i believe every word she says Plandemic
metmike: Appears to be a previously brilliant scientist that went off the deep end. She just says so many things that make no sense for me to find her credible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits
Judy Anne Mikovits (born 1957 or 1958) is a former American research scientist[2][3][10][11][12] who is known for her discredited medical claims, such as that murine endogenous retroviruses are linked to chronic fatigue syndrome. She has been described as an anti-vaccination activist[12][13] and a promoter of conspiracy theories, and has been accused of scientific misconduct.[6][7][8][9] She has made several false claims about vaccines, COVID-19, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
Hi metmike,
thank you for the link with the rebuttals.
When I first watched her video, she appeared to me as a person who has a vendetta against her former employer (Dr Fauci), for being fired. However, as I watched more of it, like 12345, I accepted her as a credible expert.
The fact that youtube removed the video, gave her extra credibility. Whenever youtube removes a video, I always think "oh oh, that video is talking about something that goes against the "partyline", something they don't want us to find out"
The rebuttal you linked, is obviously not coming from the Ministry of Propaganda, but from other scientists, and I have to sit back and listen. For a layperson, this sometimes causes confusion and doubt, and we sometimes don't know who to believe.
On some subjects, she seems to be defeated, on others not.
For example, take that last subject,,
"....Mikovits: Why would you close the beach? You’ve got sequences in the soil, in the sand. You’ve got healing microbes in the ocean in the salt water. That’s insanity.
Response: It’s not clear what Mikovits means by sand or soil “sequences.” There is no evidence that microbes in the ocean can heal COVID-19 patients.,..."
My comment: From my skin-diving years I know, when you cut yourself on a coral, you better run to the doctor in a hurry... there are some nasty bacteria lurking in the ocean.
On the other hand, this comment reminded me of the 2 doctors from California (whose interview was also deleted from youtube), who stated that coming in contact with bacteria and viruses is essential for the human body to build a healthy immune system. I believe, this is exactly what Dr Mikovits was trying to say.... not as a cure for Covid19, but as a general principle... and this is why so many doctors are against the lockdowns.
On the subject of Climate Change, if I remember correctly, you were asked about the many scientists who preach the ":climate emergency" mantra, and you responded that there is big money in this area, money that convinces many scientists to scew their research a bit to fit the party line
From the recent disclosure about the huge donations/investments into the vaccine business by Bill Gates, it seems to me that we can expect an avalanche of false statements coming from "experts" in the virus business.
I have come to the conclusion... I want to have an open mind... be suspicious of everything I hear or read. especially when the MSM is involved... be very interested in whatever gets removed from youtube, twitter,... don't trust "fact checkers"., most of them have an agenda... etc.
Gunter,
The average person is going to have a very difficult time deciding who is saying valid things and who is saying whacko things. The valid things can sometimes sound whacko and whacko things can sometimes be presented to be valid.
Even an expert in the field can weed thru the technical stuff and sometimes recognize an element that rings true in a way they never thought about before...........or that they realize could not make sense in the scientific world and the person is probably a fraud.
With climate change, I think its completely different because the politics and dynamics are so different than some of this medical stuff, especially related to the coronavirus.
There is a 100% chance that the United Nations is politically motivated by its positions related to climate change. This has caused them to represent fraudulent climate science.
The WHO is run by the United Nations and at the very least, influenced by the UN's political position on climate change.
I have not followed the WHO for more than the last few months to know how much this has been causing them to act in fraudulent ways. For sure, it's causing them to predict a great loss of life because of climate change.............when climate change is SAVING and EXTENDING lives based on the real science.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/21/climate-change-and-a-pandemic-of-lies/
"THE health establishment was looking away when the coronavirus struck; it had other priorities. If you look at the World Health Organisation’s list of health threats, number one is climate change. Pandemics were down in third place, behind ‘non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes and obesity.
Wherever you look, you will find some of the biggest names in the public health establishment declaiming on the risks of climate change to world health. On the eve of the outbreak, the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene declared that we would be seeing ‘mass migration, emerging infectious diseases such as dengue and a shortage of food’. As the first people fell ill in Wuhan, the WHO announced that in ten years we would be seeing 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress as a result of global warming. Epidemiologist Professor Andy Haines told readers of the Telegraph that ‘climate change is a threat to global and national security that is costing lives and livelihoods right now’."
I left this comment:
"It says there are ‘downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops"
But its the opposite in reality. Technology has added potential but the benefits from increasing CO2 and climate change are INCREASING potential.
You can site all the bs peer review papers that use biased input and models to try to show the opposite but as a meteorologist that predicts crop yields for a living in order to determine the supply side and price of commodities like corn, soybeans and wheat, I live in the real world.............that takes your money away for being wrong.
If we went back to the "old climate" from a century ago and dropped atmospheric CO2 back to those levels and cooling the planet by 1 deg. C, while leaving all things the same, it's likely that crop yields and world food production would plunge 30%.
Within 3 years, potentially 1 billion people would starve to death and food prices would triple in order to ration supplies.
The good news is that continuing this climate change and increase in CO2 is still ADDING to potential.
The United Nations has been wrong for 30 years about this. The law of photosynthesis has not been repealed. The authentic scientific definition of this climate optimum has not changed even if the political definition of this time frame is the one that people know the best.............(fake) "climate crisis".
Climate Reality discussions
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
One only needs to show the most comprehensive study on climate and health out yet to prove this point:
Health and climate changeExecutive summary
Climate change underpins all the social and environmental determinants of health but also has positive implications. The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is an international, multi-disciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions following on from the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, which emphasized that the response to climate change could be “the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century”.
https://www.thelancet.com/climate-and-health
The Lancet on Climate Change: The need for context Indur M. Goklany
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/LancetCountdown-1.pdf
metmike: This graph shows us data from this extensive study. Climate related deaths and non climate related deaths from 1990 to 2017. There are 2 main things to note:
1. Climate related deaths are a small fraction of non climate related deaths.
2. Climate related deaths have dropped 50% over the last 3 decades.
If you also dial in the massive increase in food from atmospheric fertilization from beneficial CO2 and the continuation of the slow beneficial warming on this greening planet, you clearly have a climate OPTIMUM not a crisis.
I am just telling you what the data and authentic science is. Anybody that says something different than this is either ignorant of the authentic science or lying. ......that includes any brilliant scientists with numerous degrees.
.png)
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/52100/
OK, I found this report from the WHO from 2018:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
They state:
Measuring the health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, and assuming continued economic growth and health progress, concluded that climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050; 38 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48 000 due to diarrhoea, 60 000 due to malaria, and 95 000 due to childhood undernutrition.
All populations will be affected by climate change, but some are more vulnerable than others. People living in small island developing states and other coastal regions, megacities, and mountainous and polar regions are particularly vulnerable.
Children – in particular, children living in poor countries – are among the most vulnerable to the resulting health risks and will be exposed longer to the health consequences. The health effects are also expected to be more severe for elderly people and people with infirmities or pre-existing medical conditions.
Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond"
metmike: It's mind boggling that their predictions for over 3 decades are always for massive loss of life............from the current climate optimum. Somehow, the massive increase in world food production, not in spite of but in a large part because of the increase in CO2 and climate change(30% responsible from those 2 factors) just never computes.
I can see increased heat expose(though its the coldest places in the coldest times of year that are warming the most and the amount of additional heat in the tropics is small compared to individual, natural weather driven heat waves).
I can definately see the increase in flooding. An increase in 1 deg. C is allowing the atmosphere to hold around 6% more moisture. That one is valid.
The threat to coastal regions based on an increase in sea levels of just over 1 inch/decade? This is 1 foot in 100 years. We keep hearing numbers like 5 feet to 25 feet in the next century. How about we get to 2 inches/decade before we even entertain the possibility of what looks like a very low risk based on whats actually happened the past 40 years...........which have been the best 40 years of weather/climate in at least the last 1,000 years.
So the WHO is obviously parroting the UN on this stuff.
This is what the UN has been telling us since the 1980's. Can anybody tell me about one thing they were right about(other than the flooding/heavier rains).
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
If not for this complete lack of credibility and blatant corruption/lies with regards to climate change in order to push their political agenda to impose global socialism, I would be a huge fan in the corner of the United Nations and the WHO.
They do alot of really good things to help poor people on the planet. Their mission here is actually to help poor people.
I am very much in favor of helping poor people but not by tricking people by lying to them and by hijacking my field weather/climate and by teaching them junk science and scaring the crap out of them to get them to act.
And by violating their rights and freedom to choose based on the truth and authentic facts. If somebody tells me that if I don't do what they tell me to, my grandkids will die or tells my grandkids they and the planet will die in 10 years unless their parents act a certain way, if they are lying about it, I don't care how important their cause is, they are violating me and violating my children and grandchildren with those lies.
If they are completely honest and tell me that rich countries need to give much more money and resources to poor countries. I will respect that and support them.
As an environmentalist, if they tell me that we need to consume less natural resources and pollute less, I will respect and support them.
Of course they want to go to such an extreme, eliminating cheap, efficient, reliable and power packed fossil fuels that we MUST HAVE in order to maintain even a semblence of the quality in our lives, that they know very few would support.............so they have to create a fake climate crisis to sell everything and scare my children and grandchildren into thinking there is an apocalypse on the way unless we all do exactly what they say........which not only obliterate our economy permanently but give them complete control as one world order led by the United Nations.........telling us what we can do and what we can't do.
So instead of me complimenting the many good things they do for the poor, I feel compelled to expose their scheme which is being imposed thru the Climate Accord.
The commitments in the accord will do nothing for the climate. Note that China, as a poor country in the accord, RECEIVES our money and does not need to commit to cuts in emissions. They emit twice the CO2 as the US and any other country.
Same with India........they get money, they increase CO2 at the same time....because they are poor..........the Accord defines them as a developing country so they get the benefits. The developed countries pay the entire price, CO2 cuts +climate reparations.
But look who Greta is suing(not China or India, the top emitters and increasers)
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
"Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and 15 other children filed a complaint with the United Nations Monday alleging that five of the world's major economies have violated their human rights by not taking adequate action to stop the unfolding climate crisis."
"The petition names five countries -- Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey -- which they say have failed to uphold their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 30-year-old human rights treaty which is the most widely ratified in history."
"In their filing, the children -- who hail from 12 different nations -- detail how they say their human rights have been violated.
They charge that the countries have not used their resources "to prevent the deadly and foreseeable consequences" of the current climate crisis, or cooperated effectively with other nations to address the problem."
"The United States -- which has contributed more global warming-inducing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any other country(metmike: in the past, China emits almost twice what we do now) -- cannot be held in violation because it has not ratified the part of the treaty that allows children to seek justice for potential violations.
And China, which currently emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, has also not signed onto that portion of the treaty. "
metmike: Funny bs explanation by CNN. The US backed out and it's not exactly true that China has not signed onto that portion of the treaty.............China, by definition in the Accord is a developing country. Developing countries CAN'T be held liable because they are not held to the same commitments as developed countries. Developing countries get money/reparations from developed countries and are allowed to INCREASE their CO2, even if its much more than others cut.
The Climate Accord is not designed to lower global CO2 its designed to redistribute global CO2 emissions and wealth...........from the rich to the poor. Global socialism. That is its only objective.
Even if they were right about there being a climate crisis, the Climate Accord is not designed to fix that, its designed to fix the imbalance in world wealth/resources.
https://www.masterresource.org/paris-climate-agreement/paris-developing-nations-no-obligation/
“China and India don’t have to take any steps with CO2 [carbon dioxide] reductions until the year 2030.”
"In fact, developing countries never have to make emission cuts."
"Under article 9.3 of the Paris Agreement, developed countries are to continue to take the lead in mobilising climate finances from a variety of sources, including both public and private, and to allocate US$100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020 with a commitment for further finances by 2025, taking into consideration the needs and priorities of developing countries. While this is certainly a positive element in the Agreement, the lack of binding requirements on individual countries can be a possible cause for unfulfilled commitments. It is feared that the term “mobilise” has been intentionally kept broad and may include funds that come with strings attached. Similarly, there has even been talk of calling the money sent home by migrants working in richer countries a form of climate finance. Developing countries’ expectation is that these commitments will be fulfilled fully and faithfully. They remain convinced that developed countries have taken note of the need for assistance to developing countries for the common good, and will meet their commitments in the coming years."
metmike: Greta is suing DEVELOPED countries for not giving their money.