Updates (May 2025)
RFK Jr on child trafficking; Orwell on censorship; CO2 again; Adolescence and Netflix; Moderna and HIV; vaccine safety; "a road to death"; Angus Dalgleish on GB News; the WHO again; spiritual eyes
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
This month’s updates are below.
As ever, a warm welcome to new subscribers, much gratitude to readers sharing articles — and of course thanks to everyone for reading.
RFK Jr on child trafficking
Further to this recent post…
I noticed that Robert F Kennedy Jr also recently made this extraordinary comment re child trafficking (from 0:08-0:38, transcript below):
We have ended HHS [the United States Department of Health and Human Services, of which RFK Jr is secretary] as the… principal vector in this country for child trafficking. During the Biden administration, HHS became a collaborator in child trafficking for sex and for slavery. We have ended that, and we are very aggressively going out and trying to find these children… 300,000 children that were lost by the Biden administration…
Mindful of the Trusted News Initiative — headed by the BBC — I did a search1 on the BBC website for “child trafficking”. Here are all the results from 2025:
Orwell on censorship
Further to recent posts in the Media section of this Substack…
I was interested to read George Orwell’s proposed preface to Animal Farm. The book was first published in 1945, but what is written below apparently did not see the light of day until 1972.
A short section (emphasis added):
…The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
And that was written 80 years ago!
CO2 again
On the subject of Orwell, and in the context of posts such as these…
I was interested to see this data from the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory — and the commentary from Grok (an artificial intelligence chatbot developed by xAI):
The same trends can be observed at other stations, including Mauna Loa in Hawaii:
The chart on the left is what you get if you zoom in on the chart on the right, which covers the past 65 years, including 1974, when the Radio Times featured this striking cover:
As “Orwell2024” points out above, whatever else is happening to the climate, “shutting down the world in 2020” had essentially no effect on CO2 levels.
For a rather more sober, sensible and objective analysis than what we typically see in the mainstream media — along with some constructive suggestions — I recommend this article:
A sample:
If you have been led to believe that human-released CO2 – or other greenhouse gases such as methane – will ‘burn the planet’, then you are in stark disagreement with the evidence to be found in a broad swathe of the scientific literature, even that which originates from researchers aligned with the otherwise alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose pronouncements are overtly political. Look beyond the IPCC’s ‘summary for policymakers’ hyperbola and you will find scientific papers that – despite being carefully curated such that they appear to toe the uniparty line – cannot hide a much more equivocal picture.
Faulty Forecasts
Let’s be specific. The IPCC’s AR5 report, published in 2013, contained the so-called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), a set of scenarios for their climate predictions. Much of subsequent alarmist rhetoric in subsequent years is based on their ‘worst case’ pathway, RCP 8.5, which was inexplicably described in AR5 as being a ‘baseline’ forecast, i.e. a reasonable ‘business as usual’ trajectory to plan for. Wind forward to 2021, and the IPCC’s AR6 flatly contradicts this: “High-end scenarios (like RCP8.5) … are not typical ‘business-as-usual’ projections and should therefore not be presented as such”. Even so, it took a while for this message to filter through to the high priests of climate alarmism: that same year, the multimillionaire former US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry claimed that “we are regrettably on course to hit somewhere between 3, 4 degrees [or warming] of at the current rate”, before – eventually – calming down and aligning himself with the IPCC, grudgingly conceding that (much like his previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic), he was way off-beam. It still took a further two years before he admitted that we might be “currently heading towards something like 2.4 degrees, 2.5 degrees of warming on the planet”.
Related:
(Pre)historical Context
This is not representative of a planet on fire. Quite the opposite, in fact: the planet is behaving entirely normally. We are currently in an inter-glacial period, a brief period of mild temperatures before we can expect it to get chilly again (to such an extent that life will be much tougher than it is now). Moreover, within this so-called inter-glacial (the current ‘Holocene’, the warmer period since the last ice age which ended just under 12,000 years ago) – i.e. not just on longer geological timescales – there have been quite material temperature variations. The scientific literature is positively awash with peer-reviewed discussion of various events within this period that result in such abrupt temperature changes. Did you know for example that, roughly 8,200 years ago, Greenland temperatures dropped by 3.3° (±1.1°) over the space of less than 20 years, before bouncing back about 100 years later, and that the event was ‘clearly hemispheric to global’ (i.e. not just a local effect)? Some studies show an even bigger dip in temperatures.
As noted in this post…
…and here in this post…
…there are many parallels with the covid era.
Here are some examples from the above extract:
“stark disagreement with the evidence to be found in a broad swathe of the scientific literature… alarmist [supranational bodies]… whose pronouncements are overtly political… alarmist rhetoric… based on their ‘worst case’ [modelled] pathway… it took a while for this message to filter through to the high priests of… alarmism…”
And of course in both cases credible people questioning the narrative are often smeared and/or censored.
Adolescence and Netflix
Staying with the theme of how stories are presented in the media, and further to these posts…
I recommend this article from citizen journalist JJ Starky re Netflix’s Adolescence:
NB the first CEO and co-founder of Netflix Marc Randolph is the great-nephew of Edward Bernays — the author of the 1928 book Propaganda — who is himself the nephew of the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud.
Moderna and HIV
Further to the talk on covid vaccine DNA contamination by Kevin McKernan featured in this section of February’s updates, McKernan recently reported another extraordinary discovery in relation to Moderna’s covid vaccine.
More details can be found here:
Vaccine safety
On the subject of vaccines more broadly, and further to this post…
…and these posts in relation to my own journey re vaccines more generally…
I was interested to see this recent clip from US civil rights lawyer Aaron Siri (transcript below):
The Vaccine Safety Datalink [VSD]... it’s a database of 10 million Americans from various HMOs [Health Maintenance Organizations], from Kaiser to Harvard Pilgrim to Henry Ford. And they’ve aggregated it so you can do vaccine safety studies.
And all we’ve wanted to do was to compare the unvaccinated kids’ health outcomes to vaccinated kids. It would have been simple to do it.
And now we have found out that, in fact, you can’t get the VSD data anymore, because the CDC essentially took all that data and returned it to each of the HMOs to make it unavailable, so that they thwart the ability for the current administration to actually conduct a study in the VSD. If that wasn’t government actors doing it, it would be absolutely criminal.
And if it were government actors doing it…?
On a related note, and also further to this post…
It has been widely reported, including on the BBC, that “the top US health department plans to require placebo testing for all vaccines”:
I was intrigued by the comment from former FDA official Peter Lurie at the end of the snapshot above. “A new placebo-controlled trial… ethically dubious…”
Quite apart from anything else, I wonder how many robust, long-term, placebo-controlled vaccine trials we have actually had, and how much hard evidence there is to show that vaccines really are “life-saving”…
I am also reminded of this meme:
As Maryanne Demasi puts it:
The idea that vaccines should undergo rigorous testing against inert placebos — a standard expected of nearly every other pharmaceutical product — has enraged some of the most prominent figures in the vaccine establishment.
But their outrage says far more about their allegiance to a broken system than about the policy itself. This isn’t a threat to public health — it’s a long-overdue correction.
For context, and a dose of reality, here is a detailed, referenced table, from the Informed Consent Action Network:
Important questions to ask about any vaccine trial include how long the trial lasted and in which parts of the trial a genuinely inert placebo was actually used. Plus whether the raw data is available for independent experts to analyse.
I am reminded that, according to the UK government website, Vaxzevria, the so-called covid vaccine from AstraZeneca, was tested against “meningococcal vaccine [for meningitis] or saline”. But there is no indication from the information featured e.g. in the snapshot below as to how many people received the meningitis vaccine, and how many received saline. Nor which parts of the trial the saline was used for.
There is plenty more detail here, although you may find (as I did) that there are several warnings before you get to that site…
But in any case, it is worth noting that, according to the package leaflet for GSK’s Bexsero meningitis vaccine, Kawasaki disease is a reported side-effect in up to 1 in 1,000 recipients aged 10 and under.
And on the subject of AstraZeneca…
‘A road to death’
Further to this post…
…and this update re Brianne Dressen, who was severely injured in the trial of AstraZeneca’s so-called covid vaccines…
I came across one of those things that you hear that you think surely can’t be true, but actually is…
Namely that, when you ask Google Translate to translate a stra ze neca from Latin into English, the result is: a road to death
For context, the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca…
…which is “[pushing] the boundaries to deliver life-changing medicines” — and I can’t help wondering what the likes of Brianne Dressen would have to say about that — was formed in 1999 from Astra AB and Zeneca PLC.
And according to AstraZeneca’s Twitter feed in 2019…
“Zeneca” is an invented name, created by an agency instructed to find a name which began with a letter from either the top or bottom of the alphabet and was phonetically memorable, of no more than three syllables and did not have an offensive meaning in any language.
Hmm.
I can’t help wondering who was aware at the time of the formation of Zeneca — in 1993 — that ze neca would translate from Latin into English to give the result: kill me
For context, three of the entries on Wikipedia’s List of Latin phrases feature the verb necare, meaning “to kill, to murder or to put to death”.
And that list does not include ne nuntium necare…
…a phrase which might reasonably be applied to some of my Substack articles!
So many coincidences…
I am again reminded of the fact, featured in this post…
![[SPCI-2] "I refused £350,000... to be taken from the NHS — that they tried to offer me to promote messaging to make young people get the jabs. And I said 'No, I’m not doing it.'"](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/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%2F6e20e968-8f21-47a8-8b75-8fb27967192c_1302x1048.png)
…that MINDSPACE — the title of this 2010 UK government document from the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) website, subtitled Influencing behaviour through public policy…
…can be rearranged to give the word PANDEMICS:
Angus Dalgleish on GB News
And on the subject of covid, further to this post, featuring an interview with UK Professor of Oncology Angus Dalgleish on Sky News Australia…
I was interested to see this interview on GB News in the UK (transcript below from 16:36):
[Dalgleish] [Covid] was straight out of a sort of globalist print book… “This [covid] is really serious. This is an emergency…. We must do things for the greater good.’ Which means lots of things must be sacrificed: science, democracy, everything, to “the greater good” of this emergency.
The thing is, it was never an emergency. And this is why… I want people to realise… that it was it was a concocted emergency by the WHO, involving a whole load of genetic engineering work designed to help prepare us for pandemics. The irony was these pandemics would never occur if it wasn’t for all this interference, and all this money going into…
[Interviewer] Well, forgive me… There was a nasty virus that did kill people [and] who decides it’s an emergency is a subjective thing. Why would you say that your opinion on whether its an emergency or not is better than someone else’s… who is also a scientist?
[Dalgleish] Well, it’s a very, very telling question. The people who decide at the moment are the WHO. And they want more powers to make these declarations of emergencies…
[Interviewer] But there… was a deadly thing… that killed a lot of people…
[Dalgleish] Sorry, this [covid] did not kill a lot of people. You’ve got to put things in perspective. And with regards to using it as an excuse to mass vaccinate the population, it didn’t tick any of the boxes at all…
[Interviewer] We had excess deaths during that period, and a lot of people died of this virus which… the body… the immune system hadn’t had before. Why are you saying that it didn’t kill a lot of people? I think most people would refute that.
[Dalgleish] I know other people who’ve looked at this very, very carefully and feel that the so-called excess deaths from covid [are] greatly exaggerated. We know that to be the case in New York and Italy. And I don’t want to get into that, because that’s an area which I don’t fully understand... but it fits the pattern that they want to declare a state of emergency, that you do what they say, that the health services were over-run.
Now in retrospect, it looked that way, but, in fact they weren’t. The health services were not overrun. In fact, they weren’t doing what they should have done, which is why we’ve had such a massive excess of deaths in cardiac disease, stroke, and cancer, everything... Those were going to occur at any rate because nobody was treating those…
I honestly believe everything was exaggerated all as an excuse to roll the vaccine programme out. They were going to… do this, come hell or high water.
I have long thought that, in the context of a careful consideration of the available evidence, there are plenty of reasons to think that covid was not actually about a vaccine created for a public health emergency, but rather a “public health emergency” created for a “vaccine”.
And you ask, “Why would I say it’s an emergency or not?” There is a rule of thumb that an emergency for an infectious disease is where a third of people who get infected die.
[Interviewer] Whose rule of thumb is that?
[Dalgleish] Well, WHO and Chris Whitty actually [have] gone on record as saying, “We can’t really justify a vaccine… unless there’s over a third of people dying.” Yet it was introduced when we knew that the fatality rate was [very low and] the average age [of death] was 82. So there’s no way you can justify a vaccine for that. And yet they did.
I couldn’t easily find a source for what Dalgleish claims about what the WHO and Chris Whitty have said. But I did find this article based on published WhatsApp messages from 2020:
The WHO again
More broadly, and further to this post on the WHO pandemic treaty…
…and this update from November…
I recommend this recent article from HART:
Spiritual eyes
And finally, in the context of this post…
I recommend this short piece on The Owl Tree Substack:
I particularly like the title and the homophonic play on words.
The author of The Owl Tree is Helen from the Owl and Badger podcast which is featured in these posts:
A previous post from The Owl Tree is also featured in this article:
Dear Church Leaders homepage
Some posts can also be found on Unexpected Turns
The Big Reveal: Christianity carefully considered as the solution to a problem
On 22nd May