Alan Caruba, National Anxiety Center; Cliff Kincaid, American Sovereignty Action Project and America’s Survival, Inc.; David Rothbard, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (C-FACT); and Rob Gordon, National Wilderness Institute.
http://www.sovereignty.net/ but the website of Freedom.org and Sovereignty.net seem to be no longer available.
Summary of the Sawgrass Rebellion by Grok:
The Sawgrass Rebellion was a grassroots movement in Florida during the early 2000s, primarily centered in Miami-Dade County, aimed at challenging federal and state land-use regulations and environmental policies that property owners and developers perceived as overly restrictive. The movement emerged in response to regulations, particularly those enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, that limited development on private lands, especially in wetland areas like the Everglades. It drew inspiration from the earlier Sagebrush Rebellion in the Western U.S., which sought greater state and local control over federal lands, but the Sawgrass Rebellion was distinct in its focus on private property rights in Florida’s unique wetland ecosystems.Key Points of the Sawgrass Rebellion:
Origins and Context:
The rebellion was sparked by federal environmental regulations, such as the Clean Water Act, which required permits for developing wetlands. These regulations were seen as infringing on private property rights, particularly in South Florida, where much of the land is classified as wetlands.
In 2000, a pivotal event was the Buckeye Construction case, where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit for a limestone mining operation in the Lake Belt area of Miami-Dade County, citing environmental concerns. This galvanized local property owners, developers, and industries like limestone mining, which were critical to Florida’s economy.
The movement was named after the sawgrass plant, a dominant feature of the Everglades, symbolizing the regional focus on South Florida’s environmental and land-use issues.
Goals:
The Sawgrass Rebellion sought to reduce federal oversight and bureaucratic restrictions on private land development, advocating for more local control and fewer environmental regulations.
Supporters argued that federal agencies were overreaching, imposing regulations that stifled economic growth, particularly in industries like mining, agriculture, and real estate, which were vital to Miami-Dade County’s economy.
The movement also aimed to challenge the designation of certain lands as wetlands, which restricted development, and pushed for reforms to the permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
Key Actions and Events:
Legislation and Advocacy: In 2001, the movement gained traction when the We The People (WTP) Congress, a property rights advocacy group, backed the Sawgrass Rebellion as part of its broader “Freedom Drive 2002” campaign. WTP organized rallies and lobbied for legislative changes to protect property rights.
Legal Challenges: Property owners and developers filed lawsuits against federal agencies, challenging wetland designations and permit denials. Some cases reached federal courts, arguing that the Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction over wetlands was overly broad.
Public Campaigns: The rebellion included public demonstrations and media campaigns to highlight the economic impact of federal regulations. For example, limestone mining companies emphasized that their operations provided materials for infrastructure like roads and airports, employing thousands in South Florida.
Outcomes and Impact:
The Sawgrass Rebellion achieved limited success in changing federal policy. While it raised awareness about property rights issues, the federal government did not significantly alter wetland regulations or the Clean Water Act’s enforcement.
Some local concessions were made, such as adjustments to permitting processes in the Lake Belt area, allowing limited mining operations under stricter environmental oversight. However, these were seen as compromises rather than victories for the rebellion.
The movement influenced later property rights advocacy in Florida, contributing to ongoing debates about balancing environmental conservation with economic development in the Everglades region.
Unlike the Sagebrush Rebellion, which focused on public lands, the Sawgrass Rebellion’s emphasis on private property rights made it a unique case, though it shared a similar anti-federal sentiment.
Legacy:
The Sawgrass Rebellion is often cited as a precursor to later movements in Florida, such as opposition to Everglades restoration projects that impacted private lands or businesses.
It highlighted tensions between environmental protection and economic interests, a recurring theme in Florida’s land-use politics, particularly in the context of the Everglades, a globally significant ecosystem.
The movement waned by the mid-2000s, as legal challenges faced setbacks and public attention shifted to other issues, but it left a lasting impact on local discussions about property rights and federal overreach.
Connection to Henry Lamb:
Henry Lamb’s Involvement: Henry Lamb, an environmental policy analyst and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (later renamed Sovereignty International), was a prominent figure in the Sawgrass Rebellion. Lamb was a vocal advocate for property rights and a critic of federal environmental regulations. He supported the rebellion through his writings and speeches, framing federal wetland regulations as an example of government overreach. His work with the WTP Congress helped amplify the movement’s message, connecting it to broader national efforts to limit federal authority over land use. Lamb’s involvement is noted in sources like the WTP Congress’s endorsement of the Sawgrass Rebellion.
I am going to formally endorse @realDonaldTrump. I came to this decision some time ago as many @X followers have already understood from my supportive posts of Trump and my criticisms of @POTUS Biden.
The reason why I have not yet formally done so is that I want to explain my…— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) July 14, 2024
Ackman’s friends and his family were “surprised” by the endorsement, he wrote on X, and dismissed claims he wanted financial benefits or a role in a potential Trump administration.
Ackman, who previously donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various Democrat political figures, named illegal immigration, inflationary policies and the botched withdraw from Afghanistan as the first three “catalysts for my losing total confidence in the administration and the Party.”
– Advertisement –
These actions included opening borders without proper screening, implementing economic policies that worsened inflation, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, introducing excessive regulations, modifying the bail system, promoting DEI ideologies, and failing to address antisemitism. He also criticized vaccine mandates, free speech restrictions, the handling of U.S. energy independence, and various foreign policy decisions. Ackman expressed concern about leadership, health, and transparency issues within the Democratic Party.
A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support @realDonaldTrump for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats, my voting registration has typically been Democrat (in NY, you must…— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) October 11, 2024
Here is a shorter version of the 33 points from the tweet:
Open borders, unscreened immigrants.
Economic policies causing inflation.
Poor Afghanistan withdrawal.
Excessive regulations hurting business.
Loosening bail laws.
Decriminalizing shoplifting.
Limiting fracking, raising energy costs.
DEI policies based on identity.
Promoting gender ideology in schools.
Encouraging protests, closing schools.
Supporting anti-American, anti-Israel protests.
Rising antisemitism.
Mandating untested vaccines.
Suppressing free speech.
Politicizing the legal system.
Defunding police.
Subsidizing inefficient tech.
Government overreach.
Ban gas cars, stoves.
Ignoring terrorist killings.
Withholding aid to allies.
Weak Iran sanctions.
Removing terrorists from lists.
Concealing President’s health.
Ignoring poor public health.
Overusing vaccines on children.
Pharma immunity on vaccines.
Discouraging minority success.
Inadequate candidate security.
Blocking third-party candidates.
Undemocratic Democratic nominee process.
Selecting weak candidates.
Opposing voter ID laws.
Ackman also attacked Democrats for using “a backroom process by undisclosed party leaders” to select Vice President Kamala Harris instead of giving Americans the opportunity to elect a new candidate to replace President Joe Biden on the ballot.
He concluded by calling Harris an “inferior candidate” before stating “Americans lost confidence in the accuracy and trustworthiness of our voting system” as a result of laws preventing voter ID.
“I welcome your thoughts,” Ackman wrote at the end of his list of grievances.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.