GETTING THE POINT

Why the all-fired rush to enforce vaccinations?

Dave Randle

The short, and encouraging, answer is that the jig is up. More and more people are getting wise to the fake science that has maintained the cash cow delivering millions to dishonest pharmaceutical racketeers for decades.

It’s clearly not in the interests of public health.

If the things worked, the vaccinated would be at no risk from the unvaccinated, so would be able to pass through them or play among them with confidence and self-satisfaction. But no, says Pharma, the unvaccinated are putting the vaccinated at risk. Ergo their products don’t do what they are claimed to do.

Once upon a time, there was, perhaps, a sort of logic to introducing something into a body in order to stimulate the production of antibodies that would proof the organism against an existing or possible threat. Now actual science knows better.

There are two ways to proof your child against childhood diseases. The first is to wait for an hour or so after birth before cutting or clamping the umbilical cord, so that the baby can download its mother’s immunity, especially if breastfeeding is not going to follow. And the other one is to let them catch them.

The worst thing you can do is pump them full of chemicals and bits of monkeys, pigs and human foetuses.

In the real world, the immune system does what it can to get the injected crud out of the organism, including by what is  known as viral shedding, in which the toxins are exuded through the skin, posing a greater risk of infection to others.

Even a healthy immune system has a hard job dealing with lead, mercury and other  ‘adjuvants’ added to force the product past it.

As ever increasing numbers get hip to the fraud and propaganda that enables more than half of their products to be used off-label - i.e. for other ‘conditions’ that they were never intended for - many of which were approved on the basis of made up reports in the first place, Pharma and its shareholders are undoubtedly getting a bit twitchy.

So they’re ramping up the assault with the collusion of legislators, eugenicist population loonies, bought and paid for politicos and gullible victims.

These people have been sticking it to us for long enough, already.

The organism that is Planet Earth needs to develop a healthy immune system that will ultimately rid it of the cancer in its midst.

MOTORING: 

TRUMPED UP CHARGES

Dave Randle

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a lover of electric cars, either in principle or practice.

I’m old enough to remember milk floats and trolleybuses, both of which worked remarkably well in their dedicated urban environments, despite technology and infrastructure that was antedeluvian compared to today’s possibilities.

And I’ve driven Teslas and experienced the gods’ quantities of torque and acceleration on offer.

Trolley buses picked up their electricity from overhead cables. Milk floats returned to base at the end of the round and charged their batteries overnight.

But private cars don’t follow a fixed route or a daily routine. You might need yours to collect a takeaway or rush to the side of relatives across the country. How long will you have to wait for the thing to charge up sufficiently? And will the infrastructure exist on Dartmoor, the Lake District or the Highlands to get home again.

I don’t know about you, but the prospect of stopping even for half an hour at a time in today’s mostly ghastly and poisonous motorway service stations appeals to me not at all.

For all that - and regardless of my personal feelings - I feel it is right to get the situation with regard to the purported cleanliness and ‘zero emission’ claims for electric vehicles into proportion.

There has been a lot of comment on and sharing of the conclusions of Munich’s Department of Economic Research study that electric vehicles are more polluting than diesels. These results do not seem to be based on like for like.

The research takes into account the fossil fuels that produce most of the energy used to recharge electric cars, the toxicity of battery production and chemicals, and the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, in all cases set against the emission of CO2, which is not actually a pollutant, but the gas that feeds plants and thereby provides the oxygen people and animals need to survive.

The diesels on the other hand are reckoned only on emissions of CO2 from the cars themselves in use. But they, too, must be manufactured using power from coal fired power stations, their workforce has to drive to and from work, the paint shops, body presses, plastic formers and robots are also part of the entire environmental picture.

The greatest single diesel pollution event was engendered by legislators when huge numbers of cars with much of their useful life before them were prematurely scrapped, completely unbalancing the equation between manufacture and return and causing a spike in the inevitable emissions from destruction.

What the effects on the atmosphere of scrapping a Tesla and its batteries might be, I leave to your imagination.

What this study should have been based on is actual pollutants - hydrocarbons and electricity itself. We are ever more surrounded by electrical devices, wifi, ‘smart’ meters, microwaves, 5G - even common or garden electricity arcs through our lives - behold the flashes along the tunnel when the tube train is coming.

Ignored by the medical profession, power companies and regulators, electricity is a much more serious pollutant than carbon dioxide, and implicated in numerous health problems currently (pun intended) suppressed by drugs.

The Munich study is not a ‘science bombshell’ as some are claiming. The conclusion may well be correct, but too much of the ‘science’ is missing.

SUPERFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Dave Randle

Putting a lower case ‘i’ in front of something or labelling it as ‘smart’ doesn’t really denote the presence of actual intelligence.

That commodity isn’t limited to the shuffling of figures and data of which the contraption might be capable. It involves perception, consciousness, evaluation and understanding.

No machine is capable of any of these human attributes. If it ever seems to be, it is because we are endowing it with our own characteristics.

It is generally easier to recognise this in the written word than in voice synthesisers, satnavs, automated telephone messages and the frightful Alexa, in which we anthropomorphise anything that speaks our language.

I was on a car launch on which the route had been fed into satnavs. Although ours was triggered by the various road going stimuli which would normally cause it to say useful satnavvy things such as ‘turn half left,’ ‘follow the road,’ or ‘leave by the exit’, it said total non-sequiturs such as ‘The Quartermaster’s sergeant will accept delivery.’

Our own satnav has been updated a number of times since a new estate was built, but still doesn’t ‘know’ it’s there. A self driving, so called autonomous, car would have to be overridden by anyone living there who wanted to go home.

Such cars are not autonomous of course. The proprietor has merely abandoned his own autonomy to a programmer who has never driven in that place at that specific time.

The nearest analogy would be a headless cockroach, which continues to obey the last command given before it lost its head until it finally runs out of fuel.

In the course of a day’s real world driving, a person can spot when a child, a dog or a deer might run into the road. He or she can make allowances for foreign registered left hand drive lorries and cars, can make way for ambulances and other emergency vehicles, negotiate cyclists and motorcyclists, funeral cortèges, tractors, buggies, hedge-cutters and roadworks. His or her modern car might be bristling with sensors and processors, but the only awareness or intelligence present resides with the person.

He or she is able to perceive a problem right then in the present and conceive a solution to it. The machine can only respond to exigencies already programmed into it.

The same goes for ‘diagnostic’ machines, which electronically ‘pick a card’ from an available menu, where once a skilled doctor would use his or her experience.

Computers are great at a lot of things. Their main advantage is their variability. Where once Henry Ford had lines of identical black Model Ts coming off the production line, now different models can be programmed to come off the same line, one after the other, left or right hand drive, petrol or diesel, with just-in-time supply chains and stock control all communicating with each other. Robots can be trained by technicians to repeat certain tasks ad infinitum, until the last skilled trainers are gone.

But a lot of the impetus to do away with intelligence and humanity has to do with self-appointed people playing god. All around us are comic books, movies and TV shows showing weakly humans being terrorised by idiot machines, yet we seem to bow down before them and consent to being dumbed further down and made increasingly irrelevant in our own scheme of things.

The size of a brain is not a measure of intelligence. The brain is a router that passes stuff one way or the other, but it doesn’t need to know what it is.

People say things like ‘my brain is telling me’ this, that or the other. What they mean is they are telling themselves what they already know but going around the houses to do it.

So called ‘artificial intelligence’ is nothing more than sleight of hand. There is no intelligence in the true sense of the word. Just a superficial illusion of some other ‘entity’ than can be blamed.

CLIMATE OF FEAR

Dave Randle

Climate Change: The Facts (BBC1)

I’m always suspicious of ‘facts’.

A fact is a sort of congealed opinion; a conclusion designed to prevent further consideration or discussion.

If the purveyor of the fact feels the need to reinforce it with ‘science proves’ or ‘thousands of scientists all over the world say’ there is even more cause for suspicion. All these imagined authoritative entities are summoned to overwhelm and outrank you.

Mr Attenborough has plenty of authority all by himself. He tells people all sorts of stuff and adoring millions of them believe it without question. He’s even convinced half of his audience that there are too many of them and humanity should be culled to save the ‘natural world’

.

While we’re being ironic, without climate change, there would be no life on Earth.

The climate was changing long before the arrival of television - a medium specialising in illusion - and also long before there was machinery to monitor and record it.

‘Climate scientists’ didn’t exist until there was machinery to tell them what to find and what to conclude, so their ‘we’re all doomed’ prognostications are based on their subjugation to algorithms and digits, themselves based on little more than a century of records and projected into a future in which a billion possible variables are ignored.

The advent of television means that people all over the world can witness hurricanes, natural disasters, plagues and famines right there on the screen. The absence of mass media in previous eras doesn’t mean they weren’t occurring. Charles Fort’s ‘Book of the Damned’ catalogues numerous examples from previous centuries culled from local newspaper reports, and there was even a time before newspapers.

Tectonic plates have been dispersing across the planet surface for donkeys’ years, and the ice has been freezing and melting in cycles

.

Water is unusual in expanding when it turns from liquid to solid state - i.e. freezes. So, by my reckoning, if coastal ice melts, its volume will reduce and the coastline it was forming will recede, so the effect on global sea levels should be minimal. It will have gained some liquid water, but lost the weight of the iceberg. But, of course, I’m not a climate scientist.

Although any mention of the term intelligent design would cause his hair to stand on end, the great puppet master bandies others like ‘eco-system’ and ‘Mother Nature’ about like others of the Darwinian faith.

An eco-system is not merely a combination of scientific nomenclatures, but all life working toward persistence. There are already reported signs of brown areas of the planet ‘greening up’ to take advantage of the ready supply of CO2.

It was notable from this production that most of the climate science types believe that a stick rather than a carrot is the way to herd us cats. Penalise the punter for buying a super economical diesel and get him to stump up for an uncertain electric thing that charges up with power generated from fossil fuels.

The power industry is there to be an industry. That’s why nobody listened to Nikola Tesla.

A science that is ‘settled’ is a dead science or no science at all. When a science becomes an industry, it does so to serve itself, as in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, whose science was ‘settled’ before anyone found out about the immune system. They promised salvation and delivered ‘scientific’ crimes against humanity and life in general.

But the poison industries are already starting to feel it where it hurts and more people are communicating with each other across national and political boundaries than ever before. As this goes forward, the grip of the propagandist mainstream media loosens and peace might even eventually break out.

We must work for more understanding and become better custodians of our planet, but we can certainly achieve that without the doom and gloom and hogwash.

LEARNING LANES

Until now, just about all of the people driving on British motorways have not been specifically trained for the purpose. As of now, the plan is that ‘learners’ will be allowed access to the motorway system, so their first venture down a sliproad won’t be a journey into the unknown.

Interest groups have been campaigning for this for decades, so the decision must be good news, mustn’t it?

I’m not so sure.

There’s a hell of a lot of theory involved in getting a licence to drive these days. Theory is all very well in theory, but believing what should occur theoretically is the quickest way to wind up in the soup.

A woman in a white Kia ahead of me on the M25 yesterday knew the theory of mirror, signal, manoeuvre, but she didn’t know the law of physics that says two white Kias cannot occupy the same space, so almost collided with the one passing her at  the time.

Another one in a Honda Jazz doggedly held on to the inside lane despite the fact that a homicidal lunatic in an articulated low loader was driving less than a car length behind her.

A bloke in a Toyota Land Cruiser simply stopped dead in front of me on the M20 slip road. A BMW made all its lane changes at forty-five degrees to the carriagway and a self-righteous dolt in a Mondeo cut across me to prove that I have no right to decide which lane to be in, before braking sharply to avoid running up the back of the lorry the rest of us knew was there.

Somebody told him you should always hew to the left hand lane and return to it as soon as you have passed something slower moving. This is largely nonsensical, and also dangerous.

The principle of motorways and dual carriageways is that everything is oriented in the same direction. If everyone is going forward at a similar rate, nothing too serious can occur.

But, if someone stops and those behind him or her have not left sufficient reaction space, the principle falls down.

And it doesn’t apply at all in lane changing, when the vehicle is moving at an angle to the direction of flow, and this is by far the most potentially dangerous factor in motorway driving.

Which is why you should keep lane changes to a minimum. If you can see that you will need to come out to pass another lorry a few hundred yards ahead, stay where you are until you can safely move back into the left hand lane and stay there.

It’s also why lane changing should be gradual, keeping the vehicle as close to the straight-ahead as possible, so that you flow with the traffic and maintain your space on the road.

It seems to have eluded the self-righteous that all the vehicles on the motorway at any one time will not fit in a single lane. That’s why the roads have several of them.

As it is, the nearside lane gets by far the most punishment because it is full of lorries.

If there are general rules for safety and good order, they are:

1. If a police car, an ambulance or a Belgian is coming up behind you at high velocity, get out of their way. If there’s no one anywhere behind you and the left lane is full of lorries, pick a lane you like and use that one.

2. Don’t leave it too late to overtake. If you know you’re going to have to do it, do it smoothly and early, and allow for those who habitually do leave it too late, so you can let them out or move out to another lane until they have passed and you can safely return.

It’s also no help to anyone if you’re in the nearside lane at a junction. Where the cost is justified, the Highways people designate the nearside lane as a sliproad extension. That’s because it’s a good idea and helps keep the flow going. If everyone who isn’t getting off moves out to lane two until both the off and on sliproads are cleared, it is best for all.

Yes, it’s important that drivers should experience the workings of motorways, but I would suggest that someone already experienced should take them out the first few times, so they can see the reality of what can happen, rather than someone’s theory of what should.

NHS Crisis: Patients is a Virtue

Every investigation into Britain’s embattled National Health Service asks us individually how much we have ‘cost’ the service from the cradle to the grave situation it now finds itself in.

Nobody seems to find this odd.

I don’t see any shock horror probes into how much tourists are costing the travel industry. When a tour operator collapses it blames everything from the value of the zloty to acts of God, but I never yet heard one blame its customers.

Customers are as much the life-blood of the NHS as they are in any other enterprise. The responsibility of the health service is to deliver what it promised. Any failure to do that is not, by any stretch of the imagination,  the fault of those customers.

No enterprise could have been more successful in amassing a customer base. Who else started out offering magic chemical cures for everything? Who else was legally allowed to?

Stuffed surgeries the length and breadth of the country and mammoth hospitals buzzing with high-tech machinery are testaments to the popularity of the product.

The system should never have been a drain on anyone’s resources. It was never ‘free’ as is often suggested. It was financed by contributions taken from every employed person. In other words, it depended as much on ‘health insurance’ as any private scheme

.

It wasn’t smokers or people who eat junk food who placed an excessive burden upon the service. As a service it was constituted to treat all alike. If it didn’t do that, it became something else, some kind of branch of eugenics, in which the smokers who had worked and paid their dues all their lives were left to die on a gurney somewhere while their contributions were used to improve the quality of life of out of work actresses.

At the same time, the medico-pharmaceutical fraternity for whom the system was the real cash cow relentlessly promoted products and procedures that would attract more customers than the NHS could reasonably be expected to service - people with wants rather than needs.

The situation was further exacerbated by taking on legions of ‘managers’ who cost more money and delivered none of the services the punters needed or wanted.

Unlike the visionaries who imagined the whole thing into existence, successions of mediocrities, in parliament and within the edifice itself, tinkered and bodged and finally broke the golden thread between the vision and the reality.

The only people who really ‘got’ what a bonanza there was for the taking were the medical equipment suppliers and big Pharma.

Here was the single largest and ever-growing market for their regularly questionable, frequently useless, and all too commonly dangerous products. A single negotiating authority could provide the whole network to them and that authority had no commercial basis or interest in protecting the funds it was lavishing. As a result, it seems, its negotiators never pulled the drug barons aside and said, ‘I’m delivering you the means to supranational wealth beyond imagining; the biggest and fastest gravy train you could possibly conceive of; not just all these hospitals, but a direct line to brainwash all our doctors and students into the belief that what you cook up in your cauldrons is doing anybody any good - any chance of a bit of a discount?’

If there is a real challenge to the future of the NHS, it comes from a combination of lack of will, lack of vision, the lack of a contracted working population to pay the health insurance and the underlying corruption that has seen it transformed from a health service, serving its intended customers to a marketing wing of the ‘keep them sick and keep them coming’ pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries.

The visionaries who founded it didn’t see that one coming. It would never have occurred to them that the very patients it was designed for would, in some dystopic future, be held up as a justification for selling it out to the parasites who have sucked it dry.

BBC WILDLIFE MAKING A PIG'S EAR OUT OF PALEONTOLOGY

Tempus fugit, and not always in a good way.

When I wrote Blinded with Science, I thought most of the depths of scientific hogwash had been plumbed. But, until its present re-run on BBC2, I had been spared one of the most blatant packs of palaeontological porkies ever assembled for the bamboozlement of Big Science’s adoring and devout congregations: the excruciatingly idiotic Planet Dinosaur.

Like many other young folk, I was knee-high to a micropachycephalosaurus when I fell under the spell of the reptilian leviathans who allegedly ruled this planet in the Mesozoic era.

If you want to capture young minds and indoctrinate them into bogus dogma, dinosaurs are the way to go, and this thing goes there big time.

Using mediocre CGi animations and frequent repetitions of the word ‘incredible’, this infantile confection of grisly set-ups and speculation pits ever more ludicrously named reptilians against each other to the accompaniment of various grunts and squawks, while the voice-over merchant describes the action in the present tense to try and reinforce the delusion that it ever happened in the past.

In the only episode I ever want to have seen, new discoveries are purported to have strengthened the shaky, if not structurally unsafe, proposition that these superannuated lizards evolved into modern birds. If evolution in the Darwinian sense ever occurred at all, this transformation would require a staggering number of coordinated skeletal and muscular upheavals, during which the changeling would not be much good for anything other than fast food.

We are told that some of the newly-discovered fossil dinosaurs came complete with feathers. Birds have feathers, so that makes them part-bird, apparently. Tarantulas have hair, so I guess that makes them part-human.

The narration goes on to report that the favoured dinos used their bonus plumage for one of two reasons, the main one being to ‘keep warm’.

Unless some other scientific sleight of hand has deceived the eye, dinosaurs, if they were dinosaurs, as in reptiles, would have been cold-blooded - i.e., they would gain whatever heat they had from the environment. So there was no warm to ‘keep’. Feathers would have had the opposite effect, and might well have been useful rather in protecting the wearer from intense heat - dissipating it in the manner of modern day lizards, who hold one leg at a time in the air as a heat-exchanger in desert conditions.

The second reported use was to shake a tail feather at some cretacean cutie with a view to intimacy.

T-Rexes and allosauri must, we imagine, have got it together from time to time, but it’s not easy to picture quite that degree of delicacy playing a big part in their amorous encounters, especially as anything that stays still for any length of time on Planet D seems to become a ready meal for something bigger and even uglier.

The only real educational value of this digital débacle is to demonstrate the process of finding a few bits of bone (and the occasional feather), creating a fiction for it, assigning it a dog Graeco-Latin taxonomy based on a minor aspect of its appearance, and then insisting that it lives up to its new name in thought and deed, that constitutes the cutting edge of learnèd classification.

Otherwise, such cynical rubbish is not just doing prehistory a disservice; it has the more sinister purpose of trying to confer omniscience on a science in its infancy.

I watched to the end in the vain hope that a porkypigosaurus would come on and squawk: ‘Th-th-that’s all folks.’

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository