More on masking; climate context; war and patterns in repeat?; Fabians at work; funding death; a prayer for healing; The Agenda: Their vision | Your Future
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
This month’s updates are below.
I had planned to post this next weekend, but, given that some of the issues are very much related to current events, I thought it better to publish sooner rather than later.
As ever, a warm welcome to new subscribers, many thanks to readers sharing articles — and thank you to everyone for reading. -
I had planned to post this next weekend, but, given that some of the issues are very much related to current events, I thought it better to publish sooner rather than later.
As ever, a warm welcome to new subscribers, many thanks to readers sharing articles — and thank you to everyone for reading.
It’s worth bearing in mind what happened at the official UK Covid Inquiry as discussed by UsForThemhere:
In one of the most jaw-dropping interjections of the inquiry to date, Baroness Hallett revealed a prejudgement that if masking people could have had even the slightest of benefits, and seemingly without even contemplating that risks and known harms might need to be weighed too, she pressed Sir Peter Horby, an esteemed epidemiologist at Oxford University, who had indicated that he believed universal masking was not a straightforward decision: “I’m sorry, I’m not following, Sir Peter. If there’s a possible benefit, what’s the downside?” (Emphasis added)
As the authors note:
Coming from the independent Chair of a public inquiry, this is an astonishing comment. It betrays a presumption, or at the very least a predisposition, to accept that it was better to act than not to act — the reverse of the precautionary principle. When a comment such as this, from the Chair of the Inquiry, goes unchallenged, it risks anchoring the entire frame of reference for the inquiry’s interrogation of this critical topic. In our view it was a surprising and serious error of judgement for an experienced Court of Appeal judge.
There is a stark contrast between Baroness Hallett’s comments at an official inquiry costing UK taxpayers many millions of pounds, and the carefully considered and empathetic approach of a film — Masking Humanity — financed by volunteers.
An article in The Carer
On a related note, I was interested to see that Dr Gary Sidley has had a piece published in The Carer — which describes itself as “an informative free-to-sector advertising-driven publication for the independent Nursing and Residential Care Homes sector throughout England and Wales”.
…I thought it worth highlighting two articles from The Daily Sceptic from last year. Both concern the quality of the data being used.
[1] Junk temperature measurements and tampering with historic data
In Climate: The Movie, William Happer, the former physics professor at Princeton, describes the Central England Temperature (CET) record as a “world treasure” since it provides continuous recordings from 1659 – over 350 years. It shows a rise just over 1°C from the depths of the Little Ice Age to the present day. These days, the CET is under the control of the politicised Met Office, keen to catastrophise weather and climate in the interest of promoting Net Zero. Recent revisions have retrospectively cooled the near past and boosted readings from the last 20 years. In addition, the Daily Sceptic can reveal that two of the three measuring stations currently used to add to this scientific treasure are taken from near-junk class 4 sites that come with official ‘uncertainties’ of up to 2°C…
And:
But if adding near-junk figures to the collection is not bad enough, the investigative science writer Paul Homewood last year discovered considerable tampering in 2022 with the recent CET record. He initially found that in version one, the summer of 1995 had been 0.1°C warmer than 2018. In version 2, the two years swapped places with 1995 cooled by 0.07°C and 2018 warmed by 0.13°C. Alerted to these changes, Homewood then analysed the full record from version 1 to 2, and the graph below shows what he found.
As can be seen, the adjustments up to 1970 are small with ups and downs offsetting each other. Homewood then found that the years from 1970 to 2003 had been cooled markedly, followed by significant rises to 2022. Homewood concludes that “unfortunately it is part of a much wider tampering with temperature globally – and the tampering is always one way, cooling the past and heating the present”. Given that we now know that the Met Office has been using [near-junk] class 4 statistics for two thirds of its database since 2006, the recent higher adjustments would seem to call for clarifying explanations from the state-funded Met Office.
And then from around this time last year:
[2] Urban Heat Effects
The Met Office’s ridiculous claim that the U.K. had experienced its hottest ever May and spring provides further devastating proof that its temperature measuring operation is hopelessly corrupted by unnatural urban heat distortions. Maximum temperature in the three-month spring, likely to be set during the day, was only the fifth highest since 2011, but the minimum figure was an astonishing 11% higher than any previously recorded figure. One known feature of urban heat is that human-built structures release considerable warmth during the night and can warm cities and towns by surprisingly large amounts. The European weather service Copernicus has suggested that urban night temperatures can be up to 10°C higher than surrounding rural areas.
There is further detail in the article, including a summary of the state of the Met Office’s network of 380 UK weather stations, which are described as:
…unfit for the purpose of providing an accurate air temperature average. This is because nearly eight out of 10 of the stations are so poorly sited that they attract ‘uncertainties’ set by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) of between 2-5°C. Nearly one third of the stations are rated Class 5, a junk rating where compromising structures could add an ‘uncertainty ‘of 5°C.
Here is the profile of the stations:
The article later notes that:
Since March, the Met Office has failed to return calls from the Daily Sceptic. It has made no public statement about the growing public and social media cynicism about its Net Zero promoting figures…
That is consistent with my own experience. On the few occasions I have asked the Met Office a climate-related question, I have had no response other than a perfunctory “Thank you for your query” or similar.
…I was interested to see this this article from former consultant surgeon Doc Ahmad Malik, who has interviewed over 300 guests on a wide variety of topics:
Here is his summary of several key military events, which happened at least 20-25 years apart, i.e. long enough for most people to have forgotten the previous one:
⚓ 1915 — Lusitania
Official story: A British passenger ship was sunk by a German U-boat, killing 1,198 people, including 128 Americans. Narrative use: Outrage in the US helped shift public opinion toward entering World War I. Controversy: The Lusitania was carrying munitions, making it a legitimate military target. Some argue British and American officials were aware of the risks but allowed the disaster to rally support. The result? America’s slow march toward war sped up.
🛩️ 1941 — Pearl Harbor
Official story: A surprise attack by Japan on the US naval base in Hawaii killed over 2,400 Americans. Narrative use: The attack crushed isolationist opposition and unified the country behind entering World War II. Controversy: Intelligence warnings were allegedly ignored or suppressed. What if Roosevelt’s administration not only had ample warnings, but deliberately provoked Japan? Allowed or enabled, the attack wiped out anti-war sentiment overnight.
⚓ 1964 — Gulf of Tonkin
Official story: North Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Narrative use: President Johnson used the event to push through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting him sweeping war powers in Vietnam. Controversy: Declassified documents and whistleblower accounts later confirmed the second attack never happened. It was a fabricated pretext. A lie. But it worked. Congress gave Johnson a blank cheque, and America plunged into a bloody, catastrophic war.
🏙️ 2001 — 9/11
Official story: Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked planes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Narrative use: Justified the launch of the War on Terror, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Controversy: There are too many questions to ignore. The implausibility of the towers collapsing due to fire, the mysterious collapse of Building 7, the missing plane at the Pentagon. How did a few men with minimal flight experience pull off such coordinated precision? Why did NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] stand down? Why the sudden rush to surveillance, endless war, and the Patriot Act?
And he wonders (like many others) how things will develop in relation to Iran:
And now?
The [military] machine still needs fuel. The appetite for war hasn’t gone…
The language is already in motion:
“Iran is destabilising the region”
“Iran is threatening our allies”
“Iran must be stopped”
Sound familiar?
And asks:
What will be the next pretext? Will it be a false flag blamed on Iran? A terror event on US soil? A cyberattack, a drone strike, a ship sunk in the Strait of Hormuz?
And when it comes, will people see it for what it is?
Or will they cheer again, just as they did in 2001, 1964, 1941, and 1915?
Here are the BBC News website articles on Iran in just the past couple of days at the time of writing — over 20 of them:
As to “Iran’s nuclear weapon”, I am reminded of “Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”. The Iranian Coup of 1953 also springs to mind, which, as it happens, was covered here in 2018 by the pre-Trusted News Initiative BBC:
In 1953 Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq was overthrown in a coup. It was billed as a popular uprising in support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, yet behind the scenes were the British and American intelligence services. Mossadeq had swept to power only two years earlier promising to nationalise Iran’s vast oil reserves, but this, along with an apparent Communist threat, worried the two western governments whose post-war economies relied heavily on access to Iranian oil. Rajan Datar discusses the coup with Iran scholar Ervand Abrahamian, professor of modern Iranian history at St Andrews University Ali Ansari and journalist and author Azadeh Moaveni. (Emphasis added)
It is also clear from the article that the previous Conservative government played a role in laying the groundwork for some of the agendas currently being advanced by Labour.
And on the subject of legislation…
Funding death
Assisted suicide: links and funding
Further to these posts and the House of Commons vote (earlier today at the time of finalising this article)…
…this article, which draws together “everything we know about the Assisted Dying Bill” is well worth a look:
Although it was typed quickly prior to the Third Reading of the Bill, it’s a useful summary of at least some of what has been going on beneath the radar.
Abortion: links and funding
And here is a similar article featuring “the deep pockets behind… abortion”:
An excerpt:
The diagram shows just two of the larger funders, Bill Gates (via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) in 2024 and Sir Chris Hohn (via the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation).
Irrespective of our position on the [votes] that we have just taken… we have to acknowledge that we have made a major change to abortion law, and yet that was on the basis of no evidence session, no committee stage scrutiny… just 46 minutes of backbench debate, and a government minister wind-up… who refused to take any interventions. And that’s when the chamber is full of one-line debates…
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Birth rates update
As to birth rates, here is an update on 2025 relative to 2024 (NB the Change column):
And here is some important context from pathologist Dr Clare Craig re England and Wales, where the conception rate in recent years is actually (slightly) higher now than in the late 1970s:
As I understand it, the UK government has not published data on abortion in 2023, let alone 2024. Here is a snapshot from the report for 2022:
Salami tactics
I am reminded of the interview with engineer Ivor Cummins featured in this post…
…and also of the notion of “salami tactics” that I first recall seeing explained in an episode of Yes Minister (short clip below; it’s more than 40 years old but well worth watching):
It’s not difficult to discern the pattern:
Abortions
Only in exceptional circumstances within the first 28 weeks… then any circumstances… then within the first 24 weeks (a step back)… now at any time…
Euthanasia
Only for the terminally ill who are suffering… then for the severely ill… then for the somewhat ill…
Here are snapshots from the Fourth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2022 (p20, p27, p31) (NB MAiD was introduced in 2016):
And of course salami tactics were used for the rollout of the so-called covid vaccines…
Only for the elderly and vulnerable… then the not-so-elderly… then the middle-aged… then younger adults… then teenagers… then children… then babies…
For anyone wanting inspiration for prayer in the context of injury from the covid injections, here is Laura Brett with a Covid Vaccine Healing & Deliverance Prayer:
The Agenda: Their Vision | Your Future
And finally, in terms of seeing the bigger picture, and further to this post on Agenda 2030…
I recommend watching — and sharing — the film The Agenda: Their Vision | Your Future:
A two-minute clip from towards the end of the film can be viewed here:1
I think [some] ideas have spread like bad viruses and there’s been a lot of investment in promoting some extraordinarily weak ideas.
Sitting at the top of all of these very bad ideas is one giant one which we can call anti-humanism…
Transhumanism… the trans phenomenon… Net Zero lockdowns… population reduction… All of these ideas are basically the ugly stepchildren of anti-humanism.
There are, as I read it, essentially two competing ideas in the world at the moment:
One is that humans are the best feature of the observable universe, the only creatures capable of creative thought and generativity and of creating explanations for how reality works. That humans ought to be revered and ought to be cherished. That we should plan for their flourishing… That human agency ought to be respected. That civil liberties ought to be respected and that the imposition of top-down one-size-fits-all policies on humanity is completely incompatible with that kind of worldview.
Set up against them are people who regard humans as the scum on the surface of the little blue dot. People who regard humanity as some kind of blight…
God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’
…God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
And the two very different destinies portrayed in the Bible:
![[SPCI-3] "Just from simple first principles, we can understand that these are really harmful measures that were implemented"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!rYPe!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4f5c69be-503b-4384-8f6c-c497c2d0b0b2_856x742.png)
